10.11.2000

From John Gibson, Program Leader for Genetics and Genomics at International Livestock Research Institute, and Professor of Livestock Genetics, University of Guelph Canada.

I feel that the past few days debate on GM crops (Vitamin A rice in particular) is an object lesson in how biotechnology applications for the developing world need to be approached.

1/ Sound decisions need to be based on good information. Ill informed claims, whether for or against biotechnologies, get in the way of decision taking that will benefit the world's poor. Whether working directly in the field or simply prognosticating, anything we put into the domain of public debate might influence a decision somewhere that impacts people's lives. We all have a duty to seek out the truth and work to correct the misinformation that the popular press all to often promulgates.

2/ There is rarely a single solution to a complex problem. A sensible research program will include a portfolio of possible solutions. Only a few of those solutions will likely end up being applied, but at the time of development it is not possible to predict which.

GM crops, and potentially GM livestock are powerful new technologies with potential to benefit the poorest people on our planet. They will not solve world hunger and malnutrition. But as an additional tool we should welcome these technologies and consider the arguments for and against application of each new development in informed debate on a case by case basis.

Professor John P. Gibson
Program Leader, Genetics and Genomics
International Livestock Research Institute
P.O. Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya
tell [254] 2 630743 ext 4709 or [1] 650-833-6660 ext 4709
facs [254] 2 631499 or [1] 650-833-6661
E-mail: j.gibson@cgiar.org
Web site: http://www.cgiar.org/ilri/
{Note that telephone calls from most countries will be cheaper and receive better connections if routed via the USA numbers given above}

Temporary address while dealing with family medical emergency:
31 Arden Street, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH9 1BS.
Tel 0131 446 9197 (no message service)
Mobile phone: [44] 0777 638 4876 (with message service)
email: jpgibson@talk21.com

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 8:39 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Vitamin A deficiency // GM rice

The suggestion that genetically altered rice is the proper way to address the condition of 2 million children at risk of Vitamin A deficiency-induced blindness reveals a tremendous naivety about the reality and causes of vitamin and micro-nutrient malnutrition. If one reflects upon patterns of development and nutrition, one must quickly realize that Vitamin A deficiency is not best characterized as a problem, but rather as a symptom, a warning sign if you will. It warns us of broader dietary inadequacies associated with both poverty, and with agricultural change from diverse cropping systems toward rice monoculture. People do not present Vitamin A deficiency because rice contains too little Vitamin A, or beta-carotene, but rather because their diet has been reduced to rice and almost nothing else, and they suffer many other dietary illnesses that cannot be addressed by beta-carotene, but which could be addressed, together with Vitamin A deficiency, by a more varied diet.

A magic-bullet solution which places beta-carotene into rice - with potential health and ecological hazards - while leaving poverty, poor diets and extensive monoculture intact, is unlikely to make any durable contribution to well-being. To use the words of Dr. Vandana Shiva, such an approach reveals blindness to readily available solutions to Vitamin A deficiency-induced blindness, including many ubiquitous leafy plants which when introduced (or re-introduced) into the diet provide both needed beta-carotene and other missing vitamins and micro-nutrients (Altieri and Rosset, 1999a,b; ActionAid, 1999; Mae-Wan Ho, 2000).

This is a quote from my paper at:
http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/biotech/belgium-gmo.html

Peter M. Rosset, Ph.D., Co-Director
Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy
398 60th Street
Oakland, California 94618 USA
tel: +1-(510)-654-4400 x224 fax: +1-(510)-654-4551
rosset@foodfirst.org
http://www.foodfirst.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 8:46 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Biotechnology and hunger/food security

In response to Delphin Koudandé [9 November], I would like to suggest the following: we should restrict our discussion to the topic of transgenic crops, that is, what lay people call 'genetic engineering,' because that is where the controversy and differences of opinion lie. Nobody has criticized marker-aided selection, or fermentation technologies, etc., which fall under the vague and overly broad rubric of 'biotechnology,' and thus it would not be interesting to waste time discussing them in this effort to identify and work on differences.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 9:05 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Vitamin A deficiency // GM rice

It should be noted that Vitamin A deficiency not only leads to blindness, but reduces immunity to disease generally. Studies have shown that Vitamin A supplementation for children between 6 months and 5 years can decrease the mortality rate by 23% (G.H. Beaton et.al. "Effectiveness of Vitamin A Supplementation..." UN ACC/SCN, Dec. '93).

Bruce Howell
Food Aid Centre
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
Canada
BRUCE_HOWELL@acdi-cida.gc.ca

[The full reference for this publication is Beaton, G. H. et al., 'Effectiveness of Vitamin A Supplementation in the Control of Young Child Morbidity and Mortality in Developing Countries', ACC/SCN State-of-the-Art Series, Nutrition Policy Discussion Paper No. 13, United Nations, December 1993, page 16, where the acronym ACC/SCN stands for the United Nations Administrative Committee on Coordination Sub-Committee on Nutrition...Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 12:02 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Vitamin A deficiency // GM rice

[Thanks to Michel Ferry for this clear and comprehensive message. However, participants are reminded that messages should be no longer than 600 words. In this exceptional case, we will post the entire message even though it exceeds the limit...Moderator]

This debate on the golden rice seems to me very illustrative confirmation of two points:

In the exchange of messages that we have had till now, I did not find (neither in the messages themselves, nor in the documents proposed, nor in my own documentation on this subject), any answer to the following fundamental question: Is the strategy proposed to fight against vitamin A deficiency (VAD) with this modified rice the most adapted ? None of the scientists concerned propose an assessment of the various possible strategies to conclude on the supremacy, or at least a well documented complementary interest, of their technical proposal. It is clearly not their problem and probably far from their capacity (it is not a criticism but a fact to say that oriented applied research needs a global approach and multidisciplinary evaluation). The consequence of this fundamental lack is that decision-makers do not have all the background to take correct decisions in full knowledge of the case. The simplicity of the solution proposed and also the force of lobbying of the molecular biology discipline apostles and of the powerful private biotechnology companies eliminate discussion.

To counterbalance the bad effect of my analysis of the data on VAD and "golden rice" published in "le Courrier" (reports from other respectable institutions like the World Bank use the same kind of dramatisation with wrong figures), Petra Frey [9 November] says that the scientists for their part have used WHO VAD data in their paper. Unfortunately, that is not true: data used are from A. Sommer and are nearly 20 years old! [Journal of Nutrition 119, 96 (1988)...Moderator] Perhaps the figures are not so different now but the use of so poor bibliographical reference indicates clearly, according to me, a dramatic lack of interest by the scientists fn the importance to have a deep view of the social problem that they claim to combat with their technology. It also constitutes a slightly injurious manner in regard to the work done by the people and institutions that dedicate, by other methods, important efforts and means to such problems. By getting information on the most recent data and papers of these people, the golden rice scientists (I remind that, for me, the choice of the subject of golden rice constitutes just one example interesting for its caricature interest) would have perhaps found interesting arguments for the biotechnology option if data would have confirmed that other type of efforts did not give evident results.

But, of course, the risk would have been also to discover that these efforts were giving results and so, would have reduced the value of arguments in favour of the biotechnology option. Or worse, it would have lead to the conclusion that the biotechnology option would lead to have counter productive effects on the progress accomplished in educating people to diversify their diet and/or in increasing the diversification of agriculture production. I give here after the conclusion of A. Sommer, in the paper used as an argument by Ye et al [the paper in Science (14 January, 2000) on "Golden Rice"...Moderator] to justify their research: "Certainly a change in diet is the preferred long range strategy, with the potential for controlling the problem at relatively low sustaining cost. Foods rich in vitamin A or provitamin A carotenoids ...are probably accessible to the vast majority of the world´s deficiency children". Without any doubt, the work of Ye and al. (2000) is a splendid biotechnology work, very satisfactory for the scientists themselves. But the question of its interest for the poor children, compared with other possibilities, is quite questionable. This priority work has not been done. Potrykus himself wrote after the debate he faced with the announcement of this result: "The following assessments will precede release to the public: 1) Needs assessment to compare with alternative possibilities". (Agbio View archive: message 503). [The AgBio View web discussion can be found at http://www.agbioworld.org/ ...Moderator]

That is fantastic no? Meanwhile the announcement that the golden rice could save millions of people has been largely broadcast, not by ignorant journalists but by public institutions themselves. I appreciate the present prudent message of Petra Frey [9 November] concerning the use of this rice. But it is a bit late and a bit confidential? The harm is done but was it really a harm for everybody ? I am not totally convinced by the speech concerning the generosity of the operation and of Astra Zeneca. In the developed countries or for the rich people of the poor countries, could not this rice constitute a financial profitable candidate? There is also not much doubt that the golden rice (which research it has not financed) constitutes a very important propaganda for Astra Zeneca. It is also of course very positive for the public research laboratory itself. In a time where GMO public research laboratories and biotechnology societies are passing through bad moments, using a moral obligation and proclaiming the discovery of a solution to solve a problem of million poor people suffering is certainly a good operation to go on with the GMOs. The debate with some public research groups following Monsanto's gift of the rice genetic sequences, just after the scandal created by its terminator gene, also illustrates well the ambiguity of these operations. Strategy? Alibi?

I cannot avoid also thinking that this use of genetics is more and more automatically considered as the solution to solve a problem, any problem. This tendency is not innocent as it is profitable to some of the most powerful pharmaceutical and/or agrochemical companies. Furthermore, many people are really thinking that everything is genetic, even human behaviour. Are not some research projects of genetic transformation aiming to produce tea without teaine, café without cafeine, etc? When will we have genetically transformed hamburger or pizza to fight against obesity, one of the major noncommunicable diseases, common in industrialised countries? Hundred of millions of people are suffering from hunger; 1/10 to 1/5 of the population of developed countries is eating too rich food. Overpopulation is one of the major challenges of the future; incredible bio genetic researches are developed to solve the problems of the sterile couples. Still no vaccine exists for the hundreds of millions of people suffering from malaria; huge amounts of money are used to find solutions to genetic diseases. Etc.

Concerning the question of the conservation of biodiversity, I must say that the answers given leave me, at the same time, very surprised and very sceptical. Beside the introduction of genes of other species or biological groups, one of the interests of the GM technology is that it saves a lot of time compared with the traditional breeding techniques. But, Trevor Fenning [8 November] and Petra Frey [9 November] say that, now, this gene would be introduced in other varieties by the traditional breeding systems. "They will just cross this plant with the local variety". How long could this breeding programme take before giving results ? How many varieties could such a breeding programme reasonably implicate? How long, first, will it take before this breeding programme starts ? Shouldn't efforts and money have been put in other directions to win time and to reach more long term solution?

To conclude, and, although it seems an evidence, the debate concerning biotechnology (and, above all, GMOs) and food supply cannot be very sane if biotechnology scientists do not ask scientists of other disciplines, and particularly socio-economy, to assess their technical proposals. We biotechnology scientists (I am not working on modified species but on in-vitro propagation), when we have the chance to work in public institutions and for public interest we will be more credible and more justified in our research if we lose our certitudes and dominant attitude. We will be in a much better position if we accept to propose our proposed research projects to the previous evaluation of colleagues of other disciplines and particularly of socio-economy. A global approach is indispensable. Would IRRI have accepted this golden rice with such enthusiasm if a strong team of horticultural scientists or dieticians had been part of its research staff or if it has been working closely with groups of farmers trying to diversify their production system with fruits and vegetables? Are not the international research centres too specialised? Are we not missing research and work on farming systems, rural dynamics, agriculture socio-economy and agroecology? More generally, are not we missing a complete research scientist team developing holistic approach and work on the question of food security and poverty eradication (the priority of the CGIAR since 1998 only) ?

Michel FERRY
Directeur scientifique
Station de Recherche sur le Palmier Dattier
et les Systèmes de Production en Zones Arides
Apartado 996
03201 ELCHE
Espagne
tél: 34.965421551
fax: 34.965423706
e-mail: m.ferry@wanadoo.es

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 2:23 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: When and why to use Biotech ?

In response to the mail of Peter Rosset [10 November], I would argue that GM is only one aspect of biotechnology, and that to separate it up is artificial, except for the purpose of making political arguments. I hope this conference does not end up solely discussing those issues which have been so amply aired elsewhere. [It is also OUR hope that the conference does not only focus on GM crops or rice. We refer to the Background Document where, among other things, we said "Discussion in this conference should also address whether particular biotechnologies have especially high (or low) potential to reduce hunger and increase food security in developing countries, or whether the application of biotechnology within specific agricultural and food-related sectors (crop, forestry, animal or fisheries) or within specific regions of the developing world can have greater (or lower) impact on hunger and food security in developing countries."....Moderator]

I would stand by the points I made in my first mail (post 5, 6 November) and those of John Gibson [10 November] that many approaches need to be available for dealing with any particular food supply problem (the tool box approach), and those that work best are kept in use. I would never be prescriptive as what will be most appropriate in what circumstances, but the more options on offer the better surely?

If some aspect of biotechnology can help some problem, then to deny it on political grounds is folly indeed. The points raised about the generally poor diet of children suffering vitamin A deficiency induced blindness are wholly valid (for which many have much to answer for), but I will say again that since the possibility of improving their diet has been on the table for the past 50 years and more, and yet still the situation exists, then it is about time other options are considered. If biotechnology is offering even a partial solution, then it should at least be tried out. I would not say more for it than that.

For a biotechnological solution to be applicable it needs to meet a number of demanding criteria, however :

1) To be proven as safe and good to eat as we'd expect in developed countries. There may still be issues to be resolved here, but it has to be assumed that for something to be offered as help it must be safe. Sub-standard offerings are not acceptable.

2) The people needing the help (whether on a short or long term basis) must be able to afford / have access to the help under discussion. While we should not necessarily expect biotech companies to give their expensive products away for free (as no-one would bother to develop them in the first place), it is incorrect to discuss the value of commercial products to people who by definition cannot afford them - or use food supply problems in developing countries as a justification for the commercial aspects of the technology.

3) Any help given must not destabilize further an already fragile situation. In the past there have been examples of problem areas being flooded with free food to the point of putting surviving farmers nearby and food traders out of business, thus cementing and expanding the dependence on aid handouts. I can easily imagine that it would be possible to do something similar with a carelessly planned biotechnological offering.

4) As the regulation and follow up monitoring of any biotechnological products in developing countries will be more problematic than in the developed world (where it has been more than difficult enough), any crop plant (or even animals, later) on offer must have been passed as environmentally safe in that entire region. For this reason alone, it is likely that the products of biotechnology will only be of value in helping long term issues relevant to enhancing food value or food security.

I think all this is clear to many who work in this field, but the issues have become muddied by politics and sales promotions. But I will say again that where the above criteria can be met, and the biotechnological product (e.g. golden rice possibly) might indeed be of real help, then why not try it?

Trevor Fenning, Germany

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 2:28 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Politics and science

My name is Maria-Teresa Paramio, professor of Animal Science in Veterinary School of Barcelona, Spain. Also, I am an active member of the NGO Veterinaires Sans Frontieres.

I would like to say only two things:

1. Hunger is a complex and political problem. The political problems must be resolved by politicians ans these are voted by the citizens.

2. Transgenesis is just a technology and the the work of the scientists is to produce and to extend knowledge.

I believe that it is dangerous to try to mix both concepts and mainly to demonize the work of the scientists. Public science is paid for by public money and politicians are very sensitive to the media. If the campaign against genetic research continues only the private companies will develop it.

teresa.paramio@uab.es

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 3:58 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Biotechnology and hunger/food security
In reply to Peter Rosset's message [10 November]:

I have just recently joined the conference and I am still going through all the contributions so my questions could be obsolete. Anyway I would like ask the group (and in particular the people against transgenic plants) where is the difference between a new variety developed from wide cross (introduction of new genes from wild relative) and one that has be developed by transformation. I am referring in particular to the second generation transgenic plants where is introduced just the gene of interest without any antibiotic genes or DNA backbones.

Alessandro Pellegrineschi
Cell Biologist
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
Apdo. Postal 6-641
06600 Mexico, D.F., MEXICO
PH: (52) 5804-7537 [In USA: (650) 833-6655]
FX: (52) 5804-7558, 7559 [In USA: (650) 833-6656]
EM: A.Pellegrineschi@cgiar.org
(CIMMYT home page on WWW: www.cimmyt.cgiar.org

[Note, this topic is only very indirectly related to the theme of the conference: 'Can agricultural biotechnology help to reduce hunger and increase food security in developing countries ?', so we do not wish to go very deeply into this argument....Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 4:02 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Vitamin A deficiency // GM rice

Dr. Peter Rosset [10 November] has written: " A magic-bullet solution which places beta-carotene into rice - with potential health and ecological hazards - while leaving poverty, poor diets and extensive monoculture intact, is unlikely to make any durable contribution to well-being. ".

And I agree.

If we are looking for a magic-bullet, we could distribute a nutritional supplement, with Vitamin A and other vitamins, minerals and lysine (for improving the rice protein quality). We could reach the target directly. And use a safer and cheaper alternative.

Prof. L.E.Carvalho
LabConsS - Lab of Consumer and Health
Fed Univ of Rio de Janeiro - BRAZIL

Return to Logs of Conference 5 or go to the main Forum pages. Note: you must join the Forum to participate in these discussions.