13.12.2000

First, I want to thank the organizers and those who have contributed thus far, the exchange of information here is valuable and needs to continue in a larger context. I have learned a lot since the discussion began and I have sought other sources of information to help me better understand what is happening.

I am troubled with the claims that genetically engineered food will alleviate hunger. What I think we have are purported proprietary solutions to increase yield that have a tenuous connection to the problem of hunger. While hunger may be the result of a failure in productive capacity in some places, I have learned that the overwhelming evidence suggests that hunger is an economic development problem. The need for yield enhancing GMO's is not evidenced by the current state of food production and the problems of distribution. Even if yield enhancing varieties are obtained, they would probably have little impact on those who are dispossessed of the means to grow their food or the money to buy. At least with the current batch of GE products, we know yield enhancement is not a goal. In fact, tests have shown that in many instances yields decreased with these products. Control over the seed through intellectual property and control over the inputs being supplied by an ever smaller number of agrochemical/biotech companies are more the goals being pursued with these products. It is also very likely that pest resistance pressures will arise limiting any gains to the stable yields provided by these products in a short amount of time.

There are many factors involved in the lack of access to an adequate supply of food that don't involve production issues. Where western style development is being introduced or expanded over more traditionally aligned agricultural practices, lack of access to food is happening because of development not for lack of it. The introduction of a cash economy, the enclosure of land for commodity production (mainly for export to pay off foreign debt which drives a large number of inhabitants to the margins decreasing or eliminating their ability to provide subsistence), the concentration of ownership brought about through the introduction of industrial practices, and the artificial scarcity created by profit maximization, all contribute to food insecurity.

The problem of debt can add to further insecurity if an increase in food production were to occur rapidly. Third world, or better, mal-developed debtor countries seeking foreign exchange for their exports would be faced with low returns should the food supply on the world market (as opposed to the supply of food for local consumption) increase because of the unnecessary introduction of high yield varieties. Such a condition lowers their ability to afford the necessary food imports they need to offset their reliance on export mono-cultures, resulting in food shortages in a world awash with abundance.

There are of course other factors, not the least of which can be population pressures. But given the current distribution of arable land it is hard to determine what role population is, in fact, playing since concentration of ownership in food production is a result when shifting to industrial agriculture. There are of course other reasons that also do not involve problems with agricultural yield, such as armed conflict.

What is best for food security is obviously an issue that can only be handled in the first instance locally. I believe that industrial agriculture, with its attending social and political problems, is not providing the sustainable conditions necessary for food security. While there may be some beneficial uses for high tech solutions like genetic engineering, they are best reserved for limited application and as a last resort. It is already established that, when needed to increase yields, less intensive and practice oriented solutions, respecting ecological realities, are more viable, rather than product-oriented, expensive, high-tech solutions such as genetic engineering.

The failures of industrial agriculture which include: the toxification of the soil with pesticides, the degradation of the soil from overuse, pollution of the air and water, a unaccountable bureaucratic machine needed to maintain oversight and inspection because the food is so manipulated by multiple processes, the waste generated by attractive packaging, the energy demand, and starvation, lead me to observe that local low impact, preferably organic, agriculture is sustainable, and big global energy intensive wasteful agriculture is not. How can genetic engineering serve sustainable agriculture? It can't as long as the technology is being developed and distributed under the control of agricultural conglomerates to serve the existing model of industrial agriculture. Any product of genetic engineering will be in response to an inadequacy of the current system, to either gloss over a problem or to change its location. Whatever the potential is for responsible use of genetic engineering in food, we will never know under the current conditions.

Jeffrey Kirk
Berkeley, California,
USA
jwkirk@pacbell.net

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org The last day for receiving messages is Sunday 17 December. 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: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 1:43 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: The use of biotechnology in livestock

My name is Ned Donkin and I am a Professor in the Faculty of Veterinary Science at the University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort, South Africa.

I get the impression that this conference has been side-tracked from its main purpose, which should be to answer the following question:"Can agricultural biotechnology help to reduce hunger and increase food security in developing countries?" This side-tracking seems to have resulted mainly from a domination by a few people who have sent in multiple messages to assert and re-assert their own particular stance (or perhaps their own underlying "political agenda"?). A rough count shows that the four main protagonists have submitted between 11 and 15 messages each. Would it be a fair question to ask the Moderator to restrict the inputs, as would be the case in a live public debate?

1. The main question (as given above) that we are to consider is very simple: the answer is either "yes" or "no". The answer should be "yes", because there are some positive uses of this new technology.

2. The difficulty we face is how to make best use of any new technology. I think these are the things we should be spending most of our time on. We need positive suggestions to answer the specific questions relating to the use of biotechnology: What? How? By whom? Where? To what benefit? With what precautions? How do we measure the results? Who will pay? etc.

3. The contentious aspects seem to relate to the moral issues. These are indeed very important , as we must all remember that we are ultimately answerable to God for what we do and how we use our new discoveries.

4. One main concern I share with Dr Martyn Jeggo (12th December) is that livestock have not been discussed to any significant extent. Please do not exclude livestock, as they form a very significant part of food production, complementing crop production, and adding to the quality of life. They provide a diversity of products such as milk, meat, eggs, leather, fibres, draught power, manure; they diversify production and reduce risk; they provide raw materials for other enterprises where value can be added; they contribute to social, cultural and religious activities, which give people identity and fulfillment. And biotechnology might be used in various ways to augment these values. Any potentially negative aspects must be carefully researched, and monitored, and it is here that many developing countries are at a disadvantage. Here is a moral issue for which we all should be accountable.

5. Some positive ways in which transgenesis has been used were reported by Y. Echelard, C.A. Ziomek & H.M. Meade in the Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Goats (Tours, France:15-21 May 2000): "Expression of recombinant proteins in the milk of transgenic goats." pp 25-29. They discussed the production of medically important proteins at greatly reduced prices, using milk production from goats. This has the potential to benefit health for people in all countries. [This paper can be requested at http://www.transgenics.com/publications.html ....Moderator]

6. Such techniques might be used also to produce healthier animals, and increase productivity in all countries (both for commercial farmers and subsistence farmers). For example, our research has identified heartwater-resistant indigenous goats. Heartwater is a tick-borne disease that kills thousands of livestock. The question is: what is the most efficient way of getting these beneficial (correctly identified) genes into populations of animals that are susceptible to the disease? We could use the existing technology of crossbreeding and selection (among different types of goats), but will new technology give us a quicker and less expensive method? Can anyone say it is wrong to use technology that might reduce animal suffering and mortality, and at the same time improve productivity?

7. Are there other people participating in this conference who can contribute positive suggestions for the use of biotechnology in relation to livestock production? Disease resistance and parasite resistance are obvious topics.

Professor E.F. Donkin
Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria
Private Bag X04, Onderstepoort 0110, South Africa.
e-mail: ndonkin@op.up.ac.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 3:25 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: The use of biotechnology in livestock

My name is Jannik Boesen. I am a social scientist in charge of our section doing research on agricultural development and the environment at the Centre for Development Research, Copenhagen.

Clearly the argument by Ned Donkin [13 December] that the initial question should be answered by a yes or no, and that the answer is yes as there are some potentially positive uses for biotechnology, is far too simplistic.

With all the uncertainties and and doubts surrounding some of the biotechnologies, you have to weigh the benefits against all the costs, which is highly problematic when the size of both, as well as their chance or risk of occurring, are all so uncertain. But even that is not enough. Alternatives have to be considered as well (the opportunity costs as economists would call them).

So it is highly relevant, as many participants in this discussion have done, to look at whether the world's poor can acquire enough food through other means: institutional, distributional or technological, and whether investment in research in such means may be likely to yield as good and less risky results than massive investments, especially in GMOs.

Jannik Boesen,
Research Director
Centre for Development Research
Gl.Kongevej 5,
DK 1610 Copenhagen V
Denmark
jbo@cdr.dk
+45 33854695

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 4:07 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: 2 Approaches to development

Thanks to Trevor Fenning [11 December] for his response, which does highlight some of the key questions when considering the value of biotechnology in agriculture. From a different perspective, however, there are many points of contention in what he has said. First and foremost is this idea of linear progress and modernisation i.e. that the 'underdeveloped' countries need to follow a certain path of development that has been blazed by the 'advanced' countries. There is a link between the capacity of the English to emerge wealthier from the land enclosures, the poor laws and the violent dispossession of the population by a small minority, and their colonisation and resource extraction of and from Africa, India and other places. To follow the path of the US and Europe, requires African and Asian countries to colonise and dispossess others on a vast scale. But that is neither desirable and nor would it ever happen in any case, given the balance of power in the world today. So what's left? How is this 'progress' to be achieved?

(As an aside, at what point will these countries be identified in positive terms in their own right, rather than as 'not'-something all the time? 'Underdeveloped', 'developing', 'Third World', even 'South' are all terms that situate these countries in relation to an Other - the hegemonic, the dominant, the powerful. Our position in the world is defined by what we are not - kind of like the days of apartheid in South Africa, when Africans were called 'non-whites'...)

Trevor Fenning suggests that 'market type solutions' may be able to draw out the desires of impoverished rural people across Africa, Asia and Latin America (although accepting that results are not always as intended). What is the intention of market mechanisms? It is to identify points of profit making and profit taking, not to meet the real desires of human beings. Markets are constructed within certain social relations, relations of power that are completely one-sided and favourable to the dominant nations in this era of globalisation, and to political and economic elites where nations are no longer the chief point of reference. Likewise with the supposedly 'neutral' technology. How can you separate the kinds of technology that are developed, and the ways they are used, from the structure of the society and the driving force behind development (profit making and accumulation for its own sake)?

Is the answer - to poverty, food insecurity, destruction of the place-specific and context-specific social networks and technologies people have developed over centuries - either to a) let the process of modernisation complete its (neverending) course (of destruction of the many, for the creation of a few), or b) "try to give people the resources they need to prosper"? Resource redistribution on a massive scale is needed, sure. Question is, does this happen as a result of some enlightened possessors of wealth and knowledge giving in a charitable way, to the poor, passive masses of Africa and Asia? Or does it come from a recognition that those masses consist of human beings who have a capacity to act - and when they act to reclaim the resources that are rightfully theirs, the best the enlightened owners of wealth can do is support those acts, without imposing yet another morality and 'code of good behaviour' on them.

I agree. No dogmatism. That requires a tolerance of things we may not understand from our own vantage point. As much as an African may not understand the European's acceptance of the structures of society (that the Europeans contributed to building, but that were imposed by force on Africans), so a European may not understand the need for Africans to reclaim resources that were violently removed not so long ago, but that are essential pre-requisites for survival and any kind of future.

Stephen Greenberg
Environmental & Development Agency (EDA) Trust
Johannesburg, South Africa
stephen@eda.org.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 4:54 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: unknowns/uncertainties

My name is Wytze de Lange from Amsterdam and I have a history in classical biotechnology.

I share the opinion of those in this conference that there are too many unknowns, uncertainties, risks and problems with modern biotechnology and that the development costs are most likely far too high compared to other solutions. To give an example of an alternative approach I invite you to read about the brilliant work from the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) in Kenya.

[The story concerns biological pest control strategies in Kenya to protect maize from stemborers and Striga; it is indicated that it is planned to apply the strategies also to other African countries...Moderator]

Wytze de Lange
Amsterdam, Netherlands
geno@zap.a2000.nl

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 5:32 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: The use of biotechnology in livestock

I was pleased to read the contribution from Prof. Donkin [13 December]. He has addressed the specifics of biotechnology in food production from his field of specialization and has attempted to focus the discussion to some critical issues. I work alongside Martyn Jeggo and as mentioned by him [12 December ], the Joint FAO/IAEA Division based in Vienna, will organize an international symposium in 2003 entitled "Application of Gene-based Technologies for Improving Animal Production and Health in Developing Countries". The symposium aims to create an interactive environment in which to discuss the role and future potential of gene-based technologies for improving animal production and health, to identify constraints in the use of this technology in developing countries and how to use this technology in a simple practical way especially for developing countries, to identify specific research needs and prioritize them, to explore the possibility of international co-ordination in the area of biotechnology in animal agriculture, and to examine ethical, technological, policy and environmental issues and the role of nuclear techniques in the further development and application of genetic manipulation in respect of livestock.

We have identified the following areas which need discussion during the international symposium, particularly in relation to their role and significance in enhancing food security in developing countries. We look forward to receiving critical comments from the participants through this conference or at a later stage through e-mail exchanges.

- The expression of a gene product that can be used as a vaccine or as a reagent in a diagnostic assay.

- Molecular epidemiology, which is a fast growing discipline that enables characterization of pathogen isolates (virus, bacteria, parasites) by nucleotide sequencing for the tracing of their origin, and to improve disease control.

- The production of therapeutic substances through the insertion of specific genes into a variety of living tissues ranging from single cells to complete animals or plants.

- An area that is more complex and involves initially identifying (normally) several genes that control a particularly advantageous genetic productivity trait, and then to identify individuals or specific breeds that have this gene cluster and breed from these for subsequent production. A long-term goal is this area would be to actually insert such advantageous genes into a particular breed or species to perpetuate that trait through genetic modification.

- The genome provides a blueprint and reflects the potential of an organism, but the genome itself does not tell us what actually takes place. Therefore, it becomes imperative to study the expression of the genes and post-translational modification of proteins coded by genes through transcriptome and proteomics.

- Production of transgenic animals with defined traits and the utilization of cloning procedures as a tool for identical multiplication of valuable animals.

-The use of microsatellites in genetic distancing of breeds will help conserve livestock breeds through the conservation of genomic DNA, amongst a number of other approaches.

- Plant biotechnologies to improve the nutritional quality of plant feedstuffs and by-products offer enormous opportunities, potential and benefits for the livestock industry. Improving feed quality through genetic manipulation holds great promise, e.g. change of leaf/stem ratio; introduction of 'stay green' traits; increase in digestibility of nutrients, especially fibre of tropical forages; decrease in fibre content and increase in cell solubles; increase in soluble carbohydrate in roughages; increase of protein in tropical forages and decrease in degradability of protein in the rumen for temperate forages; increase in sulphur amino acids in leguminous forage; regulation of protein and carbohydrate contents and their degradation to achieve maximum microbial protein synthesis in the rumen.

- In the longer term, there appears to be good prospects of manipulating the rumen microflora capable of utilizing feeds in ruminant species to degrade fibre and lignin, increase efficiency of nitrogen utilization, and to break down antinutritional and toxic factors. The establishment of genetically modified microorganisms or a 'foreign microbe' in the rumen can be monitored using competitive PCR method and 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes. These also provide better insights into the rumen ecology, and the information can be used to develop appropriate feeding strategies and also to decrease the emission of methane.

- Genetically engineered silage inoculants, pre- and pro-biotics, feed additives, immunomodulators etc. are also likely to have considerable impact on enhancing nutrient availability and productivity and health status of farm animals.

Genetic engineering has the potential to solve problems relating to animal productivity and animal health but at present the focus is on those that face livestock producers in the developed world. To address the problems facing livestock farmers in developing countries will require characterization and application in these regions if the full benefit of this technology is to be realized globally. The discussion on future perspectives of biotechnology in animal agriculture would be incomplete without considering issues such as ethical, development policy, ecological risks, environmental impact, intellectual property rights etc. related to gene-based technologies. These aspects will be addressed in the symposium.

Harinder P.S. Makkar
MSc, PhD (Nott.), Habil. (Hohenheim)
Animal Production and Health Section
International Atomic Energy Agency
P.O. Box 100, Wagramerstr. 5
A-1400 Vienna
AUSTRIA
Phone: +43-1-2600.26057
Fax: +43-1-26007
E-mail: H.Makkar@iaea.org
Internet: http://www.iaea.org/programmes/nafa/d3/index.html
http://www.fao.org/

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