[The last 2 messages in the conference are being posted now...Moderator]
I have only just joined this conference and have read through the submissions today. Although it is late, I feel compelled to raise one further point.
There have been a few references to the importance of intellectual property protection to innovation in biotechnology, in particular the development of transgenic crops. This form of protection has been extended to cover biotechnological inventions, despite objections from many countries. They see the extension of IPRs to cover all plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), especially plant varieties as required by the WTO/TRIPs, as the final assault on the global commons.
This indirect impact of biotechnology could have potential negative impact on food security and the diversity of the PGRFA developed and nurtured by farmers over millennia.
In contrast to transgenic crop developments fuelled by the demands of the biotech industry, of critical importance to global food security is the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA and the equitable sharing of benefits from the use of these resources for seeds and food. Conserving and allowing the continued free flow of these resources is a life insurance for humanity, and a backstop to the possible breakdown of transgenic varieties in the future.
There is a countervailing international agreement to WTO/TRIPs - the international undertaking on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (IU) that will address these issues. It is being currently renegotiated by the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) to bring it in harmony with the CBD.
This IU has the potential to exempt an entire category of the earth's "commons" - the plant life forms used to provide food security - from privatisation and corporate control. It could restrict "biopiracy" and continue to allow the free exchange, sale and communal ownership of PGRFA. The IU could also ensure that the more than half a million samples of crop, forage and agroforestry species in the International Agricultural Research Centre (IARC) gene banks, and currently held in trust by the FAO, will be safeguarded in the public domain.
It is essential that these negotiations are concluded soon to safeguard these resources, vital to the livelihoods of billions of people and the food security of the world.
Governments are watching these negotiations very carefully: if there cannot be agreement in good faith on this relatively straightforward instrument - that will ensure the free flow of genetic resources for food production and will provide compensatory benefits to farmers in developing countries - then how much less likely are satisfactory agreements on more contentious issues of biotechnology regulation, biosafety and wider agricultural trade. It is an important test case.
More information on this is available at http://www.ukabc.org
Patrick Mulvany
PS Apologies for logging on to this conference so late.
Food Security Policy Adviser
Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG), Schumacher Centre
Bourton, RUGBY
CV23 9QZ, UK
Patrick_Mulvany@compuserve.com
[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: Monday, December 18, 2000 1:18 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Some closing thoughts
Having taught environmental studies for almost three decades, and followed the present series of biotech conferences almost from their inception, I have found many of the technical discussions helpful. Here are a few thoughts on some of the more general issues.
Of the many areas in which biotechnology/transgenic research *might* prove to benefit the human race, the area of food production is, in my opinion, the least likely to succeed, for the following reasons:
1. The entire field of study is not well understood, either in its basic mechanisms or in its implications for farmers, consumers, and society at large. Many of the positive predictions expressed by corporate marketers ("It will reduce the need for chemicals, and increase yields") have not come true, while many of the fears expressed ("It could mutate, and pollute other, non-GM crops or harm beneficial insects") have proved to be justified. It is simply irresponsible to rush to open-field testing and marketing of GM-modified foods in supermarkets, when both the underlying science and the real-world implications are so poorly understood.
2. National governments have failed to effectively regulate the biotech industry, and to safeguard public health. In major biotech countries, government regulatory agencies, which rely on private-sector for-profit firms to supply them with accurate data on which to make their judgments, have discovered that some companies have deliberately falsified the data they provided to these same government agencies! In other cases, proprietary information has been withheld from government agencies for "competitive reasons." In an effort to make concessions to one major seed company, the US environmental protection agency (EPA) issued a limited license for a GM product, designed to keep it out of the human food chain, only to discover that the company failed to enforce those restrictions upon its customers (farmers), that grain elevators had not properly segregated the GM grain, and that, as a result, farmers in other countries had their fields contaminated, and major world markets were closed to them. Only a few months ago the government of Brazil took the extraordinary step not only of banning a wide range of consumer foods, but also of considering criminal prosecution of several food-industry multinationals for marketing GM products in violation of its consumer laws.
3. Mandatory and meaningful labelling requirements have been vigourously contested by multinational food processors and distributors. As a result, consumers who simply want to exercise their right to make informed choices in the marketplace, whether for health reasons or for religious or other reasons, are denied the opportunity to do so.
4. Protests in first-world nations in Europe, North American, and Asia show that public confidence in the food industry is waning, public distrust of government is increasing, and markets are disappearing, with farmers who have been encouraged to make sizeable investments to grow GM products being caught in the middle, with no place to sell their product. It is especially disturbing that, faced with such widespread scepticism, the response of business (and often government) officials is generally to offer empty reassurances that dissident voices are merely the rantings of a lunatic fringe, in a calculated effort to discredit respected researchers and public-interest groups.
5. Many people within the biotech industry are caught up by the excitement of a new technology. This is understandable, as the field is still in its infancy; for some this enthusiasm is rooted in a vision of patent monopolies, licensing fees, and control of global markets. It is complicated by the fact that national governments -- especially in the US and Canada -- hope to share, directly or indirectly, in the anticipated profits of the biotech industry; thus their objectivity and impartiality is open to question.
Finally, biotechnology is often presented as a panacea for world food shortages. This is simply false, and needs to be put to rest. Even if world food production were to double using GM techniques, the problem would recur in twenty, or perhaps fifty years, based on world population growth. There is a high degree of consensus that global starvation is due to problems in food distribution, not actual production, and patented seed products requiring licensing fees are not likely to be of much use to small farmers in the developing world.
These observations apply, mutatis mutandem, to all areas of GM agriculture, whether plant or animal, forestry or fish.
Does biotech have a future? Almost certainly -- but most likely, I think, in the area of biopharmaceuticals, where the production and dissemination of GM organisms can be carefully monitored and the potential for widespread disaster is sharply reduced.
James E. Napier, Ph.D.
Coordinator, International Studies
Champlain Regional College
Lennoxville, Quebec Canada J1M 2A1
jnapier@ican.net
[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: Monday, December 18, 2000 1:36 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: End of Biotech Conference 5
Dear Colleagues,
The last message, from James Napier, has been posted, so Conference 5 is now officially closed. It has been an active and successful conference on a very important theme and we hope you also have found it of benefit and interest.
To give you some statistics on the conference: 258 people registered and a total of 118 messages were posted. Participants in Europe, Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) contributed 42, 21 and 19% respectively of the messages posted, while North America, Asia and Oceania contributed 14, 3 and 1%. 43% of messages came from participants in developing countries, while 57% were from developed countries. (Note that these results are only an approximate indicator of the relative contributions of the developing versus developed world and of the different world regions to the conference - people from developing countries may be currently living in developed countries (and vice versa)). Messages were posted from individuals in 22 different countries. 45 different people sent messages, which represents 17% of all those who registered for the conference.
To all those who participated, a very sincere thanks for devoting your time and effort to writing the messages and for sharing your views and experiences with us.
With all best wishes for the Christmas season and a happy new year.
Moderator, Conference 5