20.11.2000

I appreciate the call by Geeta Bharathan [16 November] for us to 'get down to brass tacks,' but I must confess to being a bit thick, because I was left wishing Dr. Bharathan could more explicitly state the question we should address.

Peter Rosset, USA
http://www.foodfirst.org

[Geeta's message dealt with the theme of the relationship between the agricultural biotechnology industry and developing countries and seemed to agree with Allan Hruska (11 November) that at the centre of the arguments against transgenic crops was the fear of corporate control and trade issues, and that the issue of corporate control is what people are really most concerned about, not transgenic plants....Moderator]

[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: Monday, November 20, 2000 11:50 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Private industry and the poorer countries

My name is Jeffrey Reel. I am a freelance writer and student of environmental health, as well as a holistic health educator specializing in the effects of foods on degenerative diseases.

The moderator [20 November] gave a synopsis of the viewpoint of Geeta Bharathan, as agreeing with Allan Hruska [11 November] i.e. "...the centre of the arguments against transgenic crops was the fear of corporate control and trade issues, and that the issue of corporate control is what people are really most concerned about, not transgenic plants."

I fear the possible risks, to both health and environment, of the use of transgenic crops. In these forums the health risks, from the point of view of human and animal ingestion and metabolism, is almost never addressed and is not well understood by ANYONE yet to warrant the safety of these foods. It is these possible risks COUPLED with corporate manipulation of the markets that makes this issue inherently dangerous to me and to so many others. I have never before witnessed the introduction into the world market, so swiftly, of technology that is so controversial. This is due to the control of market forces and potential profits of a handful of corporations, which almost always rush headlong into profiteering at the expense of human welfare. This story is as old as history itself.

Jeffrey Reel, USA
JeffreyReel@aol.com

[The title of this 6-week long conference is 'Can agricultural biotechnology help to reduce hunger and increase food security in developing countries ?'. We would therefore ask that if participants consider human health and/or environmental risks that they place them in the context of hunger/food security in developing countries.....Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 2:09 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Hunger/poverty biotech debate - Mixed feelings

My name is Ben Greyling and I am a molecular microbiologist by trade that is now working in an animal genetics laboratory.

I find the discussions thus far extremely stimulating and thought provoking. I am from a developing country where a significant proportion of the population experiences hunger or malnutrition (to me a form of hunger). I see this every day, not only on the television but also in the shops where I share the cashier's queue with some of these people. They subsist mainly on maize meal, which is about what they can afford. At times like this I want to tell them to at least buy the vitamin enriched maize meal. From this point of view I must admit that I experience some of the messages thus far posted with mixed feelings!

I agree with many that biotechnology will not solve poverty and hunger, and that it is a multifaceted and complex problem which is influenced by many factors, e.g. politics, money, socio-economics etc, etc. etc. I also agree that a scientists solution alone may not be a solution at all. In fact, the complexity of the problem highlights the shortcomings of a solution from any discipline in isolation. I also agree that the success of application of biotechnology, once developed, will be affected by a number of things such as its safety, trade issues, its control etc. etc.

However, to condemn the technology on the basis of a particular "case study" (golden rice) makes you guilty of generalizing. Furthermore, I think to predetermine that a particular approach may not make a positive contribution is like planning, executing and evaluating a complete project with no results available.

A very negative aspect, how I see it, is the fact that biotechnology is perceived, by many (especially the public/consumer), more and more as a bad thing. And that is often due to unfair and "uninformed" criticism and "misinformation-campaigns" fed to the consumer, the latter of which (in this case) is the poor and hungry. Are we forgetting the enormous role that biotechnology has played in other disciplines, especially in medicine?. One should be careful in prescribing to poor nations what they actually need. Reality is that they are hungry, and they are hungry right now.

Depriving them of something which may have a potential benefit for them I think is a crime. Biotechnology is here to stay, and the question, or rather challenge, is how to develop and manage it properly. If I know that a product is safe and affordable and it would be beneficial to my health (especially if I don't have much or a variety to eat), I would most certainly make use of it. Perhaps it would be a different debate altogether if developing countries developed, managed and applied their own biotechnology instead of relying on prescribed "hand-outs" from elsewhere.

Ben Greyling, South Africa
ben@idpi1.agric.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 2:20 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Private industry and the poorer countries

My name is Aaliem Fakir, and I currently the head of the World Conservation Union Country Office in South Africa. I have been recently following a great deal of the debate on biotechnology and food security. In fact we are currently participating with a Danish NGO and a group of South African NGOs in a North/South dialogue funded by DANCED on exactly this topic. It is a topic that was also raised recently in a British Council sponsored e-conference on Demoracy and Science.

From a policy point of view I think that the technology is not guided by any international vision on the relationship of biotechnology to agriculture, and how the technology should be used to assist or advance food security. The issue of food security is politicised, and the more there is of private intervention in issues related to food production, the greater the controversy that will ensue. The need for an international vision on food security, and a frank discussion on the political economy of food, will be a better platform to allay suspicions, deal with frustrations, and I believe will guide the use of biotechnology in agriculture.

My sense is that the technology is being pushed aggressively by the private sector, with very little public guidance. Many people are not [now ??..Moderator] of the feeling, and I have the suspicion too, that private companies have traversed the wrong path in pursuing genetically-engineered (GE) based crops that are predominantly herbicide resistant - because these technologies are more relevant to minimising cost of production, rather than having anything to do with food security.

The debate on Vitamin A rice, seems to be also premised on the idea of saving people from malnutrition and further diseases of blindness. But, in reality, I have the cynical view that the change of focus is not of heart but change in marketing strategy for companies. Since it is difficult to be convincing on food security issues when it comes to Bacillus thuriengensis (Bt) and herbicide resistance, companies are now changing focus. This however, is still uni-dimensional, and given that it is unlikely, and naive to expect companies to focus on issues that really matter to poor people and the public. They would rather focus on those things for which they have technological comparative advantages in, and which are likely to lead them into profitable ventures.

Saliem Fakir, South Africa
sfakir@icon.co.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 3:57 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Economic problems in general

The word 'biotechnology' can easily be swopped for 'trucks', 'medicines', 'electricity' or even 'computers' in the present arguments, and still apply equally to much of what has been discussed. Criticizing what is in effect the shortcomings of world's capitalist economic system is valid, but however badly it has delivered what is needed to those at the bottom of the pile, to date no other system has done better.

It is unreasonable to expect Ford or Compaq to give away their products for free on the scale developing countries might need, and it is equally unreasonable to expect Biotech or seed companies to do so. The products of biotechnology may or may not be relevant to particular needs, as such problems are fundamentally rooted in failures of policy and economic weakness, as I think many have already said. Resolving these complex and interacting problems is clearly the priority for the affected areas, and no-one should doubt it, but the subject of this conference is what (if any) role biotechnology can play in enhancing food security in developing countries, so let's keep to that.

The important difference about biotechnology compared to other technologies is of course that the products are living and can reproduce themselves (usually), so the products of commercial or state research + development efforts can potentially be given away with minimal extra cost to the producers, and can then be grown where they're needed, by the people who need them. Many of the more commercially driven products are not relevant to developing countries immediate needs (and it is false to pretend that they are, as sometimes happens), but occasionally some might well be useful, and let's not forget the output of the non-commercial programmes.

Indeed, since we have all gone on about it so much, it is worth remembering that 'Golden Rice' is at least on the table of what's available, is in part due to biotech companies waiving their Patent rights over the technology used to generate those plants. Whether it helps any in the end or not is moot, but that it has happened is laudable. And to re-state another example of what biotechnology might be able to achieve; the modification of C3 photosynthesis system in rice to the C4 system of maize may be far more important to the world's food supply in the coming century than all the current food aid efforts put together.

All this is not to pretend that the economic or political problems associated with the food chain in developing counties can be dealt with in such a simplistic manner, but simply trying to see what relevance (if any...) such approaches may have. Yes, to really break out of their difficulties, such regions need access to all kinds of technology and the education that supports it, and access to the Patent rights surrounding the genetic materials involved, but this brings us back to resolving the policy and economic weaknesses in those countries. That is no simple thing, and I hope no-one thinks it is. But without getting over excited about the prospects, biotechnology may have some part to play in this, in ways I hope this conference will help to illuminate.

Trevor Fenning, Germany
Fenning@ice.mpg.de

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 5:26 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Can biotech (versus Will biotech) help food security

I appreciate the comments in Saliem Fakir's thoughtful post [20 November]. We are discussing the question "can" biotechnology advance food security, when an equally important, and different question is -- "will" biotechnology advance food security?

We all sense some potential in biotechnology to advance food security, but have a variety of worries that policies and institutional factors are or may shape/guide biotechnology in directions that actually widen the gap between the "can" biotech help and the "will" biotech help reality on the ground.

A useful approach, when facing such a complex set of questions, is to first try to identify the "first principles" that a majority of us are comfortable applying in assessing the likely contributions of different applications of biotechnology. I am reasonably confident this group, or permutations of it, could come up with a list at both tails of a continuum of biotech applications, ranging from promising and likely to be helpful, to those that are risky, not likely to be helpful and possibly damaging.

A second step is then to assess the political, economic, intellectual property rights, trade, and institutional factors that are either pushing the research-and-development effort in the direction of almost assuredly beneficial applications or toward applications with highly questionable outcomes. This second step will isolate, I suspect, the policy and institutional factors that must be changed to tilt the odds toward beneficial applications meeting real needs and disenfranchising no one.

Charles Benbrook
Ag BioTech InfoNet http://www.biotech-info.net
Benbrook Consulting Services
CU FQPA site http://www.ecologic-ipm.com
IPM site http://www.pmac.net
5085 Upper Pack River Road
Sandpoint, Idaho 83864
Voice: (208)-263-5236
Fax: (208)-263-7342
E-mail: benbrook@hillnet.com

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