[Thanks to Dominic Glover for this very clear, well-written message. He is sceptical about whether it is possible to promote both public interest and private profit simultaneously and poses the challenging question in the final paragraph of whether public authorities can make interventions that will promote beneficial forms of biotechnology and enhance food security....Moderator]

I am a Research Assistant at the Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, England. Currently I am supporting a project sponsored by the UK Department for International Development, examining the impact of modern biotechnology on food security in the developing world.

It is clear from earlier contributions that people want to avoid 'throwing the baby out with the bath-water.' In other words, we should not reject biotechnology wholesale just because we have misgivings about the motives of transnational biotech corporations and the conflicts between public and private interests in food production, environmental protection and equity. It is argued that biotechnology may have the potential to contribute positively to food security in the developing world, but there are attendant risks associated with the deployment of the technology. Therefore, we need to balance the pros and cons to ensure that the potential benefits can be realised and the risks avoided or controlled.

This argument is based on the notion that it is possible to consider the benign potential of 'neutral' scientific knowledge in isolation from the imperfections of the commercial world. If this was possible in the past, I believe that it has become substantially more difficult, if not practically impossible. Today - in contrast to the 'Green Revolution' - the technology (knowledge) is owned and controlled by large, private transnational corporations. Their property rights in the technology are protected by international treaties and enforced by states on their behalf.

The companies must make profits in order to satisfy their shareholders, beat the competition, and stay in business. The biotech firms have invested huge amounts of their investors' and shareholders' money in research and development of biotech crops. By and large, the investors and shareholders themselves are also large institutions with their own shareholders. They are impatient for a handsome return on their stake. This explains why the products of agricultural biotechnology are being rushed to the market so fast (Jeffrey Reel, 20 Nov); it explains why the biotech firms are pressing so hard for a 'product-based' and 'scientific' rather than 'process-based' or consultative risk-assessment system; it explains why the biotech firms are engaged in a concerted public relations exercise to gain acceptance of the technology (Saliem Fakir, 20 Nov); and it explains why most of the crops being developed and marketed have nothing to do with enhancing food security for poor consumers in the less-developed world.

Magic bullet solutions are seductive because they are simple, but food security is a complex problem that can only be tackled by careful engagement with a variety of economic, social and legal issues on the ground. As Peter Rosset in particular has pointed out in this forum, and Vandana Shiva among others elsewhere, there are other promising techniques and technologies which are more likely to improve food security in the developing world. Generally these are cheaper to develop and implement, and better at preserving biodiversity. They are not attracting resources on the same scale as biotechnology because there is little commercial advantage for the private sector, which holds the purse strings.

Setting aside the critical question of whether the release of genetically-engineered living organisms into the environment is safe on any level, the pressing practical question is: Are there interventions which public authorities can make that will promote beneficial forms of biotechnology and enhance food security? Charles Benbrook (20 Nov) perhaps assumes there are, though I think we should be sceptical whether it is possible to promote the public interest and private profit at the same time.

Dominic Glover LL.B. MA
Institute of Development Studies,
Brighton,
England.
D.Glover@ids.ac.uk

[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: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:57 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Economic problems in general

Definitely, misunderstanding remains strong concerning the appraisal of the interest of biotechnology when biotechnology scientists do it. Trevor Fenning [20 November] says that it does not really matter whether golden rice could be in the end useful or not, golden rice is "laudable". Is it so "laudable" to waste public funds for something whose interest is "moot", or more exactly has not been seriously evaluated ? Trevor's approach seems to correspond to an incapacity to reverse the perspective. It is very similar to the commercial method where offer is done to create demand.

But, we are speaking of people suffering from hunger and lack of basic necessities! Efforts and funds to fight against hunger are more and more scarce and the challenge is to try to use them in the best way to get rapid and sustainable results. The potential interest of biotechnology products or of any kind of technique must be appraised as completely and precisely as possible before deciding to dedicate means and time in research and development. It seems to me that the purpose of this conference is exactly to discuss this point. Arguments of faith in favour of biotechnology do not make a debate possible and they do a disservice to biotechnology itself.

Regarding the argument on the generosity of biotechnology companies, of course it seems to me very ingenuous. The biotech companies have not to be generous, they have to make profits. Propaganda is an essential part of the strategy of the companies and the golden rice has constituted a golden opportunity. Furthermore, as already said, the waiver of the patent rights concerning the golden rice is far from total as Trevor forgets to mention. Accurate appraisal of the question of hunger must be at the base of the assessment of the interest to develop research/development efforts on biotechnology products.

It is interesting to see that eradication of poverty is a priority of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) only since 1998. This new priority reflects a partial failure of the green revolution, in which success the CGIAR centres have been very implicated. The green revolution has left aside the majority of the "poor peasant farming communities" that constitute the large majority of the 830 millions people suffering hunger (Mazoyer, 2000). As Soraj Hongladarom said [13 November], Thailand is now an exporter of rice but the message does not mention that 24% of its population is still undernourished (FAO, 1999). Does the CGIAR commitment in favour of genetically engineered (GE) plant development constitute an adapted answer to correct this dramatic socio-economic failure ?

[The article by Professor Marcel Mazoyer (also refered to in the Background Document to this conference) is entitled "The socio-economic impact of agricultural impact of agricultural modernization" and can be found at http://www.fao.org/docrep/x4400e/x4400e10.htm#P0_0 .It is a chapter of the FAO State of Food and Agriculture 2000 publication (which can be accessed through http://www.fao.org/news/2000/000903-e.htm )....Moderator]

Beside this failure, long term negative effects of the green revolution seem to appear: decline of productivity has been observed for rice and wheat production in Asia since mid-1980 (IRRI, 2000). Sustainability of soil fertility is threatened, water pollution is observed, pesticide resistance increases, agrobiodiversity has been lost. As in developed countries, GE is often presented as the indispensable tool to correct these errors of modern agriculture.

But, instead of learning from the present situation and instead of doing serious appraisals, we assist in a flight onwards, under the pressure of hard competition between scientists, institutes, governments themselves and, of course, private profit interests.

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

[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: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 3:13 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Private industry and the poorer countries

Dominic Glover [21 November] and others have echoed my concern. The prevailing neo-liberal paradigm seems to suggest that the involvement of the private sector is always a good thing - that privatization is healthy.

I remember when I was a student I did an essay on privatization that compared performance of the public sector enterprises with private sector enterprise. The verdict is a mixed one, and more importantly, the conclusion one draws is that [if..Moderator] the greater essential services are privatized, and depending on the nature of the agreement, public sector can lose strategic control and ability to intervene in areas that can have major impacts on the public, social and economic stability. The case of water and food are good examples, where in my opinion privatization can have negative effects on society. This is because the private sector cannot be expected to always push the interest of the public, and neither would they be concerned about equity. The role of the state in ensuring equity, good governance is therefore crucial - all issues that are at the heart of the politics of food.

My view is that on the question of food we have to be cautious and vigilant about the role of the private sector. The failure of governments to develop good policy and a broader perspective on food security, can lead to the situation of technological optimism, false promise and commercial interests over-riding what should be strategic issues for governments - particularly, if the power to control food becomes concentrated in the hands of a few companies.

I am not opposed to biotechnology, but i do not believe that the technology is being guided by good policy, or that its utility is determined by national policy. And, the fact that it is so focused on technological 'fixing', the real issues facing food security (which is the issue of democracy, the structures of national economies, issues of land rights etc.) are pivotal to the resolution of food security problems in the future. The present approach being taken by multi-nationals lacks sociological insights, and the economic assessments are in most cases non-existent or poorly developed.

Saliem Fakir,
head of the World Conservation Union Country Office in South Africa.
sfakir@icon.co.za

[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 ]