Just to clarify my last mail [20 November] (and the responses to it!) - I think it is laudable that the thought has been made vis 'Golden rice', without making any comment as to its chances of success (as I said previously). The emphasis seems to have been overlooked.
Incidentally, so far as I am aware little if any 'public' money has been 'wasted' on this project, since it was privately funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. As I have pointed out, private organizations, companies or individuals are free to spend their investment money how they wish, and we should not expect such expenditure to help the poorer regions of this world (because it generally doesn't) - but when sometimes an effort is made it should be congratulated.
I get the impression from much of the debate on this issue (and not just here) that anything that has been touched by big corporations or biotechnology is anathema in certain quarters and will be rejected outright on principle, which seems to be in danger of becoming part of the problem. I hope a flexible view can prevail, however, where the useful can be adopted (and the failures dumped) regardless of source or politics.
Trevor Fenning, Germany
Fenning@ice.mpg.de
[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: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 8:42 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Two solutions on route to food security
My name is Stanley Robert. I am a molecular geneticist studying fatty acid biosynthesis in marine microalgae with a view to modifying oil composition in crop plants. I also have hands-on experience in small, organic family farms and an interest in agricultural technologies and their impacts.
There are two main viewpoints, on the route to developing countries' food security, that appear to be in conflict.
On the one hand, aid workers, NGO's and well nourished greenies believe that the solution will be found in community access to land and preservation of agricultural diversity peppered with ecologically-based land management and the occasional high-tech device (e.g. solar-powered water pumps).
On the other hand, many developing country politicians, Western politicians, biotech companies, stock market analysts etc. believe that the route to food security is via the developing countries "exporting" themselves out of poverty. Then, they argue, the developing country people will have money to go to their local McDonalds.(I am no economist but I cannot see how, with the present system and the developed countries' rates of consumption, all countries could be "developed").
For Solution 1, biotechnology appears to be a very low priority and many people in this conference have said so.
Solution 2 would make ample use of biotechnologies and the consolidation of small farms into large exporting farms.
I think that many biotechnology scientists, when arguing (or simply stating) that biotechnology is the tool for food security, without necessarily realising it, are supporting Solution 2.
Given that most biotech scientists aren't economists and therefore, like me, would be unable to visualise the effects of the shift away from subsistence agriculture to export agriculture, this support is uninformed and therefore unwise.
Does anyone believe that biotechnology is or can be a central part of solution 1?
Stanley Robert
CSIRO Marine Research
GPO Box 1538
Hobart, Tasmania 7001
AUSTRALIA
ph: 61-3-62325114, fax: 61-3-62325090
mailto:stanley.robert@marine.csiro.au
http://www.marine.csiro.au/
[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: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 12:13 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Private industry and the poorer countries
The report on "Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture", compiled by the Royal Society of London, the US National Academy of sciences etc, makes interesting reading, although it is sort of bland in terms of its critique.
The two most interesting sections are those dealig with the role of public and private sector, and intellectual property rights (IPR). Given that this is written by members of the scientific community, the conclusions they draw are all the more striking and fascinating. For instance, they argue for a balance in research funding between private and public sector funding. The reasons being, as the report notes, is that in the private sector "research priorities are driven by market forces." and elsewhere, the report continues this line - "Whereas fundamental research is still being carried out by the public sector, the strategic application, in sharp contrast to the "Green Revolution", takes place largely in the private sector where much of the intellectual property is controlled". The report's next insight argument is that the main reason why public sector funding should not diminish, as is the case now, is simply, "If such research were wholly private, even in perfectly functioning market, the demands of rich consumers for innovation in their own interests would overwhelm the price signals from poor consumers and small-scale farmers".
On intellectual property rights, it raises caution about the increased private sector control over intellectual property, and the lack of similar counter-balance from the public sector. In particular, it points out that historically, the private sector has benefited from knowledge and resource transfers from the public sector and the CGIAR institutes, and has not in any significant way ploughed back the returns from IPR to these institutions. The issue of IPR raises questions as to whether in fact this is likely to stifle further innovation, or constrain the public sector's ability to use knowledge or resources that help new innovations to be generated. In fact, the report is suggestive that while Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURT) can have benefits, the private sector uses them to control the use of their technologies. And, given the tradition of seed saving in developing countries, especially small-scale and subsistence farmers, GURT technologies, or what are referred to as terminator seeds, are likely to have negative economic consequences on these farmers.
The report initially struck me as yet another exercise by scientists to push us further down the track of uncritically looking at the issue of GE technologies, but in fact, as one reads further, one gets a sense that there are finer political nuances and an attempt to be balanced emerging from the text. A useful reading I think, if anybody is interested. The web address was given by one of the participants earlier.
[The website for this "Seven Academies" report was previously given in the message of Charles Benbrook, 13 November.....Moderator]
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 ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 3:54 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Two solutions on route to food security
[Thanks to Trevor Fenning for this message, the 50th of the conference, which is now approaching the half-way point. In the second half of the conference, we especially encourage increased participation by individuals in developing countries...Moderator]
I think the comment about the 'two solutions' to alleviating food insecurity and the possible impact of biotechnology may possibly be true for the majority of the industrially orientated biotechnology products - as has been the case for the industrialization process in general (people moving / being moved from rural areas to the growing cities, thus feeding the labour markets and the demand for more industrial type products etc. etc.).
But with the changing technology perhaps it does not have to be like that (but only perhaps), and certainly biotechnological offerings (as distinct from 'products') do not necessarily have to play the role suggested in such a process. Although often lumped together, biotechnology is bigger than just the companies involved.
As a 'biotechnologist' I take a fairly jaundiced view of what the technology has to offer developing countries food supply problems, at least in the short term (Golden rice etc. is a medium term option, and in the longer term who knows ?), for reasons I have noted previously. But, the best approach is simply to make available whatever there is, which is at least theoretically suitable for a particular region, and see what happens. If people like it, they will use it, but if they don't - then they won't, as per the operation of any market. The risk of failure is high when attempts are made (however well meaning) to impose rigid paternalistic solutions on (other peoples) complex problems - a warning which surely applies across the board to all aid programmes.
[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 ]