I wish to congratulate the organizers of this Conference 5 on the choice of the topic 'Can agricultural biotechnology help to reduce hunger and increase food security in developing countries ?'. Frankly speaking, as much as the previous conferences are important, it is this conference that will serve as the "crowning glory".
I personally work with Premier Seed Nigeria Ltd. which is a leading seed company in West Africa. In spite of the fact that agricultural biotechnology can help to reduce hunger and increase food security in developing countries, the fact equally remains that agricultural biotechnology must be applied discriminately. The governments of the developing countries need to watch closely what kind of technology they allow to be transferred to the agricultural input sector and agro-based industries of their economies.
The recent findings in the United States, for example, where biotech seeds of some major seed companies are found to be harmful to humans is enough of an evidence that genetically modified organism (GMO) materials would not always be found to reduce hunger and increase food security. The promise of higher yield and greater profitability to farmers by producers of biotech seeds is vain and useless if the on-going expose about these products is to be reckoned with. It has been confirmed that Aventis StarLink corn has become an embarrassment to the biotech industry and that food manufacturers in the United States have been meeting almost daily with government officials to deal with the issue. It was reported that Aventis had suspended sales of the seed for next year's crop and agreed to reimburse the government for purchasing all of year 2000's harvest. There is a controversy whether the corn can cause allergies in humans.
In consideration of the foregoing, these issues should first be clearly and completely resolved in the developed nations where the government is equipped to handle such problems, before their export to the developing nations. The seed industries and agricultural input sector in our countries would be satisfied with slow but steady and sure growth rather than adoption of the highly volatile GMO materials.
I am determined to follow closely the discussions during this conference.
Best wishes to the Moderator and participants.
Felix Oresajo
Financial Controller
Premier Seed Nigeria Ltd.
Zaria,
Nigeria.
Tel: 234-69-334804, 333202, 331630, 334092
Fax: 234-69-334804, 334092
[email protected]
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [email protected] 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: Thursday, November 02, 2000 3:48 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: debate on biotech, hunger
Dear members of this discussion forum on such an important topic:
I appreciate the contribution from Felix Oresajo in Nigeria [2 November], and wish to call everyone's attention to a published debate on this very topic, in which I participated. Rather than summarize all sides in this short space, I would like to refer people to the following web locations:
1) Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world. Altieri, M.A. and Rosset, P. (1999). AgBioForum, 2(3&4), 155-162. http://www.agbioforum.org/vol2no34/altieri.htm
2) Ten reasons why biotechnology will be important to the developing world. McGloughlin, M (1999). AgBioForum, 2(3&4), 163-174. http://www.agbioforum.org/vol2no34/mcgloughlin.htm
3) Strengthening the case for why biotechnology will not help the developing world: a response to McGloughlin. Altieri, M.A. and Rosset, P. (1999). AgBioForum, 2(3&4), 226-236. http://www.agbioforum.org/vol2no34/altierireply.htm
If you do not have access to the web, send me an email and I will email you back the contributions as attachments.
Peter M. Rosset, Ph.D., Co-Director
Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy
398 60th Street
Oakland, California 94618 USA
tel: +1-(510)-654-4400 x224 fax: +1-(510)-654-4551
--------------------------------------------------------------
Office in Mexico:
Diego Duguelay No. 38, Casa Tucan
Colonia El Cerillo
29220 San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico
Tel/fax: +52-9-6789708
eFax: +1-(253)-295-5257 (USA fax number which
automatically bounces to me at no extra charge)
--------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected]
[email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Please do not send to both email addresses, as both are
checked with same frequency.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our website: http://www.foodfirst.org
- Explore our extensive resources (updated daily)
- Find out about our programs
- Join our member supported organization
--------------------------------------------------------------
25 Years of Fighting for the Right to Feed Oneself 1975 - 2000
For Land & Liberty -- For Jobs & Justice
--------------------------------------------------------------
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [email protected] 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: Friday, November 03, 2000 8:45 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Food at the corner
This is from Prof. Carvalho in Brazil
In my city, in your city, around the world, there is too much food in the supermarkets.
And the food is not only enough, but excessive.
You can see all day long, on your TV, the advertisements, presenting all
kinds of
food, and inviting people to go to the supermarket, for taking
"wonderfood".
The problem is...
if you want to take that food...
you have to leave some money.
And a lot of people... cannot do the exchange... they cannot take their
food, the food which is waiting for them, at the shelves, because they
don't have the money.
So... if genetics is able to produce and distribute enough money... it is ok... no problem... Finally, they will go to the supermarket to take the food which is waiting for them and their money.
If they take all the food I am seeing at the corner today... no problem... tomorrow the shelves will be full of food again. It is not magic. It is only money.
I believe that.
Prof. Luiz Eduardo Carvalho
Lab of Consumer and Health
Fed Univ of Rio de Janeiro
Brazil
[email protected]
www.ufrj.br/consumo
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [email protected] 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 06, 2000 3:18 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Third World hunger: an alibi for GMO development
[Thanks to Michel Ferry, from Spain, for his views on the place of biotechnology scientists and private biotechnology companies in the debate on hunger in developing countries...Moderator]
We should not leave the debate on developing countries hunger to be dominated by biotechnology scientists and by the private firms.
The biotechnology scientists are generally very specialised people. They are sometimes so hyper-specialised that, even in biology, their knowledge could be very narrow. Because of this specialisation, they are not at all competent on the complex question of the developing countries present or future hunger. If the debate on this question is left to them, it will be poor and dangerous. A good example is the way in which some projects on genetically modified (GM) rice are often presented : many people, eating rice, are suffering from a lack of vitamin A, the solution is very simple: a modified rice that integrates a beta-carotene gene. This type of mechanical reasoning is perhaps adapted to molecular biology methods but it is quite insufficient to assess a social question and to propose adapted solutions.
The biotechnology scientists (those who have still the freedom of doing research for passion and not for the unique benefits of private financial interests) are not always to be blamed. It is not their job to look for the best solution to socio-economic problems. The solution that they are able to propose is in direct relation with the technique that they dominate or try to dominate. They are not trained nor have time to study the value of the arguments that they present to justify their research. By the way, in most of the scientific papers, these arguments are presented shortly and as evidences.
The basic question is how it is decided which research has to be done, for whom and with which priority. If we leave this decision to the biotechnology scientists or, worse, to the private biotechnology firms, the risk of mistake is considerable. But, where are the counterbalances to the force of this discipline (molecular biology) in the biological sciences and to the weight of the private companies, which is much more powerful than the public research institutions and always more involved in the functioning of these public institutions?
The private companies have evidently got too much power and weight in deciding what research has to be done, what technique has to be developed and, more generally, what world we live in and what future is prepared.
Concerning the poorest people of the developed and developing countries, and worst, the hungry people in the world, this situation is dramatic. Who is ingenious enough to really believe that this group of people could interest these companies? The use that they make of the hunger in the world has something very indecent about it. It's evidently a marketing operation...and it works: the present or planned future hunger is one of the most-used arguments for the development of GMOs. It becomes the alibi of public institutions and the public research itself.
Reductionism, simplism, unique thought, technological approach, miraculous GMOs are sweeping out all the reflection and experience accumulated on the question of development.
Michel FERRY[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [email protected] For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----As someone involved in Biotechnology (with forest trees currently, but for scientific explorations only [Dr. Fenning has previously sent some good contributions to Conference 2 of the Forum on biotechnologies for the forestry sector....Moderator]), I would like to point out that I do not disagree with any of the issues raised in previous messages, but in tone maybe slightly.
It is indeed most important to keep in mind the problem, and then to seek out, test, and apply appropriate solutions (whatever they may be), rather than to try to bend a situation to suit the 'solution' one wishes to use. It is a classic human error (including many scientists !) to become technologically dazzled into using the latest whizz-bang technology, when sometimes a simpler approach might be more successful.
That said, there will probably be occasions where the application of biotechnology (not just transgenics, of course) will yield a worthwhile benefit, and as such its' use should not be ruled out either. Ultimately, as our view (and knowledge) of biotechnolgy matures, we will be free to use it - or not - as and when needed, as with any other tool, in developing and developed countries. For example, it is correct to note that insufficient iron and b-carotene in the diet of people in many areas overly dependent upon rice could be met by general improvements in diet or by handing out tablets, but as this has not happened, giving those people something which will let them help themselves might be no bad thing (i.e. the modified rice). But I will not hazard a guess as to how this example will work out yet.
As noted, the difficulties in food supply in some areas of the developing world today are not due to lack of overall availability, but rather due to complex interwoven political, social, cultural, climatic, and economic issues. But as populations and expectations of living standards continue to grow, this may not always be the case. Also, even in the many areas where supply is adequate, 'conventional' agricultural practice can generate problems - for example the issue of pesticide poisoning - and so alternatives should always be under consideration.
In short, one should not wait for a predictable crisis to occur before looking for possible solutions, without being prescriptive about what they may be.
Dr Trevor Fenning.[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [email protected] For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----Michel Ferry [6 November] makes the valid point that problems facing the developing world are always complex, and often require complex or multifaceted solutions. He cites claims for Vitamin A rice as an example of the mechanical reasoning of the technologists which is insufficient for the problem at hand. Perhaps I have missed the more extravagant claims for vitamin A rice, but those I have seen coming from the research groups involved have claimed that vitamin A rice can contribute to alleviating vitamin A deficiency in those areas of the world where rice is a staple part of the diet and vitamin A deficiency is a problem. No doubt there will be many years of development ahead before the molecular genetic modification can be translated into highly productive cultivars useful for widespread field application, but the basic argument seems intuitively plausible. The argument seems to have been accepted by many agencies, including those with extensive experience in the field. So it would be helpful to our discussion if Michel (or others) could elaborate on what is the basis of his criticism of the developers of vitamin A rice, as an example of the general problem he cites.
Professor John P. Gibson
Temporary address while dealing with family medical emergency:
31 Arden Street, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH9 1BS.
Tel 0131 446 9197 (no message service)
Mobile phone: [44] 0777 638 4876 (with message service)
email: [email protected]
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [email protected] For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----Professor John P. Gibson wrote [7 November]: "So it would be helpful to our discussion if Michel (or others) could elaborate on what is the basis of his criticism of the developers of vitamin A rice, as an example of the general problem he cites."
Well, I will try. But I believe the issue is exactly the inverse, Prof. Gibson. This is...if somebody is suggesting golden rice against hunger or against blindness... I suppose that suggester should demonstrate what is the basis of his respective suggestion.
But I will try a little help. Please, tell me an example. Where is the target people ? Who are they ? What are they eating ? Why aren't they eating carrots, fruits and others vitamin A sources ? How are they getting their rice intake ? And about protein, calcium, iron...?
It is so strange, when people are spending years and years in genetic research... and they couldn't spend a few hours presenting us with these complementary data (which should be in the literature, shouldn't they ?). If the conclusions and suggestions about GMOs are based on the scientific methodology... of course, the conclusions and suggestions about Hunger and Poverty should be too, shouldn't they ? I would be very happy if I could be convinced.
Prof. Luiz Eduardo Carvalho[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [email protected] For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----Before the discussion goes any further, I think it is worth inserting a brief note here about agriculture and food availability in the "3rd world" vs actual hunger issues.
People in the developed world get a distorted (bad) picture of life in these countries from our news programs - which naturally tend to concentrate upon disasters and famines etc., rather than the norms of life. There are many issues to discuss regarding the application of Bio-technology to such emergencies, but I think these are not quite the same as the day to day issues of agriculture and food supply in most countries most of the time, which are also pertinant - but perhaps not for this forum.
I hope we can keep these two subject areas separate, although any guidelines here would be appreciated!
Dr Trevor Fenning.[The focus of this conference is not on the implications or applications of biotechnologies to natural disasters or to emergencies caused by human/social conflicts. The application of biotechnologies to agriculture and food supply in developing countries so that they might increase food security and reduce the risk of famine would on the other hand be a relevant topic for discussion. The Background Document to the conference provides more details....Moderator]
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [email protected] For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----Concerning the message of Trevor Fenning [7 November], I cannot [imagine] any 'emergency' where genetically engineered (GE) seeds would help, as growing even GE plants requires a full growing season.
Peter M. Rosset, Ph.D.
Visit our website: http://www.foodfirst.org
- Explore our extensive resources (updated daily)
- Find out about our programs
- Join our member supported organization
--------------------------------------------------------------
25 Years of Fighting for the Right to Feed Oneself 1975 - 2000
For Land & Liberty -- For Jobs & Justice
--------------------------------------------------------------
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [email protected] For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----Food security (in peace time) is about a community's ability to provide its food requirements. This can be done by producing food within the community, or by being able to buy food from outside the community's area.
The ability to produce food broadly depends on the level of skills and the natural resources. If either or both of these are not adequate, food security may be low, if food cannot be bought by the community. If the natural resources are adequate (in many - not all - developing countries they are), then food security becomes a function of the skills available to the community - and this is where the biggest challenge lies. Increasing the skill level will require transfer of technology (technology is the systematic application of scientific or other organised knowledge to practical tasks) to these communities, taking cognisance of all the obstacles one has to overcome in order to effectively transfer technology. Any technology that will reduce the reliance on skills, may resultantly increase food security. In that sense, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can certainly increase food security, an example could be stalk borer resistant maize.
One should, however, be very careful not to overestimate the impact of new technology on production. Although the developed countries have increased production significantly during the past 30 or so years, there is still much scope for improvement without GMOs (more so in developing countries), and I wonder if it is wise to introduce GMOs into the developing countries as a cure for their food security problems.
Peter Rüsch, Pr Eng[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [email protected] For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----Thank you to Professors Gibson and Carvalho [both on 7 November] for their reactions to my message [6 November].
I chose GM rice with a beta-carotene gene because it seems to me a good caricatural example. As Prof. Carvalho asks, how could we believe that it does not really exist a better way to allow the people to get their vitamin A needs than transforming rice ?
Concerning the arguments for GM rice, I propose the analysis of the paper published by Dorothy Morrissey in "Le courrier" (journal of EC), no 178, Dec 1999- Jan. 2000. [An independent French-language Swiss newspaper...Moderator]:
"Vitamin A deficiency is the first cause of xerophtalmia or childhood blindness, an illness that is affecting nearly 400 millions of children in the world". Firstly, xerophthalmia is not of course equivalent to childhood blindness. [xerophthalmia is defined as: a dry thickened lusterless condition of the eyeball resulting especially from a severe systemic deficiency of vitamin A....Moderator] Secondly, childhood blindness is not evidently affecting 400 millions of children in the world. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), "250,000 to 500,000 Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) children become blind every year and half of them die within a year of becoming blind" (WHO, 2000). Perhaps, this serious mistake corresponds just to a bad formulation of the author. Perhaps, the figure she gives corresponds to VAD in general and not to childhood blindness? Further, she says that "2.8 to 3 million of pre-school children are clinically affected and the survival of 251 millions of other children is seriously endangered". The figures and exact formulation of WHO are the following: "3 millions have signs of xerophthalmia. Nevertheless, most of the children affected by VAD - between 140 and 250 million - present only subclinical manifestations, yet live with a greater risk of mortality and the risk of developing severe infections" (WHO, 2000).
It seems to me particularly serious and inacceptable to be so superficial with the suffering of thousands of people (many other mistakes, too simple generalisations and lack of precision could be found in the article of D. Morrissey: all of them are exposed to underline the interest of this technology). But, I fear that biotechnology projects to get financing and/or political support are too often presenting wrongly, badly or superficially, firstly, the social problem, and secondly, the solution that they propose. Most of the time, not to say always, just the technical genetic aspect of the solution is presented.
To continue with GM rice as an example, I would like to emphasise two aspects concerning the proposed solution:
1) Which and how many varieties are supposed to be transformed ? If only very few, as is probable, and if, to have an efficiency on the VAD, it is proposed that these few varieties become dominant, what about the conservation of agricultural biodiversity ? According to me, one of the main problem of GMOs.
2) Who will provide the seeds and at which price ? Will the farmers have to pay each year to renew their seeds ? As a consequence, will not these seeds be available only to the richest farmers ? Will not this technology increase one of the major problems of the world, the increasing gap between the poorest and the others ?
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: [email protected]
[For those wishing further information on VAD and with access to the Web, an article on VAD by the WHO can be found at http://www.who.int/nut/vad.htm.......Moderator]
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [email protected] 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 08, 2000 3:36 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: A general note regarding third world agriculture
Just an observation to the message of Trevor Fenning [7 November].
In my message [6 November] as, I think, in the message of Felix Oresajo [2 November ], we are not refering to natural disasters or emergencies, but to hunger. The day to day hunger of 790 million people. The permanent daily research of something to eat of nearly 1/6 of the world population. The fact that millions of parents do not know if they will be able to give something to eat to their children today, tomorrow or after tomorrow. We are speaking of this daily scandal so far from our own welfare that we are incapable to conceive it.
Michel FERRY
[Apologies to Michel Ferry. The article that he refered to in an earlier
message today, by Dorothy Morrisey, was in fact published in the ACP-EU
Courier (or Le Courrier ACP-UE, in French), which is a development magazine
produced within the Development Directorate General of the European
Commission (and not in the Swiss newspaper of the same name). It is
published every two months (in English and French) and has a circulation of
approximately 80,000. The article by Dorothy Morrisey can be found on page
79 and is entitled "grains of hope" at the following site
http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/publicat/courier/index_178_en.htm
....Moderator]
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
In response to Michel Ferry [8 November], the answers to his questions about
'Golden
Rice' can be found at the following web sites:
http://www.biotechknowledge.com/showlib.php3?3837
http://www.biotechknowledge.com/showlib.php3?3473
and
http://www.worldbank.org/developmentnews/archives/html/jan18-21-00.htm
In summary, it is available for free to the world's rice breeding
centres, so that it's characteristics can be introduced into local
varieties as needed, and the people who need it won't have to pay a
penny extra. Many thanks to Prof. Ingo Potrykus for his work here.
People might also be interested to see the International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI)
Science-online page below, where amongst other things, the results of
introducing C3
photosynthesis genes from maize into rice are discussed, boosting its'
productivity by up to 30%, for no extra input (in the recent abstracts
section). Maybe I'm biased, but this sounds most useful to me:
http://www.isnar.org/irri/Science.html
Dr Trevor Fenning.
[Just a comment to future participants in the conference: Remember to
introduce yourself briefly in your first posting - this is the first of our
Guidelines for Participation in e-mail Conferences
http://www.fao.org/biotech/suggest.asp .....Moderator]
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
I think it is crucial that we analyze very carefully the underlying
causes of 'lagging productivity,' hunger and poverty in the South
before we prescribe a cure. If the underlying causes are largely tied to
genotype constraints, then we can accept that genetic engineering
(GE) might be a logical part of the solution. However, the
constraints are largely structural and policy-related in nature,
making GE tangential at best. If we add in the potential risks that
GE seeds pose in the complex, diverse, and risk-prone agriculture of
the poor, then it becomes clear that the balanced is tipped against
GE. I explain this in much greater detail in my paper at the
following web site.
http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/biotech/belgium-gmo.html
Peter M. Rosset, Ph.D.
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
This is from Petra Frey. I am a postdoc with Dr. Lemaux at the University of
California, Berkeley,
working on outreach in the field of gene technology. I did my PhD in the
lab of Ingo Potrykus in Zurich, Switzerland, in the area of virus resistance
strategies in cassava.
I would like to respond to Michel Ferry [8 November], to his 2 sets of
questions at the end of his message about the Golden Rice. I have talked to
both Ingo Potrykus, one of the inventors, to the person
responsible for Golden Rice at Zeneca and to other experts of vitamin A
deficiency.
Questions 1)
Questions 2)
A humanitarian board consisting of the two inventors, a representative from
Zeneca, from the World Bank, the International Service for the Acquisition
of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), the Rockefeller Institute (part of the
financing of this project) and International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI) each, will act as an advisory board, supporting developing
countries with the import, the crossings and the necessary safety testing.
The plants are still in the lab now and more testing is still necessary, so
they won't be found in the fields yet. (By the way, the numbers cited in
the original paper published in Science [Ye et al., Vol 287, pages 303-305
on January 14, 2000...Moderator], are the original numbers from the FAO and
WHO - the cited reporter of 'Le Courrier' must have gotten her
numbers somewhere else, but not from the scientists involved in this
project.)
Of course, golden rice won't make the problem of vitamin A deficiency go
away. This is not a new problem and many other projects have tried to solve
it - some were very successful, other not at all. The fact is, that we still
have children going blind every year, or even dying - vitamin A rice might
not be the perfect solution for everybody, but it can help some people and
it would be immoral not to try our best to help these people by ignoring
this possibility.
Petra M. Frey, Ph.D.
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
This is from Delphin Koudandé. I am a holder of doctor in veterinary
medicine and have been working as a
researcher in Animal Health till 1996. For the last four years, I have been
involved in research related to marker-assisted introgression, with a focus
on
trypanotolerance genes. I am a finishing PhD student. Native from Africa
(Benin), I am interested in this debate about the subject: 'Can agricultural
biotechnology help to reduce hunger and increase food security in developing
countries ?'
As Peter Rosset (9 November) pointed out this morning, the cause of
'lagging productivity' observed in developing countries is more structural
and
policy-related. More precisely, I would say it is related to soil and water
management, the sun being available in those countries. Strictly speaking,
biotechnology is not a solution to hunger and food security in developing
countries.
That said, and before attempting to answer the main question, I
would like to make a point: biotechnology does not mean genetic engineering
(GE) and people tend to confound those terms. As far as I understood, GE
concerns manipulation of the genome (or genes), whether it is within or
between
species, the most prominent being between species. The reproaches to GE,
which
results in the well-known GMOs, are already given by Peter Rosset (2
November
)
and Michel Ferry (8 November), the main reproach being the safety of these
products for
human health.
Coming to the main question, biotechnology can contribute to reduce hunger
and
increase food security. In fact, for a long time, conventional quantitative
geneticists have improved yields of different species of plants and animals,
or
increased the resistance of these species to different stresses by using
selection on observed characters. By means of biotechnology, selection can
be
done by identifying genes related to those characters instead of measuring
or
observing them. Such a use of biotechnology may speed up the process of
selection. Further, it can be used in introgression by applying a
backcrossing
programme as mentioned by Petra Frey this morning (9 November). For example,
selecting for drought resistance for crops in Africa will be beneficial for
the population. If genes associated with drought resistance are found, their
introgression through marker-assisted breeding will result in a new type of
plant or animal which I think is not a GMO.
Delphin Koudandé
[Thanks to Delphin Koudandé for these very relevant points. The point that
"biotechnology does not mean genetic engineering (GE)" is an important one,
that we have also tried to emphasise in this Forum. The descriptions of
currently-available biotechnologies in the Background Documents to
Conferences 1, 2, 3 and 4 (dealing with the crop, forestry, animal and
fishery sectors respectively) make the separation clear....Moderator]
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
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 John Gibson, Program Leader for Genetics and Genomics at International
Livestock Research Institute, and Professor of Livestock Genetics,
University of Guelph Canada.
I feel that the past few days debate on GM crops (Vitamin A rice in
particular) is an object lesson in how biotechnology applications for the
developing world need to be approached.
1/ Sound decisions need to be based on good information. Ill informed
claims, whether for or against biotechnologies, get in the way of decision
taking that will benefit the world's poor. Whether working directly in the
field or simply prognosticating, anything we put into the domain of public
debate might influence a decision somewhere that impacts people's lives. We
all have a duty to seek out the truth and work to correct the misinformation
that the popular press all to often promulgates.
2/ There is rarely a single solution to a complex problem. A sensible
research program will include a portfolio of possible solutions. Only a few
of those solutions will likely end up being applied, but at the time of
development it is not possible to predict which.
GM crops, and potentially GM livestock are powerful new technologies with
potential to benefit the poorest people on our planet. They will not solve
world hunger and malnutrition. But as an additional tool we should welcome
these technologies and consider the arguments for and against application of
each new development in informed debate on a case by case basis.
Professor John P. Gibson
Temporary address while dealing with family medical emergency:
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
The suggestion that genetically altered rice is the proper way to
address the condition of 2 million children at risk of Vitamin A
deficiency-induced blindness reveals a tremendous naivety about the
reality and causes of vitamin and micro-nutrient malnutrition. If one
reflects upon patterns of development and nutrition, one must quickly
realize that Vitamin A deficiency is not best characterized as a
problem, but rather as a symptom, a warning sign if you will. It
warns us of broader dietary inadequacies associated with both
poverty, and with agricultural change from diverse cropping systems
toward rice monoculture. People do not present Vitamin A deficiency
because rice contains too little Vitamin A, or beta-carotene, but
rather because their diet has been reduced to rice and almost nothing
else, and they suffer many other dietary illnesses that cannot be
addressed by beta-carotene, but which could be addressed, together
with Vitamin A deficiency, by a more varied diet.
A magic-bullet solution which places beta-carotene into rice - with
potential health
and ecological hazards - while leaving poverty, poor diets and
extensive monoculture intact, is unlikely to make any durable
contribution to well-being. To use the words of Dr. Vandana Shiva,
such an approach reveals blindness to readily available solutions to
Vitamin A deficiency-induced blindness, including many ubiquitous
leafy plants which when introduced (or re-introduced) into the diet
provide both needed beta-carotene and other missing vitamins and
micro-nutrients (Altieri and Rosset, 1999a,b; ActionAid, 1999;
Mae-Wan Ho, 2000).
This is a quote from my paper at:
Peter M. Rosset, Ph.D., Co-Director
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
In response to Delphin Koudandé [9 November], I would like to suggest the
following: we should restrict our discussion to the topic of
transgenic crops, that is, what lay people call 'genetic
engineering,' because that is where the controversy and differences
of opinion lie. Nobody has criticized marker-aided selection, or
fermentation technologies, etc., which fall under the vague and
overly broad rubric of 'biotechnology,' and thus it would not be
interesting to waste time discussing them in this effort to identify
and work on differences.
Peter M. Rosset, Ph.D., Co-Director
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
It should be noted that Vitamin A deficiency not only leads to blindness,
but reduces immunity to disease generally. Studies have shown that Vitamin
A supplementation for children between 6 months and 5 years can decrease
the mortality rate by 23% (G.H. Beaton et.al. "Effectiveness of Vitamin A
Supplementation..." UN ACC/SCN, Dec. '93).
Bruce Howell
[The full reference for this publication is Beaton, G. H. et al.,
'Effectiveness of Vitamin A Supplementation in the Control of Young Child
Morbidity and Mortality in Developing Countries', ACC/SCN State-of-the-Art
Series, Nutrition Policy Discussion Paper No. 13, United Nations, December
1993, page 16, where the acronym ACC/SCN stands for the United Nations
Administrative Committee on Coordination Sub-Committee on
Nutrition...Moderator]
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
[Thanks to Michel Ferry for this clear and comprehensive message. However,
participants are reminded that messages should be no longer than 600 words.
In this exceptional case, we will post the entire message even though it
exceeds the limit...Moderator]
This debate on the golden rice seems to me very illustrative confirmation of
two points:
In the exchange of messages that we have had till now, I did not find
(neither in the messages themselves, nor in the documents proposed, nor in
my own documentation on this subject), any answer to the following
fundamental question: Is the strategy proposed to fight against vitamin A
deficiency (VAD) with this modified rice the most adapted ? None of the
scientists concerned propose an assessment of the various possible
strategies to conclude on the supremacy, or at least a well documented
complementary interest, of their technical proposal. It is clearly not their
problem and probably far from their capacity (it is not a criticism but a
fact to say that oriented applied research needs a global approach and
multidisciplinary evaluation). The consequence of this fundamental lack is
that decision-makers do not have all the background to take correct
decisions in full knowledge of the case. The simplicity of the solution
proposed and also the force of lobbying of the molecular biology discipline
apostles and of the powerful private biotechnology companies eliminate
discussion.
To counterbalance the bad effect of my analysis of the data on VAD and
"golden rice" published in "le Courrier" (reports from other respectable
institutions like the World Bank use the same kind of dramatisation with
wrong figures), Petra Frey [9 November] says that the scientists for their
part have used WHO VAD data in their paper. Unfortunately, that is not true:
data used are from A. Sommer and are nearly 20 years old! [Journal of
Nutrition 119, 96 (1988)...Moderator] Perhaps the figures are not so
different now but the use of so poor bibliographical reference indicates
clearly, according to me, a dramatic lack of interest by the scientists fn
the importance to have a deep view of the social problem that they claim to
combat with their technology. It also constitutes a slightly injurious
manner in regard to the work done by the people and institutions that
dedicate, by other methods, important efforts and means to such problems. By
getting information on the most recent data and papers of these people, the
golden rice scientists (I remind that, for me, the choice of the subject of
golden rice constitutes just one example interesting for its caricature
interest) would have perhaps found interesting arguments for the
biotechnology option if data would have confirmed that other type of efforts
did not give evident results.
But, of course, the risk would have been also to discover that these efforts
were giving results and so, would have reduced the value of arguments in
favour of the biotechnology option. Or worse, it would have lead to the
conclusion that the biotechnology option would lead to have counter
productive effects on the progress accomplished in educating people to
diversify their diet and/or in increasing the diversification of agriculture
production. I give here after the conclusion of A. Sommer, in the paper used
as an argument by Ye et al [the paper in Science (14 January, 2000) on
"Golden Rice"...Moderator] to justify their research: "Certainly a change in
diet is the preferred long range strategy, with the potential for
controlling the problem at relatively low sustaining cost. Foods rich in
vitamin A or provitamin A carotenoids ...are probably accessible to the vast
majority of the world´s deficiency children". Without any doubt, the work of
Ye and al. (2000) is a splendid biotechnology work, very satisfactory for
the scientists themselves. But the question of its interest for the poor
children, compared with other possibilities, is quite questionable. This
priority work has not been done. Potrykus himself wrote after the debate he
faced with the announcement of this result: "The following assessments will
precede release to the public: 1) Needs assessment to compare with
alternative possibilities". (Agbio View archive: message 503). [The AgBio
View web discussion can be found at
http://www.agbioworld.org/ ...Moderator]
That is fantastic no? Meanwhile the announcement that the golden rice could
save millions of people has been largely broadcast, not by ignorant
journalists but by public institutions themselves. I appreciate the present
prudent message of Petra Frey [9 November] concerning the use of this rice.
But it is a bit late and a bit confidential? The harm is done but was it
really a harm for everybody ? I am not totally convinced by the speech
concerning the generosity of the operation and of Astra Zeneca. In the
developed countries or for the rich people of the poor countries, could not
this rice constitute a financial profitable candidate? There is also not
much doubt that the golden rice (which research it has not financed)
constitutes a very important propaganda for Astra Zeneca. It is also of
course very positive for the public research laboratory itself. In a time
where GMO public research laboratories and biotechnology societies are
passing through bad moments, using a moral obligation and proclaiming the
discovery of a solution to solve a problem of million poor people suffering
is certainly a good operation to go on with the GMOs. The debate with some
public research groups following Monsanto's gift of the rice genetic
sequences, just after the scandal created by its terminator gene, also
illustrates well the ambiguity of these operations. Strategy? Alibi?
I cannot avoid also thinking that this use of genetics is more and more
automatically considered as the solution to solve a problem, any problem.
This tendency is not innocent as it is profitable to some of the most
powerful pharmaceutical and/or agrochemical companies. Furthermore, many
people are really thinking that everything is genetic, even human behaviour.
Are not some research projects of genetic transformation aiming to produce
tea without teaine, café without cafeine, etc? When will we have genetically
transformed hamburger or pizza to fight against obesity, one of the major
noncommunicable diseases, common in industrialised countries? Hundred of
millions of people are suffering from hunger; 1/10 to 1/5 of the population
of developed countries is eating too rich food. Overpopulation is one of the
major challenges of the future; incredible bio genetic researches are
developed to solve the problems of the sterile couples. Still no vaccine
exists for the hundreds of millions of people suffering from malaria; huge
amounts of money are used to find solutions to genetic diseases. Etc.
Concerning the question of the conservation of biodiversity, I must say that
the answers given leave me, at the same time, very surprised and very
sceptical. Beside the introduction of genes of other species or biological
groups, one of the interests of the GM technology is that it saves a lot of
time compared with the traditional breeding techniques. But, Trevor Fenning
[8 November] and Petra Frey [9 November] say that, now, this gene would be
introduced in other varieties by the traditional breeding systems. "They
will just cross this plant with the local variety". How long could this
breeding programme take before giving results ? How many varieties could
such a breeding programme reasonably implicate? How long, first, will it
take before this breeding programme starts ? Shouldn't efforts and money
have been put in other directions to win time and to reach more long term
solution?
To conclude, and, although it seems an evidence, the debate concerning
biotechnology (and, above all, GMOs) and food supply cannot be very sane if
biotechnology scientists do not ask scientists of other disciplines, and
particularly socio-economy, to assess their technical proposals. We
biotechnology scientists (I am not working on modified species but on
in-vitro propagation), when we have the chance to work in public
institutions and for public interest we will be more credible and more
justified in our research if we lose our certitudes and dominant attitude.
We will be in a much better position if we accept to propose our proposed
research projects to the previous evaluation of colleagues of other
disciplines and particularly of socio-economy. A global approach is
indispensable. Would IRRI have accepted this golden rice with such
enthusiasm if a strong team of horticultural scientists or dieticians had
been part of its research staff or if it has been working closely with
groups of farmers trying to diversify their production system with fruits
and vegetables? Are not the international research centres too specialised?
Are we not missing research and work on farming systems, rural dynamics,
agriculture socio-economy and agroecology? More generally, are not we
missing a complete research scientist team developing holistic approach and
work on the question of food security and poverty eradication (the priority
of the CGIAR since 1998 only) ?
Michel FERRY
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
In response to the mail of Peter Rosset [10 November], I would argue that GM
is only one aspect of biotechnology, and that to separate it up is
artificial, except for the purpose of making political
arguments. I hope this conference does not end up solely discussing those
issues which have been so amply aired elsewhere. [It is also OUR hope that
the conference does not only focus on GM crops or rice. We refer to the
Background Document where, among other things, we said "Discussion in this
conference should also address whether particular
biotechnologies have especially high (or low) potential to reduce hunger and
increase food security in developing countries, or whether the application
of biotechnology within specific agricultural and food-related sectors
(crop, forestry, animal or fisheries) or within specific regions of the
developing world can have greater (or lower) impact on hunger and food
security in developing countries."....Moderator]
I would stand by the points I made in my first mail (post 5, 6 November) and
those
of John Gibson [10 November] that many approaches need to be available for
dealing
with any particular food supply problem (the tool box approach), and
those that work best are kept in use. I would never be prescriptive as what
will be most appropriate in what circumstances, but the more options on
offer the better surely?
If some aspect of biotechnology can help some problem, then to deny it
on political grounds is folly indeed. The points raised about the
generally poor diet of children suffering vitamin A deficiency induced
blindness are wholly valid (for which many have much to answer for), but
I will say again that since the possibility of improving their diet has
been on the table for the past 50 years and more, and yet still the
situation exists, then it is about time other options are considered.
If biotechnology is offering even a partial solution, then it should at
least be tried out. I would not say more for it than that.
For a biotechnological solution to be applicable it needs to meet a
number of demanding criteria, however :
1) To be proven as safe and good to eat as we'd expect in developed
countries. There may still be issues to be resolved here, but it has to
be assumed that for something to be offered as help it must be safe.
Sub-standard offerings are not acceptable.
2) The people needing the help (whether on a short or long term
basis) must be able to afford / have access to the help under
discussion. While we should not necessarily expect biotech companies to
give their expensive products away for free (as no-one would bother to
develop them in the first place), it is incorrect to discuss the value
of commercial products to people who by definition cannot afford them -
or use food supply problems in developing countries as a justification
for the commercial aspects of the technology.
3) Any help given must not destabilize further an already fragile
situation. In the past there have been examples of problem areas being
flooded with free food to the point of putting surviving farmers nearby
and food traders out of business, thus cementing and expanding the
dependence on aid handouts. I can easily imagine that it would be
possible to do something similar with a carelessly planned
biotechnological offering.
4) As the regulation and follow up monitoring of any biotechnological
products in developing countries will be more problematic than in the
developed world (where it has been more than difficult enough), any crop
plant (or even animals, later) on offer must have been passed as
environmentally safe in that entire region. For this reason alone, it
is likely that the products of biotechnology will only be of value in
helping long term issues relevant to enhancing food value or food
security.
I think all this is clear to many who work in this field, but the issues
have become muddied by politics and sales promotions. But I will say
again that where the above criteria can be met, and the biotechnological
product (e.g. golden rice possibly) might indeed be of real help, then
why not try it?
Trevor Fenning, Germany
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
My name is Maria-Teresa Paramio, professor of Animal Science in
Veterinary School of Barcelona, Spain. Also, I am an active member of the
NGO
Veterinaires Sans Frontieres.
I would like to say only two things:
1. Hunger is a complex and political problem. The political problems
must be resolved by politicians ans these are voted by the citizens.
2. Transgenesis is just a technology and the the work of the scientists
is to produce and to extend knowledge.
I believe that it is dangerous to try to mix both concepts and mainly
to demonize the work of the scientists. Public science is paid for by
public money and politicians are very sensitive to the media. If the
campaign against genetic research continues only the private
companies will develop it.
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
I have just recently joined the conference and I am still going
through all the contributions so my questions could be obsolete. Anyway I
would like ask the group (and in particular the people against
transgenic plants) where is the difference between a new variety developed
from wide cross (introduction of new genes from wild relative) and one that
has be developed by transformation. I am referring in particular to the
second generation transgenic plants where is introduced just the gene of
interest without any antibiotic genes or DNA backbones.
Alessandro Pellegrineschi
[Note, this topic is only very indirectly related to the theme of the
conference: 'Can agricultural
biotechnology help to reduce hunger and increase food security in developing
countries ?', so we do not wish to go very deeply into this
argument....Moderator]
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
Dr. Peter Rosset [10 November] has written: " A magic-bullet solution which
places beta-carotene into rice - with potential health and ecological
hazards - while leaving poverty, poor diets and extensive monoculture
intact, is unlikely to make any durable contribution to well-being. ".
And I agree.
If we are looking for a magic-bullet, we could distribute a nutritional
supplement, with Vitamin A and other vitamins, minerals and lysine (for
improving the rice protein quality). We could reach the target directly.
And use a safer and cheaper alternative.
Prof. L.E.Carvalho
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
In reply to Alessandro Pellegrineschi message [10 November]:
Please do not present the problem in this way. Till now we have avoided a
theoretical or ideological or only genetically-based debate between people
in favour of and against transgenic plants. We have faced the theme of the
conference, concerning the interest of biotechnology to reduce hunger and
increase food security. As Dr Rosset wrote so clearly [9 November], "if the
underlying
causes are largely tied to genotype constraints, then we can accept that GE
might be a logical part of the solution". GE scientists have to enter in
this debate if we want a right assesment on "in which cases?, in which
conditions?" GE could be an interesting tool for improving food security.
If we take it as a principle that it is an interesting tool, we will not go
on.
Michel FERRY
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 10:24 AM
I agree with Peter Rosset [10 November] when he said that the debate should
focus on genetic
engineering and GMOs, but still the conference theme is not restrictive and
by
reading some of the contributions it seems there is a confusion.
Transgenic organisms (GMOs) resulting from the introduction of cloned genes
from one species to another raise the question of how pure are these cloned
genes? Is it not so that some trailing and flanking DNA segments remain with
the cloned genes? What will be the effects of these undesired DNA segments
which might be inserted with the gene itself? Inserting the gene, will it be
fixed at the right place of the genome, and what will be the consequences of
an erratic location? Are there enough trials to prove the safety of such
products? Those are the questions that make people wonder about GMOs.
Although it is the fastest way of exploiting known genes, we can't ignore
possible negative effects first on human, and second on the organism
population in which the gene has been introduced.
The long term consequences of GMOs on the environment must be a concern of
scientists, particularly for the target countries in this conference. For
the
case of Africa that I know the best, any disaster resulting from the
introduction of GMOs will add to multiple adverse situations already
existing
in this part of the world. The developing countries should not be considered
as fields of experiment for GMO-advocating scientists and companies. I do
not have anything against GMOs as long as scientists will take the time to
test the safety of these products for the environment, human included.
For poverty and hunger reasons, we (from developing countries) should not
accept whatever is proposed to us. One major reason for not accepting GMOs
is
the reaction of the public opinion against these products in Western Europe.
As I mentioned in my first contribution (9 November), soil fertility and
water
management will contribute better to decrease hunger in Africa. As an
example,
we have seen Israel transform desert areas in green and productive lands.
Agricultural biotechnology can help to reduce hunger and increase food
security in developing countries, but genetic engineering and GMOs are not
the best way of
achieving such goals.
Delphin Koudandé
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
Hello, I'm Allan Hruska, Coordinator for the Central America Integrated Pest
Management Program coordinated by Zamorano. [According to their Website,
Zamorano is a Pan-American Center of higher education whose mission is to
prepare leaders for the Americas in sustainable agriculture, agribusiness,
agroindustry, natural resources management and rural
development...Moderator]
1. Neither transgenic crops nor other biotechnologies will solve world
hunger. We should recognize this and put behind us any contrary notions.
World hunger is caused by lack of access to food. Social-economic problems
are not solved with technical solutions.
2. Is that a reason to not pursue useful transgenic crops? No. Why
shouldn't we explore all possible avenues to increase the quantity and
quality of food, at least as long as the world's population continues to
grow and more and better food will be needed?
3. Are transgenics the only way to increase the quantity and quality of
food? No. There are many ways and they should all be explored.
4. Don't transgenics pose health and environmental risks? Probably. They
should be studied, understood, and minimized.
5. Do transgenics pose greater risks than other crop production tactics?
Maybe in some cases, definitely not in others. While using polycultures may
be desirable, the reality in much of the developing world is that crop
"protection" is heavily dependent on very dangerous agrichemicals. These
are known dangers, not potential risks.
6. Why do transgenics generate such strong negative emotive reactions?
Because what's really being fought, under the guise of transgenics, are two
major battles: fears of corporate control and trade issues. The issue of
corporate control is what truly makes blood boil, not transgenic plants. It
would be far more interesting to directly discuss the root causes of the
disagreements, rather than looking for ecological arguments to argue against
corporate control of agricultural technology.
Allan J. Hruska, PhD
[Thanks to Allan Hruska for these clear, well-expressed views. The last
point he makes about "fears of corporate control" is something that came up
strongly in the first confererence of this Forum (on 'How
appropriate are currently available biotechnologies in the crop sector for
food production and agriculture in developing countries') and is summarised
in the early part of the Summary Document of Conference 1, posted on 2
October to Forum members.......Moderator]
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
This is from Geeta Bharathan, State University of New York at Stony Brook,
USA. I study plant evolution, have had a longish stint with the Indian
Council for
Agricultural Research, and continue to have a keen interest in agricultural
and other issues in developing countries.
I have closely followed the very interesting discussion so far (in
particular the clear and insightful posts of Michel Ferry and Allan
Hruska). I would like to raise a few questions that I hope will elicit some
answers.
As I see it, the argument in favour of genetic modification (GM) technology
(and I deliberately use this term because it is this aspect of biotechnology
that fuels discussions such as these) goes something like this:
1. The 'food problem' is one of keeping food production in pace with
population increase.
2. Increased population growth will be in developing countries that will
have to increase food imports.
(That is, the solution to the 'food problem' lies in increased production in
developed nations. Is this inevitable? What role do the new
trade regulations play in making it inevitable or not?)
3. GM technology is critical for our ability to keep up this increase in
food production.
Given that some versions of 1-3 are correct, then these must follow:
a) IF genotype is a limitation in DEVELOPED nations, THEN GM is a critical,
perhaps essential, part of the solution to the 'food problem'
(Can this be established?)
b) When GM technology is said to be indispensible to 'feed the starving
millions of the world,' at issue are applications WITHIN DEVELOPED
NATIONS.
c) The ecological, envioronmental, and health issues raised in developed
nations are hostile to this long-term objective of feeding the
world.
(Are these real or apparent conflicts of interest? If real, how are they to
be resolved? By whom?)
In this situation, does GM technology have a role in developing nations? An
international report (http://www.nap.edu/html/transgenic) laid out some
possibilities: improve production stability, give nutritional benefits
(hotly contested here), reduce environmental impacts, make pharmaceuticals
and vaccines. Are these realistic, or are they the baseless pipe dreams of
biotechnologists? [The report referred to is entitled "Transgenic plants and
world agriculture" and was presented under the auspices of the Royal Society
of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of
Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science
Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences and the Third World Academy of
Sciences in July 2000...Moderator]
Food production in developed nations accompanied by increased trade may be
expected to resolve the problem of hunger in developing countries.
But what about food security? According to the World Food Summit, "food
security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic
access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs
and food preferences for an active and healthy life." [All documentation
from the World Food Summit can be found at
http://www.fao.org/wfs/homepage.htm ...Moderator]
Investing huge amounts in a technology that would enable, and consolidate,
increased import of food from developed to developing
nations cannot lead to food security because:
i) a major cause for hunger is lack of purchasing power -- unless export
from developed nations is a continued charity (not a desirable state);
ii) agriculture is a major source of employment in most developing nations,
and any technological solutions to the food problem have to
consider this
In other words, the application of GM technology in the developed nations
for making up projected deficits in food production cannot, by itself, solve
the 'food problem.' However, the logical structure of the argument presented
above seems to suggest that this is what is expected.
Geeta Bharathan
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
In reply to Michel Ferry's message [11 November]:
I disagree. I believe that we should define what is a transgenic
crop, what are the differences of these plants with respect to other
breeding
products before saying anything about their potential benefits/risks for
developing countries. Definition is always the problem about biotech
sentiments. I heard continuously, about potential risk of newly introduced
genes (potential ecological disasters, potential health problems, potential
etc.) but nobody bothers to investigate the potential risks of the new genes
(and new proteins) of new released varieties. [Presumably, Allesandro refers
to non-GM varieties...Moderator]
Once we have defined the transgenic plants, we can decide if we can use them
or not in agriculture and than set priorities about useful traits for
developing countries.
Alessandro Pellegrineschi
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
My name is Soraj Hongladarom. I teach philosophy at Chulalongkorn
University in Bangkok, Thailand.
As far as developing countries go, Thailand has been relatively
fortunate in not having to face the problem of starvation and hunger
to the same extent as some other countries. In fact the country has
been a net exporter of food for many years, and is well known as one
the world's leading producers and exporters of rice. This
accomplishment has been achieved very largely without the help of the
technology of genetic engineering, especially the GMO technology.
However, as stated in the Background Document to this conference, the world
population is increasing, and the traditional way of farming might
not be adequate in the long run. Thus I think the use of agricultural
biotechnology will perhaps be a not-too-distant future. However, as
many have stated in the conference, the problem of hunger is intricately
tied with other problems, especially poverty. Thus, in order to
reduce hunger it is necessary that poverty has to be reduced too.
Certainly biotechnological products can go a long way towards
alleviating poverty in the countries that produce them. More to the
point, biotechnology not only alleviates poverty; it 'enriches' those
who master it. This is why the problem of hunger is less severe in
the so called 'developed' countries. In fact biotechnology, together
with information technology, is being heralded as the next 'wave' of
technology that drives the economy forward. The US, for example, is
aggressively pushing biotechnological products such as GM crops in
the world market, and this is seen as a way of maintaining the level of
economic growth in the US in the face of increasing economic
competition around the world.
But on the other side of the world, the pressing concern is not to
find a hi-tech way to drive the economy forward, but it is to feed
the populace so that they are no longer hungry. But if the
biotechnological products purported to help reduce hunger actually
come exclusively from those countries referred to in the previous
paragraph, then I don't see how the hunger and poverty problem can be
reduced. [The same point was made by Geeta Bharathan in her message posted
today...Moderator].
One only sees the transfer of money from developing
countries to developed ones as prices the developing countries have to pay
for
biotechnological products. This has been the case for more than a
century now. In former (and present) times we see money being paid by
developing countries for such products as cars or computers,
with the developing countries selling their own natural resources for
the money to buy those cars. And now we are possibly seeing the same
trend toward buying GM products. And if these GM products have become
necessary as the means to alleviate hunger in the developing
countries, then the economic dependence could be total.
The way out, I believe, is for the developing countries to develop
their own biotechnology in order to suit their own particular
environments and localities. I believe this is the only way countries
can live together in the ever-increasingly interdependent world. Help
from the developed countries should not come in the form of giving away
of ready made, ready-to-be-consumed products, but the in form of
education and technology transfer so as to create technologies that
respond exactly to the localities, and not something that can create
products for the global market.
Soraj Hongladarom
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
My name is Gerry Douglas and I work as a researcher in Teagasc,
The Agriculture and Food Development Authority, Ireland.
I believe that the best way for developing countries to gain from
modern biotechnology and all its various benefits and uses is to
ensure that they each have a core of scientists fully trained in the
fields of agronomy, plant breeding and biotechnology. Developed
countries have a moral obligation to ensure that the knowledge
behind the technology is transmitted and shared. This obligation
could be achieved through an International Agreement among
countries.
The important questions on the output of food from traditional
farming relate to:
In this debate it is very important to remember the genesis of the
biotech seeds which are currently available on the market. Many
of them have genes for resistance to insects or herbicides - why
were they developed first?
In the 1960s and 1970s, the chemical companies found that the costs
of developing new agrochemicals were too expensive. At the
same time, environmentalists expressed justifiable concern about
the levels of agrochemical residues in soil and food. As government
agencies (first in the developed countries & followed by developing
countries) banned those chemicals, which were very stable and
persistent, the chemical industry began to search for less
persistent chemicals to control fungi and insects. Naturally
occurring chemicals were identified but their chemical persistence
and effectiveness was poor unless they were repeatedly applied.
At this point in the 1980s it became feasible to have the plants
produce these labile chemicals within their cells so as to control
the insects which ate the plants (through genetic engineering) .The
chemical industries realised that genetic engineering could provide
some alternatives to synthetic chemicals, so they set about buying
up seed companies to sell their new technology as products via the seeds.
At present, biotechnology enriches those companies who master
it and they will continue to develop (improved ?) products for the
most lucrative markets available (mostly in the developed world).
It is necessary for developing countries to demand a scheme for
sharing this knowledge so they can adequately evaluate its
potential on a regional basis and have their share of this technical
revolution.
Dr. Gerry Douglas
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
Several recent posts have referred to the so-called Seven Academies report
issued on GMO foods and food security [Geeta Bharathan referred to it, 13
November
...Moderator].
The full text of the report can be accessed at
http://www.biotech-info.net/sevenNAS.html
In a review of the Seven Academies report, I address many of the issues
under discussion before the group in the last few days. I served as the
Ex. Dir. of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Board on Ag from
1984-1990 when many of the Academy's
early biotech reports were done; in my comments, I point out several many
changes in tone and substance in this latest report. My review is about 4
pages, and hence I am posting where it can be accessed on Ag BioTech
InfoNet http://www.biotech-info.net/sevenNAS.html
Both farmers in the field and scientists/technologists have a natural
inclination to look for and embrace "silver bullets", or sea-change
solutions, or major breakthroughs. This tendency helps keep mankind
optimistic, searching, and moving forward. But when this optimism gets
taken up, magnified and reinforced in the private sector, in an era like
today when capital knows no boundaries or loyalty and fortunes are being
made with high-tech solutions to all sorts of problems, balance,
perspective and reason can fall by the wayside (i.e., receive less
attention, become less important).
There are important problems and issues with Golden rice that stand
in the
path of its adoption and use; we have discussed some in recent posts. One
of the major reasons it has become a lightning rod for debate over GMO
technologies, and who will gain and who will lose, is this
question: Suppose a well balanced team of scientists, policy leaders and
agriculture and nutrition practitioners came together, heavily weighted
toward
people with on-the-ground experience in the countries with Vitamin A
problems. They are given $300 million to invest over 10 years in solving
the problem, and can pick any paths or partners. Who among us can imagine
a rational, fact-driven process leading to the outcome that all the money
should be invested in GMO Vit. A rice?
Just as farmers need diversity and balance to sustain yields, these
attributes are also valuable in the world of science and technological
development. One of the biggest problems with the momentum behind GMO food
technologies is that there is little time or room for these attributes, or
for the careful reflection and good research needed to help us understand
where this might lead us. That makes some people nervous.
Charles Benbrook Ag BioTech
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
I would like to address the six points recently posted by Allan Hruska [11
November]:
> POINT 1. Neither transgenic crops nor other biotechnologies will solve
world hunger etc. ....
While I certainly agree with this statement, I am put off by the unstated
implication that the *critics* of transgenics are responsible for placing
the debate in the context of world hunger. The reality is quite the
contrary: we are responding to a virtual drumbeat from private industry,
and those they fund in academia, which repeats over and over again that we
should set aside our doubts in the name of transgenics as the only or best
way to combat hunger.
> POINT 2. ....Why shouldn't we explore all possible avenues to increase the
quantity and quality of food etc. .....
If all else were equal I would agree. But all else is not equal. Not at
all. In today's world, public sector agricultural research is worse than a
zero sum game, as funds are cut, and then cut again. It is in this context
that we see genetic engineering (GE) research acting as a gigantic resource
sink in institution after institution, in both the North and the South.
GE is literally orders of magnitude more expensive than other lines of
agricultural research, with each innovation carrying a price tag in the
tens of millions of dollars. Because it is so expensive, it draws scarce
resources away from other perhaps more promising (I believe) lines of
research, such as biological pest control, integrated pest management
(IPM), agroecology, organics, etc. Unfortunately, university deans and
directors of national research institutes have been seduced by the idea
that biotech is "where the money is," and have massively shifted resources
in that direction. When I survey the wreckage that has been left in
"non-molecular" fields, I feel that a great crime against humanity has been
committed. When I add to that the way the products of GE research are
privatized and sold to the highest bidder, though they may have been paid
for by the public sector, using tax payers money, and then rushed to
market without the most minimally aceptable health and environmental safety
testing, then I *know* a crime is being committed (or multiple crimes).
> POINT 3. Are transgenics the only way to increase the quantity and quality
of food? No. There are many ways and they should all be explored.
Yes, other ways offer greater potential returns. The best case scenario
estimates of industry are that GE crops might increase yields by 25-30%.
But that is scant compared to the massive investment they require, and to
the proven potential for far greater prodction increases from far cheaper
(and safer) agroecological alternatives. For examples, see:
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr118g.htm
> POINT 4. Don't transgenics pose health and environmental risks?
Probably. They should be studied, understood, and minimized.
This is exactly what we are fighting for. Unfortunately 1% of total
research funds spent on transgenics currently go toward risk analysis.
Unanswered questions remain, concerning both environmental and health risks.
It seems to me that all reasonable people might agree to a moratorium on
further commercial use of transgenic crops until such time as each product
has passed widely-agreed-upon health and safety testing. There is
certainly *no compelling need* for these untested products to be in our
food and our ecosystems *today.* We actually have the luxury of being able
to take a time out for testing (unless, of course, we are investors in
biotech companies).
> POINT 5. Do transgenics pose greater risks than other crop production
tactics? etc....
It is a false dichotomy to suggest that there are only two alternatives,
transgenics vs. chemicals. Industry tries to confuse us with this
suggestion, but we know better: that the fields of IPM, biocontrol,
agroecology, organic farming, etc., offer abundant other alternatives.
> POINT 6. Why do transgenics generate such strong negative emotive
reactions? Because what's really being fought, under the guise of transgenics, are two
major battles: fears of corporate control and trade issues. The issue of
corporate control is what truly makes blood boil, not transgenic plants.
It would be far more interesting to directly discuss the root causes of the
disagreements, rather than looking for ecological arguments to argue
against corporate control of agricultural technology.
It is ludicrous, and perhaps even insulting, to cast aside concerns about
research priorities under resource contraints, and about environmental
risks and health, in such a blithe statement. What is not ludicrous, of
course, is that transgenics do also raise issues related to trade (IPRs,
TRIPS, Biosafety Protocol, etc.) and to growing corporate concentration, as
chemical companies take over seed companies, and then merge among
themselves.
Peter M. Rosset, Ph.D.
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
It seems to me that the comments by Peter Rosset [14 November] do not say
much that is very useful about how biotechnology may be used to contribute
to food security in the developing world.
Companies (and indeed countries) can spend their money how they wish,
but at least some are guilty of-over hyping the value of biotechnology
to the third world, when they are pursuing a purely commercial agenda.
But even this is nothing to do with the limitations of biotechnology,
but, as with so many things, is due to a lack of real interest in the
problems of developing countries by the richer countries - in short the
usual story. OK, the research and development strategies of big business
and the wealthier
countries are not really aimed at easing the problems of poorer
countries, but blaming biotechnology isn't going to change anything.
When potentially useful biotechnological products are available,
however, they should at least be considered for what they are, or what
improvements they can effect - in comparison to the alternatives of
course, but not dismissed out of hand just because more of everything is
needed.
Trevor Fenning, Germany
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
I think that perhaps one of the interesting results of this conference will
be that some of the scientists that participate become less self-assured of
the evident and prominent place of biotechnology in the fight against
hunger.
I want to come back to one of Trevor Fenning's argument in favour of
biotechnology [10 November..Moderator]. He asks why not try the
biotechnology products? I think that, again, he is presenting the question
in the wrong way. The question is why try them? Furthermore, this idea of
trial seems to me very insufficient. The trial is valuable if we have good
arguments to think that it will prove useful and successful. It could not be
based only on a superficial analysis that other methods have failed, as
Trevor does with his brutal appraisal of the 50 years of fight against
Vitamin A deficiency (VAD). On the contrary, a good analysis of why efforts
have failed or are not giving all the results planned is fundamental to
formulate useful proposals...and, eventually, to develop right arguments in
favour of biotechnology.
Something that seems to me very evident in the debate on biotechnology is a
corporation defence reflex: many scientists involved in this technology
perceive the critics on biotechnology as a direct questioning of their work.
That is of course a bit true but instead of having a defence position, they
should recognise the weakness (evident for example in the case of golden
rice) of the present general argumentation and look for a better one. For my
part (but I am also judge and party because of my own implication in this
field), I do believe that some biotechnology products already contribute and
others could contribute to solve the question of food security. But, the
question should be asked and answered case by case and not in general way.
Just a very recent example of what Peter Rosset has called the "drumbeat"
[14 November] and in which I see an "alibi" of the private companies and of
many scientists involved in this field: members of the Spanish network
"plants genomes" have declared that the controversy on GMOs would not have
existed if the golden rice would have been the first GM plant (UMH,
4/11/00)!!!
Michel FERRY
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
How about getting down to brass tacks, here?
Most of the contributers here seem to recognize, at some level, that "At
present, biotechnology enriches those companies who master it and they
will continue to develop (improved ?) products for the most lucrative
markets available (mostly in the developed world)." (Gerry Douglas, 13
November
);
At this level, this choir is preaching to itself.
So let us take it to the next level. Here it looks like there are two
choirs:
"...but blaming biotechnology isn't going to change anything." (Trevor
Fenning, 15 November);
"It is necessary for developing countries to demand a scheme for sharing
this knowledge so they can adequately evaluate its potential on a regional
basis and have their share of this technical revolution" (Gerry Douglas, 13
November
);
--> Biotechnology is here to take root and stay, so developing countries
should get into the act sooner rather than later.
WHY is biotechnology here to stay? Is it the genie in the bottle that we
cannot put back, so should learn how to control? What about the huge
investments involved in doing this kind of work? Should we not be
prioritising in a clear headed way (perhaps along the lines described by
Michel Ferry?)? and not ignore these factors:
"But on the other side of the world, the pressing concern is not to find a
hi-tech way to drive the economy forward, but it is to feed the populace
so that they are no longer hungry." (Soraj Hongladarom, 13 November);
"However, the constraints are largely structural and policy-related in
nature, making GE tangential at best." (Peter Rosset, 9 November)
--> Is genetic engineering becoming PART of the policy-related issues at the
global level?
So, are we ready to talk about the crux of the matter?
"Why do transgenics generate such strong negative emotive reactions?
Because what's really being fought, under the guise of transgenics, are
two major battles: fears of corporate control and trade issues. The issue
of corporate control is what truly makes blood boil, not transgenic
plants. It would be far more interesting to directly discuss the root
causes of the disagreements, rather than looking for ecological arguments
to argue against corporate control of agricultural technology." (Allan
Hruska, 11 November)
Geeta Bharathan
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
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
[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
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
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
[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]
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
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
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
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
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
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
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
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
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
[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
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
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
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
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,
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
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
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
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
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
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,
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
[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
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
This is from Sirkka Immonen. I am working at FAO in the Secretariat of the
CGIAR's Technical Advisory Committee.
It is obvious that in addition to solving socio-economic and political
constraints to food security, there is a serious need within the coming
decades to produce considerably more food - probably through higher
productivity per unit, in a sustainable way and mostly in the developing
countries. Would it be useful for this debate to consider what the role of
genetic improvement (GI) is in alleviating poverty and providing food
security ?
Biotechnology, including genetic modification (GM) technology, is commonly
used as a tool in GI - among many other tools, including participatory
methods. (There are surely other uses of biotechnology relevant to poor
countries and to this conference, such as animal vaccine development.) There
is quite a lot of evidence and plenty of indications that biotechnology will
make GI more effective in the short and long term and more cost-efficient in
the long term. It may also speed up delivery of GI products to farmers,
including poor farmers in developing countries. The public sector GI deals
with several crops and animal species that the private sector does not focus
on. This work includes research on GMOs, particularly where the problems are
otherwise difficult (for example banana breeding) or impossible to solve
(certain kinds of resistances that do not exist within the species). The
public sector also invests in research on traits which are particularly
relevant in difficult production conditions (such as resistance to the
parasitic weed Striga) or relevant to poor farmers (such as apomixis). These
would seem to be research topics where success would benefit poor producers
and consumers. In the International Agricultural Research Centres the work
is multidisciplinary and participatory by nature and demand-driven.
If GI is considered a potential pathway but biotechnology is not, then the
reasons for the latter are obviously somewhere else other than in the
potential of biotechnology to help GI reach its goals. Is it only GMOs that
are a problem, or is it biotechnology in general ? And if it is GMOs that a
problem, why just them ? Are questions of access (including aspects such as
pricing, intellectual property rights, the species targetted) more pertinent
to GMOs than to other biotechnology products and knowledge ? Is it the
assumption that the environmental and health risks will be too serious to
overcome? Or that the national regulatory practices are too difficult and
costly to develop and implement or unreliable. Or is it that case that GI is
not seen as a useful activity at all. Transfer of public funding from
biotechnology/GI to something else does not seem very likely. How then can
we focus the research to gain from best science and avoid adverse effects?
Sirkka Immonen
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
Hello, this is Peter Rosset again. By the way, I am based in
Chiapas, Mexico. There is currently a huge debate in Mexico about
these topics.
I am disturbed by people who only feel that the risks of transgenic
crops are of importance in the North, and thus anything with any
potential should be sent to the Third World 'in case it turns out to
help.' The debate here in Mexico indicates otherwise -- people do
not want untested, risky products here, any more than they do in the
USA or Europe. I would like to indicate that many of the potential risks are
quite
relevant to food security in developing countries.
The widespread crop failures reported for transgenics (i.e. stem
splitting, boll drop, etc.) pose economic risks which can affect poor
farmers much more severely than wealthy farmers. If consumers reject
their products, the economic risks are higher the poorer one is.
Also, the high costs of transgenics introduce an additional anti-poor
bias into the system.
Transgenic plants which produce their own insecticides, usually
using the 'Bt' gene, closely follow the pesticide paradigm, which is
itself rapidly failing due to pest resistance to insecticides. In
general, the greater the selection pressure across time and space, the
quicker and more profound the pests' evolutionary response. Thus integrated
pest management (IPM)
approaches employ multiple pest control mechanisms, and use
pesticides minimally, only in cases of last resort. But when the
product is engineered into the plant itself, pest exposure leaps from
minimal and occasional to massive and continuous exposure,
dramatically accelerating resistance. Most entomologists agree that
Bt will rapidly become useless, both as a feature of the new seeds
and as an old standby natural insecticide sprayed when needed by
farmers that want to get out of the pesticide treadmill. In the United
States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has mandated that farmers
set aside a certain
proportion of their area as a 'refuge,' where non-Bt varieties are to
be planted, in order to slow down the rate of evolution by insects of
resistance. Yet it is vanishingly unlikely that poor, small farmers
in the third world will plant such refuges, meaning that resistance to Bt
could occur much more rapidly under such circumstances.
At the same time, the use of Bt crops affects non-target organisms
and ecological processes. Recent evidence shows that the Bt toxin can
affect beneficial insect predators that feed on insect pests present
on Bt crops, and that windblown pollen from Bt crops found on natural
vegetation surrounding transgenic fields can kill non-target insects.
Small farmers rely for insect pest control on the rich complex of
predators and parasites associated with their mixed cropping systems.
But the effect on natural enemies raises serious concerns about the
potential of the disruption of natural pest control, as polyphagous
predators [i.e. that feed on or utilise many kinds of food...Moderator] that
move within and between mixed crop cultivars will
encounter Bt-containing non-target prey throughout the crop season.
Disrupted biocontrol mechanisms may result in increased crop losses
due to pests or to the increased use of pesticides by farmers.
The fact that Bt retains its insecticidal properties after crop
residues have been plowed into the soil, and is protected against
microbial degradation by being bound to soil particles, persisting in
various soils for at least 234 days, is of serious concern for poor
farmers who cannot purchase expensive chemical fertilizers, and who
instead rely on local residues, organic matter and soil
microorganisms (key invertebrate, fungal or bacterial species) for
soil fertility, which can be negatively affected by the soil bound
toxin.
When the Bt genes fail, what would poor farmers be left with? It is
entirely possible that they would face the serious rebound of pest
populations freed of natural control by the impact Bt had on
predators and parasites, and reduced soil fertility because of the
impacts of Bt crop residues plowed into the ground. These are
farmers who are already risk-prone, and Bt crops would likely
increase that risk.
In the Third World there will typically be more sexually compatible
wild relatives of crops present, making pollen transfer to weed
populations of insecticidal properties, virus resistance, and other
genetically engineered traits more likely. Genetic exchange between
crops and their wild relatives is common in traditional
agroecosystems and transgenic crops are bound to frequently encounter
sexually compatible plant relatives, therefore the potential for
"genetic pollution" in such settings is inevitable.
There is potential for vector recombination to generate new virulent
strains of viruses, especially in transgenic plants engineered for
viral resistance with viral genes. In plants containing coat protein
genes, there is a possibility that such genes will be taken up by
unrelated viruses infecting the plant. In such situations, the
foreign gene changes the coat structure of the viruses and may confer
properties such as changed method of transmission between plants. The
second potential risk is that recombination between RNA virus and a
viral RNA inside the transgenic crop could produce a new pathogen
leading to more severe disease problems. Some researchers have shown
that recombination occurs in transgenic plants and that under certain
conditions it produces a new viral strain with altered host range.
Crop losses caused by new viral pathogens could have a more
significant impact on the livelihoods of poor farmers than they would
for wealthier farmers who have ample resources to survive poor
harvests.
Peter M. Rosset,
[email protected]
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
As a professor in a major Land-Grant University (Michigan State University),
I am convinced that a vibrant private sector is essential for rural
development. The private sector focuses on economic issues and is usually
more efficient than the public sector, while the public sector must look at
development in the light of equity, growth and justice. A strong private
sector along with a strong public sector is the key to rural development.
The participation of the private sector in agricultural research is not bad.
This debate reminds me of the discussion that ensued after the cytoplasmic
male sterility system (CMS) was patented on July 10, 1956. Many people
thought this patent would stop the technical progress and cooperation in the
agricultural research arena. In November 1956 the American Society of
Agronomy passed a resolution stating that the CMS patent dealt a serious
blow to the "principle of interchange of information and material, and
seriously jeopardizes the future continuation of such cooperative endeavor".
An important "key" to the biotechnology debate rests with the priority
setting process used by both the public and private sectors. The priority
setting process must be developed by representatives of civil society;
farmers, consumers, business persons, extension and research, and other
stakeholders. The Michigan Extension Service has developed a program which
organizes self-directed work teams which look at what is needed for Michigan
rural (and urban) development. An article in the Journal of Extension gives
an overview of this program.
If biotechnology is to help the poor of this world, biotechnologists must be
connected to civil society. (In some cases, it may be determined that
biotechnology is not appropriate.) The example of self-directed work teams
is one example of such a connection. Today, because of the difficulty of
reducing poverty around the world, we need to be building coalitions which
work together to address the complex problems and challenges of poverty.
Russ Freed
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
My name is Tamala Kambikambi and I am an agronomist, lecturing
at the University of Zambia, where I am also the assistant dean in
charge of undergraduate studies in the Faculty of Agricultural
Sciences.
I have followed part of the discussions on the current topic with
keen interest and felt that I need to make some contributions
especially since I come from one of the regions under discussion.
The answer to that question is not simple and straight forward
because the relationship between hunger and food security is also
neither simple, nor linear - at least not in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).
Scientifically, there is a well defined relationship between
agricultural productivity and the inputs that are part of the
production system. This, however, is not the case for most
smallholder farmers of SSA where productivity is a function of a
myriad of factors other than the inputs of "improved seed" that is
tolerant to a number of biotic and abiotic adverse conditions,
fertilizers, chemicals etc. Their productivity is a function of a lot
more than than - including socio-cultural factors.
Therefore, as I look at this new technology, one question I ask
myself as an African is that if we failed to harness the benefits of
the green revolution - which was a much less problematic
technology - what hope do we have with agricultural biotechnology?
Fortunately, I am an optimist and in fact strongly believe that that
is all the more reason we should ensure that agricultural
biotechnology does not pass us by and leave our region even more
hungry and impoverished. Africa has many problems and these
are varied. Not least is the fact that our ecosystem is more fragile.
Therefore, to me, those technologies that will nurture this fragile
ecosystem - as some agricultural biotechnologies promise to do -
should be encouraged and adapted.
What we should however remember is that agricultural
biotechnology is not a panaceae for our hunger and food insecurity
problems. It is merely one building block in this complex
problem of food insecurity and hunger which may have synergies
with other building blocks. We should therefore not completely
ignore it and be left by the wayside yet again!
Tamala Kambikambi, Zambia
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
Michel Ferry [21 November] noted that Thailand has an estimated 24 percent
of its
population undernourished. This is sadly true, and it clearly
reflects how the economy is unavoidably intertwined with food and
hunger. What is happening in such a country as Thailand is that the
majority of the farmers do not grow their crops for their own
consumption any more. Instead they sell their crops to the markets
and in exchange they buy industrial consumer items such as the fridge
and the motorcycle. And that happens to only a few farmers who
own large enough plots of land. In most cases, the farmers remain very
poor and they are under- or mal-nourished because their income is not
sufficient to buy decent food. The earnings from exported rice fall
to the exporting companies and the milling factories, and very little
return to the farmers themselves.
As stated by Prof. Mazoyer in FAO's State of Food and Agriculture 2000,
"World food security, therefore, is not an essentially technical,
environmental or demographic issue in the short term: it is first and
foremost a matter of grossly inadequate means of production of the
world's poorest peasant farmers who cannot meet their food needs. It
is also a matter of insufficient purchasing power of other poor rural
and urban consumers, insofar as the poverty of non-farmers is also a
product of rural poverty and migration from the land."
[http://www.fao.org/news/2000/img/Sofafs-e.pdf]
It is very interesting how the recent advances in biotechnology could
change the equation here. It might be the case eventually that
biotechnology does have a direct role to play in enhancing food
security (by producing flood resistant crops for example). Problems
in developing countries are very complicated and involve a diverse
set of factors. But chief among these must certainly be a political
system that makes it the case for unjust regimes to channel resources
to themselves at the expense of the majority of the population, and
those, in the case of Thailand, allowing an unfair capitalist system
where rice exporters and millers earn the lion's share of income
earned from rice export, while farmers get a pittance.
What must be done, I think, is to keep in mind that politics, economy
and food security go hand in hand and must be tackled together. (The
FAO might have to team up with, say, the UN or the Commission of
Human Rights, for instance.) Biotechnology might be able to find a
super crop that resists draughts, floods, pest attacks and so on. And
that is all for the better. Intellectual property rights and trade
issues aside, what one needs is then an awareness that the technology
alone is only part of the solution. Identification of the problem in
need of biotechnological solution is crucial here. I am against the
idea that one solution can fit all instances. Flood resistant crops may not
be
appropriate for sub-Saharan Africa, but they are crucial in Thailand.
(As far as I know research is being done here to produce a strain of
rice that can survive under water for a long period.) What agency
could then produce biotechnological solutions that are geared toward
specific localities?
Soraj Hongladarom
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
I would like to put some questions that I think we all need to reflect on in
this debate. The first set of questions are policy/economic or political in
nature.
To what extent has public sector research not been encroached by the private
sector through contractual agreements? My sense is that many universities in
the developed countries now receive a great deal of contract work from
companies. How has this affected the direction of research?
Is there sufficient trust, and a sound policy environment that makes for
good public/private partnerships around the use of biotechnology?
To what extent would biotechnology entrench large scale farming, and have
negative effects on small-holder schemes and subsistence farming? Is there
merit in doing an international study on the cost/benefit of these impacts?
Have similar studies not been done for crops developed during the Green
Revolution? I know of one study done by Michael Lipton, at the Institute of
Development Studies (IDS) in
Sussex, England.
What is the cost differential between seeds and input cost? I would assume
that like other industries, the seed also comes with a package of other
services, which farmers are almost obliged to enter into?
What is the nature of the contractual agreements between farmers and seed
companies? How does this affect what farmers can and can't do?
How has the recent mergers and acquisitions within the agri-industry
influenced the agricultural industry?
What about european subsidies, indirect subsidies etc, and their influence
on global food prices, and the ability of developing countries to compete in
international markets? Would agri-biotech not perpetuate the current
lopsided
trade in agricultural products, and the price of food?
These are some question which are of interest to me, and I think there is
still room for discussion and development of insight.
Saliem Fakir,
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
Public money from the European program Fair and from the Swiss Federal
Institute has been also devoted to the research on the golden rice.
Just saying that big corporations are looking for profit, is not saying
something bad but is just saying evidence.
Fortunately, the viewpoints concerning food security development are much
more numerous and complex than the gross simplification proposed by Stanley
Roberts [22 November]. Fortunately also, we have, as biotechnologists or
non biotechnologists, other solutions than "simply make available whatever
there is" to assess the interest of biotechnology to fight against hunger.
We are not debating on proposing to the market a new brand of detergent.
Michel FERRY
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
Hi, I am Saliem Fakir again. I wish to provide an additional point to Peter
Rosset's input [23 November].
I think that the set of assumptions in the way
in which new seed development takes place, is perhaps based on the
assumption of property rights and onwership patterns as they pertain to
Europe or the US. In developing countries, there are different property
right regimes ranging from communal, leasing to freehold tenure. In
addition, if it is communal, the decision making and farm management
processes are very different from freehold tenure systems. At least in the
areas I have visited both in south Africa, and West Africa, decisions on
seed are based on using varieties that, with experience, enable farmers to
minimise crop losses due to weather and pests. Therefore, on-farm genetic
diversity and management of seed varieties in many of these rural areas is
crucial in managing risk. This is a key part of the food security strategy
that African farmers implement. The degree to which this is taken into
account in modern agricultural research funded by the private sector is open
to question.
In fact, ironically, paternalistic traditions of agricultural
research, such as that originally conducted by South Africa agricultural
research
institutions, meant that scientific institutions dominated decisions
concerning
which crops to focus on, and which crops to subject to genetic improvements.
Only in the last 5 years, and in fact as a result of political changes in
South Africa, South African agricultural researchers have for the first time
focused on
participatory research methods, because the assumptions that they worked for
were only applicable to white commercial farmers who had tracts of land
ranging from 100 hectares to 1000's of hectares. The management and
operational mode is very different to that of small scale farmers, who are
either subsistence or small-scale in nature. This shift demonstrates the
importance of economic status, cultural perspectives and the nature of
property
rights as it influences on farm decision making etc. For instance it is easy
for the USA Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suggest to US farmers
to set aside land for 'refuge', but
for resource-poor farmers, who either don't own land, or barely have land to
cultivate crops for one season, such recommendations hold no water.
Peter Rosset [23 November] is therefore right, that the risk premium that
small farmers may have to
carry is far greater. Remember also that commercial farmers in developed
countries have the ability to take out insurance or, in general, their
governments are more willing to bail them out of a crisis. They also have
money to take companies to court, so the risk profile, and risk management
strategies of resource-poor farmers is very different from subsidised, and
large scale commercial farmers.
Somebody mentioned the failure of the Green Revolution in Africa, or at
least it did not take off. [Tamala Kambikambi wrote today [23 November] that
Africa had failed to harness the benefits of the green
revolution...Moderator]. Perhaps we need to look at this. I am also not
convinced that if you do not deal with the underlying causes of food
insecurity, you can ever deal with the problems of malnutrition and famine,
no matter how much more surplus food one generates.
Saliem Fakir,
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
Thanks to Saliem Fakir for his excellent input [23 November]. I wish to
enlarge further.
Because peasant farmers have historically been displaced into marginal zones
characterized by broken terrain, slopes, irregular rainfall, little
irrigation, and/or low soil fertility; and because they are poor and are
victimized by pervasive anti-poor and anti-small farmer biases in national
and global economic policies, their agriculture is best characterized as
complex, diverse and risk prone.
In order to survive under such circumstances, and to improve their standard
of living, they must be able to tailor agricultural technologies to their
variable but unique circumstances, in terms of local climate, topography,
soils, biodiversity, cropping systems, market insertion, resources, etc. For
this reason, such farmers have over millennia evolved complex farming and
livelihood systems which balance risks -- of drought, of market failure, of
pests, etc. -- with factors such as labor needs versus availability,
investment needed, nutritional needs, seasonal variability, etc. Typically,
their cropping systems involve multiple annual and perennial crops, animals,
fodder, even fish, and a variety of foraged wild products.
Such farmers have rarely benefited from 'top down' formal institution
research and 'green revolution' technologies. Any new strategy to truly
address productivity and poverty concerns will have to meet their needs for
multiple suitable varieties. Peasant farmers typically plant several
different varieties on their land, tailoring their choice to the
characteristics of each patch, whether it has good drainage or bad, is more
or less fertile then the rest, etc. However, such varieties cannot be easily
developed with current research and extension structures and methods - the
same structures that biotech proponents use for genetically engineered
varieties.
Formal research methods are not able to handle the vast complexity of
physical and socio-economic conditions poor farmers face. This stems from
the discrepancy between hierarchical research and extension systems, which
value monocultural 'yield' above all else, and complex rural realities. The
result of the mismatch is that numerous variables important to farmers have
to be reduced in order to produce new technologies. Measured in a few
variables, new seeds are perceived by researchers to be better than old
ones, who are puzzled when farmers fail to adopt them widely.
In reality, seeds have multiple characteristics that cannot be captured by a
single yield measure, as important as this measure may be, and farmers have
multiple site-specific requirements for their seeds, not just controlled
condition high-yields. These interconnections stand in direct contrast to
formal breeding procedures where varieties are selected individually for
discrete traits, then crossed to combine these individual traits.
Given such conditions, the inescapable conclusion is that a different
approach, participatory breeding led by organized farmers, which takes into
account the multiple characteristics of both seed varieties and farmers, is
essential. Miracle seeds will not just be developed in laboratories and on
research stations and then effortlessly distributed to farmers. Yet genetic
engineering is the very antithesis of participatory, farmer-led research.
Proponents of genetically engineered varieties are repeating the very 'top
down' errors which led first generation green revolution crop varieties to
have low adoption rates among poorer farmers.
Peter M. Rosset, Ph.D., Co-Director
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
I want to return to the question of constraints. That is, is food
production by poor farmers constrained by genotypes, or by other
factors? This is crucial to judging the potential usefulness of
transgenics.
Our research indicates that poorer third world food producers
demonstrate lagging productivity not because they lack 'miracle'
seeds that contain their own insecticide or tolerate massive doses of
herbicide, but because they have been displaced onto marginal,
rain-fed lands, and face structures and macroeconomic policies that
are increasingly inimical to food production by small farmers. When
development banks are privatized by structural adjustment (SAPs),
credit is withdrawn from small farmers. When SAPs cancel subsidies
for inputs, small farmers stop using them. When price supports end,
and domestic markets are opened to surplus food dumped by Northern
countries, prices drop and local food production becomes
unprofitable. When state marketing agencies for staple foods are
replaced by private traders, who prefer cheap imports or buying from
large wealthy farmers, small farmers find there are no longer any
buyers for what they produce. In the end, they have no economic
incentive to produce for other than auto-consumption.
These then, are the true causes of low productivity. In fact, in many parts
of the third
world, especially in Africa, farmers today produce far less then they
could with presently available know-how and technology, because there
is no incentive for them to do so--there are only low prices and few
buyers. No new seed, good or bad, can change that, and thus it is
extremely unlikely that, in the absence of urgently need structural
changes in access to land and in agricultural and trade policies,
genetic engineering could make any dent in food production by the
world's poorer farmers.
When seen in this light, it should be clear that genetic engineering
is tangential at best to the conditions and needs of the farmers we
are told it will help - it in no way addresses the principal
constraints they face.
Peter M. Rosset, Ph.D.
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
Just to reply to Peter Rosset [23 November]:
In Mexico the major debate on transgenic plants is focused on the
introduction of transgenic Maize, Beans and Squashes, and the major concern
is that Mexico is the center of origin of these species.
About the BT crops I believe that you should say that the "evidences" that
you stating are just few
articles that have been criticized by the scientific community.
Alessandro Pellegrineschi
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
We are doing some work on agrobiodiversity, and in South Africa we have
noticed a steady decline in interest in landraces, which have been integral
to African farming systems. This decline is both a result of Apartheid laws,
where millions of black peasantry were systematically displaced off their
land from the 1900s onwards, as well as the lack of incentives that
encourage interest and invesment in land-races. This problem is further
excerbated by the introduction of monoculture and hybrid seeds, because they
are easier to grow.
One of the concerns with transgenic crops is that
because it is assumed that genetic engineering (GE) offers us a fast-track
approach to identifying and introducing new traits compared to conventional
breeding systems, less priority is given to land-races. The result is that
the attention that should be given to land-races, because they are our
endowment of genetic variability for the future, is not as it should be. Or
perhaps
genetic engineering has generated a false optimism that because of
the technology, genetic variability can be introduced artificially and so
the concern with conventional methods of securing and generating variability
is not worth the investment. This I think is cause for concern, as we are
then
making ourselves more dependent and prone to risk, because we are relying on
high-technology solutions without covering all our bases adequately. This
could be
one of the major negative spin-offs of GE, as it would create a
dis-incentive
to maintain in-situ and conventional knowledge and methods of maintaining
genetic variability for fast-track technological solutions.
Saliem Fakir,
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
I am not sure that saying that poor farmers are facing other constraints
than genotype performance makes the debate useless on biotechnology/food
security. Structural changes evidently play a fundamental role in improving
the poor farmer's situation. But, if poor farmers could dispose of genotypes
with identical or better phenotypic characters than their traditional
varieties but with a higher yield, for example, I have no doubt that they
would be very happy to use them. I do not believe that, at least, in the
case of the poorest farmers, "they produce far less than they could" because
they lack incentives, as said by Peter Rosset [23 November, message entitled
"What are the causes of lagging productivity ?"...Moderator] The poorest
farmers do not need any external or market incentives to increase their
production: reducing hunger and increasing food security are quite enough.
But, of course, I agree with Peter Rosset about the catastrophic effects
that international food help or the liberalised international market have,
in many cases, on the local prices and on the small producers economy.
It was easy and, I think, useful to denounce the private companies and
numerous biotechnologists for their simplistic and dangerous propaganda on
genetic engineering (GE) products as miraculous solutions, or the only
solutions to fight against hunger. But, this demonstration is not sufficient
to discard the question of the interest of GE for their potential
contribution to improve the situation of the poorest farmers. I do believe
that there is no general answer to that question as there is no one type of
poor farmers. There is a large diversity of situations. Peter Rosset has
spoken of one type of farming system. Unfortunately this traditional complex
system with a multi-risks integration strategy has often disappeared, for
fragile mono- or oligo- culture farming systems that are much more market
dependant.
Anyway, I do not think that complexity is incompatible with the interest and
adoption of new technologies. Complexity will need deeper analysis
(multidisciplinary and global) and, as indicated by Peter Rosset and Saliem
Fakir, direct participation of the farmers themselves. In these conditions,
new technologies adapted to the farmers needs and to the environmental and
economic constraints can be defined. In definitive, I consider that the
debate about the contribution of GE has to be done case-by-case, otherwise
it will remain too vague to go farther than an ideological debate. It should
focus on each GE product: their technico-agronomic interest but also all the
questions related to their use in precise farming systems and environment.
The inventory proposed here by FAO constitutes a good starting point for
this debate.
Peter Rosset has underlined the serious defaults of the Bt modified crops
[23 November, entitled "Environmental risks are important for third world
food security too"...Moderator]. But, biotechnologists say that they will be
able in the future to integrate more than one Bt gene. In that case, the
risk of resistance arising, that constitutes the principal fault of this GE
system, would disappear. But how long it will take before they succeed ?
Will the public centres have the means to do such work for the varieties
cultivated by the poorest ? Will they have the money to study the
environmental and health implications of such plants? Will it not be more
profitable to use these financial research resources to develop new
agroecology methods, for example?
Michel FERRY
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
I have read the many recent mails with great interest, and would like to
make one point about the value of new genotypes to any agricultural
system - no one should doubt their value. To suggest otherwise is
absurd, whatever the other problems in any particular country. Just
look at what people anywhere grow now, and ask where it came from. Then
try to imagine the situation if the introduced genotypes were not there.
People have been taking new crop species and genotypes from one part of
the world and using and adapting them in others successfully for a very
long time. Biotechnology is another means for generating new
genotypes. It clearly should not be seen as the only one, nor in
developing regions necessarily even a major one, but it is there and
should not be ignored where relevant.
Trevor Fenning, Germany
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
The issue of availability and access to the products of biotechnology in
developing regions has been briefly mentioned in a few mails [e.g. Fakir, 22
November
; Immonen, 23 November...Moderator], but I would like to cover it in
more detail now, and maybe generate more of an
in-depth discussion on this topic. [Excellent idea, but please ensure that
the discussion is placed firmly in the context of the theme of the
conference i.e. 'can agricultural biotechnology help to reduce hunger and
increase food security in developing countries ?'....Moderator]
The vast majority of biotechnological products are either patented, or
the processes used to generate them are patented, or both. Not only by
private companies either - as Saliem Fakir observed [22 November], the
'research' of
many 'public' organizations has acquired a commercial slant with their
results routinely being patented, presumably in the hope of making a
profit - perhaps to avoid possible future funding squeezes. If it has not
happened already, it will soon reach the point where it is nearly
impossible to use any aspect of biotechnology for improving any major
crop species without infringing a patent somewhere in the process.
This creates two main problems. The first is that any 'late comer' to
the technology may be frozen out more or less permanently, even assuming
they can obtain the information needed to start. Sure, patents expire,
but by then new ones will probably apply, so fast is the technology
moving - so countries which have not invested in biotechnology already
(including most developing countries at a guess) will probably not be
able to make up the lost ground ever. Secondly, anyone wishing to use
the products generated will have to pay for them - and by definition
those areas with food supply / quality problems cannot afford to pay.
On the other side of the equation, the development and distribution of
crop varieties is an expensive business, whether biotechnology is used
or not. The seed business is 'high volume and low margin' in the jargon
of the markets, and if there's not enough profit in it, then the
companies involved will just drop out. Not just drop out of developing
new varieties, but drop out entirely - further limiting choice, which
can hardly be a good thing. This is not so far fetched - the stock
market valuations of seed companies right now vary from nearly zero to
less than zero. The bigger, more-diversified companies are already
trying to offload their seed businesses, and the only reason they
haven't already done so, is because no one wants to buy them. The next
step may be simple closure. Biotechnology has been in vogue for many
reasons, but one reason it adds value to be added to otherwise low value
products. So, if biotechnolgy is forced out of the equation, then so
most likely will many of the other products too.
Food insecurity ultimately revolves around a lack of prosperity and like
it or not, prosperity has never been sustained where the private sector
is weak (whether due to cultural, political, or corruption problems or
whatever), so even if it seems tempting in the short run to ignore
ownership issues surrounding crop varieties, it is unlikely to help in
the longer run, and may actually make things worse. Small farmers may
not seem so dependent upon multinational seed companies now, but it is hard
to imagine that remaining the case indefinitely, if only because their [the
small farmers]
present situation is so often unsatisfactory, and they may actually be
the ones who would benefit the most from biotechnology, if applied to
their needs.
Equally, it is not a systemic solution for the private interests
involved to waive their fees on a piecemeal basis, as individual
requests come in, however laudable the thought. Agriculture in
'developing' countries varies from the many small farmers barely making
ends meet (and not forgetting the non-farming population) to large well
equipped farms competing on international markets, often in the same
country. How to target the good intentions? If no fee is paid, who
will pay for any follow-up monitoring needed? Whatever one thinks about
such things, farmers in the US have complained that they are charged
more for Roundup resistant soybeans than farmers in Argentina (double I
think), for instance. With international markets being what they are,
super-desirable crop varieties, whether biotechnologically derived or
not, will tend to become commoditized (i.e. have a single price
internationally), thus making charitable give-aways difficult without
putting somebody out of business. Possibly unless the variety is
sterile or similar, which is controversial too.
Other major issues for which there isn't space to go into on this message
are the conflicting legal systems in different countries that apply to
agriculture, patents and patented crops; differing, but deeply held,
cultural views of agriculture; plant breeders rights; whether public
research should be commercially orientated and how to fund it if not;
should governments fund the development of near-commercial products and
if so how can that be balanced with private sector interests; what role
is there (if any) for some international biotechnological co-operation
agency ?? And probably much else besides.
Trevor Fenning, Germany
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
The impact of biotechnology on food security may only be felt once
fundamental issues have been addressed. While good germplasm of several
crops exists, why is productivity in developing countries low ?
Socio-economics, politics, inappropriate policies, pricing etc have a
significant effect on how producers behave. In developing countries, a
significant improvement in food production may only occur if policies are
right and small farmers have access to inputs. There are intractable
problems such as drought, soil fertility, etc. that limit production. Can
biotechnology overcome these constraints? I see biotechnology having the
greatest impact in the area of crop protection.
Denash P Giga
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
Trevor Fenning [27 November] raises an interesting question to my mind:
whether in fact patents will lead to diversity in the generation of new food
crop innovations, or will it simply close the loop.
There is no evidence, or at least as far as I can see, that there is a
strong relationship between innovation and technological progress. My
hypothesis is that innovation comes from diversity. But, the trend in
patents is that the ownership of intellectual property rights is in the
hands of fewer and fewer companies. Most patents rights are bought from
individual inventors as soon as they are out, because individual inventors
do not have the Research and Development resources to take these ideas any
further, other than having an idea patented on paper. So, in the food
industry the shift from plant breeder's rights to patents over germplasm, is
a new slant to this debate. And, the
consequences of introducing patents, which is allowed under the new
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV)
agreement, facilitates concentration, and when you have concentration, you
also create a disincentive for independent inventors or less capitalised
firms from investing any further in innovation.
Is agricultural innovation not a key to its success? The question is whether
biotechnology, as it is now, advances or limits innovation in food
production. And, if so, how can we best determine that the innovation
addesses priority
concerns, especially for developing country farmers ? This would assume that
we accept the idea that innovation in
food production must no longer be the farmer's preserve - an issue that is
equally political. Because this is about
who should have control over the products of knowledge - where,
traditionally, farmers were at the core of farming
innovation. The problem with patents is that they introduce a new notion of
property rights over intangibles, they reduce the incentive, to use Maussian
terms, the encouragement of a 'gift economy' mentality. Where, particular in
ancient farming, the 'gift economy' mentality that prevailed was to share
knowledge, to share seeds, and other farming experiences. Now that research
is in the hands of corporations (non-farmers) a new ethos is being
introduced. You only give when giving in return, and not just for the sake
of giving, as would be the case
in 'gift economies'.
Saliem Fakir,
[Note: In Trevor Fennings message of 27 November (referred to above), the
second last sentence of the 4th paragraph i.e. "Biotechnology has been in
vogue for many reasons, but one reason it adds value to be added to
otherwise low value products." should be read as "Biotechnology has been in
vogue for many reasons, but one reason is that it
adds value to otherwise low value bulk products"....Moderator]
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
Denash P Giga [29 November] writes: "There are intractable problems such as
drought, soil
fertility, etc. that limit production. Can biotechnology overcome these
constraints? I see biotechnology having the greatest impact in the area of
crop protection."
I feel that the reintroduction of native species of plants -- which, on the
whole, are more productive and far more nutritious -- will address these
problems as well as, or better than, GM crops. There are countless
nutritious grains, vegetables, and legumes that are drought resistant and
that thrive in poor soils. Historic trends -- mainly colonialism -- has
supplanted these crops with crops nutritionally inferior and ill-suited for
the habitats they are being forced to grow in. In addition, native plants
are generally more pest resistant than the foreign invaders.
Jeffrey Reel, USA
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
The Chief Executive Officer of Nestle has declared very recently that the
refusal of GMOs by Europeans was an egoist position. By its position of
refusal, Europe would not assume, according to him, its responsibility to
fight against hunger (Agence France Presse, 27/11/2000). From a company that
has been accused of being responsible for millions of deaths with its
propaganda for powder milk instead of breast milk, this statement has
something very indecent. But, it constitutes also another clear example of
the perverse and indecent use of the hunger in the world by the private
companies for their GMO development propaganda.
Concerning hunger in the world, my global impression, after all the
exchanges that we have had here in this conference, is that no
biotechnologist till now has been able to demonstrate the necessity and
adaptability of GMO to fight against hunger.
Michel FERRY
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
[email protected]
For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
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: [email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 4:15 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Vitamin A deficiency // GM rice
Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology,
Jena, Germany.
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 8:30 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Pros and Cons of GE for the poor
Co-Director
Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy
398 60th Street
Oakland, California 94618 USA
tel: +1-510-654-4400 x224 fax: +1-510/654-4551
e-mail: [email protected]
http://www.foodfirst.org
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:39 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Vitamin A deficiency // GM rice
The question is how many different varieties will be transformed. I don't
know if they plan to transform different varieties - more likely, they will
just cross this plant with the local varieties. This is the same as what
would be done if a gene was introduced from a wild relative: introducing a
new gene and trying to eliminate most of the foreign genome by
backcrossing. I think one of the lessons learned from the green revolution
is that narrow genetic diversity is something we should avoid in the
future, so they will try to put these genes into as many different
varieties as necessary. It is also clear that it would be useless to grow
the same variety in many different locations - farmers like their local,
well-adapted varieties and will stick to them if they can. Other varieties
wouldn't do as well.
So how many farmer will be able to buy these seeds? The inventors of this
rice patented it and now have an agreement with Zeneca. Zeneca will be able
to market the rice in the developed countries and they will take care of
the different patents involved, but will give it away for free in the
developing countries. Developing countries' farmers will be able to make up
to US $10 000 profits per year without having to pay any royalties to
Zeneca.
Dpartment of Plant and Microbial Biology
111 Koshland Hall
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
Phone: 510-642-1589
FAX: 510-642-7356
[email protected]
Web address: http://plantbio.berkeley.edu/~outreach
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 3:38 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Biotechnology and hunger/food security
Animal Breeding and Genetics Group
Wageningen University
P.O. Box 338
6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
Tel. 00 317 484627
Fax. 00 317 483929
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 8:31 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: GM rice and reasoned debate
Program Leader, Genetics and Genomics
International Livestock Research Institute
P.O. Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya
tell [254] 2 630743 ext 4709 or [1] 650-833-6660 ext 4709
facs [254] 2 631499 or [1] 650-833-6661
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: http://www.cgiar.org/ilri/
{Note that telephone calls from most countries will be cheaper and
receive better connections if routed via the USA numbers given above}
31 Arden Street, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH9 1BS.
Tel 0131 446 9197 (no message service)
Mobile phone: [44] 0777 638 4876 (with message service)
email: [email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 8:39 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Vitamin A deficiency // GM rice
http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/biotech/belgium-gmo.html
Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy
398 60th Street
Oakland, California 94618 USA
tel: +1-(510)-654-4400 x224 fax: +1-(510)-654-4551
[email protected]
http://www.foodfirst.org
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 8:46 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Biotechnology and hunger/food security
Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy
398 60th Street
Oakland, California 94618 USA
tel: +1-(510)-654-4400 x224 fax: +1-(510)-654-4551
[email protected]
http://www.foodfirst.org
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 9:05 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Vitamin A deficiency // GM rice
Food Aid Centre
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
Canada
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 12:02 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Vitamin A deficiency // GM rice
- the biotechnology scientist's dominant, partial and biased view of the
complex question of development and/or hunger.
- the scientist's incomplete or distorted presentation of the GMOs proposed
objectives and results.
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: [email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 2:23 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: When and why to use Biotech ?
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 2:28 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Politics and science
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 3:58 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Biotechnology and hunger/food security
In reply to Peter Rosset's message [10 November]:
Cell Biologist
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
Apdo. Postal 6-641
06600 Mexico, D.F., MEXICO
PH: (52) 5804-7537 [In USA: (650) 833-6655]
FX: (52) 5804-7558, 7559 [In USA: (650) 833-6656]
EM: [email protected]
(CIMMYT home page on WWW: www.cimmyt.cgiar.org
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 4:02 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Vitamin A deficiency // GM rice
LabConsS - Lab of Consumer and Health
Fed Univ of Rio de Janeiro - BRAZIL
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 10:12 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Biotechnology and hunger/food security
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: [email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: GMOs- potential negative effects in developing countries
Animal Breeding and Genetics Group
Wageningen University
P.O. Box 338
6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
Tel. 00 317 484627
Fax. 00 317 483929
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 10:41 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Six points about transgenic crops
Regional Coordinator
PROMIPAC-Zamorano
Managua,
Nicaragua
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 9:05 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: GM technology in developed world to feed developing countries
Assistant Professor
Department of Ecology & Evolution
State University of New York
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245, USA
Phone: (631)-632-9508
Fax: (631)-632-7626
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 9:15 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Biotechnology and hunger/food security
Cell Biologist
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
Apdo. Postal 6-641
06600 Mexico, D.F., MEXICO
PH: (52) 5804-7537 [In USA: (650) 833-6655]
FX: (52) 5804-7558, 7559 [In USA: (650) 833-6656]
EM: [email protected]
(CIMMYT home page on WWW: www.cimmyt.cgiar.org)
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 9:34 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Developing countries to develop their own biotechnology
Department of Philosophy
Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University
Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Tel. (+662) 218-4756 Fax. (+662) 218-4867
e-mail: [email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 1:56 PM
To: 'biotech[email protected]'
Subject: Transfer of knowledge behind biotechnology
1. The total yield that is possible (agronomy & plant breeding)
2. The sustainability of the agricultural practises which are being
followed (agronomy)
Biotechnology can assist in both questions.
Teagasc, Kinsealy Research Centre
Malahide Rd. Dublin 17
Ireland
Phone: 353 1 8460644 Fax:353 1 8460524
e-mail: [email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 5:58 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Golden Rice and "silver bullets'
InfoNet http://www.biotech-info.net
Benbrook Consulting Services
CU FQPA site
http://www.ecologic-ipm.com
5085 Upper Pack River Road IPM site
Sandpoint, Idaho 83864
Voice: (208)-263-5236
Fax: (208)-263-7342
E-mail: [email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 9:23 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Six points about transgenic crops
Co-Director
Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy
398 60th Street
Oakland, California 94618 USA
tel: +1-510-654-4400 x224 fax: +1-510/654-4551
[email protected]
Visit our website: http://www.foodfirst.org
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 8:51 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Six points about transgenic crops
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 3:34 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Why try biotechnology products in fight against hunger ?
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: [email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 9:06 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Private industry and the poorer countries
"OK, the research and development strategies of big business and the
wealthier countries are not really aimed at easing the problems of poorer
countries,"(Trevor Fenning, 15 November);
"In fact biotechnology, together with information technology, is being
heralded as the next 'wave' of technology that drives the economy forward.
The US, for example, is aggressively pushing biotechnological products
such as GM crops in the world market," (Soraj Hongladarom, 13 November).
Assistant Professor
Department of Ecology and Evolution
State University of New York
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245, USA
Tel: (631) 632-9508
FAX: (631) 632-7626
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 8:51 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Private industry and the poorer countries
http://www.foodfirst.org
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 11:50 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Private industry and the poorer countries
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 2:09 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Hunger/poverty biotech debate - Mixed feelings
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 2:20 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Private industry and the poorer countries
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 3:57 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Economic problems in general
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 5:26 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Can biotech (versus Will biotech) help food security
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: [email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 8:30 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Private industry and the poorer countries
Institute of Development Studies,
Brighton,
England.
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:57 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Economic problems in general
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: [email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 3:13 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Private industry and the poorer countries
head of the World Conservation
Union Country Office in South Africa.
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 8:32 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Economic problems in general
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 8:42 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Two solutions on route to food security
CSIRO Marine Research
GPO Box 1538
Hobart, Tasmania 7001
AUSTRALIA
ph: 61-3-62325114, fax: 61-3-62325090
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.marine.csiro.au/
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 12:13 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Private industry and the poorer countries
head of the World Conservation
Union Country Office in South Africa.
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 3:54 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Two solutions on route to food security
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 9:54 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: The role of genetic improvement
Senior Officer (Agricultural Research)
FAO, TAC Secretariat, C-626
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome, Italy
tel: (39) 06 570 54861
fax (39) 06 570 53298
E-mail: [email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 10:00 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Environmental risks are important for third world food security
too
Diego Duguelay No. 38, Casa Tucan
Colonia El Cerillo
29220 San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico
Tel/fax: +52-9-6789708
eFax: +1-(253)-295-5257 (USA fax number which
automatically bounces to me at no extra charge)
[email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Please do not send to both email addresses, as both are
checked with same frequency.
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 10:03 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Priority setting
Professor, International Agronomy
384C Plant and Soil Sciences Bldg
Michigan State University, USA
517-355-2383517-353-3955 (fax)
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 10:10 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Sub-Saharan Africa
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 10:22 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Economic problems in general
Department of Philosophy
Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University
Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Tel. (+662) 218-4756 Fax. (+662) 218-4867
Science in Thai Culture Project: http://www.stc.arts.chula.ac.th/
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 10:35 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Private industry and the poorer countries
Is there merit in an international strategy for biotechnology that is
supported by public sector institutions ? Research that focuses on
alleviating povery and malnutrition. And, is this not what should be tabled
or discussed at the next World Food Summit?
head of the World Conservation
Union Country Office in South Africa.
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 11:21 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Two solutions on route to food security
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: [email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 2:12 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Environmental risks are important for.....
head of the World Conservation
Union Country Office in South Africa.
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 5:29 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Environmental risks are important for.....
Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy
398 60th Street
Oakland, California 94618 USA
tel: +1-(510)-654-4400 x224 fax: +1-(510)-654-4551
--------------------------------------------------------------
Office in Mexico:
Diego Duguelay No. 38, Casa Tucan
Colonia El Cerillo
29220 San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico
Tel/fax: +52-9-6789708
eFax: +1-(253)-295-5257 (USA fax number which
automatically bounces to me at no extra charge)
[email protected]
[email protected]
Note: Please do not send to both email addresses, as both are
checked with same frequency.
website: http://www.foodfirst.org
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 5:35 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: What are the causes of lagging productivity ?
[email protected]
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 8:45 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Environmental risks are important for.....
Cell Biologist
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
Apdo. Postal 6-641
06600 Mexico, D.F., MEXICO
PH: (52) 5804-7537 [In USA: (650) 833-6655]
FX: (52) 5804-7558, 7559 [In USA: (650) 833-6656]
EM: [email protected]
(CIMMYT home page on WWW: www.cimmyt.cgiar.org)
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 8:48 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Environmental risks are important for.....
head of the World Conservation
Union Country Office in South Africa.
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 1:59 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: What are the causes of lagging productivity ?
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: [email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 2:03 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: The value of new genotypes
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 3:39 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Availability, Access and Patents
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 8:56 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Can biotechnology overcome major constraints ?
2 Fletcher Avenue
Khumalo - BULAWAYO
Zimbabwe
P.O. Box 629 BULAWAYO
Tel: 229846
e-mail: [email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 9:30 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Availability, Access and Patents
head of the World Conservation
Union Country Office in South Africa.
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:38 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Can biotechnology overcome major constraints ?
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 2:33 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Hunger and GMO development propaganda
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: [email protected]