Conference 5: All posts in November 2000

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
faoresajo@skannet.com

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 3:48 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
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.

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)
--------------------------------------------------------------
rosset@foodfirst.org
rosset@mundomaya.com.mx
--------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 8:45 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
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
luizeduardo@alternex.com.br
www.ufrj.br/consumo

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 3:18 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
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.

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.

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.

http://www.cgiar.org/ilri/

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: jpgibson@talk21.com

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.

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!

[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]

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.

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
--------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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: m.ferry@wanadoo.es

[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]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 3:36 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
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.

[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]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 4:15 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Vitamin A deficiency // GM rice

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.
Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology,
Jena, Germany.
Fenning@ice.mpg.de

[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]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 8:30 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Pros and Cons of GE for the poor

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.
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: rosset@foodfirst.org
http://www.foodfirst.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:39 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Vitamin A deficiency // GM rice

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)
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.

Questions 2)
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.

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.
Dpartment of Plant and Microbial Biology
111 Koshland Hall
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
Phone: 510-642-1589
FAX: 510-642-7356
pfrey@nature.berkeley.edu
Web address: http://plantbio.berkeley.edu/~outreach

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 3:38 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Biotechnology and hunger/food security

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
Animal Breeding and Genetics Group
Wageningen University
P.O. Box 338
6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
Tel. 00 317 484627
Fax. 00 317 483929
Delphin.Koudande@Alg.VF.WAU.NL

[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]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 8:31 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: GM rice and reasoned debate

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
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: j.gibson@cgiar.org
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}

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 8:39 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Vitamin A deficiency // GM rice

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:
http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/biotech/belgium-gmo.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 8:46 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Biotechnology and hunger/food security

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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 9:05 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Vitamin A deficiency // GM rice

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
Food Aid Centre
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
Canada
BRUCE_HOWELL@acdi-cida.gc.ca

[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]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 12:02 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Vitamin A deficiency // GM rice

[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) ?

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 2:23 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: When and why to use Biotech ?

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 2:28 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Politics and science

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.

teresa.paramio@uab.es

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 3:58 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Biotechnology and hunger/food security
In reply to Peter Rosset's message [10 November]:

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
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: A.Pellegrineschi@cgiar.org
(CIMMYT home page on WWW: www.cimmyt.cgiar.org

[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]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 4:02 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Vitamin A deficiency // GM rice

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
LabConsS - Lab of Consumer and Health
Fed Univ of Rio de Janeiro - BRAZIL

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 10:12 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Biotechnology and hunger/food security

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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1

Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 10:24 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: GMOs- potential negative effects in developing countries

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
Animal Breeding and Genetics Group
Wageningen University
P.O. Box 338
6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
Tel. 00 317 484627
Fax. 00 317 483929
Delphin.Koudande@Alg.VF.WAU.NL

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 10:41 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Six points about transgenic crops

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
Regional Coordinator
PROMIPAC-Zamorano
Managua,
Nicaragua
ajhruska@hotmail.com

[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]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 9:05 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: GM technology in developed world to feed developing countries

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
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
geeta@life.bio.sunysb.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 9:15 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Biotechnology and hunger/food security

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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 9:34 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Developing countries to develop their own biotechnology

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
Department of Philosophy
Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University
Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Tel. (+662) 218-4756 Fax. (+662) 218-4867
e-mail: hsoraj@chula.ac.th

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 1:56 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Transfer of knowledge behind biotechnology

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
Teagasc, Kinsealy Research Centre
Malahide Rd. Dublin 17
Ireland
Phone: 353 1 8460644 Fax:353 1 8460524
e-mail: gdouglas@kinsealy.teagasc.ie

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 5:58 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Golden Rice and "silver bullets'

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
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: benbrook@hillnet.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 9:23 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Six points about transgenic crops

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.
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
rosset@foodfirst.org
Visit our website: http://www.foodfirst.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 8:51 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Six points about transgenic crops

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
Fenning@ice.mpg.de

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 3:34 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Why try biotechnology products in fight against hunger ?

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)!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 9:06 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Private industry and the poorer countries

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 );
"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).

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
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
geeta@life.bio.sunysb.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 8:51 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Private industry and the poorer countries

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

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 11:50 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Private industry and the poorer countries

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

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

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

Jeffrey Reel, USA
JeffreyReel@aol.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trevor Fenning, Germany
Fenning@ice.mpg.de

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 8:30 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Private industry and the poorer countries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:57 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Economic problems in general

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 3:13 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Private industry and the poorer countries

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

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

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

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 8:32 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Economic problems in general

Just to clarify my last mail [20 November] (and the responses to it!) - I think it is laudable that the thought has been made vis 'Golden rice', without making any comment as to its chances of success (as I said previously). The emphasis seems to have been overlooked.

Incidentally, so far as I am aware little if any 'public' money has been 'wasted' on this project, since it was privately funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. As I have pointed out, private organizations, companies or individuals are free to spend their investment money how they wish, and we should not expect such expenditure to help the poorer regions of this world (because it generally doesn't) - but when sometimes an effort is made it should be congratulated.

I get the impression from much of the debate on this issue (and not just here) that anything that has been touched by big corporations or biotechnology is anathema in certain quarters and will be rejected outright on principle, which seems to be in danger of becoming part of the problem. I hope a flexible view can prevail, however, where the useful can be adopted (and the failures dumped) regardless of source or politics.

Trevor Fenning, Germany
Fenning@ice.mpg.de

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 8:42 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Two solutions on route to food security

My name is Stanley Robert. I am a molecular geneticist studying fatty acid biosynthesis in marine microalgae with a view to modifying oil composition in crop plants. I also have hands-on experience in small, organic family farms and an interest in agricultural technologies and their impacts.

There are two main viewpoints, on the route to developing countries' food security, that appear to be in conflict.

On the one hand, aid workers, NGO's and well nourished greenies believe that the solution will be found in community access to land and preservation of agricultural diversity peppered with ecologically-based land management and the occasional high-tech device (e.g. solar-powered water pumps).

On the other hand, many developing country politicians, Western politicians, biotech companies, stock market analysts etc. believe that the route to food security is via the developing countries "exporting" themselves out of poverty. Then, they argue, the developing country people will have money to go to their local McDonalds.(I am no economist but I cannot see how, with the present system and the developed countries' rates of consumption, all countries could be "developed").

For Solution 1, biotechnology appears to be a very low priority and many people in this conference have said so.

Solution 2 would make ample use of biotechnologies and the consolidation of small farms into large exporting farms.

I think that many biotechnology scientists, when arguing (or simply stating) that biotechnology is the tool for food security, without necessarily realising it, are supporting Solution 2.

Given that most biotech scientists aren't economists and therefore, like me, would be unable to visualise the effects of the shift away from subsistence agriculture to export agriculture, this support is uninformed and therefore unwise.

Does anyone believe that biotechnology is or can be a central part of solution 1?

Stanley Robert
CSIRO Marine Research
GPO Box 1538
Hobart, Tasmania 7001
AUSTRALIA
ph: 61-3-62325114, fax: 61-3-62325090
mailto:stanley.robert@marine.csiro.au
http://www.marine.csiro.au/

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 12:13 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Private industry and the poorer countries

The report on "Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture", compiled by the Royal Society of London, the US National Academy of sciences etc, makes interesting reading, although it is sort of bland in terms of its critique.

The two most interesting sections are those dealig with the role of public and private sector, and intellectual property rights (IPR). Given that this is written by members of the scientific community, the conclusions they draw are all the more striking and fascinating. For instance, they argue for a balance in research funding between private and public sector funding. The reasons being, as the report notes, is that in the private sector "research priorities are driven by market forces." and elsewhere, the report continues this line - "Whereas fundamental research is still being carried out by the public sector, the strategic application, in sharp contrast to the "Green Revolution", takes place largely in the private sector where much of the intellectual property is controlled". The report's next insight argument is that the main reason why public sector funding should not diminish, as is the case now, is simply, "If such research were wholly private, even in perfectly functioning market, the demands of rich consumers for innovation in their own interests would overwhelm the price signals from poor consumers and small-scale farmers".

On intellectual property rights, it raises caution about the increased private sector control over intellectual property, and the lack of similar counter-balance from the public sector. In particular, it points out that historically, the private sector has benefited from knowledge and resource transfers from the public sector and the CGIAR institutes, and has not in any significant way ploughed back the returns from IPR to these institutions. The issue of IPR raises questions as to whether in fact this is likely to stifle further innovation, or constrain the public sector's ability to use knowledge or resources that help new innovations to be generated. In fact, the report is suggestive that while Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURT) can have benefits, the private sector uses them to control the use of their technologies. And, given the tradition of seed saving in developing countries, especially small-scale and subsistence farmers, GURT technologies, or what are referred to as terminator seeds, are likely to have negative economic consequences on these farmers.

The report initially struck me as yet another exercise by scientists to push us further down the track of uncritically looking at the issue of GE technologies, but in fact, as one reads further, one gets a sense that there are finer political nuances and an attempt to be balanced emerging from the text. A useful reading I think, if anybody is interested. The web address was given by one of the participants earlier.

[The website for this "Seven Academies" report was previously given in the message of Charles Benbrook, 13 November.....Moderator]

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 3:54 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Two solutions on route to food security

[Thanks to Trevor Fenning for this message, the 50th of the conference, which is now approaching the half-way point. In the second half of the conference, we especially encourage increased participation by individuals in developing countries...Moderator]

I think the comment about the 'two solutions' to alleviating food insecurity and the possible impact of biotechnology may possibly be true for the majority of the industrially orientated biotechnology products - as has been the case for the industrialization process in general (people moving / being moved from rural areas to the growing cities, thus feeding the labour markets and the demand for more industrial type products etc. etc.).

But with the changing technology perhaps it does not have to be like that (but only perhaps), and certainly biotechnological offerings (as distinct from 'products') do not necessarily have to play the role suggested in such a process. Although often lumped together, biotechnology is bigger than just the companies involved.

As a 'biotechnologist' I take a fairly jaundiced view of what the technology has to offer developing countries food supply problems, at least in the short term (Golden rice etc. is a medium term option, and in the longer term who knows ?), for reasons I have noted previously. But, the best approach is simply to make available whatever there is, which is at least theoretically suitable for a particular region, and see what happens. If people like it, they will use it, but if they don't - then they won't, as per the operation of any market. The risk of failure is high when attempts are made (however well meaning) to impose rigid paternalistic solutions on (other peoples) complex problems - a warning which surely applies across the board to all aid programmes.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 9:54 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: The role of genetic improvement

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
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: Sirkka.Immonen@fao.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 10:00 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Environmental risks are important for third world food security too

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,
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)

rosset@foodfirst.org
rosset@portalmundomaya.net
--------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Please do not send to both email addresses, as both are checked with same frequency.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 10:03 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Priority setting

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. The self-directed work teams develop a vision for their area, look at the human and financial needs and in the process help to set priorities for the research program. These self-directed work teams are really coalitions of stakeholders working together to improve the quality of life for their clientele.

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
Professor, International Agronomy
384C Plant and Soil Sciences Bldg
Michigan State University, USA
517-355-2383517-353-3955 (fax)
freed@pilot.msu.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 10:10 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Sub-Saharan Africa

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
tkambikambi@agric.unza.zm

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 10:22 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Economic problems in general

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
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/

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 10:35 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Private industry and the poorer countries

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 11:21 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Two solutions on route to food security

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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 2:12 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Environmental risks are important for.....

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 5:29 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Environmental risks are important for.....

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
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)
rosset@foodfirst.org
rosset@portalmundomaya.net
Note: Please do not send to both email addresses, as both are checked with same frequency.
website: http://www.foodfirst.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 5:35 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: What are the causes of lagging productivity ?

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.
rosset@foodfirst.org
rosset@portalmundomaya.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 8:45 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Environmental risks are important for.....

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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 8:48 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Environmental risks are important for.....

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 1:59 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: What are the causes of lagging productivity ?

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?

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 2:03 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: The value of new genotypes

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
Fenning@ice.mpg.de

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 3:39 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Availability, Access and Patents

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
Fenning@ice.mpg.de

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 8:56 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Can biotechnology overcome major constraints ?

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
2 Fletcher Avenue
Khumalo - BULAWAYO
Zimbabwe
P.O. Box 629 BULAWAYO
Tel: 229846
e-mail: dgiga@gatorzw.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 9:30 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Availability, Access and Patents

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

[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]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:38 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Can biotechnology overcome major constraints ?

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
JeffreyReel@aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 2:33 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Hunger and GMO development propaganda

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.

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