7.1 BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
7.2 SUMMARY DOCUMENT
CAN AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY HELP TO REDUCE HUNGER AND INCREASE FOOD SECURITY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES?
In the public debate about biotechnology in general (and genetically modified food in particular), it has been argued by different parties that biotechnology either will or will not help to reduce hunger and increase food security in developing countries. The aim of this conference is to allow a more detailed and comprehensive discussion of this topic. The aim of this document is to provide some brief background to the subject as well as to mention some of the factors that should be considered in the conference.
The first edition of the State of Food Insecurity in the World, published by FAO in October 1999, provided a recent update on the status regarding hunger in the world (for those with access to the Web, the report can be found at www.fao.org/NEWS/1999/991004-e.htm). It estimated that in 1995-1997 there were roughly 790 million undernourished people in developing countries (and 34 million in developed countries), i.e. whose food intake was insufficient to meet basic energy requirements on a continuing basis. The majority (524 million) was in Asia, including 204 and 164 million in India and China, respectively, while there were 180 million undernourished in sub-Saharan Africa.
The report also examined changes from 1980 to 1996 in the proportion of undernourished people in a selection of countries, to try and understand the factors determining such changes. The analysis highlighted, as other reports have previously done, that many different demographic (e.g. changes in population size or the degree of urbanization), environmental (e.g. degradation of land), economic (e.g. changes in Gross Domestic Product), social (e.g. road infrastructure, literacy) and political (e.g. war, economic boycotts) factors may affect the degree to which particular population groups are vulnerable to poverty and hunger.
The global population size is currently six billion, and it is rising rapidly. By the year 2020, it is expected to reach 7.5 to eight billion. Where will the food come from to feed these additional mouths? Can it be provided by ‘‘conventional’’ methods of plant, animal or fish production alone? An important factor to be considered is that much of the land currently used to produce food is being degraded - largely due to overgrazing, poor farming practices and deforestation. To counterbalance this, one might ask whether there is much additional land that can be brought into use for food production. There is some scope for extending the land area used for production in Africa and South America, although this may be at the expense of forestry and wildlife. For Asia there is little scope for extension of the land base. Under these conditions, will it be possible to provide enough food for the additional billions, without using biotechnology in plant, animal and fish production? Is biotechnology indispensable if we are to successfully meet the challenge of an increasing world population?
However, the problem of hunger is complex and does not just depend on the amount of food produced. Currently, enough food is produced globally to feed all its inhabitants. Nevertheless, around 15 percent of them are undernourished. Is the unequal distribution of resources and food a greater threat to world hunger than the sheer quantity of food produced? Biotechnology may increase the amount of food produced but will it affect the key problems of unequal access to food? Is it possible that we may end up in the situation where the amount of food produced globally increases, with the help of biotechnology, but so also does the number and proportion of hungry people?
Comments from Professor Mazoyer in a recent FAO publication, The State of Food and Agriculture 2000, might be of relevance in this context. He wrote “After 50 years of modernization, world agricultural production today is more than sufficient to feed six billion human beings adequately. Cereal production alone, at about two billion tonnes or 330 kg of grain per caput/year and representing 3 600 calories per caput/day, could to a large extent cover the energy needs of the whole population if it were well distributed. However, cereal availability varies greatly from one country to another: more than 600 kg per caput/year in the developed countries, where most is in fact used as animal feed, but fewer than 200 kg per caput/year in the poorer countries. Moreover, within each country, access to food or the means to produce food is very uneven among households. Consequently, in many countries, large segments of the population do not have enough food. And the large majority of the 830 million chronically undernourished are in the poor peasant farming community. 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.”
Another factor that might be considered for discussion during the conference is that agricultural biotechnology has primarily been driven by private industry for farmers in developed countries. The products developed so far have, with few exceptions, not been targeted towards poor farmers in developing countries. Will biotechnology, which can potentially increase the efficiency and quality of food production, provide tools to aggravate inequalities in the world? If trade barriers are progressively reduced, through organizations such as the WTO and export of food from developed to developing countries becomes easier and more commonplace, is it possible that biotechnology will make this trade more profitable, thus creating or increasing the dependency of developing countries on developed countries for food?
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.
For those wishing to be reminded of the types of biotechnologies currently available in the four sectors, the Background Documents of the first four conferences may be useful. For the crop sector, brief descriptions of genetic modification, micropropagation and biotechnologies based on molecular markers were provided. For the forestry sector, brief descriptions of genetic modification and biotechnologies based on vegetative reproduction or molecular markers were provided. For the livestock sector, reproductive biotechnologies (embryo transfer, cloning, etc.) and DNA-based technologies in animal health, animal nutrition and growth and animal genetics and breeding were described. For the fisheries sector, brief descriptions of molecular marker biotechnologies, induction of polyploidy, sex-reversal and creation of single sex fish groups, hybridization, selective breeding, freezing of male gametes, genetic modification and DNA-based technologies for fish health were provided.
Coming after the first four conferences, dealing with crops, forestry, animals and fisheries respectively, this was the first conference not dedicated to a single agricultural or food sector. Interest in the theme of the conference was high, based on the number of people registered and of messages posted. The level of participation was the highest of the six conferences, with 18 percent of those registered submitting at least one message.
The main impetus behind choice of this theme for the conference was to allow more in-depth discussion of one of the factors considered in previous conferences (especially on the crop sector) to have an impact on the appropriateness of agricultural biotechnologies, i.e. their potential role in increasing food security and reducing hunger in developing countries. Certain aspects of discussions concerning biotechnology have been quite polarized. One of the most hard-fought debating issues regarding biotechnology and especially GM crops, is whether they can be of potential value for food security and hunger in developing countries. Taking two divergent viewpoints, at one end it is argued that biotechnology has great potential, the world’s population is increasing steadily (and almost all growth is in developing countries) and that biotechnology will enable mankind to increase food supplies to feed the world’s new inhabitants. At the other extreme, it is argued that biotechnology is primarily in the hands of private industry, that the private industry has to make profits and lacks real interest in the world’s poor, but will use any marketing opportunities to promote the use of biotechnology.
In the conference, when discussing specific applications of agricultural biotechnology, participants tended to focus on the crop sector. This even led to some individuals (e.g. Steane, 5/12; Jeggo, 12/12; Donkin 13/12) suggesting that the livestock sector had been wrongfully neglected. Impacts of biotechnologies in the fisheries or forestry sectors were unfortunately not discussed. Although the range of available biotechnologies is quite wide, there tended to be most emphasis on a single biotechnology - genetic modification. In particular, there was considerable discussion of one GM variety, the so-called “golden rice”, into which three foreign genes have been introduced so that it produces provitamin A.
On many specific points of debate, considerable differences of opinion were expressed by various parties and there was often a social-political dimension to such differences. For example, Fenning (15/12(1)) referred to messages posted with “dogmatic and strident tones” and wrote that the conference was affected by “unhelpful political rhetoric”. Given the theme of the conference, however, it was probably impossible to expect political and ethical concerns to be ignored and as Ashton (12/12) argued “this debate cannot be separated into scientific and political aspects. The two are inseparable”.
People’s perception of the role or impact of biotechnology on food security and hunger, often depends on their vision of how food security may be achieved and how hunger may be best alleviated. For example, Robert (22/11) argued that there were two main viewpoints concerning the route to food security in developing countries. The first solution involves community access to land, preservation of agricultural diversity and ecologically based land management while the second involves increasing the levels of exports from developing countries so they have the purchasing power to ensure their food security. He suggested that people who believed in the first viewpoint would rank biotechnology as a very low priority while those who believed in the second viewpoint would support the use of biotechnology to increase exports and the efficiency of agricultural production.
A large number of topics were covered in the six and a half weeks that the conference lasted. In addition, some participants provided references in their messages to material published on the World Wide Web so that others (with access to the web) could pursue these topics further. A considerable amount of information directly or indirectly relevant to this debate is freely available on the web.
In Section 7.2.1 of this document, we have attempted to summarize the main elements of the discussions under a number of main themes. Specific references to messages posted, giving the participant’s surname and the date posted (day/month of the year 2000), are included. The messages can be viewed at www.fao.org/biotech/logs/c5logs.htm. In a few cases, where individuals posted more than one message on a single day, they can be differentiated by the order in which they were posted (e.g. Rosset, 10/11(1) indicates the first message posted by Peter Rosset on 10 November). Section 7.2.2 gives the name and country of the people that sent referenced messages.
7.2.1 Discussions in the conference
As befitting the theme of the conference, participants paid a lot of attention throughout the conference to the causes of hunger and food insecurity in developing countries and the potential impact and relative importance of using biotechnology against these problems.
7.2.1.1 The causes of hunger and food insecurity in developing countries
There was wide agreement among participants that hunger and food security are complex issues and that their causes (and potential solutions) were economic, social and political, as well as technical (e.g. Fenning, 6/11; Greyling, 20/11; Glover, 21/11). There seemed, however, to be some differences in the relative importance participants attributed to the various causal factors.
Rusch (8/11) provided a clear description of food security, saying that “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”. He then argued that the ability to produce food within the community “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”.
Rosset (9/11) suggested that the underlying causes of lagging productivity, hunger and poverty in developing countries were, first and foremost, structural and policy-related in nature rather than due to genetic constraints that could be alleviated by biotechnology. Koudandé (9/11) supported this viewpoint, emphasizing the importance of soil and water management. Immonen (23/11) reminded us, however, that in the coming decades there will be a serious need to produce more food, probably through higher productivity per land area unit.
Hongladarom (13/11) emphasized the fact that hunger is linked to other problems, especially poverty, and consequently, to reduce hunger, poverty has to be reduced too. This point was also made by Madalena (5/12), i.e. that “hunger is due to the fact that people do not have the money to buy food”. Carvalho (3/11) evoked this very well with his description of the hungry urban dweller, faced with the wide range of foods available in the supermarkets but lacking the money to buy them.
The socio-political context was emphasized by Fakir (11/12) who said that food insecurity was least about good technology and achieving higher yields but instead was “fundamentally, a reflection and symbolism of the inequities that exist in our societies” and that the real issues facing food security were those such as democracy, structures of national economies and land rights (Fakir, 21/11). The potential impact of unequal distribution of resources/food on hunger was also discussed in the Background Document to the conference and this aspect was highlighted by Napier (18/12), who insisted that world hunger was due to problems of food distribution rather than of food production.
Muir (14/12 and 15/12) suggested that a wider view should be taken of the debate and that food security was determined by the population carrying capacity of the environment, i.e. that there are biological and physical limitations to the number of people that the environment can support, which ultimately limits expansion of the human population. Growth of the human population is thus central - if it continues to grow then, even if natural resources are shared equally, the limit will eventually be reached. Fenning, 15/12(1) supported this view and suggested that some people may already be suffering from this limit.
7.2.1.2 How biotechnology can contribute to reducing hunger and increasing food security in developing countries
In general, when people in the conference proposed that biotechnology could contribute to reducing food insecurity and hunger in developing countries, they tended to be quite cautious and measured in their statements, without ignoring the many challenges that need to be overcome. For example, Frey (6/12) listed some plant biotechnologies that could improve crop yields and disease diagnosis in developing countries but added “obviously, biotechnology will not solve all the problems in the developing world - it’s just one more tool in modern agriculture”. Johanson (11/12), while urging that biotechnologists should address the serious technical problems facing agriculture in developing countries, assured that she knows of no responsible scientist naïve or egotistical enough to claim that biotechnology alone can solve hunger and poverty problems.
Participants described the many potential advantages that biotechnology could confer across a wide range of agricultural applications in developing countries, such as in the livestock sector (Donkin, 13/12), for storage of agricultural products (Olutogun, 11/12), for sustaining current crop yields while reducing inputs of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides (Fenning, 6/12) or for crop protection (Giga, 29/11). Steane (5/12) emphasized the potential of biotechnology and made a plea for concerted action against hunger and poverty, saying that “it is incumbent on us all to try to assist in any way possible within the bounds of sustainability to ensure that food shortage and poverty are eliminated - the challenge is not whether biotechnology can contribute but whether we are smart enough to harness it to do so”.
At a wider, national economic level, Robert (22/11) indicated that many politicians, in both developed and developing countries, believed that biotechnology could contribute to food security in developing countries by increasing agricultural output for export from developing countries and thus allowing them to earn more foreign currency.
Again at the wider level, there was a small discussion about how the use of biotechnology in developed countries could be used to reduce hunger in the developing world (note that, this topic apart, discussions in the conference focused (appropriately) on the potential impact of applying biotechnology in developing, and not developed, countries). The argument outlined in the message of Bharathan (13/11) was that increased population growth in the future would be in developing countries and that it would be necessary to use biotechnology in developed countries to increase exports to developing countries in order to keep pace with their rising population numbers and to feed the “new hungry” in the developing world. However, she maintained that the argument was flawed as such a situation, which would enable and consolidate increased import of food from the developed to the developing world, could not lead to food security, a point that was also made by Hongladarom (13/11).
As pointed out by Benbrook (20/11), an equally important, but different question is whether biotechnology “will” (rather than “can”) increase food security. He described a relatively simple method that he suggested could be used to identify policy and institutional factors (e.g. trade, intellectual property rights) that could be changed to narrow the gap between “will” and “can”.
7.2.1.3 Biotechnology is just one of the possible solutions to hunger and food insecurity in developing countries
During the conference, when confronted with arguments against the potential merits or value of agricultural biotechnology, it was common for some participants to respond that biotechnology was not a panacea for food insecurity and hunger problems but was just one of the possible solutions that could be used (e.g. Gibson, 10/11; Hruska, 11/11; Fenning, 20/11; Kambikambi, 23/11; Frey, 6/12). As Fenning (10/11) expressed it, “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?”.
Hongladarom (23/11) underlined that one solution cannot fit all situations and that, as an example, flood-resistant crop varieties, developed using biotechnology, might be crucial in Thailand but inappropriate in sub-Saharan Africa. Madalena (5/12) also pointed out that, of the many biotechnologies available, some might be appropriate and useful and others not.
However, the “tool box” approach and the exploration of all possible avenues to increasing food quantity/quality, was criticized by some participants on the grounds that efforts and funds to fight hunger are being steadily reduced and that there is an obligation therefore to make choices and to use the little money available in the best possible way (Ferry, 21/11 and 12/12). Rosset (14/11) highlighted, in particular, cutbacks in public sector agricultural research and the fact that since research into GM crops was so expensive it drew scarce resources away from other promising lines of research (such as agroecology or integrated pest management). Boesen (13/12) considered it thus highly relevant that one should look at whether the world’s poor can acquire enough food through alternative strategies (e.g. institutional, distributional) to biotechnology and whether investments in research into these alternatives may provide results that are as good and less risky.
7.2.1.4 Biotechnology may increase hunger, food insecurity and social inequalities in developing countries
Some participants expressed concerns that increasing production, e.g. using biotechnology, might actually exacerbate hunger and food insecurity issues and deepen social problems in developing countries. This was a topic flavoured with strong social-political elements, which also included the role/evolution that people saw for the rural population in developing countries in the future.
Fakir (5/12) suggested that the economic and trade implications of increasing the amount of food produced, e.g. using biotechnology, could be quite complex. Firstly, food supply exceeds demand so prices fall and access to food by the poor is increased as the food is cheaper. Secondly, however, as prices are lower and farmers in developing countries are not subsidized, they are forced to absorb costs that are higher than the prices they can get for their commodities on the international market, which leads to them producing only for their limited domestic markets or for subsistence use. Governments in developing countries may then find it cheaper to import grain and other staple foods from developed countries than to buy them from their own farmers (Fakir, 5/12). Rosset, 23/11(3) pointed out that in many parts of the developing world today (especially Africa), farmers already produce less than they can because they have no economic incentives to produce more - prices are low and there are few buyers. Ferry (27/11), however, did not believe that this was the case for the poorest farmers as they “do not need any external or market incentives to increase their production: reducing hunger and increasing food security are quite enough”. For developing countries that traditionally export food commodities, any drop in world prices and in subsequent foreign exchange income can create further food insecurity as the countries may lack the money required to import the food requirements (Kirk, 13/12).
Rosset, 5/12(2) argued that such drops in world prices can have two negative effects; a) poor, indebted farmers may give up farming; b) as prices remain low, the minimum farm size needed to maintain a family rises. The end result is that small and poor farmers leave the land while farms become bigger and concentrated in the hands of fewer individuals. Fenning (6/12) argued however that, although it was by no means painless, “it is a classic part of the process of development that people leave small scale agriculture and move to more technologically orientated activities (usually in cities) which are perceived to be better paid, while agriculture is simultaneously mechanized and scaled up”. Both Ferry (7/12) and Rosset (8/12), however, highlighted the negative social consequences of poor farmers migrating to cities and to a life of potential urban instability and poverty. Robert (22/11) also questioned whether, with the present system and the rate of consumption in developed countries, all countries could become “developed”. Rosset (8/12) emphasized instead the need to create economically sustainable and fulfilling livelihoods in rural areas.
In the context of the potential socio-political consequences of applying biotechnology, Fenning (11/12) argued, however, that biotechnology itself is neutral but that it “will tend to play into any already ongoing political or economic developments”. Fakir (12/12) however, from another angle, suggested that because biotechnology was being promoted in a solution-oriented, rather than a needs-oriented approach to the problems in developing countries, it might increase the vulnerability and risk that poor people will have to bear.
7.2.1.5 Impact of GM crops on hunger and food security in developing countries
Among the many potential biotechnologies available and the many different ways in which they could be applied, participants paid most attention to the use of genetic modification in the crop sector. Some of the discussion was general, regarding the potential environmental impact of GM crops and the effect it might have on hunger and food security. Much was, however, specifically focused on a single GM variety, the so-called “golden rice”.
a) Golden rice
Between 100 and 140 million children are affected by vitamin A deficiency (VAD) in the world. It is a public health problem in 118 countries, especially in Africa and South-East Asia, which affects young children and pregnant women in low-income countries hardest. An estimated 250 000 to 500 000 vitamin A deficient children become blind each year, half of them dying within 12 months of losing their sight (these figures are taken from the World Health Organization website www.who.int/nut/vad.htm, visited on 18/5/01).
Rice grain is the world’s most important source of food. However, it is a poor source of many essential micronutrients and vitamins. The endosperm, the starchy portion of the grain left after milling, does not contain provitamin A (also known as beta-carotene), from which humans can make vitamin A. The Golden Rice variety, however, contains three new genes (two from the daffodil and one from a bacteria) so that the rice plants produce provitamin A. The plant variety was produced by researchers collaborating in Germany and Switzerland and their work was reported in the journal Science on 14 January 2000. There is large interest in making the variety available to farmers in developing countries but it is currently in the testing phase and so may not be released publicly until a few years time.
As mentioned earlier, discussions on the potential value of biotechnology for food security and hunger in developing countries can be quite polarized. Golden Rice, which has also been the subject of much public and media interest, has allowed this polarization of viewpoints to become far more specific, as it is a specific biotechnology product directed towards a specific nutritional problem in developing countries.
The issue of how Golden Rice was presented to the public was raised by participants. Ferry, 8/11(1) complained that to get financial and/or political support, biotechnology projects were often presented incorrectly, badly or superficially and that Golden Rice was a good example of this (Ferry, 6/11). He maintained that exaggerated claims for Golden Rice came often not from journalists but from public biotechnology laboratories and institutions, using the publicity to promote their work at a time that is difficult for public research (Ferry, 10/11). Regarding private industry, Fakir (20/11) argued that the focus on saving people from malnutrition and blindness was a marketing strategy, a view shared by Ferry (21/11) who maintained that “propaganda is an essential part of the strategy of the companies and the Golden Rice has constituted a golden opportunity”. Fenning (20/11), however, insisted that if Golden Rice is at least available as a potential option, it is in part due to biotechnology companies waiving their patent rights over the techniques used to create the plants.
Polarization on this issue was, to a certain degree, also reflected in the different approaches people took to discussing Golden Rice and its impact on hunger/nutrition. For some, the approach was that the variety exists and so why not try it (e.g. Fenning, 10/11). For others instead, the approach was that hunger and nutrition problems exist and why should Golden Rice be used compared to other potential solutions to the problems (e.g. Carvalho, 7/11; Ferry, 10/11 and 15/11). Benbrook (13/11) expressed the latter clearly, saying that if one imagined a hypothetical situation where 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 US$300 million to invest over 10 years in solving the problem and can pick any paths or partners.”, then it would be difficult to imagine that they would invest all the money in Golden Rice.
Rosset, 10/11(1) argued that VAD was not best characterized as a problem, but rather as a symptom of broader dietary inadequacies associated with both poverty and agricultural transition from diverse cropping systems to rice monoculture. He thus stressed the importance of having a more varied diet and concluded that “a magic-bullet solution which places beta-carotene into rice...while leaving poverty, poor diets and extensive monoculture intact, is unlikely to make any durable contribution to well-being”. Carvalho (10/11) suggested that if looking for a “magic bullet” solution, then a nutritional supplement could be used. Howell (10/11) reported that studies with vitamin A supplementation in children had successfully reduced mortality rates. Ferry (10/11) suggested that Golden Rice could have counter-productive impacts on nutritional problems, by curtailing the progress made in educating people to diversify their diet and/or increase the diversification of agriculture production. Fenning (10/11) agreed that the points made about the importance of a good diet to combat VAD were totally valid but emphasized that other options need also to be considered, since the possibility of improving the diet in developing countries has been available for a long time, but without resolving the VAD problems.
Ferry, 8/11(1) raised concerns about two additional aspects of Golden Rice. The first concern was that if only a limited number of varieties were genetically modified and they were widely cultivated, then this would have a negative impact on crop biodiversity. Frey (9/11) suggested that it was unsure whether a range of varieties would be genetically modified but that it was more likely that the Golden Rice variety would be simply crossed with the local adapted varieties and that, by backcrossing, the unique genes of Golden Rice would be retained while eliminating most of the foreign genome. Ferry (10/11) questioned this solution, since crossing with the local varieties would diminish one of the main advantages of developing GM varieties, the time saved compared to traditional breeding techniques.
The second concern Ferry, 8/11(1) raised was the price of seeds of the new varieties, which might lead to them being accessible to only the richest farmers. Frey (9/11), however, replied that the seeds would be given free to farmers in developing countries and that they would be able to earn up to US$10 000 profits per year without having to pay any royalties.
For Ferry (10/11), the Golden Rice issue highlighted the importance of having a research team approach, with scientists of various disciplines, including not just biotechnologists but also dieticians, horticulturists and socio-economists, working together on the question of food security and poverty eradication. Both Rosset, 23/11(2) and Greenberg (8/12) stressed that the farmers themselves should also be included in this process.
b) Effect of environmental impacts of GM crops on hunger and food security
The potential environmental impact of transgenic crops is an important subject in its own right. In this conference, however, it was considered only in respect of its potential effect on hunger and food security. Rosset, 23/11(1) outlined some potential environmental risks that could be relevant to food security in developing countries. These include i) potential failures of GM crops; ii) potential negative impacts of Bt-crops (i.e. GM crops producing toxins of the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis), such as increased resistance to Bt toxins by the pests; crop losses due to killing non-target biocontrol organisms and reductions in soil fertility due to Bt toxins remaining in the soil; and iii) potential transfer of insecticidal properties or virus resistance to wild relatives of the crop species. Fakir, 23/11(2) highlighted the fact that the risk for small farmers in developing countries is far higher than for commercial farmers in developed countries, who may be able to afford insurance or who may be assisted by their governments if an environmental crisis occurs.
There seemed to be agreement that developing countries should not be used as inappropriate testing grounds by scientists and companies promoting GM organisms (e.g. Koudandé, 11/11) and that the environmental risks of GM crops should be studied, understood and minimized (Fenning, 10/11; Hruska, 11/11; Rosset, 14/11). Glover, 15/12(1), however, doubted whether detailed field trials or risk assessment studies would be carried out in poor countries as they are both time-consuming and expensive and because private companies would prefer to simplify risk assessment procedures.
7.2.1.6 Biotechnology is more than GM crops
As there was a lot of discussion about GM crops (especially Golden Rice) during the conference, some participants (e.g. Koudandé, 9/11) felt it important to reiterate that biotechnology includes a wide range of tools and not just genetic modification, that may be used to address problems of food security and hunger. These include detection of genes affecting traits of importance for developing countries, such as drought resistance in Africa and introgressing them into crops using marker-assisted breeding (Koudandé, 9/11) or the use of disease diagnostic tools or tissue culture to produce healthy planting material (Frey, 6/12), while Ferry (11/12) described one particular project to introduce date palm tissue culture plants in the Sahel.
Donkin (13/12) also underlined the multiple roles and values that livestock represent in developing countries, while complementing crop production and like Jeggo (12/12), argued that biotechnology could be used in various ways to increase these values. Steane (5/12) suggested, in particular, that reproductive biotechnologies, involving in-vitro maturation and fertilization of ova and embryo transfer, could assist poverty alleviation and food security.
7.2.1.7 The relationship between the biotechnology industry and the issue of hunger and food security in developing countries
In general, participants emphasized the potential negative aspects of the role and impact of private industry on food security and hunger in developing countries. Some participants reacted strongly to what they saw as the cynical manipulation of the plight of the poor by the private industry in a marketing operation to promote development of transgenic crops (Ferry 6/11 and 30/11; Rosset, 14/11; Fakir, 20/11). Ferry (5/12) also suggested that biotechnology groups were lobbying strongly for the development and acceptance of GM products in developing countries.
Fenning (15/11) argued that at least some companies were guilty of over-hyping the value of biotechnology for developing countries but that, even though the research and development strategies of big companies and wealthier countries were not really aimed at easing the problems of poorer countries, “blaming biotechnology isn’t going to change anything”. He suggested that over-hyping of the benefits of biotechnology (including to the developing world) had led to some public hostility and distrust of private companies (Fenning, 4/12). He called, however, for a flexible stance on biotechnology, saying that “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” (Fenning, 22/11(1)).
Glover (21/11) tried to explain, inter alia, why the industry was actively engaged in a public relations exercise to gain acceptance of biotechnology and why most of the crops being developed and marketed by the biotechnology industry have little to do with enhancing food security for the poor in developing countries. He said this was because “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”. Fenning, 27/11(2) also highlighted the expensive nature of crop development and distribution and insisted that if there was not enough profit to be made, then the companies would simply leave the business, which would limit the choice of varieties available. The positive impact of the private sector was emphasized by Freed (23/11) who underlined that it focuses on economic issues and tends to be more efficient than the public sector and that the key to rural development was both a strong private and public sector.
The private industry was also seen to have an impact on food security and hunger by its influence on the biotechnology research agenda. Ferry (6/11) emphasized the importance of decisions regarding which biotechnology research is to be carried out, for whom and with what priority. In his opinion, the private companies had too much power and weight in determining the research agenda. Fakir (22/11) considered a quotation regarding international agricultural research, from a widely-publicized report by scientists from seven science academies published in 2000, to be relevant in this context i.e. “if such research were wholly private, even in a perfectly functioning market, the demands of rich consumers for innovation in their own interests would overwhelm both the needs of and the price signals from poor consumers and small-scale farmers”.
Adams (7/12) argued that the poor can generally be reached quickest through public funding of agricultural research and development, compared to the private sector where the main goal is making profits. He thus concluded that “the fruits of biotechnology can only reach the hungry and the poorest through the continuation of public funded projects in a judicious mix with private capital”. Immonen (23/11) also highlighted some important differences between the research carried out by the public and private sectors. She pointed out that the public sector deals with genetic improvement of several crop and animal species that the private sector does not consider and that 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”. Ferry (11/12) emphasized that if public research institutions choose to prioritize the fight against hunger then their research programmes should be re-oriented and re-evaluated with this objective in mind.
7.2.1.8 IPR and the ability of developing countries to use biotechnology for their hunger and food security problems
Hongladarom (13/11) emphasized the importance of developing countries being able to develop their own biotechnology to suit their own particular environments and that “help from the developed countries should not come in the form of giving away of ready made, ready-to-be-consumed products, but in the form of education and technology transfer”. Greenberg (8/12) made a similar point, saying that “biotechnology will never be the answer as long as it is imposed from outside. The agenda has to be driven by the farmers themselves”. Some participants (e.g. Fenning, 27/11(2)), however, highlighted the potential negative impacts that IPR over biotechnological products, or the processes used to make them, might have on the ability of developing countries to do this.
Fenning, 27/11(2) noted that IPR were held not only by private companies but also by some public organizations and that “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”. On this point, Glover (21/11) wrote that today, in contrast to the situation of 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”. Greyling (20/11) suggested that the debate on biotechnology would be very different if developing countries developed, managed and applied their own biotechnology rather than having to depend on it being given to them. Fenning (1/12) also suggested that because of IPR issues it was not always possible to separate the biotechnology prospects from the business interests involved.
Traoré (6/12) expressed concern about patents and IPR as he argued that they will determine, to a large degree, access by the poor to GM products. Fenning, 27/11(2) pointed out that a major consequence of IPR in agricultural biotechnology was that countries that had not yet invested in biotechnology, such as most developing countries, would probably never be able to make up the lost ground in the future. Mulvany (18/12) instead emphasized the importance for food security of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, which seeks to ensure the free flow of plant genetic resources for food production, as it would safeguard these important resources for humanity and guarantee that they remain as a backup to possible breakdown of GM crop varieties in the future.
7.2.1.9 Role of biotechnology scientists in the debate on hunger and food security
The debate on solving food security and hunger problems is very important. Gibson (10/11) provided a reminder of the responsibilities involved when considering potential biotechnology applications for the developing world, saying “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”. Ferry (6/11) urged, however, that the debate should not be dominated by biotechnology scientists and private companies. He argued that biotechnology scientists, due to the nature of their work, are often highly specialized and technique-focused and thus are not competent on the complex question of hunger in developing countries. Fenning (6/11) agreed that it was important to have problem-based rather than solution-based thinking and said it was a classical human error, made also by many scientists, to be dazzled into using the latest technology when sometimes a simpler approach might be more successful.
7.2.2 Name and country of participants with referenced messages
Adams, Herman. Barbados
Ashton, Glenn. South Africa
Benbrook, Charles. United States
Bharathan, Geeta. United States
Boesen, Jannik. Denmark
Carvalho, Luiz. Brazil
Donkin, Ned. South Africa
Fakir, Saliem. South Africa
Fenning, Trevor. Germany
Ferry, Michel. Spain
Freed, Russ. United States.
Frey, Petra. United States
Gibson, John. Kenya
Giga, Danash. Zimbabwe
Glover, Dominic. United Kingdom
Greenberg, Stephen. South Africa
Greyling, Ben. South Africa
Hongladarom, Soraj. Thailand
Howell, Bruce. Canada
Hruska, Allan. Nicaragua
Immonen, Sirkka. Italy
Jeggo, Martyn. Austria
Johanson, Andrea. United States
Kambikambi, Tamala. Zambia
Kirk, Jeffrey. United States
Koudandé, Delphin. Netherlands
Madalena, Fernando. Brazil
Muir, Bill. United States
Mulvany, Patrick. United Kingdom
Napier, James. Canada
Olutogun, Sanya. Nigeria
Robert, Stanley. Australia
Rosset, Peter. Mexico
Rusch, Peter. South Africa
Steane, David. Thailand
Traoré, Adama. Mali
