Report on Biotechnology Seminar  by John Russell (Includes summaries if three missing papers)

Following the paper presentations a lively discussion ensued, as might have been expected on a topic of this nature. In opening his closing comments John Russell gave this quotation: "We have recently advanced our knowledge of genetics to the point where we can manipulate life ina way never intended by nature. We must proceed with utmost caution in the application of this newfound knowledge." He then added that this was said by Luther Burbank, but not in the 1990s, in 1906!

He thanked Professor Barry Dent and George Rothschild for setting the scene so well for the day's seminar with their opening comments, and Professor Leaver for his masterly introduction to the topic of transgenic plants, illustrated with well chosen examples. He went on to thank Professor Hereward Corley for introducing a welcome note of caution in assessing the benefits of biotechnology in relation to perennial crops, stressing that more benefits are coming from the use of molecular markers at present and less for transformation projects. Rob Williams had then given a comprehensive and succinct overview of the potential contribution of biotechnology to global agriculture's key challenges, constraints to be faced and likely contributions of modern biotechnologies to our future, drawing on a paper by Cyrus Nderitu of Kenya in emphasising the verydifferent needs of the developing world to that of the developed in biotechnology research.(All the above papers are included in this newsletter).

Linda Brown, the Senior Environment Officer in DFID, in discussing DFID policy emphasis on the elimination of poverty, commented on the concern expressed by all LDCs at the recent CGIAR meetings that modern technologies are largely in the hands of large multinationals focussing on food and cash crops for the developed world's markets, and much less addressing the needs of LDCs. They had also emphasised the need for more publicly funded research and likewise concern that plant breeder's rights did not restrict access to technology. She stressed that DFID funded research was tackling the more complex needs of resource poor farmers in LDCs, needing both to satisfy their subsistence requirements and produce for the market. DFID was currently spending 30 million for research in the natural resource sector, of which 10million went through the CGIAR system. The remainder went on a variety of programmes supporting DFID's sustainable livelihood policies in the fields of pest management, crop and livestock agriculture, forestry and fisheries. No statistics were kept on how much was spent on biotechnology as such, but in view of concern on GMO's, DFIDrecords projects that might produce GMOs, and these amount to 2.7% of the total. No project has yet resulted in a commercial release of a GMO, but will soon, so biosafety issues are being carefully reviewed, and appropriate action taken.Thomas Hamby, Minister Counsellor for Agricultural Affairs in the US Embassy, gave a paper on the implications of Biotechnology for International Trade, and emphasised the potential for biotechnology to produce more environmentally friendly agriculture, enabling both the US and Europe to remove our costly domestic support programmes, particularly those of the CAP.The USA has a number of goals in the present stalled WTO Trade Round, but some of the issues with the EU are very sensitive. The elimination of export subsidies is one of them and 80-85%of these subsidies are coming from the EU. We obviously need to lower production costs so that we can lower these subsidies. Agricultural tariffs remain high because costs are high, and LDCs have more justification for agricultural tariffs to slow drift of their rural populace to their cities.

Thomas went on to say that while the USA has the largest biotechnolgy programme in the developed world, China's will soon be larger if not already, particularly in hectarage under GM crops. He acknowledged the importance of food safety issues, but again commented that as we more closely examine and monitor the implications of biotechnology, it is likely to become safer. He stressed the important role in nutrition, especially for the poorest LDCs, as well as for the production of edible vaccines; and noted that in the present media climate there is a tendency for the negative aspects of the technology to be emphasised, and the positive ones discounted or rarely mentioned. He closed by saying that it is clear that the developing world can benefit most from biotechnology; and we need to remember that responsible biotechnolgy is not our enemy but poverty is!

In his summing up John Russell thanked Thomas Hamby very much for expressing the American viewpoint on this debate, and said that he did not need to apologise for being critical of the CAP, as we are conscious that subsidising food exports and protecting our domestic agriculture in Europe and, to a lesser extent, in the USA, does not set a level playing field when encouraging LDCs to promote freer trade.

Yvonne Pinto, formerly group leader on biotechnology at the John Innes Centre in her paper entitled: Technology Transfer, Biosafety and Intellectual Property: the Challenges for Sustainable Development, gave a very interesting summary of an ongoing programme on transgenic rice, controlling the yellow streak virus in East, Central and particularly West Africa.(Unfortunately we have not received copies of these last three papers from these three authors).

However the final paper given by Robert Tripp of ODI entitled " Hitting the Press and Missing the Point: the Debate about Biotechnology and the Poor"is reproduced in full in this TAA newsletter. Robert gave a first rate exposition of the issues involved in this side of the debate; and in summing up, John Russell said it is clear that there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding in the biotechnology debate, and it is vital that the pros and cons are spelt out more clearly. Also it is important to distinguish the ethical issues from the scientific ones.TAA members wishing to participate further in this debate may wish to attend the forthcoming seminar planned on this topic at Rothampstead in the autumn being organised by the British chapter of the Forum on Agricultural Research set up under the initiative established by the European Initiative on Agricultural Research for Development, EIARD.