Biotech offers Africans a
chance to create their own practical solutions. Nature Apr 19, 2001.
Jesse Machuka, IITA, Nigeria
Sir – Agricultural biotechnology research and development (R&D) in
industrialized countries is heavily supported by private and government
institutions and universities, which develop products and services for
capital-intensive farming systems. Although some innovations have spill-over
effects that might benefit Africa (especially large-scale farmers), most are
likely to marginalize poor farmers.
One solution is to reorient international biotechnology research to take
account of small-scale farmers' needs. But experience shows that this option is
unlikely to succeed in the long term. A more realistic way forward is for
African scientists, businesses and farmers to devise biotechnological
innovations that are appropriate to local cultural, economic, political,
technological, institutional, infrastructural and social factors.
The success story of Africa Online, the premier provider of Internet services
throughout Africa, illustrates an entrepreneurial spirit that should be
possible to replicate in the biotechnology arena. Africa Online was founded in
1994 by three Kenyans studying at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
Harvard University. It now serves thousands of people and businesses throughout
Africa.
Private-sector companies wishing to invest in biotechnology are attracted by
successes in tissue-culture-aided production and multiplication of disease-free
planting materials for cassava, yam, banana, plantain, citrus and flowers in
countries such as Kenya and Ghana. However, Africans must learn simple
technologies that are not only appropriate and feasible, but also sustainable.
Priority can be given to biotechnologies that have worked under comparable
conditions elsewhere. Last year, for example, thousands of poor Chinese farmers
obtained up to 40% increases in sweet-potato yields by using a novel
seed-production technique to eliminate viral diseases from planting materials (http://www.futureharvest.org/growth/china_sweet.bkgnd.shtml).
No genetic improvements were made, and the farmers used no more fertilizers or
pesticides than usual.
In Africa, the key players will include, among others, scientists,
policy-makers, non-governmental organizations, farmers and farmers' (especially
women's) groups. Private biotechnology initiatives must go hand in hand with
development of regulatory frameworks and public-awareness campaigns, and with
other R&D programmes targeting poor farmers (see, for example, F. Wambugu,
Nature 400, 15–16; 2001).
The mistake of the Green Revolution was that it treated all the world as if it
were the same. The lesson for agriculture is that problems must be solved
locally and communally, through a bottom-up approach that empowers farmers to
support and own technologies that benefit them. Entrepreneurial scientists,
business people, lawyers and farmers are needed to explore the promises of
biotechnology.
This is a wake-up call for African biotechnology stakeholders to transform the
potential wealth of genetic resources and traditional knowledge into the
reality of increased incomes - and better food and health care - for the
majority.
SA's
Biotech industry gets welcome R40m boost. Shonisani Makhari, 29 Mar 2001
The local
biotechnology industry received a welcome boost yesterday with the launch of a
R40 million capital fund by Bioventures, a joint effort between Real Africa nd
Gensec, the wholly owned subsidiary of Sanlam. Ron de Besten, the general
manager of Gensec's private equity division, said South Africa had a wealth of
biotech opportunities. Don Ncube, Real Africa's chairman, said the country's
first biotech fund would capitalise on "what promises to be an even larger
wave than information technology".
Bioventures's
mandate, initially to be a general fund, is to invest in unlisted start-ups and
early-stage companies that have biotechnology as a key component. No singe
investment in a portfolio company would represent more than 10 per cent of the
fund and investment in companies would range between R1 million and R5 million.
Den Besten said the fund had received 32 business plans in areas such as waste
management and the food and beverage industries. Many have questioned the
sustainability of a biotech industry in view of the large amounts of capital
needed to fund research, which often last for years before a practical solution
will lead to commercial use. But, Den Besten said the private sector was
stepping up research and development projects even at universities, which had
witnessed a decline in State funding. To further fuel the biotech wave, the
CSIR was setting up a technology incubator to assist startup technology
companies in the first years of their development. This technology hub has
received significant infrastructure funding from the Gauteng Provincial
Government.
Testing GMOs for Food
Allergies. John
Riddle, FAO Media Relations, John.Riddle@fao.org
Rome/Geneva, 12 Apr 2001
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World
Health Organization (WHO) have published new recommendations to strengthen the
process used to protect consumers from the risk that some genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) could pose for a small percentage of people with food
allergies. See http://www.fao.org/es/
ESN/gm/biotec-e.htm and http://www.who.int/xxx .
Incorporating the latest scientific information on allergens, a FAO/WHO Joint
Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology which met in Rome from
22-25 January made recommendations that would substantially improve the decision-making
process and update the allergen data base used to evaluate the risk of
transferring allergens from an existing organism, or creating new ones in food
made from genetically modified organisms.
The FAO/WHO Consultation proposed a more extensive methodology to evaluate the
allergenicity of foods derived from sources with known allergenicity, as well
as from sources with no known allergenicity. The methodology includes an
initial comparison of the similarity of the protein's amino acid sequences with
those of known allergens followed by, when necessary, more in-depth
investigation using various other scientific testing techniques. Allergenicity
is one of the most frequently voiced concerns about the safety of food derived
from biotechnology. According to Doctor Dean Metcalf, who chaired the Expert
Consultation, "The FAO/WHO 2001 decision-making process developed by the
Consultation will further strengthen the methods used to assure consumers that
GM foods will not increase the risk of allergic reactions."
Food allergies are adverse reactions to an otherwise harmless food or food
component that involves an abnormal response of the body's immune system to a
specific protein, or proteins in foods. The most common type of food allergies
are mediated by allergen-specific immunoglobulin E, or IgE antibodies3. These
reactions are known as immediate hypersensitivity reactions because symptoms
occur within minutes to a few hours after ingestion of the offending food. The
spectrum of the severity of the immediate hypersensitivity reactions can range
from asthmatic attacks and rarely, to fatal systemic anaphylactic shock. Such
allergic reactions to foods affect a substantial percentage of the population
worldwide. Reflecting growing concern about the safety and nutritional aspects
of foods derived from biotechnology, the 23rd session of the Codex Alimentarius
Commission decided in July 1999 to undertake "the consideration of
standards, guidelines or other recommendations for foods derived from biotechnology
or traits introduced into foods by biotechnology." The same session also
established an Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology
for that purpose.
To assist the Intergovernmental Task Force, as well as their Member States in
general, FAO and WHO are organizing a series of Joint Expert Consultations on
the safety of GM foods funded by Japan. FAO/WHO
consultations work to establish a consensus among scientists who participate in
the consultations based on their scientific expertise. The recommendations made
by the Joint Expert Consultations are presented to the Intergovernmental Task
Force to help formulate a global consensus on the safety and nutritional
aspects of foods derived from biotechnology.
Regional biosafety workshop
- SADC countries. Muffy Koch, Innovation Biotechnology.
The USAID-funded Southern Africa Regional Biosafety
programme (SARB) hosted a workshop in Pretoria last month to provide a platform
for countries in Southern Africa to discuss biosafety. Included in the programme
was a discussion on the potential benefits of a regional biosafety initiative
and the format such an initiative could take. The delegations from 11 countries
agreed to form a drafting committee to develop a proposal for a regional
biosafety initiative. This proposal will be developed under consultation with
countries in the region and will be submitted to SADC for consideration. In
addition, a proposal will be drafted for submission to funding agencies for
support for the initiative. The delegates agreed that, while decisions on GMOs
would likely always be made nationally, there was benefit to considering
biosafety at a regional level. This would enable countries to share biosafety
capacity, consider regional implications of decisions and minimise duplication.
A 2-page summary of the workshop is available from Jbrink@igs1.agric.za
Africa must maximize
benefits from GMOs. SADC NRMP BULLETIN, Apr 2001. (The SADC NRMP Bulletin expedites
information exchange on management of natural resources among stakeholders in
the region. It is published by the Africa Resources Trust. Ed. Emmanuel Koro,
info@art.org.zw)
Although biotechnology products face stiff consumer resistance from
Europe, especially in the United Kingdom, African and foreign experts on
biosafety issues say this technology holds a lot of promise for developing
countries, including Africa. Biotechnology is a scientific process that
transfers genes from one species to another. This process creates new crops or
animals known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). No one really knows the
negative impacts that GMOs could cause to human health and the environment, but
one of the most cited advantages of biotechnology is its capacity to increase
crop production on less land, contributing to food security. African countries
could easily address their food shortage problems by maximizing on the positive
impacts of biotechnology, while minimizing the risks.
Biotechnology has enabled society to produce higher quality foods in
environments that were perceived to be of low productive potential. It is now
possible to cultivate tropical crops in temperate zones. Biotechnology is one of the fastest growing
industries in the world. It has also transformed the pharmaceutical and medical
industries in very profound ways.
However, the evolution and growth of this technology, including its application
are characterized by uncertainty. No one knows exactly the socio-economic and
ecological benefits and risks that this technology can cause. Accordingly,
world governments recently signed the Biosafety Protocol in January 2000. They
did so to ensure safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms
(LMOs), resulting from modern biotechnology. It is feared that LMOs may have adverse
effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, especially in
instances involving transboundary movement. Out of the 87 countries worldwide
which have signed and ratified the Biosafety Protocol, only three are from
Southern Africa: Malawi, Mozambique and Namibia. Developing countries,
including Africa - are the least qualified to do risk assessment of LMOs from
developed countries. Accordingly, they need to actively participate in these
issues so that they do not engage in uninformed acceptance of LMOs, which might
result in negative socioeconomic impacts. It is against this background that
the first ever African regional consultative workshop on the Biosafety
Protocol, was held in Nairobi Kenya, last month. It explored the benefits of
having a common regional approach towards the implementation of the protocol,
in order to maximize information sharing and regional learning. We therefore
urge African countries to actively participate in this Protocol which is
expected to come into force in June this year, if 50 parties ratify it.
Bulgaria and Trinidad and Tobago are the only two countries, which have
ratified this Protocol.
A response to the Biosafety
Protocol. Julian
Morris Director, Environment and Technology Programme, IEA, London. jmorris@iea.org.uk; Ed., Fearing Food
(Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999) and Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary
Principle (Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000)
May I say that I completely disagree with the SADC NRMP Bulletin (Apr 2001) view that
African countries should adopt the Biosafety Protocol. This Protocol
effectively enables arbitrary restrictions to be placed on imports of LMOs and
may in future be amended to enable arbitrary restrictions on imports of all
GMOs. Trade in these products is currently governed by the Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS), which is administered by the WTO. Decisions in
respect of the SPS Agreement are made in the context of standards set by the
Codex Alimentarius Commission. At present, the rule is that you may prevent the
import of a substance as an emergency measure without a risk analysis (S.5.7 of
the SPS agreement, as interpreted by the Appellate Body of WTO in the Beef
Hormone case). However, if a longer-term restriction is to be imposed on
imports this must be justified by a risk analysis (Beef Hormone case
interpreting S.5 of SPS).
Poor countries may have less capacity to carry out there own risk analyses and
this will no doubt be accepted by exporting countries (and WTO) as justification
for a delay in permitting imports. It may encourage exporting countries to
provide capacity to carry out such analyses by the importing country. By
contrast the Biosafety Protocol enables effectively indefinite delays on
imports without justification. Now, remember, imports are the corollary to
exports and poor countries that export LMOs to rich countries would be shooting
themselves in the foot by signing the Biosafety Protocol. The EU is looking for
an excuse to avoid imports of cheaply produced agricultural and textile
products and if those products are LMOs it will use the BP to do this. The
result would be that Africans won't use LMOs for fear that they won't be able
to export them to the EU. Given the significant likely benefits from LMOs, how
stupid would that be?
Nairobi hosts regional consultative workshop on
Biosafety Protocol.. SADC NRMP BULLETIN, Apr 2001
Nairobi-based African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS) and the
Washington-based World Resources Institute (WRI) held a two-day consultative
regional workshop in Nairobi, Kenya for African countries last month. The
workshop was aimed to identify and promote public participation in the
implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Participants discussed
issues centred on the nature and adequacy of the Biosafety Protocol's
procedural rights for public participation in risk assessment and management,
institutional mechanisms for civil society and industry's participation in
national and international programmes and processes on the Protocol.
Officially opening the workshop, a UNEP representative, Dr. Ahmed Dojglaf said,
"We would like to promote information sharing on biosafety issues at
regional and sub-regional level." UNEP aims to assist 120 countries on
biosafety capacity building. Dr. Dojglaf called for the need to raise public
awareness throughout the establishment of the Biosafety Protocol. He said UNEP
would soon use US$750 000, it recently obtained from the Global Environmental
Facility (GEF), to train journalists on all issues concerning biosafety and
other environmental conventions.
Dr. Tony Antonio La Vina (WRI) said, internationally there should be an
acknowledgement of benefits and risks associated with genetically modified
organisms. "The Biosafety Protocol is an important instrument to bring the
balanced approach of maximizing benefits and minizing risks," he said.
NZ GMO debacle undermines Green lobby. Liz Fletcher, Nature
Biotechnology, Apr 2001, shortened.
On
March 6, an Oregon State Univ. researcher Elaine Ingham and the New Zealand
Green Party apologized to the NZ government for submitting false claims about
the ecological impact of GMOs. This mistake seriously undermines the green
lobby’s call for a moratorium on field trials of all GMOs in NZ. The debacle is
yet another example of the hijacking of scientific research for political ends
and reminds those in the anti-GM camp that if they choose to pit science
against science in the fight against GMOs then they must apply the appropriate
intellectual rigor or risk losing credibility.
The apologies in question relate to the erroneous evidence
submitted to the NZ Royal Commission on genetic modification (GM), a group
currently deliberating the future of GM in NZ. Ingham told the Commission at
the beginning of February : “The likely effect of allowing the field trial
[with the GMO in question] would have been to destroy terrestrial plants.” To
illustrate this risk, she referred to an experiment, carried out by a graduate
student in her laboratory, showing that a GM soil bacterium (Klebsiella planticola) killed plants.
The Klebsiella had been engineered to
convert plant waste into alcohol to reduce air pollution created by burning
fields after growing season. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
conducted standard toxicology tests on the GMO, revealing no ill effect.
Ingham, however, remained concerned about its broader ecological impact. She
told the Commission that wheat plants exposed to the GMO initially grew
healthily, but 7 days later “had turned to slime”. Ingham claimed that her
research, allegedly published in Applied Soil Ecology (3, 394-399, 1999) has
effectively stopped EPA-approved field trials with the bacterium.
Her claims promoted sensational headlines in NZ press,
spurring an investigation by the NZ Like Sciences Network, an organisation
representing the local biotech community. The Network found that the cited
publication did not exist and that the EPA had never approved the field trials.
When questioned further, Ingham cited a second research paper (Applied Soil
Ecology, 11, 67-78, 1999). The Network recruited 3 independent scientists to
scrutinize the paper. In its rebuttal evidence to the Commission, the Network
said that Ingham had made “scientifically unsupportable and exaggerated assertion”
to the Royal Commission. The experts even suggested that the bacterium would
not survive under normal conditions.
Persistent requests by the NZ Like Science Network to the
Commission evoked an apology from both Ingham and the Green Party, which had
based its argument against field trials with GMOs on Ingham’s evidence. Ingham
admitted that her doomsday predictions were only “extrapolations from
laboratory evidence.” Jeanette Fitzsimons of the NZ Green Party admitted that
the paper did not support her assertion that a field trial with the GMO would
have lead to global devastation. However, Doreen Stabinsky, science advisor for
Greenpeace’s Genetic Engineering Campaign, claims Ingham has long been a
political “scapegoat” for the agbiotech industry and continues to stand by
Ingham’s work. Greenpeace uses Ingham’s work as evidence that GMOs can have
“unanticipated effects” on the environment.
GMO Labelling May Frighten
Consumers.
Bangkok Post. Apr 20,
2001
Thailand should not rush to label GM food products, the director of Thailand
Biodiversity Centre suggested yesterday. Sutat Sriwatanapongse expressed
concern that GM food labelling might bring two adverse effects. First, food
prices could rise by at least 20-30 % because manufacturers would have to pay
for tests of food products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), he
said. Second, the labelling would give consumers "wrong perception"
about GM food. "GM labels might frighten consumers. They would believe
that GM food is harmful, although there has been no proof that GM food is bad
for health," Mr Sutat said. He said more scientific research studies were
needed before the government went ahead with the labelling.
The Thailand Biodiversity Centre was founded in 1997 under the Science,
Technology and Environment Ministry, with the aim of making research and
protecting the country's biodiversity and genetic resources. Mr Sutat also
disagreed with the Assembly of the Poor's suggestion that a new law be drafted
to control GM products. "GMOs are not hazardous substances which have to
be placed under control," he said. On the cabinet's decision to suspend
all field trials of GM crops, Mr Sutat, who also sits on the National Biosafety
Committee (NBC), called the cabinet resolution "unacceptable".
Without field tests scientists would have no means to measure the danger and
impact of GM crops, he said. Mr Sutat guaranteed that officials could totally
control the spread of GM crops to open areas.
But Witoon Lianchamroon, a co-ordinator at BioThai, a network of groups
advocating protection of biological resources, did not believe that. "It
is impossible to prevent GM crops from spreading. The leak of Bt-cotton from
the Agriculture Department's experimental field to farmers' land is our
important lesson," Mr Witoon said. He suggested halting all field tests
until the drafting of a biosafety act is completed. Mr Witoon, also an NBC
member, called on the National Centre For Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
(Biotec) to stop monopolising GMO management. He demanded more non-governmental
organisations and farmers be allowed to join the NBC, which works under Biotec.
Don't Trample Biotechnology;
Proceed Carefully and Ethically. George Acquaah. The Daily Oklahoman, Apr 15, 2001. http://www.whybiotech.com/en/news/con780.asp?MID=17
In Africa, where hunger is too often epidemic, an old proverb says, "When
two elephants fight, the grass suffers." This is all too relevant to the
fight over biotechnology. As scientific and environmental elephants butt heads,
the hopes of Africans are trampled. For the benefit of humankind, we must end
the squabbling over biotechnology and allow objectivity to prevail. Its ability
to feed the hungry, heal the sick and make life better for billions of people
is too great to lose to fear and confusion.
I am from Ghana, and to anyone familiar with sub-Saharan Africa, the need for
modern crops is clear. Three million children in the region have gone blind
because their dietary staples do not contain enough Vitamin A. Even those
nutritionally inadequate staples are elusive, with tragic volumes lost to pests
and crop disease.
To scientists, the benefits of biotechnology are equally clear. Scientists are
developing strains of rice, cassava and other staples that are fortified with
more nutrients, such as beta-carotene, the protein the body converts into
Vitamin A potentially saving the eyesight of thousands of people. Crops can
also be improved to produce their own protection against pests and disease.
Additionally, research is under way on crops that can grow on hostile land
enabling no-till farming, which could reduce topsoil erosion by up to 98 per
cent while saving farmers money. Others are working on a genetic alteration
that could improve crops' ability to tolerate drought or soil with high salt
content. Some estimates say biotechnology could improve food productivity in
developing countries by 25 per cent. Since farmers could grow more food per
acre, they would not need to clear as much wilderness for farms. And if
biotechnology crops can protect themselves against pests and disease, they may
offer farmers an alternative to chemical sprays, benefiting the environment.
Opponents are right: There are some potential risks to biotechnology. But the
benefits and the severity of the need make it clear that the sensible approach
is to minimize and manage the risks, not to abandon biotechnology. Scientists
already have spent a great deal of energy addressing criticism of the
ecological impact of biotechnology, specifically genetic drift and resistance
of pests to biotechnology products. For instance, biotech crops must be
surrounded by a "refuge" of non-biotech and untreated crops so that
any insects that become resistant to the natural pesticide in some biotech
crops will dilute their genes by breeding with insects that are not.
Biotechnology opponents have even opposed some safety measures. A technology to
control genetic drift by making biotechnology seeds sterile was opposed by
biotechnology opponents out of confusion and misunderstanding.
Biotechnology is not a cure-all and it is not fail-safe. It is, however, an
essential tool in expanding, protecting and improving the world food supply. We
must proceed carefully and ethically, but we must proceed. There are too many
hungry people not to. Scientists and environmentalists must find common ground
lest Africa be trampled beneath the feet of first-world elephants.
Acquaah is chairman of
the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Langston University.
FAO: Biotechnology in
agriculture.
Agbioview, 21 Apr 2001. Based on a report to the FAO Committee on Agriculture
(COAG), in Rome on 25-26 Jan 1999.
While respecting ethical concerns, governments should
recognize biotechnology's potential for increasing food supplies and
alleviating hunger. Agriculture must feed an increasing human population
forecast to reach 8,000 million by 2020. Although the rate of population growth
is steadily decreasing, the increase in absolute numbers may be such that the
carrying capacity of agricultural lands could soon be reached, given current
technology. But if properly focused, new technologies - such as biotechnologies
- offer a responsible way to enhance agricultural productivity today and in the
future.
Biotechnology could help solve many problems limiting crops and livestock
production in developing countries. For example, biotechnology-derived
solutions for biotic and abiotic stresses, built into the genotype of plants,
could reduce use of agrochemicals and water, thus promoting sustainable yields.
However, FAO says, national programmes need to ensure that biotechnology
benefits all sectors, including resource-poor rural populations, particularly
in marginal areas where productivity increases will be more difficult to
achieve.
A number of issues are of special concern to developing countries aiming at
increasing their involvement in biotechnology and thus developing their
agricultural sectors. For FAO, they include:
¨ Setting priorities. Biotechnology expertise
should complement existing technologies and be output-driven. Since
biotechnology is often more expensive than conventional research, it should be
used only to solve specific problems where it has comparative advantage. In
many developing countries, funding for research in agriculture is being
reduced, and often research is being privatized, with the consequent risk that
it could be aimed mainly at resource-rich farmers. In addition to technical
considerations, priority setting should take into account national development
policies, private sector interests and market possibilities. Different
stakeholders should be involved in the formulation of national biotechnology
strategies, policies and plans.
¨ Infrastructure and capacity. For
research to be truly productive there must be a critical mass of expertise,
knowledge and facilities. Biotechnology is no exception. Biotechnology research
requires skilled staff, backed up by well-equipped laboratories with proper
working conditions, a constant supply of good quality water, a reliable
electricity supply, and organized institutional support. A minimal technology
base is needed to adapt technology tried and tested elsewhere to local
ecological and production conditions. Biotechnology research needs strong and organized
outr each services and suitable institutions and infrastructures to facilitate
its application.
¨ Intellectual property rights (IPRs).
Under the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), most processes and many products of
biotechnology research are patentable. Since most biotechnology research is
conducted in industrialized countries, very often by private companies,
developing countries may have to pay to use a new procedure or product. IPRs
are critical for growth of the biotechnology industry, and lack of patent
protection in a country can limit access to the results of biotechnology
originating elsewhere. The issues are complex, with implications for trade,
technical investment and access to biotechnology outputs. Countries need to
evaluate carefully their positions and, as appropriate, introduce legislation
foreseen in the WTO Agreement. In particular, they will need to evaluate the
most appropriate form of protection for plant varieties.
¨ Biosafety, food safety and the environment.
Potential environmental hazards from new products of biotechnology, mainly
involving genetically modified organisms (GMOs), have raised concerns that
companies may use developing countries as "test sites" for their
products. Some of the potential
environmental risks concern plant pests, while gene escape from GMOs could
result in increased weediness in sexually compatible wild species. The
inclusion of novel genes for herbicide resistance in plants may increase the
occurrence of weeds with resistance to certain agrochemicals. Another worry
about GMOs is the possible inadvertent production of toxins and allergens. FAO
says developing countries need assistance in developing appropriate legislation
and setting up regulatory bodies for all aspects of biosafety. National
legislation must be consistent with international instruments and reflect
national positions.
¨ Biodiversity issues. Biotechnology can
contribute to the conservation, characterization and utilization of biodiversity,
thus increasing its usefulness. Some techniques such as in vitro culture are
very useful in maintaining ex situ
germplasm collections of plant species that have asexual propagation (e.g.
bananas, onions, garlic) and species that are hard to keep as seeds or in field
gene banks. Related techniques are also important for the preservation of
animal biodiversity through cryopreservation of semen and embryos, coupled with
embryo transfer and artificial insemination. At the same time, however, biotechnology
may reduce genetic diversity indirectly by displacing landraces and their
inherent diversity as farmers adopt genetically uniform varieties of plants and
other organisms.
¨ Export substitution. Some products with
a high export value for some developing countries, could be substituted by
products with similar properties (e.g. copra-quality oil from rape seed)
obtained by genetic modification of other crops or through in vitro techniques.
Such products could alter the competitive position of traditional crops,
affecting existing trade patterns and consequently the food security of many
developing countries that rely on agricultural export revenues.
¨ Ethical aspects. Biotechnology is more
than just a scientific issue - it is seen by some as "interfering with the
workings of nature and creation". In priority setting, all concerns must
be clearly balanced, respecting ethical aspects but recognizing biotechnology's
potential for increasing food supplies and alleviating hunger. Many ethical
issues are now being debated in the context of IPR legislation but others
remain unresolved. Since such issues are largely related to cultural background
and levels of public perception and awareness, decisions on the use of specific
technologies should respect socio-economic realities.
¨ Marketing. Biotechnology is
increasingly market and demand driven, and most of its products result from
research and development investments by the private sector in developed
countries. There is little point in developing a new technology if there is no
market for the product. The same is valid for new varieties of plants and new
breeds of animals, new vaccines and diagnostic kits. Market studies are
fundamental in defining which ventures should be undertaken. Given that
commercial considerations may not necessarily reflect social concerns and
needs, there remains a pivotal role for public-sector research.
Environmental
biotechnology. The
BioLines Editors have had a request for more information on environmental
applications of biotechnology and issues related to environmental
biotechnology. We'd like to assist with this request from Africa and would
value contributions from readers working in this field. Of particular interest
would be new biotechnology products with possible application and relevance in
Africa. Email your contributions to biolines1@mweb.co.za
Events
21 Mai - 13 Juin: "Biodiversité, Biotechnologies et
Juridiction" Formation
dispensée par le "Global Biodiversity Institute" pour les francophones
d’Afrique de l’ouest et du centre. Cotonou, Benin. Dr. Braima D. James: b.james@cgiar.org
. Tel: + (229)-350-188 Fax: + (229)-350-556
