| http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/archives/agnet-archives.htmAGNET AUGUST 16, 2001 Study confirms crop pests' preference for corn in Northeastern and mid-Atlantic refuges Mystery DNA is discovered in soybeans by scientists GMO products are here to stay Integrated pest management promises crop yields with fewer chemicals, but will it prove effective in the long run? Researchers unlock the secrets of how herbicides interact with soil and subsoil Mexico-US potato Washington State Department of Agriculture: citrus Where have all the great grapes gone? B-d-glucuronidase from E. coli and the genetic material necessary for its production as a plant pesticide inert ingredient; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance Spinning science into gold; how industry's public-relations campaigns stifle debate over biotechnology Biotechnology issues for developing countries: technology exchange Conference 6 of the FAO electronic forum on biotechnology in food and agriculture Agnet is produced by the Food Safety Network at the University of Guelph and is sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Plants Program at the University of Guelph, with additional support provided by Ag-West Biotech, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Monsanto Canada, Meat and Livestock Australia, National Food Processors Association, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Canadian Wheat Board, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food, Crop Protection Institute, Canadian Animal Health Institute, Syngenta Crop Protection Canada, Rutgers Food Risk Analysis Initiative, FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine, Business News Publishing Co., Tyson, National Cattlemen¹s Beef Association, JIFSAN, National Pork Producer¹s Council, Adculture Group Inc, DuPont Canada, Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, Gustafson Partnership, Ontario Corn Producer¹s Association, Biotechnology Australia, Horticulture and Food Research Institute New Zealand, Effem, Nation Resources and Environment Australia, 3M, Burger King, Ontario Soybean Growers, Canadian Food Information Council and the Agricultural Adaptation Council (CanAdapt Program). archived at: http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/archives/agnet-archives.htm STUDY CONFIRMS CROP PESTS' PREFERENCE FOR CORN IN NORTHEASTERN AND MID-ATLANTIC REFUGES August 16, 2001 Entomological Society Of America When it comes to combating the European corn borer, farmers in Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states should not count on any "help" from plants outside the corn field. To slow the development of resistance, farmers should carefully follow the EPA guidelines for planting refuges-the areas surrounding their biotech-corn fields-a study from the latest issue of Environmental Entomology confirms. The journal is published by the Entomological Society of America (ESA). The genetically engineered corn, known as Bt corn, was developed to combat the European corn borer, a major crop pest that causes $1 billion in annual damage and control costs in the United States. Bt-corn hybrids contain a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, that produces a toxin to kill European corn borers, but widespread use of this corn can lead to these insect pests developing resistance to the toxin. To manage the resistance problem, EPA mandates that a minimum of 20 percent of each Bt-corn field be planted with genetically unaltered corn to serve as a "refuge" where European corn borers can grow without being exposed to the Bt toxin. These unexposed pests can then mate with any Bt-resistant survivors emerging from the corn, thus prolonging the pest population's susceptibility to the toxin. It has been speculated that any type of genetically unaltered plants could serve as refuge plantings so long as they are the European corn borers' natural hosts, which happens to be over 200 plants including crops and weeds. However, ESA member John Losey, an entomologist from Cornell University and lead author of the study, found the pests favored corn over other plants, including weeds and other crops. During the 1998 and 1999 growing seasons, Losey-along with ESA members and entomologists Dennis Calvin of Pennsylvania State University, Maureen Carter of Cornell, and Charles Mason of the University of Delaware-examined the number of European corn borer eggs and larvae in two cornfield refuges in New York and Pennsylvania. To reflect cornfields specific to the geographical area, the refuges consisted of two plots of corn, one planted early and the other planted late in the growing season, as well as soybeans, potato, oats, and weeds. The latter were known host plants for the corn borers that are widely distributed throughout the geographical area and included barnyardgrass, common ragweed, giant foxtail, lambsquarter, Pennsylvania smartweed, and redroot pigweed. As part of resistance management, no pesticides against European corn borer were used in the refuges. In New York, Losey and colleagues found corn borer eggs only on corn, and in Pennsylvania only on corn, lambsquarter, and pigweed. The researchers also found in both sites more larvae on corn than any other plant. In comparing early- and late-planted corn, they found more larvae on the early corn. "We found very little evidence to suggest that a substantial proportion of European corn borer larvae develop to adults on plants other than corn," Losey said. "The pests' preference to corn may be at least partly due to the failure of non-corn host plants to provide all the requirements for European corn borer survival and development," he added. Losey and colleagues also conducted a laboratory study to compare corn and common weeds as host plants of the insect pests. "We found that corn and ragweed were the two favorite hosts of corn borer larvae in the lab, at least two times more favored than the other plants," Losey said. The findings confirmed those of the field study. Results from the study suggest that the size of refuges should not be decreased. "Our evidence does not support a recommendation of reduced refuge planting in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic," Losey said. Beginning August 16, the complete study can be accessed on the Web for free via http://www.entsoc.org/pubs/. MYSTERY DNA IS DISCOVERED IN SOYBEANS BY SCIENTISTS August 16, 2001 New York Times Andrew Pollack http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/16/health/genetics/16CROP.html According to this story, the world¹s most widely grown genetically engineered crop contains some unexpected DNA next to its inserted gene, casting some doubts on the biotechnology industry¹s assertions that its technology is precise and predictable. The story says that the mysterious DNA was found in the Monsanto Company¹s Roundup Ready soybeans by Belgian government and university scientists, who described their findings in a paper published yesterday in the journal European Food Research and Technology. Greenpeace called yesterday for countries to re-evaluate the regulatory approvals of the soybeans, saying that Monsanto did not know as much as it should about its product. Dr. Janet Cotter-Howells, a scientist for Greenpeace in Britain was cited as saying that the unknown DNA could possibly affect the safety of the beans, adding, "I don't think you can come out and say it¹s unsafe. You can just say it¹s unknown whether it's unsafe or not." The story says that Monsanto acknowledged that the extra DNA was there, but it said it was confident that the soybean was safe and that the unknown DNA had no effect on the plant. Dr. Jerry J. Hjelle, the company¹s vice president for regulatory affairs, was cited as saying the DNA segment had been in the crop since the beginning as it went through testing to prove its safety and that products made from Roundup Ready soybeans have been eaten by people and animals for five years with no reports of health problems. Still, the story says, the findings could cause some embarrassment for Monsanto and the agricultural biotech industry because they raise questions about how well the molecular makeup of the products is characterized. Roundup Ready soybeans contain a gene from a bacterium that allows the plants to withstand Monsanto¹s Roundup herbicide. The story adds that this is the second time that scientists have found something in Roundup Ready soybeans that Monsanto did not seem to know was there and had not cited at the time of the product¹s approval. Last year the Belgian scientists and Monsanto, working independently, found that the soybeans contained not only one complete copy of the bacterial gene, as intended, but two fragments of that gene. Monsanto filed reports with regulators around the world offering data to show that the fragments were not active genes and had no effect on the plant. The paper now being published contains another revelation. Adjacent to one of those gene fragments is another stretch of DNA that Monsanto, in its report to regulators last year, had assumed was the soybean¹s native DNA. But the Belgian scientists, led by Dr. Marc De Loose of the Center for Agricultural Research in Melle, were cited as saying they could not find this stretch of DNA in the soybean that had not been genetically engineered. They suggested that this unknown DNA is probably the plant's own DNA but that it was somehow rearranged, or scrambled, at the time the bacterial gene was inserted. Another possibility, they said, is that a portion of the plant¹s DNA was deleted, leaving other DNA in that position. Dr. Hjelle, of Monsanto, was cited as saying that the new paper by the Belgian scientists had been available online for some time and that Monsanto had already discussed the information with regulators and that the unexpected DNA had been found because more sensitive techniques had made it practical for the first time to determine the sequence of the DNA flanking the inserted gene, adding, "As methods improve we can find things from a detailed perspective that we couldn't 10 years ago." Dr. Hjelle said the unknown sequence was only 534 letters long out of a soybean genome of about 1.5 billion letters and was not meaningful. He also said that the jumbling up of DNA near the spot where a new gene was inserted was "expected by people who understand the science." Dr. David Ow, a senior scientist at the Department of Agriculture¹s Plant Gene Expression Center in Albany, Calif., was cited as saying that an inserted gene did not always integrate itself into a plant in a neat way, adding, "It's not so much that rearrangements occur, but what are the consequences of it Dr. Ow also said he did not think that this would pose a public safety issue, but he said it would pose a public perception problem for the industry, stating, "If one is submitting a product it has to be characterized to the extent required by the regulatory bodies." GMO PRODUCTS ARE HERE TO STAY August 16, 2001 The Guardian (Charlottetown) A7 Dave Steeves writes that five persons representing 13 groups held a news conference calling upon Premier Pat Binns to pass legislation banning the growing of any genetically-modified crops on P.E.I. Only Bert Christie, a retired Agriculture Canada scientist, spoke from specific knowledge and experience. He is a plant breeder who said he didn't think we have enough testing to come to any firm conclusions. Steeves says he guesses this is why test plots of GMO wheat are being grown in different parts of Canada. In any event, Steeves says he is forced to say GMO is here to stay. If retail grocery stores were required to accurately label food contents, then up to 70 per cent of current food stocks would have a GMO sticker. GMO was introduced into the food chain years ago and there is no way to remove it. So all Steeves can say is, have a nice day the GMO way. RESEARCHERS UNLOCK THE SECRETS OF HOW HERBICIDES INTERACT WITH SOIL AND SUBSOIL August 16, 2001 USDA ARS News Service Predicting how herbicides move in soil requires accurate estimates of how these chemicals bind to soils and geologic materialsvital information that's often lacking for materials below the soil's surface. Now, Agricultural Research Service microbiologist Thomas B. Moorman at the National Soil Tilth Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, working with researchers at Florida International University- Miami and Iowa State University-Ames, has measured how one important herbicide, atrazine, binds to and lets go of particles in different soil types. Unlike previous research, this project measured atrazine's binding deep into Iowa soil. Atrazine is an organic compound, widely used as a herbicide for control of broadleaf and grassy weeds. During the 1980s, atrazine was estimated to be the most widely used herbicide in the United States. Today, because of its low cost, it is still applied to millions of acres of U.S. croplands, especially corn and sorghum fields. The scientists used a variety of simulation models to predict the risk of this herbicide's movement into groundwater. For accurate prediction, these models integrated information about rainfall, waterflow, soil types and atrazine use. The team found that the soils were low in organic carbon. But they retained more herbicide than would have been predicted, based on past research. The researchers also found that certain glacial till materialsgeologic sediment of sand, silt and clay in the saturated zone beneath the groundwater surfacewere able to retain atrazine quite strongly, greatly limiting its leaching. This geologic sediment was deposited as glaciers retreated from Iowa about 15,000 years ago. The researchers believe this knowledge should increase scientists' and farmers' ability to predict herbicide contamination of groundwater and aid in developing practices that protect water resources from contamination. This will help producers manage herbicides more carefully and assure better water quality for the general public. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROMISES CROP YIELDS WITH FEWER CHEMICALS, BUT WILL IT PROVE EFFECTIVE IN THE LONG RUN? August 16, 2001 >From a press release ST. PAUL, Minn. It used to be that most growers had a simple way of dealing with pests that plagued their crops: They relied on a myriad of chemicals, applying them routinely in an effort to protect their harvest. But times have changed. Environmental and health concerns have lead to a decreased use of chemicals, while simultaneously our knowledge of non-chemical disease control methods has increased substantially. But scientists wonder if these new methods will prove effective in the long run. Many consider this one of the key agricultural issues of the decade, prompting the world¹s largest group of plant health scientists to hold a special symposium at the end of August to discuss the economics of what is called Integrated Pest Management, or IPM. At one time common practice held that growers applied chemicals to their crops on a rotating basis whether they had pests or not. But with IPM, chemicals are used only when a pest infestation has been detected, and then the chemical of choice is likely to be a new, so called ³reduced-risk² variety, a name given by the EPA to chemicals deemed safer to workers and to the environment because they either require a smaller dose, degrade more quickly in the environment, or are less toxic than other products on the market. But the key concept in IPM programs is the word ³integrated,² since the overall IPM strategy calls for growers to rely first on techniques like frequent monitoring, biotechnology and sanitation to manage potential pests and to use chemicals only when necessary. ³Growers have been very willing to adopt IPM programs since they see the value both in the marketplace and to the environment as well,² states Lorianne Fought, a plant pathologist with Bayer Corp. and organizer of the symposium. But she adds that even though IPM programs are popular, they can be very expensive to administer and their long-term effectiveness is still unknown. Fought hopes the symposium will be a first step for scientists to begin to evaluate how economical IPM strategies are for growers throughout the agricultural system. At the symposium, scientists will hear reports of IPM programs that are currently in use with staple crops like cotton and grains, as well as high-value crops like tomatoes and pecans. States Fought, ³The prices growers are receiving for their crops continue to decline and the cost of farm operations rises, even though retail prices remain largely the same. This puts enormous pressure on growers since IPM programs often involve substantial upfront costs, and can be very labor intensive. We need to have ongoing analyses of these programs so that we can identify potential weak spots and opportunities for improvement if growers are to stay in business and consumers are to continue to get reasonably priced foods grown under IPM-intensive programs.² The symposium on the economics of IPM versus traditional pest control will be held at the APS Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah on Tuesday, August 28 at 9:30 a.m. Complimentary registration is available for reporters and science writers. The American Phytopathological Society (APS) is a non-profit, professional scientific organization dedicated to the study and control of plant diseases, with 5,000 members worldwide. MEXICO-US POTATO August 16, 2001 Associated Press Traci Carl MEXICO CITY Pascacio Taboada, a spokesman for Mexico's agriculture department, was cited as saying that Mexico banned imports of fresh U.S. potatoes Wednesday, because of a microscopic worm that burrows into the tubers and that the ban will be lifted as soon as U.S. growers can prove that their potatoes are worm-free, adding, "When it is certain there are no problems, we will begin importing potatoes again." The story says that the worm, called a root knot nematode, lives in the soil, devours potato plants and burrows inside the tuber, reducing a potato¹s market value. Although the pest is already found in some parts of Mexico, officials worry that it could spread to areas that have not been infected.. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE: CITRUS August 15, 2001 >From a press release OLYMPIA, Wash. Entomologists from the state Department of Agriculture are searching for evidence of the highly destructive citrus longhorned beetle, and they¹re asking for your help. This is a shiny black beetle, capable of flight, measuring 1 to 1 1/2 inches long, with irregular white patches on its back, and long distinguishable antennae that are banded with black and white. (Photos are on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/pestaler/achinfm.gif) If you see one of these beetles, scoop it into a jar or other container and then call 800/443-6684. The search for this beetle began immediately after the owner of a nursery in Tukwila brought what appeared to be an Asian longhorned beetle to the U.S. Department of Agriculture¹s Seattle plant inspection office (USDA). Asian longhorned beetles have caused thousands of trees to be destroyed in Chicago and New York. The entomologists caught two more beetles in a group of maple trees at the nursery on Thursday. They also found eight exit holes on the trees, indicating that up to five beetles are on the loose. Because many beetles resemble the Asian longhorned beetle, the beetles caught in Tukwila were sent to the Smithsonian for positive identification. They were positively identified as citrus longhorned beetles on Friday. It is the first time the citrus longhorned beetle has been found in Washington. The citrus longhorned beetle is closely related to the Asian longhorned beetle. It is just as destructive. Forests and landscapes could be severely damaged if the beetle is allowed to establish itself in this country. The maple trees were imported from Korea. The entire shipment of 369 trees has been destroyed. The trees were in the eighth month of a two-year long disease quarantine to ensure they were healthy before they could be sold to retail outlets or the public. State and federal entomologists will be inspecting trees in the immediate area for egg sites, or damage to leaves and bark that would indicate adult beetles have been feeding. The state and federal departments of agriculture are also discussing methods that can be used to prevent the beetles from becoming established in this state. ³Fortunately, we¹re ready,² said Brad White, managing entomologist at the state Department of Agriculture. ³We¹ve been gearing up for this fight for more than two years. One entomologist got firsthand knowledge of Asian longhorned beetle control measures in Chicago.² Citrus longhorned beetles are considered serious orchard pests in Asia. They represent an even larger threat to trees in this country where they have no natural enemies. Females may lay as many as 200 eggs individually, not in egg masses, beneath the bark on the lower portion of the trunk or exposed roots of trees. The eggs hatch into larvae, large worm-like grubs that feed on wood within the tree. Larvae grow more than 2 inches long and 1/2 inch wide and then emerge as adult beetles. Despite its name, citrus longhorned beetles attack a wide range of living hardwood trees and a few conifers. They are fond of maple, alder and poplar trees. They kill trees, gradually, by boring large holes throughout the heartwood of the tree during the insect¹s larval stage. Since the New York and Chicago Asian longhorned beetle infestations were linked to wooden pallets and other wood packing materials, USDA requires those materials to be treated before entering the U.S. Several species of longhorned beetles have been found in nursery stock from Asia. Asian longhorned beetle is one of the potentially harmful insects monitored by the state Department of Agriculture, which has primary responsibility for protecting people, agriculture and the environment from exotic and invasive pests. To date, only two adult Asian longhorned beetles have been found in Washington. One was found in 1997 on pallets at a business near Marysville. The other was discovered in 1998 at a utility in Bellingham. In each case, only one live beetle was found. Follow-up surveys found no additional beetles, so there is little chance that they could have established populations here. CONTACT: Washington State Department of Agriculture Linda Waring, 360/902-1815 Mike Louisell, 360/902-1813 WHERE HAVE ALL THE GREAT GRAPES GONE? ONE OF CALIFORNIA'S RICHEST AGRICULTURAL HERITAGES HAS BEEN REDUCED TO THE BLAND AND SEEDLESS. August 15, 2001 Los Angeles Times David Karp http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la-081501grape.story?coll=la%2Dheadline s%2Dfood According to this story, when asked where to find California's finest table grapes, a friend who calls himself the Fruit Crank quipped, "Table grapes aren't even grown here." He knows, of course, that California produces roughly a billion dollars' worth of table grapes a year, 97% of the nation's crop. That's the most valuable fresh fruit crop in the state, and growing steadily: U.S. per capita consumption of fresh grapes has tripled over the last 30 years, to 8.2 pounds, a greater increase than for any other major fruit. Nevertheless, the story says that the Fruit Crank insists that classic table varieties, with intense flavors, sensuous textures and distinctive identities, have vanished, leaving only crunchy, neutral-tasting seedless grapes, bred to be inoffensive to the greatest number of customersÂnice for a sweet snack, but far from the flower of viticulture. "Very few Americans have ever tasted a real table grape," he says. "All they get at the market are immature raisin grapes." This may be an extreme opinion, but, the story says that tracing the evolution of California's grape varieties and growing practices reveals that it has a thread of truth. Ironically, farmers seem to be scrambling harder than ever, using cutting-edge growing techniques, to deliver a commercial product that rarely transcends mediocrity. The news isn't all bad, however. For the first time, breeders are poised to introduce high-flavored seedless grapes. The story explains that one of the few places it's possible to taste how much grapes have changed is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's grape collection in Winters, west of Sacramento, where nearly 3,000 genetically distinct accessions cover 11 acres. This collection, part of the National Clonal Germplasm Repository system, is so vast and diverse that even the curator needs a map to navigate the rows of vines on chest-high trellises. B-D-GLUCURONIDASE FROM E. COLI AND THE GENETIC MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR ITS PRODUCTION AS A PLANT PESTICIDE INERT INGREDIENT; EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF A TOLERANCE August 16, 2001 [Federal Register: (Volume 66, Number 159)] [Page 42957-42962] [DOCID:fr16au01-11] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [OPP-301129; FRL-6782-8] RIN 2070-AB78 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of B-D-glucuronidase from Escherichia coli and the genetic material necessary for its production in or on all food commodities when applied/used as a plant pesticide inert ingredient. Monsanto submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of B-D-glucuronidase derived from E. coli and the genetic material necessary for its production. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Linda Hollis, c/o Product Manager (PM) 90, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703-308-8733); and e-mail address: hollis.linda@epa.gov. SPINNING SCIENCE INTO GOLD; HOW INDUSTRY'S PUBLIC-RELATIONS CAMPAIGNS STIFLE DEBATE OVER BIOTECHNOLOGY August 15, 2001 Tom Paine Common Sense Karen Charman http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/08/02/index.html When research scientist Arpad Pusztai appeared on British television in August 1998 to talk about his studies of genetically engineered potatoes, he was suspended and later fired from his job at the Rowett Research Institute in Scotland. After a distinguished 36-year career there, his research was terminated, his data seized, and a contract clause was invoked that put his pension in jeopardy. At that point, the contract became a gag order forbidding him to discuss his work or defend himself in the ensuing six months during which his scientific reputation was trashed by a fierce cadre of pro-biotech scientists in Britain and around the globe. What had Pusztai done? With the prior approval of his boss, this world authority on a class of plant compounds called lectins had made the case for food safety testing for all genetically engineered crops. At the time, Pusztai's team was conducting the only independent scientific research in the world designed to test the safety of genetically engineered foods. Originally an enthusiastic supporter of genetic engineering, Pusztai had not expected to find any negative results. So Pusztai was both surprised and alarmed to find that rats fed potatoes genetically engineered with a specific lectin developed disturbing changes in the size and weight of some of their vital organs. He also found evidence of weakened immune systems. A control group of rats fed ordinary potatoes and another fed spuds with the lectin added but not genetically spliced in showed no such results. When the interviewer asked if the lack of safety testing for genetically engineered foods concerned Pusztai, he said it did. When asked if he would eat his own genetically engineered potatoes, Pusztai said he would not, and that he didn't think it was fair to use people as guinea pigs for an untested new technology. Pusztai's remarks helped galvanize a growing consumer revolt in Europe that has cost the biotech industry dearly. Opposition to genetically engineered foods is now strong there and in many other parts of the world as well. In response, a well-funded and -organized biotech hype machine has emerged to promote biotech food as the solution to world hunger and squelch concerns about its safety. Groups like the U.S.-based Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), the industry's main trade and lobbying group, are desperately trying to prevent a similar consumer revolt from happening in the United States. Through sponsorship of scientific research in the nation's universities as well as high-powered lobbying on Capitol Hill, the biotech promoters are doing their best to neutralize critics. Their academic sponsorships channel research away from biotech's potential negative effects, while their closed-door meetings in Washington ensure that consumers don't get adequate food testing or labeling, and organic farmers won't get the regulations they need to keep their crops free of genetic contamination. Few academics are willing to openly criticize biotechnology for fear of retribution from the biotech boosters, say biotech skeptics like John Ikerd, a retired agricultural economist from the University of Missouri. In his view, the enormous public resources devoted to biotechnology programs are corporate giveaways that come at the expense of other kinds of research. His own work focused on sustainable agriculture systems for smaller-scale family farms rather than serving the big agribusiness models land-grant universities have been promoting for more than 50 years. Ikerd's type of research is viewed as a threat to corporate agriculture, he says, because it enables farmers to reduce their reliance on the fertilizers, pesticides, and other products that agribusiness companies sell. Ikerd's candor was not well received at his university. "You become labeled as not a team player, as not one of the trusted members of the faculty," he says. "You are not on committees you used to be on, you're not involved in the leadership of the department, and you don't get write-ups in the university publications. You have to decide before you speak out that you don't care about these repercussions. It's like being a whistleblower." Corporate funding of university research increased fivefold from $850 million to $4.25 billion between 1985 and 1995. A survey measuring attitudes toward biotechnology among Cornell University agricultural and nutrition-science faculty and extension staff (who advise farmers) found that nearly half have reservations about the health, safety, and environmental impacts of genetically engineered food crops and doubt they are the answer to global hunger. Strong biotech supporters numbered 37 percent, while 8 percent thought agricultural biotech might have useful applications and help with global hunger but expressed concerns about food safety issues in light of inadequate testing. Though their numbers were fewer, the biotech promoters said they felt very comfortable publicly voicing their views, while the concerned majority did not express that sentiment. Ann Clark, a pasture scientist at the University of Guelph in Canada, is among those who have been chastised for expressing reservations. A little over a year ago, she publicly criticized the lack of food safety testing for transgenic crops. "Within two hours of the press conference releasing the report, my dean had called me unethical," Clark said. "He said I was paid to be a pasture scientist and that I should stick with that. It became quite ugly, because the national media picked it up, and people whose views aren't parallel to mine have used [the dean's remarks] extensively." Clark has tenure, so she isn't worried about losing her job. But she says her treatment has had a chilling effect on the debate about biotechnology within Canadian universities. "There aren't many academics who will say something if they know their administrators the people who sit in judgment on their performance are going to publicly lambaste them," she said. That initial incident has made Clark more determined than ever to raise questions about biotechnology. Besides continuing to speak openly, she has a number of papers on her website that discuss the growing dominance of biotech in publicly funded universities and question the quality of the science driving biotech's advancement. Whether they work directly for biotech companies or receive corporate grants for their work in universities or government research institutes, scientists are generally forbidden to disclose their results because of secrecy clauses in their contracts. Such clauses are likely to proliferate as public support for research and education is replaced by corporate money a shift that is already well under way. Writing in the March 2000 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, Eyal Press and Jennifer Washburn report that corporate funding of university research increased fivefold from $850 million to $4.25 billion between 1985 and 1995. By 1997, corporate contributions constituted 40 percent of the overall academic research budget. Sarah Bantz, a graduate student in agricultural economics at the University of Missouri, is researching private money coming into her university over a 30-year period. To get access to corporate contracts, she had to promise not to reveal any specifics about them. She says that of all the biotech research undertaken at the University of Missouri, only one study is assessing health, safety, or environmental impacts. "Virtually all the research is for product development, one way or another," she says. Traditionally, universities have been reservoirs of independent thinking where tenured faculty had the academic freedom to analyze and interpret science and its implications for society without pressure from financially interested parties. But as funding ties between private industry and universities grow, the pool of independent research is shrinking. "It would be as if we had to draw our scientists from corporations every time we wanted to convene a body of experts to help us resolve a technical, scientific problem with public-policy implications in society," says Tufts University professor Sheldon Krimsky, an authority on the social implications of science and technology. "Corporations will have much more direction and control over what technologies get introduced and what are considered to be safe and unsafe." Organic farmer David Vetter is facing off with the biotech boosters, too, but they act as if he doesn't exist. Vetter's 280-acre Nebraska farm is a patchwork of sweet corn, popcorn, soybeans, barley, a variety of grasses, legumes, and grazing paddocks for cattle. Visitors, including Fred Kirschenmann, director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, come away impressed by the care that goes into the operation. "It strikes you when you step out on that farm," says Kirschenmann. "You can see it in the fields. It's just good stewardship." "As an organic grower, I can no longer guarantee that my crops are GE-free." Vetter may be a good caretaker, but he can't control the wind. Cross-fertilization between corn plants occurs regularly in the Corn Belt as winds carry pollen from field to field. Prior to the first large-scale commercial plantings of genetically engineered crops in 1996, wind pollination did not pose particular problems for organic farmers. Their biggest challenge was trying to keep pesticides from blowing onto their fields. But with the advent of transgenic crops and growing public disquiet, bolstered by some alarming preliminary data on the health and environmental effects of such crops farmers like Vetter face a real threat to their livelihood. Vetter has been testing for transgenic contamination since 1998. Last year, he found it. Transgenic contamination is already widespread: 100 percent of the organic corn samples sent in to be tested from the Midwest this year showed some degree of genetic contamination, which could result in organic corn growers losing their certification and probably their markets. So far, Vetter's customers say they will reluctantly accept a certain amount of transgenic contamination, as long as it stays at very low levels. But Vetter is worried. The loss of the organic market for his corn would hit him hard its revenue equals the net profit his farm generates. In the meantime, he's saddled with a hefty bill: It cost him $1,500 to test one $4,000 load of corn for contamination. "It's extremely frustrating when you have to pay those kinds of costs, through no fault of your own, because somebody's introduced technology they can't manage," Vetter says. Years ago, Vetter began planting double rows of pines, with 60 feet of untilled sod in between, creating a buffer zone to protect his crops from pesticides drifting over from neighboring farms. The buffer hasn't prevented transgenic pollution, though, and this time he's adamant that responsibility for his genetically contaminated crop should fall squarely on both those who have introduced bioengineered corn into agriculture and the government agencies that have allowed the widespread use of essentially unregulated genetically engineered crops. "It's now clear that we won't be able to have both genetically engineered and non-GE crops," Vetter says. "As an organic grower, I can no longer guarantee that my crops are GE-free. The only resolution I can see is a ban on biotech crops." Michael Phillips, executive director for food and agriculture at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, is trying to make sure that Vetter and farmers like him don't get their way. Phillips and his staff see their task as creating a barrier between biotech critics and Washington legislators, while also working to educate decision-makers on what they claim to be biotech's benefits. So far, BIO has been extremely successful in its mission. Consumer-oriented biotech legislation mandatory labeling of genetically engineered ingredients on food packages, which independent consumer polls consistently indicate the public wants, and a pre-market safety approval process for biotech foods has not gotten far on Capitol Hill. Phillips has said that pre-market approval is "something the industry would never support." He and his colleagues at BIO have also worked to defeat the establishment of any tracking system that could require transgenic seed purchases to be registered. Such registration could establish liability for the kind of contamination that Vetter experienced. Prior to joining BIO in 1999, Phillips was director of the National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources. When Phillips left the academy for BIO, he was in the middle of directing a study to assess the health and environmental safety of crops genetically engineered to contain pesticides. The revolving door took him swiftly from a group that provides policy-makers with independent scientific advice to one that lobbies on behalf of chemical-intensive agriculture. "Come on in BIO, here's everybody you need to lobby." Because of the success of such advocacy, Congress has been reluctant to regulate pesticides or promote organic farming and other alternatives to chemical-intensive agriculture. But it does generously fund biotechnology. The 2001 budget allocates $310 million for biotech in agriculture and rural-development programs. Federal support for organic farming is less than $5 million. In agriculture and beyond, biotech has huge moneymaking potential. Harvard Business School professor Ray A. Goldberg predicts the new genetic technologies will revolutionize the global economy by turning traditionally distinct industry sectors agriculture, health care, energy, and computing into one gargantuan life-science industry with "virtually unlimited commercial [patent and ownership] possibilities." Asked to quantify the value of future biotech markets, Goldberg says he had been thinking it could reach $16 trillion. But then he changed his mind, saying that there really isn't any way to put a number on future markets for "virtually everything." In autumn 1999, Phillips's organization held "Biotechnology School," weekly or bi-weekly meetings between BIO staff and members of the House Committee on Agriculture and their staffs. At these sessions, BIO taught its congressional pupils what biotechnology is, how it's being used in food and agriculture, and where the science is leading. According to one congressional source who requested anonymity, BIO's school exemplified "typical industry access" to Congress that citizen groups simply don't have. "The agriculture committee is going to control the biotech debate in Congress, and they basically said, 'Come on in BIO, here's everybody you need to lobby. And you can do it every week or as much as you want,'" the source said. "This offer is not extended to environmental or food-safety groups no way, no how." BIO has also set up congressional biotechnology caucuses one in the House and one in the Senate that work with the industry to advance its issues. Adam Kovacevich, a spokesperson for Cal Dooley, D-Calif., one of the four co-chairs of the House Biotech Caucus, describes the 65-member group as a "forum for advocacy" that "educates fellow members of Congress on the positive implications of biotechnology." Two of the co-chairs, one Republican and one Democrat, sit on the House Agriculture Committee, and the two others, also one from each party, are on the House Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over medical applications of biotechnology. Though the caucus is not promoting any particular bill, it alerts caucus members to any legislative or regulatory activity that could affect biotechnology. This activity clearly helps keep legislators in the biotech camp. In the last session of Congress, a bill requiring labels on genetically engineered foods was introduced by Representative Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. Only one member of the biotech caucus, Mark Udall, D-Colo., supported the ill-fated bill. Udall's district includes the environmentally aware community of Boulder as well as an area with a lot of biotech companies, says Jennifer Barrett, a legislative assistant in his office. "He cosponsored the labeling bill because he's concerned that consumers should have all the information they need about the food they are eating," she says. The caucus also organizes forums where invited experts brief members on various biotech issues. Richard Caplan, who works on biotech issues for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, contacted Dooley's office, offering to present his perspective on biotech food issues. His offer was ignored. An aid to one of the leaders of the biotech caucus defended the group's orientation. "We're primarily interested in getting out the facts and the science," he said. "We're trying to make this a debate that's based not so much on passion and assumptions but on the actual science." But without the voices of researchers like Arpad Pusztai, farmers like David Vetter, and public-interest advocates like Richard Caplan, one wonders whether it's a debate at all or just nonstop communiqués from the biotech hype machine. BIOTECHNOLOGY ISSUES FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE August 16, 2001 Electronic Journal of Biotechnology Boru Douthwaite, Rodomiro Ortiz Given that populations are growing, per capita consumption needs to increase to feed the 830 million underfed people in the world, and our natural resource base is already seriously damaged, the only option would appear to be very rapid technological change. Is this really the only option? And if so, where are these technology gains going to come from? Agriculture in developing countries faces a huge challenge. In the next 50 years the number of people living in the world¹s poorer countries will increase from 5 billion to 8 billion. To feed these people farmers in 2050 will need to produce at least 50% more food, which for the 2000Â2001 World Resources Report, could have devastating implications for human development and the welfare of all species. Paul Ehrlich, one of the most influential ecologists in the USA and author of the book The Population Bomb, developed an equation in the 1970s to describe the impact of human population on the environment. A version of this equation, called the populationÂresource equation, helps put the challenge facing agriculture into stark perspective. The equation says that: (Natural resource use) x (technology) = (population) x (per capita consumption).i Given that populations are growing, per capita consumption needs to increase to feed the 830 million underfed people in the world, and our natural resource base is already seriously damaged, the only option would appear to be very rapid technological change. Is this really the only option? And if so, where are these technology gains going to come from? Vernon Ruttan, a professor emeritus in the Departments of Economics and Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota believes, as do many others, that biotechnology is the answer. Ruttan writes, "biotechnology is poised to become the most important new general-purpose technology in the first half of the twenty-first century"ii. The private sector agrees. Monsanto puts it this way: "agricultural biotechnology will play a major role in realising the hope we all share. Accepting this, science can make a dramatic difference to millions of lives." There is a strong opposing view. The United Nations (UN) Development Programme¹s Human Development Report 2001, published in July, urges that there should be "greater public investment in GM [genetically modified] research and development to ensure it meets the needs of the poor". However, the report was immediately slated by nearly 300 organisations around the world, including Oxfam, Greenpeace International and Action Aid who chastised the UN for its uncritical support for biotechnology. The fact that so many organisations were so quick in their condemnation bears testament to how deeply and widely reservations about biotechnology are held. Indeed, this feeling has already led to a consumer boycott against GM food in Europe that has included GM food being barred from the menu at the UK headquarters of a transnational biotech company. In our opinion the debate has become polarised and the result is Âtwo-value thinking¹Âthe assumption, frequently unexamined, that every question has two sides, and only two sides, and that organisations and individuals are either on one side or the other. In this article we examine the issues on both sides of the debate and suggest a way through the middle that, while not seeing biotechnology as the new panacea, does not dismiss it as a false and dangerous dawn. Technology change that biotechnology may or may not bring is at the heart of both people¹s hopes and people¹s fears. Some have found it useful to think of technology change as an evolutionary process. People, as a result of the pressures they face and the opportunities they see, learn and then generate new ideas, things, and ways of organising themselves. If these novelties work well then others adopt them and they spread. Agricultural change is built up of many replications of this novelty generation, selection and diffusion process, just as we have evolved through countless natural selection iterations. Unlike natural selection though, this Âlearning selection¹ process is not blind. Who benefits depends on who generates the novelties, how selection decisions are made, and how innovations are promulgated. The main role of science in agriculture has been to propel this evolutionary process by generating novelties that allow us to produce more with less land and less effort. Results have been spectacular. The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), a grouping of 16 international agricultural research institutes, is best known for starting the Green Revolution of rice and wheat in Asia. In the 30 years from 1971 to 2000 the improved crop varieties produced by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de MaÃz y Trigo (CIMMYT) have helped raise average rice and wheat yields by 2.3 and 1.65 times respectively, helping to feed an Asian population that grew by almost 70% in the same period. Data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) show that from 1961 to 1991 the Asian population doubled from 1.6 to 3.4 billion (Article published by IRRI). In the same period, rice production grew from 199 million tonnes in 1961 to 540 million tonnes in 2000 (170%), thanks largely to the yield associated to the new, improved rice varieties. Using these data, a team of researchers from IRRI found that the total annual gains from the adoption of these new modern rice varieties now stand at US $ 10.8 billion, i.e., about 150 times the total investment made in rice research over the same 40-year period by IRRI and its national research-for-development partne rs in Asia. The Green Revolution crop varieties were novelties that farmers rushed to adopt. In 1982, IR36 was planted on 11 million hectares, making it the most widely planted rice cultivar ever. However, problems emerged when millions of rice farmers all moved from growing a number of their traditional landraces to just one or two genetically homogenous cultivars. Some of the resistance that the breeders had given the improved varieties against pests and diseases broke down within 3 to 5 years leading to huge crop losses. In Indonesia, for example, a fifth of farmers lost their entire crop to brown plant hoppers in 1985 and 1986. Farmers in Thailand and the Philippines suffered a similar fate. In evolutionary terms the cause of the problem was not with the novelties per se, but with the selection and diffusion mechanisms that led to the technologies being so widely adopted without considering the consequences. Farmers did not know the consequences because they were used to operating on the scale of their own fields, not to thinking about what might happen over millions of hectares. And the research and extension systems that were encouraging them to adopt did not know the consequences either. This has been a salutary lesson to the CGIAR system: reductionist science that isolates problems and ignores contexts and scale issues can become horribly unstuck even in relatively simple agroecosystems. It does not necessarily produce sustainable solutions. The world now needs a second Green Revolution to feed growing populations in developing countries. We believe that biotechnology has a role to play, but only if the lessons of the first Green Revolution, and from decades of experience in agricultural development in general, are learnt. In addition to the lesson about reductionist science, these lessons are: farming in developing countries is profoundly different to farming in developed countries; farms are generally small, and farming systems often complex and Âfine grained¹ where each grain represents a different set of opportunities and constraints that often require different solutions; technologies, in general, do not transfer from developed to developing countries. Rather, they need to be built up in situ using local knowledge and innovative ability after which, if successful, they will spread from farmer to farmer; sustainability is about empowering local communities to be able to adapt successfully to change; and if a country produces enough food to feed itself this does not mean there is no hunger. Whether people have enough food is determined by infrastructure and government policy, as well as who has access to technology. To help farming in developing countries, therefore, biotechnology needs to support local innovative capacity and to be assessable. Local people and institutions need to be in control of the novelty generation, selection and diffusion processes. Biotechnology will not help the poor if it is transferred in a top-down, reductionist way, from first world to third. However, there is real concern that this is what is going to happen because of some actions taken by large multinational biotech companies. An example is the use of so-called Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) to develop ÂTerminator seeds¹,i.e., seeds modified to produce infertile seed thus forcing farmers to buy new seed every year. This makes good sense for a company whose primary loyalty is to making profits for its shareholders, but is not at all in the interest of the 1.4 billion people, nearly all living in developing countries who rely on saved seed as their primary seed source. Furthermore, such technology threatens to undermine the indigenous innovation system that over the last 10,000 years has Âinvented¹ and then refined the world¹s crops. A related threat to indigenous innovation is the current patent system that offers no protection for indigenous and community-based innovation to private sector claims. The US patent on the Mexican enola bean, for example, raises the spectre of poor farmers being prevented from growing seed they have been breeding for centuries. Hopefully biotechnology will never be used to thwart indigenous plant breeding in developing countries. Some in the private seed sector (i.e. Monsanto and Syngenta) have already given commitments not to use GURTs. Both companies see it in their own interest to develop partnerships with the public sector that will help bring benefits to developing countries. In April 2000, for example, Monsanto announced that it was making its draft rice genome sequence data available to public researchers involved in the International Rice Genome Sequencing Project. Within this decade, research in crop improvement will also be targeting improvement of food quality, i.e. vitamin A content. Golden Rice and other crops with capacity to produce beta-carotene may contribute to a balanced diet in poor rural areas as well as new demands for varied diet from urban populations with enhanced income. The private sector announced that some of the patents associated with the development of GoldenRice will not be enforced to allow consumers in the developing world to benefit from this new crop variety. Research groups are already attempting to improve GoldenRice further by enhancing the quality of the rice protein to contain more essential amino acids. The UN Human Development Report believes, however, that relying on the spotlight of public opinion to encourage multinationals to do the right thing is not sufficient. A main conclusion from the report is that policy, not charity, will determine whether new technologies become a tool for human development everywhere. One solution the authors suggest is that rich countries support a global effort to create incentives and new partnerships for research and development. The biotech products developed by the private sector must be deployed in a way that considers both environmental and human health issues. While this discussion remains sensitive, particularly for the inhabitants of the industrialised world, it is a debate in which the developing world should have a voice, and must set its own biosafety standards within the context of economy, ecology and climate. Of course, scientists and policy makers in the developing world must ensure that the New Science serves the needs and aspirations of their people. Some of these biosafety issues need to be addressed while deploying transgenic technology: transgenic plants should not lead to new pests or new pest strains; transgenic technology for pest control should not affect non-target organisms; transgenic food should not pose a health risk; agrobiodiversity should not be suppressed by adoption of new transgenic crops; and transgenic plants should not affect agroecosystems if new lands are to be incorporated into agriculture. An interesting example of research-for-development in biotechnology is provided by CAMBIA,Center for the Application of Molecular Biology, to International Agriculture. This is a not-for-profit research institute in Canberra, Australia, which was set up in 1991 to develop and package the novelty generation and selection tools that biotechnology is making possible so that farmers and local researchers can use them. One of the technologies is Âtransactivation¹, which is based on the fact that much of the genetic variability in plants comes not from the presence or absence of genes, but from gene regulation, i.e., the extent to which genes are Âturned on¹ and in which tissues. Manipulating gene activity in this way can create a composite crop population with a tremendous degree of variety. The plan is to provide breeders and farmers with populations of these 'turned on' plants to allow them to select the novelties they want. The power of this approach is that it allows farmers and breeders to scan the evolutionary history of a crop and recreate a vast range of novelty that might have existed at some point but died out almost immediately through natural selection. Such novelty might be of huge benefit because what a farmer requires from a crop can be the opposite to what a plant needs to survive in nature. Functional genomics and transactivation are just some technologies that fall under the heading of Âbiotechnology¹ which can provide both opportunities and risks to developing countries, depending on how they are used. Others include: Tissue cultureÂtogether with improved selection techniques tissue culture allows plant breeders to generate a new plant variety in a few generations rather than the many required using conventional techniques. DNA probes that allow genes conveying desired traits to be identified much more reliably and faster than conventional Âphenotyping¹, i.e., identifying the desired gene from the traits it produces in plants growing in the field or greenhouse. DNA probes also make it possible to screen for several genes simultaneously which is very important because features such as high yields and stable resistance to pests and diseases come from the interaction of a number of genes, rather than the presence of just one. Genetic engineering, i.e., the manipulation of an organism¹s genetic information by introducing or eliminating a specific gene. Whereas in conventional plant breeding, breeders are tied to using genes from the same species, genetic engineering allows them to look almost anywhere for genes providing the traits they desire. Genetic engineering is the technology that provides the greatest perceived threat and has caused the most controversy. One area of concern is whether GM plants and food are safe for humans and animals to eat. So far the most potent Âsmoking gun¹ has been the finding that pollen from GM maize kills Monarch butterflies in lab experiments (but not yet confirmed by field research). There are also concerns that proteins in GM food might also cause allergic reactions. A more important area of concern for developing countries is whether GM organisms will Âflow¹ to other organisms. For example, a rice plant genetically modified to have drought tolerance would sooner or later out-cross with weedy rice. This could produce Âsuper-weedy¹ rice that might exasperate the already serious problem that South American farmers have with weedy rice. The more general fear is that plants or animals that gain genes that confer some advantage would then outcompete and reduce biodiversity. This is a greater threat for developing countries, which contain the centres of biodiversity for the world¹s most important crops, than for developed countries. However, there are no records of a plant becoming a weed as a result of plant breeding. Interspecific hybridisation appears to be rare in nature, and resulting hybrids are mostly sterile. Conclusions Whether biotech helps balance Ehrlich¹s equation depends on how it is used, and by whom. Nearly everything points to policy. Clear, strong and equitable policy is needed in both developed (innovative incentive and funding structures) and developing countries (biosafety regulations, intellectual property right arrangements). There is no global framework for supporting biotech research and development that addresses the common needs of poor people in many countries and regions. The CGIAR system could be it! CONFERENCE 6 OF THE FAO ELECTRONIC FORUM ON BIOTECHNOLOGY IN FOOD AND AGRICULTURE August 16, 2001 FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.htm The sixth conference of the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture was entitled "The impact of intellectual property rights (IPRs) on food and agriculture in developing countries" and ran from 20 March to 14 May 2001. The importance of this topic was evident from previous Forum conferences, in particular from Conference 1 (on the crop sector) and, to a lesser degree, Conference 5 (on hunger and food security). Participants in these conferences highlighted the negative impacts IPRs might have for developing countries, such as their increased dependency on developed countries, increased "bioprospecting" in developing countries, reduced technology transfer and reduced ability of developing countries to produce their own biotechnology products. This sixth conference made it possible, therefore, for a deeper discussion of these issues to take place. A relatively large number (265) of Forum Members registered for the conference and 50 messages were posted over the 8-week period, covering a wide range of themes concerning IPRs and their impacts on developing countries. The majority of participants considered the impacts of IPRs to be primarily negative for the developing world. They seemed then to have two approaches to deal with the situation. The first was to reject the current IPRs system that they consider to be wrong and unjust and to propose how it should be changed. The second approach was to accept that the current system is here to stay and to propose strategies to overcome or alleviate the problems associated with it. Throughout the conference, the crop sector received far more attention than the other agricultural sectors while the kinds of IPRs specifically discussed were patents and, to a lesser degree, plant variety protection (PVP). In addition, genetic modification was the biotechnology that participants singled out for particular attention. This is probably because, as Srinivasan (7/5) pointed out, impacts of IPRs are more substantial for modern biotechnologies and products with multiple patents (such as genetically modified (GM) plants) than for products that are derived from traditional biotechnologies, such as micropropagation or tissue culture. In Section 1 of this document, the main elements of the discussions are summarised under a number of main themes. Specific references to messages posted, giving the participant's surname and the date posted (day/month), are included. One participant, Glenn Ashton, posted two messages on a single day and they can be differentiated by the order in which they were posted (i.e. Ashton 12/4(1) indicates the first message he posted on 12 April). Section 2 provides some information about participation in the conference and Section 3 gives the name and country of the people that sent referenced messages. Section 4 provides an explanation of abbreviations used. 1.1 Background information on IPRs and patents A few participants gave some background information on IPRs and patents that reinforced or supplemented information previously provided in the Background Document to the conference. Roger (9/5) emphasised that IPRs are, firstly, scientific disclosures that can contribute to human knowledge. As Lettington (20/3) said, they "are a limited monopoly granted by individual states as a privilege in return for making an invention, or some other useful information, public. The policy reasoning is that, even though society as a whole loses a little through the monopoly, it gains more from the information". Roger (9/5) also reminded participants that IPRs have a temporal and geographical limit and that perpetual and world-wide patents, trademarks or plant breeders' rights do not exist. He also noted that a patent was not an authorisation for commercialisation, although Steane (11/5) pointed out that the aim with many biotechnology patents was often not commercialisation but to stop others using the technology. Saunders (10/4), on the same subject, wrote that ownership of a patent in a particular country is "a negative right. It permits the owner to exclude others from practising the invention. A patent does not act to permit the patent owner to do anything". Saunders (10/4) also gave good insights into some of the commercial considerations behind patenting, including: A There are two reasons why someone would apply for a patent in a developing country: i) to make a profit - which requires two elements seldom present together in developing countries, i.e. a good market for the invention and the means (financial resources and a functional legal system) to enforce the patent ii) to prevent the developing country making infringing products (only the largest international corporations would patent for this reason) b) Making a profit from a patent requires the applicant having funds to i) obtain or license the patent ii) enforce it c) Licensing of patents is less attractive in developing countries as the market may be small and patent enforcement may be expensive, slow or uncertain. 1.2 Companies from developed countries patenting genetic material from developing countries One of the most controversial impacts or consequences of the current IPRs system, which was also raised in Conference 1 of the Forum, is that "there are many instances where genetic resources from developing countries were granted patents in developed countries, often without the knowledge and consent of the owners of such resources in developing countries" (Srinivasan, 22/3). The term "biopiracy" is often used to describe this phenomenon. The frustration and anger the issue raises come from the perceived appropriation (or "sack" as Ferry (23/3) called it) of the resources in developing countries by parties in developed countries; the apparent lack of adequate mechanisms to prevent it happening (Vasquez, 3/5) and the failure to both acknowledge the contribution that farmers in developing countries have made to the resources and to share the benefits with them. Ageeb (21/3) provided some examples where biotechnology companies had reputedly patented genetic material of commercial value in developing countries and made use of existing indigenous knowledge of native peoples in these countries. One particular case discussed in some detail (e.g. Srinivasan, 26/3) was that of United States patent 6,040,503 awarded in March 2000 for beans that expand (pop) upon heating, involving crosses of Nuna beans, from the Andean region of South America, with the common bean (the patent can be seen on the web by searching on the patent number at http://164.195.100.11/netahtml/srchnum.htm ). Srinivasan (22/3) expressed reservations about the patent and argued that stricter rules on awarding IPRs should be devised. He reported a range of concerns, including the use of genetic material (from a public gene bank) freely provided by Andean farming communities for conservation purposes and the fact that the indigenous people had prior knowledge of the popping characteristics of the Nuna bean (Srinivasan, 22/3 and 26/3). Lin (23/3) argued instead that the variety was novel and the patent was defensible. He emphasised that the patent claims did not directly concern the Nuna bean but only the results of crossing them with the common bean, producing a novel variety adapted to the more temperate climate in the United States. Gallego-Beltran (30/4) claimed that biotechnology companies used universities as a "middleman" to gain easier access to valuable biological material. He argued that some research collaborations between institutions in developed and developing countries resulted in researchers "sometimes voluntarily sometimes not, acting just as sample collectors and couriers from the south to the north" and that the "capturing" of the biological material was often one of the main motives for the collaboration. Although from Latin America, a couple of participants in Africa (Olutogun, 4/5; Wingfield, 4/5) identified with these experiences and argued that they also reflected events on their continent. Ndegwa (2/5) emphasised that the situation described by Gallego-Beltran (30/4) occurred frequently in developing countries and was getting worse over time. Both Ndegwa (2/5) and Ageeb (21/3) emphasised the need for action by developing countries, as "countries of the biologically-rich regions should protect their natural genetic resources and the indigenous knowledge of their native peoples" (Ageeb, 21/3). Ndegwa (2/5) argued that the starting point should be investments by governments and institutions in building the necessary intellectual property and legal capacity, to "ensure that they are not ignorantly short-changed by developed countries or institutions. It is futile to fight a system that one does not understand". She noted that, in the current situation, most universities in developing countries will sign a collaborative research agreement without understanding the IPRs provisions it contains, whereas those in developed countries will have a legal/IPRs unit to look at any agreements before they sign. Participants seemed to agree that, until now, there had been little or no sharing of the economic benefits from biotechnology developments derived from genetic resources of developing countries (Ageeb, 21/3; Ferry, 23/3; Srinivasan, 27/3; Vasquez, 3/5). Ferry (23/3) argued that big companies had earned a lot of money from these genetic resources and that they should return part of it to the poor farmers in these countries. Ageeb (23/3) pointed out that in the current biotechnology era, the working unit is the gene rather than the organism and that if rare, valuable genes (which he termed "green gold") from developing countries were used then the countries should ask for compensation. Srinivasan (27/3) proposed that, to secure some of the benefits, an assessment be carried out of the value of genetic resources from different countries so that, based on factors such as the amount of germplasm contributed by developing countries, a percentage of the value of a crop in a developed country could be shared with, and used to establish strong IPRs systems in, developing countries. Srinivasan (7/5) pointed out the economic damage this issue may cause since "if patents are given in developed countries to products from certain regions in developing countries, those regions could experience substantial negative impacts in terms of reduced exports". To illustrate the point, he raised the specific case of United States patent 5,663,484 granted in 1997 on Basmati rice lines and grains to a company based in Texas. Since the owner of the patent could call the rice "Basmati", both within the United States and when exporting, he argued that this could damage the traditional and economically important export of Basmati rice from India and Pakistan throughout the world (including to the United States). It might be expected that the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) could contribute to solving problems regarding the protection and use of biodiversity (Vasquez, 3/5), as it provides "a legally binding framework for conservation, and sustainable use of biodiversity while seeking to establish benefit sharing mechanisms" (Ndegwa, 2/5). In addition, Article 16 (5) of the Convention states that parties to the CBD shall co-operate to ensure that patents and other IPRs "are supportive of and do not run counter to its [CBD] objectives" (Van Overwalle, 4/5). However, Wollny (21/3) argued that, with respect to their plant genetic resources, the CBD had failed to ensure that local and indigenous communities had been protected and provided with benefits. Participants also argued that it favoured developed rather than developing countries (Lettington, 20/3; Ndegwa, 2/5). Steane (11/5) also pointed out that one of the major biotechnology patenting countries (the United States) had not yet ratified the CBD and so was not bound by it. The potential contribution of another international agreement, the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, to this question was also mentioned (Lettington, 20/3; Wendt, 11/4) Central to this whole issue is the question of what can be patented and the problem of distinguishing between discovery and invention. As Lettington (20/3) pointed out, this is a huge problem, particularly in developed countries and, in relation to biological material, clarification is needed about to what extent something that previously existed can be "invented". In this context, some participants found it hard to accept that genetic resources of developing countries could be treated as inventions rather than discoveries (Ageeb, 21/3; Fakir, 21/3; Srinivasan, 22/3). Graff (12/4) argued that one of the failures of IPRs systems was, indeed, to define what is patentable, i.e. "to clearly demarcate between what should be placed in the country's public pool of human knowledge (or genetic resources) and what can be rightfully defended within the borders of the country as a private piece of knowledge or technology (or genetic resource)". He pointed out that policies on the definition of what is patentable in the field of agricultural biotechnology differ from country to country and, within each country, they vary over time. He suggested, using the United States as an example, that it might be difficult to make specific changes to the definition of what is patentable. 1.3 Impact on agricultural research This issue was raised frequently throughout the conference. Participants suggested that IPRs had influenced the quality of agricultural research carried out, as well as the nature of research collaborations between public and private institutions, between developing and developed countries and even between private companies. a) Quality of research Most comments on this subject argued that IPRs slowed down research collaborations and the flow of knowledge between interested research parties and that they therefore had a negative impact on the quality of research carried out. Wollny (21/3) reported that restrictive national policies on international research and exchange of animal genetic resources, introduced because of IPRs issues, had in some cases prevented genuine research being carried out. Glover (28/3) referred to a paper by Professor Barton published in Science (2000, volume 287, pages 1933-1934) which argued that one of the three problems caused by applying current United States patent law was "the tendency for patents to complicate and deter useful and desirable follow-on research, which can occur when patents are granted on 'broadly useful information and technology' or 'fundamental research processes' ". Fakir (29/3) agreed with the arguments in an article in Science (1998, volume 280, pages 698-701) that, unlike the "tragedy of the commons" (where having too many owners can result in overuse of a resource), the complex proliferation of patents in research was leading to the "anticommons", where many owners have the right to exclude others and the resource then becomes underused i.e. that research and innovation are stifled rather than stimulated by the multitude of patent holders. This point was supported by comments of Lin (27/3), who noted that patenting hindered the flow of knowledge and genetic material in private industry, often leading to biotechnology companies abandoning promising lines of agricultural research as they lacked sufficient "freedom to operate" because of patents held by a competitor. Ndegwa (2/5) and Tripathi (2/5) also concluded that IPRs did not encourage innovation. Roger (9/5), however, argued that "a patent provides transparent information about scientific knowledge and by limiting patentability I fear that transparency will be lost". De Lange (11/5) disputed this, suggesting that "scientists working on something that may be patentable, will share less knowledge with colleagues in order to prevent someone else stealing the idea and patenting it". Roberts (14/5) disagreed with De Lange's proposition, arguing that many scientists work in the private sector and once a patent application is filed or published, companies will allow research results to be published whereas, in the absence of patenting, they would be more cautious and try to keep everything secret. b) Private-public sector research collaborations Roberts (14/5) pointed out that money for public research is scarce whereas research in the private sector is increasingly important and that IPRs are an important incentive for private sector research. However, the effect of IPRs on crop improvement is to restrict the flow of both knowledge and improved germplasm between the private and public sectors, which is a particular disadvantage for poor farmers who previously benefited from this flow in the "green revolution" (Glover, 26/3). Apart from the desire to cut public expenditure (Cummings, 9/4), public-private partnerships are therefore often encouraged in order to tap, for the benefit of public goods research, "the knowledge and technologies developed in the private sector" and that this was the trend with international agricultural research centres (Immonen, 2/5). She, however, expressed concerns about such partnerships, as the collaboration agreements may require confidentiality and may restrict sharing of ideas with the greater research community - something which might ultimately damage the public sector research effort (Immonen, 2/5). Ferry (11/4) urged that public laboratories, working on questions of interest to developing countries, should negotiate contracts with the private sector that fit with their public obligations or else they should refuse them. Immonen (2/5), in a similar vein, argued that where they had bargaining power, public organisations should avoid exclusive collaboration agreements with the private sector and retain their rights to information sharing. c) Developed-developing country research collaborations Participants also discussed the impact of IPRs on the nature of research collaborations between developed and developing countries. Lettington (20/3) argued that patenting in the agricultural sector broke the traditional access and benefit sharing (ABS) system previously implicit in agricultural research (i.e. that developing countries provide free access to their genetic resources and receive the benefits of the research in developed countries for free) and replaced it with an asymmetrical system where access to genetic resources was still free but the benefits of research were not, i.e. "all A and no BS". He noted that the CBD, which recognises the sovereign rights of states over their natural resources, was a reaction to this situation since parties should now also pay for access to genetic resources. Gallego-Beltran (30/4) expressed concerns about some unbalanced developed-developing country research collaborations which result in developed countries gaining access to valuable genetic resources in developing countries but where the main, if not all, research activities are carried out in developed countries, so the scientific return for developing countries is minimal. Ndegwa (2/5) emphasised that because of IPRs and the increasingly dominant role of the private sector, free exchange of information was becoming a thing of the past and that the universities in developing countries (unlike their counterparts in developed countries) had not yet adapted to the new reality. She summarised the current situation as follows, "you have the private sector who look at scientific information in terms of dollar value, the northern universities who are maximizing the moment by tending towards the 'private' in IPRs dealing....and the southern universities who are doing (or willing to do) science in the philosophy-of-science way but who are resource poor". 1.4 Whether IPRs favour the interests of developed countries and the biotechnology industry over those of developing countries Some participants argued that the very nature of the current IPRs system discriminated against developing countries because it unfairly places a greater value on biotechnology outputs, generally produced in developed countries, than on genetic resources (often used to create the biotechnology products) and contributions from communities, usually in developing countries (Lettington, 20/3; Srinivasan, 22/3 and 27/3; Granda, 28/3; Ferry, 10/4; Vasquez, 3/5). Some participants went further and argued that IPRs were really used by developed countries to dominate and to continue their exploitation of developing countries (Ashton, 12/4(2), Olutogun, 4/5). For example, Ashton (12/4(1)) suggested that the playing field was strongly biased in favour of developed countries and that IPRs were merely instruments of economic policies that "entrenched colonialism in a more modern economic idiom". Others emphasised the specific role that multi-national corporations (MNCs) from developed countries played, arguing that they used IPRs to entrench corporate power and to create market monopolies (Lettington, 20/3; Ageeb, 21/3; Fakir, 21/3). Lettington (20/3) suggested that, in addition to IPRs, they also used other mechanisms, such as legal contracts with farmers, for the same purposes, or genetic use restriction technologies "that essentially constitute a regulatory system that bypasses IPRs and government authority". To illustrate the enormous gap between developed and developing countries regarding IPRs, as well as the concentration of power among a handful of biotechnology companies, Granda (28/3) referred to statistics from the 1999 UNDP Human Development Report which showed that developed countries hold 97% of all patents worldwide; that over 80% of patents granted in developing countries are owned by residents in the developed world and that the top 5 biotechnology companies control over 95% of gene transfer patents. Given that the vast majority of patents granted in developing countries are owned by parties in developed countries, some participants argued that the main aim of the pressure exerted on developing countries to harmonise or introduce national IPRs legislation, as well as to build up their capacity in this area, was to ensure that MNCs and developed countries would be able to enforce their patents granted in developing countries (Ndegwa, 2/5; Vasquez, 4/5). Roger (9/5) emphasised however that, for economic reasons, only a minority of biotechnology patents were granted in developing countries compared to the developed world. As Saunders (10/4) pointed out, when a company considers where to apply for a patent it will first assess the markets for the invention, weighing up the costs against the prospective return and the likelihood and timing of the return. He suggested, as an example, that for an invention related to forestry/paper, a company might therefore only apply in "Canada, Scandinavia, Japan, United States, Brazil and perhaps Myanmar and Thailand" or, depending on the financial resources available, in a subset of these countries. Roger (9/5) underlined that the scientific content of a patent is nevertheless available worldwide and it can be used freely in all countries where the patent has not been granted. As Ndegwa (3/5) explained, "a patent owner can ONLY enforce his rights in countries where that protection has been sought and granted. This means that if a USA inventor seeks and obtains a patent in USA, but fails to do so in Venezuela, he cannot enforce his rights in Venezuela, even though the latter is a member of the WTO as the USA is. In fact, anyone can exploit the invention in Venezuela without infringing on the rights of the patent holder". 1.5 Avoiding or alleviating the negative impacts of the current IPRs system >From the preceding part of the document (Sections 1.2-1.4), it is clear that most comments in the conference highlighted the negative impacts of the current IPRs system on developing countries, on issues such as agricultural research or ownership of genetic resources and knowledge. In Section 3 of the Background Document, it was suggested that participants should discuss how the negative impacts or consequences of IPRs for food and agriculture in developing countries could be avoided or alleviated. Participants seemed to have two different approaches to this question. The first was to call for a reassessment of the current IPRs system and to propose a better one. The second approach was to accept the current system and, instead, to seek strategies to minimise its negative impacts. a) Reconsider the current IPRs system and propose a better one Lettington (20/3) probably provided a good summary of this reasoning, i.e. "there must be a serious reassessment of the IPRs system as applied to agricultural sector - it is not meant to be applied to this and it is creating asymmetries that impact negatively on the most vulnerable". Participants proposed different kinds of "reassessments" of the system. Ferry (23/3) emphasised the ethical dimension to the question and argued that the system should be changed so that, instead of giving similar rights to the North and South, it should give more to the South, to compensate them for previous wrongs regarding genetic resources and because of their poverty. Srinivasan (22/3) highlighted the need for the system to address the incompatibility between IPRs and farmers' rights (i.e. rights arising from the past, present and future contribution of farmers in conserving, improving and making available the agricultural genetic resources). He proposed that, as a pre-requisite, the concept of ownership of genetic resources should be eliminated. He also called for "flexible IPRs", which would guarantee the right of farmers in developing countries to continue with traditional practices such as on-farm seed saving or swapping grain for seed. Ashton (12/4 (1 and 2)), supported by Gallego-Beltran (30/4), argued that claims to legal ownership over life forms were inherently flawed. He therefore proposed that "the entire intellectual property regime needs to be rethought and renegotiated" and that a range of possible alternatives existed (Ashton, 12/4(2)). Currently, as explained in the Background Document, patents on specific genes usually extend to the plant into which the genes are inserted. He described one alternative, based on the "principle of proportional ownership", where the value of any added genetic component would only be a proportion of the whole and where a significant proportion of ownership would remain with the traditional seed holders and developers. The concept was supported by Steane (11/5) who, however, warned that many developed countries would not welcome a re-evaluation of the current IPRs system. b) Accept the current IPRs system and pursue strategies to minimise its negative impacts Even though they might consider the current system to be unjust, some people felt that the best approach was to accept it, while looking for ways to alleviate its negative impacts. The dilemma can be reflected in the words of Ndegwa (2/5): "the stage has been set; the possessive adjective 'my' is replacing 'our' day by day. Even if a reverse of the current state was thinkable, we cannot stand by and wait for an IPRs-free world. We have to make the best out of the current situation. Governments and institutions in developing countries have to invest in building the necessary IPRs and legal capacity". Patenting of the developing world's indigenous knowledge and resources by companies in the developed world was one of the negative impacts commonly raised in the conference (see Section 1.2). Documentation of the indigenous resources to protect them was one concrete defence action proposed by participants. Srinivasan (22/3) suggested that international organisations should help people in developing countries to patent indigenous technologies in developing countries. Wendt (11/4) also maintained that official registration of already existing (traditional) resources was one of the main features behind the creation and implementation of efficient and just IPRs systems. Another strategy proposed to reduce the negative impacts was to fine tune the way current patent legislation is applied. Glover (28/3) described three modifications proposed by Professor Barton in an article in Science (2000) for the United States patent system, i.e. to raise the standards of patentability of an invention; to ensure that patents do not restrict useful follow-on research and, finally, to make it easier to legally challenge invalid patents. Glover (28/3) suggested that if such reforms were applied internationally they might help to improve the patent system by providing a better balance between private and public interests and by addressing some of the concerns raised in the Background Document and throughout the conference. Srinivasan (2/4) proposed that the adverse effects of IPRs on innovation could be reduced by "establishing smooth, easy, and less expensive means for licensing", a point also made at a workshop held recently in this area (Lin, 9/4). Roger (9/5) also provided a reminder that countries had a choice of protection mechanisms available and that some were stricter than others. He emphasised for example, that the breeders' exemption clause in the PVP system based on the UPOV Convention ensures that protected varieties remain freely available for further breeding, whereas with other systems this might not be the case. In the conference, participants also argued that IPRs favour the interests of developed countries and a handful of biotechnology MNCs over those of developing countries (see Section 1.4). One of the reasons for the extensive merging of biotechnology companies has been their need to accumulate IPRs portfolios large enough to allow them to produce crop varieties that can be commercialised. At a meeting in February 2001, Dr Toenniessen of the Rockefeller Foundation pointed out that the international agricultural research system has no such IPRs portfolio, so the traditional flow of improved plant materials through the system is breaking down (Glover, 26/3). He therefore proposed that, to rectify this, the agricultural research institutions in the public sector should begin to pool their IPRs into a professionally managed IPRs portfolio designated to serve poor farmers. Graff (12/4) reported that, similarly, one of the recommendations of a recent workshop was that agricultural research and development for developing countries needs a "multilateral office of technology transfer" to gain and manage access to IPRs as well as to manage the internal exchange and pooling of their own IPRs. Lin (27/3) felt that private industry might also support the suggestion of a "clearing house for essential technologies", to enable a freer flow of knowledge and materials. Van Overwalle (4/5) emphasised the important role that governments in developed countries could play in redressing some negative impacts of the dominating IPRs position of developed countries. He argued that governments should stimulate their universities, research institutes and private companies to provide access to, and transfer of, genetic technology and transgenic seeds subject to patents, to developing countries free of charge if the technology or seeds are only going to be used for local, small scale commercialisation and marketing. Similarly, Granda (7/5) argued that GM technology should be made available to the public domain for crops that do not generate an economic return. If private industry developed biotechnology products that were both important for hunger in developing countries and protected by IPRs, Ferry (11/4) argued that a media campaign could lead to the companies providing the products at a reasonable price, as had been done in South Africa for medicines to fight AIDS. He argued that the campaign could be justified on the basis that world hunger and food security are a question of life and death. On the same subject, Srinivasan (22/3) suggested that deals between private companies and international organisations to supply the products at a reasonable price should be encouraged. 1.6 National IPRs legislation in developing countries During the conference, participants raised some specific issues about IPRs legislation in developing countries i.e. the trend towards harmonisation of national IPRs legislation, as well as infringement and enforcement of IPRs legislation. a) Harmonisation of national IPRs legislation IPRs regimes in developing countries have tended to be weaker than in developed countries. In recent years, however, steps have been made towards increased harmonisation of national IPRs legislation. In this context, a key element is the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Ndegwa, 2/5 and 3/5). This international agreement is binding on all WTO members and sets certain minimum standards for the implementation of IPRs at the national level, and in this way promotes harmonisation of national IPRs regimes (Ndegwa, 3/5;Vasquez, 4/5). As the agreement has many important implications for developing countries and has been the source of much controversy, it was not surprising that there were some specific comments about it. Some participants suggested that the TRIPS Agreement was promoted by the United States in order to globalise patent laws (Glover, 28/3; Vasquez, 3/5 and 4/5). Ndegwa (2/5) argued that agreements such as TRIPS favoured developed rather than developing countries and the private rather than the public sector. Vasquez (3/5) maintained that it would exacerbate inequities in the world and that it should be reviewed or dropped. Lin (3/5), however, highlighted that national governments had some flexibility when applying provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, i.e. that i) plants and animals and biological processes for the production of plants and animals could be excluded for patentability ii) inventions which threaten public order or morality could be excluded for patentability (although Roger (9/5) thought it would be difficult to determine which patents these might be) iii) although plant varieties have to be protected, this may be done by patents and/or effective sui generis systems (such as PVP). Tripathi (14/5) felt that the introduction of IPRs systems (such as PVP) for plant varieties, due to the TRIPS Agreement, would harm farmers in developing countries because of the associated financial costs and the potential risk of reducing plant diversity. She also suggested, based on studies in countries such as United Kingdom and Brazil, that the introduction of PVP would lead to consolidation of the seed industry (Tripathi, 2/5). b) Infringement and enforcement of IPRs legislation in developing countries Saunders (10/4) provided some economic insights into this topic, explaining that "a patent holder demanding "too high" a price creates a market for infringers. An infringer succeeding too well at infringement invites the patent holder to enforce. However, infringement is favored in a developing country by the increased cost of enforcement by a distant patent holder seeking to limit price erosion in a small market". The recent much-publicised case in Canada where Monsanto successfully sued a farmer Percy Schmeiser for illegally planting the company's patented GM canola seeds, despite the farmer's insistence that the seeds ended up on his farm by accident (e.g. Srinivasan, 2/4; Cummings, 9/4), led to some comments about enforcement of IPRs legislation in developing countries. Hollis (9/4) suggested that, if it had sufficient political and economic weight, a seed company pursuing a similar strategy in a developing country could increase its monopoly on the market and that the dependency created could put farmers at a disadvantage. Srinivasan (2/4) argued that a similar judgement involving farmers in developing countries could lead to a backlash against biotechnology and could "have a dampening effect on the development of indigenous biotechnologies appropriate to a particular crop/region/country". He suggested therefore that there was a need for differential standards of IPRs enforcement and protection in various countries, especially in the food and agricultural sector, which was shown by findings that patents in developing countries (India) have a much lower value than in developed countries and that the value of patents in agriculture was lower than in various other industries. Wendt (5/4), however, highlighted the problems that seeds companies face in Latin America, suggesting that a lot of farmers exploit exemptions in the PVP laws to cultivate and commercialise protected varieties. He therefore argued that if the companies "don't pursue violations of their IPRs they are soon going to lose control of what is happening with their new varieties and won't be able to sell them". Wendt (11/4) also noted that, in their national legislation, several Latin American countries explicitly addressed topics such as farmers' rights and access to and sharing benefits from genetic resources and traditional knowledge. He suggested, however, that there were still difficulties in implementing them and that international organisations, such as WIPO or FAO, could help by creating broader awareness about the importance and problems of protecting IPRs and traditional resources. 1.7Multiplicity of patents As pointed out in the Background Document, there are some special concerns about the consequences of the current situation where many steps of patented technologies may be required for the development of a biotechnology product. For example, development of a GM insect-resistant crop may involve using a protected plant variety as well as patents related to the selected marker gene and the insecticidal gene, the transformation technology, the promoter and other regulatory elements needed for adequate gene expression in the plant cells (Srinivasan, 7/5). The multiplicity of patents embedded in a biotechnology product can make the product expensive (Srinivasan, 22/3) and means that even a single IPRs holder can block commercialisation of a product (Srinivasan, 7/5). In addition, it may give private companies considerable power because of the strategy of building up "defensive patent portfolios", often involving trivial "inventions" (Glover, 28/3). The costs associated with transacting IPRs can be quite substantial "as a result of broadly or poorly defined property rights in individual patents and single products involving technologies claimed by multiple IPRs holders" (Lin, 9/4), and can be a major constraint to innovation (Fakir, 29/3). 1.8 Plant variety protection When considering particular IPRs, most discussion in the conference focused on patents. However, some specific points were also made about PVP (also known as plant breeders' rights). PVP laws are generally based on the UPOV Convention, signed in 1961 and revised in 1972, 1978 and 1991 (Roger, 9/5). To be granted protection, a variety must fulfil criteria governing novelty, distinctiveness, uniformity and stability (Archak, 7/5; Roger, 9/5), although Archak (7/5) pointed out that it was not easy to define distinctiveness. Wendt (11/4) noted that, in Latin America, PVP was more important than patents. He pointed out that "there are two very important points in which PVP differs from patents: first, the "farmers' privilege", which allows farmers to save seeds for their own use and, second, the "breeders' exemption" which allows any plant breeder to use the protected variety as a basis to develop a new one without previous consent of the owner of the original protected variety". He concluded therefore that PVP provided greater access to genetic material, a point supported by Roger (9/5) and Steane (11/5). 1.9 Livestock sector As pointed out by Steane (11/5), the majority of messages in the conference dealt with plants, where there is already considerable experience of IPRs. He noted that the role of IPRs for animals is currently limited but the implications are dramatic. Ageeb (23/3) argued that biotechnology advancements were slower in livestock research than in crops or medicine, but predicted that, "in the near future, the genetic materials of tropical livestock will effectively contribute to the biotechnology revolution". Wollny (21/3) questioned whether a policy claiming IPRs to protect animal genetic resources would have any practical benefits now for farmers in developing countries as most of the genetic material is "of no known use or function and has no present market value". He suggested therefore that standards for maintaining the resources should be applied and, in the future, when biotechnology discoveries are made, that policy makers could develop adequate access and genetic material transfer agreements. Finally, Steane (11/5) pointed out that whereas plant sector policy makers have patent or PVP options vailable, there is currently no equivalent of PVP for livestock so the problems associated with the definition of what is patentable may have even greater importance for the livestock sector. 3. Participation in the conference The conference ran from 20 March to 14 May 2001. A total of 265 people registered and 30 of them (11%) submitted at least one of the 50 messages posted. The greatest proportion (36%) of messages were from Europe, with 20% each from Africa and North America, and 18 and 6% from Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean respectively. Roughly two thirds were from participants in developed countries and one third from the developing world. Messages were posted from 18 different countries. Countries with the greatest number of messages posted were the United States (8 messages), United Kingdom (6) and France, Japan and South Africa (all with 5 each). Of the 30 people that submitted messages, eight worked at universities and five in research centres or institutes. Four each were independent consultants and from NGOs, three from international agricultural research centres, two were patent lawyers, one was a reporter and there was also one each from FAO, private industry and a government ministry. 3. Name and country of participants with referenced messages Ageeb, Abdelgadir. Canada Archak, Sunil. India Ashton, Glenn. South Africa Cummings, Claire. United States De Lange, Wytze. Netherlands Fakir, Saliem. South Africa Ferry, Michel. Spain Gallego-Beltran, Juan. Colombia Glover, Dominic. United Kingdom Graff, Gregory. United States Granda, Willy Valdivia. United States Hollis, Kevin. United States Immonen, Sirkka. Italy Lettington, Robert. Kenya Lin, Edo. France Ndegwa, Rose. Kenya Olutogun, Olusanya. Nigeria Roberts, Tim. United Kingdom Roger, Pierre. France Saunders, Thomas. United States Srinivasan, Ancha. Japan Steane, David. Thailand Tripathi, Ruchi. United Kingdom Van Overwalle, Geertrui. Belgium Vasquez, Chela. United States Wendt, Jan. Chile Wingfield, Brenda. South Africa Wollny, Clemens. Botswana 4. Abbreviations CBD = Convention on Biological Diversity; FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; GM = Genetically modified; IPRs = Intellectual property rights; MNCs = Multi-national corporations; PVP = Plant variety protection; The TRIPS Agreement = WTO's agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights; UNDP = United Nations Development Programme; UPOV = International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants; WIPO = World Intellectual Property Organization; WTO = World Trade Organization To subscribe to Agnet, send mail to: listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca leave subject line blank in the body of the message type: subscribe agnet-L firstname lastname i.e. subscribe agnet-L Doug Powell To unsubscribe to Agnet, send mail to: listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca leave subject line blank in the body of the message type: signoff agnet-L For more information about the Agnet research program, please contact: Dr. Douglas Powell dept. of plant agriculture University of Guelph Guelph, Ont. N1G 2W1 tel: 519-824-4120 x2506 fax: 519-763-8933 dpowell@uoguelph.ca http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood archived at: | |
|
