The future of transgenic plants in developing countries
Alain Weil
In Cellular and Molecular Biology (vol. 47/n°8 December 2001)
Abstract – Whatever their own policies may be, developing countries will inevitably be affected by the
development of genetically-modified organisms in industrialized countries. While maintaining a cautious
attitude, most of these countries wish to keep their options open, thus protecting themselves from the risk of
being deprived of future technologies that might allow them to achieve self-sufficiency in food production, to
resolve certain problems confronting their most vulnerable populations and to preserve the international
competitiveness of their products. Companies should see that it is in their interest to help these countries
implement their own policies, notably through an open attitude to industrial property. If the value of genetic
engineering is thus confirmed, then it perhaps in this manner that GMOs will earn the legitimacy required to
make them acceptable to the people of Northern countries where the majority of solvent markets are located.
Key words: Biotechnologies, GMO, transgenic plants, developing countries, patents, intellectual property
INTRODUCTION
From the outset, developing countries have been involved in the debate over the use of geneticallymodified organisms. When the issue first emerged, large firms placed them in the media spotlight through
irrelevant press campaigns aiming to gain acceptance for their products, developed primarily for the agroindustrial sector, by highlighting their potential benefits for the poor consumers of the South. Protests by
militant organizations denounced the use of social solidarity as a sales argument, and revealed the inadequacy
of the resources deployed to put such solidarity into effect. This reinforced the feeling of mistrust towards
developments whose true interest was far from clear in the eyes of society.
Before the debate grew in size, the countries concerned had already perceived, during the negotiation of
the Rio Convention on Biological Diversity, that the progress of DNA-recombination techniques would
provide them with the potential to develop, both financially and technically, their capital in genetic resources
which, until then, had been literally invaluable. Genetic resources, considered previously as a “common
heritage of mankind” in international agreements ratified under the auspices of the FAO (Food and
Agriculture Organization) then became, in a somewhat contradictory manner, sovereign property of the
countries which held them. The desire to make optimum use of biodiversity – whose value for industry is
often overestimated by the countries where it is located – and the fear that unfair trade would give them only a
fraction of the profit generated by its industrial use, have made these nations reluctant to share their resources.
As a result, the international circulation of genetic resources, until now the source of all work on the
improvement of cultivated species, is now seriously compromised.
It is this same attitude of mistrust in the face of uncertainty, coupled with the fear of irreversible
consequences, that explains the attitude adopted by developing countries during the negotiation of the
international protocol on bio-security adopted in Montreal in early 2000. With the help of Europe, which has
played the role of a mediator between two opposing camps, developing countries jointly succeeded in
obtaining recognition for the right of countries to exercise greater control over the import and the
dissemination of genetically-modified organisms. It was thus generally agreed that the circulation of
genetically engineered products should not be governed solely by the rules of international trade, thereby
opening the door to future conflict about the limits of jurisdiction and the power of arbitration by the World
Trade Organization.
Corporate claims regarding the importance of biotechnologies for world food production have been taken
seriously by the designated beneficiaries. One of the consequences has been a strengthening of civil
movements opposing two major trends of the world economy: firstly, the concentration of technical
innovation and economic power in the hands of a small number of players in areas as crucial as health and
nutrition – key fields for the application of biotechnologies – and secondly, the extended scope of protection
offered to inventors through the international system of intellectual property. The granting of biotechnology
1
patents is now confronted with a problem of legitimacy, in the sense that the Patent Offices have shifted the
previous balance between the remuneration of the inventor's efforts (by an operating monopoly limited in
time, intended to promote innovation) and the benefits for society (the publication of results to permit
continuous technical development) in a direction which is frequently deemed to unfairly favour one of the
parties involved. As is the case in pharmaceuticals, and with an evident overlap linked to the use of similar
techniques to satisfy equally fundamental human needs, patents in plant biotechnology are accused of
favouring abuse of power and their existence is criticized in the name of the general interest.
They are also accused of holding back the progress of knowledge, of hindering innovation in directions
which are not profitable for private investors, and of allowing prices to be fixed at prohibitive levels which
deprive the poorest populations of the benefits of their applications. The successful battle by South Africa,
Brazil and India to convince pharmaceutical firms to allow them to produce less costly drugs for combating
AIDS gives a foretaste of what will happen tomorrow in the sector of plant biotechnologies if they live up to
their promise with regard to food security.
At several major international negotiations conducted in recent years, the use of GMOs in developing
countries has proved to be at the crossroads of many different concerns expressed by governments and
civil society. Sometimes serving as a link between battles engaged on a variety of fronts, this theme has
become emblematic of issues as varied as the trade imbalance between North and South, environmental
protection, failures in the fight against under-development, the growing technology gap between groups of
countries, genetic resources, dependence on multinational firms, reform of the world system of intellectual
property, and national sovereignty!
CAN PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGIES CONTRIBUTE TO FOOD SECURITY IN DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES?
According to the FAO, undernutrition and malnutrition currently affect some 800 million people in the world.
This is the consequence of a situation which obviously has many causes other than a simple incapacity to
produce sufficient quantities of food to feed the planet. Wide-ranging social, political, and economic factors
lie at the root of under-development, while technical insufficiencies play only a secondary role.
Yet it would be totally unrealistic to imagine theoretical schemes of world food production and
distribution that do not take account of real constraints that will continue to affect our planet for many years to
come. Moreover, it would be economically, politically, and morally unacceptable to make entire regions
dependent upon agricultural surpluses exported from rich countries, for several reasons. Firstly, now that we
are witnessing the downside of intensive agriculture, it is clear that these surpluses will not continue
increasing indefinitely. Secondly, it has been clearly demonstrated that regular food imports at low prices
have often had a destructive effect on local production capacity. Finally, no single government can tolerate a
permanent threat of destabilization linked to the “weapon of hunger.”
In the future, the intercontinental food trade will play only a minor role in the consumption of different
zones, around 10% at most, according to the specialists (14). Demographers, however, unanimously agree that
the world’s population will increase from 6 to about 9 billion inhabitants during the next 50 years, and that
95% of this increase will be concentrated in developing countries (19). To improve the quantity and quality of
the food required to meet existing unsatisfied needs, and to address the demand of rising populations – not to
mention the new needs linked to growing urbanization and higher incomes – then overall food production in
Southern countries must be at least doubled over the next thirty years.
There are two ways to reach this objective: through an increase in production by unit area, and through
the mobilization of new land for agriculture. On the basis of existing techniques, intensification will lead to
environmental problems which richer countries have already encountered. They are aggravated by the greater
ecological fragility of the natural environment, characterized by its rapid degradation and decreasing soil
fertility, a trend already observed in many places. It is likely that the quantitative progress which could be
obtained theoretically through techniques already used by Northern countries would not guarantee sustainable
production in either ecological or economic terms, though they might offer a temporary solution. Moreover,
2
as was the case for the first “green revolution1”, the desire to raise productivity through the massive use of
high-yield plant varieties, fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation, would probably lead to increased
marginalization of small producers lacking financial resources, or whose land is less suitable for industrialized
agriculture. On the other hand, if extensive agriculture based on existing techniques were to become the
dominant mode of production, it would result in the acceleration of deforestation, a process that the
international community is precisely seeking to limit in order to preserve biological resources and to combat
climate change.
There is thus an undisputable need to discover radically new modes of production capable of reconciling
increased productivity with the preservation of ecological balances, economic efficacy and social
acceptability.
The whole range of available solutions will necessarily be brought into play to achieve this indispensable
increase in agricultural production: choice of crops and crop rotation, cultivation techniques, fertilizers,
pesticides, biological pest control, variety selection, irrigation, and so on. These techniques must now be
judiciously combined into new technical itineraries adapted to each specific context. It is likely, however, that
gradual improvements will not be sufficient and that technical breakthroughs will also be necessary. Genetic
engineering offers one such breakthrough.
WHICH AGRICULTURAL APPLICATIONS MIGHT BE SPECIFICALLY USEFUL FOR DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES?
For obvious reasons, the first uses of genetically-modified organisms by developing countries were copied
exactly from applications developed by Northern countries. The first among them, and the least controversial,
concerns the acquisition of knowledge. The genomes of growing numbers of tropical plants –coffee, cocoa,
banana, sorghum– have been mapped, then partially sequenced. Analyses are now under way, using the
creation of genetically modified “mutant” plants to characterise gene function more easily. These
investigations go beyond marginal development-oriented research thanks to the peculiar status of rice, which
is both the main staple food of tropical countries and the model plant for studying the genome of most
cultivated cereals. Though the rice genome has mobilized internationally important public and private
research resources because of its extrapolation potential for the study of wheat and maize, the knowledge thus
acquired is also available for application to other tropical graminaceae such as millet, sorghum, and sugar
cane, for example. The management of genetic resource collections and marker-assisted selection will benefit
directly from these efforts.
It is the large-scale production of genetically-modified organisms that is the focus of public debate. The
large agro-industrial estates of the South see the use of plants that are resistant to herbicides or to predators as
having the same advantages as their counterparts in temperate climates, and the solutions obtained in the
temperate climates are relatively easy to transpose to tropical crops. Over the longer term, transgenesis could
be used to address agricultural problems which are difficult to resolve in any other way, such as resistance to
viruses (20) or nematodes (2), and for which promising results on tropical plants have already been obtained
by several research teams. Moreover, at an even later date, we could even look for ways to develop plant
tolerance towards abiotic stresses such as cold, heat, drought and salinity.
The methods of transgenesis could be used to solve, at least partially, certain problems specific to
developing countries, with a view to enhancing the security – in quantitative terms – and the safety – in
qualitative terms – of food production. Vast tracts of land are currently unsuitable for cultivation because the
soil is too acid or alkaline, too rich in salt or in toxic aluminium compounds. It is not unrealistic to hope that
some of this land will become fit for use one day , or that water and fertilizers will be used more efficiently
(11,17). The smallest and most vulnerable producers could, in theory, become the main beneficiaries,
The “green revolution” is the name given to the progress in productivity brought about by the creation of highyield wheat and rice varieties in the 1960s. Most notably, it enabled Asian countries that were structural food
importers to become self-sufficient exporters. However, it has also been criticized for some of its social
consequences
1
3
particularly those who cultivate marginal zones with limited financial resources and rudimentary knowledge
of “modern” agricultural techniques. The adaptation of plant varieties to different soil conditions will
sometimes make it possible to grow new crops in previously uncultivated zones. The primary advantage,
however, would be to create more hardy plants which would limit the farmer’s risk of losing his crop due to
exceptional weather (a delay in the arrival of the rainy season) or disease. The problem of crop protection is
posed in a very particular light when the question is no longer simply that of choosing between different types
of pest control on the basis of economic or ecological factors, but when the choice no longer exists because
the farmer does not have the financial means to buy the treatment products he needs.
New methods of protecting stocks against insects or mycotoxin contamination would also offer attractive
new prospects. The elimination of allergenic or anti-nutritional factors in the traditional staple foods, their
enrichment in vitamins and essential minerals would constitute a major step forward in terms of public health
in situations where it is not realistic to hope for a rapid diversification of dietary intake. In the field of animal
health likewise, recombinant vaccines are being developed for which non-pathogenic micro-organisms could
serve as vectors. These micro-organisms, spreading spontaneously through livestock herds, would do away
with the need for costly vaccination programmes with their associated sanitary infrastructures, veterinary
personnel, and refrigeration facilities. Tangible results obtained in recent years have brought all these new
developments much closer to practical reality (10,11,15,16,20).
The risks linked to the use of GMOs are of a similar nature in the North or in the South. Before
considering their introduction into systems that are in many ways more fragile, it might therefore be wise to
wait and see whether the experience of industrialized countries bears out the hopes placed in these new
techniques. However, the extrapolation of results will be difficult, since the environmental risks created by the
introduction of new selection pressures will need to be assessed at a local level, though the scientific data
required to perform this assessment is often severely inadequate. For example, a study of the consequences of
dissemination must take into account the higher level of biodiversity and its specific rate of change. So it is
not too early to start examining the way in which risks are liable to materialize in tropical climates.
Like in more developed regions, the impact of what could be likened to a true technological revolution on
largely stabilized technical systems would also profoundly modify the balance and regulatory mechanisms
between social groups, between economic players and between countries. It is therefore important to grasp the
ways in which these systems work so that the administrative and political decision makers can provide for the
necessary transitions in due time.
In the biotechnology sector, knowledge and tools move forward so fast that some uses which today sound
like science fiction may well become technically feasible tomorrow. Other uses, on the other hand, which
appear to be the logical outgrowth of results already obtained, will be held back by insurmountable
constraints. Still others have yet to be imagined, as fundamental research does not plan its applications.
WILL PROMISING IDEAS EVER BECOME A REALITY?
None of the developments likely to be of specific interest to developing countries will come to fruition
unless a great amount of work is devoted to them. It would be unrealistic to count on market mechanisms,
which have been the driving force for the expansion of biotechnologies in industrialized countries, to promote
the development of products benefiting the poorest countries exclusively. Only public, national, or
international studies are able to mobilize the resources needed to explore original uses devoted to lowsolvency markets, to study the risks of these applications, and to understand the best conditions for successful
dissemination of these innovations in specific societies. They would be failing in their vocation if they were to
ignore these issues.
Public research in biotechnology, however, has become dependent upon close cooperation with the
private sector. Much key progress in fundamental knowledge has been achieved through private research.
Companies contribute greatly towards the development and improvement of numerous laboratory techniques.
Moreover, without a certain amount of good will on their part to allow access under reasonable conditions to
4
their patented techniques, it becomes almost impossible for a public laboratory, be it African, European, or
American, to hope to master all the links of the chain which leads to practical application.
Fortunately, private business is equally dependent upon public research, public opinion, and Southern
countries. Know-how in transformation techniques serves no purpose unless you simultaneously possess a
reservoir of genes where those with potentially new functions can be identified, or of varieties that already
perform well in particular contexts. This gives developing countries strong bargaining power. Moreover,
biotechnology firms are starting to realise that it is in their interest to change their image in the eyes of their
customers through the sponsorship of research aimed at the developing world. More than simply financing the
research of “orphan problems,” their most determined contribution should be in the field of intellectual
property where their additional costs would be marginal, since practically no markets would actually be lost.
Encouraging signals have been observed recently in exemplary cases, such as the creation of “Golden
Rice” enriched in beta-carotene (21) (all the firms concerned agreed to grant the right to use their patents at no
cost, whereas several dozen licences, practically impossible to negotiate, would in theory have been required).
Another case concerns the manufacture of generic drugs to combat AIDS. The trial which pitted the
pharmaceutical industry against the South African government demonstrated perfectly that an internationally
recognised legal right cannot be enforced when it is seen as contrary to the essential needs of a part of
humanity. However, these highly emblematic situations cannot be extrapolated and other crises will occur
before either the laws or the manner in which they are applied evolve in a direction more favourable towards
the most needy (potential) beneficiaries.
Public research, for its part, is not simply contributing to the progress of knowledge in biotechnology. It
can also provide private business with its own experience of Southern agricultures and of their needs, of the
way plants and tropical systems work, its technical advance in the collection and management of the genetic
resources of numerous species, its studies on ecosystems, its analyses of the economics and dynamics of
social change, thereby contributing to the development of certain applications for which solvable markets
might emerge.
Biotechnology firms will become the dominant vector for introducing new technologies. It is reasonable
to hope that their relationships with poor countries could, to a certain extent, balance out in favour of the
latter.
WILL TECHNICAL PROGRESS LEAD TO ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROGRESS?
A systemic approach must be adopted when assessing the potential contribution of biotechnology to
development. Technical factors are not the only dimension involved in the problem of improving agricultural
yields over the long term. Beyond the question of how resources should best be allocated to combat poverty,
the cultural factors which determine the acceptability of innovations, access to credit, agricultural pricing
policies, the structure and role of institutions, are also instrumental in transforming a technical achievement
into economic and social progress of benefit to society as a whole.
The question of seed production and distribution deserves particular attention. In many countries, though
market deregulation under the influence of multilateral organisations has led to the disappearance of the
public seed production sector (of variable quality and effectiveness), no new producers or private distributors
have emerged to take its place. So the availability to farmers of new high-yield varieties is even more
unpredictable than in the past. Another structural barrier to the dissemination of recombinant varieties is
directly linked to the difficulty of their identification. The very precision of genetic transformation methods
will be exploited to manufacture varieties that are often practically indistinguishable from traditional ones,
apart from a small number of characteristics that are not immediately recognizable. But there will be little
demand for such varieties if growers are unable to recognize them, if they cannot identify the precise factor
that has been improved when the criteria governing crop yield are numerous, or if the risk he is seeking to
avoid does not actually materialise for several years (18). Similarly, how will he see the link between a
nutritionally-enriched variety and the health of his family? Conversely, if cassava roots were genetically
detoxified or if the risks of mycotoxin contamination after harvesting were greatly reduced, consumers might
5
take less care in their preparation, thereby increasing the risk of subsequent intoxication by non genetically
modified varieties.
The possible environmental impact of efforts to achieve sustainable development must not be neglected.
Errors will surely be made as we advance along a path which is long and full of pitfalls. The precautionary
principle, sometimes used wrongly as an excuse to prohibit any experimental approach which has not been
totally mastered (8), must be applied to ensure strict compliance with ethical rules by all concerned parties so
as to avoid the risk of accidents with severe and irreversible consequences. However, the precautionary
measures applicable in other contexts cannot be directly transposed without taking into consideration the
characteristics of social organization. For example, in zones where pest-resistant crops are planted, the
strategies used to prevent the emergence of resistant insect populations will be radically different depending
on whether crops are grown on large farms or on small plots of land, and on whether efficient producer
organizations exist.
As is the case in developed countries, the precautions to be taken and the limits to be respected can only
be defined through case-by-case reasoning that takes into account the nature of the modified plant, the
characteristics of the transformant, the peculiarities of the environment, and the modes of utilisation. The
consequences of gene mixing between cultivated plants and wild species will depend on the particular
circumstances. For example, a gene that makes a wild species more resistant may render it invasive, whereas
one that enriches its vitamin content would offer it no selective advantage in terms of population dynamics.
For each transgenic plant, the comparative balance of advantages and drawbacks will differ from one
location to another. There is therefore no general answer to the question of the utility of GMOs for developing
countries.
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES HAVE ALREADY ENTERED THE ERA OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED
ORGANISMS
In the near future, raw materials of tropical origin may be dislodged, through a substitution by materials
of temperate origin, from important markets which had been captive until now. Lauric oils for example, which
were obtained exclusively from coprah or palm oil, can now be produced in rapeseed or soybean. An
increasing number of tropical fruit flavours intended for industrially processed food products can be
manufactured in reactors, thereby closing large outlets for tropical fruit farmers. And, to enjoy continued
access to the markets of developed countries, all countries will have to comply with stringent standards of
safety and traceability which will oblige them to acquire analytical capacities and to modify some of their
commercial circuits. Hence, if we rule out the unlikely scenario of a sudden ban on the use of geneticallymodified plants in all Northern countries, developing countries will be unable to escape the effects of
transformations in the international agricultural raw materials markets brought about by biotechnology,
whatever their own choice in the matter.
In addition to Argentina, China, and Mexico, who already cultivate transgenic plants on a commercial
scale, about twenty other Southern countries are currently undertaking or have already tested the cultivation
of such plants in their fields, including Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia,
Venezuela, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, the Ivory Coast, Kenya, and Egypt.
Many different species and varieties are concerned, including crops specific to tropical countries such as
sugar cane, papaya, cassava, sweet potatoes, plantain and clove tree. In most of these cases, they are
introduced on the initiative of large firms, sometimes associated with national institutions, with a number of
objectives in mind:
- to make their development investments more profitable when the same plants are cultivated in both Northern
and Southern countries (maize, cotton, rice, tobacco, tomato, soybean, potato…);
- to offer their techniques in exchange for access to genetic resources localized in the South;
- to protect themselves from the risks of geographical expansion of certain parasitic diseases which might, in
time, threaten their own supplies of raw materials (cocoa trees, coffee trees on an exploratory basis).
6
A growing number of countries no longer see the point of proclaiming their acceptance or rejection of
biotechnology in general, but instead are seeking to make the most out of international developments whose
consequences are bound to affect them in any case. Today, most developing countries already possess (or are
in the process of developing) legislative and regulatory systems concerning the production and use of
genetically-modified organisms. But the most difficult task remains to be accomplished. For some this task is
to define a policy based on the notion of sustainable development, while for all of them the challenge is to
implement this policy, starting with the acquisition of appropriate skills (3).
The viewpoints of the countries concerned cover a wide spectrum, ranging from Ethiopia which, speaking
in the name of a major group of African countries, expresses strong reservations at all international meetings,
to China, which is thought to have cultivated nearly 50 different species, transformed with no less than a
hundred different genes (13). It is interesting to note that half of the Chinese experiments are based on work
from their own laboratories. An observer as well-informed as Gordon Conway, President of the Rockefeller
Foundation and theoretician of the “doubly green revolution2” went as far as declaring that (5): “if the market
for GM crops really collapses in the industrialized world, and the technology's development is sharply
curtailed, there's one country that will continue to invest heavily in it and potentially emerge as the world
leader. That's China. China needs this technology desperately and its not going to give it up”. Between the
two extremes, several countries have invested heavily to develop scientific infrastructures of international
standing – Korea, Taiwan, India, and Brazil are, for example, full partners of the international consortium for
the sequencing of the rice genome – in order to master transformation techniques and to use them as a means
to solve their own agricultural problems, while prohibiting (until now) their large-scale use. Mexico, Kenya
and Thailand are also included in this category (12). It is interesting to note that these countries, who are all
highly cautious about the dissemination of GMOs have not always, as yet, accorded high priority to other
components of biological security (loss of habitats, invasion by exogenous species, creation of resistant
insects through non-rational use of insecticides…).
The only common point shared by all Southern countries is that they intend to remain the masters of their
own choices. They refuse, sometimes in very energetic terms, the surreptitious penetration of their markets
under the cover of free trade, the risks of trans-boundary dissemination of GMOs, the “technological
apartheid” which threatens to broaden the gap that separates them from developed countries, and the import of
internal quarrels that divide the richer societies. As stated by the Nigerian minister of agriculture and rural
development (1): “It is wrong and dangerous for a privileged people to presume that they know what is best
for everyone. And when this happens, it cannot come as a shock that those who are imposed upon often see
this attitude as colonialist. We do not want to be denied this technology because of a misguided notion that we
don’t understand the dangers or the future consequences. We understand….That is our right, and we should
not be denied by those with a mistaken idea that they know best how everyone should live or that they have
the right to impose their values on us.” The President of Kenya and the President of the Farmers'
Confederation in Andra Pradesh in India express the very same sentiments when they declare respectively :
“ while the Green Revolution was a remarkable success in Asia it largely bypassed Africa. Today the
international community is on the verge of the biotechnology revolution which Africa cannot afford to miss ”,
or: " it is the very height of callous disregard to deny modern agricultural technologies to the world’s most
needy ".
The most scientifically advanced countries must not decide in place of the countries concerned, but rather
help Southern countries to define their own policies in the most enlightened manner and to reap the benefits
of the strategies that they are now defining.
The “doubly green revolution” introduces varieties and new techniques to permit major productivity
improvements in agriculture, as in the first “green revolution,” while better preserving natural resources
over the long term.
2
7
THE PUBLIC DEBATE
The emotional use of references to food security in controversies on genetically-modified organisms has
led to a radicalisation of positions. Numerous opponents who can hardly be labelled as “obscurantist,” often
particularly sensitive to the situations of the poorest countries, are opposed in principle to any research on
GMOs for developing countries through fear that their arguments might be turned against them were they to
adopt a less radical attitude. They offer three main arguments:
-
there is no proof, either of their real utility, or of the capacity of the countries concerned to manage the risks
over the long term. This argument is somewhat specious when used to justify the absence of further
investigations which would serve precisely to provide such proof;
-
the need for radically new techniques is not obvious, since the entire range of agricultural solutions currently
available has not yet been tested. It would not be justified to mobilize scarce resources for secondary
objectives. And yet there are clearly many problems for which no solution has been found and for which new
approaches must be developed, and these problems will be more numerous in the future. The role of research
is precisely to examine all possible options and to revise priorities on a regular basis as our knowledge
progresses;
-
and finally, the development of biotechnology will reinforce the economic dependence of countries on transnational firms. To which one could reply that it is a true concern; but that it is not by opposing non-mercantile
applications that this trend might be reversed.
Numerous analyses of the biotechnological revolution have been performed during the last three years.
Between July 1998 and November 1999, in France alone, more than 500 experts and representatives of the
civil society with wide-ranging expertise, diversified socio-professional backgrounds and viewpoints were
mobilized to examine the issue for a "citizens’ conference" organized by Deputy Jean-Yves Le Déaut, for the
preparation of a report by the Parliament Office for the assessment of scientific and technological choices (9)
or for another report from the Economic and Social Council (4). Beyond slight differences in viewpoints and
expression, these working groups all came to similar conclusions summed up by the statement adopted
unanimously by the Economic and Social Council: “it is essential to devote sufficient financial resources to
research on biotechnology applications of particular interest to the developing world.”
In-depth discussions among international bodies which cannot be suspected of naivety or collusion with
corporate interests almost always reach the same recommendations. For example, the FAO has published a
“statement on biotechnology in food and agriculture” which stipulates that "when appropriately integrated
with other technologies for the production of food, agricultural products and services, biotechnology can be of
significant assistance in meeting the needs of an expanding and increasingly urbanized population in the next
millenium. FAO considers that efforts should be made to ensure that developing countries in general, and
resource-poor farmers in particular, benefit more from biotechnological research." As the general director of
the FAO himself explains, “In order to nourish 9 billion people, how should we proceed?… We don’t need
GMOs right now. But they are one of the possible options for tomorrow, provided that…3”(6).
For their part, the Academies of Science of four developing countries – China, Mexico, Brazil and India,
– and from two developed countries – the United States and the British Royal Society – in addition to the
Third World Academy of Sciences, have produced a common report (16). They express the same viewpoint:
“it is essential that we improve food production and distribution in order to feed and free from hunger a
growing world population, while reducing environmental impacts… The developers and overseers of GM
technology applied to plants and micro-organisms should make sure that their efforts address such needs…
New public sector efforts are required for creating transgenic crops that benefit poor farmers in developing
nations.”
3
Free translation
8
CONCLUSION
GMOs and their applications in Southern countries have become victims of the very strong symbolic
weight they bear in the political, economic, ideological and ethical domains. Though they open radically new
horizons which justify a creative approach to their possible uses and in-depth investigation of their effects,
they also give birth to somewhat Manichean reactions, often strongly reflected in public opinion, which
makes it difficult to look objectively at the available options. Nevertheless, it is essential to analyse coldly the
applications which could be developed and the conditions which would allow them to be socially useful.
Though the products of genetic engineering will not feed the world, it is highly premature to claim that the
considerable hopes placed in molecular biotechnology are no more than utopias. Faced with the scale of the
problems to be solved, no one should claim the right at this early stage to exclude such powerful methods
from the tools that may one day become available. As professor René Frydman declared recently (7): “What I
deplore, is that the ‘heuristics of fear,’ vital in a world where we cannot always predict the consequences of
our acts, is too often perverted into the ‘metaphysics of fantasy.’ We seek to protect ourselves against totally
unrealistic potential dangers and, being too busy with this task, forget the very real risks at our door. We are
hiding our heads in the sand, ethically speaking4.”
In natural environments and human societies which are both poorly understood and highly vulnerable, the
uncertainties are numerous. We must hope that extreme care will prevail at each change of scale that serves to
validate scientific and technical progress in both technical and social terms, from the laboratory to the
greenhouse, from the greenhouse to the experimental plot, from field experiments to dissemination among
farmers.
In the final analysis, it is in Southern countries that the utility of genetically-modified organisms could
prove the greatest, provided that they are developed to the benefit of the most needy, for types of applications
significantly different from those of industrialized countries: productivity gains on small food-producing
farms, reduction of risks affecting private growers deprived of access to pesticides or to irrigation,
development of marginal land, an increase in the essential mineral and vitamin content of the basic diet.
Companies in the sector should realise that it is in their interest to help the countries who wish to explore
these opportunities, and to do so without imposing their methods or their tempo. They would thus favour the
emergence of markets which might one day become lucrative. It is by showing their good will that they will
avoid the imposition of mandatory licenses which will otherwise probably restrain their intellectual property
rights in such vital fields as food and health. Should they succeed, they will earn a legitimacy that will help
them to counter the arguments of increasingly radical critics in Western societies. In this respect, one may
well wonder if the future of genetically-modified organisms in Northern countries does not, in fact, depend
strongly on their capacity to keep their promises to the South.
4
Free translation
9
References
1. Adamu H., Minister of agriculture and rural development of Nigeria, « We'll feed our people as we
see fit", Editorial du Washington Post 9 novembre 2000
2. Atkinson, H.J., Lilley, C.J. Urwin, P.E. and McPherson, M.J. Engineering resistance to plantparasitic nematodes. Perry, R.N. and Wright, D.J (eds). The Physiology and Biochemistry of Freeliving and Plant Parasitic Nematodes. CAB Publishing Wallingford, pp 381-413. (1998)
3. Byerlee D et Fischer K Accessing modern science: policy and institutional options for agricultural
biotechnology in developing countries Banque Mondiale (AKIS), 2000
4. Conseil Economique et Social La France face au défi des biotechnologies Rapport présenté par MM
Rouvillois, P. et Le Fur, G., 1999
5. Conway G., The voice of reason in the global food fight, Fortune vol. 141 n° 4 (Feb 21, 2000)
6. Diouf, J. Interview to the daily Le Monde on May 4, 2001
7. Frydman, R. in Université de tous les savoirs vol 1 Odile Jacob, Paris 2000
8. Kourilsky,P. et Viney, G. Le principe de précaution, Odile Jacob Paris, 2000
9. Le Déaut, J.Y. De la connaissance des gènes à leur utilisation, Rapport de l'Office parlementaire
d'évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques, 1998
10. Martin R. R. Alternative strategies for engineering virus resistance in plants. In Plant virus disease
control A. Hadidi, R. K. Khetarpal, H. Koganezawa ed. A. Press. St Paul Minnesota p.121-128,1998
11. Moffat, A.S. Engineering plants to cope with metals Science 285, 369-370 (1999)
12. Paarlberg, R., Governing the GM crop revolution/ Policy choices for developing countries.
International Food Policy Research Institute 2000
13. Persley G.J and Lantin, M.M. (eds) Agricultural biotechnology and the poor. Consultative Group on
International Agronomic Resarch, Washington DC, 2000
14. Pinstrup-Andersen P., Pandya-Lorch R., Rosegrant M. World Food Prospects : critical issues for the
early 21 st century. International Food Policy Research Institute Washington DC, 1999
15. Qaim M Transgenic virus resistant potatoes in Mexico ISAAA Briefs n°7, Cornell University, Ithaca,
1998
16. Serageldin, I et Persley G.J. Promethean science: agricultural biotechnology, the environment and the
poor. CGIAR, Washington DC, 2000
17. Transgenic plants and world agriculture Report prepared under the auspices of the Royal Society of
London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese
Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences and
the Third World Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 2000
18. Tripp, R. 'Twixt cups and lip- Biotechnology and resource poor farmers Nature Biotech., Feb 2001
19. U.N. World population prospects: the 1998 Revision. United Nations, New York, 1999
20. Wambugu, F. Why Africa needs agricultural biotech Nature 400 15-16, 1999
21. Ye X., Al-Babili S., Klöti A., Zhang J., Lucca P., Beyer P., Potrykus I. – Engineering the Provitamin
A (beta-carotene) Biosynthetic Pathway into (carotenoid-free) Rice Endosperm, Science 287 : 303305, January 14, 2000
10