VINO JOHN
Dr. Peacock is Chairman of the National Science Forum; a member of the Biotechnology Consultative Group to the Biotechnology Task Force, Australia; and a member of the steering committee on genetics and biotechnology for the International Council of
Scientific Unions. In Chennai to deliver the Millennium Lecture on "Genes and the future" at the International Dialogue on Environment, the New Economy and New Employment, organised by the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation in January, Dr. Peacock
spoke to Asha Krishnakumar on a variety of issues concerning genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and developing countries, the benefits from GMOs, the future of GMOs and the Australian experience of introducing GMOs commercially. Excerpts from
the interview:
What are the implications of GMOs for developing countries and what safeguards should their governments adopt while introducing GMOs commercially?
There is a common misconception that GMOs are for the developed, rich countries. While they certainly hold an advantage for developed countries, I believe that they are also going to be important for developing countries. They can benefit us in matters
of health, by providing us with better food; they can make food production more reliable with fewer inputs; reduce wastage (over 40 per cent of the food production goes waste post-harvest); and protect crops from pests, diseases and weeds.
In the past, most of these problems were addressed by using chemicals, many of them inaccessible to poor farmers and most of them harmful to the environment. So, if there are ways to equip a plant to protect itself against a pest or a fungal pathogen,
why not use them? It is in this context that GMOs make a lot of sense. It helps small and marginal farmers of developing countries as seeds come with instructions built into their biological software. So this technology holds real promise for developing
countries. But the major difficulty is that the main opportunities arising from the use of the technology should be defined carefully.
For example, if a family produces staple food, such as maize or rice, and a major pest reduces food supply by more than half over the years, it is a serious problem. It is important to introduce a seed of rice or maize that takes care of the pests by
itself. Here, GMOs play a crucial role.
Then comes the major issue of organising all the necessary measures to make sure that such seeds are accessible to farmers. But developing countries should not try to do all this by themselves. They should develop partnerships with other countries,
research groups and get all kinds of organised help. It may even need a private company that does not try to make huge profits, particularly where essential food production is involved.
There are then the legislation issues. It has to be made sure that it is safe - that the safety tests have been conducted. So, it is a huge task. But if you choose the right direction it can make a big contribution.
There is thus the major challenge of defining priorities while introducing GMOs commercially. Also important are such issues as food supply and nutritional balance. One-third of the world's population suffers from iron deficiency. Such issues can be
addressed by, say, the "Golden Rice", which has been taught to make beta carotene, and is useful for Vitamin A deficiency. This would solve major nutritional and health problems. We have been trying to put more iron into the rice grain by "teaching" it
to make more haemoglobin. If it works, a major problem of women and children would be solved.
Developing GMOs involves a lot of investment, which developing countries can hardly afford. On the other hand, biosafety measures adopted in developing countries are not adequate. This gives room for multinational companies producing GMOs to scale
down biosafety provisions when they introduce GMOs in developing countries. How can developing countries protect themselves from exploitation and the possible dangers the GMOs pose?
Part of the process of the development and delivery of GMOs should be enhancing the capacity of developing countries. They have to be involved. It is not that the rich countries provide everything and developing countries just take them.
How do you think developing countries can get involved, and who ensures that?
It takes a lot of organisation. The Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research, and the various bilateral aid that come into developing countries can help. But often they do not spend time to address the major problems of the developing
countries. That is a problem. Someone needs to take on this task - organising everything and putting it all together. It may take over six years. And many of the aid programmes do not have the patience to wait that long. It is important to realise the
needs of the countries and help them become a part of the whole process. But when you think of the benefits to the environment, to health and regular supply of food, it is a worthwhile project.
What is the role of governments in the process of introducing GMOs?
When a new technology is introduced, the governments need to be sure of the regulatory and safety tests and ensure the right ways of using it. And if the technology is not managed right, the technology itself can be wasted. If you introduce one gene
against a pest in rice, the pest might easily develop resistance because what the gene does is just produce the chemical inside the leaf cell. The insect can be expected to develop resistance. What is needed is a strategy to manage the plant in such a
way that you minimise the chance of its developing resistance. It might be that you grow rice with two independent killing mechanisms for the insect. And that way you more or less stop the chance of resistance. Thus, specific problems need to be
addressed.
What are the legal, environmental and social implications of GMOs, in general, and for the developing countries in particular?
It is important that the GMOs are introduced with the right safety measures so that people are confident that they are as safe as any other food. If all the GMO food is just consumed within the country there is not much to worry about. But if it is
going to be traded, then you have to be sure that you satisfy the regulations of the country you are going to trade with. That is a big problem now. Although some 43 million hectares are under GM crops now, the trade is rather simple. For instance, all
the transgenic canola from Canada goes to one country, Japan. And Canada knows that its canola meets Japan's regulations. But what we must avoid is dumping GM crops on developing countries. It is a matter for the World Trade Organisation and other
international trade organisations to take up.
But the WTO works largely in favour of the MNCs. And that is the real problem - not with the technology, but with the way things work.
As you rightly said, it has nothing to do with GM per se. As with any other technology, what we have to do is to try and introduce GMOs in the safest, most legal ways possible. We are learning to do this.
Is there any way to introduce minimal safety standards into GMOs that are traded internationally, particularly in the context of countries with different safety standards?
Many international organisations, such as the International Council of Scientific Unions and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), try to help developing countries benefit from what is being done in developed countries. But
each region has to have its own testing methods for each crop. There cannot be one regulation. It is clear that the country has to be able to deliver when the safety is established. That is part of the whole process.
The controversy on the introduction of GM cotton into India, for instance, has instilled fear in people's minds about GMOs, in general. What is the future of GMOs in India in that context?
It is possible for India not to delay too much because there is already a lot of experience in GM cotton internationally. In Australia, we have been growing GM cotton commercially for the past four years. We have had to put in all manner of safety
regimes into our farming. Our farming methods may be different from yours. But I think you have to learn from the experiences of Australia or the United States or elsewhere. This is a good example to begin with, as in Australia one gene reduced
insecticide spray by 50 per cent in cotton crop. And it is estimated that in three years we will be able to introduce two genes into the cotton crop, which would reduce the use of insecticide by 90 per cent. It would be very good environmentally. We
spend more money on research in the management of a crop than we did on the development of the crop.
It is suspected that some MNCs that produce GM crops have a questionable record. Many have also got patent control over several GM technologies. Is it possible to develop a mechanism to check erring MNCs that trade GMOs internationally?
A lot of the worry about GM crops is the worry about multinationals. That is fair. And the behaviour of Monsanto, for instance, in Europe did not help at all. But, at the same time, you cannot blame the MNCs for wanting to profit from this technology.
They have invested large amounts of money. And they were a lot smarter than most governments, which were too slow. The MNCs invested a lot of money in GMO research and got intellectual property and patent control over a lot of things.
The best way to ensure that the MNCs do not get out of hand is for countries to invest in their own public research systems. If public research comes up with important findings, countries can then do persuasive business deals with MNCs, making sure that
the conditions are as the country wants them to be.
In the 1970s there was an agricultural revolution of sorts when pesticides came into the market in a big way. But, today, the small farmers in India are using the same pesticides unsuccessfully, which was not thought of in the 1970s even as a
possibility. In this context, how do you see the future of GMOs? Is there a justification for people saying that there is the fear of the unknown?
This is a new technology. We have had terrible experience with the chemical technology. Also, this technology is based on studies on plants and pests. That is the greatest part of this technology. We know much more now than we did a few years ago. So,
what that greater understanding and knowledge means is that we have a better chance of managing the technology so that it does not go bad. We may still make mistakes. This is a stable technology that will help us develop sustainable agriculture.
We have heard and seen herbicide and pesticide promises. But the real promise is going to be in developing changes in the quality - increasing the protein content, putting in a different starch so that it is much better for our health - so that it can
be more closely matched to what we need.
What is the Australian government's position on GMOs? And what safeguards have you adopted before letting in GMOs? Probably we can learn from them.
Australia has been cautious on the entry of GMOs. There has been a lot of public concern and debate about GMOs, particularly the food chain. We have only one transgenic crop, cotton, at the moment. Initially, we operated on the basis of voluntary
legislation. But now we have a compulsory one. That has given a lot of confidence to the public. And to the industry, which likes to fit to a legislation. We have also introduced food labelling to give more information to the public. That has helped
boost people's confidence; they can choose. This will be more important in a few years when we will have many more foods modified by genetic engineering.
The first commercial crop of cotton was harvested four years ago. It was very well received by the public as they could see that it reduced the spraying of insecticides. But if we had introduced herbicide first, it would have been very emotional. But
now, after transgenic cotton has largely been accepted, we have introduced herbicide tolerance, also in cotton. The public is also convinced that the whole technology has been well-managed - even Monsanto has been brought under control. Public
confidence and acceptance are thus most important in introducing this technology in a big way into any country. Governments have to recognise that.
