“Life-saving
technologies are blocked from reaching the farmers”
—Prof. Marc Van
Montagu, founder, Institute of Plant Biotechnology for Developing
Countries (IPBO) and president, European Federation of Biotechnology
(EFB)
The Belgian molecular biologist Prof. Marc Van Montagu is the founder
of the Institute of Plant Biotechnology for Developing Countries
(IPBO). Along with his colleague Prof. Jeff Schell, Prof. Marc Van
Montagu discovered the gene transfer mechanism between agrobacterium
and plants, which resulted in the development of methods to alter
agrobacterium into an efficient delivery system for gene engineering in
plants. He developed plant molecular genetics that includes molecular
mechanisms for cell proliferation, differentiation and response to
abiotic stresses (high light, ozone, cold, salt and drought) to develop
transgenic crops resistant to insect, pest, and tolerant to novel
herbicides. Prof. Montagu is also the founder of two successful biotech
companies—Plant Genetic Systems Inc. and CropDesign. He is
the president of the European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) and a
board member of the Indian biotech company Avesthagen.
Here are the excerpts from the exclusive interview with the Father of
Genetic Modification of Crops, Prof. Marc Van Montagu:
Genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) are readily accepted in drugs and medicines. But why
is there so much of opposition when it comes to GM food crops?
Biotechnology is used in almost every product that improves our daily
lives, which includes discovery, design and production of life saving
drugs and detergents we use in our washing machines; GMOs are one such
biotechnologies that are used in the manufacture of these products.
Over the last 12 years, genetically modified maize, soybean, cotton and
canola are readily accepted by farmers worldwide. The increased
productivity of these GM crops has allowed the prices of the
commodities to remain within reasonable limits, to the benefit of
consumers. Farmers have understood the benefits of genetically
engineered crops. The resistance of GM crops to insect pests or its
tolerance to environmentally safe herbicides is giving direct benefits
to the farmers in terms of higher yields or reduced application of
pesticides.
Scientific evidence from the farming communities in China and South
Africa, who have adopted insect resistant cotton, has shown that there
are direct health benefits linked with lower exposure to
pesticides. At the same time, these small farm holders have
had more time to spend in off-farm activities, and so the benefits are
multiple. A significant benefit to the environment through
lower use of pesticides and herbicides has also been
demonstrated. For example, the adoption of herbicide tolerant
soybean varieties has allowed farmers in the USA and Argentina to
follow the practice of no-till agriculture that reduces the amount of
carbon released to the environment and helps sustain soil integrity,
which is vital for the future of food security. We continue to see
evidence of further benefits to farmers, food security and the
environment, as each year passes many acreages of land are used for
genetically modified crops.
Another reason why society has been more cautious in accepting GM crops
is that there is opposition to the so called ‘control of the
food chain by multinationals’. This is a flawed perception
since it is not the seed producers who control the food chain, it is
the food and drink retailers who reap the major profits in this sector
—and it is these same food and drink companies who own the
major organic brands in the US. So there is little basis for
this argument. To a larger extent, it is the global seed
companies who hold the bulk of the GM technologies in the market today.
This is because of the fact that the regulations and the costs of
bringing a GM crop to the market can only be met by the multinationals.
This is arising from the continued opposition to the introduction of GM
crops, and means that no public sector organization, third world
country or SME can afford to develop this technology beyond the stage
of confined biosafety and performance trials. As a result of
this confusion, we are seeing brain drain in Europe, stalling of
promising new crop varieties (such as drought and pest resistant crops
or bio-fortified staple crops that are of relevance to the developing
world), and a reluctance among investors to promote an SME culture,
which are all vital components of the global knowledge-based economy.
It is assumed that
genetic engineering in food crops will revolutionize agriculture and
eradicate malnutrition and hunger. How can plant biotechnology help the
developing countries?
There have been many endorsements of GM crop technology – as
a vital instrument for meeting food security, developmental and
environmental objectives over the years by authorities at the highest
level, including the UN FAO, WHO, OECD, World Bank, and from over 25
Nobel Laureates. There is therefore a very strong support, drawn from a
very diverse spectrum of opinion makers committed to finding
sustainable solutions through innovation of agriculture for the very
complex challenges facing society and the environment on which we
depend. Environmentalists on the other hand express concerns over the
sustainability of world agriculture and food security in the next 50
years if we are to continue with a ‘business as
usual’ approach. Investments in science and technology for
agriculture have repeatedly brought immense returns in crop
productivity and are widely recognized as a vital instrument for the
development, particularly for the rural poor, who represent 75 percent
of the world population. In the 1980s, Overseas Development Aid (ODA)
for agriculture stood at 16 percent, when the successes of the green
revolution were still fresh in the minds of investors. Today, ODA for
Agriculture stands at only 3.8 percent, and this will not change unless
agriculture is brought rapidly back on to the world political
agenda. It is to be hoped that the food crisis of 2008 should
serve as a wake-up call for policy makers to re-evaluate the potential
that lies in present crop improvement pipelines, and to find measures
that fast-track the approval of technologies that have the potential to
invigorate agriculture for development. Biotechnologies, including GM
crops coupled with modern breeding techniques and improved rural
infrastructure are a coherent answer to many of the challenges we face
for the sustainable production of food, feed, fuels and
fiber. It is absolutely essential that all of the major
scientific breakthroughs we are seeing today in terms of improving
yield, improving the nutritional content of staple crops and
drought tolerance are made available to the people who need them the
most. Scientists have a responsibility here, better international
R&D networks need to be established to support the scientists
in developing countries who understand the local problems, but who lack
access to the knowledge and technologies that the technology proficient
countries possess. Existing models of technology transfer are
clearly failing, and new vision for global interaction is urgently
needed.
GM Crops still face a
lot of resistance from public, politicians and more specifically many
groups of activists. What would you tell those people who say GM Crops
shouldn’t be allowed?
There are absolutely no scientific grounds for the position that the
activists have taken. They present alarmist arguments like there are
health risks, damage to the environment and loss of biodiversity. The
truth is however, more reassuring. Firstly, the regulatory
authorities, who oversee the research, testing and development of these
GM plants, backed by national and international legislations, have very
stringent guidelines regarding biosafety. Prior to the
commercial release of a new variety, several biosafety criteria have to
be satisfied to get the authorization. These regulations are
important for ensuring that there are no risks to the environment or
human health. The activities of the national regulatory authorities
such as the USDA-APHIS or the European EFSA are highly transparent, and
are readily available to the public for consultation through their
databases published on the web. As an example, there are
repeated calls for moratoria on the release, including field testing of
GM trees, based on the assumption that we know too little about the
environmental impact of this technology. In response to this assertion,
and to provide a scientific basis for discussions relating to the
biosafety of GM trees under the Convention on Biological Diversity
negotiations we carried out a study of what is known on this subject.
We found that over 700 trials have been conducted worldwide since 1988
in over 35 species of tree, largely by public sector scientists, and
often with environmental or societal rather than commercial
objectives. It is important that these facts are put in the
hands of the policy makers so that any debate is properly informed and
that the relevant scientific facts are first and foremost on the
agenda. This is essential, since the demand for trees and forest
products will continue to rise, and modern plantation forestry,
including GM trees will be needed to meet this demand and alleviate
pressure on the remnants of natural forests that are so vital for the
environment and biodiversity.
Therefore, rather than stall the testing of new varieties, we urgently
need to see more testing, and that information regarding the biosafety,
environmental benefits and performance of these plants should reach
policy makers and society. Indeed, the only way in which the biosafety
and performance of GM plants can be assessed is through controlled
field trials—the same way as experimental new drugs are
tested in clinical studies. We can no longer afford to stall progress
given the magnitude of the challenges facing agriculture and food
security. If the technologies presently under evaluation are stalled,
we have to question what will happen to technologies such as drought
resistance that must be brought to the farmers who will bear the brunt
of climate change. It is reassuring to see the impressive
performance of GM drought tolerant wheat currently under evaluation in
Australia. Scientists are seeing a 20 percent yield increase
compared to the best performing varieties over two seasons
now. This is exactly the sort of technology that has been so
diligently developed and that could help stabilize grain prices and
provide food security in the future. It should be remembered
that the recurrent drought in Australia and its impact on grain
production has not only removed a staggering one percent from
Australian GDP, it is one of the prominent causes of last years food
price crisis.
Finally, the activists should really
take a hard look at the ethics and morality of their untenable
position. Potentially life-saving technologies such as
bio-fortified staple crops are blocked from reaching the farmers as a
result of ‘biosafety concerns’ broadcast by a
variety of organizations. When one considers that
malnutrition, rather than disease, is the single most important cause
of disability and premature death, there should be no grounds for
blocking technologies that have proven biosafety track
records. One can see parallels in the field of medicine where
new drugs for ‘orphan diseases’ are fast-tracked by
the regulatory authorities to ensure they reach those who need them the
most.
What is your opinion
about the debate on the safety of genetically modified foods in India
and other countries?
Firstly, there is an established track record of risk assessment and
supporting documentation established by the regulatory authorities in
which GM crops are tested and commercialised. The goal is to
ensure that countries use common methods to collect consistent
information for risk/safety assessments in their development of
biotechnology regulations and guidance and that any information
relating to the biology of an organism would be the same regardless of
what the country’s regulatory system was involved.
Secondly, there is a history of safe use of transgenic plants in
thousands of trials and commercial planting around the world.
Thirdly, there is an established dialogue on appropriate data and
safeguards for GM plants among different countries; organizations
involved in their testing, and organisations such as the UN FAO are
responsible for evaluating the relevance of new technologies for world
agriculture.
The overwhelming conclusion from these different sources is that a
case-by-case approach to GM crop regulation would be the sensible way
to proceed, and this basic approach is officially recognized in the
Cartagena Protocol for Biosafety.
The consensus opinion is that the general methodology for science-based
risk assessment set forth in the protocol is adequate and any debate on
the issue of biosafety should be fact and science based.
I would, however, like to take this opportunity to voice my concern
over the present situation in India concerning the commercialization of
GM (insect resistant) brinjal. It is clear that there is no debate on
the real issues being of developing this variety. It would
appear that a well organized and well financed campaign of
mis-information has been mounted to scare the public over
‘health risks’ associated with the consumption of
this brinjal. A number of points need to be
made—the variety has been produced to provide resistance to
an insect pest that ravages the 500,000 hectares of brinjal cultivated
in India – using technology that has passed rigorous
biosafety testing not only by the Indian GEAC, but also elsewhere
around the world. It is ironic that questions regarding the safety of
the technology (the Bt gene) are raised when the Bt protein (the same
technology) is the most commonly used agent for insect control in
organic agriculture for many years (90% of world organic insecticide
used).
At present, the only form of control of this insect pest is through the
application of insecticides. Insecticide spray is not an
effective control, and for those farmers have to spray pesticide almost
daily. The most commonly used insecticide is endosulphan, a
neurotoxin that is banned in most countries around the world because of
the proven health risk to farmers and consumers.
We have calculated that if the entire area of cultivation were sprayed
at the present dosages, then the total annual cost to farmers would be
in the region of $600 million per annum. If these farmers were to adopt
the GM brinjal, they would firstly benefit financially since they would
have to spend less on insecticide, but also they (and the consumers who
buy their produce) would benefit through less exposure to dangerous
chemicals.
Numerous studies have been carried out by medical organizations in
India and published in the international peer-reviewed press on the
toxicity of endosulphan in rural communities. I therefore
find it utterly perplexing why we should read in the press that Indian
doctors have made declarations on the health risk of the GM brinjal.
We must really ask the question of who would stand to lose if GM
brinjal reached the market in India, and maybe in our search for the
answer to this question, we may understand better the motivation behind
the campaign to ban GM brinjal. I think it is important that the
relevant ministers for health, agriculture, finance, and the
environment should consult more to develop a multi stakeholder plan for
the role of GM technology in the future of Indian agriculture.
Is the public concern
about GMOs higher in Europe than in India?
I would not say that concern is higher in Europe than in India. It is
important to understand that agriculture has a very different relevance
for Europe and India. In Europe, only two percent of the workforce is
involved in agriculture, whereas in India around 60
percent—the majority of the country’s poor are
involved in agriculture, and many of the farmers cannot afford the
inputs required for the high productivity practices we see in
Europe. It is in this context that we should view this
point. European farmers and consumers have the luxury of
choosing to produce or consume organic, conventional or GM
produce. Providing enough food, or incomes for the rural poor
through more productive varieties or the sale of cash crops such as
cotton is essential for India. India should be able to make
its own decisions about what the most appropriate technologies are
needed to meet these goals. We have already seen the rapid adoption of
GM cotton in locally bred varieties adapted to the growing conditions
in the different parts of the country. It is important that India can
make similar decisions for the release of insect (Bt) resistant brinjal
and other crops. In the future, it is widely acknowledged that India
will see dramatic reductions in yield as a result of climate
change. It is therefore essential that scientists and seed
companies – with the correct policy frameworks and investment
infrastructure can develop new varieties that are designed to meet this
challenge under appropriate biosafety regimes.
At the same time, the purchasing power of an increasingly urban
population in India hints at a shift in diet habits. The
production of sufficient feed for livestock is an important priority
for future scientific and policy objectives, and Indian scientists can
and must play an active role in tackling for this challenge.
What is needed to
reduce the public concern about GMOs in the developed and developing
countries?
Science-based, balanced and objective debate, at the highest level,
followed by unambiguous dissemination of the real risks and benefits to
all stakeholders. In the future we will need to double food
production to feed nine billion people. With less available arable
land, fewer chemical inputs, less water, and fewer people involved in
primary agriculture, we need to look at all options including GM crops
to meet this deep rooted and complex challenge. The public need to be
engaged in this debate, so that they can understand the complexity of
the challenge facing society and the environment, the urgency of the
need to find solutions, and the pivotal role innovation in agriculture
will bring to implementing change.
Can you tell us more
about your organization IPBO and its activities?
We founded the Institute of Plant Biotechnology for Developing
Countries (IPBO) in 2000. It is an initiative supported by the Flemish
government and the Suri Sehgal Foundation, (an organisation committed
to rural development programs in India). We exist to
strengthen training of plant biotechnologists and plant breeders in
developing countries; enable the implementation of science-based
biosafety policies in developing countries and act as a focal point and
internode to promote and leverage outreach for the biotechnology
platform of Europe to developing countries.
IPBO today is an internationally recognized center for training on
plant biotechnology, biosafety and international regulations that
govern the cultivation of genetically modified plants. It represents a
powerful forum to both leverage the opportunities plant biotechnology
presents for sustainable rural development, and challenge the obstacles
facing its deployment. IPBO advocates support for global R&D
networks in plant biotechnology to construct local scientific capacity
building of relevance to local bottlenecks and challenges. IPBO is
lobbying for the harmonization of regulatory norms, political
consistency and public awareness of plant biotechnology for
development, and its in close interaction with the leading
international organisations involved in the deployment of plant
biotechnology and GM legislation.
Narayanan Suresh with
Jahanara Parveen