In May 2004 the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) released its 2003-2004 book-length report, The State of Food
and Agriculture: Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor It
immediately attracted significant press and media attention. In fact, while
reporting on its survey of existing examinations of risks posed by agricultural
biotechnology, the FAO report concludes that "biotechnology is capable of
benefiting small resource-poor farmers" and that in numerous situations the
benefits clearly outweigh the risks. In addition to attempting
to re-orient biotechnology discussions and lessen the polemics attendant to
them, 1. the FAO report offers and illuminates much factual information that
is encompassed by biotechnology research, applications, and distribution. In
fact, report lays out a coherent understanding of what biotechnology is, and
offers a clear exposition for general readers--as well as policy and scientific
specialists--of essential biotechnology concepts and methods such as
market-assisted breeding, cell as well as genetic engineering. 2. Of particular importance, the essay has a thoughtful discussion on
the health and environmental concerns associated with biotechnology. While
concluding that, as to health concerns, there is a scientific consensus that
biotechnology-altered foodstuffs are safe, the report stresses the scientific
consensus on the need for case-by-case studies for all biotechnology products
and processes. Regarding environmental concerns, of which the reports describes
the science community’s call for more scientific research and investigation, the
FAO report surveys and describes the international instruments that are
beginning to direct policy and regulatory standard development for
biotechnology, such as the International Plant Protection Convention and the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Notwithstanding its
multi-faceted examination of biotechnology for the 21st century, 3. the FAO
report’s other major emphasis--alongside the potential of biotechnology for poor
farmers--is that the mode for bringing this biotechnology potential to poor
farmers is woefully deficient. Although some obstacles are
indeed formidable for bringing biotechnology potential benefits to the poor, the
report does not despair, and it offers ideas and even an agenda for reorienting
the biotechnology enterprise for greater technology transfer and benefits for
the poor. To overcome technology transfer and development obstacles, 4. the
FAO report calls on all countries and the international community as a whole to:
"establish transparent, predictable science-based regulatory procedures;
establish appropriate intellectual property rights to insure that developers can
earn an adequate return of investment." Along with these supportive
measures, more direct measures for bio-technology need to be taken, and these
include a dramatic increase in public research, a fostering of public-private
partnerships, greater focus on the crops that poor farmers grow, and the
emergence of developing world regional centers of biotechnology research and
dissemination. The FAO report is hopeful that this can be done.
5. Underlying its propounding of this hopeful vision is not only an
examination of what is currently amiss, but also important case studies in which
biotechnology is actually helping poor farmers, in terms of economics and
also human health, as is the case with biotechnology-modified cotton in
China.