Responses in favour of genetic modification/engineering
Jon Rohde, South Africa
Afatariki W. Tora, Fiji
Pier Giovanni d'Ayala, Paris
Peter Jacobs, St. Vincent & the Grenadines
Jussi Tammisola, Finland
Ted Robinson
Tony Edwards, British Virgin Islands
Chris Wozniak, USA

Responses expressing reservations about genetic modification/engineering
Boedhihartono, Indonesia
Mimi Forsyth, Hawaii
Terrence Giliard
Patu Hohepa, New Zealand
Anita James
Ilan Kelman, USA
Razack Nayamuth, Mauritius
Jorge F. Orueta, Seychelles
Teariki Rongo, Cook Islands
Richard Roth, USA
Joan Seymour
Nirmal Shah, Seychelles
John Stollmeyer
Sonia Williams, Jamaica
Writer, Dominica

Other responses
Anita
Chris Campbell, Canada
Edna Chukwura
Mark Dunbavand, Turks and Caicos Islands
Margie Falanruw, Federated States of Micronesia
Fuatino, Samoa
Michal Kravcik, Slovakia
Sonia Williams, Jamaica

 

From Pier Giovanni d'Ayala, Paris

Dear Small Islands Voice, would it be possible to get in contact with the person speaking recently about biotechnology in Hawaii? As you know Insula has published several issues of its magazine Insula - International Journal of Island affairs dedicated to island biotechnology, genetic resources and biodiversity. We wish to explore further this area of concern, we believe in fact that small island economies could greatly benefit from research and development in a field not needing in principle large structural and capital intensive investments. Allow me to present a short example. The well-known petunia flowers seeds are very difficult to produce for the single pure colors, i.e. white, red, etc. To obtain such seeds the correspondent petunia plantation must be grown in highly isolated glass houses with efficient pollen filtering systems and other sophisticated devices in order to avoid the smallest pollen from other "coloured" petunias living on the balconies of surrounding settlements to hybridize the pure colour of the plantation, and of course the commercial value of its seeds. Small islands having certificated that there are no petunias on their territory could easily start with obviously low production costs an extremely high added value activity.

The problem is not even to enter into the dispute of yes or no consequences on human health of genetic modifications on that or that other crop. It is essential to alert islanders that biotechnologies are not limited to genetic modifications of crops behaviour, but much more. Remember a century old Japanese technology of cultivated pearls production, let us inform island people about the relatively recent know-how in French Polynesia, black pearls cultivation and massive commercialization. Any European airport has presently, on show in its boutiques, Tahitian black pearls. Allow me finally to propose a fruitful, friendly encounter.

From Tony Edwards, British Virgin Islands

Since there is a great deal of confusion abounding, is the Jamaican woman actually performing in cell genetic modification or is she doing cross breeding of plants? The latter is responsible for all of the high edible plant matter that we eat. Without it we would still be subsisting on wild wheat.

From Peter Jacobs, St. Vincent & the Grenadines

Being from St. Vincent and the Grenadines (Caribbean) land space is limited. It is up to small islands to use their resources profitably, especially in view of the increasing price of fuel. Taiwan has been helping our island develop crops that would yield maximum amount of fruit on a minimum farm area. We now use tissue culture instead of suckers to grow bananas, we develop new varieties of pineapples and also have a pig rearing scheme with bigger pigs. Yes, genetically modified products may have side-effects, but if great care is taken, I do not see why we cannot continue.

From Ted Robinson

I congratulate the woman who has been able to develop a resistant strain of papaya. I think that a lot more of the technical information needs to be placed before us, as laypersons. But, personally I do not feel that so-called genetic modification is greatly different from the older methods of natural selection. I would eat the modified fruit any day. I also feel that, instead of the almost automatic opposition that seems to be raised against anything that might benefit the human race in the future, those same persons (e.g. the folk medicine people) should be proactive in finding out if the strain will impair the normal medicinal properties of natural papaya. It reminds me of the big tobacco companies that used to tell us that cigarettes are not harmful when scientific evidence strongly suggested otherwise. We need to find solutions to our food needs in the very near future if we are not all going to start starving (as so many are today) in the next 20 years.

From Tony Edwards, British Virgin Islands Since there is a great deal of confusion abounding, is the Jamaican woman actually performing in cell genetic modification or is she doing cross breeding of plants? The latter is responsible for all of the high producing edible plant matter that we eat. Without it we would still be subsisting on wild wheat.

From Jon Rohde, South Africa

What a pity that the general buying public is so ignorant about what genetically modified really means. First, we should realize that every new generation of every plant and animal is genetically modified from its parents - that is the resilience and beauty of nature, and how evolution has occurred. We are genetically modified from our parents, as are out children from us - mixing genes is healthy! Second, tradition breeding of plants to get preferred varieties - higher yields, tastier, pest resistant, fertilizer responsive etc is all a form of genetic modification through selection of genetic characteristics breeders find are desirable. (people do it too - preferring to mate with blonds, or blue eyes or darker skin or taller or cleverer - we all contribute to genetic modification) Third, modern techniques to chose and alter genes may affect the fruit or animal or crop to be more pest resistant or what have you, but when you consume the product, there is absolutely no chance you will in any way be influenced by the genetic make up of the food- the genetic material is entirely broken down in your intestinal digestive processes - the genes that gave an improved meat or fruit or what have you have no relationship to you and your genes. So what is all the hype?

The only legitimate concern is that wild type genomes may be lost in time if the improved varieties thrive and multiply - so if the papaya virus is going to kill or maim traditional papaya plants and a new genetically modified variety is resistant, it may proliferate while the wild one is dying out. This is the beauty of evolution - mutations that offer an advantage prevail and make progress, even in the face of adversity. It has no effect whatsoever on the safety of the food. How can people be so misinformed? Sad!

From Jussi Tammisola, Finland

As an old plant biologist, ecologist and geneticist I have to state that the worries presented in your message seem, once again, mostly unsubstantiated.

I have been making risk studies in the field for 15 years and teaching (mainly conventional) plant breeding in University of Helsinki for 35 years. The most essential basics of the question have already been stated by EUCARPIA (European Association of Plant Breeding Research) in 1989. Namely: it is the trait bred in the plant (and not the method used in its breeding) that is responsible both for the obtained benefits and possible disadvantages of the novel plant variety (both for environment and human beings).

See my lesson in European Parliament Oct. 10, 2006: http://www.mm.helsinki.fi/~tammisol/EP101006.pdf http://www.mm.helsinki.fi/~tammisol/EP101006App.pdf http://www.mm.helsinki.fi/~tammisol/RitalaCroSci.pdf (my study on GM barley, see its Introduction)

...and the sections dealing with biotechnology in our report on coexistence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops (including public discussion analyzed in its Appendix), published by scientific experts in consensus: http://wwwb.mmm.fi/julkaisut/tyoryhmamuistiot/2005/trm2005_9a.pdf

Furthermore, there are many reports available accumulating the true ecological and nutritional (safety) experiences of new (genetically modified) plant varieties during the past 10 years. The novel varieties have proved safe, in some cases safer than conventional and especially "organic" ones. See e.g. http://www.art.admin.ch/dms_files/03017_de.pdf (ecology) http://www.mm.helsinki.fi/~tammisol/ConnCond03.pdf http://www.mm.helsinki.fi/~tammisol/BiodivLyhAmmann04.pdf http://www.mm.helsinki.fi/~tammisol/ItalTdJarj.htm (safety) http://www.mm.helsinki.fi/~tammisol/SaksanTdAkatLiitto1104memorandum_green_biotechnology.pdf http://www.mm.helsinki.fi/~tammisol/USATiedeNeuv270704.pdf http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_abiotechnology_ENU_HTML.htm

From Afatariki W. Tora, Fiji

It's an opportunity. I am reminded of the famous quote: "In the middle of all trials and mistakes there is an opportunity in disguise".

From Chris Wozniak, USA

I wonder if this is the same papaya ringspot virus (PPRV) resistance as used in Hawaii. Carlos Gonsalvez (ARS-HI) developed this some years back, but there were restrictions to where it could be grown commercially since some of the genetics used to create the resistance were proprietary and took some real legal acrobatics to gain approval after the fact. I know this issue has come up with the transfer of this technology to Thailand, but yesterday I saw Thailand had signed an agreement with Vietnam to remain GMO-free.

The PPRV resistant papayas have saved the Hawaiian industry as otherwise they could not produce enough economically to survive. Given the fact it is likely an RNAi type mechanism (i.e., there is no coat protein produced) it is a shame people let the European Union (EU) dictate their agronomic practices. I am writing a portion of a chapter this week on how the EU regulations have stifled transgenic sugarbeets in favour of using a mix of synthetic herbicides to control weeds and contaminate the groundwater.

From Boedhihartono, Indonesia

Varieties of plant and other organisms found in different islands should be well recorded, documented and preserved. Because the introduction of new variety/species could (whether artificial, engineered or otherwise) could wipe out the endemic species. The case happened in one small stream of Kalimantan, where the introduction of Tilapia Mozambique and Cyprinus species have depleted the local species of the stream.

Hopefully such a case will not happen to a small island which forms an isolated environment for different organisms.

From Mimi Forsyth, Hawaii

As I see it, the control of genetically modified seeds, fertilizers to grow them and herbicides to kill the superweeds created is - by any multinational - an open door to controlling the global food supply. I dislike that prospect as much as the private control of water on global scale. Vandana Shiva writes copiously and clearly on such matters. I recommend reading her.

From Terrence Giliard

Quite interesting and thought provoking isn't it? Again it underscores the need for a harmonized regional approach to biosafety. There is also some inherent danger in placing biosafety totally in the hands of those who are also responsible for developing genetically modified products. Like some would say the civil engineer constructs the road and the road safety engineer would be responsible for assessing the safety of that road. At the end of the day it is all about what the market requires and if we are going to supply the European market.

I'm also forwarding a well-written piece that could be translated nicely into local science news:

A terrible papaya virus has hit Jamaica for six years and now a Jamaican woman has developed a genetically modified papaya that is resistant. Yet, the authorities fear to test the new variety in field trials. Already, buyers in Europe are saying that they would be hesitant to buy the genetically modified papaya from Jamaica because of the worries in the minds of European consumers about all genetically modified crops. Worse, they fear that trials would "contaminate" normal papaya and organically-grown papaya in Jamaica, through cross-pollination. Certain environmental organizations are making a big drama about field tests of genetically modified papayas in Thailand. They also claim that the price of genetically modified Hawaiian papaya has collapsed because of consumer fears.

What would all of this mean for the free movement of papaya under the Caribbean Community Single Market Economy (CSME)? Would all Caribbean papaya become suspect? Unfortunately, Europeans are often unable to distinguish the islands. When I first went to England in 1981, most UK people asked "Antigua? What part of Jamaica is that? Others asked perkily about that song "Antigua Bay"? It took me five years to realize that they meant "Montego, Montego Bay"!

What about us? Who is looking out for our health and our environment? Even if it turns out to be safe to eat, has anyone checked to see whether it is safe to use the genetically modified papayas in bush medicine? Could it harm our honeybees or the perception of our honey? I have submitted information on these subjects to the regional herbal meeting (CARAPA) and regional beekeeping meeting, last year (2005).

In 2003, I submitted a report to government entitled "Transforming Antigua & Barbuda", assessing the import and use of genetically modified crops and invasive species. Although most US papaya was from Hawaii, little reached Antigua. Most of Antigua's imported papaya came from Dominica (1999 Customs statistics). However, while vet Radcliffe Robins and I were presenting the data on Observer radio, a caller (one of our importers who specializes in airline food) asked whether the popular "Solo" Hawaiian papaya variety was affected. Our information at the time was that the genetically modified varieties were "Sun-up" and "Rainbow". We should have recognized that these were new versions of the old "Solo".

More:
Allergenic GM Papaya Scandal http://www.i-sis.org.uk/PapayaAllergy.php

Push for GM papaya continues in Thailand and South-East Asia http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=334

Greenpeace sues Thailand over genetically modified papaya http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/10/26/national/national_30017158.php

From Patu Hohepa, New Zealand

We are generally against genetic engineering because of its unknown effects on our indigenous flora/fauna and on many products we now eat. The effect of "contaminated" commercial corn seeds, soya etc. from the Americas is one such problem.

The article about Hawaii's experiences gives a positive side and I send our thanks from us indigenous Maori. One major concern is with commercial seed growers using genetic engineering to make their products sterile and thus cannot be grown for home use. Add that to the creeping slate of laws that take away our rights to indigenous or native flora and fauna. Can we have feedback from others of our small island voices clusters? This goes forward to tribal contacts.

Kea ora (many thanks)

From Anita James

I think that it is unfair to liken genetic engineering as practiced in the laboratory to what happens naturally. For one thing, in the lab, genes from organisms which are often not taxonomically linked are mixed together which does NOT happen in nature. Where in nature have u heard that a tomato and a fish mate to produce a new kind of offspring? Secondly the production rate of the new organisms occurs much faster than that which usually happens in nature. I think that there are too many unknowns in this whole process for us humans not to use caution in the practice of this new technology. Many people seem to be coming down with allergies these days, have enough studies been done to say whether or not, it is the GM food that may be causing the problems?

From Ilan Kelman, USA

The remark "What a pity that the general buying public is so ignorant about what genetically modified really means" was disappointing since the following comments suggest that the author might not be fully informed about either the scientific or the non-scientific issues of this topic. The UK's Royal Society has investigated some of the issues thoroughly while indicating that it would not be within their mandate to consider other issues. See http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp?id=1216

They suggest that some risks from genetically modified plants are negligible based on current scientific evidence (I ask: how robust and complete is that evidence?), but that other risks should not be dismissed. For example, they write "We accept that it is usually not feasible to evaluate the safety of genetically modified foods by the standards applied to certain food additives or medicines". To me, this indicates that we should understand how to evaluate these products' safety before we use them.

Consider also their wise words regarding science and policy "that scientific assessments must inform policy decisions but cannot pre-empt them, and that public opinion must be taken into account throughout. We believe that the public debate about genetically modified food must take account of wider issues than the science alone. We also wish to stress the importance of informing debate with sound science." Science is not perfect and has uncertainties. We need to be informed about those along with the wider issues, such as social impacts and ethics.

Above all, remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

From Razack Nayamuth, Mauritius

I am professionally a scientist. I am personally worried about genetically modified plants and animals while having no objection against the science. However, one has to think that natural selection and crop improvement by humans are most of the time going on with genes from the same species as opposed to genetic engineering when genes from other species are introduced into the genetic make-up of another species. When thinking of the resistance that are being developed by pests and that are demanding more stronger chemicals which in turn are more polluting, are we thinking enough about the long-term impacts and if humans will be able to cope with them? How many years are scientists fighting now against HIV/AIDS and more recently trying to develop a vaccine for Asian Bird flu? Are we not putting at peril our stocks by cultivating the genetically modified plants?

Secondly I stress upon the fact that classical breeding is not onerous and is practiced by almost all countries, rich and poor as well as developed, underdeveloped and least developed countries. Each and every nation is fighting on an equal footing. Genetic engineering is costly and only within the reach of rich nations. Do we want to again have the poor people at the mercy of the rich ones? Will the poorer not become poorer and eventually lead to more hunger around this world?

From Jorge F. Orueta, Seychelles

Three more problems: Who is the owner of those "new varieties"? Normally, the big multinationals of chemistry and agricultural products. Many of the "new varieties" produce sterile seeds, so the poor framers will have to buy seeds instead of reutilizing a part of their own crop. What happens with those "resistant new varieties" when they became weeds? I'm working in a very small island and once a week we spend several hours chopping invasive papaya trees. I hope that no pollen or seeds of new superplants arrived here, if this happens, maybe we will have a monoculture of this tree. And I doubt that the system of spreading the genes was absolutely safe in terms of transfer of these resistance properties to weeds. To be serious, the financial support to most (and I say most and not all) of these researches has nothing to do with the benefit to "human race" in general, but to only some of those humans, the owners of the companies that promote those crops with such a lot of demagogy. (This is a personal answer to the forum, with my personal opinions, not representing any institution)

From Joan Seymour

The problem with genetic modification as it relates to large crop use is that the big companies - I wont name them- patent the process of the modification, and by modifying the seeds, ensure that farmers cannot use the seeds from their crops to be planted the next season. The end result is that farmers are dependent on the" manufacturer" to buy seeds each year for their crops. They will never be free from that need to purchase the seeds! And since we do not yet know the long-term effects of this kind of modification, we could end up with modified crops that are not necessarily good for us.

From Nirmal Shah, Seychelles

Please see an article published in my weekly column in The People Newspaper which you can re-publish.

'Stopping the terminator seeds' http://www.natureseychelles.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=241&Itemid=63

From Teariki Rongo, Cook Islands

I am a believer in traditional medicine values in the Cook Islands, a country in the South Pacific. I couldn't agree more with your views on genetically modified fruits and food. They are as you say food that we eat and all its goodness extracted by the body's digestive system. However, what concerns me is the possible and unknown effects those genetically modified plants may have on surrounding plants that may be, as indicated, undergoing natural genetical modification. The induced change, some may refer to it as accelerated change, to the natural process is a concern to me. So what may be an asset to the human race on one part (e.g. improving food crops), could be a disadvantage to the human race in another part. Pharmaceutical companies are making health care very expensive and the 'system' has supported this notion by supporting those companies in so many ways. Indigenous people cannot afford that medicine and there is a strong possibility that the ingredients for their medicine may be affected. In the case of fruits and food, better strains are developed to improve profits (or production) so that those planting them are able to export them to countries that can afford them and the indigenous people still, in many ways, starve. As a believer and user of traditional medicine, my level of education tells me that genetically modified plants can and may adversely affect the value of this form of medicine. What do you think? Am I making any sense?

From Richard Roth, USA

Your piece included the following quote: "The industry and its supporters proudly point out that biotechnology is actually helping small farmers by reducing pesticide use. Close to 8 million subsistence farmers throughout the developing world are growing genetically engineered soy and corn that require less toxic killer and bug spray, making farming better for the environment and those working in the fields."

Actually, fields studied in Iowa (USA) using certain genetically modified soybeans must use more herbicide year over year because of increased soil sterility, herbicide-resistant weeds and other factors. Not surprising when we realize that the herbicide is made by the same company that supplies the seeds.

From John Stollmeyer

The problem is agriculture (sic). In his article titled "The worst mistake in the History of the Human Race", Jared Diamond makes the point that adopting monocropping of a few starchy crops has fuelled the population explosion and brought with it slavery, famine, disease epidemics, standing armies, wars of conquest, gender inequality and tyranny. Politicians and scientists continue to plan for feeding the growing population. In the sixties they came up with the "Green Revolution" creating hybrid seed dependant on particular chemical cocktails and they succeeded in growing the population from three billion to six billion. If they continue to be successful with this strategy using GMO's we could reach twelve billion in a couple of decades. The first law of ecology states: all life on earth is food. The second law states: population size is proportional to food availability. We as a species must give up the chemical warfare we are waging against the biodiversity of the planet in order to grow man's favourite food and creating "super pests". A return to organic polyculture systems minding the soil as promoted by the Permaculture Movement is crucial if we are to avoid the population crash.

From Sonia Williams, Jamaica

This is certainly a very controversial yet infinitely important topic. And I agree I donÌt think that the layman knows a great deal. But frankly speaking I donÌt think the scientists themselves have studied this sufficiently well to decide on the pros and cons. It cannot be that for the sake of having food there must be genetic engineering without an assessment of the costs!

From Writer, Dominica

It's good that people can be educated through Small Islands Voice.

The information, some of it, is relatively new, while some should be given more exposure, for example, that the same people that make the pesticides supplies the seeds. How are we so sure that they are not doing their testing on the seeds to see what affects it, in detail down to the soil environment that would cause or stimulate the time for the pesticides to be used?

We have been told that coconut oil is not good, now we are finding out that soya is not good and that it contributes to blood clots, and that the properties of coconut oil is still under investigation because they are life preserving.

 

Other responses

From Anita

Very good points for consideration. The regional Biosafety establishment needs to be going and quick.

From Chris Campbell, Canada

I was recently sent a copy of some of the discussion group postings. Can you make those interested aware of the resources in the library at our website? We have the ability to mount a forum specifically focused on the needs and aspirations of the islands if that would generate more discussion and build some linkages between potential solution providers and those who can articulate the needs.

From Edna Chukwura

I wish to acknowledge the receipt of the information you sent to me with immense delight.

From Mark Dunbavand, Turks and Caicos Islands

I'm afraid that the only thing that grows on this island appears to be condominiums!! If you can find a way to control those - let me know.

From Margie Falanruw, Federated States of Micronesia

Phew, Food for thought!

P.S. Have you come across any evaluation of "scientific ecotourism" and it's impacts on small islands- beneficial or otherwise? Ideally we want to have local, island-based scientists of our own, but the "system" supports outside scientists to visit and do their thing, often at the expense of local governments and local staff that have to leave their own work to host the visitors. (Islanders are hospitable people.) When most all support for "conservation" goes to outside scientists, it inhibits the development of local scientists, who are relegated to being mere guides, often on a "voluntary" basis, for "paid ecotourists". Then on top of that, the reports done by the visitors may recommend the sequestering of local people's natural resources. What's in it for local communities? Have any islands found a way to make the "system" work for them rather than the other way around?

From Fuatino, Samoa

Thanks for the note, anyways. May the Lord God bless you and have many more years to come. Have a pleasant say.

From Michal Kravcik, Slovakia

I am worried about sea level rise. It is extremely dangerous for small islands. Solution is on the continents. I am sending to you my modest proposal for your information. It is a minority voice on how to solve global warming and increasing of sea level. The solution is on the continents. See www.peopleandwater.sk

From Sonia Williams, Jamaica

Hi there,
This is an interesting article as usual. Actually, I had the pleasure of teaching her, Dr Paula Tennant who did the research to develop this new strain of papaya.

For more information on this subject, see:

• http://www.ifgene.org/beginners
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified
• http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GE-debates.php
• http://www.fao.org/AG/magazine/GMOs.pdf
• http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X9600E/x9600e06.htm

To get involved, contact :