Pedro Rocha, coordinator of IICA’s biotechnology and biosafety unit, detects growing interest in the countries of the Americas in developing regulatory frameworks on the subject.
San Jose, Costa Rica, June 2013 (IICA). There is growing interest in developing national biosafety frameworks to regulate the use of biotechnology in Latin America and the Caribbean. In response to this development, the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) has stepped up its efforts to deliver science-based information to the countries, to help them make well-founded decisions.
According to the coordinator of IICA’s Area of Biotechnology and Biosafety, Pedro Rocha, the countries of the hemisphere realize that biosafety is necessary, for example, to minimize risks to public health or preserve biodiversity, regardless of their position on one of the most controversial biotechnology techniques—transgenesis.
In this Q&A, the specialist explains some of the issues and describes IICA’s position on biotechnology.
1. What is agricultural biotechnology? How can it be used to meet the challenges of agriculture?
IICA accepts the definition of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, which establishes that biotechnology is any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use. Based on this definition, one could say that agricultural biotechnology refers to the biotechnological tools that can be used in the development of agriculture.
Biotechnology has been described as a box of key tools for developing agriculture in the context of current problems such as climate change and the growing demand from a burgeoning population for more good quality food. It is also viewed as a means of generating new businesses for the agricultural sector.
2. What is biosafety and why is it necessary?
It refers to a particular type of biotechnology, namely the release of transgenic or genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The aspect of biosafety in which IICA specializes is the use of policy measures to reduce the risks involved in releasing GMOs into the environment, procedures designed to preserve biological integrity and minimize any potential negative effects of biotechnology on the environment or on human or animal health.
Why is this important? Because it guarantees that biotech applications are safe. The theoretical concept of biotechnology is one thing, but the application and practical usefulness of biotechnology is another matter entirely. Therefore, biosafety should be seen as a series of measures and guidelines that guarantee the safe use of such innovations.
3. How have the countries of the Americas reacted to IICA’s efforts to promote the development of biosafety frameworks?
All 34 of the Institute’s member countries have endorsed them unequivocally, regardless of their position on biotechnology in general, or transgenics in particular. It has been very encouraging to see how keen they are to address the issue.
The countries, regardless of their particular position, view biotechnology—from IICA’s broad perspective—as an area of strategic importance for their agricultural development, and regard biosafety frameworks as important in meeting the requirements associated with GMOs.
The vast majority of countries in the hemisphere have signed the Cartagena Protocol but some have yet to ratify it. They are interested in receiving support from us with its implementation, however. They view IICA as a strategic partner that can assist them technically with what they need to do.
4. What is IICA’s position on agricultural biotechnology?
It is based on four key points:
I. Biotechnology is much more than transgenesis; it is a toolbox that contains very powerful techniques, such as tissue culture, molecular markers, genomics and others.
II. IICA does not endorse or oppose any particular technique. It circulates among its member countries information generated by research centers, scientifically validated information that we can help to make more understandable and convey to people in the agricultural sector, policymakers and decision-makers, so they can take decisions based on science.
III. Although IICA has no institutional position on transgenesis, there is one point that we do stress: it does not matter whether the countries accept or reject GMOs or transgenesis per se, the important thing is that they establish regulatory frameworks for biosafety. We regard biosafety as a means to strengthen the countries’ institutional framework and decision-making, and as an expression of their sovereignty.
IV. IICA regards biotechnology as a complement to, and as the basis of, all known forms of agriculture.
These four points underpin all our actions, which fall into three main groups: support for technical capacity building in biotechnology and biosafety in the countries, support for the institutional framework, and the correct communication of information about biotechnology.
5. How does IICA juggle its own ideas on biotechnology with the different positions of its 34 member countries?
In keeping with point II above, we represent the position of 34 countries. We respect their acceptance or rejection of the technology, since each country has a sovereign right to take whatever decision it chooses.
Many factors are involved in a given nation’s decision to accept or reject GMOs; it is good that the countries discuss them and are free to make a decision. The important thing is that they base their decision on science and not on assumptions or beliefs, or even misinterpretations, because that can have a negative impact on the development of their agriculture.
6. In Costa Rica, IICA is supporting an effective biotechnology communication strategy. What is involved? What challenges does it face?
The UNEP-GEF project, the objective of which is to set up a biosafety framework in Costa Rica, asked us to develop a biotech communication and education strategy, which we worked on for a year. It calls for the incorporation of five very simple messages related to biotechnology into the school curriculum, from primary school through high school.
We want to convey the message that biotechnology is a toolbox to which all of us have access if we know that it exists and we know how to use it. The other important message is that biotechnology should be applied responsibly, and the biosafety measures that each country adopts should guarantee that.
A third message is that biotechnology is an opportunity to create profitable businesses, businesses in which, regardless of whether you are a small, medium or large-scale farmer, you can find a market niche and possibilities for growing your operation.
The strategy is currently being validated by the Ministry of Public Education, and we hope that before too long resources will be obtained to use it and produce rapid results.
7. Are the challenges in Costa Rica the same as those faced by the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean?
The main challenge involved in implementing this sort of strategy and presenting ideas of this kind is the misinformation that exists in the countries. If you go on the Internet and look up GMOs or transgenics, and search for figures, you will undoubtedly find apples with teeth, potatoes with fangs, or terrible deformations; in fact, none of those things exist. The most traumatic thing is that such messages have a very large and, ultimately, harmful impact – on children, for example – who are going to use biotechnology further down the line and solve some of agriculture’s problems with those tools.
Another obstacle is the erroneous message that biotechnology equals transgenics. For example, organic agriculture has been using biotechnology for a long time. Indeed, based on the number of biotech tools that are used, a smallholder may be more “biotechnological” than a large multinational company.
There is clearly some bias on both sides, among both those who are against and those who are in favor. The opponents of GMOs say they are the worst thing possible and cause all the problems, which is not true. But other groups are trying to sell the idea that such organisms are a panacea. Both positions are wrong. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, because transgenic crops or GMOs are a technological solution to some problems, but not all.
For more information, contact:
pedro.rocha@iica.int
