do we really need transgenic biofortification to feed the poor and combat malnutrition
TRANSCRIPT
6/1/2015
1
0
Miracle food =
sustainable food?
- Do we really need transgenic
biofortification for the poor to eat
and live well?
Dr. Miriam Garvi / 葛明伊葛明伊葛明伊葛明伊博士
National Taiwan UniversityMember of the Board of Eden Foundation
What is wrong in this picture?
Photos courtesy of © Eden Foundation
6/1/2015
2
What is wrong in this picture?
A hostile environment, the result of unsustainable
farming practices (monoculture; slash-and-burn
practices)
Elderly people remember a time when if a camel ran
off, it would be lost among all the trees in the forest…
Photos courtesy of © Eden Foundation
The Sustainability Challenge:
Food that is good for people, good
for farmers, and good for the
environment
6/1/2015
3
Different approaches to ‘feeding the
poor’ in the context of farming
Two stories of how to address malnutrition in
Sub-Saharan Africa:
• Dry Farming Perennials: drawing on the
diversity in nature’s pantry (case study)
• Transgenically biofortified superfoods
(BioCassava+)
6/1/2015
4
The Eden Foundation:
Fast Facts
• NGO founded 1985 in Sweden.
• Mission: “We believe that the key to prosperity for the poor lie in underexploited, edible trees and bushes - the lost treasures of Eden. Our mission is to find those treasures and bring them to people who really need them.”
• Promotes dry, perennial and diversified farming through research and extension work in a region with 250-350 mm of annual rainfall.
• Active in Tanout, Niger since 1987.
• As of 2014, 16,000 farming households have benefited from seed packages
• In 2014, distributed seeds for 121,275 trees and bushes.
Photos courtesy of © Eden Foundation
Life expectancy 54.74 y
(Taiwan: 79.84)
0-14 years 49.8%
(Taiwan: 14%)
Facts about Niger Rep.:
Surface 1,266,700 sq km
(35 times Taiwan)
Population 17.5 M
(76% of population
Taiwan)
90% labor force in
agriculture
(Taiwan: 5%)
Source: CIA Fact Sheet (July 2014 est.)
6/1/2015
5
The farmers’ journey: environmental and social
‘unsustainability’
Environmental challenges:
Land rapidly degrading due to unsustainable farming practices
• Loss of trees
• Loss of vegetative cover
• Loss of wildlife
• Loss of topsoil due to wind erosion…
Cultural challenges:
Overcoming attitudes conserving unsustainable cycle
“Trees are our enemies!” (attract birds that will eat the crops
before harvest)
“Only God may sow trees” (superstition; colonial history)
“Things will get better tomorrow, God willing…” (fatalism)
“We have been told this is poisonous…” (rumors)
Social challenges:
Rural communities caught in a poverty cycle
• Annual crop yields insufficient to feed the
family
• Harvests sold at low prices (food speculators)
• Lack of options in the event of a bad year
• Off-season exodus of adult male household
members
• High rates of child mortality (malaria, measles
etc.)
• Chronic malnutrition
Photos courtesy of © Eden Foundation
The research challenge
The research (field) station:
Least favorable location (if concept works here,
should also work in farmers’ fields)
Field experiments testing germination, survivability
and growth for Dry Farming Candidates
Dry Farming Candidates:
Pristine varieties (aka Wild Edible Plants)
Perennial species
Drought-tolerant
Edible produce (that can be harvested
without destroying the plant)
Ranked according to various parameters including survivability and nutrition vs. toxicity, ease
of harvest, palatability etc.
Farmer extension program based on
the ‘passive transfer’ principle:
Seeds from top 20 species
available to farmers for free
on a yearly basis
Know-how
Established through direct seeding:
Testing pre-seeding treatments, seeding depth etc.
Seeds germinating with rainfall
Roots developing below ground first, to support
growth above ground
Root system programmed in the early phases (e.g.
Lynch 1995)
Dry Farming under rigorous conditions:
Rainfed ability (no irrigation)
No other inputs (neither organic nor non-organic fertilizers)
No pesticides nor herbicides (no pest-control; limited
manual weeding in early growth phase)Photos courtesy of © Eden Foundation
6/1/2015
6
The Eden case: testing the concept
Dry Farming Candidates:
• Pristine (aka Wild Plants)
• Perennial
• Edible produce (can be harvested
without less of plant)
• Various parameters evaluated: ease
of harvest, nutrition & survivability
vs. toxicity, palatability etc.
No added inputs:
• Rainfed ability
• Species grow well without fertilization
(neither organic nor non-organic)
• No pesticides nor herbicides used (no
pest-control; manual weeding in early
growth phase)
Experimental (field) station:
Testing various species at the field station
Established through Direct seeding:
• Seeding depths and pre-seeding
treatments tested
• Seeds germinate with rainfall
• Root system programmed in the
early phase
• Allows roots to grow deep, in order
to support growth above ground
Candidates that thrive in rigorous
conditions made freely available to
farmers upon request:
• Seeds of best-performing
species (8-20)
• Know-how
Photos courtesy of © Eden Foundation
The farmers’ journey: seeing potential
Early motivation:
Perennials as wind-breakers
The cultural factor:
Perennial produce belongs to the women
– the first to see the potential
High vs. low-status food:
What is good food for us to
eat?
(imported rice or store-
bought macaroni = sign of
status…)
Gradual change:
Perennial intercropping (Savannah landscape)
In years where annual crops perform
poorly (drought, late or erratic rains…):
DF food plants prove their worth (the role
of Boscia Senegalensis/Hanza in 2005)
Increased demand for seedsPhotos courtesy of © Eden Foundation
6/1/2015
7
The importance of
biodiversity:
Harvesting seasons for 7 DF
species
(cf. one harvest season for
annual crop)
Increased
resilience
DF species: Boscia senegalensis
• Fruits, leaves and seeds
(‘Hanza beans’) consumed
• Hanza beans played a key role
in 2005 – “saved by Hanza”,
together with other DFS that
produce well in difficult years
6/1/2015
8
The farmers’ journey: resources that make a difference
Social impact:
Improved health (child mortality near zero in farming
villages practicing DF)
Reversed trend for malnutrition (plump and lively
children)
Changed status for young women (delayed marriage)
Reversed exodus trend (farmers hire help)
Environmental impact:
Regreening of area; vegetative cover
throughout the year; biodiversity
Wildlife returning
Comparative green benefits (e.g. water
usage, pollution from other inputs…)
Photos courtesy of © Eden Foundation
The farmers’ journey: resources that make a difference
Economic impact:
Surplus perennial produce sold at local
markets (high demand)
Financial independence
Alternative source of income in bad
years
Cultural impact:
Old food traditions recovered
Photos courtesy of © Eden Foundation
6/1/2015
9
Sustainable farming…
• …generates long-
standing, positive effects
– For the environment
– For the community
– For the individual,
including vulnerable
members
• In this part of the world,
it is about sustainable
livelihoods
• Improves Quality of Life in
meaningful terms:
– Shoes (!)
– Clothing
– Housing
– Water
– Food
– Women’s status
– Children well taken care of
– Medical care
– Education
– …
Examples of Genetic Biofortification
seen through the lens of sustainability
6/1/2015
10
From a discourse
perspective:
• Safe vs. non-safe
• The ‘feeding the world’
discourse and
combating malnutrition
“[the]…debate has shifted
away from technical
issues of cost-benefit
optimisation in a context
of uniform mass
production and
consumption in the North,
to the moral case for GM
crops to feed the hungry
and aid ‘development’ in
the South.”
(Brooks 2005:360,
Biotechnology and the
Politics of Truth: From the
Green Revolution to an
Evergreen Revolution; own
emphasis)
Saving the poor:
• High claims and
promises of bio-
fortification (e.g.
Brooks 2013; Stein 2015)
• A matter of
conscience (moral
arguments
replacing the
scientific; see Brooks
2005)
• ARE WE SEEING
MIRACLE
‘SUPERFOODS’?
6/1/2015
11
Unnevehr et al. (2007), Addressing Micronutrient Deficiencies: Alternative Interventions and Technologies
In Bailey et al. 2014 On Trial; Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa, Research Paper, pp. 14-15
Donor funding especially from Gates Foundation, Rockefeller
Foundation, and USAID
6/1/2015
12
Cassava fortification in Nigeria(Manihot exculenta)
• Ongoing cassava projects in Nigeria
for many years
• HarvestPlus implementing a three-
wave vitamin A cassava varieties
program (through conventional
breeding) since 2011
• Environmental challenges recognized:
“Increasing trends in disease and pest
pressures, climate change, and soil
degradation may limit the supply of
vitamin A cassava, depending on how
current varieties respond to the
changing environment. This suggests
that more robust varieties need to
be continuously developed in the
years ahead.”(HarvestPlus, Biofortification Progress Briefs, August 2014)
• Ongoing field trials of transgenic
cassava varieties (BioCassava+)http://www.danforthcenter.org/science/programs/international_programs/bcp/
• Starchy root crop, propagated from stem
cuttings
• Food security advantages: drought tolerance
(600-1500mm), flexible harvest times
• But, susceptible to virus diseases; roots
deteriorate quickly after harvesting
• Roots are toxic (cyanogenic), risk especially
of chronic intoxication disorder (food
processing)
• Considered poor in nutrients besides energy
(e.g. El-Sharkawy 1993; Tammisola 2013)
6/1/2015
13
The genetic engineering technique first developed for cassava transformation in 1996
(at ETH in Switzerland and at the International Laboratory for Tropical Agricultural Biotechnology
(ILTAB) and the University of Bath
Patent on the Agrobacterium co-transformation method (technique used) held by Monsanto
Adenle et al. 2012:3
Aims of Biocassava+ (in Nigeria)
• “One daily serving of biocassava should provide
complete nutrition…” (Tammisola 2013, see also Fregene et al. 2010)
• Research has involved more than 25 independent
investigators, located at 4 continents across the world (Dr. Richard Sayre, Director of BC+ 2005-2010)
• Phase I (2006-2010): developing cassava plants with:
– 30x beta-carotene
– 4x iron
– 4x protein (however, Abhary et al. 2011 retracted)
– Reduced cyanogen content in the roots (by 80%)
– Shelf life of roots extended to 3-4 weeks (in Sayre et al. 2011)
6/1/2015
14
• Field testing started 2009,
in preparation for
selecting lead event and
for regulatory trials
• (CFTs, no biosafety laws in
place e.g. ABNE 2013)
• Developing strategies for
farmer adoption/reaching
end-users
Adenle et al. 2012:7
6/1/2015
15
Some causes of
concern:
- Results
overstated?
- Results can
be achieved
with
conventional
methods
- Resistance to
CMD lost
- Health effects
unknown
- Ecosystem
effects
- Are Africans
being used as
guinea pigs?
- Valuable
source of
renewable
bio-fuel?
(cheap source
of starch to
replace maize
in the
manufacture
of ethanol)
Adenle et al. 2012
Adenle et al. 2012
6/1/2015
16
Technology transfer and IPRs
“Can GM cassava technology be effectively transferred to African farmers?
… When participants were asked to give their opinions or evaluate methods that are put in place to ensure that GM cassava technology reaches farmers in a sustainable manner, not many of them were able to shed light on a successful technology delivery program and/or the future impact of intellectual property rights (IPRs) on GM cassava.”(Adenle et al. 2012:9)
Lessons from the Golden Rice
Discourse (Brooks 2013)
• Biofortification projects aim to develop (through upstreams research) and disseminate micro nutrient-dense crops to ‘populations at risk’ from contracting malnutrition-related diseases
• Key assumption:
– Poor families (small landholders) are limited to growing/consuming one single crop � their diet is determined by the nutritional content of this crop
• Can it be used as a substitute for pharmaceutical supplementation?
6/1/2015
17
Lessons from the Golden Rice
Discourse (Brooks 2013)
• Genetically engineering the pro-vitamin A pathway into the rice endosperm (japonica variety)
achieved in 1999 (cf. Potrykus 2001)
• Technology still in the lab became a poster child � very high expectations regarding its applications
• Propelled by a strong sense of urgency
• Virtual identity of Golden Rice in policy and public discourse contrasting sharply with the messy, experimental reality: finished product and proven technology from the very early phases
6/1/2015
18
Lessons from the Golden Rice
Discourse (Brooks 2013)
• Controversy regarding IPR: GR projects and materials transferred from a public research institution to the Syngenta company
• A ‘humanitarian license’ enabling IRRI in the Philippines and partners to backcross GR trait into indica varieties, and eventually start field testing
• Delays due to lower yields than non-GM varieties (IRRI 2014)
• Resistance from farmer/NGO activist groups (e.g. uprooting of field trials in the Philippines in August 2013)
Efficacy in controlled conditions vs.
effectiveness in real world contexts
“It’s true that human nutrition research indicates that the beta carotene in Golden Rice is readily converted into vitamin A in the body, providing encouraging evidence that eating Golden Rice could help reduce vitamin A deficiency. However, it has not yet been determined whether daily consumption of Golden Rice does improve the vitamin A status of people who are vitamin A deficient and could therefore reduce related conditions such as night blindness.”
(IRRI 2013 in Brooks 2013:83)
6/1/2015
19
Ka Bert Autor, coordinator of Sararong Inisyatiba nin Kahinwanmaan na Wasakon ang Agrokemikals na
Lasong-GMO (SIKWAL-GMO) and secretary general of Kilusang Magbubukid ng Bikol (KMB),
interviewed by MASIPAG (Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development, March 3rd, 2015
http://advocacydeskmasipagmindanao.blogspot.tw/2015/03/golden-rice-will-endanger-filipino.html )
The biotechnology discourse:
how it is framed (from Brooks 2005)
• ‘There is no other alternative’ (e.g. Nature 2002):– Technological progress is constant and inevitable.
Moreover, it is politically neutral and always beneficial.
– Biotechnology = technological answer to the problem of global hunger (through the promise of increased agricultural productivity)
– Any risks/unintended negative consequences of GM technologies will be addressed by the ongoing technological development of other GM lines
– The comparison used is a return to the ‘hunter-gatherer lifestyle’ (rather than other local and viable examples)
���� Biotechnology is the solution to which there is no other alternative!
6/1/2015
20
Sub-Saharan Africa:
Are there really no options to BC+?1. A ‘super crop’ addressing all
essential nutritional needs –consuming biofortified cassava roots
2. Cassava leaves are a well-known source of human food (e.g. Lancaster & Brooks 1983); a leafy vegetable consumed with other foods
3. What about other plants/leafy vegetables? African Leafy Vegetables (ALVs), and the connection between the decline in their consumption and the emergence of new nutritional deficiencies (e.g. Machakaire et al. 1998)
4. Dry Farming Perennials Lancaster & Brooks (1983:332)
African cabbage (”Gaseya”; Spider plant;
Cleome gynandra)• Annual plant that grows naturally
in sub-Saharan Africa (rainy
season free harvest)
• Rich in vitamins A and C, also
source of iron, magnesium,
potassium, protein, vitamin B1,
vitamin B2 , zinc
• Also important medicinal
properties
e.g. van den Heever & Venter 2006
ALVs/WEPs in diversified diets
6/1/2015
21
The biotechnology discourse in context
Brooks 2005:362
Similar mindset in terms of addressing complex and multi-faceted problems
through reductionist symptom-remedy thinking
Additional uncertainty in terms of social and environmental implications
“FEEDING THE
POOR”
(Malnutrition)
Two different
paradigms
Diverse socio-cultural contexts
En
vir
on
me
nta
l ch
all
en
ge
s/
de
sert
ific
ati
on
/bio
div
ers
ity S
ma
ll-scale
/fam
ily fa
rms
“Redesign nature”• Breed ‘super species’ with
(only) desirable traits
• Modify successively to
address symptoms/
problems as they appear
(e.g. pest- and disease-
control) or to integrate new
traits in line with
technological progress
• High-yielding mono-
cultures (controlled growing
environment; standardiza-
tion & economies of scale)
• Environmental effects?
• Health effects (e.g.
bioavailability; allergenicity)?
• Farmer dependence:• On seeds/cultivars
• On investment capital
• On other inputs to remedy
problems as they appear
(constant need for
biotechnology
improvements)
“Farm with nature”• Utilize/integrate
biodiversity
• Build resilience and
robustness in food-yielding
ecosystems
• Nutritional diversity
• Build and enhance
knowledge at the local
level
• Community effects
• Farmer independence:
• Generate own seeds
• Minimize inputs
needed/used
• Diverse crops � cover
own food needs,
barter/trade surplus
• Diverse resources �
innovative
applications (new
products); creativity at
local level
Sustainability=human- and environmental-friendly
(Agro-ecology paradigm)
Sustainability unclear (biotechnology applied as remedy to a
problem; based on benevolence of key tech holders)