August 6, 2005

In developing countries, there is a shortage of information on attitudes towards biotech products. Public participation in the decision-making process is also non-existent.

BREAKTHROUGHS IN biotechnology have come thick and fast in the last decade or so. These developments cut across a wide range of fields, including agriculture, medicine, environment and industry.

As opposed to the other technologies in history, the developments taking place in biotechnology coincided with bitter debates on the merits and demerits of the technology in general, and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in particular.

Biotechnology has received far greater acceptance in the field of medicine and healthcare than in the area of food and agriculture. The main reason is the lack of awareness and participation on the part of Mr and Mrs Average. The masses never sat in judgment when it came to decisions affecting their own lives.

Any debate on biotechnology is a complex one; it is a proposition with high stakes and it has passionate proponents as well as determined detractors. Such a debate has social, ethical, religious, scientific, political, economic, legal and cultural dimensions. In part, the debate is about what is known and what is not and also about perceptions of risk and uncertainty.

In developing countries, particularly the Asian ones, there is a paucity of information on public perceptions and attitudes towards biotech products, especially agricultural ones. Public participation in the decision-making processes is also on the lower side. This is despite increasing awareness that it is the public perception towards a technology that either makes or breaks it.

Many are optimistic today that biotechnology has come to stay. It is destined to be one of the prime determinants of our lifestyles and the way we think about and react to situations in the present century, and the next.

Concerns raised by different stakeholders, however, must be addressed scientifically. Public participation is key to ensuring that biotechnologies become accepted to a sceptical and worried people, but defining the objectives and finding the right participants is a tricky proposition. There is no single homogenous public, while encompassing divergent views of multiple publics is a rather complicated assignment. So the issue of GMOs will be keenly contested in different parts of the world. It is impossible to predict, however, whether the debate will eventually dissipate or whether it will continue over many decades.

In April a workshop, entitled “Engaging the public in biotechnology and biosafety decisions: Experiences from Asia”, was organized by the World Resources Institute (WRI), Washington, DC, in collaboration with the Ateneo de Manila University, in Tagaytay City, Philippines. A large number of participants from Asian countries and representatives of the International Development Research Centre, International Rice Research Institute, United Nations Environment Programme-Global Environmental Facility and the United States Agency for International Development attended the event and exchanged views regarding potential benefits and risks of the technology.

The conference was aimed at finding out how to involve the public, along with different stakeholders, in the process of formulating policy and biosafety regulations in order to minimize mistrust about the emerging technology. The participants also discussed some scientific, socio-economic and political issues and shared information about the scope and role of biosafety and the Cartagena Protocol in Asian countries.

Dr Antonio La Viña, manager of the biosafety project of WRI, on the occasion said that there was a need to support and empower stakeholders, so that they could participate in the formulation and implementation of policies that “maximized the potential benefits while minimizing the risks of biotechnology”. Too often, public opinion about biotechnology was based on misperceptions regarding risks fuelled by insufficient or inaccurate information.

Better opinions could arise only when people had a more realistic understanding of how biotechnology could affect their immediate lives and the environments in which they lived. A study by Dr Fabian Dayrit of the school of science and engineering and Loraine Gatbalayan, both of the Ateneo de Manila University, revealed that there was “low scientific literacy” and “limited information” on biotechnology and GMOs in the region.

It is important to note that the public engaged in crop biotechnology was, on an average, more supportive of it than other people because they were more aware of and behaviourally involved in the subject. Similarly, it is important to engage the public with regard to genetic information in the forensic, social security and insurance contexts, otherwise it will become a controversial and conflicting topic because of wider concerns.

Many Asian governments — including China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan and Vietnam — attach considerable importance to plant biotechnology research in the hope of addressing the pressing challenges vis-a-vis productivity, farmers’ livelihood, rural development and food security. Many of the countries focus their research on food crops, non-food crops and crops of high commercial value in the hope of meeting increasing food requirements and of reducing the use of pesticides.

Asia is home to nearly 60 per cent of the world’s people. Over the past three to four decades, Asian farms have seen record gains in productivity, brought about by modern agricultural know-how, which is supported by appropriate government policies. In 2004, the global area of biotech crops continued to grow for the ninth consecutive year in the region. The estimated global area of approved biotech crops for 2004 was 200 million acres, up from 167 million acres in 2003.

Although the US is the largest producer of GM crops, China, India, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and Pakistan are also cultivating biotech crops. According to Bio-Spectrum, the Indian biotechnology industry has already crossed the $1 billion mark in revenues; six biotech companies have crossed the Rs100 crore mark in revenues for 2004-05 and the number of Indian firms in the sector has grown to 280 from 235 the previous year.

Meanwhile, the public is continuously being confronted with debates in which the participants are pushed into opposing corners. This does not facilitate a better understanding of modern biotechnology. The debates are liberally spiced with half-baked arguments and blatant lies.

The debates add very little value. Instead, they tend to sow confusion in the public mind. Nevertheless, acceptance of the safety of foods derived from GM crops continues to grow, according to reports.

The importance of public participation in the decision-making process has been increasingly recognized by policy-makers. For example, principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted by more than 170 countries in 1992, states: “Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level.” According to a recent study published by the FAO Legal Office, “One of the most useful legal tools for realizing the potential and avoiding the risks of modern biotechnology may be legally requiring public participation in the policy-making and regulatory decision-making processes.”

Three recently adopted international instruments of special relevance are: The Aarhus Convention, Codex Alimentarius and Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Though most of the EU countries are parties to the Aarhus Convention — which is aimed at promoting greater transparency and accountability among government bodies by guaranteeing public rights of access to environmental information, providing for public involvement in environmental decision-making and requiring the establishment of procedures enabling the public to challenge environmental decisions — but it has been adopted by a majority in the world community. It had been ratified by 119 countries by May 31.

Article 23 of the protocol specifically addresses the issue of public awareness and participation. Although Pakistan is a signatory since 2001, it remains to be ratified. Because of this lack of commitment, international agencies have largely stopped funding projects.

Public awareness and participation were among the main issues addressed at the second meeting of the Conference of Parties, held between May 30 and June 3 in Canada. It is noteworthy that there are international bodies, which are helping the developing countries build their capacity in GMO testing and biosafety regulations, for example the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme UNEP-GEF.

During the second day of the workshop, Dr Nizar Mohamed of the UNEP-GEF Project on the Development of National Biosafety Frameworks, provided the participants with an overview of experiences from projects on public participation in biosafety. He underlined the key elements of public awareness and participation under Article 23 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and discussed possible mechanisms for public participation, particularly those used in the development of the NBFs.

The NBFs programme is an excellent initiative in order to have transparent and workable biosafety frame in the region. So far 130 countries are eligible. Of them 125 have endorsed it, while 120 projects have been approved. The good news is that 31 countries finished their NBF by the end of March. But the bad news is that Pakistan is still not serious towards benefiting from such an international programme.

It is worth noting that Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan and Thailand are among the 55 nations which support the adoption of international guidelines on the labelling of all genetically modified (GM) food. Similarly, in May Sri Lanka’s ministry of health drafted new laws that required importers to clearly label genetically modified (GM) foods. The Philippines, on the other hand, objected to labelling requirements because of potential expensive costs.

In conclusion, the participants of the workshop strongly endorsed public participation in the policy-making processes. Public awareness, public education and public participation were needed in the establishment of a transparent and workable biosafety regulation in the region, they contended.

The writer luckystarpk@yahoo.com contributes regularly to Sic-tech World

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)