DEVELOPMENT: North-South Debate on Bio-Technology’s Rewards

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Jorge Piña

ROME, Sep 17 1999 (IPS) - Wealthy nations use their bio-technology to genetically alter resources provided by developing nations, creating new, modified species, and leading to a North-South polarisation of already difficult negotiations.

The overwhelming and complicated advances in the world of bio- technology has given rise to important moral, political and economic questions. In northern Canada, strawberries grow at below- zero temperatures because this variety of the fruit incorporates genes taken from an Arctic Ocean fish species.

Human genes have been implanted in cows and sheep so the animals produce so-called “maternised” milk, which is more like human milk. And implanting pigs with growth-enhancing genes has produced larger animals, but with calcium depleted bones.

North-South co-operation is essential in the production of genetically modified organisms, because most of the raw genetic material comes from developing countries, while bio-technology and genetic engineering to perform genetic transfers are found mostly in industrialised nations.

The fundamental problem in the international debate on genetics is that industrialised countries claim intellectual property rights over the new species developed through bio-technology and genetic engineering.

Some United States industries manufacture genetically modified seeds that produce sterile plants, which means higher profits from their patented intellectual property because farmers have to buy seeds from these companies for each year’s planting.

The countries of the North have pushed for international regulations that ensure economic benefits for those providing technology or bio-technology. But there are no international norms that guarantee payment to the South’s farmers for the use of their raw materials.

The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) established a Commission on Genetic Resources in 1983, an inter- governmental forum with the participation of 161 countries. The commission’s goal is to find consensus for international agreements on the genetic rights issues.

The United States and other countries consider the technologies they have developed the product of their work, investments, experience, time and knowledge, and that they should be compensated for it.

Technical discussions about genetic modification began in the 1960s, and political talks began in the 1980s, but an agreement acceptable to all international parties has yet to be reached.

The idea that genetic raw materials and technology belong to all humanity arose during the debates, but the initiative has not made any progress.

The countries of the South maintain that genetic raw materials used by scientists and technicians in the North are the fruit of 10 thousand years of agriculture and hundreds of generations of farmers, and is therefore valuable.

These countries say if intellectual property rights exist, then agricultural rights exist as well.

The FAO Commission on Genetic Resources unanimously established Farmers’ Rights in 1991, stated José Esquinas, the commission’s secretary and an expert on genetic rights.

Esquinas added, however, that so far there are no mechanisms implemented that protect the full exercise of these rights.

He explained that, in the commission’s negotiations, it is easy to identify the authors of bio-technological advances, but it is very difficult to determine who produced the genetic raw material.

But negotiations continue. The most recent meeting of the commission took place in April, and next year it is expected to reach an agreement on access to genetic resources, the equal distribution of their benefits and the full exercise of farmers’ rights.

The FAO, which is headquartered in Rome, is responsible for providing information and technical assistance to developing countries so that they may establish their own legislation on genetic issues, stated Esquinas.

“One cannot say that biologically modified organisms are good or bad, nor that they are beneficial or harmful in general,” said Esquinas. “It all depends on how they are used, like a knife may be used for cutting and distributing bread, but also for killing.”

A person may accidentally a finger with a knife, and there are also risks in the case of genetically modified products, for health and the environment, that must be minimised through international norms, he added.