http://www.SlowFood.com/principles/biotech.html
Manifesto on Biotechnologies
Undersigned by C.I.A., Coldiretti, Legambiente and Slow Food     
     
Biotechnologies have reached a phase in which so-called 'transgenic'
products - products deriving from processes of genetic manipulation - are
being marketed. The discussion norms with which to regulate the circulation
of new living organisms is thus now open. Not that biotechnological
innovation is a total novelty. Micro-organisms have been patentable for a
long time, and the production of new vegetable varieties entitles the
'inventors' to royalties. Yet, seeing that biotechnological research now
involves animal species and the human species itself, and that from many
quarters the proposal has been put forward to establish a sort of long-term
patent covering both transgenic products and the industrial processes used
to achieve them, there can be no doubt that the present debate has taken on
a radically different complexion.

In view of the complexity and importance of the issue in question,
evaluations cannot be confined to an economic cost-benefit analysis of the
large-scale use of biotechnologies. The whole matter has to be addressed at
global level as part of the renegotiation of the World Trade Organisation
(WTO) treaties to establish certain, effective rules capable of orienting
the application of biotechnologies towards objectives of productive,
territorial and social re-equilibrium, taking into due account the ethical,
environmental, health, social and economic problems connected with this new,
delicate frontier of scientific research.
 
Ethical and legal problems
With genetic manipulation, new living species are created which do not exist
in nature. The first stake to be driven into the ground is the principle
that the insuperable limit of biotechnological research is the protection of
the integrity of the human being. On this point, UNESCO has already clearly
expressed itself, declaring that "the genetic material of every human being
is the common inheritance of humanity" and "must not produce any economic
gain". With respect to other applications, the criterion to follow is that
biotechnological innovations are acceptable only with the proviso that they
favour an improvement in the quality of life and thus place themselves at
the service of man.

As to the question of the patentability of transgenic species, it should be
clearly stated that the legal discipline which regulates inventions cannot
be mechanically extended to biological material or a method or process from
which something 'living' is obtained: this is because the privilege granted
by the temporal monopoly of economic exploitation prevents adequate
protection of primary interests such as health, the environment and
biodiversity, and because, in the case of biotechnologies, new technological
discoveries use biological materials which already exist in a natural state,
and which hence cannot be subject to individual appropriation.
 
Environmental problems
The immediate and long-term effects of the introduction into the atmosphere
of genetically modified organisms are very hard to identify. Besides keeping
a check on the immediate, reproducible dimension of the process of
modification, it is necessary therefore to rigorously monitor the subsequent
evolutionary processes, which determine the risk of transmission of
characteristics from a manipulated organism to a non-manipulated organism on
the basis of natural, unforeseeable and substantially uncontrollable
mechanisms.

A very tangible risk is that biotechnologies will accelerate the progressive
loss of biodiversity, hence the gradual disappearance of traditional plants
and crops, following a drop in natural capacities for genetic improvement as
a result of the gene control procedure. The introduction into the
environment of modified organisms is often tied up with the use in
agriculture of seeds and vegetable varieties connected with forms of
intensive land exploitation and the massive use of plant protection
products, and may have negative effects on the biological diversity of
living forms, in view of the loss of capacity of modified organisms to adapt
to and withstand the gradual and continuous process of natural evolution.

Today ten vegetable species out of the millions existing in nature on the
planet give rise to 90% of agricultural production. Biotechnological
research thus concentrates on a very limited number of species. The danger
of an increasingly rapid erosion of biological diversity is bound to
increase drastically, if the development of biotechnological applications
continues to follow the simple logic of private interest. This risk is
particularly high in Italy, where the protection of typical and quality
products will be a vital objective, if agribusiness is to have a strong,
secure future. In fact, in a land geared to quality production, the
introduction of genetically modified plants is all the more dangerous, since
their interaction with the environment would risk reducing the value of
specific local production irreparably. On the other hand, it is necessary to
acknowledge that the definition of territorial areas in which the use of
modified genotypes is banned, much as it is to be hoped for, is not a
sufficient precaution to ensure the safeguarding of the specific qualities
of typical and local products. As we have already mentioned, hybridisation
processes are in fact unpredictable, not only in relation to the magnitude
of the effects which may result from them, but also in terms of their
spatial and territorial scope. Finally, it would be wrong to underestimate
the effects which the marketing of modified products may have on taste and
the organoleptic range of cooked dishes and foodstuffs such as cheese, cured
meats, fresh meat, eggs, fruit and vegetables. Over the years, and often
over centuries, the great wealth and variety of local and historical
agribusiness products have in fact determined a gustative reference
framework that is a fundamental part of our model of eating and the pleasure
that we can obtain from the consumption of food and drink. Any change to
this framework might provoke extremely negative psychological and social
consequences.
 
Health problems    
The possibility that the introduction into the environment of modified
organisms may provoke undesired effects on human health is, for the moment,
shrouded in the utmost uncertainty. While every effort should be made to
improve knowledge of the matter, it is vital to firmly assert the right of
consumers to be informed fully and properly about the presence in products
in commerce of genetically modified organisms (the recent European
regulation imposing the indication on the packaging of products in commerce
of the presence of transgenic soya or corn responds, in part, to these
principles).
 
Economic problems  
Analysis of the economic factors involved in the use of modified organisms
is especially complex and has a crossover effect on all the problems
outlined so far. The monetary advantages resulting from the use of
biotechnologies are acknowledged as being clearly evident; they stem largely
from an increase in productivity of plants, which some estimates place at
6-7%. Also from this point of view too, it is necessary to stress that the
competitiveness of the Italian agroindustrial sector is tied much more to
the protection and exploitation of the typicality, tradition and quality of
our agriculture than to a quantitative growth in production. The
concentration of the knowhow of biotechnological research in the hands of a
few, large-scale industrial groups tends, instead, to limit the autonomy of
farmers, reducing their possibility of choice and bargaining power. This
danger is clearly visible in the patently unconscionable clauses
(possibility for the farmer to plant only one crop; liability in the event
of its use for any one of the uses forbidden by the contract; the company's
right to inspect cultivated land for a period of three years even in the
farmer's absence) of the contracts imposed upon farmers in countries where
transgenic crops are becoming increasingly widespread. In the second place,
the concentration of research and knowhow may determine negative effects on
the environment and health. In estimates of the economic advantages
resulting from the use of transgenic products, possible damage to the
environment and health is systematically neglected. Albeit calculable only
in the medium and long term, the costs of such damage are very high indeed
and hit the community as a whole.

All this raises questions about the prospect of subjecting biotechnologies
to the same system of patentability as normal commercial products. What is
more, the automatic extension of patents on living material trigger further
aberrant effects, especially in view of the fact that, whenever the
descriptions of the physical, chemical or biological characteristics of a
product under a general formula are not accompanied by a specific indication
of its function and all required necessary information, this allows the
formulator of a transgenic product to apply for legal protection, even for
those uses of the modified organism not described and claimed for and, in
any case, extraneous to the information effectively supplied.

Finally, the traditional mechanisms of patentability risk compromising the
legitimate development expectations of poor countries. For the farmers of
the south of the world, the costs of registering a patent - up to 500,000
dollars - are prohibitive. The danger is that leading groups in the
biotechnology sector will add a further, unbearable element of exploitation
to the already dire conditions in which the economies of such countries find
themselves. The regulation of the biotechnology sector has to recognise the
right of each country's right to use its own genetic inheritance and favour
the access of the farmers of poor countries to the fruits of technological
development.
 
In conclusion    
In view of the positive effects they can lead to, especially in the medical
and pharmaceutical fields, it is necessary to have an aware, critical and
unprejudiced approach to biotechnologies. At the same time, it is necessary
to set clear limits and constraints on biotechnological applications,
preventing man's genetic inheritance being exploited for economic purposes
and forbidding ethically unacceptable uses, military uses first and
foremost.

As to the use of biotechnologies in the agroindustrial sector, perplexities
about the various aspects mentioned remain, as does the basic need to need
to place the onus on the protection of human health and full respect of the
consumer's right to information, the defence of biodiversity and typical and
local products and the guarantee that the diffusion of biotechnologies will
not further penalise the development prospects of poor countries as opposed
to the possible economic exploitation of modified organisms.

The study of innovative technologies, legitimate per se, cannot
automatically lead to the large-scale use of the new technologies perfected.
The choice in this field should be made with a view to the advantages which
such innovations can bring vis-à-vis the needs and interests of the
community. The orientation of biotechnological research cannot be left to
the discretion of large multinationals, which have so far insisted on
supplying 'tests' of the innocuousness of the varieties manipulated to the
controlling authorities themselves. It is necessary, instead, to increase
public investment in the sector, and also for agricultural organisations to
actively supply human and economic resources to help define research
priorities.

###
----------
Please visit Slow Food Iowa at
http://www.devotay.com/SlowFoodIowa%20Main.htm
----------

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]