Do we really need transgenic biofortification to feed the poor and combat malnutrition

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…


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.


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


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


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…)


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


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



• 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



• 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)

Do we really need transgenic biofortification to feed the poor and combat malnutrition

Food

Transcript of Do we really need transgenic biofortification to feed the poor and combat malnutrition