Interview with Dr. William James Peacock.

Dr. William James Peacock, an expert in plant molecular biology, heads the
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Plant Industry, a
premier plant research institute located in Canberra. Best known for his expertise in
the area of integrating plant science with modern agribusiness, he has employed
innovative communication techniques to extend research results to the field and,
more important, to educate policy-makers and others on the value of recent
advances, particularly in the field of gene technology. His research areas include
molecular genetics of seed development; plant haemoglobin; molecular biology of
stress responses in plants; and inducing flowering, a major developmental decision
in plants.

VINO JOHN

Dr. Peacock is Chairman of the National Science Forum; a member of the

Biotechnology Consultative Group to the Biotechnology Task Force, Australia; and a
member of the steering committee on genetics and biotechnology for the
International Council of Scientific Unions. In Chennai to deliver the Millennium
Lecture on "Genes and the future" at the International Dialogue on Environment, the
New Economy and New Employment, organised by the M.S. Swaminathan
Research Foundation in January, Dr. Peacock spoke to Asha Krishnakumar on a
variety of issues concerning genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and developing
countries, the benefits from GMOs, the future of GMOs and the Australian
experience of introducing GMOs commercially. Excerpts from the interview:

What are the implications of GMOs for developing countries and what safeguards
should their governments adopt while introducing GMOs commercially?

There is a common misconception that GMOs are for the developed, rich countries.
While they certainly hold an advantage for developed countries, I believe that they
are also going to be important for developing countries. They can benefit us in
matters of health, by providing us with better food; they can make food production
more reliable with fewer inputs; reduce wastage (over 40 per cent of the food
production goes waste post-harvest); and protect crops from pests, diseases and
weeds.

In the past, most of these problems were addressed by using chemicals, many of
them inaccessible to poor farmers and most of them harmful to the environment. So,
if there are ways to equip a plant to protect itself against a pest or a fungal pathogen,
why not use them? It is in this context that GMOs make a lot of sense. It helps small
and marginal farmers of developing countries as seeds come with instructions built
into their biological software. So this technology holds real promise for developing
countries. But the major difficulty is that the main opportunities arising from the use
of the technology should be defined carefully.

For example, if a family produces staple food, such as maize or rice, and a major
pest reduces food supply by more than half over the years, it is a serious problem. It
is important to introduce a seed of rice or maize that takes care of the pests by itself.
Here, GMOs play a crucial role.

Then comes the major issue of organising all the necessary measures to make sure
that such seeds are accessible to farmers. But developing countries should not try to
do all this by themselves. They should develop partnerships with other countries,
research groups and get all kinds of organised help. It may even need a private
company that does not try to make huge profits, particularly where essential food
production is involved.

There are then the legislation issues. It has to be made sure that it is safe - that the
safety tests have been conducted. So, it is a huge task. But if you choose the right
direction it can make a big contribution.

There is thus the major challenge of defining priorities while introducing GMOs
commercially. Also important are such issues as food supply and nutritional balance.
One-third of the world's population suffers from iron deficiency. Such issues can be
addressed by, say, the "Golden Rice", which has been taught to make beta
carotene, and is useful for Vitamin A deficiency. This would solve major nutritional
and health problems. We have been trying to put more iron into the rice grain by
"teaching" it to make more haemoglobin. If it works, a major problem of women and
children would be solved.
Developing GMOs involves a lot of investment, which developing countries can
hardly afford. On the other hand, biosafety measures adopted in developing
countries are not adequate. This gives room for multinational companies producing
GMOs to scale down biosafety provisions when they introduce GMOs in developing
countries. How can developing countries protect themselves from exploitation and
the possible dangers the GMOs pose?

Part of the process of the development and delivery of GMOs should be enhancing
the capacity of developing countries. They have to be involved. It is not that the rich
countries provide everything and developing countries just take them.

How do you think developing countries can get involved, and who ensures that?

It takes a lot of organisation. The Consultative Group on International Agriculture

Research, and the various bilateral aid that come into developing countries can help.
But often they do not spend time to address the major problems of the developing
countries. That is a problem. Someone needs to take on this task - organising
everything and putting it all together. It may take over six years. And many of the aid
programmes do not have the patience to wait that long. It is important to realise the
needs of the countries and help them become a part of the whole process. But when
you think of the benefits to the environment, to health and regular supply of food, it is
a worthwhile project.

What is the role of governments in the process of introducing GMOs?

When a new technology is introduced, the governments need to be sure of the

regulatory and safety tests and ensure the right ways of using it. And if the
technology is not managed right, the technology itself can be wasted. If you
introduce one gene against a pest in rice, the pest might easily develop resistance
because what the gene does is just produce the chemical inside the leaf cell. The
insect can be expected to develop resistance. What is needed is a strategy to
manage the plant in such a way that you minimise the chance of its developing
resistance. It might be that you grow rice with two independent killing mechanisms
for the insect. And that way you more or less stop the chance of resistance. Thus,
specific problems need to be addressed.
What are the legal, environmental and social implications of GMOs, in general, and
for the developing countries in particular?

It is important that the GMOs are introduced with the right safety measures so that
people are confident that they are as safe as any other food. If all the GMO food is
just consumed within the country there is not much to worry about. But if it is going to
be traded, then you have to be sure that you satisfy the regulations of the country
you are going to trade with. That is a big problem now. Although some 43 million
hectares are under GM crops now, the trade is rather simple. For instance, all the
transgenic canola from Canada goes to one country, Japan. And Canada knows that
its canola meets Japan's regulations. But what we must avoid is dumping GM crops
on developing countries. It is a matter for the World Trade Organisation and other
international trade organisations to take up.

But the WTO works largely in favour of the MNCs. And that is the real problem - not
with the technology, but with the way things work.

As you rightly said, it has nothing to do with GM per se. As with any other
technology, what we have to do is to try and introduce GMOs in the safest, most
legal ways possible. We are learning to do this.

Is there any way to introduce minimal safety standards into GMOs that are traded
internationally, particularly in the context of countries with different safety standards?

Many international organisations, such as the International Council of Scientific

Unions and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
try to help developing countries benefit from what is being done in developed
countries. But each region has to have its own testing methods for each crop. There
cannot be one regulation. It is clear that the country has to be able to deliver when
the safety is established. That is part of the whole process.

The controversy on the introduction of GM cotton into India, for instance, has
instilled fear in people's minds about GMOs, in general. What is the future of GMOs
in India in that context?

It is possible for India not to delay too much because there is already a lot of
experience in GM cotton internationally. In Australia, we have been growing GM
cotton commercially for the past four years. We have had to put in all manner of
safety regimes into our farming. Our farming methods may be different from yours.
But I think you have to learn from the experiences of Australia or the United States or
elsewhere. This is a good example to begin with, as in Australia one gene reduced
insecticide spray by 50 per cent in cotton crop. And it is estimated that in three years
we will be able to introduce two genes into the cotton crop, which would reduce the
use of insecticide by 90 per cent. It would be very good environmentally. We spend
more money on research in the management of a crop than we did on the
development of the crop.

It is suspected that some MNCs that produce GM crops have a questionable record.
Many have also got patent control over several GM technologies. Is it possible to
develop a mechanism to check erring MNCs that trade GMOs internationally?

A lot of the worry about GM crops is the worry about multinationals. That is fair. And
the behaviour of Monsanto, for instance, in Europe did not help at all. But, at the
same time, you cannot blame the MNCs for wanting to profit from this technology.
They have invested large amounts of money. And they were a lot smarter than most
governments, which were too slow. The MNCs invested a lot of money in GMO
research and got intellectual property and patent control over a lot of things.

The best way to ensure that the MNCs do not get out of hand is for countries to
invest in their own public research systems. If public research comes up with
important findings, countries can then do persuasive business deals with MNCs,
making sure that the conditions are as the country wants them to be.

In the 1970s there was an agricultural revolution of sorts when pesticides came into
the market in a big way. But, today, the small farmers in India are using the same
pesticides unsuccessfully, which was not thought of in the 1970s even as a
possibility. In this context, how do you see the future of GMOs? Is there a
justification for people saying that there is the fear of the unknown?

This is a new technology. We have had terrible experience with the chemical
technology. Also, this technology is based on studies on plants and pests. That is the
greatest part of this technology. We know much more now than we did a few years
ago. So, what that greater understanding and knowledge means is that we have a
better chance of managing the technology so that it does not go bad. We may still
make mistakes. This is a stable technology that will help us develop sustainable
agriculture.

We have heard and seen herbicide and pesticide promises. But the real promise is
going to be in developing changes in the quality - increasing the protein content,
putting in a different starch so that it is much better for our health - so that it can be
more closely matched to what we need.

What is the Australian government's position on GMOs? And what safeguards have
you adopted before letting in GMOs? Probably we can learn from them.

Australia has been cautious on the entry of GMOs. There has been a lot of public
concern and debate about GMOs, particularly the food chain. We have only one
transgenic crop, cotton, at the moment. Initially, we operated on the basis of
voluntary legislation. But now we have a compulsory one. That has given a lot of
confidence to the public. And to the industry, which likes to fit to a legislation. We
have also introduced food labelling to give more information to the public. That has
helped boost people's confidence; they can choose. This will be more important in a
few years when we will have many more foods modified by genetic engineering.

The first commercial crop of cotton was harvested four years ago. It was very well
received by the public as they could see that it reduced the spraying of insecticides.
But if we had introduced herbicide first, it would have been very emotional. But now,
after transgenic cotton has largely been accepted, we have introduced herbicide
tolerance, also in cotton. The public is also convinced that the whole technology has
been well-managed - even Monsanto has been brought under control. Public
confidence and acceptance are thus most important in introducing this technology in
a big way into any country. Governments have to recognise that.