Session 5: Biotechnology, Human Rights, and Global Markets

Philipp Aerni - Stakeholder Attitudes on Agricultural Bio-Technology in Developing Countries
Science, Technology and Innovation Program, Center for International Development at Harvard University

The current global debate on agricultural biotechnology is largely framed by Western perceptions. However, the challenges and opportunities of agricultural biotechnology are expected to be higher in developing countries where the public perceptions are largely unknown or strongly influenced by Western donors and business communities.
The aim of this paper is to portray views on agricultural biotechnology expressed by political stakeholders involved in public debates in developing countries. The empirical part is based on three surveys conducted in the Philippines, Mexico and South Africa.
The surveys indicate that existing expectations and concerns regarding agricultural biotechnology in these developing countries differ significantly from those expressed in the transatlantic debate. At the same time, there are also different perceptions amongst these developing nations.
In general, respondents to the three surveys consider biotechnology a powerful new tool to address problems in agriculture, nutrition and the environment, and they do not seem to share Europe's fear of potential health risks for consumers. In turn, they are concerned about corporate control of the technology, and the potential impact of such crops on their countries' rich biological diversity.
The differences in perception among the three countries are explained in the paper through the particular cultural, historical, economic and political circumstances in the Philippines, South Africa and Mexico.
The results and the subsequent discussions of the results with the participants of the surveys indicate that a global system of governance of agricultural biotechnology cannot just rely on Western views, if it is to minimize the risks and maximize the benefits of this technology. It needs to consider the perspectives of the stakeholders in developing countries to a much greater extent.

Kristen Hessler - Human Rights and Biotechnology
Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011

If we take human rights seriously, what position ought we to take about the development and the global use of agricultural biotechnology?
Two kinds of human rights are especially relevant to ethical questions about agricultural biotechnology: rights to adequate nutrition, and rights to an environment conducive to health. Each of these rights is treated by some as suspect: rights to adequate nutrition have been categorized as "welfare rights" and challenged by conservatives and libertarians; and environmental rights have been criticized by many as a glaring example of the wanton proliferation of human rights recognized in international law. Therefore, in order to ensure that the analysis of this paper is of interest to a wide audience, I show how the same values that justify the claim that rights to nutrition and a healthy environment are legitimate human rights are widely accepted, even if these particular rights are not.
I will show that we cannot provide a general evaluation of agricultural biotechnology from a human rights perspective; rather, the answer must be indexed to particular kinds of genetically modified organisms. For example, some genetically altered crops may benefit the environment by reducing pesticide use, but others may present a threat to wild species (and some may do both). Moreover, the potential of genetically modified organisms to promote human rights (for example, by helping to "feed the world") must be balanced not only against the risks the organisms pose, but also against the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of alternatives for promoting human rights. For example, while golden rice (which has been genetically modified to contain a precursor to vitamin A in the grain) may help to alleviate vitamin A deficiency in developing nations, this benefit might be obtained more cheaply and quickly via more mundane strategies like distributing vitamin A capsules.

David Smith - Dysfunctional Technology Transfer: The Challenge of Global Markets
Copenhagen Business School (cowritten with J. Robert Skalnik, Ed.D., National University, San Diego, California)

Despite concerns of consumer protection and environmental groups that the use of genetically produced growth hormone in milk-producing cows will adversely impact the safety of the milk supply. Scientific evidence and governmental findings, from the United States, appear to indicate that milk from treated cows is identical in quality, taste, and nutritional value to milk from untreated cows. Limited experience, to date, in the United States demonstrates little consumer resistance to milk from cows which have received the growth hormone, which can lead to a 15% increase in milk production. In fact, if there is no perceived differentiation between the two forms of milk, the issue offers little choice to consumers at large, and may result in economic benefit only to selected diary farmers, as well as the producers of the genetically produced growth hormone. This situation in the United States is an example of dysfunctional technology transfer, with desirable benefits to a few, and undesirable benefits to the society. This information suggests the United States may have reacted hastily in approving the use of bovine growth hormone in milk producing cows. The European Union has taken a divergent approach by enacting lengthy moratoriums against its use.