Mennonite
Central
Committee

Trip Report for Mexico

By: Andrew Hough

Executive Summary

Mexico is the site of an intense polarized debate on biotechnology. The debate on biotechnology finds itself as one aspect of the larger debate on issues of trade, globalization, the environment, culture and about what should guide the development of the country.

The Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) undertook research on issues surrounding food security and biotechnology in Mexico during March of 2001. Information was gathered through interviews with researchers, farmers, members of the environmental community as well as literature.

Currently, the majority of biotechnology research in Mexico is targeted towards large scale farmers or export markets while the majority of Mexico’s rural population are small scale farmers.

Resistance to genetic engineering is strong and the opposition to GE crops has been spearheaded by Greenpeace and other environmental groups. Government and regulatory bodies have responded to environmental concerns and established a moratorium on the commercialization of transgenic maize. Opponents are working towards a full moratorium on genetically engineered crops.

Environmentally, genetically engineered maize is a concern as Mexico is the center of origin and diversity of maize. Teosinte, an ancestor still exists in many regions and environmentalist believe it is at risk if transgenic maize is introduced. Also fueling this concern is the reality that maize is closely tied to culture as evidenced in the past through its place in creation myths and in the present day through higher per capita consumption. Very little evidence on the environmental impact of transgenic maize exists to substantiate claims of either the opponents or proponents, who believe that it is safe.

Discussions on genetic engineering in Mexico are closely related to trade as maize imports flow freely in from the United States. The StarLink problem in the United States raised concerns in Mexico. Opponents cite health concerns related to allergens and horizontal transfer of antibiotic resistance and are working to generate public sentiment against biotechnology.

Concerns raised by opponents of genetic engineering in the Mexican context often times seem exaggerated and extreme. However, this MCC study finds that there are realistic concerns beyond the emotion and due precaution is recommended with respect to genetically engineered crops.

Learning experiences in Mexico highlight contributing factors to the intense debate is the shift in research from the public to private sector and concerns that the private research may not meet the needs of the small farmer. However, simply opposing genetic engineering may not be in the best interests of farmers. Certain applications of biotechnology could be very positive for the farmer. One question arising from this study is: In the context of Mexico, how can technology development and extension better occur which meets the needs of small farmers and is environmentally and culturally appropriate? The intense debate on biotechnology and rural poverty in Mexico is evidence that this is not happening in the present.

Introduction

Mexico is home to enormous biodiversity, the site of ancient civilizations and possesses a tumultuous history which includes colonization and revolutions. Currently, Mexico struggles to find economic prosperity while experiencing a wide range of environmental and social problems.

Plants have historically been a large part of Mexican culture and are tied together with many issues. In the past maize was part of creation myths and played a major role in the development of prehispanic cultures. Plants imported to Mexico such as sugar cane had far reaching impacts on land use, labor and class systems. Crops such as tomatoes, peppers and maize were exported and have dramatically changed food diets around the world.

Today in Mexico, plants continue to bring together many issues relating to the environment, human health as well as social and economic systems. Currently, in Mexico there is an intense debate on the merits and risks of biotechnology. Biotechnology is part of a web of issues which are related and connected but do not exhibit direct cause and effect relationships. The debate on biotechnology finds itself as one aspect of the larger debate about what should guide the development of the country.

Research was undertaken in Mexico by the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) on issues relating to biotechnology and food security between March 12-31. This is part of a larger listening project being undertaken by MCC in India, Bangladesh, Kenya, Ethiopia and Brazil. Mexico was an important country to visit because it is the center of origin for maize as well as being a country where MCC works with small farmers. Within Mexico, information was gathered by speaking with scientists, farmers and environmental organizations. For a complete trip itinerary and contact information refer to appendix 1 and 2. Time constraints and logistics limited viewing a broad cross section of farmers and their perspectives to transgenic crops. Many of the farmers visited were located in the mountainous region of Guerrero and were farming maize on steep slopes with limited acerage. Time with farmers provided quality learning experiences in terms of the broader challenges they are facing, appropriate technology and technology transfer.

This report will tie together information from the literature and first hand learning experiences. It will provide an overview of current transgenic research, the organized resistance to genetic engineering as well as concerns linked to the environment, trade and food security. Included are personal comments, questions and key areas for consideration.

Status of Research in Biotechnology in Mexico

Between 1988 and 1999, 141 permits to release transgenic planting material for field testing had been granted by the General Directorate of Plant Health in Mexico (DGSV). The majority of field evaluations have come from commercial organizations wishing to introduce their material to the Mexican market. Commercial organizations include multinationals such as Monsanto, Pioneer, Asgrow, Rhone Poulec and Ciba-Geigy as well as other smaller lesser known companies which include Seminis, Agritope, Petoseed, Harris-Moran and Semillas Hibridas (Alvarez-Morales, 2000). Traits most widely tested by commercial interests include insect resistance (45 releases), delayed ripening (29 releases, in tomato), herbicide resistance (28) and virus resistance (22). Most tested crops include maize (34), tomato (29) and cotton (23). Other crops receiving moderate attention include squash (11) and soybean (12), while pineapple, papaya, melon, chili pepper, banana, alfalfa, rapeseed, rice, potato, bacteria, carnation, tobacco and wheat all have five or fewer releases.

Other permits have been granted to the Center for Research and Advanced Studies at Irapuato (Cinvestav-1), the International Center for Wheat and Maize Improvement (CIMMYT) and the National Autonomous University (UNAM) for research purposes or the development of products. Cinvestav-1 is working in collaboration with Monsanto with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation on virus resistant potatoes targeted for small scale farmers. CIMMYT has research programs working on the development of insect resistant maize and understanding apomixis in crop plants.

Resistance to Genetic Engineering

A fierce campaign spearheaded by Greenpeace against genetically engineered maize started around 1997-1998. Greenpeace and other environment organizations raised public awareness around the potential dangers of introducing genetically modified plants into their centers of origin. Transgenic maize, in particular, was portrayed as a major threat to maize biodiversity and culture. This lobby applied pressure to the Government in an effort to prevent the commercial release of transgenic crops. In July of 1998, the DGSV stopped the approval of commercial varieties of GE maize . Other GE crop releases have not been prevented. The environmental lobby has continued to press the government for a full moratorium on the release of transgenic crops.

The environmental lobby is extremely concerned with the environmental, social and cultural impacts of transgenic crops. They are aided by the fact that the current GE products developed thus far do not offer any direct benefit to consumers nor do they help to address any serious local or national problem in Mexico (Alvarez-Morales, 2000).

Greenpeace has developed a campaign which targets companies which are currently importing maize which may be GE. They are also targeting these and other companies which are selling products which may contain GE ingredients. Thus far the environmental lobby has staged several high profile demonstrations, employed a poster campaign and distributed information materials to raise public opinion against GE food products and their vendors.

While in Mexico, I did not sense a large grass roots movement of small farmers against transgenic crops. This could be explained for several reasons. Small scale Mexican farmers are typically poor, far removed from urban centers where the debates are occurring and have more pressing issues on their minds. While in Mexico, support for the Zapatistas was growing. It appeared that the rural population was more concerned with indigenous rights, free trade issues and land reform (especially in southern states where land reform has not historically occurred).

Concerns Specific to Biodiversity

Mexico holds tremendous genetic diversity in many different crops which is important to the world’s overall biodiversity. Mexico is believed to be the centers of origin for maize, tomatoes and cotton. Other species possessing great diversity include peppers and papaya.

Introducing transgenic crops into these environments raises important issues. Ecological risks from the release of transgenic crops lie in the fact that through genetic engineering, transgenes are available in nature for the first time creating the possibility for genetic flux with wild relatives and land races (Galvez and Chauvet, 2001). Hypothetical concerns according to Kathen (1996) of transgenic crops introduced to centers of diversity include:

• the transgenic plant itself may become a weed.
• the introduced DNA may be sexually transmitted into the wild population changing wild populations, potentially conferring weediness.
• the introduced DNA may be transmitted asexually to species of other kingdoms (horizontal transfer of introduced genes to species of other kingdoms).

These are relevant topics which need to be discussed given that Mexico is the location of maize origin, diversity and domesticity. Within Mexico, concerns which were most frequently cited were the impact of transgenic maize on wild relatives. Of particular concern, specifically to environmentalists is the effect of transgenic maize on maize’s ancestor, teosinte. Mexico is recognized as possessing forty-one racial complexes and thousands of corn varieties which form a rich reservoir of genes for coping with drought and other adverse environmental conditions (Nadal, 2000). There are realistic possibilities that transgenic maize would out cross with land races given that maize is an open pollinated crop and that more than 80% of Mexican maize farmers use farmer saved seed (Galvez and Chauvet, 2001). Maize accounts for close to 60% of land under cultivation (Nadal, 2000) and only 20% of maize cultivated is ‘improved’ (Morris and Lopez-Pereira, 1999).

Wild relatives of maize, collectively known as teosinte, being represented by both annual and perennial species are found in tropical and sub tropical regions of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua (Serratos, Willcox, Castillo, 1995). Teosinte populations occur in variable dimensions, some as large as several hundred square kilometers and may be found in close association with maize in some agricultural regions.

The environmental impact of transgenic maize in Mexico has been strongly debated by scientists. Two symposia on this subject brought researchers together from CIMMYT, INIFAP (The Mexican National Institute of Forestry, Agriculture, and Livestock Research) and CNBA (The Mexican National Agricultural Biosafety Committee) in 1995 and 1997.

Thus far, the environmental safety of the transgenic planting material has been evaluated with data concerning past experience with non transgenic crops. Based on this data many scientists promote a "negligible risk" hypothesis, meaning that whatever risk may be involved in the release of the transgenic material is similar to or less than what would be expected with comparable non-transgenic material, based on the principle of familiarity.

This is consistent with the approach taken by the United States where transgenic squash has been released in areas where there are wild relatives present. The US regulatory system is based on the premise not of proving whether transgenic plants are safe but that they are as safe as other varieties of plants. Under this construct, the decision to allow the release of certain transgenic crops is based on the assumption that the effects of transgenes might be comparable to those of genes introgressed through conventional plant breeding. The Symposium in 1995 reported that, "the risks for land races and teosinte from the introduction of transgenic maize are probably equivalent to the impact that differently improved varieties and hybrids have had on native maize varieties. Not withstanding, the effect of transgenes on teosinte cannot be anticipated or inferred until these transgenes are incorporated into its genome."

It appears that it is the assumption of no risk because of familiarity that has environmentalists particularly concerned. Environmentalists want to prevent release of transgenic materials arguing potential risk to the environment while regulators stress the safety of these materials based on non-GE data. In the opinion of Alvarez-Morales (2000), "neither group possess substantial evidence to back their claims".

The results from the symposia and other discussions within the scientific community led to guidelines to test transgenic maize, and the identification of risk-free areas where transgenic maize could be released depending on the phenotype and other elements related to biosafety as well as high risk areas where no tests could take place.

As mentioned above, these guidelines were rejected in favor of the moratorium.

While the motives of the environmentalists are certainly laudable, it is difficult to ascertain what their motives truly are with respect to teosinte. For example according to CIMMYT, "Changes in land use--especially grazing and urbanization--are the principle threats to teosinte. In recent decades there has been drastic reduction in teosinte population and the danger of extinction is real. In fact, transgenic maize may be considered a marginal threat, compared to the effects of urban growth."

Are environmentalists truly interested in protecting teosinte or stopping biotechnology?

Environmentalists often portray a very pristine view of maize. Wild maize genomes are comprised of thousands of genes and are open to flux through breeding in natural environments. In the past formally improved materials such as hybrids or open pollinated varieties have been planted alongside wild relatives influencing their genomes. According to CIMMYT, maize land races may have even benefitted in increased yield through this informal contact and improved materials have become more locally adapted. The perception of environmentalists that transgenic maize will run wild through the environment seems overly simplistic and extreme. Risks should be averted through careful research, but a pristine and unstatic view of maize is impractical and unrealistic.

Another issue in Mexico is the impact of insect resistant crops on non-target organisms. In North America, several scientific studies with respect to the monarch butterfly are seeking to answer this question and the jury is still out on the environmental impact of genetically engineered crops. While many environmental concerns have been postulated, few impacts have been realized which extend beyond those impacts inherent in the modern agriculture paradigm. Certain GE crops may reduce pesticide use.

However, it cannot be assumed that Bt crops are benign in environments with greater ecological diversity such as Mexico. Agronomically, Galvez and Chauvet (2001) report that chemical insecticides are still required for Bt cotton grown in the state of Tamaulipas given the various pests which threaten the crop. As the pests are different, non-target organisms could likely be different as well, as compared to cotton growing regions in the United States.

Personally, I feel that many environmental risks have been exaggerated by opponents to biotechnology. However, I am very reluctant to accept the "negligible risk hypothesis" on the basis of familiarity. I feel that more environmental testing is required before transgenic crops are further released in Mexico. Environmental risk assessment must occur in the country and data from other regions with distinctly different environments or pest conditions cannot be extrapolated in all cases.

Currently with the moratorium on release of transgenic maize in place, the Mexican Government is trying to set up "Terms of Reference" which should orient research in terms of biological, social, environmental, food safety and economic areas. This is a positive development as transgenic crops were arguably released to Mexico too early and without adequate consultation.

Biotechnology, Trade, and Health

While the planting of transgenic maize has been prevented by the Mexican government, no restrictions have been placed on the importation of maize which may be genetically modified. Mexico is a major producer and importer of maize given the high per capita consumption of maize throughout the population.

In 1994, the formation of NAFTA amongst Canada, the United States and Mexico created the largest free trade zone in the world. In the agriculture sector, Mexico was required to open its corn sector to imports in exchange for guaranteed access to the Canadian and US markets for horticultural products and other labor intensive crops (Nadal, 2000). For Mexico, corn was by far the most important crop included in the NAFTA agreement. Nadal reports that corn accounts for approximately 60% of land under cultivation and is the most important commodity in the economy in terms of employment and value of the output.

Since the implementation of NAFTA, Mexican maize imports from the United States have risen dramatically. According to data from the USDA, while imports vary dramatically in relation to domestic production, since 1994 maize imports have varied from 3 to 5 million tons per year.

A complete discussion of liberalized trade and rural economies is beyond the scope of this report. However, many feel that the impact of trade liberalization on the small scale farmer has been disastrous. Comparative advantage is of little solace to the small farmer as it is difficult to change cropping patterns without credit to make the transition or marketing channels to connect rural produce with outside markets for resulting changes in land use. With free trade goods simply come to rural areas more easily than they move out. Under NAFTA, the area under maize has actually increased as the price of maize dropped (Nadal, 2000). While the price of maize dropped, the small scale farmer dependent on that income source cropped more intensively, in an effort to make up their lost income.

According USDA, imported maize is used as follows 57% human consumption, 26% animal feed, 11% industrial starch, 4% seed and 4% waste (USDA, 1998). Imports from the United States (yellow maize) have traditionally been destined for poultry and swine industries but Mexico has started to use imports to supplement maize for human use (USDA, 1998). Environmental groups were extremely concerned about the importation of GE maize from the United States. These fears were accentuated by the Starlink contamination problem in the United States. Dr. Ursula Oswald Spring, of the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, claims that in 2000, 50% of the corn imported by Mexico was transgenic. Greenpeace has organized a campaign focusing on the risks of transgenic maize and are targeting major food retailers who have not labeled or segregated products on the basis of genetically engineered ingredients. Their concerns are long term health effects related to allergens, the horizontal transfer of antibiotic resistance or other currently unknown factors. In practice, resisting genetically engineered maize is a method of opposing free trade.

While there have been no documented cases of adverse effects to human health as a result of consumption of GE foods to date, the cautiousness of Mexicans to products containing GE maize is understandable given their high per capita consumption of maize. Health concerns can easily be exaggerated but I believe they have some validity, especially in the context of Mexico and should be given due consideration.

Food Security

The food security paradigm in Mexico is dependent on many factors and is not easy to define. Oxfam contends that close to two thirds of the population is underfed and Mexico is one of the most malnourished nations in Latin America. Mexico is a large country and diverse in terms of geography, high and low potential agriculture areas, land ownership regimes and differing social classes.

The Mennonite Central Committee in Mexico works in Guerrero and Chiapas, two of the poorest states of Mexico, in which violence, militarization and abuses of human rights are increasing. These poor, predominantly indigenous regions are experiencing more outward migration due to hunger and economic necessity. Agriculture is seasonal and subsistence, with low yields for various reasons: mountainous topography, drought, use of slash and burn practices, deforestation, improper use of pesticides and inappropriate government policies. According to Marlin Yoder, MCC Co-director, it is not uncommon for the maize farmer to also be a buyer of maize. Outward migration of at least men, occurs from January through May but at times includes entire families. Many men migrate to work in the United States for extended periods of time. Migration appeared to be the most practiced solution to food insecurity. MCC worked to extend appropriate technology for stoves, latrines, water purification systems and water catchment cisterns. Agriculturally, MCC promoted soil conservation and reforestation.

In the communities within which MCC works many farmers plant "el maiz criollo" which translated means land races. Many farmers spoke with pride when they said they planted "el maize criollo" instead of hybrid maize citing different land races as blue, red, white and yellow. One farmer, Ciro Reges Rodriguez, when asked if he had considered growing hybrid maize responded by saying, "I know my maize, we have used it for generations."

In other regions, it was clear that seeds still held a strong place in culture. In Tepoztlan, Morales on an arch heading into the courtyard of the town Cathedral was a beautiful mural of hills, people and life, made entirely from seeds created by the community. Various types of maize, beans, squash, chiles and lentils were used as well as sunflowers, wheat, barley, flax, sesame, amaranth and others. Seeds, as these examples suggest are viewed not so much as means of production or a means of profit but much more holistically, as a part of life and food and culture.

Agriculturally, there are many challenges facing rural Mexico. While yields could be potentially improved by encouraging farmers to adopt improved varieties of maize, I would suggest this to be not the place to start due to the cultural significance of seeds. Over time, this may be possible if land races were conserved and improved at the local level while certain improved materials were promoted. However, genetics is just one aspect for improving agriculture productivity in the region. Yields could also be increased dramatically through the promotion of cover crops and green manures to protect against soil erosion and improve soil fertility and soil organic matter.

Discussion

It is worth re-mentioning that the debate surrounding biotechnology in Mexico was intense, much like in India. At first glance the scenarios postulated by both proponents and opponents of biotechnology seem rather unrealistic given that only 20% of maize area is planted to improved varieties. Why would Mexican farmers adopt transgenic hybrids when the vast majority have yet to embrace improved varieties at all?

In trying to understand the debate, there are other factors beyond what I have mentioned (impact on biodiversity, impact on human health and the culture around seeds) which are driving this intense polarized debate. In Mexico, biotechnology is an issue which magnifies and brings together concerns already present with respect to the food system. It is a debate saturated with values. Themes include:

1. Who controls the agenda?

   Associated with transgenic crops are issues of free trade, globalization and increasing integration with the United States. GE maize imports come out of the same system as NAFTA. Many believe that NAFTA has failed the small farmer. Why would those same people accept GE crops? Opponents to biotechnology strongly assert that corporations have more influence than the Mexican people when it comes to government decisions.

2. The shift from public to private research.

   Research is increasingly occurring in a private context. Morris and Lopez-Pereira (1999) of CIMMYT report that private-sector research and development expenditures have increased steadily, while support to public maize breeding institutions has declined leading to the situation that private sector investment now significantly exceeds the level of public investment. Commercial maize seed production in Latin America is now dominated by private companies. During the 1980s and 1990s, many government seed agencies were privatized or closed. Morris and Lopez-Pereira (1999) also report that the emergence of a flourishing private maize seed industry has been characterized by steady consolidation, as large multinational seed companies have swallowed up many small local seed companies through acquisitions and mergers. The maize seed industry in Latin America is highly concentrated where, in most countries the three largest seed companies control 75% of the total market share. Can the private sector meet the needs of the small farmer?

3. Private research and the common good.

   Private sector research agenda is based upon short term, profit-oriented motivations and is aligned with the modern agriculture paradigm. Otero (1996), cites that this model promoted extensively in the United States has resulted in increased productivity but has become increasingly unsustainable. Associated environmental problems include soil erosion, contamination of ground water resources and pesticide residues appearing in food. Otero comments, "The focus of conventional agriculture has usually been on increasing output, without much regard for the fact that inputs were also increasing at a cost to farmers." Frequently these concerns were cited for the Mexican context as well.

   There are realistic concerns that private research will further promote the large scale bias of modern agriculture and not meet the needs of the majority of small scale Mexican farmers. There was a strong belief among opponents to biotechnology that ‘industry good’ was very different to the ‘common good’.

4. Recent abuses by private companies.

   Of particular concern to Mexicans is a patent approved for yellow beans in the United States. Larry Proctor, proprietor of Pod-ners L.L.C. is holder of United States Patent No. 5894079 for a specific yellow bean which he has named Enola. According to the patent, Mr. Proctor brought a bag of dry beans from Mexico in 1994, selected some to plant and by 1996 filed for an exclusive monopoly patent having invented "a distinctly colored yellow seed that remains relatively unchanged by season." Mr. Proctor was granted the patent on April 13, 1999.

   Critics contend that Proctor has simply given a new name to and gotten rights over a bean that Mexicans have been eating for centuries. The Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) has called the patent a "textbook case of biopiracy" and have said that "yellow beans have been grown in Mexico for centuries, developed by farmers and more recently by plant breeders."

   The International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) has decided to challenge the United States patent on the crop . The CIAT patent challenge highlights that:

   • the yellow bean was "misappropriated" from Mexico and violates Mexico’s sovereign rights over its genetic diversity as recognized by the Convention on Biological Diversity.
   • the claims made by Pod-ners fail to meet the statutory requirements of novelty and non-obviousness
   • Dr. Daniel Debouck, a genetic resources specialist at the center claims that, "There has been no breeding or improvement in this bean, and newness is the first feature for claiming an invention under U.S. Patent Law."
   • CIAT maintains close to 260 bean samples with yellow seeds and 6 accessions are substantially identical to claims made in US patent 5984079

   It seems particulary disturbing that a patent would be given for an exclusive monopoly of any bean having a seed color of yellow. U.S. importers of yellow beans have been affected by the patent and have launched patent challenges to Pod-ners as well. (Source: CIAT, 2001. Pratt, 2001)

This is just one aspect of biopiracy in the developing world and another reason why Mexicans are concerned about private companies.

Key Areas for Future Consideration

Upon reviewing and better understanding the polarized debate on biotechnology in Mexico there are some key areas where questions and issues have arisen.

1. Simply opposing biotechnology may be to the detriment of the small scale farmer.

   While acknowledging that food security is a complex paradigm, there are areas where technical innovations are needed and seem appropriate. Examples include:

   • virus resistant potatoes being developed for small farmers by national research institution Cinvestav-1 and Monsanto.
   • transgenic maize which possesses higher tolerance to aluminum has been developed by Cinvestav-1. This phenotype has great potential to reclaim agriculture production on tropical acid soils which were lost due to high levels of soluble aluminum ion (Alvarez-Morales, 2000).
   • "Maize Mejorada" (Improved Maize) has been developed by CIMMYT over the past 40 years which contains higher levels of important amino acids. These varieties have been reported as being successfully adopted in China making a positive contribution to food security. These have been released early in 2001 in Mexico and are being promoted by INIFAP. Perhaps modern tools of genetic engineering could speed up this process.
   • Apomixis research is being conducted by CIMMYT and could hold enormous benefits for small scale farmers.

2. The development of technology is relatively meaningless unless the technology is extended successfully to farmers.

   • This implies good extension services and rural credit at the very minimum. These services currently cannot be assumed to be present or effective.

3. Given the agrarian nature of Mexico’s population, a research agenda dominated by the private sector is unlikely to meet the needs of the common good.

   • Currently, who are transgenic crops really going to benefit in Mexico?
   • Research agendas need to be based on social and environmental needs rather than the short term interests of private companies. According to Otero, this implies "more focus on food crops and basic grains, rather than on export and luxury crops. Rather than an emphasis on monocropping, a holistic perspective should be promoted with a focus on agrarian structures and the viability of rural communities. Local knowledge should be taken into account in developing products, rather than merely detached science produced in laboratories, and there should be an effort to create an agriculture based on low inputs to make small-scale farmers more viable."

4. Currently the Mexican Government is trying to set up "Terms of Reference" which they hope will orient research in terms of biological, social, environmental, food safety and economic areas. A research agenda based on social and environmental needs is unlikely to arise in the current context of ‘cost recovery’.

   • Otero (1996)writes "the real social factors behind technical and product development respond to different dynamics than the discourse of social and environmental sustainability. Those forces act in an increasingly de-regulated, competitive and market driven environment where short term profits are the law."

Further Questions

More than anything the biotechnology debate in Mexico raises key issues about how research should move forward to meet the needs of small farmers.

Questions which need to be pondered include:

• How do we set the research agenda to meet the needs of small scale farmers?
• How do we implement and develop technologies in a holistic manner?
• How do we evaluate new technologies with respect to social and cultural concerns; not simply in purely scientific or economic terms?
• Is coordination possible between the various actors (Mexican government, Northern scientists such as ISAAA, Mexican research organizations, farmers, the environmental lobby)?
• How do we move away from a North-South orientation of technological solutions for Mexico? Is it possible to develop ‘made in Mexico’ solutions without relying on technology from the North?

References

Alvarez-Morales, A. (2000). Mexico Ensuring Environmental Safety While Benefiting from Biotechnology. http://www.cgiar.org/biotech/rep0100/Morales.pdf Bicknell, R.A. and Bicknell, K.B. (1999), "Who will Benefit from Apomixis?". Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No. 37, p. 17-20

CIAT (2001) Enola Bean Patent Challenged. http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/communications/release/beanEnola.htm

Galvez, A. and M. Chauvet. (2001). A Mexican Perspective on Biosafety. http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidbiotech/comments/comments108.htm

Kathen, A. de (1996), "The Impact of Transgenic Crop Releases on Biodiversity in Developing Countries." Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No. 28, p. 10-14.

Morris, M. and M.A. Lopez-Pereira, M.A. 1999. Impacts of Maize Breeding Research in Latin America, 1966-1997. Mexico, D.F.:CIMMYT

Nadal, A. (2000) The Environmental and Social Impacts of Economic Liberalization on Corn Production in Mexico

World Wild Life Foundation International. Oxfam GB. http://www.panda.org/resources/publications/sustainability/mexico/

Otero, G. (1996) Agricultural Biotechnology in Latin America. www.idrc.ca/books/focus/789/otero.html

Pratt, T. 2001. Small Bean Sets Off International Patent Dispute. New York Times. March 20, 2001. http://www.biotech-info.net/yellow_beans.html

Serratos, J.A., M.C. Willcox and F. Castillo. (1995) Gene Flow Among Maize Landreaces, Improved Maize Varieties, and Teosinte: Implications for Transgenic Maize. Proceedings of a forum held by INIFAP, CIMMYT and CNBA, Mexico September 21-25, 1995.

USDA, (1998) Foreign Countries’ Policies and Programs. http//ffas.usda.gov/grain/circular/1998/98-09/dtricks.htm