It is often said that biotechnology is only a tool. So far the main developers and users of this "tool" are the private industries. They create and sell products that can be transgenic. The controversies over genetically modified (GM) foods and crops have figured prominently in the debate over biotechnology and society. But by concentrating only on the currently produced GM food and not on other possibilities by which biotechnology can be developed, are we not oversimplifying the debate? If so, do we not lose out on chances to redirect the design and uses of biotechnology as a tool?

There is a backlash in biotechnology supply and demand as the market for GM crops faces great uncertainty. Consumer protests against GM food, particularly in industrialized countries, are having an impact. In western Europe, consumers avoid GM foods. In effect, supermarket chains and caterers – including those servicing the canteen at the Monsanto headquarters in the UK – refrain from selling GM food. Partly due to increasing public protest, since 1997 Europe has a standing de facto moratorium on the release of GM crops. Moreover, using the recently agreed January 2000 biosafety protocol in Montreal, a Brazilian importer rejected 30,000 tonnes of maize from the USA in February, because the maize could not be certified as non-GM.

In the USA, farmers are expected to plant 16 per cent less GM maize this year because, according to the American Corn Growers Association, the marketability of GM crops has become questionable. In December 1999, a small group of US and French farmers have filed a lawsuit in the USA against Monsanto for allegedly selling GM crops without adequate testing. Additionally, many banks are sceptical about financing GM seeds, according to the Deutsche Bank and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

Biotechnology industries question the scientific basis of the consumer protests and have accused these consumers of slowing down scientific developments. However, this remains an inadequate response as biotechnology industries are not addressing consumer preferences and the basis of consumers’ decisions, be this scientific, political, ethical or religious reasons or just a matter of price and taste.

The rift between private industries and consumers indicates once again that science and technology cannot and should not be developed in isolation, and that a multitude of actors need to be involved. This is all the more crucial in developing countries, where there is less research investment, especially from the public sector, and where the technological options for many farmers remain very limited.

Farmers are important actors in the supply and demand of biotechnology. As producers, farmers are often the end users of technology and consumers as well. Despite the strategic role of farmers research and development in biotechnology, be it private or public sector, has often ignored farmers needs in developing countries.

There are biotechnology tools, such as genetic markers, which can be very useful for both rich and poor farmers in diverse agri-ecological regions. Such tools can enhance plant variety evaluation and breeding without necessarily having transgenic end products. For instance, if biotechnology can be used to improve farmers’ landraces to produce drought tolerant varieties for drought-prone areas; if these new varieties are used in addition to, not as replacement for farmers’ varieties; if farmers can adapt these new varieties to their farming systems; and if farmers can use their ‘new’ farm-saved seeds for next plantings; would it not be worth re-directing biotechnology? At the very least farmers should have the chance to indicate their research and development needs to increase their technological options, which they, just like the consumers, may accept or reject.

Debates in biotechnology are often polarized. On one hand, making false promises that "biotechnology can save the world from hunger" completely ignores our understanding of poverty and the complex approaches to poverty reduction. On the other hand, by saying "absolutely no to biotechnology", are we not letting private industries still dictate the technologies and that producers and consumers can only either reject or accept the products from private industries? Sadly, contemporary public opinion still tends to be formed by the traditional arguments of linear technology development, be they for or against biotechnology.

This situation highlights a crisis not only for biotechnology but also for agricultural research in general, where the actors, such as private and public sector, consumers and farmers, remain compartmentalized in their views and consequent actions. Yet decisions as to which biotechnology tools should be designed and used, for which end products, and for what purposes, are inter-dependent. The need for an active dialogue between these actors to address diversity in agricultural production and demand may be old news, but remains even more relevant and urgent.