Many scientists and regulators in developing countries are concerned they do not have the expertise to determine the safety effects on human health and the environment of new genetically modified crops, the conference was told.
Dr Julian Kinderlerer, of Sheffield Institute of Biotechnological Law and Ethics in Britain, said they see themselves as "unable to analyse what is new in the application of modern biotechnology as compared to intensive agriculture, or to comprehend the fears expressed in those countries which have more than enough to eat".
The many biotechnology implications for developing countries had not been sufficiently addressed, he told the European Federation of Biotechnology conference. Some form of legislation was needed urgently for reassurance and to ensure the acceptability of products exported from, or imported into, countries without a history of effective regulation.
Most big biotech companies had argued there was a necessity to "feed the world" as populations and expectations grew. "Biotechnology is said to offer a solution.
These arguments are difficult to sustain when the products currently on offer - hybrid variants of oil seed rape and herbicide-resistant cotton, corn and soya - cannot be considered of significant importance in the diets of those about to starve."
The outcome of a national referendum in Switzerland on biotechnology and GM foods in June indicated the public was capable of differentiating technical issues, even if they did not understand all the details, according to Prof Richard Braun.
The director of Bio-Link research unit in Switzerland said if the proposition had been passed, it would have brought much biomedical research to a standstill. The intense debate surrounding the vote confirmed scientists needed to address public worries and set out clearly the benefits and costs of new technology. Equally, the public had a right to know the aims of publicly-funded research.
