[To contribute to this conference, send your message to
biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org.
For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and
Agriculture see Forum website.
NB -
participants are assumed to be speaking on their own behalf, unless they
state otherwise.]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 04 June 2002 09:16
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 10: socio-economical and environmental impacts of gene flow
from GM crops
This is John Nishio, botany faculty at the University of Wyoming, USA. I will soon be relocating to California State University at Chico to help form a research center focusing on photosynthesis and sustainable plant productivity. I have great interest in the environmental impacts of agriculture, so the present discussion interests me. A couple of areas of concern follow that are related to the socio-economical and environmental impacts of plant breeding.
While it is true that transfected genes may be "foreign" and alter the genotype, it is the phenotype that results that is pertinent, as mentioned by others. As an example, a gene may be transferred to a crop plant that confers high phosphorus (P) uptake efficiency. If native plants pick up the trait, would we expect ecological damage to the native community? Would a native plant with increased phosphorous uptake efficiency outcompete the other plants and cause a major shift in the plant populations? Should we consider such "pollution" of native populations by modern varieties "good" or "bad"? Unfortunately, placing specific values on a particular type of shift in populations and ecosystem dynamics is likely to be fraught with folly and emotion. Indirectly related to out crossing of recombinant genes, where will we get our fertilizer (e.g., P) in 50 years, if we don't recycle our human and livestock waste, and if we don't decrease the use of fertilizers? Indirectly related, because plants with improved nutrient use efficiency and uptake will likely result from recombinant technology.
If it is shown that a particular GM crop plant can be safely released without concern for gene flow to non-GM populations, then the socio-economic impacts can be viewed as likely positive, as long as the new releases are beneficial in stress tolerance, nutrient use efficiency, nutritional quality, and productivity, for example. On the other hand, if the releases are based on using more polluting chemicals, such as herbicides, then there is a possible negative impact due to degradation of water quality, soil biodiversity, and so forth. The positive economic impact is that whoever sells the chemical makes money. However, a scenario where decreased inputs and lower costs result from such plants is certainly possible; and whoever sells the chemical still makes money. Therefore, the cost level acceptable for any given benefit must be established. For example, if by increasing energetic inputs by 10% we see a return of 20% increase in usable crop yield, is that a worthwhile investment? It depends on the cost of the inputs, and whether they are less than the 20% increase in income. What percentage increase in income is worth a 10% energetic cost? For the herbicide resistance example, what level of pollution is acceptable for society and the environment? The specific trait(s) imparted by the recombinant technology will have specific impacts that must be individually evaluated, as has been stated by others.
The points have already been made about the release being close enough to the native ecosystems that it may or may not matter, and that the "escape" of pertinent genes from "classically" and "mutationally" derived plants can and will have the same positive or negative impact as the escape of genes from recombinants. Because we haven't in the past considered the impact of outcrossing of conventionally bred plants or the escape of crop plants (which as already pointed out is generally not a problem), this does not mean that such lack of consideration is acceptable. The true environmental (energetic) cost should be factored into the analysis of all new releases. Scientists developing new varieties should always consider the ecological and socio-economic impacts. Are we willing and able to do that?
John N. Nishio
Department of Botany
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY 82071--3165
United States
Nishio (at) uwyo.edu
http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/botany/nishio.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: 04 June 2002 10:46
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 11: Liability and ownership of genes
One of the socio-economic concerns regarding gene flow from GM crops has to do with "ownership" of the genes. If one owns the gene, and it escapes and causes economic and social damage, then the owner should be held responsible. It is the risk of ownership. However, as most of the participants are aware, this is a complicated issue.
Related to ownership is the possibility that GM seeds retained for next year's planting may not have the same quality as the original release. We can relate that to the notion of planned obsolescence [i.e. the production of goods with uneconomically short useful lives so that customers will have to make repeat purchases...Moderator]. However, if the GM seeds do not lose their competitive and economic advantage, then such releases can be a great contribution to the developing country. It will be especially significant if the trait relates to improved energy efficiency in agriculture, such as better drought tolerance or nutrient uptake, for example, or if the plant has significantly better nutritional quality than that of the lines presently in use.
One obvious way to prevent gene pollution is the terminator technology. Plants that "self" can release pollen, so that is not a complete solution. Seeds that do not germinate may also result from plants that produce viable pollen. Thus, abortion of all reproductive structures in the releases is the obvious solution. Timing reproduction to occur at different times from natives does not seem feasible, unless one can guarantee a particular time of planting. So, here is the paradox. We don't want to pollute native populations (terminator technology and no seeds), and we don't want "industry" to own the seeds (as in hybrids) and to block normal practices of saving seed for the next planting. How can we have it both ways?
No one wants to prevent growers from being successful, but how can developers of successful recombinant plants recoup the cost of development, if they can't sell the seeds over a number of years? I personally don't know, but I would like to hear some solutions. Do we need to develop licensing fees, as in the music industry, for use of seeds? It is OK to make a recording for personal use, but if you sell the recordings then that represents an infringement. So, by analogy if one is growing plants for personal use, then it is OK to save seed stock, but if you are selling for profit, then you must register your product. Of course, you wouldn't let a neighbor have a copy of your music. If we really want to get cute, we can make the product have a "mark" of anthocyanin or something similar (as in a degraded, copy protected recording-hybrid). The industrial owners could easily monitor use of "their" genes, and organic (biological) food consumers would know what products (at least raw products anyway) to avoid.
In reality, how would such a system be monitored, especially around the world? This seems to be a sticky issue. Do we need government sponsored releases? How to do that? Quit giving patents for genes!! Whoa, Nelly! Maybe then, government scientists could compete, and many releases would be in the public domain. How do we get government sponsored science to behave like industry (meaning getting more things to market)? Jane Morris (message 6, 3 June) related it to money. Maybe industry should consider the inevitable i.e. desirable plants that make good seeds will be used for seed stock. As long as a reasonable profit is being made, let the music (seeds) spread around the world. [Note, there was a good discussion on the whole issue of IPRs and biotechnology in Conference 6 of the Forum entitled "The impact of intellectual property rights (IPRs) on food and agriculture in developing countries" - see http://www.fao.org/biotech/Conf6.htm...Moderator]
John N. Nishio
Department of Botany
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY 82071--3165
United States
Nishio (at) uwyo.edu
http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/botany/nishio.htm