INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS FOR THE RESPONSIBLE USE OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED AQUATIC ORGANISMS |
Devin M. Bartley Fishery Resources Division |
"Doubtless God could have made a better berry, but doubtless God never did." Now humans can make a better berry ! |
Mr. Isaak Walton in his classic book on fishing (The Compleat Angler, 1593 1683) attributes the above quote to a Dr. Boteler who was very fond of strawberries. We now have the technology to make a better berry - the anti-freeze protein gene from the winter flounder has been inserted into strawberries and other crops to help them tolerate cold temperatures. Is this a "better" berry? What are the benefits and risks? Will genetic modification be useful and accepted in aquaculture? When and for whom? International organizations must address a variety of questions in this area. The following article is based on a presentation the author made at WAS 1999. Introduction Genetic modification of aquatic species has the potential to increase greatly both the quantity and quality of products from aquaculture. Traditional animal breeding, chromosome-set manipulation, and hybridization have already made significant contributions to aquaculture production, and their contribution is expected to increase as aquatic species become more domes-ticated and as breeding and |
genetic
technology continue to improve. Experimental and pilot projects on transgenic organisms
have demonstrated that growth rate can be improved dramatically (Figure 1); other
commercially important traits can be improved as well. Although no transgenic aquatic
species are available to the consumer at present, some feel that transgenic fish will be
on the market within the next few years. |
Box 1. Nomenclature Q: When is an organism whose genetic structure has been modified, not a genetically modified organism? |
. | . |
A: When people may eat them. |
modification of genes and their introduction into living cells or viruses of DNA as well as techniques for the production involving cells with new combinations of genetic material by the |
. |
modified organisms. However, this is proving to be a formidable task. The Fourth meeting of the International Association of Geneticists in Aquaculture refused to draft a technical |
fusion of two or morecells" (ICES 1995). USDA states that their Performance Standards on conducting research on GMOs apply to the following organisms: |
CBD (GMOs have become LMOs in the language of the CBD) - "Living modified organism" means any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the |
definition (pers. ob.); the CBD is still trying to develop a definition of LMO.
The tendency in international legal bodies and industry is to restrict GMOs to
transgenics, whereas some voluntary instruments adopt a wider definition that includes
other genetic modifications such as hybridization, chromosome manipulations, sex reversal,
and selective breeding. Some definitions of GMOs follow: |
1. "Deliberate Gene Changes including changes in genes, transposable
elements, non-coding DNA (including regulatory sequences), synthetic DNA sequences, and
mitochondrial DNA; |
use of modern biotechnology. "Living organism" means any biological
entity capable of transferring or replicating genetic material, including sterile
organisms, viruses and viroids. "Modern bio-technology" means the application
of: |
. | clarify further, the USDA states thatnon-applicable organisms are intraspecific selectively bred species, and widespread and well known interspecific hybrids that dont cause adverse ecological effects. |
EU An organism in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination" (EEC1990). |
. | . | "Genetically modified micro-organisms are organisms in which genetic material has been purposely altered through genetic engineering in a way that does not occur naturally." |
The purpose of this note is to describe briefly the main instruments that deal with the use of GMOs and their implications for aquaculture development. Much of what is presented below comes from the plant sector, but aquaculture may expect similar processes, opportunities and problems in the further development of aquatic GMOs. It will be prudent to follow what is going on in the crop and livestock sectors. Import and release into the environment The import of a GMO and its release into the environment is covered
by sections of the European Community Directives, UN Recommendations on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods (1995), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF), and the International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea (ICES). The risks discussed in this section pertain mainly to those
to the environment (human health issues are discussed below). |
Figure 1. Transgenic chinook salmon from New Zealand King Salmon Company's land-based research facility. The top 3 fish are transgenics, 11 months old with an average weight of 850g, whereas the bottom fish is their non-transgenic sibling of the same age, weight 280g. Photo by Seumas Walker. . |
|
modified organisms, requires notification that a GMO is to be released. The
directive also lists requirements for impact assessment, control and risk assessment. It
is interesting to note that notification requirements are different for higher plants and
other organisms and that release includes placement on the market. |
use of biological diversity. The negotiation of these protocols is currently underway (http://www.biodiv.org/biosafe/).* Article 9.3 of the CCRF addresses the "Use of aquatic genetic
resources for the purposes of aquaculture including culture-based fisheries". This
article calls for:
|
Article 9.2.3 advises, " States should consult with their neighbouring States, as appropriate, before introducing non-indigenous species into transboundary aquatic eco-systems", and the FAO Technical Guidelines on Aquaculture Development states, "Consultation on the introduction of genetically modified organisms should also be pursued. The definition of non-indigenous, in broadest sense of the term, should include organisms that are the product of domestication, selective breeding, chromosome manipulation, hybridization, sex-reversal, and gene transfer". ICES1 has added a section on GMOs to its guidelines for species introductions. Thus, GMOs are acknowledged to be a form of non-native species; in many international fora, alien species and alien genotypes are terms used to signify organisms that do not naturally occur in a given area. Like the CCRF, the ICES protocols are voluntary, but they have been adopted in principle by numerous regional fishery bodies, by the International Network for Genetics in Aquaculture (ICLARM secretariat), and by national governments such as the Philippines. Aquaculturists contemplating the use of GMOs should be aware of and follow notification and assessment requirements. Even when not required by law, such practices are prudent and will help promote an image of responsibility. TradeTrade issues are extremely complex, politically charged, and cover a variety of components, such as patenting and labelling requirements. The main instrument governing international trade is the World Trade Organization, created in 1995 following the Uraguay Round of trade negotiations. With 134 Member Countries, it is the body responsible for administering international trade and resolving disputes for most of the worlds trading nations. The Center for International Environmental Law |
(CIEL) noted that due to the "interlocking relationships between trade and other issues, including environmental protection, WTO activities now have more extensive ramifications." (CIEL 1999 -http://www.igc.apc.org/ciel/shmptur.html). The purpose of the WTO is to promote trade liberalization that includes non-discrimination, and ensuring that the conditions for trade are stable, predictable and transparent. Components of the WTO in relation to GMOs are the removal of trade barriers, the requirements for intellectual property protection, e.g. patenting, and labelling requirements. Intellectual property rights WTO set up the first global system for intellectual property rights (IPR) on biological diversity, with specific reference to plants, to protect the inventors and developers of a product and to foster innovation. The relevant section of WTO is the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) that requires Members to form intellectual property rights
|
on, inter alia, certain food and living organisms. TRIPS Article 27(3)(b) allows for the patenting of life forms, and requires that systems for IPR be developed by 2000 in developing countries and by 2005 in least-developed countries. Article 27 of TRIPS says the inventions it recognizes must meet the criteria of novelty, inventiveness (non-obvious) and industrial applicability (use-fulness). TRIPS countries have discretion on whether to protect plants or animals with patents or sui generis system and whether to recognize such patents. DG XII of the European Commission has nearly similar requirements for IPR, except that the EC states that "plant and animal varieties and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals, including crossing or selection, are not patentable". Biotechnological inventions now are better protected in the EU due to common rules for patent law as set out in the new Directive 98/44/EC (http://europa.eu.int/>http://europa.eu.int/). But neither plant and animal species nor biological processes for their production are covered by the legislation as they are essentially biological and not |
Box 2. Different perspectives on patenting in fish vs plants The patenting process is supposed, inter alia, to promote innovation. Monsanto has recently sought patents on a genetic modification that renders seeds nonviable when a specific chemical that activates a series of genes is sprayed on them. The general name for this process is Genetic Use Restriction Technologies and it helps companies like Monsanto protect their product (genetically improved seeds) from being used without permission on compensation to Monsanto. Because many farmers in developing areas need to save seeds for the next season, this particular technology was embroiled in controversy and seen by many to be a threat to world food security. The technology was given the emotive name of Terminator Technology and the outcry against such a practice was so strong that Monsanto has said it will not commercialize the technology. However, such a genetic modification might be extremely advantageous for farmed fish. Through the patenting process and the disclosure of the genetic manipulations involved, we now have a model for gene activation and deactivation that may be used in other sectors, such as aquaculture. Modifying an exotic farmed fish or shellfish so that it could not reproduce in the wild would help reduce many of the environmental concerns facing aquaculture today. This is not to be seen as an endorsement for GMOs, but rather another perspective on the patenting issue. |
biotechnological processes. For ethical reasons, the directive bans patenting of
human cloning, the use of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes, the
manipulation of human genetic identity as well as the discovery of natural substances. Human health and food quality For the consumer of gm products, human health is probably the most
important issue. Here there is a tremendous lack of knowledge and understanding. People
who regularly consume the enzyme chymosin from gm bacteria in their parmesan cheese (the
natural source is from calf stomach), or probably have no objection to genetically
engineered insulin for diabetes, state they would never eat a gm fish nor let their
children eat one. There are health concerns and these must be addressed in a reasonable
manner (see also section on ethics below). Internationally, it is the EU and the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (CAC) that take the lead roles. |
(General Assembly Resolution 39/248; Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures; Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade). At present, risk
analysis is considered to be an integral part of the decision-making process of Codex. Labelling Labelling of GMOs or products from GMOs is also an extremely
contentious issue as exemplified by the current trade conflicts between Europe and the US
over labelling of genetically modified crops such as corn and soybeans. Some think that
thinks labelling is impractical and would be ambiguous in any case (Williams 19982 ),
whereas Europe believes that it is necessary for informed consumer choice and to prevent a
public relations disaster. |
Canada there means that if the GMO or product is equivalent to the non-GMO
counterpart then no extra legislation or oversight is needed. In 1997 the EU Novel Foods
Regulation made labelling of gm food, or food obtained from GMOs mandatory if they were
not substantially equivalent to existing products. Further, recognition must be given to
mixtures of gm and non-gm crops (e.g. US soybeans). |
Although no gm fish or shellfish are now on the market, fish meal may contain genetically modified soy beans; the EU and Japan are requiring labelling on this feed. According to reports on an internet discussion group on shrimp([email protected]) or http://www.onelist.com, the feed industry is looking carefully at reactions around the world to this requirement and even looking for replacements to soya in feeds. Ethics FAO has recently created a Committee on Ethics in Food and
Agriculture, whereas UNESCO established an International Bioethics Committee (IBC) and an
intergovernmental committee to examine its advice and recommendations. According to the
IBC "Bioethics, as an awareness of the implications of the advances made in the life
and health sciences, in particular genetics and molecular biology, is the basis of an
ever-growing debate which transcends borders, since the concerns it expresses inevitably
take on an international dimension." |
issues. Concerning GMOs, in addition to the above, ethical questions arise as to whether humans have the right to modify natural creations. Ethics enters the patenting arena where inventions that are contrary to public morality are disallowed. However what is moral to one society may be viewed differently in others. The Prince of Wales believes that, "(genetic modification) takes mankind into realms that belong to God, and to God alone"4 . However, I expect many vegetarians eat Parmesan cheese without knowing that it is made with calf intestine. Would genetic modification make cheese "more ethical" to this group? The process of raising animals to eat them is unethical to many societies, and in vitro fertilization was controversial when the first test-tube baby was born in 1978. Concluding remarks Aquatic GMOs will eventually also come under the mandate of the FAO
Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA), the only permanent
United Nations inter-governmental forum dealing specifically with matters related to the
conservation and utilization of genetic resources for food and agriculture, and related
technologies. In 1997, the Commission established working groups on plant genetic
resources and on farm animal genetic resources. However, fishery genetic resources, per
se, have not yet been incorporated into the Commissions work. The CGRFA is also
preparing for negotiations on a Code of Conduct on Biotechnology, including a component on
IPR. |
is legislation to transfer responsibility for food safety from the Health
Department to the Agriculture Department which is seen by some as being a direct conflict
of interest. Acknowledgements I wish to thank Jane Symonds and Stewart Hawthorn of New Zealand King Salmon Company for figure 1 and their cooperation. The review by Annick Van Houtte and Cristina leria of FAO Legal Office is also appreciated.
2 Williams, N. 1998. Agricultural biotech faces backlash in Europe. Science 281: 768 771. 3 IFOAM. 1998. Basic Standards for Organic Production and Processing. IFOAM Okozentrum Imsbach, D-66636 Tholey-Theley, Germany. 4 See note 2. * Authors note: As Fan 23 went to press an Extraordinary Meeting of the Conference of the CBD January 2000, had just adopted the biosafety protocols known as the "Cartagena Protocol". Implications of this protocal will be addressed in the future issues of FAN. |