Biotechnology:
the Science and the Impact
Conference
Proceedings
January 20 & 21, 2000,
Netherlands Congress
Centre, the Hague
Ambassador
Cynthia P. Schneider
Welcome
and Introductory Remarks |
Els
Borst,
Minister
of Health, Welfare and Sports
and Deputy Prime Minister,
Government of the Netherlands
"Biotechnology
and Health"
|
|
Annemarie
Jorritsma,
Minister
of Economic Affairs
and Deputy Prime Minister,
Government of the
Netherlands
"Biotechnology
and Economic Development"
|
George Poste,
Health
Technology Networks
"What is Biotechnology?
|
Mexico
"Biotechnology
and the Environment"
|
Chris
Somerville,
Stanford
University
"The
Genetic Engineering of Plants"
|
Jim
Murray. BEUC, the European Consumers Organization,
Brussels
"Biotechnology and the Consumer"
|
Question
from Ambassador Schneider |
Juan
Enriquez, Harvard University
"Conclusion" |
Jonathan
Eisen, Institute of Genomic Research
"Microbial
and Plant Genomics" |
|
Steven
Tanksley,
Cornell
University
"There
is No Such Thing as a 'Natural' Red Tomato" |
Chair-
Sir Robert May, Chief Scientific
Advisor to the Prime Minister of Great Britain
"Introduction"
|
Tony
Irvin, International Livestock
Research Institute
"Genomics
and Livestock: Changing the Face of Animal
Agriculture in the Third World"
|
Ambassador
David L. Aaron,
Undersecretary,
U.S. Department of Commerce
"Making
Biotechnology Safe"
|
Susan
Mayer, Genewatch UK
"How Safe is Safe: Biotechnology and Risk Assessment" |
J.
Craig Venter, CELERA
"The
Human Genome"
|
George
Hersbach, Pharming,
Netherlands
"Animal
Biotechnology: New Biopharmaceuticals for Critical
Diseases" |
Chair,
Sir Robert May, Chief Science Advisor
to the Prime Minister of Great Britain.
"Introduction"
|
Panel
Question and Answer session 1
|
Dr.
Jean Francois-Mayaux, Aventis
Pharma
"Functional Genomics: Impact on Drug Discovery"
|
Chair:
Koos
N.M. Richelle, Director General International
Cooperation Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government
of the Netherlands
Introduction |
Matthias
Kummer, Gesellschaft zur Fordering der Schweizerischen
Wirtschaft wf, Switzerland
"Biotechnology
and Public Communication"
|
Ismail
Serageldin,
World
Bank
"Biotechnology in the Service of the Poor:
Challenges and Prospects"
|
Noelle
Lenoir, French Constitutional
Court
"The
Ethics of Biotechnology"
|
Neysa
Call,
National Science Foundation
"Biotechnology and the Future of Scientific
Research"
|
Laurens
Jan Brinkhorst,
Minister
of Agriculture
Government
of the Netherlands
"Biotechnology
- Implications for Agriculture
and Society"
|
Isi
Siddiqui,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
"Biotechnology
and Agriculture"
|
David
Byrne,
European
Union Commissioner
for Health and Consumer
Affairs
"Biotechnology
and the Public"
|
John
Pierce,
Dupont Agricultural Enterprise
"Realizing the promise of plant and Micobial
Biotechnology"
|
|
Benedikt
Haerlin, Greenpeace
"Genetic
engineering vs. Biotechnology: An Organic Vision
of Sustainable Agriculture"
|
Ambassador
Cynthia P. Schneider
"Conclusion"
|
THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2000
MORNING
SESSION: "THE SCIENCE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY"
Ambassador
Cynthia P. Schneider , U.S. Ambassador
to the Netherlands
"Introduction"
It is
a great pleasure to welcome you today to "Biotechnology:
the Science and the Impact". I hope that together we
will learn from each other, exchange ideas, and help
to set the tenor for a positive dialogue on this subject.
I suspect
that all of you know why you are here, but many of you
may be wondering why I am here. The question I have
been asked most frequently in my work on this conference
has been "Why is an American Embassy organizing such
a conference?" The answer is that this conference reflects
core functions of American Embassies abroad: to communicate
and promote understanding of American ideas and to advocate
American products. The realization of these goals through
a conference has more to do with my personal background.
From my academic training, I have acquired the habit
of going to the experts, if possible in person, to study
an unfamiliar subject. To an academic, the best method
of all is to organize a conference or symposium in which
multiple viewpoints are represented. Hopefully, through
the exchange of ideas and opinions, a hitherto unfocused
image sharpens and clarifies.
But, then,
why biotechnology? The choice of subject, I can assure
you, has nothing to do with my background. I come to
this subject unburdened by any scientific knowledge!
No one can deny, though, that it is a critical issue
today in the relationship between Europe and America
and between the developed and the developing worlds.
Just this week one front-page story and several others
in the International Herald Tribune focused on biotechnology.
Time
magazine has declared the twentieth century to be
to be "the century of science and technology"; Business
Week proclaimed that the next will be "the biotech
century", but at the same time there are others willing
to march in the streets in opposition to biotechnology.
Some claim that biotechnology holds the key to solving
problems of hunger and disease, while others are afraid
to eat genetically modified foods. Clearly, there is
a need for communication of information and constructive
dialogue on biotechnology. Hopefully, this conference
will provide both.
It will
address the following current issues: the benefits and
potential risks of biotechnology in agriculture and
pharmaceuticals; benefit/risk assessment by public officials;
the use of genetic modification in animals for the development
of medicines; the sequencing of the human genome and
its applications; the potential value of biotechnology
as a tool for solving problems of hunger and disease
in the developing world; the relative importance of
biotechnology to regional and national economic growth;
and the regulatory climate for biotechnology in Europe
and America. Other issues undoubtedly will arise. I
hope that we will be able to address them all openly,
with respect for differences in opinion.
In order
to facilitate dialogue and maximize participation, the
audience will be invited to pose questions after each
speaker. At the end of each session, the speakers will
re-assemble on stage to answer questions from the audience
and each other.
I would
like to extend my thanks to the many people who have
helped to make this conference possible. You are too
numerous to name, but I would like to make a few specific
acknowledgements. First of all, I would like to thank
the Foreign Commercial Service of the U.S. Embassy in
The Hague for so ably handling the organization of this
conference. If you feel satisfied - as I hope you do
- with the registration process and all the organizational
details, FCS deserves the credit. In particular, I would
like to mention Larry Eisenberg and Alan Ras. Our consultations
with many different people involved with biotechnology
in The Netherlands and in Europe were tremendously helpful
as we planned the program. I hope you will agree that
we listened to your good advice. From America we received
assistance from many organizations and individuals as
well. In particular, The Institute of Genomic Research
deserves special mention. Finally, I am grateful to
the Dutch Ministries who have cooperated with us --Health,
Economic Affairs, and Agriculture. Their help with this
conference is just one example of the myriad ways in
which our two countries work together productively.
We are honored to have three Dutch Ministers speaking
at the conference.
The Ministers
illustrate three of the multiple aspects of biotechnology
that will come under discussion during the conference.
We have brought together speakers who represent not
only different viewpoints, but also the different functions
of biotechnology in today's world. Thus, you will hear
from scientists making discoveries at the frontiers
of knowledge, politicians grappling with the implementation
of those discoveries, and ethicists and public interest
groups who question their value. Hopefully, a productive
exchange will lead to a better understanding of the
potential impact of biotechnology on society.
Let us
begin in the spirit of Louis Pasteur, who urged scientists
to "worship the spirit of criticism. If reduced to itself,
it is not an awakener of ideas or a stimulant to great
things, but, without it, everything is fallible; it
always has the last word." It remains to be seen who
will have the last word by tomorrow afternoon, but let
us hope that it is reached through a positive, fruitful
exchange of ideas. Thank you very much for coming.
I will
now turn the podium and the session over to Professor
Marc van Montagu of the Genetics Department of the University
of Gent.
Professor
Marc van Montagu, University of Gent
"Chair's introduction"
Morning,
welcome. First place let me thank Ambassador Schneider
and here team for bringing us together today. I think
it's an important issue, even people standing outside
remind us, how important for Europe and globally this
issue is. The morning session will be mostly about the
science. What has been done? Can we at the moment say
that there is no danger for man and animals with this
genetically engineered organisms. Are there problems
for the environment, what has been reached and what
are the socio-economical issues and the political issues
that are behind all the stress that we see here at the
moment in Europe.
So I will
remind you that for the talks we should really try to
stick to the schedule, so the speakers should really
please pay attention to that. After each talk, there
will be some questions for which there are microphones
in the aisle. We are linked via internet to cybercast.
They can bring in their questions immediately. Nevertheless,
I think it will be better to keep the cybercast questions
for the general discussion at the end. So now I want
to immediately ask George Poste, who was with SmithKline,
to tell us as an introduction "what is biotechnology".
George
Poste, Health Technology Networks
"What is Biotechnology"
Ambassador
Schneider, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Ambassador
Schneider has given me the unenviable task of attempting
to offer a perspective as to the broad reach of biotechnology.
Many of the points I make I am sure will be obvious
to this audience, but biotechnology in its most fundamental
form is really understanding the processes of biology
and the processes of the organization of all forms of
live on the planet. Anyhow, by understanding the biological
processes that underpin live, how far can we harness
those for the productive expansion of the human endeavor
for the benefit of medicine, agriculture and the other
areas which are shown on that slide.
There
is no such thing as biotechnology itself. It's a composite
of many disciplines. And even genetics is an oversimplification.
You can almost put biology in a circle as opposed to
genetics, but what I hope will become apparent through
my talk is the fact that we are dealing with multiple
disciplines, but also the convergence of disciplines
which has previously been separate. If you like, biology
computing and advanced miniaturization engineering.
But the process of understanding the analysis of biological
processes whether it be simple organisms or complex
organisms, such as mammals and ourselves, is the genetic
dictionary.
What is
the genome, so in short the total coding potential of
genetics, to give rise to the proteins, which are expressed
by those genes, that then give rise to structure function
and reticular pathways. So in biological specificity
it is how does that program account for 18 trillion
cells in our body, which then exist in 312 different
cell types. Some of which are completely static, some
of which are reproducing themselves in terms of billions
per day and this is the question of the progressive
higher order assembly from the gene all the way through
to a complex organism through tissues, organs and the
creation of the whole organism. In half we refer to
it as physiology and obviously when something goes wrong
that the processes are aberrantly disregulated it gives
rise to disease namely physiology becomes pathology.
But the other element which is now beginning to be sensed
is the fact that predisposition by understanding what
is actually embedded in the genetic code, we can in
fact define predisposition to pathology.
Another
way of saying that is the fact that biology is about
understanding the basic building blocks by which all
live forms on the planet are assembled. There is a remarkable
economy of biological design. All live forms on the
planet use the same coding material out of DNA, which
codes for proteins. And we have essentially got a molecular
Lego set, whereby nature has put together all these
building blocks in different forms, so that we call
it everything from a bacterium to a human being. So
those processes become higher order assemblies and that
constitutes biological diversity and in the process
of evolution the origin of species and within species,
what is the genetic basis of individuality and the relentless
imposition of selection forces represent fitness.
Now for
the first time transgenesis, the ability to build on
these basic processes to actually then start altering
the genome in terms of enhancement or eugenics, is possible.
And now even more extreme the question of so called
directed evolution, whereby one fundamentally alters
genetic programs and creates genetic programs which
have never existed before in the natural evolutionary
process. And of course that is a very complex agenda.
In short there are many who would argue that that should
be forbidden knowledge and that is very much the nature
of this debate today.
When I
was first invited, I was asked to speak in an area that
is my principle area of expertise, which is medicine,
so I'm focusing most of my remarks in medicine. We are
moving as a consequence of understanding the human genome
in moving medicine from simply being a descriptive empirical
discipline to one in which merely describing things
we now actually elucidate mechanism. So biology is joining
chemistry and physics in terms of being mechanistic
as opposed to merely descriptive. By understanding the
molecular basis of biological processes and what's going
wrong in disease, that is creating for industry the
ability to dissect disease processes to identify new
targets for diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines in
a much more rational way. But the other element that
is becoming clear is that diseases that we thought were
previously uniform are in fact heterogeneous. Such that
the molecular heterogeneity of disease means that while
it may have common symptoms there may be different types
of genetic pathology underlying that. So that means
that we have to now no longer think about one drug for
a disease but the right drug for the right disease,
in short the right subtype of disease.
And then
superimposed upon the heterogeneity of disease is the
issue, which we see by looking around this room. Unless
you have an identical monozygotic twin, each one of
us is unique. And that uniqueness not only reflects
the way we respond to environmental stimuli, it reflects
the way we respond to drugs. And in the longer term
it relates to the question of disease predispostions.
So the impact of individual genetic variation is the
field of pharmaco-genetics, is the right drug for the
right patient, but increasingly and certainly more controversial
is the issue of mapping predispostions to disease, giving
rise to prophylactic diagnostics and prophylactic therapeutics.
So in the future, pharmaceuticals for example still
play a major role in human health, but the utilization
of that drug will be much more tailored against the
genetic background of the patient. The diagnostics to
do that profiling will grow in importance and the importance
of information whether it be carried as a smart card
or a subcutaneous implantable chip with the medical
record in it, is in fact the vista that we will now
explore.
There
will be others in this meeting who will focus upon the
ravages of the large demands of the developing world
in terms of tropical diseases and infectious diseases
as epitomized by mosquito-born diseases. There will
be dramatic advances in whole body imaging and then
probably the next frontier is this one. How do we actually
not just understand genes in disease but actually regulate
them and reprogram them. So the next two decades will
be dominated not just by understanding the genome as
a sequence of information, but what are the controls
that switch genes on and off.
In short,
how do we inactivate genes that are abnormally expressed
or reactivate genes that have been switched off? How
do we repair damaged genes?
On the
longer term this gives rise to the field of regenerative
medicine. And the significance of Dolly is not in terms
of extremes with regard to the hysteria about cloning
human beings. The significance of Dolly is, it reveals
the fact of what was known for some time that now demonstrated
in mammals is the fact that every single cell in our
body contains the same genetic instructions. And those
genetic instructions, even in adults such as ourselves,
have not been programmed (a liver cell has one program
versus a brain cell and so forth). But the ability to
reprogram that genetic repertoire means that you can
in fact contemplate therapeutic engineering. So in short,
the significance of Dolly is at the level of DNA here,
what are the controls that switch the genes on and off,
so that one can move to an era of regenerative medicine.
We have interest in repair processes. Our bodies are
able to exhibit highly capable repair functions, but
compare to certain lower organisms, which have complete
regenerative capacity. Cut such an organism in half
and it will completely regrow. Take the limb off of
a salamander or a newt it will regenerate. We have lost
many of those traits. But the purpose of therapeutic
engineering is how far can we take cells in this case
such as spinal neurons for the repair of paralysis of
the kind shown their effect in the actor Christopher
Reeve. But the real trend I would submit is harnessing
molecular medicine towards making care increasingly
targeted and customized.
In short the trend will be to move medicine form being
reactive (namely, a disease exists), to the modification
of disease in a proactive way (in short, which disease
does this person have and diagnosing treatment of existing
disease, to which person is at risk of having this disease).
This can be easily stated, but it will be a long and
difficult journey.
So this
is where we are today, medicine is largely reactive.
The next trend in reactive medicine is the right drug
for the right disease and the right drug for the right
patient. But longer term, as we begin to correlate more
and more genes with particular diseases, that defines
my risk profile and your risk profile. And then how
do we mitigate that risk, either by lifestyle modification
or by therapeutic intervention. In short proactive medicine
and moving medicine to disease prediction and prevention.
And all this is dependent upon the ability to assemble
large amounts of information. But with risk identification
there are some increasing parallel trends.
First is the fact that we have improved monitoring of
existing disease. Micro devices that you either ware
in or on your body, or being able to put your hand up
to a sensor mechanism in your home to be able to diagnose
health status, I think will become an increasingly important
element. And certainly as disease risk predisposition
profiling comes about, these will all be linked.
So if I have a predisposition to a particular disease
my weekly health check in my home will be to actually
monitory health status relative to that particular risk.
And I think this will become increasingly important
as a social responsibility also.
In the
future the challenge for all the G7 nations is the economics
of health care delivery. Namely infinite demand set
against finite resource and in how far should society
reasonably suspect individuals to take responsibility
for there own wellness. And so the dimension of being
able to monitor health status through small remote devices
with wireless transmission into centralized monitoring
systems, I think, will become increasingly commonplace.
So it
is this union between medicine and computing that will
become a dominant theme. So in short the research level
we are describing is understanding the informational
content and the principles of biological design. Genes
giving rise to proteins, to assemble the whole body
and what goes wrong in disease. In clinical medicine
the need to assemble large scale population databases
whereby we correlate particular genes with disease,
genes with treatment outcome and the question of my
risk and your risk. But it will be more than that. Cybermedicine
will be this interface in terms of monitoring devices
that monitor health status.
At the same time behavioral disorders, I think, we will
see a new pattern of therapy. In stead of taking pills
it may well be that interactive software may be a much
more effective way of treating certain mental illnesses
than therapeutics and doctors will have to become much
more used to using the term physician decision software
to optimize clinical status.
But the next dimension and again likely to be highly
controversial is the carbon silicon interface, namely
how do we breach computing directly into neural circuitry.
We're seeing the first examples of that now, where micro
implants are being used to augment or replace damaged
functions. This can be bionic prosthesis or individuals
having micro implants to compensate for motor or sensory
deficits. But I think the more controversial one will
be as we progress over the next two or three decades
is to how far intrinsic cognitive and intellectual capacities
can in fact be modulated by direct insertion and tapping
into those neural circuits. How far then does that move
us towards a cyborgian dimension of hybrid intelligence
with direct porting of information, whether digital
or chemical directly into neural circuitry and of course
with that the inevitable controversy in terms of actually
having a mind print. Someone said, could you actually
monitor someone with criminal or terrorist intent when
they walk through instead of just a security barrier
today to pick up metal, could you in fact pick up certain
form of pattern in terms of neural circuitry? So that
to some extent paraphrases the dimension of what we're
about, namely, the icon of the 21st century, the helix
of DNA, is indeed double edged. It is a controversial
subject.
And indeed
this is a very complex terrain of ethical, legal and
social issues that demand legitimate public scrutiny.
The privacy in confidentiality of genetic information
in the context of the risk of that information being
used to discriminate against individuals for insurability,
education and employment. Extending that into the intra
uterine environment, prenatal diagnostics and then the
decision for elective abortion certainly more likely
to be controversial in the United States then Europe.
But intimately linked to that is, the question of procreative
freedom. Another controversial area will be if I can
profile a given disease' risk, yet there is no treatment
available for that disease, what level of social and
medical contribution is that making. And certainly in
the area of behavioral genetics, what is the balance
in the nature nurture equation and how far is neuro
gegenic predeterminisme a critical issue in certain
social traits such as violence and criminality.
And at the same time, coming back to the issue of Dolly,
embryonic stem cells and regenerative medicine, not
only will this inflame the debate about the embryo and
the fetus, we then have, and I have not talked about
it, the question of genetic modification of human beings.
Whether it be in a non inherited way in terms of modifying
the somatic cells of the body or by direct modification
of sperm or eggs for transmission of that plus an inherited
characteristic. And of course, superimposed on this,
as Ambassador Schneider has already said, is the fact
that this is the ugly and unacceptable face of corporatism
in the global agenda.
But there
are also growing national security implications in the
context of biowarfare and bioterrorism, were the targets
be people, plants or animals.
So in short, the issue that we're all wrestling with,
is does the genomic era really represent an opportunity
unprecedented for improving the human condition on the
global scale and augment personal autonomy, or is this
some grotesk technological distopia which is about to
be visited upon society. And it is by definition a very
complex equation. Society is polarized, the pace of
change even for those of us who work closely with it,
is dramatic. It is dizzying.
Unlike many elements of high technology, genetics has
a great resonance with the public. If you talk with
people about the superconducting supercollider they
don't care. There eyes glaze over because it's abstract.
But everyone has a recognition of the importance of
health in their lives. There is this issue of playing
God. Are we guilty of Promethean excess and is science
practicing ubristic and arrogant behavior? Genetic determinism,
free will and individuality, people' s sense of isolation
and remoteness in terms of loss of control and autonomy
and with that filled by fear and ambiguity. And as society
becomes increasingly precooned from risk, even our chairman
asked a moment ago, is there no risk associated with
this technology, and the answer is unequivocally: No!
Because we can never define the fact that there is no
risk. And the minute we allow society become sufficiently
delusional to believe that there is never any risk,
then we're doing something profoundly wrong at the intellectual
level. Because the equation is one of growing complexity
and uncertainty associated with technology versus a
society in which either society is cocooned or politicians
want simple answers to complex problems. I remind you
of H.L. Menkins comment: "of course there are simple
answers to complex problems, but they are invariably
wrong." That is the dimension of what we have to wrestle
with. And many highly creative and well funded anti
technology lobbies have in fact seized in a very creative
way, and that is used in an applauding term, the inherent
ambiguities in the risk benefit equation. And the technical
community including, whether it be academic or industrial,
has failed to engage adequately in the public debate.
And I
believe that we have got two principals at work here.
One is the polarizing principle, namely for the media
controversy sells, it's much easier to portrait conspiracy
and conflict versus cooperation and consensus. Single
issue activism is alive and well, the slick simplistic
Sandbites and the media are very reluctant to challenge
the hypocrisy of many of those positions. They have
already referred to societies delusional believe that
zero risk is attainable and at the same time, whether
it be corporations or the scientists involved, we have
been very inapt in communicating the challenges involved.
At the same time the populist principle, namely it is
very difficult for politicians to remain in a centrist
position and satisfy issues at any given time and increasing
distrust of traditional sources of expert knowledge
is now rampant.
In the
intellectual salons we see now science portrait as a
social construct, in short an expert's opinion is no
different from that of anyone else's. And politicians
everywhere across the G7 are succumbing to opinion poll
politics and expedient spin versus reverting to the
much more difficult pathway of evidence based regulation
and succumbing to the zero risk lobby. And then you
have the pervasive growth and insidious growth and particular
in Europe of the application of the precautionary principle,
which has in legitimate intellectual origins the elements
the environmental movement.
But in
short, if a theoretical risk exists then the proponents
of that technology must produce contrary evidence that
that risk is illusory. On the other hand you create
an intellectual teratology, because you cannot in fact
conduct the work that you need to do, to show that there
is no risk at all. And one thing that we all got to
remind ourselves of is, all complex multi parameter
systems, it will never be possible to fully define an
inventory, the full range of risk or benefits at the
beginning. But I would submit that we can not continue
with our blind pursuit of the precautionary principle.
If we took a poll of everyone in this room, and said,
what do you think of the top ten impacts of technology
for good in the last century or the millennium. There
will be probably a significant overlap between most
of us, but I would argue that none of those advances
would ever pass the precautionary principle as we intent
to apply it now.
So in
closing, I think we are alive in one of the most remarkable
epochs of the expansion of the human intellectual endeavor.
I think that contemporary biology and computing offer
the prospect of remarkable advances, not only in medicine,
agriculture and the environmental sciences. As I tried
to portrait in brief in medicine, the trend will be
to shift medicine, from its current emphasis on the
diagnosis and treatment of existing disease to the prediction
and prevention of disease, in short the shift from illness
to wellness. Each of us as predisposition risk become
defined will have to take responsibility for avoiding
those risks. Profound technological discontinuity is
not only an evident now, those will accelerate, they
will increase. Biotechnology will also become increasingly
important on the international security front. And that
daunting array of ethical, legal and social issues should
evoke legitimate public scrutiny and new regulatory
and legislative frameworks and again Ambassador Schneider,
my compliments to you and to your staff for assembling
this quite unique assembly of people to examine this
complex subject.
Thank
you very much indeed.
Professor
Marc van Montague
"Chair's Introduction of Chris Somerville, Stanford
University"
Thank you
very much for this brilliant start. I think that we
all have a good look in the future now and we realize
that with the more than six billion people we count
and 95% of the population living in developing countries,
where they have an income of some dollars a month, for
many billions of them, and the challenge for our society
and global equilibrium, are really immense.
Now I call
upon Chris Somerville, from Stanford University. Chris
Somerville has been working over the year in the field
of Plant Gene Engineering, metabolic pathways and he
will tell us how the science has progressed in the plant
field and what we can expect there in the upcoming years.
Chris
Somerville, Stanford University
"The Genetic Engineering of Plants"
My task
is to give an overview of some of the applications of
genetic engineering to plant improvement and I thought
I'd begin with a slide showing the accomplishments of
traditional plant breeding. What this shows is something
very remarkable. In 1950, we grew worldwide about six
hundred million hectares of cereal, about 5.5 percent
of the earth's surface. If we were growing the same
type of cereal today, we would be using about 1.4 billion
hectares of land, or actually most of the arable land
on earth, because of the demands of population growth.
Because of the improvements brought by plant breeders
using traditional technology we're still only using
about six hundred million hectares of land worldwide.
So I want to make a point that first of all there is,
obviously, increased demand for plant productivity.
And secondly, when it comes to environmental issues,
the greatest environmentalists of all time are the plant
breeders who saved 800 million hectares of land from
agriculture. In fact agriculture is the greatest threat
to biodiversity. And I think that much of the debate
about the environmental consequences, are somewhat displaced
from reality. Now the problem is that those increases
were effected or at least began during a time of substantial
annual productivity gains. This slide shows the rolling
average of the annual rate of increase of cereal productivity
due to breeding. And you can see that in the 60s or
the late 50s the annual rate of increase was about 4
percent per year. However today that increase has dropped
to about 1 percent a year in spite of the best efforts
of the breeding community. What this implies to many
people is the necessity for new technologies to maintain
the increase in productivity that we need in order to
prevent the expansion of agriculture onto currently
non utilized land. So from my view, plant biotechnology
is fundamentally nothing more then the application of
knowledge to this process.
Plant
breeding by itself, traditional plant breeding technology,
is a process-oriented technology, rather than a knowledge
rich technology. The traditional tools of plant breeders
are to make crosses within species to try and bring
in variation that exists within nature, within the species,
and then select useful variation. In limited cases,
interspecific processes have been used and I don't know
if it's widely understood that many of the wheat cult
used are no longer truly wheat but actually contain
genes from other species that were brought in through
laboratory means. To create variation, using irradiation
and chemical mutagenesis, anything that can create variation,
has been used traditionally. One way to think about
the goals of biotechnology is to acknowledge that these
technologies have not raised alarm, in spite of the
fact that they do create a lot of variation in plant
species. By contrast, what biotechnology or genetic
engineering brings to the table is that it is now possible
to introduce genes from any species and to control where
and when they are expressed. This fundamental issue
should be seen as a mechanism of increasing the variability
that plant breeders have to deal with. That is, instead
of the limitations to crosses that can be made and propagated
by laboratory techniques, it is now possible to take
a very directed approach. The directed modification
of endogenous genes is the other possibility that it
is not all genetic engineering involves bringing a gene
from another species. Some of it involves productively
modifying genes that are already present in a species
by changing the amount of expression or altering the
function of an endogenous gene or altering where and
when the gene is expressed. These basically are the
tools of agricultural biotechnology. They are rather
simple and in fact, the technology for producing transgenic
plants is also simple and natural. Typically, it exploits
a natural process in which a species of bacterium has
evolved. The ability to transfer genes into plants.
In nature, that capability is used by bacteria to colonize
plants and to transfer genes into plants from the bacterium
so that they produce nutrients that support the growth
of the bacteria. The revolution in plant biotechnology,
that was actually partly created by Marc van Montague
and Jeff S____ and colleagues, was to learn to tame
this bacterium so that we could add a gene of interest
to us. Typically what is done is leaf discs, for example,
are dipped in a bacteria that contains a gene of interest
and the cells resulting from that gene transfer can
then be regenerated into plants. It is a fairly low-tech
approach. The knowledge that comes into this is actually
not through the process, but through the identification
and understanding of the genes that are added to the
plant or modified in the plant through the use of this
very simple and rather natural technology.
I think
the question that arises and typically is, "How predictable
is this process, to what extent do we know what we're
doing". I think, perhaps we could have a discussion
about this later, but from my view, we do have a lot
of certainty about what is introduced. There is no questions,
when we make a transgenic plant, typically we know exactly
what we put in and we know where it's gone and that's
very understandable. The manipulation of a plant by
any method, that is the introduction of a gene or traditional
technology, traditional breeding, can create alterations
in the genome of the plant. But the technology of making
transgenic plants doesn't actually in that respect does
not do anything that is not already possible by other
technologies. I think that's a very important point.
Even though none of the scientists involved in this
would claim total predictability of what a transgenic
plant may perform, I think everybody would agree that
the performance of a transgenic plant does not (except
for the properties introduced by the specific gene or
genes) the rest of the variation is within the natural
range that could be created by any other traditional
technology such as mutagenesis or out-crossing. Concern
about creating plants with unknown properties, I think,
is largely unfounded a scientific perspective.
Much of
the debate about plant biotechnology seems to focus
on a, from my perspective, very narrow range of applications.
The BT gene certainly seems to dominate and I thought
rather than discuss things that have wide discussion
already, I'd focus on a few opportunities. From my perspective
and I think from that of my colleagues, we see a number
of opportunities in different areas. There are certainly
many opportunities to alter the nutritional qualities
of plants, to increase the feed efficiency that is the
use for feeding animals (and I'll come to that in a
moment), to decrease the losses to pests and pathogens.
To put that into perspective, I need to tell you that
in Asia and Africa, as much as forty percent of all
plant productivity is lost to pest and pathogens. So
one of the most productive possibilities for increasing
the world food supply is to actually deal with this
problem. To increase the stress tolerance of plants,
one of the major limitations to plant productivity is
stress, (and I'll give you an example later) eventually
as we understand plants in more detail, we believe it's
going to be possible to generate intrinsic yield increases
by modifying processes, such as photosynthesis. We can
certainly adapt plant to agricultural practices. You
need to bear in mind that plant were not created for
our purposes and there are still many changes that would
be useful in plants that would allow us to farm them
or use farming practices in a better way. It is certainly
possible to make novel products, and if time permits,
I will mention this. Particularly technical products,
non-food products that have useful environmental consequences.
This latter refers to idea of actually expanding the
range of plants that we can use. There is, as you probably
know, a movement to move towards a more diversified
agriculture and I think it's true that no plant has
been domesticated in this century because of the difficulty
of actually domesticating a wild plant. There are 250,000
plant species out there, many of which have useful properties.
I think the tools we now have available will allow us
to actually bring some of those plants to use.
Among
food improvements, I thought I would briefly talk about
some possibilities in nutritional values or food improvement.
I'm going to briefly refer to some improvements, pending
and existing in the case of altering the fatty acids,
anti-oxidants and vitamins. There are many other improvements
that can be made in the flavor, color, fiber contents,
the elimination of toxic substances and the inclusion
of health promoting substances. These were not included
in the first generation of products for historical reasons,
but these kind of improvements compose a great deal
of the research on the emerging products. I think it's
inappropriate to consider where the technology is going
without understanding that there is a lot of innovation
in the pipeline. As a first example, I want to describe
briefly a result that was published last week in "Science".
It refers to the fact that a quarter of the world's
people are dependent on rice as a primary staple. Of
those, 400 million are deficient in vitamin A and according
to reports I've seen, as many as a million children
a year die because rice is a poor source of vitamin
A (in fact, it has almost zero). In addition, at least
800 million people are iron deficient for the same reason
and I'll refer to the mechanistic basis of that. A paper
in science by the lab. of Ingo Patrikas, Zurich, reported
the creation of a rice variety with high vitamin A.
This was done by introducing several genes, several
of which came from daffodils and one came from a harmless
bacterium. Basically, what it did was it converted a
compound which is present in rice into Beta Carotene
or pro-vitamin A.
The introduction
of these genes brings the level of that compound to
a level such that now, 300 grams of rice (which is a
low daily ration) will provide the necessary amount
of Beta Carotene to meet people's daily requirements.
A nice aspect of this work, and something I think also
gets lost in the debate, I think that many people tend
to think of plant biotechnology as something done by
big companies. This is absolutely not true of coarse.
Patrikas managed to do this work in a way that he has
given it to the international rice research institute,
which will in the next several years, release it to
subsistence farmers at no cost and no strings attached.
I think it's a very nice example of the potential of
the technology. This was supported, fortunately by the
Rockefeller Institute. It took eight years to do and
it will take three years to reach the fields. Since
the time this work started until it ends, another billion
people will be born. It is very important to remember
the time frame for many of these innovations is long
and the consequence of not doing them is high.
Another
problem with rice is that eating rice decreased the
available iron in your diet because rice, like so many
other cereals has a high content of this compound (it
is a sugar with six phosphates on it). That compound
reacts with iron and makes it unavailable. Patrikas
has also made an innovation that hasn't been released
yet, but has expressed an enzyme called phytes in the
rice, so that the phytes will withstand boiling. When
the rice is cooked, the phytes comes in contact with
the phytic acid and removed the phosphate groups and
makes the iron available in the diet. I think this will
also be a useful innovation in treating that limitation.
As with
many aspects of plant biotechnology, typically there
are many uses for these innovations, and I thought I'd
take this example to show another use. I think one of
the best ways to increase productivity is to increase
the efficiency with which we use things. There is a
concept called "feed efficiency". It turns out that
in most of the animals we use as foods, what determines
the ratio of useful to not useful product is one or
several limitations. So in the case of, for example
many of our animals, it is the amount of phosphate in
the foodstuff that limits the ratio of useful to not
useful. It's been shown that by simply increasing or
adding the enzyme phytes to foodstuff of several animals,
like chicken, you can strongly increase the ration and
decrease wasteful bi-product. I think that innovation
was actually created in here in the Netherlands by a
little company called Mogen some years ago. I think
it's another nice example that illustrates the many
opportunities.
I want
to talk about one more food application that's highly
relevant to everybody in this room. It turns out that
about a third of the calories in our diet come from
vegetable oil or fats. About 80 percent of that comes
from vegetable oil. Plant vegetable oils are typically
not ideally suited for our needs. In particular, the
presence of three double bonds in the fatty acids makes
them susceptible to oxidation. This was dealt with by
bubbling hydrogen through the oil to remove the double
bond. Unfortunately, that process not only removes double
bonds, but it changes the stereo-chemistry of the remaining
double bond. Instead of having all-sys configurations
about 40 percent of the remaining fatty acids have what
is called a trans-configuration. Everybody in this room
is now carrying these trans-fatty acids in their body
from our diet. These are actually worse for you than
saturated fatty acids. The FDA currently has an advisory
on this and is looking into labelling needs. That's
existing technology and I believe there are reasons
to be concerned about it. Until recently, we had no
alternative to that. However, during the last decade,
the genes that are involved in making the double bonds
have been identified and indeed these genes can be used
to eliminate or prevent the insertion of the double
bonds in the first place. In fact, this means it will
become possible to produce plants that have ideal compositions
of fatty acids with respect to human nutrition by simply
using endogenous genes to turn off or regulate the expression
of the endogenous genes. So taking a gene out of a plant
and putting it back in in such a way that it suppresses
the endogenous gene expression.
I think
it's a nice example of a health benefit that is going
to touch everybody and it's just one of many that's
coming along. While I'm on the subject of fatty acids,
I would like to state that my personal interest in this
technology stems mostly from what I consider to be the
positive environmental consequences. Since the mid-80's,
salmon farming, in which salmon are held in pens offshore,
has grown to be a very large industry. However, it is
ecologically not very attractive because to grow salmon
in salmon farms, each pound of salmon requires four
pounds of other fish. So basically, we're going out,
we're catching other fish, grinding them up, feeding
them to salmon. You might ask, "Why are we doing that
and not feeding them soybeans?" It is because the fatty
acid composition of plants will not support the growth
of salmon. However, the same genes or related genes
to the ones I described that could be used to alter
the composition of soybean oil, can also be used to
create modified soybeans that can be used to feed these
salmon and eliminate the need of such a feeding.
I'd like
to conclude by conveying that there are a large number
of opportunities. Many of these opportunities have benefits
for consumers, many have benefits in the environment,
and many have benefits for farmers. Not everything that
we do, in my opinion, it seems unrealistic to expect
that all applications of the technology only benefit
consumers. Furthermore, I would say that this technology
does arise from a very deep knowledge of the underlying
processes in plants. And indeed, the plant community
is currently engaged now in using genomic technology
to determine the sequence of all the genes in several
important plants, including rice. During the next decade
(in the United States, Europe and Japan at least) there
will be a coordinated effort to understand the function
of all plant genes. I just participated in a group that
worked out a plan to complete this process so we're
entering an ere in which we will have complete knowledge
of what's required to make a higher plant and we also
have tools (that I also don't have time to talk about
at the moment) that will allow us to interrogate every
plant as to what each of the genes is doing in that
plant at any given time. Perhaps I will end on that
note, which is to basically say, "There is a lot of
opportunity and there are no limitations in my opinion
to our ability to use that knowledge to improve agriculture
in different ways. Thank you."
Professor
Marc van Montagu
"Chair taking a question"
Thank
you very much for your beautiful introduction and showing
the importance of plant engineering. Maybe we could
rapidly have one question if somebody wants to challenge
or ask for more explanation? Yes, please Ambassador
Schneider.
Ambassador
Schneider
"Ambassador Schneider asking a question"
On the
connection between the history of selective breeding
and current plant biotechnology techniques, one hears
that current techniques are more scary, more unknown,
more threatening. Are they more exact? How would you
compare what is used now with the tradition of hundreds
of years of selective breeding.
Chris
Somerville
"Chris Somerville's response to Ambassador Schneider's
question"
Traditional
breeding is process-oriented. If you gave ten plant
breeders the same starting materials, they would produce
ten different varieties as an end result. It doesn't
depend on a deep knowledge of the underlying biology
and it's rather unpredictable. By contract, biotechnology
is totally knowledge-driven and very predictable. The
result from genetic engineering is hundreds of times
or thousands of times more predictable than the results
of traditional breeding
Professor
Marc van Montagu
"Chair's introduction of Jonathan Eisen"
I am afraid
we have to move on. Now I will ask Jonathan Eisen from
TIGR to talk about the genomics aspects. As Chris has
already introduced, there is an enormous progress we
see now in plant sciences and it depends on the enormous
progress that food human genome programs, all organisms
are making. We will hear more now about micro-organisms
and plants.
Jonathan
Eisen, The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR)
"Microbial and Plant Genomics"
I want
to thank the Ambassador and her staff for organizing
a really amazing meeting. This is a collection of different
interests, different backgrounds. For those of you who
didn't notice or realize, I am not Claire Fraser, who
was originally scheduled to speak from TIGR. She was
unable to attend.
I am
going to speak mostly about genome projects and genome
information done at the Institute for Genomic Research,
where the first complete genome was determined. However,
I want to make a note that there are genome projects
going on all around the world now. An enormous number
of them, both micro-organisms of plants of various eukaryotic
pathogens and of humans and other things. I am going
to focus on the ones we are doing at TIGR.
I am
going to give a little background on microbial genomes
and talk about some aspects of that. Then, I am going
to focus on three particular applications of genomics:
Using genomics to better develop vaccines, or at least
to start develop vaccines; Using genomics related to
bio-remediation, and then; Using genomics to better
understand the evolution of species. In particular what
that says about gene transfer that occur naturally in
the field. Microbiology had it's beginnings right around
here in Delft. Van Leeuwehoek, I probably pronounced
that incorrectly, was the first to document the existence
of these microbes. What we now realize, is that microbes
pretty much dominate this planet. They're the major
causes of pathogenic diseases and still the major cause
of death around the world. In terms of evolutionary
diversity, this is an evolutionary tree of life and
highlighted in the big box are all of the micro-organisms.
Only at the tip of the eukaryotic evolutionary branch
do we see large collections of larger organisms so the
rest of everything: the bacteria; this strange group
of organisms called the 'arkea' or 'arke bacteria' and
even most of the eukaryots are micro-organisms. Micro-organisms
play major roles in global energy and nutrient cycles
as I said in pathogenesis. They are also responsible
for a lot of features of non-micro/macro-organisms through
symbiosis with those organisms. They count for a large
portion of the bio-mass on the planet and they also
count for pretty much the majority of biochemical and
physiological diversity.
In 1995,
before I got to TIGR, the first complete genome was
determined of the bacteria "hymofelous" influenza. I'm
not going to spend time talking about the method by
which the genome sequences are determined but I'm happy
to talk to people about that afterwards. Since that
genome was completed and published just 5 years ago
there has been an incredibly accelerating rate of publication
and release of genome sequences. In addition there are
many being done by private corporations and entities
that are not really releasing them. This is a time line
showing some of the different genomes: in red are the
ones that have been done at the Institute for Genomic
Research and yellow are the ones done at other institutions.
The different colors show different types of organisms
so all the white ones here are bacterial genomes that
continue to be sequenced. The ones in sort of pink color
are arke-bacterial genomes and the ones in green are
eukaryotic genomes or chromosomes and they are many
more like yeast and plasmodiam chromosomes and soon
we will have the complete genomes of many eukaryots
as well. Just another prospective on this just showing
that the determination of complete genome sequences
rapidly increasing and we are going see an even probably
more exponential increase in the next few years. There
are literally hundreds of bacterial genome projects
going on around the world.
Now I
just want to spend a minute or two talking about why
we actually want the complete genome sequence, rather
than just most of the genome sequence. When you have
the complete genome sequence through a variety of techniques
you can determine not just the presence of particular
genes that you might have a hard time determining through
other methods, but also what is very important in some
organisms is the absence of particular genes. For some
pathogenic organisms, in particular pathogenic bacteria,
they are missing key genes that for example regulate
the mutation rates. Many pathogens have high mutation
rates and that in some cases is due to the absence of
genes that limit the mutation rates in other organisms
and you can determine that from a complete genome sequence.
In addition, having the complete genome sequence really
allows you to get a firm grip on a lot of genome features
that having incomplete genomes just doesn't allow you
to do, such as large genome duplications, the order
of genes can be important for understanding the function
of some of those genes, where the genome might originate
its' replication can also be very important for certain
biotech applications. Even when you are missing a small
amounts of the sequence you can be missing very important
things, for example, TIGR just finished sequencing chromosome
II of the plant "Arabadopsis Thaliana" and through a
sort of "curculian" effort of sequencing technologies
we went into sequencing some of the hard to sequence
regions in the centrum area of the genome and discovered
that there were some very interesting features there.
So in many cases people are avoiding sequencing some
of these hard to sequence regions in genomes, but it
turns out that there will be things of interest there
and it is worth pursuing that if at all possible.
Completed
genomes have provided an enormous resource to scientists
as well as to people applying the genomes to particular
studies. For example, when you identify all of the genes
in the genome we run a variety of prediction programs
to try and guess what the function of those genes are.
Through doing that we can identify in some organisms
novel metabolic pathways that may not have been expected
in those species. Novel regulatory elements or just
in general characterizing the regulatory elements. You
can identify genes which are relatively unique to that
organism or which have no predictable function which
may be worth pursuing as novel candidates for interesting
biochemistry or physiology, you can identify pathogenesis
features, "envirolence" features and I'm going to talk
a little bit about using this to identify vaccine candidates.
You can also apply the complete genome sequences to
a better understanding of both species diversity through
"compara-genomics" as well as through characterization
of uncultureable organisms by say "hyberdization" to
arrays of genomes from soil samples you can identify
what species are out there in the soil and what there
properties might be. I'm going to talk a little bit
about insight into evolution of genes and species. But
the real key for genome projects is that they are the
beginning of a lot of biological research. They allow
you to do things that may have been limited before by
not having that sequence information. And most of what
we do from the complete genome sequence requires further
experiments to follow up the guesses we make from the
complete genome sequence or the predictions that we
can make. And so it really is a nice starting point
for characterization of particular species now, to have
its complete genome sequence.
For example,
I've just highlighted a few genomes done at TIGR, done
a search of med-line database and plotted the number
of publications about that particular organism over
time. And you see in this the "mycoplasm genetalium"
as soon as the genome was published the number of other
publications about this species increased exponentially
and it is increasing even further now. The same things
happens with other microbial genomes. The genome sequencing
really does stimulate a lot of research.
I'm just
going to spend a couple of minutes talking about vaccine
development. When you have a complete genome sequence,
it allows a targeted approach to vaccine development
that was difficult or not possible with standard methods
of vaccine development. So, one thing you can do is,
by sequence comparisons, identify genes in your genome
of interest that are similar to genes that are known
to be antigens in other species. And so now, you can
use those as targets for developing vaccines for that
particular species. Through predictions of the structure
of the genes in a genome, you can also identify candidates
that might be on the surface of the organism that might,
therefore, be antigenic peptides. You can use the sequence
to make the DNA-based vaccines, which are being developed
in some places. Another thing you can do is, in a lot
of organisms, the genes that are antigenic are also
genes that are under strong selective pressures in that
species to vary. And many organisms have developed means
to create this variation. And one of those means is
by having phase-variable genes, such that the mutation
rate in these genes in that organism is very, very high.
And it allows that organism to evolve responses to the
immune system rapidly. You can identify candidate variable
genes from the genome sequence pretty well, based on
the sequence features.
This is
an example of some of the methods that are being used,
based on some of the sequence coming out of the malaria
organism, "plasmodium phosyperum". We're in the process,
an international organization of which TIGR is part
of, to sequence the genome of this organism. We take
that genome and we make whatever predictions we can
make, based on the gene sequence and identify candidate
antigens. And these antigens can then can be fed into
a variety of systems to test vaccines, based on those
antigens. It requires some ways of doing experiments
in that species or using those antigens. But, again,
the genome sequence is the starting point for identifying
any of these candidate antigens.
We've
just recently completed the sequence of the bacteria
"Aneasyria Menengititus", which is one of the causative
agents of meningitis. From this genome, it's known from
previous biological work, by people like Richard M______,
that phase variation, the thing I described just a minute
ago is very important in determining the pathogenesity
of this organism. Prior to having the genome sequence,
around fifteen to sixteen phase variables genes were
known in this organism. From the genome sequence, we
can identify at least fifty new phase variable genes,
or likely phase variable genes from this species. Therefore,
that increases the possibility of vaccines, based on
these genes.
Now I'm
going to talk very briefly about another application
of genome sequencing. In this case to understanding
organisms that survive in extreme environments and the
potential application of that. In this case, TIGR has
just finished sequencing the genome of the bacteria
"Dynacoccus Radiodurands", which is most radiation-resistant
bacteria known. It can survive doses of gamma radiation
that will start to melt the test-tubes that you're growing
it in and it really doesn't care too much that it's
getting that dose of radiation. These are doses a thousand
times greater than, let's say, the bacteria E-coli can
survive. It's also extremely resistant to desiccation,
to mutagenesis, to UV radiation, to just about anything
you can throw at it.
This is
just a map of the genome sequence. From the genome sequence,
we went through and tried to identify likely genes involved
in some of these resistant processes. In particular,
we focused on looking at genes that might be involved
in protecting the organism and the genome from this
damage. For example, you can scavenge oxygen radicals.
There are various mechanisms that will allow an organism
to tolerate the damage, even when it occurs. In particular,
what we were most interested in is genes that were involved
in actually repairing the damage. In particular, repairing
the damage to the DNA of the genome.
This is
a list of the DNA repair genes, putative DNA repair
genes in the genome that we have identified, based on
comparison to other species. What this allows you to
do, is to take that list of DNA repair genes and either
go in because some genetics is available in the species
and target disruptions in those genes and see if they
really do account for the extreme resistance of this
organism or you can transfer those genes into other
organisms to see if they make those other organisms
equally radiation resistant. So far that has not been
the case for the genes that have been transferred into
other organisms.
What Dynacoccus
is actually being used for more is to take pathways
from organisms that can degrade toxins, for example,
and transfer them into Dynacoccus Radiodurands. Because
Dynacoccus can survive extremely high doses of radiation
and for long periods of time, the hope is that in mixed
contamination waste sites you can introduce toxin degrading
pathways into Dynacoccus, release Dynacoccus in that
environment where it will be able to survive the radiation
and at the same time degrade the other toxins that are
in this environment. It's not clear whether this is
going to work. In particular, I think it has a potential
not to work because Dynacoccus Radiodurands is not the
most competitive known. The only way that people have
really been able to isolate it, is be irradiating the
heck out of a sample and it's the only thing that's
left. Before you irradiate it, it's very difficult to
isolate it. It's present in very small levels and it
doesn't out-compete the other organisms that are there.
It has potential to be used as such a bio-remediation
device, but we really don't know whether or not it's
going to be efficient at such a process.
The last
topic I'm going to talk about with complete genomes
is, using genomes to study evolution. In particular
to learn about gene transfer among organisms through
evolutionary comparisons. The general model for evolution
of organisms that was around for a long period of time
was a model of vertical inheritance. That is, you start
it with some individual organism or a small population
of organisms. These are split into different lineages
and those lineages evolve separately into different
species at the end. It's been known for a long time,
that among populations, there is a reasonable amount
of gene flow within a species, but there is some gene
flow between closely related species (hyberdization
in nature). But there was little information on gene
transfer between organisms. There were specific cases
that were well documented, for example, exchange of
plasmids. In this case just a model of say some green
species of bacteria and a red species of bacteria next
door and there are many well documented cases where
small pieces of circular DNA, called plasmids can be
exchanged from one organism to the other. If the green
feature is due to the genes on this plasmid, then this
organism would essentially become green.
There
have been many other examples of gene transfer in the
environment involving things, such as viruses, transposable
elements, the agro-bacterium plasmid that we've heard
about already. This bacteria transfers some of its genes
to plants, in order to cause the plants to produce compounds
that are useful to that bacteria. The general amount
of this gene transfer is considered relatively minimal
compared to the total size of genomes. Specific cases
of gene transference involving large amounts of DNA
were well documented with transfer genes from organelles
to the nucleus; from the mitochondrion chloroplast to
the nucleus of organisms. Mitochondrion chloroplasts
were originally living bacteria. They are now a symbiosis
with eukaryots and they've transferred many of their
genes to the nucleus. From "Arabadopsis" chromosome
two sequence, we find many more cases of this organelle
to nuclear gene transfer then we previously expected,
including a 275 kilobase section of the mitochondrial
genome inserted, very recently, into the centromere
of Arabadopsis chromosome. And many other cases on Arabadopsis.
From all the genome sequences that have been coming
out, we find that gene transfer appears to be more of
a rule than an exception. Studies of the deep-branching,
early-evolving bacteria "Thermatogo Maritima" clearly
show that there have been enormous amounts of gene transfer
between thermophillic bacteria Anarchia, as I mentioned
in Arabadopsis Thaliana. In Dynacoccus, we actually
believe that some of the smaller chromosomal elements
will actually be referred to as the chromosome two and
the mega-plasmid may actually have come from other sources.
Again, this appears to be the rule in organisms rather
than the exception - enormous amounts of transfer involving
huge chunks of the genome either at one time or over
long periods of time.
And so
this is what the tree of life actually really looks
like. It's not a tree of life, it's a web of life or
a network of life where gene transfers are occurring
constantly between organisms. What this means is not
just that the tree of life is really a web of life,
but, related to this conference, that genetic engineering
is actually going on in microbes quite a bit. They're
transferring genes and sampling diversity of processes
by soaking up DNA from other organisms and thereby possible
evolving new pathways or new resistances to things.
So this gene transferring is occurring all the time.
It can actually be extremely precise in nature, in that
single genes inserted into very particular regions of
the genome through regulated processes, very similar
to targeted genetic modifications being done in labs
now. However, what this also means - it is a double
edge sword - it also means that it is likely that when
we make genetically modified organisms some of those
genes could be transferred to other organisms and should
be considered a potential process either through viruses
or bacteria or recombination or hyberdization. All sorts
of mechanisms allow this. What appears to be the most
important thing, at least from the evolutionary analysis
to determine or not whether these gene transfers occur.
Not the possibilities of the genes being exchanged.
That appears to be very easy. But whether or not, the
gene that is exchanged can be maintained in the new
organism. First you have to have a strong selection
to keep it there. In addition it has to have the right
features to fit into that organism's replication and
genome processes.
So just
to end…The genome sequences are the starting point for
a lot of more detailed research. They have provided
a lot of insight into things like lateral gene transfer.
They also allow people to do genome-wide experimental
studies, which we will probably hear more about later,
such as genome micro arrays and things like that. Things
that have not yet been done, but we'll continue to do
in the future are comparisons of closely related species,
such as human and mouse or very closely related bacteria.
And that provides a very different type of information
than the comparison of distantly related organisms.
Professor
Marc van Montagu
Thank
you very much for taking us into the world of micro-organisms.
If we think how many endorphines, animals, we ourselves,
and plants are carrying that have never been studied.
If we realize that in the micro-organism, maybe ten
percent can be isolated and studied. Now we can proceed
with that, which is a really important activity for
society, that is now developing thanks to the sequencing.
I think also that evolution is complicated and that
the spreading of genes is complicated. Until now, society
has never discussed it and has not been informed and
you give us the cues to do it.
Is there
an urgent question please? Then, in order to stay on
time, we will keep it for the general discussions. Now
I call on Steve Tanksley, from Cornell University. The
title is very clear, "There is No Such Thing as a 'Natural'
Red Tomato". We will now see what is at the heart of
the discussions on genetically modified organisms.
Steven
Tanksley, Cornell University
"There
is No Such Thing as a 'Natural' Red Tomato"
Thank
you very much for the opportunity to speak. What I would
like to talk about is one aspect of biotechnology and
genomic research which is not often thought about. That
is the role of this technology in utilizing natural
diversity in plants for improvement in plants. First,
I want to dispel the title of my talk, which is "There
is No Such Thing as a 'Natural' Red Tomato". You have
all seen them in the supermarket and grown them in your
gardens. There are nice luscious tomatoes. Whether these
are natural is a matter of perspective.
I think
to put everything in perspective, we have to remember
that even though there are tens of thousands of plants
that grow on this planet, only a very small number sustain
humans. On the order of thirty plants species account
for almost all the fruit and fiber produced in this
world. In terms of human evolution, the existence of
these crop plants is a very recent phenomenon. More
than ten thousand years ago there were not such things
as crop plants. Humans did not exist in a settled agricultural
situation, but were hunter gathers, taking what was
available in the wild. In these times, these plants
they were using are very different to what we have today.
For example,
if we look at tomato and imagine what we have here in
the supermarket and actually go back to the wild where
tomatoes came from in South America, along the western
coast, you find that tomatoes look more like this. The
first thing you will notice is that these are very small
berries. They are very full of seed. They do not have
nearly as much flesh as would one of these cultivated
types here. The second thing is that, even though some
of these are red, the most common form of wild tomatoes
is green. They do not produce this nice red lycopene
that we associate with tomatoes. The last thing is that
most of these wild types have compounds that are toxic
to humans or would at least make you ill. That is in
part a defense mechanism because these plants have to
defend themselves against insects and herbivores. The
reason these berries are so small is that one of the
mechanisms for survival in the wild is dispersal. You
have to reproduce yourself and the progeny has to spread
over some distance for the species to survive. These
wild tomatoes are very small and full of seed because
they are harvested by small rodents and birds, which
can pick them up and carry them some distance to spread
the species. These cultivated types have much exaggerated
fruit. In fact, the change in size between these wild
types and cultivated types is up to a thousand-fold
difference. This change in size is quite striking. If
you were to put it into perspective with a human body,
imagine that magnifying your body a thousand fold could
be quite absurd or obscene. The point of this is that
these plants now produce something useful for humans
at the determinant of the plant. These cultivated tomatoes
no longer could survive in the wild. They put, first,
far too much energy into the fruit itself, to the detriment
of the plant and, second, these fruit could not be dispersed
easily, except perhaps by a very large eagle. This is
not a unique situation.
If you
look at other plants that feed the human population,
the same thing has occurred. This is on the western
tip of the Fertile Crescent, which is in Northern Israel.
This is Dr. Nivo from Haifa University. He is a plant
ecologist and evolutionist. He is here out along the
roadside, holding up a piece of grass, which if you
look more closely is actually a close ancestor of cultivated
wheat. If you are familiar with cultivated wheat, you
would immediately notice that this is a much smaller
spike than you would see in a cultivated type. The cultivated
type would be up to ten times larger and bear many more
seed and much larger seed. The second difference is
that these seed drop off before harvest, which is a
natural dispersal mechanism. If we were to look at these
ancestors of wheat, which is what our ancestors actually
began cultivating, their productivity is very low from
a human perspective, but very adapted from the plant
perspective. The reason they drop off the seed, which
is good for the plant, is dispersal, but for humans
you could not harvest them because of the shattering.
Humans have modified a few plants so dramatically that
these plants can not survive on their own. In fact,
they owe their existence to us and we owe our existence
to them. If it were not for this first revolution in
genetics, there would be no civilization.
One of
the side products of this process, in addition to producing
these very abnormal plants which we associate with agriculture,
is that it put plants through a bottleneck which we
call a genetic bottleneck. Humans did not domesticate
all wheat, tomatoes or rice. They domesticated a few
selected types that were more to their liking and from
those they selected additional ones which had new mutations
and accumulated a sufficient number of mutations desirable
from the human perspective, not from the plant perspective,
to produce these cultivars which were the early domesticated
which gave rise to settled civilization. In the last
hundred years, there has been a remarkable application
of the knowledge of genetics of breeding to further
reduce genetic variation, while producing higher yields
and productivity. The end of this process is plants
highly adapted to human use, but also much lower genetic
variation than was present in the wild. We have realized,
for some time, that this variation that was the source
for these crop plants in the beginning, is the same
variation with which we have to make progress in the
future.
Without
genetic variation, even naturally induced, there is
no improvement of crop plants. Starting at the early
part of the century, there was a directed collection
of plants, wild and related species of crop plants to
put into gene banks, with the knowledge that we would
need these for future improvements. One of the dilemmas
of this whole situation is that we have collected large
amounts of genetic material hoping to improve crop plants,
but if we actually look at how well it has been utilized,
it has been fairly minimally utilized. If we look at,
for example, rice and we look at all of the collections
of rice that make up gene banks, only a small proportion
of those variants have made their way into cultivated
types that are used around the world. Tomatoes are even
more severe. If you look at all the tomatoes you see
in the supermarket from cherry tomatoes to the very
large beefsteak tomatoes, their amount of variation
is less than 5% of what is available in nature. The
reason it has been difficult to utilize this natural
variation is because plants have some thirty thousand
or more genes. To go into these plants and specifically
identify the genes you would like to transfer, which
are beneficial against the background of these many
other genes, many of which are not beneficial, has been
problematic for plant breeders. The processes of plant
breeding are not conducive to transferring a few genes
or identifying a few genes.
Crop plants,
this fairly small number of species we depend on for
agriculture, have been highly modified to the point
that they really are unique and dependent upon humans
and us on them. Domestication itself reduced genetic
variation, on which we depend for further improvement
of plants. The dilemma we face for the future, and Chris
Sommerville already made this point, is that the world's
population is continuing to grow and to meet those demands
we have to continue our agricultural production. The
first green revolution which took place in the late
50s and 60s, was a combination of genetics and technology,
the genetics being breeding and the technology being
the application and availability of petroleum based
pesticides and fertilizers, and to develop crops that
are compatible with those. This resulted in a huge increase
in production, and was quite successful. The second
green revolution, most likely, can not depend on a further
input from petroleum based products; first, because
there are limited supplies and second, because of the
damage that is caused by the applications of these in
terms of contamination of the environment and also,
in some cases, the food supply. Our next green revolution,
if we are going to keep up with food production and
also provide for a sustainable quality of the environment,
will have to be almost entirely genetic.
The dilemma
is that the variation we have to deal with has not increased.
In fact it has decreased and without variation we can
not make progress. This just shows results from rice.
This is looking at the production of rice under optimal
conditions and look at the varieties that are available.
This is post green revolution. This is after some of
the semi-dwarf varieties of rice came out. We see that
while the varieties under substandard conditions may
be more productive, if we optimize conditions, the genetic
potential has not changed greatly. It has been a fairly
flat curve. Unless we can turn that curve up, we have
some significant problems ahead.
One of
the applications I mentioned for the genomic research
and biotechnology is actually going back to the ancestors
of our crop plants and bringing back variation for selected
genes in a manner that can help produce better crops.
One of the goals in my own lab has been to look into
processes of this. We have been using the entire tomato
genus, which only has one cultivating species and many
wild forms, and looking through these genomes for genes
that could increase productivity. The tools we have
done this with are a combination of genetic tools and
molecular biology. It allows one to go in and identify
the position of the genes controlling any number of
agronomic characters and to selectively pick out sections
of the genome from these wild plants that have potential
for increasing productivity. As a result of this, we
have been able to identify many of the key points or
mutations that allowed tomatoes to become domesticated
to produce these large edible fruit. With this knowledge,
we are now able to isolate the genes involved in this
domestication process. The implications are that, first,
if one has the genes available which are the key set
of genes involved in the key changes for humans, one
can look more directly for natural variation, or second,
one could actually create a set of novel variants in
the laboratory, which could help increase productivity.
The second point is that, as we learn what the steps
are or what the switches are that converted wild plants
to domesticated types to produce products humans like,
like large fruit, we can imagine in the future that
we may be able to add a second wave of accelerated domestication,
so we do not depend on only thirty plant species and
grow these at the exclusion of other plants. Perhaps
we can modify existing natural plants adapted to environments
to produce the products that we desire.
I want
to show a slide that shows some of the surprises that
come through search wild plants for genes of agricultural
value. We have been screening through the wild tomato
germ plasma with these molecular mapping and probing
techniques, looking for genes for value. One of the
traits we have looked at is increased production of
lycopene, which is the red pigment that we all value
so much in tomato and in tomato products. We have been
successful in finding quite a few mutations or novel
variants in wild types that increase the production
of lycopene. Here is an original variety we started
with and here is one modified by adding a gene from
of these wild species. The surprise comes in that the
gene that we isolated, or in this case we transferred
a small piece of chromosome, actually came from a plant
that does not produce lycopene at all. This is Lycopersic
Eeurpseudum. It produces no lycopene at all. Nonetheless,
it has at least one gene that has a form, when transferred
over here, that can increase color production. There
is much hidden potential in wild germ plasma flowers.
As we move into the future and we have to go into the
second green revolution using genetics and genomic technologies,
we will have to depend on finding variation like this,
both from wild tomatoes and also other plants from which
we can bring in novel genes.
I want
to end with this collage that shows a number of crop
plants. Again, these are very highly modified forms
that have been useful for human success and that is
something humans have created. We have to continue modifying
these in a form that can benefit humans, not at the
expense of the environment. When it comes to making
a judgement about which technologies we use to create
the variation to improve plants, I think we should not
make a judgement about the technology, but we should
make a judgement about what the goals are of the technology
and if the goals are justified, there is no reason why
one should accept plant breeding as a "natural process"
and transgenic plants as a non-natural process. In the
large scheme of this, it is all a non-natural process,
in that we have modified plants for human benefit that
can no longer survive in the wild. But if we look at
in the scheme of co-evolution, we are co-evolving with
these plants and we have to use the technologies available
to do the benefit to both us and the environment.
With that
I'll close. Thank you very much
Professor
Marc van Montagu
Thank
you Steve and Ambassador Schneider says, we will not
take questions now. We'll keep the questions later when
all the presentations have been done.
Now we
will switch to animal production and animal production
for developing countries. With Steve, we've already
seen how important biotechnological contributions can
be to improve this agriculture. So I call on Tony Irvin,
from ILRI, to speak on what biotechnology can bring
and how is the situation of animal production in the
third world.
Tony
Irvin, International Livestock Research Institute
"Genomics and Livestock: Changing the Face of Animal
Agriculture in the Third World"
Over
1 billion people live in absolute poverty, attempting
to survive on less than US$1 per day and nearly 800
million (more than the combined populations of N. America
and Europe combined) do not have enough to eat. Over
95% of these people live in developing countries. At
the 1996 World Food Summit, the leaders of the 186 nations
represented pledged to halve the number of people living
in absolute poverty by the year 2015. Within a longer-term
horizon, the world population is estimated to reach
10 billion by the year 2050 - a doubling in 55 years.
Some 90% of this increase will be in developing countries.
A doubling of world population will require a greater
than doubling of food production if we are to meet new
demands and make up existing deficiencies, particularly
of livestock-derived products (milk, meat and eggs).
Achieving these targets will place enormous pressures
on food production, agricultural land and world economies.
To meet the world's needs, it is estimated that food
production in the next 25 years must equal that of the
last 10,000years. Currently the world cultivates some
15 million square kilometres of land (about the land
mass of South America). If we continue to rely on conventional
farming techniques this area would need to increase
to some 40 million square kilometres (equivalent to
the whole of North and South America). Simply increasing
land area is not enough. Already, most of the world's
fertile lands are intensively cultivated and much over-exploited
land is losing its fertility or, worse still, reverting
to a severely impoverished state which can no longer
support economically viable agriculture. If future food
production is to be conducted in sustainable ways that
will not destroy the environment nor deplete natural
resources but, at the same time, meet the increased
demands, there must be:
· Improved efficiency of food production
· Reduction in wastage of food products
· Introduction of new technologies.
Food
production made a major advance in the developing world
in the 1970s as a result of applying new technologies
in plant genetics - this led to what became known as
the Green Revolution. This initiative, coordinated by
the Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR), resulted in development of improved
varieties of wheat, rice and other cereals that were
particularly suited to growth in small-holder farming
systems in developing countries. This led to an enormous
upturn in grain production bringing food security to
millions of people in many countries. Current levels
of grain production are now, in very broad terms, sufficient
to meet global needs. Problems arise, however, due to
difficulties of distribution between the developed and
developing world and lack of purchasing power of poor
people. Continued advances are, of course, still needed
in crop production to meet the needs of growing populations
but, over the next decades, there will be a disproportionate
increase in the demand for livestock products as compared
with crop products in order to meet the changing demands
of peoples' diets (particularly driven by increasing
urbanisation and rises in per capita income), and to
address dietary deficiencies, particularly of women
and children through provision of vital nutritional
ingredients and micro-nutrients from animal sources.
Table
1 compares the expected changes in annual demand for
meat (from cattle, pigs, sheep and poultry) and milk
between developed and developing countries over a 20-year
period to 2013. The implications, opportunities and
challenges represented by these demands of the developing
world are considered by some to be as great as those
that accompanied the Green Revolution of the 1970s.
Table
1
|
1993
(annual demand - metric tonnes) |
2013
(annual demand - metric tonnes) |
% increase |
Developed
countries |
|
|
|
Meat |
100 |
115 |
15 |
Milk |
245 |
263 |
7 |
Developing
countries |
|
|
|
Meat |
88 |
189 |
114 |
Milk |
168 |
391 |
133 |
Source: Delgado et al (1999) "Livestock
to 2020. The next Food Revolution". IFPRI/FAO/ILRI.
Food agriculture and the environment. Discussion paper
28.
Over 90%
of the livestock in developing countries are owned by
small-holder farmers and, quite apart from their role
as producers of food, livestock play critical roles
in other ways which contribute to sustainable farming
systems and to human welfare. They produce fibre (wool)
and skins (leather); they provide draught power for
tillage and carting; they convert poor quality feeds
and crop residues into high value food products, and
produce manure for fertilizer and nutrient cycling;
they are a form of capital investment (particularly
for landless people); and have important social values
in many different societies. Livestock thus play a critical
role in both the sustainability and intensification
of crop production systems within small-holder systems,
and without livestock to provide draught power and manure
for fertiliser, crop production, in many such systems
would be severely compromised. However, within these
small-holder systems, livestock productivity and productive
potential are seriously constrained by 3 main factors:
· Diseases which kill or debilitate animals
· Low genetic potential in terms of productivity
· Poor quality and/or inadequate supply of feeds
While
major improvements to livestock productivity in developing
countries can be achieved through more effective application
of existing knowledge, biotechnology has the potential
to provide new opportunities and options in terms of:
· Improved animal health (better vaccines, drugs
and diagnostics) · Animal genetic improvement
· Improved nutrition through improved feeds
Livestock
diseases kill millions of animals every year in the
developing world, and millions more suffer from the
debilitating effects of chronic disease. These are losses
which the poor small-holder farmer can ill afford. The
death of a dairy cow on a small-holder farm, for example,
can mean the difference between subsistence survival
or poverty and famine. Although the major pandemic diseases
of livestock (e.g. rinderpest, foot and mouth disease,
Newcastle disease) can be effectively controlled by
vaccines in developed countries, their control is not
always effective in developing countries where distribution
channels, cold chains and vaccine affordability pose
serious problems. Furthermore, there are a number of
tropical diseases for which effective vaccines are still
lacking. Examples are trypanosomosis, theileriosis and
contagious bovine and caprine pleuropneumonias. Genomic
techniques can be applied to identify and isolate highly
specific antigens for development of improved vaccines
against specific diseases. It can provide the means
of making these vaccines strain-specific against target
organisms, heat-stable for use in tropical climates,
and it offers the prospect of these vaccines being more
readily affordable by poor people. In the longer term,
multi-valent vaccines will be developed that allow concurrent
vaccination against several diseases. Gene sequencing
may identify novel biochemical pathways within pathogenic
organisms that can be targeted by specific customised
drugs, or such pathways may be amenable to immunological
attack through new vaccines. These highly targeted and
specific approaches are in contrast, for example, to
the use of chemicals to control disease vectors, such
as ticks or tsetse flies, where the indiscriminate use
of pesticides (particularly in the hands of unskilled
and possibly illiterate farmers) can have serious environmental
consequences.
Specific
antigens, identified through gene sequencing and other
approaches, are improving the accuracy of disease diagnosis,
without which effective disease control and animal health
improvement programmes are seriously compromised.
Long-term
adaptation of indigenous livestock in developing countries
to local climatic conditions and diseases has allowed
the evolution of local breeds and strains of animals
which are highly resistant to the endemic diseases,
tolerant of local environmental conditions of heat and
drought, and well adapted to survive on poor quality
feeds. Adaptation to these conditions is as a result
of genetic selection that is inherited by the offspring.
Although livestock in these environments often appear,
through Western eyes, to be malnourished and stunted
and they may lack the genes for high milk or meat production,
they are nonetheless exquisitely adapted through natural
selection to survive and be productive in the absence
of management intervention. Characterisation and identification
of the markers linked to the unique genes present in
such populations is now possible through the biotechnological
approaches of molecular genetics and other techniques.
For example, genetic markers associated with tolerance
to bovine trypanosomosis have been identified in Ndama
cattle from West Africa, and markers linked to resistance
to haemonchosis (gastro-intestinal parasitism) have
been identified in Red Maasai sheep in East Africa.
Marker-assisted selection (MAS) programmes are now being
applied to introgress these genetic traits into breeds
with higher production potential. The application of
MAS and other advanced genetic techniques, in order
to combine the resistance genes of livestock from developing
countries with the production genes of developed country
livestock, could provide the optimal animals for both
tropical and temperate environments. The alternative
approach is to take the adapted livestock of the tropics
and introgress into them the higher production genes
that have been selected in temperate breeds. Genetic
improvement approaches, however, presuppose that the
management levels under which these livestock will be
reared allow for optimal expression of improved traits.
While
it is likely to be some time before specific genes linked
to genetic markers can be identified in livestock, and
the genetic manipulations currently applied to micro-organisms
and plants can be applied in a practical way in animals
at the farm level, genetic analysis and gene sequencing
of the major domestic species will allow identification
of molecular and biochemical mechanisms and pathways
which are responsible for specific physiological traits
or disease resistance. This understanding will allow
us, for example, to understand disease resistance mechanisms
and develop new vaccines and drugs to control specific
diseases. Selection of animals on the basis of genotypic
rather than phenotypic markers will allow improved cross-breeding
programmes to be undertaken and genetic improvement
to advance more rapidly.
It is
vital that the unique genetic pool of indigenous livestock
breeds (and of wildlife) that exists in many developing
countries is conserved and utilised as appropriate,
so that valuable genetic material is not lost through
injudicious cross breeding or simply through neglect.
A major international programme through the International
Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), the Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO) and similar organisations is seeking
to identify and conserve key populations and breeds,
and preserve this rich bio-diversity for future generations,
both for the benefit of the countries concerned and
of mankind as a whole.
While
health and genetic constraints are major impediments
to improving livestock productivity in developing countries,
nutritional constraints (in terms of feed quantity and
quality) are probably the most important of all. Most
small-holder farmers cannot afford, or do not have access
to, quality feeds to allow animals to achieve their
full production potential. In such cases livestock have
evolved to subsist on poor quality grazing or crop residues
and wastes. Such feeds are often deficient in energy
and key nutrients. Thus animals are being required to
be productive on diets that would not even allow survival
of Western breeds let alone additional output in terms
of production. Biotechnology can be applied, however,
to enhance the feed quality of plant residues on which
many livestock are fed. The genetic manipulation of
factors such as leaf/stem ratio and "stay-green" traits
can greatly enhance the nutritional value, for livestock,
of crops such as maize, sorghum and millet, the residues
of which form a major component of the diet of cattle
and small ruminants in many small-holder systems. In
the longer term, there are good prospects of manipulating
the rumen micro-flora, which are responsible for metabolising
feed in ruminant species, to break down anti-nutritive
factors or degrade fibre and lignin, thus increasing
the nutritive value of poor quality feeds such as straws
or potentially toxic feeds such as certain legumes (high
in protein). Furthermore, it is likely that there are
genes amongst the rumen micro-flora which control novel
biochemical pathways that could have potential bio-medical
or commercial value.
The international
community is already aware of the potential value for
human medicine of tropical plants, and bio-prospecting
for novel pharmaceutical and biological agents is increasing
rapidly. On the livestock side, considerable efforts
are now going into exploring the rumen micro-flora and
into identifying the factors in blood-sucking arthropods,
such as ticks, to identify those which can suppress
or activate normal host responses and allow the ticks
to continue feeding. Good progress is being made towards
identifying some such factors that can suppress allergic
responses and could have a role in treating human conditions
such as asthma.
ILRI is
the only institute with a global mandate for livestock
research. It is applying modern molecular and genetic
techniques in animal health, genetics and nutrition
to address livestock problems in developing countries
and, in this capacity, is uniquely placed to provide
the link between the Advanced Research Institutes of
the developed world and the National Agricultural Research
Services of the developing world, responsible for introducing
and implementing the new technologies that will enhance
food production. ILRI also has an important role in
transfer of technologies and in training, so that the
new technologies can be made available to, and applied
by, scientists in developing countries. Current livestock
production methods are unlikely to be able to meet the
increased demands for food production, and new technologies
are required to provide new options and innovative ways
of increasing both crop and livestock production. The
enormous progress made in recent years in biotechnological
research now offers us the tools to tackle these challenges.
The international community, through the CGIAR and similar
organisations, can once again take the lead in applying
science towards a revolutionary solution to the problem
of food production in the developing world. The potential
to develop and apply the tools of modern biotechnology
and take these from the world's advanced research laboratories
into the farms of the small-holder farmers in poor countries,
heralds the start of a Gene Revolution which could massively
increase food production and address the problems of
food security faced by millions of impoverished people.
Susan
Mayer, Genewatch UK
"How Safe is Safe: Biotechnology and Risk Assessment"
Thanks
very much for inviting me to speak today.
I think
there can be little doubt among any of us that there
is a dispute going on about the safety of genetically
modified crops and food. And the reassurances that come
from industry and regulators, that the GM foods and
crops that we are growing and eating now is safe and
those in the future will be because of the regulations
we have in place. These arguments simply aren't accepted
by large sectors of society, both the U.K. and the rest
of Europe and increasingly, I think, in the rest of
the world. At the bottom of this lies a dispute, a controversy
really over what a safety assessment involves, on what
it's scope and what its focus should be. And that's
what I want to look at this morning. Because unless
we understand this dispute, this controversy, we're
going to remain locked in a very unproductive situation,
a highly polarized fight, if you like, over genetically
modified foods and crops.
What
I'd like to do is look at four areas where we can
see this controversy being played out. Those four
areas are:
-
Firstly,
precision and predictability. This is a dispute
over whether technology is precise and predictable
or not.
-
The
quality of the evidence we have available to us
to make judgements upon which to base our regulations
and other decision about safety.
-
Thirdly,
a questioning about the potential benefits. Whether
they are real. Whether they will be felt.
-
And fourthly,
the boundaries of the risk assessment
I'm going
to look at each one of those in turn. First of all,
we'll look at precision and predictability. I am going
to compare two statements as we look at this. If we
look at the first one of those, which comes from Monsanto,
who emphasize and say, "This more precise science allows
plant breeders to develop crops with specific beneficial
traits and without undesirable traits…" If we compare
that with an alternative view from a geneticist, who
emphasizes the unpredictability in the long term…"With
genetic manipulation, there's a huge new evolutionary
risk and what's been proved safe today may change into
something different tomorrow."
But secondly,
there's a controversy over the quality of information
available to regulate us. So on the one hand, we have
commentators saying things like, "Nothing has escaped,
got out of control and done harm. This technology comes
to us tested and regulated as none before." But on the
other hand, we have other, such as Erik Millstone and
Tim Lang questioning that evidence…"The value of that
[safety] assurance is, however, undermined by the poverty
of evidence on which it is based."
And even
thirdly, with its potential benefits on whether this
will improve our quality of life. On the one hand, we'd
have a view -this is from Jack Cunningham, who is a
U.K. politician - the "Genetics of science can give
us potentially huge gains for our well being. We can
make peoples''lives better, improve their health, stop
pesticides." But on the other hand, we have a different
view. This is from Andrew Simms, "We feel that instead
of improving lives, GM foods could strengthen the very
market forces that leave the poor poorer and make the
rich richer."
But it's
the fourth area, the boundaries of the risk assessment,
the boundaries of safety, where I think things have
kind of come to a head, where all these things come
together. And it's that which I am going to focus in
on now - the boundaries of the risk assessment - for
the rest of my talk. And the official focus of risk
assessment that comes out in a regulatory framework,
is on the technical dimensions - the genetic modification
itself. But, not only the technical issues will actually
affect what the final outcome will be. Whether the technology
will prove to be safe or harmful in the long-run. Because
there are two other things, agricultural and socio-economic
issues that will impinge on the outcome. I'm going to
go through each of these areas in turn: The technical,
the agricultural and the socio-economic and show why
a more rigorous approach to risk assessment, a more
scientific approach to risk assessment has to actually
encompass these dimensions. When they're discounted,
as they are at the moment in official versions of safety,
that simply isn't safe enough and it is not broadly
accepted as being so.
So, first
of all, I'm going to examine the technical dimensions
to it and emphasize some of the technical issues, which
means there are some questions to answer about safety
in the long term or what the effects might be.
The first
of these is obviously that genes are being transferred
between unrelated species. But also that, although we've
heard that this is a precise technology, that you can
choose the type of characteristics you're going to investigate,
the actual process in one of random integration with
an unpredictable number of genes being integrated and
often being reversed in the actual process. In addition
to that, we have a situation where over very short periods
of time, selected organisms, those best performing organisms
in a laboratory are tested on a small scale before being
released on a potentially enormous scale. This is a
very compressed time period, if you like, in terms of
environmental health testing. Of coarse there are pressures
in time, from getting financial rewards from the investments
in the technology. But parallel with this, we've got
to remember that these aren't trivial changes that are
being made to organisms. They're quite dramatic changes
to how the organism will behave. So we make a crop resist
a chemical, which would have killed it previously. We
make it toxic to an insect that would have eaten it
without harm before or we make it resistant to a disease,
which would have previously killed it. And also we see,
hidden below here, another dimension. That is, the same
genetic modification is being used not only in one species,
but across a whole variety of different species. So,
in oils, maize, cotton, soybeans, so on and so forth,
the same changes are being made. But you may say, okay,
these are differences. We can perhaps agree on those.
Are they relevant? Are they really important? Do they
matter? And isn't it the case that we have experience
with natural and other systems to be competent. Well,
I just want to carry on now and just say - staying with
the technical issues - why these things are relevant
and important.
First
of all, to turn to natural gene transfer between species,
which I think is different. It take over much long time
periods and organisms taken out of context and multiplied
up. When I talk about natural gene transfer, I'm referring
to both agro-bacterium, perhaps mediated methods in
the natural environment, but also the increasing evidence
we're seeing from studies of genomics that we have evidence,
even in ourselves and lots of higher organisms have
genetic material, which probably came from other species,
like viruses for example. So it is different, but also,
traditional breeding can't hope to replicate the scope
and form of change that is offered by genetic modification.
These things, together with the changes, mean that we
can quite logically expect there to be effects, ecologically,
bio-chemically and physiologically that have to be addressed.
Furthermore, what is going to be worryingly hidden by
the bottom of the podium is perhaps one of the most
important messages, is that we have limited experience
with this new technology. Our knowledge is actually
limited. It isn't complete. Neither about the technology
itself nor the organisms it's going to be used in. And
so, predictions are going to be uncertain. These technical
issues I've referred to are, to more or less extent,
with lesser and greater rigor, addressed in quite a
lot of environmental and food safety assessments. But
I want to go on now and just outline the dimensions
that aren't really covered even though they will influence
the effects on the environment and on food safety.
Firstly,
I'm going to move on to agricultural issues. Some of
the relevant things there include, firstly, patenting.
Alongside and parallel to the introduction of genetic
modification, we now have patents on crops, which is
forcing changing relationships between farmers and seed
companies, and it may also in the long run, through
the privatization of genetic material, obstruct plant
breeding in the public interest. We're also seeing seed
production being dominated by fewer and fewer companies,
raising questions about food security in the long run.
Thirdly, seeing the potential for changes to bio-diversity,
through altered agricultural practices, changing patents
on pesticide use, changing patents on land use. And
again, we have this situation where we're relying on
the same gene across many species, which may make crop
vulnerable to failure in the long run. And that's not
just on a local scale. It's on a regional, national,
global scale because the same kind of changes are not
being used in just one country. They're being used globally.
And finally,
another area agricultural issue, which will affect the
outcome is that although safety measures are going to
be put into place and farmers are going to be asked
to follow the rules, they may be unable or unwilling
to follow them. Not out of badness, but simply because
the practicalities of farming make life quite difficult
sometimes. So, having isolation distances to reduce
gene flow may be difficult. Cleaning your vehicles out.
They're important things which may mean that safety
rules aren't being followed. But by and large, with
the exception of efforts now in Europe, very welcomed
to start to address some of the biodiversity issues
of altered agricultural practices, these areas are discounted
really in the risks assessements.
But now,
let's move on to the other area of socio-economic issues,
where we're also seeing situations that are being ignored.
I'm going to look at four here, and the first of those
is that there are alternatives. Alternative options
exist in terms of producing food and growing crops,
which aren't being explored. There's no comparative
safety evaluation. Because of coarse, we don't have
absolute safety. There's no zero risk. But we can make
comparative evaluations and that isn't taking place.
Could we grow crops more sustainably by developing organic
and IPM more. When we look at things like rice with
vitamin A and iron, although I think those kinds of
developments are very welcome and seem to have a real
benefit, it's also not the case that it's the rice which
is at fault for not having enough vitamin A and iron,
it's simply because people don't have enough money to
buy fruit and vegetables. So there are alternative,
which we must weight up, compare and contrast. But also,
as a part of neglecting alternative is that we don't
rigorously look and examine the actual benefits. What
are the benefits? Are they real? We should critically
evaluate them. I think that is partly, what also doesn't
take place in the risk assessment, is a look at the
justification for taking risks. It's not openly addressed.
I really think that what has happened is in the evolution
of the regulatory framework, this being taken for granted
assumption, a very unscientific, uncritical assumption,
that GM crops, GM foods will bring benefit. That they
will be beneficial. I don't think that that is a very
rigorous way of looking and trying to find the best
option in the long run. Perhaps where the most obvious,
the most great omission has taken place is that there
has not been the allowing of choice and influence in
the marketplace. And that's because, labeling, where
it exists has been restricted to situations where there's
altered chemistry. Where there's altered DNA or protein
in the final food, meaning that many derivatives from
many GM crops simply go unlabelled, like the oil from
GM soybeans. Unfortunately, this isn't, in a plural
society, where there's a new technology, which raises
ethical issues, questions about environmental safety,
equity, it's not an acceptable basis for allowing choice.
I think you can see that by thinking about - if I held
up two eggs now, one of which was a free range egg and
the other came from an intensively farmed chicken -
and said to you that you can't have these labeled. These
are chemically the same. There's no proven health reason
why one is better or worse, so they can't be labeled.
That would not be perceived, that would not be accepted
as an acceptable situation. People want to make choices
for other reason than on the final chemistry of the
product.
I think
we can see now that the narrowing of the boundaries
of the risk assessment that's taken place - this lack
of comprehensiveness of risk assessment - has had some
extremely serious consequences. Not only do people quite
rightly consider that relevant parameters haven't been
included and therefore the pronouncements of safety
remain disputable. Also what happened is that democratic
traditions have come under threat. We live in a market
place. Yet people haven't been allowed the right to
work out and make choice as citizens inside that marketplace.
That's not necessarily a safe society to encourage developing
in the future.
But also
there's the situation where other options are being
developed in the interest of a particular industry.
There are other business opportunities and other fields,
which are being potentially neglected because of the
narrowing of the boundaries of the risk assessment.
And also, we're seeing that by characterize as much
as possible, we see in the rhetoric that GM is really
very little different from traditional breeding in technical
terms. By narrowing the boundaries, what we're tending
to do is rather than encouraging scientific inquiry,
ironically we're trying to, or tending to, suppress
scientific inquiry by not admitting that these other
issues are relevant and will affect the outcome. We're
not looking into them.
As a result
of the narrowing the boundaries of the risk assessment,
and looking at the results of what has taken place as
a result of that, we've actually seen the first evidence
of direct harm from GM crops and foods. And that really
is that the biotechnology industry has come to the verge
of collapse. Certainly, it is the agricultural biotechnology
industry, certainly in the UK and Europe and it looks
very wobbly elsewhere. An interestingly, that's the
industry developing them. And yet I believe, that if
these risks had been evaluated, that was a consequence
that never was never incorporated in the risk assessment.
And yet, of coarse it's extremely relevant, looking
at those industries, the people that work for them and
so on and so forth.
Finally,
where do we go from here. How can we take some lessons
forward from what's gone on; The controversy, which
has taken place here and is growing elsewhere. Can we
come to some agreement on what would be an acceptable
definition of 'safe'. I think there are three things
that we need to do. Three pre-requisites if you like.
Firstly, we need quite urgently to have a public involvement
in a debate about the future of agriculture and food.
To have an agreement on what would fulfil our aspirations,
in environmental and health terms, in sustainable agricultural
terms in the future. Secondly, we also need to recognize
that if we're going to have a rigorous approach, we
also going to need a broader base to the risk assessment
of GM crops. And finally and perhaps crucially, the
one thing I don't think that GM foods will go anywhere,
unless it's accepted, is that unless there is the recognition
of the right of people to choose, based on the method
of production, this will be seen as an imposition and
will be fought. I would predict, tooth and nail, whatever
innovations tend to come along and that may be a very,
very damaging state of affairs. Thank you.
Professor
Marc van Montagu
Thank
you very much for summarizing your perceptions on risk.
Now we go on again with animal biotechnology and ask
George Hershbach from Pharma to talk on new biopharmaceuticals.
George
Hersbach, Pharming Netherlands
"Animal Biotechnology: New Biopharmaceutical for
Critital Diseases"
I am very
honored to have the opportunity to speak to you today
and I would like to change the application of biotechnology
by focusing on human health care. In particular, I would
like to present to you the power of what I believe is
a very promising and strong technology, which is animal
biotechnology and the power of developing new biopharmaceuticals
for diseases that today can not yet be treated. Let
me go a little wider and look at the opportunities for
health care and biotechnology. There are more than 100
products from biotechnology on the market, treating
diseases that 20-25 years ago could not be treated yet.
The in-depth research of the Human Genome Project has
helped us tremendously. 20-30 years ago, pharmaceuticals
were simple chemical entities, not easy to make at all,
but certainly not human elements. The Human Genome Project
brought us to understanding the genetic make-up of the
human body. We far better understand the causes of diseases,
particularly when certain people develop a disease as
a result of a genetic disorder. It can be as simple
as a human body that is hampered when trying to produce
the correct amount of a certain essential factor, as
a result of which the human being gets diseased. There
are, based on all that knowledge, more than 700 of these
novel biopharmaceuticals, that I have been able to find,
currently in clinical trials for various clinical diseases.
What are
the challenges in the heath care arena? First, if you
want to treat complicated diseases it is very unlikely
that you can do that with simple products. Biotechnology
has become an essential tool to try and address those
diseases. Furthermore, the requirements for purity,
in particular, by using a biopharmaceutical perentirally
as an injection has become more stringent. Last but
not least, traditional production methods are not sufficient
anymore. We need advance technologies to make those
pharmaceuticals for those critical diseases.
Here is
where I believe animal biotechnology comes in-- making
biopharmaceuticals in milk. Why in milk? It is renewable.
You can milk an animal for a long time. The potential
here, when compared to traditional biotechnology, fermentation
from microorganisms, or from natural sources, such as
human blood, are that, first and foremost, it has a
broad applicability. It can make complex products to
treat those critical diseases. We have experience that
the safety of products coming from milk is significantly
higher as opposed to, for instance, human blood. Using
human blood as a source for making pharmaceuticals for
treating critical diseases, you run the risk of contamination
of viruses such as HIV or Hepatitis. Milk does not have
that problem. Large animals have a large production
capacity for these types of products. Last but not least,
especially for cow's milk, you are talking about a production
system with relatively low costs. You do not need a
multi-million dollar investment. This job can be done
with a relatively simple, though up-graded, and very
clean farm facility.
What we
aim for here is addressing a mathematical need-- that
so far has not been met-- true production of these very
advanced biopharmaceuticals in milk. What I would like
to do is explain a little more about the technology
and give you clear examples of products that are being
developed to treat critical diseases. To generate animals
capable of producing very valuable biopharmaceuticals
in their milk, it all starts with the genetic information
that controls the production of the biopharmaceutical
of choice. Together with an element that directs the
production specifically to the mammary glands, that
genetic information is inserted into the one cellular
stadium, an egg, of the animal of choice. That egg is
cultured in the laboratory to an embryo and the embryo
is transferred to a recipient mother animal. After the
gestation period, you have the birth of a genetically
modified animal, a small animal that has been taught
to make the biopharmaceutical in her milk. Obviously,
by doing it in rabbits, the process is quicker, but
they make less milk. Our choice is to let the market
determine the species of choice. If it is a large market,
with a large amount of biopharmaceutical required, we
choose cow's milk. If it is a small market, we go to
smaller animals such as rabbits. As soon as you have
such an animal you can generate a colony. A large number
of female animals, and we have specific manners to do
that, that are able to produce those biopharmaceuticals.
Those animals you can milk on an ongoing basis for quite
a long time. You can process the milk, purify the products
and you end up with the active ingredient basis for
the ultimate medicine. It can either be oral, which
is easy for milk, or it can be a topical product or
a perentiral product. The two examples I will give are
perentiral, which means that they are administered to
human beings as an injection.
There
are clear timeline differences. I already told you that
rabbits are a lot quicker than cows. However, we have
taken a novel technology into use by generating cows
capable of generating those biopharmaceuticals. This
is the technology of nuclear transfer, often loosely
referred to as animal cloning. That is not to make a
bunch of identical animals. That is not the purpose.
The purpose is to shorten timelines-- to reduce time
to market. To make those critical and valuable pharmaceuticals
available to the patients who are in desperate need.
Let me move to some products. I will present the medical
needs that have been identified. First and foremost,
genetic disorders-a great opportunity for animal biotechnology.
Infectious diseases, tissue and bone damage, cardiovascular
disease, and surgical procedures. As you can see, in
each of these areas there are one or more indications
already under development. I would like to focus today
on two critical diseases-Pompas and hereditary endudema.
The latter is an uncontrolled immunoreaction. People
suffering from this genetic disorder miss an essential
element in their human blood and through outside influences,
like hitting your body, burning or a bee-sting, these
people develop huge swellings. If you have a bee-sting
on your neck you might actually suffocate and die. The
only thing these people miss is an element called Human
C-1 ascurase inhibitor, a complex compound that today
comes from human blood. There are more patients in the
Western world than we can collect for from human blood,
let alone the problems associated with human blood that
I have already referred to. For that reason, animal
milk is an ideal basis for making these products and
this product in particular. You may not be surprised
that we are working with the Netherlands Red Cross in
Amsterdam to develop this.
We are
currently in a pre-clinical stage. Later this year,
we will start the first human clinical trials. We are
very confident since we know what the product is like
and because there is already a limited product available
from human blood. We have received from the U.S. FDA
orphan drug destinations for this product and this application.
That gives us protection for seven years market exclusivity
in the U.S. I am very happy that there is a similar
law under development here in Europe. We can get similar
protection. This investment in these limited markets
can only be justified if you have the opportunity to
get a return. Otherwise, we would not be able to find
investors interested in these types of indications.
The next
product is one of the leading products of my company.
It is targeted at the treatment of Pompas's disease--
another critical genetic disorder. It is lethal, hereditary
and muscle related. People suffering from this disease
miss the compound human alpha glucosidase. They do not
have enough or they have none at all, a result of which
is that they store the carbohydrates that they eat.
They do not convert it all to energy, but they store
it in their muscle cells. This results in the muscles
disfunctioning and the patient ends up in a wheelchair,
with respiratory and heart problems. More often than
not, they die from respiratory failure. For this disease,
there is no product available. Infants that are diagnosed
with the disease normally die three or four months after
diagnosis. They have a mean survival rate of two or
three months after diagnosis. I am happy to say that
in our clinical developments, we have a number of infants
and actually all of the infants that have entered are
still alive. They have been living since their inclusion
a year ago. This is a significant increase in survival
rates. We can also see that these children develop the
milestones, muscles and develop better than normal Pompas
patients, but not like normal children. They do survive
and they do relatively well. We are also currently treating
elderly patients between the ages of 10-25. We hope
to continue to do that. We have just initiated a multi-center
trial. Here you can see that a compound that no one
has been able to make in the last 15-20 years, since
we know what causes Pompas's disease. Animal biotechnology,
making these products in milk, has a significant potential.
Again, an orphan drug destination has been given to
us by the U.S. FDA and we hope to be able to file for
registration later this year.
There
are many more products under development. I have given
a simple overview. But I do want to point out to you
that there is an exclusive relationship between my company
Pharming and the American Red Cross. Why is that? I
have already mentioned the safety issues associated
with making biopharmaceuticals from human blood to treat,
for instance, hemophilia. The problems with that are
clear and the U.S. Red Cross has developed over the
last 15 years. The only alternative that they could
find to make these compounds was to make them in animal
milk. Once they were successful, they decided that they
could not do this on their own, but they needed to go
to a specialist in the area to make sure that the time
to market would be as short as possible. Needless to
say, we are proud that we have been selected as the
American Red Cross partner in this area.
It is
important in any biotechnology, but also in this area,
to be able to patent the technology and products. We
have been able to do that throughout the world, as you
can see. In most of the jurisdictions where I believe
we need them. Let me say a few words about the company
and the commercial side. We are a biotech biopharmaceutical
company that started as a spin-off of the Netherlands'
oldest university, Leiden University, about 11 years
ago. We grew nationally and internationally, acquiring
a small company in Finland and establishing subsidiaries
in Belgium and the U.S. That is where we currently are
- in nine locations in these four countries. We employ
190 people, who all work very hard to make these biopharmaceuticals
and bring them to the market in the shortest possible
time. We have been financed over the years through grants
from governments, as well as equity. We are now a stock
quoted company on both the ESDAQ, the European NASDAQ
equivalent, as well as in Amsterdam.
Let me
draw some conclusions. First and foremost, animal biotechnology--
making biopharmaceuticals in milk-- offers the opportunity
to produce products with improved properties and clearly,
if you compare it to human blood, with improved availability.
Large quantities can be made. Therefore all the patients
suffering from diseases can be treated. We have already
shown that we can produce products with an effectiveness
that otherwise could not be made. The safety is there
as well. That can not be said for all blood products.
The timelines for these developments, if I just point
out to you that we started with Pompas' disease in 1995
and we will most likely have it on the market next year,
are significantly reduced. The normal timeline of ten
years to market, we can most likely reduce to 5-6 years.
There are very competitive manufacturing costs, needless
to say, if you make things in milk. Particularly cow's
milk is relatively inexpensive as compared to other
technologies. Last but not least, reduced capital investments.
Let me finish with a quote from Art Levinson, "In the
next quarter of a century, we will see a quantum leap
in medical research. There is a distinct possibility
that even within the next ten years there will be cure's
for Parkinson's disease, hemophilia, AIDS and cancer."
I believe that producing biopharmaceuticals in milk
using animal biotechnology will be an extremely important
tool to develop these biopharmaceuticals to develop
therapies to treat diseases that currently can not be
treated.
Professor
Marc van Montagu
Thank
you very much. We're exactly on time. I would like to
ask the speakers to come to the table now, so that we
can start the discussion part, in which I hope you will
actively participate. Who would like to start while
the participant are moving into place? Remember, we're
also on internet, so that people from outside can follow
this.
Question
and Answer Session
with a Panel of Morning Speakers
Question
for Steve Tanksley: In the
process of providing solutions for societal problems,
environmental problems, I think the time factor is very
important and I also think that it is the success factor.
Related to this, I have two questions: 1) Can you estimate
the acceleration factor of the domestication with biotechnological
aids as compared to one without, and 2) What is the
absolute requirement in time spans for domestication,
using biotechnology aids?
Answer
from Steve Tanksley: I'll try to answer your question.
I think both the answers will be theoretical because
we don't even now know how long the domestication process
took originally, since that was thousands of years ago.
I have to answer it, understanding that we don't know
what the original time was. Also to point out that the
idea of accelerated domestication is something that's
also theoretical. But taking a best case scenario, one
could identify the set of genes required, to have say
produce a large edible fruit and simultaneously remove
any toxic compounds, one could theoretically transform
a plant and that's a really short period of time. I
guess the answer is it would probably be much faster
that the original domestication, but until one actually
did the experiment, we wouldn't actually know how many
genes would be required nor how long it would actually
take.
Question
continues: Is it years or ten years or fifty years?
Can you roughly estimate?
Answer
from Steve Tanksley: Well, if we had the genes in
hands to transform a plant from a non-edible type to
an edible type, the transformation experiment itself
is quite short. We're talking about a matter of a few
years. Some transformation technologies are already
developed. In that narrow context, it would be a very
short period of time.
Next
question: I have a question for Mr. Hersbach. In
the animal biotechnology that Pharming is doing, I believe
there is a rather large portion of DNA, human DNA, that
is inserted into each cell of the recipient organism.
My question is, In this portion of DNA, there are remnants
of virus infections that the human donor has had?
Answer
from George Hersback: Indeed you're right. We insert
human DNA, or I should say copied human DNA, into the
single cell, into the egg of the animal. You have to
understand that this is really synthetic, or if you
will, artificial DNA. It's copied from the human sequence.
So the likelihood that there are viruses in there is
absolutely nil because it's made in the laboratory.
Question
continues: I don't mean actual virus, but pro-virus
material, which are remnants that are incorporated in
the DNA portion. I have inquired into this and I've
heard that this is a possibility. Furthermore, it is
a possibility that is small, but nonetheless existent
that this pro-virus material recombines with animal
viruses, which is able to infect human beings.
Answer
from George Hersbach: That is assuming that pro-virus
is inserted or present in the construct. I don't think
it is and I think we have a significantly proved that
it isn't there because it is really copied DNA. It is
made in a laboratory.
Question
continues: If you copy DNA, you copy the pro-virus
material as well. I think that if you produce in this
way a solution for sick people that are in the amount
of 5,000 or 10,000 in the whole world, and introducing
a risk like this, which is small but nonetheless existent,
for the whole world population. I believe it's a rather
big risk to take.
Answer
from George Hersbach: I understand your concern
and I respect your concern, but you have to understand
that we are producing a product that we believe cannot
be produced in any other way for treating these critical
diseases. Indeed, we're focused, at least today, on
those diseases that are caused by genetic disorders.
These people could otherwise not be treated. I think
the whole process of generating the animals, purifying
the product, releasing the product and formulating the
product, is done with the utmost care and quality control
and insurance, which is normal for the pharmaceutical
industry. It is certainly very normal for the pharmaceutical
production done by biotechnological means. I believe
that the risk associated, that you're alluding to in
this type of technology, is not any different then any
technology andcertainly not any biotech. means. I, nevertheless,
think that given the level of quality control, given
the type of tests that we are doing in every single
step that we minimize that risk, in my opinion, that
may be in existence.
Question
continues: Do actually check for the presence of
this pro-virus material?
Answer
from George Hersbach: I wouldn't be able to tell
you because I don't have a molecular biology background,
but I would be more than happy to look into that.
Question
from the cybercast audience: Is it true that genetically
modified corn is not grown in developing countries?
Answer
from Steve Tanksley: I'm not sure I have any better
answer than you do (referring to Marc van Montague's
comment on the definition of a developing country).
I don't know the extent to which transgenic maize is
grown in developing countries. Certainly, it is growing
in Argentina and probably being grown in other parts
of the world, but I don't know the specifics. It's not
an area that I…..
Supporting
answer from Marc van Montague: It's grown in China,
but I don't know on what scale. (Prompted by Ismail
Serageldin, he responds with) Fourteen percent of the
transgenic acreage in Argentina. One to two percent
for the rest of the developing counties.
Next
question from the audience: I have a question for
Mr. Eisen. You said in your speech that we are now slowly
finding out what the web of life really looks like now
when it comes to horizontal gene transfer. You also
said that engineering in nature can be extremely precise.
I think it is one of the critiques towards genetic engineering,
that we lack a lot of knowledge still in the understanding
of how this web of life and horizontal gene transfer
is happening there. Also, seeing that it can be so extremely
precise, we first need to know how this web of life
works in life. How do the genomes work and why is it
so exact. Our applications, these transgenic plants
are really interfering with something we don't know
enough about and we don't know what we're doing there.
I would like you comment on that and I also have a question
for Mr. Tanksley. What do you see as an option to guarantee
to farmers that don't want to use GM plants. How do
they keep that possibility. The problem of contamination
is a severe problem for many people and it's associated
with the treat to democracy, as it is perceived by many
people. I would like to know if you have a view on how
to solve that problem.
Answer
from Jonathan Eisen: I think in terms of gene transfer,
we definitely don't know an enormous amount about how
it occurs and how often it occurs and exactly where
it occurs in nature. We know that it is very common
among certain organisms, in particular among organisms
that grow near each other. In some cases, it looks like
organisms can take up DNA from the soil or from the
water so that they don't actually have to be in proximity
to the organism that is the donor. It' correct that
we don't know an enormous amount about exactly what's
going on with gene transfer in nature. I would probably
disagree that that necessarily means that we can't assess
the safety and related issues of genetically modified
organisms. Nevertheless, without having that complete
knowledge of gene transfer in the wild. I think that
because we have documented, it is generally agreed that
gene transfer has been very common. That closely related
species certainly are exchanging genes all the time,
as well as distantly related species that genetic modification
per say of organisms is not a totally new thing. It
is not a fundamentally paradigm shift. And so that the
individual organisms that are being modified, are the
things you have to consider whether or not they are
safe rather than the concept of modifying organisms.
I don't know whether you would like to address that?
Answer
from Steve Tanksley: Yes, I guess the one questions
is about how does one assure that non-GMOs would be
availble in a market where GMOs are sold and produced.
I think the answer to that is one that is also the answer
to the how do seed companies currently keep varieties
separate, since different varieties have different out-crossing
rates and varieties can cross-contaminate each other.
Seed companies already have requirements on isolation
differences between varieties when they're being produced
for seed production. I think the applications of those
same regulations would be the same for GMOs and non-GMOs
to maintain purity, so people can buy non-GMOs if they
wish.
Question
continues: If I may add another question. The complaints
that are coming from farmers now is that companies may
do that, but in the field, contamination is happening.
And the complaints from farmers now is that they want
to work GMO free. This is impossible in the way this
is going now. In a few years time, everything will be
contaminated.
Rebuttal:
I think that's only true if the farmer is propagating
their own seed - collecting their own seed and replanting
each year. I think the majority of the production taking
place, is from seed which is obtained from normal seed
outlets.
Question
from the audience: I have a question for Susan Mayer.
I understand I have to look for a new job as soon as
possible if I follow your recommendations. I understand
your questions, but I'm not sure whether I understand
your recommendations and answers you give. You're putting
forth the right questions, but I'm not sure whether
I understood the answers. For example, you say, 'Can
we come to some agreement on the safety?' and you gave
three answers to that. And the first answer was, 'We
need a public involvement about the future of agriculture
and food'. The second is, 'We need to recognize the
broad base of genetic engineering' and the answer you
gave was, 'You have to recognize the right to choose'.
Could you clarify to me how this relates to your question
of 'Can we come to some agreement on safety?'
Answer
from Susan Mayer: Yes. The first one to do with
the debate on where we want agriculture to go is that
when we come to evaluate safety, what we do is we normally
make comparisons. So we say, for example, in the evaluation
of environmental safety of GM crops that this GM crop,
if we compare it to conventional agriculture, that's
what happens in the UK at the moment, that it is as
safe. It is no more dangerous. I think that yardstick,
as a yardstick for safety, needs some discussion. A
lot of people would argue that conventional agriculture,
in terms of environmental protection, is not a very
rigorous yardstick. So, that's what I mean. We need
to debate what we want. What the goals are. What the
yardstick should be for safety in the sense of weighing
things up. If conventional agriculture is seen to be
damaging and things don't weigh up in relation to other
options, of coarse safety takes a different perspective.
To go
on to the second one, the broadening of the base, what
I was trying to describe there is that things, issues
that will bare on final safety aren't actually being
systematically addressed. So, let's take one of these
issues that came up earlier about separation. Whether
farmers can physically and will practically follow the
rules. There might be refuges to reduce the likelihood
of insect resistance. There isn't anywhere that I see
any rigorous sensitivity analysis, for example, in terms
of the risks over following or not in different ways.
That's just one example, but in lots of ways, what are
the issues around having seed market control by a few
companies.
The last
one, which you may find most puzzling, "What has choice
got to do with safety?" I think we need to look at the
world and safety is not just about whether I drink this
glass of water and I don't drop down dead. Safety also
has to do with a kind of security and our respect for
other people - the kind of cohesion for our society,
how our society operates in is sustainable. One of the
thing we feel at the moment, and we live in a very plural
society - you know, the different religions, the different
races, the mixing - and we have to have respect for
people's different wishes. We have to try to find ways
to accommodate that because that will be the most sustainable
way forward for society. We don't want to create unnecessary
divisions. I think the only way that we will do that
with GM foods at the moment is if we allow that element
of choice. So we allow people to exercise their extremely
deeply held convictions and ethics about the concerns
of gene transfer. That they can al least have some influence
in their own personal behavior, even if it doesn't affect
anything else. That they can keep their own integrity.
That's a dimension of social safety that we need to
address, as well as these little technical dimensions
that we are perhaps more familiar with thinking about.
Next
question: My question is to several of the panelists.
I've heard so many interesting new aspects of biotechnology
that I would like to hear from several of you, with
respect to the third world, what are the benefits of
biotechnology in the near future; near, medium-term
and long-term future. Specifically, it was brought up
that 80 percent of farming is in the hands of small
farm holders and I would like to know how, biotechnology
is applied by the small farm holder in the developing
world.
Answer
from Chris Somerville: I think that the rice example
that I cited this morning, in which a new rice variety
with a high pro-vitamin A content is going to be distributed
by the international rice institute free of charge.
One of the attractive things about the technology is
that in contrast to the first green revolution which
required input, the input in this era is knowledge input.
Once that investment has been made, it doesn't impose
additional cost. So in fact, I think it's very beneficial
to subsistence farmers in the developing world.
Supporting
answer from Marc van Montague: I think this morning's
session has also pointed out how all the genetic tools
can now bring in new crops in circulation that in this
century, until now by breeding, no new plant has been
introduced as a food crop. At the moment, with all the
rapid sequencing and the databank available, genetic
maps will be done from a lot of plants that are typically
poor farmers' crops. The crops of the subsistence farmers
about which until now, no scientist could be interested
because he would never have received the ground because
the task was so immense. You could never convince a
panel that you could achieve something there. Now we
have the tools so that we can do it. And quite some
universities and organizations are planning it. I think
it will be taken up very rapidly. I think we'll see
a lot of success there.
Question
from the audience: I have a question to the plant
speakers of this morning. If we're discussing risk,
we need to balance the risk of one strategy against
the risk of another strategy. I think, there is now,
ample experience in the United States with insect resistance
or herbicide resistance in plants. Is it possible to
draw any conclusion on the impact of the use of these
plants on reduction of insecticides or herbicides?
Answer
from Chris Somerville: Last year, the use of BT
cotton resulted in the elimination of the use of 200
million pounds of insecticides.
Comment
from the audience: It is just a brief intervention,
more than a question. As a biotechnologist, I want respond
to the first person that made comments about DNA sequence
copying and so on. I can imagine that before copying
a sequence of DNA and inserting it into a cell, the
company or scientist in question would have entirely
sequenced the fragment of DNA and found out what each
individual gene does, and what it is and whether there
are any pro-viruses. I can imagine that before any DNA
fragment is introduced, it will have undergone complete
sequencing beforehand.
Question
from the audience: Are you aware of the sequencing
of the genome of the major pro-plant. You said also
that the sequencing and the information about DNA sequencing
is essential in the characterization of a certain species.
How is this information controlled? Who owns this information?
How will small plant breeders be able to use this information?
Is there a danger that big seed companies have control
over this information and how is sequencing information
going to influence the future of molecular breeding.
Answer
from Jonathan Eisen: If I said otherwise, I didn't
mean to imply that most microbial genomes have been
done. A couple have been done. If you look at diversity
of microbes, than we have in fact very poorly sampled
the diversity of microbes. In terms of plant genomes,
there are a large number of plant genome projects underway,
including the genetic model plant "Arabadopsis Thaliana",
which is not a crop plant, but it is considered a model
for a lot of experimental work in plants and that should
be completed within a year - the complete genome of
Arabadopsis. As for crop plant, there are genome sequencing
projects for rice, for corn, for a lot of other crops,
as well as expresses sequence tag projects for a lot
of crop genomes. As to sharing the data, places like
TIGR are funded by government grants and we're required
to release all of our data at a certain point to the
world. Than we publish papers on the genome and prior
to that, release most of the data and then eventually
release all of the data to make it publicly available.
There are plenty of projects being done at private corporations
that don't always release all of the data. So, if you're
interested in a particular organism, you can't really
rely on the private corporations to release that data.
We need a public effort for getting access to that data.
There are patent issues where certain companies make
patents on genes and gene information for some of those
crops that they hope to use for various biotech. and
related issues, and that's a very separate issue. I
think, in the long run, those have been very beneficial
to research and development of products related to those
organisms. So I think it prevents use of those genes
by other companies for profit. But in the long run,
most of that data is also released, to be used by scientists
and other people.
Chris
Somerville: I misspoke when I was asked earlier
about the reduction of pesticide use. The total amount
of insecticide used on field crops last years was 200
million pounds. I don't have the actual numbers for
what the reduction was, but about 65 percent of that
was used on cotton and between 50 and 60 percent of
the cotton was transgenic. So you can get a rough estimate
of the decrease in use.
George
Hersbach: (Rebuttal to the comment/intervention from
the audience) Yes, if I may, it was based on the
first question about these pro-viruses and the audience
person added some information to that. Another piece
of information that may be of importance is that by
assessing risk, if any, is the fact that the production
is actually done in the milk as you know. And, there
is no transfer of viruses known to milk. Milk, in that
respect, is very, very safe. Even if a mother animal
- in our case that isn't the case, but - even if the
mother animal is infected or has some kind of disease
that is not transmitted to the offspring through the
milk. In that respect, it's another argument in favor
of the safety of milk and producing biopharmaceuticals
in milk.
Marc
van Montague: Coming back to problem on the question
of patents, we turn to a question posed by the cybercast.
Cybercast
question: Is it true that biotechnology inventions
can be patented?
Marc
van Montague: That means that public opinion can
be very sensitive to what can be patented and not. If
someone from the panel, who has experience with industry,
would like to answer that.
Answer
from George Poste: The answer, simply put is, yes.
Why diversity, inventions, biotechnology are subject
to patent protection, whether it be a gene, a product
from that gene or a process for making that particular
protein. So you can apply patents at multiple levels.
I think there's a lot of misinformation that is circulating
about what intellectual property provisions constitute.
In biotechnology, this word ownership get contaminated
in the debate. There's no such thing as ownership of
a gene. The only thing that intellectual property confers
is the right to utilize that commercially in a particular
setting. If you have a patent on a human gene, then
you don't own the human gene in any individual. You
have a commercial opportunity to utilize that gene whether
as a diagnostic, as a therapeutic or as a vaccine. I
think, where there is legitimate ground for concern
in the patenting arena, and it often happens when the
technology is new, the patent office itself, whether
it be in Europe or North America, may not be familiar
with that technology and therefore grant overly broad
patents. I think we've seen several examples of that
in biotechnology where we are actually seeing overly
broad patent granted, which I think can be legitimately
criticized as restraining research in the arena. But
I think where patents are very carefully drawn, that
they actually prescribe a specific utility. Than I think
time has taught us that that is in fact the only commercial
incentive that provides protection for the investor,
who invest in these daunting levels of 600 million U.S.
dollars that is now needed to produce a new pharmaceutical.
And without a measure of intellectual property protection
no one in the investment community is going to step
up to make that level of investment.
Question
from the audience: My question is for Tony Irvin.
It relates to the biosafety discussions that we have
here in Europe and the freedom of choice discussion
we have here in Europe. Also seeing of coarse, the social
safety issue occurring. My question to you is, 'Do you
think that this discussion, and the way it's going on
here in Europe, helps the freedom of choice in developing
countries?'
Answer
from Tony Irvin: I think the important thing is
that the developing countries are sufficiently informed.
I think we don't perhaps have sufficient representation
here today from the developing world. There are very
significant developments in the field of biotechnology
in many, many developing countries. Increasingly emphasizing
the training, the importance and needs. One of the difficulties
across developing countries is that they don't have
the financial backing that is present in the developed
world to pursue these technologies and in many cases,
they have to rely on the knowledge that is being passes
down to them. I think it's extremely important to give
those people empowerment through training, through involvement
in the technologies. Not just to attract people out
of developing countries to work in the States and Europe.
But for those people, to give them the empowerment to
apply this technology in their own countries while addressing
some of the problems that are faced in those countries.
I simply do not believe that by improving management
or applying existing knowledge is going to be sufficient
to meet the enormous demand of food that the increase
in population is demanding.
Marc
van Montague: Since the reaction in Europe is mostly
political, it has an enormous impact on developing countries.
We also take decisions at the political base. Even in
Mexico, the nice results that are obtained there for
aluminum tolerant plant cannot be applied because the
government say that Europe says that it's dangerous
and we're too close to the United States to believe
what the United States said. So we don't allow you to
use your own invention because of what Europe is doing.
We see that same at the moment in Thailand they are
questioning and even in China they are very sensitive
to what Europe says because sometimes in a political
situation this could be used. So indeed, the decisions
that we are making and the education that still has
to come in Europe has an enormous influence on the applications
in developing counties. I think at the moment that that
is even more important than science.
Question
from the audience: I have a question for Mr. Hersbach
on your earlier remark about the safety of milk as a
medium with respect to viruses. Am I right in believing
that aids can in fact be transmitted from mother to
child through the mother milk?
Answer
from George Hersbach: I don't know to be honest
with you, but I don't think so.
Remark
from the audience (from upcoming chairperson, Eric Claassen):
I have to remarks about this discussion. One is that
we're not talking about normal viruses here. We're talking
about retro-viruses like aids. And the essence of retro-viruses
is that they integrate into the mammalian DNA. Therefore,
essentially although viruses per say have difficulties
being transmitted into the milk, of coarse retro-viruses
have not because they integrate into the mammalian DNA,
and as we all know, the farmers are paid also on the
cell count of the level. Meaning that in all the milk
we consume, mammalian cells are present, albeit to a
low level, but the are present. Therefore, by definition,
pro-viruses and retro-viruses might be present in those
mammalian cells. Now this doesn't say anything about
the issues discussed before about decreased safety.
It's a well-known fact that if you synthesize C-DNA
for insertion into a transgenic animal, than the sequences
are always synthetic, thereby, matched with existing
databases, also matched for all known retro-viral sequences.
That is an essential and applied safety step, which
is now in place. So we have two discussions here: One
is non-retroviral viruses, and therefore, you can say
that milk is safe, and the other one is retro-viral
sequences and therefore all science I know and all publications
I know have sequenced, synthetic DNA and have matched
against universally available Washington database, where
all these sequences are available and updated on a weekly
basis.
LUNCH
SESSION
Koos
N.M. Richelle,
Director General International Cooperation
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of the Netherlands
Chairperson
Chair:
Let me first introduce myself - my name is Koos Rochelle
and I'm director general of international cooperation
of the Netherlands. I think the reason that the ambassador
of the U.S. has asked me to chair this luncheon meeting,
is that from our line of duty, in the ministry of foreign
affairs and development cooperation, we have strong
ties with the speaker of today, Mr. Ismail Serageldin
- not only personally, although we meet him in very
many instances - he's a very important man - he knows
about everything, you could say. But also because we
support him on a number of issues that he is really
carrying forward in the world bank or in specific functions
attached to that. Also in the field of biotechnology,
we are supportive of some of the activities around the
world, and in this case I might mention the consultative
group for international agricultural research that Mr.
Serageldin chairs. For us its not only a matter of technology,
we of course, feel a certain responsibility toward developing
countries not that we want to take their place in terms
of ownership of processes, we have to acknowledge that
institutional capacity in many developing countries
in all fields, but certainly in the fields of biotechnology,
is limited. It's not only a question of using developing
countries as experimental fields for development of
biotechnology, but also making sure that they profit
in very responsible way, from all the benefits that
biotechnology can offer. In our opinion, biotechnology
might be a solution, for instance, for having food security
all over the world. Also in developing countries. But
apart from technical aspects, we in the Netherlands
of course are very much interested in the ethical norms
and value aspects connected to biotechnology. From our
side, the Netherlands, more than one ministry is interested
in biotechnology. As far as development cooperation
is concerned, we are supporting out of a budget of 7
and a half billion guilders, not more than 10 or 15
on biotechnology. So it is relatively a small part of
the business, but nevertheless one that is very important
- has a very great political attention because non-governmental
organizations are very interested, and make it a political
question. A heated debate, a debate that sometimes shows
irrationality. One of the good things of this meeting
until now at least, is that we have seen a very responsible
kind of debate on a very high level and I think I must
commend the American ambassador, Cynthia Schneider,
for her personal initiative to do this. The debate between
the United States and Europe is sometimes heated too
in these kinds of issues, so it calls for some audacity
to organize this event here, and I think you did the
right thing and you timed it very well, in this timeframe.
Let me
now focus on the introduction of Ismail Serageldin.
I suppose I do not really have to introduce the man
- I only have to give some kind of a laudation to him
and that is one in a long row. He is paid by the World
Bank as a vice president, but he does a lot of other
things in that time. He publishes a lot - hundreds of
articles. I've been told that when you hit "Serageldin"
on Internet, you get 1103 hits so that's something.
He has 12 honorary degrees and doctorates from various
universities all over the world. I think one of the
relations to this conference is his work as the chair
of the consultative group of the international agricultural
research. Mr. Serageldin will speak to us for about
25 minutes. The room will be darkened a little bit,
so I hope that you can find your plate and your food,
but he will grab your attention immediately. Afterwards,
I think there's about 15 minutes question and answer
time. I now invite Ismail Serageldin to take the floor
and to speak to us.
Ismail
Serageldin, World Bank
"Biotechnology in the Service of the Poor: Challenges
and Prospects"
Thank
you very much Koos, for this very kind introduction.
Ambassador Schneider, ladies and gentlemen, it's a privilege
to be with you here today and to discuss a little bit
about biotechnology and the developing world and in
particular, something about the challenges and the prospects.
I've chosen to use slides because I want to cover a
lot of material, and I think it will come alive a lot
more by using slides. And fundamentally, I think we
have to start off with an appreciation of the current
context for the developing world. Simply stated, we
have a huge population expansion, even though it is
slowing down, we still expect at least 2 billion people
more on the planet, almost all of them in the developing
countries. And we have to be concerned about the provision
of food security which means adequate amounts of food
at adequate prices and accessible to all people at all
times. And we have to do it in a way that doesn't destroy
the environment in the manner in which it has been done
in the past. Now this therefore implies clearly that
it is not a matter of producing less than we are now
producing, but to produce differently and rethinking
resource use in terms of how we are going to meet that
food security challenge.
Let me
dismiss one particular statement which is the idea that
somehow exports from the north can feed the south -
that is not going to work and we can discuss why, fundamentally,
the only way we're going to deal with the triple problem
of reducing poverty, dealing with food security, and
protecting the environment, is by reaching to the smallholder
farmer in the developing world and successfully transforming
and increasing the productivity and profitability of
the smallholder farm. Now, as it stands today, even
though global production of food may be in balance,
we still have 840 million people, mostly women and children
who are chronically malnourished and approximately 40,000
people who die from hunger-related causes, not to mention
the hidden hunger of iron deficiency, iodine deficiency,
and of course vitamin A deficiency which affects 125
million schoolchildren and produces irreversible eye
damage in some 14 million children, hence the argument
about vitamin A rice being so important, which we'll
come to later on.
Now, we
know that production by itself is not enough, that despite
the availability of food, frequently we find people
going hungry. This is therefore a very big challenge
and food security is not only about production. In fact,
there is a complexity to the issue. It is not just the
production but the access by the poor to that production.
It is not just the amount of output but the process
by which it is produced and whether that process is
sustainable. If it is being produced by eroding the
soils and cutting the forests, then it is not sustainable.
And it is not just the availability to technology but
also the policy that encourages its use for example
in the case of water and irrigation if you give water
for free, people are not going to use ? techniques,
the policy has to be put in a particular place to make
the adoption technology possible. And regardless of
the global issues, we know that the problems are really
hid in a national context, whether it be Northern Korea
or Somalia, these are really national contexts and not
just global balance that are there. And at the national
level, it is not just national level, it is also at
the household level, because there is even hunger in
rich countries. And finally I will be talking mostly
rural, but there is an increasingly an urban underclass
that needs to be reached. However, dealing with the
problem of urban poverty is best done by transforming
the rural production system in developing countries
because the urban poor by definition purchase their
food and is a significant amount of their consumption
basket and therefore reducing the cost of food to them
is a direct way without adminstering a program of actually
giving them greater income. And finally it is not the
amount of food but also the nutritional content of the
food that is important.
Now as
a result of the complexity of the issue has lead people
to say, it is not just about production but it is true
and (name?), who won the Nobel prize for talking about
famine but he pointed out, you can have famine with
production, but as he rightly pointed out, he says,
'I am being misquoted. I said, Production is not sufficient
but I never said it was not necessary'. So production
is still going to be necessary. But on the short term,
medium term and long term and if you look at household,
national, and global, in the short term horizon for
household it is access in a traditional content, for
global level in the long term it is a sustainable production
system and a fair trading system at the global level.
In between that, you have a lot of other things that
come in, in particular I would like to focus on the
production side which I think is essential. Fundamentally
we are going to have to reach out to very poor people
in what are known as resource poor environments in the
rural areas. Why? Not only because the rural people
the ones that produce the food, but because even in
absolute terms, they are going to remain the majority
in the developing world at least for another ten to
fifteen years. In terms of poverty, they represent about
seventy percent of total poverty that is available right
now and many of those in the rural poor tend to be in
the less favored areas, meaning in other words, landscapes,
such as this one, which is incredibly difficult to increase
productivity of agriculture in that type of context.
That is where we have to reach in order to be able to
deal with the poverty side and to deal with the production
side.
So meeting
the production challenge, how serious is it? Well let
me give you a few statistics. We are going to need forty
percent more grain in 2020. Almost all of it will have
to come from yield increases because the amount of land
and water that can be brought under agriculture is pretty
much the same. The bulk will be in developing countries
and the demand for cereals and livestock fields will
double in developing countries, and that cereal imports
by developing countries will almost double to fill the
gap between production and demand. So yes, there will
be an increase, but it will be a fraction of the total
amount required and increasing imports will be a fraction
of the amount required. Now these cereals are going
to be essential to be reaching a very large number of
people and although the developed countries are the
ones that are really controlling debate about biotechnology,
different technologies trade regimes, they account for
about fifteen percent of the total net increase in cereal
demand. Eighty-five percent is going to be in the developing
world and therefore the voices of the developing world
have got to be heard. If voices of the small holder
farmer, especially the women who are the ones who produce
about eighty percent of the food in places like Africa
have to be heard. Now in terms of increases for meat
products again it is going to be the developing world,
that is going to be the majority of increase, 15.4,
15.9 percent in the developed countries, in the OECD
countries, and about eight-five percent in the developing
countries. Fundamentally the agricultural production
challenge is going to be in a developing country challenge,
not so much in the industrialized country challenge
, and in terms of livestock in dealing with these kinds
of herders and pastoralists as Tony Irvin was talking
about earlier today.
Now meeting
the production challenge would require increasing biological
yields, improving the nutrient content of the food,
intensifying the agricultural systems, and managing
the agricultural systems sustainably. And that brings
me to revisiting the last time we did this, which was
in the Green Revolution, the so-called Green Revolution,
which has been much maligned in some environmental circles,
I am an environmentalist myself and I think it is inappropriately
maligned because not only do it really deal with the
food crisis of the (place?) in the 1960s, please recall
(place?) Asian drama fighting famine of 1975, in the
late 1960s there was an expectation of famine in South
Asia , that did not happen because of the green revolution.
But more importantly, it saved them and is still spreading.
But it left a huge institutional reform agenda that
is still unfinished and I want to show you what these
miracle rice, miracle wheat varieties, as they were
called (name?36) in particular and what they produced.
This is in India for all cereals, but you could have
globally the same figures produced that if you want
to produce the same amount of food by 1990, with the
yields that you had in the 1960s, you would have had
to bring this additional area under cultivation. This
green area, this green triangle of land here is the
land that has been spared from being brought under cultivation
because of the increases in yields. Now this area is
not insignificant. This is incidentally a very conservative
estimate because it assumes the same yields per hectare
for the green and the red area although we know we are
going towards less productive lands as you increase
land you go to more marginal land, therefore the yields
will be less therefore the triangle should be even bigger.
But even this triangle, it is 300 million hectares of
land that was spared. That is an area the total size
of India, it is more than the total agricultural land
of Canada, U.S. and Brazil combined. Therefore think
if we did not have the green revolution, how many more
forests would have been chopped down, how many more
habitats would have been lost, how many more species
would have been irreversibly lost.
Now we
are trying for a doubly green revolution. One which
will redress the imbalance of the first one by going
for genetically diverse new crop varieties, minimize
chemical use who integrated task management, reduce
the input as Chris Somerville was talking earlier today,
and improve on-farm water efficiency and nutrient management.
These three cornerstones, diversity of the genetic base
of the new plants, the reduction of chemical inputs
and the integrated soil, nutrient and water management
on the on-farm basis are the three pillars of this doubly
green revolution.
But we
are also working on the nutritional content. This is
an interesting slide, it is not about pigs, it about
high protein maze. These pigs are twins; one was feed
with regular maze and one was fed with high protein
maze. And I think you can see the difference in the
quality of the nutritional content of the same maze
that can be done in this fashion. Increasingly we are
looking at how to reduce post harvest losses, which
are extremely important, because in many countries,
about 20-30 percent of the harvest are lost after harvesting,
and thus reducing the habit is a way of increasing the
production challenge as well. The emerging issues are
the enormous pressures on land, water to produce food
in developing countries. Take a country like Bangladesh,
it has a 120 million people in an area the size of the
State of Wisconsin or the State of Arkansas which has
2.5 million people. It is going to have 200 million
people there less than .8 of hectare acre per person
today. Now this means agricultural intensification will
be required that will come from biological yields, greater
synergies between different types of farming inputs
and better resource management. And we therefore need
all the scientific tools, and biotechnology is one of
those promising scientific tools.
Now today
in the agricultural research to achieve this doubly
green revolution we have a double shift in the research
paradigm. The first of this is the contextualization
of crop research. Where in the past green revolution
we are pushing the yield from tier IV? rice or from
wheat or from maze just a crop specific research, we
are now contextualizing it and the second one is the
genetic imperative. What do I mean by contextualization?
It means the integration of the crop specific research
into its regional and sustainability issues, geographically
in terms of local regional ecology, thematically in
terms of that fact that smallholder farmers never do
one thing only, they are not monoculture producers.
And therefore we need to develop the synergies between
livestock, forestry, agricultural farming etc., and
to recognize the socio-economic issues, which are the
farming systems of the smallholder level with a special
emphasis on the gender dimension. Now it does make a
difference whether you are producing plants to grow
in an environment like this or in an environment like
that one. And thus the regional ecology is extremely
important we have heard about the importance of livestock
but the integration, the synergies that have come from
corralling livestock so that the manure can be effectively
used does produce dramatic results. Here is a test in
West Africa, semi-arid West Africa, in promilet yields,
and as you can see a huge increase with the proper corralling
of livestock at the time of planting this is the control
field. So whatever you could do on the yield alone,
even if you doubled it, it would only reach so high,
on the other hand you can see the huge increase from
synergies. So I want to capture the synergies of these
farming systems, and the way to do that also involves
participation of the farmers themselves, in setting
priorities for research agenda. This is an actual priority
setting exercise for one of the CGIR centers with illiterate
farmers in the MesoAmerica area.
Now the
second shift, which concerns us here in the seminar,
is the one of the molecular genetics. And that is to
link cutting edge work in genetic mapping, molecular
markers in biotechnology to breeding with a special
focus on issues for the poor and the environment. Now
this is very important because a lot of the discussion
has been biased by the fact that a lot of biotechnology
is for commercial cash crops in the industrialized countries.
But the technology itself is inherently usable for these
other purposes as well. And the genetic markers are
already widely used and they are not considered problematic,
but the potential power that technique is coming to
the fore, and I was very moved by Steven Tanksley visit
to me a few years ago, I had read in draft form that
he and Susan McKush? wrote, that showed in fact that
you could really look at quantitative trait? and molecular
mapping as a way of improving very complex characteristics.
And earlier today Steve showed the issues of tomatoes,
I have a picture of that too as well. But the fact that
we discovered that there is a lot greater similarity
between dipods and the monopods among themselves which
means you can actually find similarities in work being
done on different plants around the world. Plus the
communication technology that exists today unleashes
a much greater potential for participation and collaboration
among scientists around the world, were it not for intellectual
property rights. But we will come to that in a moment.
The real
issue I think in the revolution and aspects related
to that, is that the paradigm needs to shift away from
selecting parents? on the basis of phenotype, which
means the way a plant looks, the way it feels in the
field, towards evaluating directly for the presence
of useful genes. And the tools that make such analysis
possible are molecular maps and the integrative power
of OTL? analysis. Now, traditional farmers have always
selected plants based on phenotype, this is how they
look in the field, how they behave, their yield characteristics
and so on, and that was not just the traditional farmers,
that was in fact scientists did the same thing in conventional
breeding programs. Now complex characteristics require
a number of ? located on the genome, to be active. High
yielding cultivar?, a high yielding variety, let's say
for example its shields are effective by seven such
sites, may have five that are well expressed but maybe
missing number six and number seven. And that you may
have a wild relative that does not appear to be a high
yielding variety but does have number six or number
seven that is well expressed and therefore crossing
them produces these results. Now in the absence of doing
that has lead to the fact that going from wild species
towards the early domesticits towards modern varieties,
we have been gradually reducing the gene pool on which
we are working and therefore the constant breeding of
the high elite cultivars? Is working on a narrower and
narrower gene base.
Now a
new molecular mapping, enables us, in fact to discover
things in the non-used plants, so in tomatoes for example,
it is a very small fraction that is cultivated tomato
and the rest is exotics, and for rice it is a bit more
that is cultivated but still three quarters of the rice
that are available in terms of wild rice are not used
for cultivation. We got to them for pest resistance
or stress resistance but now we are discovering they
can also turn very valuable for yields and it is this
combination of molecular knowledge, molecular genetic
knowledge with the traditional knowledge that enables
us to unleash this new potential. And these are some
of the pictures from name? Article, which shows the
increasing human pigmentation by using the wild relative,
you saw better slides of that this morning. This one
I like very much because this is the wild relative and
that's the elite cultivar and crossing those two produces
eleven percent larger food, which you wouldn't obviously
thinking of having a cultivar like that and crossing
it with a plant like that in order to increase its yield
but it does. And this is where the new knowledge of
molecular genetics enables us to see things that can
not be seen from the phenotype alone.
Now biotechnology
promises obstacles in doing this kind of work faster
and doing the transfers more accurately than we have
ever done before. But it does raise other sets of issues.
Now regretfully, ever since Dolly the sheep made her
appearance on the 22 of February 1997, on the magazines
of the world and the media, it has been very difficult
to have a sort of calm discussion of the issues. It
has been a very heated discussion, it has been fed by
the media by sensationalists. But I think there are
very real issues in this discussion and I was very pleased
by Sue Mayer earlier today raised some of those. There
are issues of ethics. And we will be hearing from Neolle
Lenoir more than one later on these issues. And there
are issues of intellectual property rights, and there
are issues of safety. And they are different issues.
I don't think we should constantly mix them up. If we
want to have a really productive discussion, we should
disentangle these issues from each other. Now the intellectual
property rights, about which I have some reservations,
I want to say, yes they are important in the sense that
they mobilize an enormous amount of private sector money
for research which otherwise could not be available
but they are also potentially obstructing research in
different ways. Now what is a gene? A gene is a protein
making part in our DNA as you all know but it has sequences
that come before it and after it that tell it the timing,
the place, the quantity, the entry point, the start,
then the part that is tryptic?, the protein, then the
part that stops the frequency by which it should do
this and so it shouldn't continue indefinitely producing
itself. This construct, which we all call a gene, in
fact, intellectual property rights have been taken not
just entire gene, but on selection genes on quality
trade genes, on promoter sequences, each one of those
intellectual property has been taken on different bits
and pieces of that, including gene transfer technology
and enabling technology. A lot of that intellectual
property is now under the control of multinationals
and this raises an issue for a number of people about
the concentration of power in the hands of a few multinationals.
OK, that
is a topic worthy of discussion. But let's not confuse
that with whether it is safe or unsafe. The issue of
concentration of power patenting controls, is a worthy
topic of discussion but it is not the same as whether
it is safe or unsafe. But the fact is, speaking from
a developing country perspective is that while this
race is going on to patent, in the labs of the industrialized
countries, here is a compelling picture. This is a rice
farmer in China two thousand years ago and this is a
rice farmer in China today. Two thousand years ago,
and today. This is the reality we are talking about
and this is the climb? that we have to reach if we are
going to meet the triple challenge of reducing poverty,
increasing food security and protecting the environment.
And thus the extent to which the availability of these
technologies is restricted will lead us in this century
towards a form of scientific upperkite? For those who
have and control the knowledge may make it inaccessible
to the others. That is a very serious question which
we need to address and there are ways of addressing
it and I have suggestions. But biotechnology itself
as a technology is not the issue here. That is a separate
issue. That is the issue of property rights, one can
respect contract law, the U.S. today Department of Justice
is taking Microsoft to court for monopolizing power,
so it has nothing to do with software per se, but it
has to do with economic concentration. And the same
issues are here, because the biotechnology that we identify
with bulgar cotton for example, is also the biotechnology
that gave us vitamin A rice. As a technology, as a scientific
approach, and I would venture to say that given the
magnitude of the challenge that we have in the developing
countries, we absolutely need to use all this technology.
Now where is it going to take us if we go beyond 2000,
look somewhere into the future, some people are thinking
that we may in fact assembling entire genomes like legal
sets and who knows? Maybe we will producing giant crops
like that? (reference to slide). In fact in the CGIR
and other centers, we are looking towards more mundane,
but more compelling and challenging issues. For example,
rather than irrigated rice, what if we had upland rice
or rain-fed rice that is perennial that has a one hundred
and fifty grains per pentacle, that has sturdy stems,
deep roots, is nitrogen fixing, that can withstand pests
and diseases, and that can last from 3-5 years in the
field. Now that is changing the architecture and the
characteristics of the plant. Now I don't think we can
do it without biotechnology; if we succeeded in doing
that we will reach some of the very poor people in the
remote environments that I showed you pictures of before
and we can do the same for lots of other crops. And
a lot of that can not be done with conventional breeding
programs. But there is a lot of potential there, if
only we can capture it.
So biotechnology
can help us in improving nutrition, we talked about
Vitamin A rice, but we could also have edible vaccines,
we could improve desirable traits such as nitrogen fixation
and better plant architecture; we could tackle biotechnology
and other stresses, we could deal with animal health
and nutrition, and we could solve feed problems, because
animal feed problems are going to become a very big
issue in the future. And we could do so much more. Now
to make this work, we are going to need new types of
partnerships. We are going to have to get beyond the
adversarial relationships and into partnerships. Back
in 1996, in Washington, the first meeting of the Global
Forum for Agricultural Research that pulled together
the advanced research institutions of the north, the
private sector companies, the international centers,
and the national development country research systems
and the NGOS and farmers' associations got together.
And it is not just getting together in the board rooms,
but it is getting together also in the fields that is
equally important, because everybody has a contribution
to make. I think it is extremely important that we think
of ways by which this technology, which incidentally,
unlike mechanization, for example, is not inherently
against the smallholder farmer, mechanization is not
scale neutral. Technology that passes in the seed is
scale neutral and can reach the smallholder farmer because
that is what would enable this little girl to find food
in her bowl when she grows up, and it would enable us
also function as true stewards of the earth. Thank you.
Chair:
Well as I announced, ladies and gentleman, first of
all let me thank Ismail Seregaldin for his comprehensive
and very quick presentation of the huge developments.
There is a possibility to shout some questions to the
speaker. We will repeat it from here, not more than
3 or 4 questions because you should be back in the meeting
hall on time. Who would like to ask the first question?
Yes please.
Question
from the audience: How could biotechnology help
solve the problem of animal feed, which was eluded to
by Chris Somerville this morning, which is a big problem,
and where would the money come from to do research of
that kind when universities and others are not focusing
on it?
I think
it is a very important point. Let me point out, India
today has twenty percent of the world's livestock; only
1.5 percent of the range land. As a result, India today
uses 400 million tons annually of crop residues as animal
feed. Now because we want high yielding varieties, and
want to prevent the plants from falling over when the
have a lot of seeds and cereals and then they rot on
the ground, we stiffen them. That is one of the things
conventional breeding has done, we stiffen them and
therefore this increase the lignant? content in the
plants. The result of that is it makes the crop residue
not very digestible. Now to break the lignant? link
in the cells of the plant, is a very complex problem
that can not be done by conventional breeding and would
probably require some biotechnology inputs. If we could
do that, you could feed the same amount of livestock,
or even an increased amount of livestock, for less crop
residues. Which would therefore release more of the
biomass of the existing plants for cereals for human
beings. So the same amount of land, the same amount
of water would produce more food for people by in fact
ensuring that less go to crop residues is these are
more digestible. So I think this a very important way
and may turn out to be as important as directly trying
to increase the yields of plants because you have to
take into account that the farmers actually use crop
residues. And I hope that the donors who are concerned
about development would fund the research and many are
present here. I think it wasn't wasted on them.
Yes, please.
Question
from the audience: Many development practitioners
recommend using low tech approaches and believe that
a combination of better management and organic farming
will produce all that is required.
I think
myself, that it is not an either or proposition. The
challenges that are put before you are so enormous to
increase food production by forty percent within, a
global food production by forty percent by 2020, to
catch up with reductions in the stock of malnourished
people, to improve the nutritional content of the food,
to manage this at the level of the smallholder farmer
you need all the tools that you can get. And in fact,
I showed you an example of the synergies between livestock
and promilet? So I am not ignoring that side. There
are gains to be made there but there are also types
of problems, like the animal feed problem, that can
not be easily dealt with in any other way. Other problems,
such as bananas, which are extremely difficult to breed,
because of particular problems that are there, and are
susceptible to diseases, we know that if we can solve
that by biotechnology and there is some lab work on
that, we could also benefit plaintans? because it is
the same ? genome. And these plantans are a primary
food product for our people. Now, casaba was mentioned
earlier this morning. Now I hate to say this, but it
is very sad for me, coming from the south as I do, to
know that despite the fact that casaba Is an essential
food for 300 million human beings, nobody would invest
in sequencing the casaba Genome or improving it, because
they are very poor people in remote areas. On the other
hand, if casaba turns out to be a good feedstock for
hogs, for pig farming, in the U.S., then it would be
done, because it is a commercially viable production
system. So it would be looked at if it is for feedstock
for hogs in the U.S. but it would not be looked at if
it is a primary staple for 300 million poor human beings
around the planet. This is why we need the priorities
of the research to be more than governed exclusively
by commercial considerations and we need public goods
research to address these kinds of issues. And that
public goods research would look at IPM? Would look
at synergies, but would also use benign biotechnology
that is publicly available to everybody. So I think
we need all the tools we can get to meet the challenge
which we have but clean up the backlog of hungry and
malnourished people and to meet the future demand as
well.
Question
from the audience: What can we do to improve the
public debate on biotechnology and GMO's specifically?
I think
personally what needs to be done is to disentangle the
issues and be clear whether you are talking about ethical
issues, the 'oughts', because science has very little
to say about ethical issues. It is a cultural, political,
social set of questions that has to be answered. Just
to put it in perspective, if somebody says I am opposed
to surrogate motherhood because there is danger to the
mother or the fetus, the question of danger to the mother
or the fetus is a question that technical and scientific
research can address. But if somebody says I am opposed
to it on a matter of ethics, regardless whether it is
safe or unsafe, than science has nothing to say to that.
Now, if we recognize that there are ethical issues and
discuss those as ethical issues, there are safety issues
and we discuss those. What I personally believe is that
we need a proper food regulatory regime because if you
look at what is happening in the U.S., I guess there
is about 100 million food poisoning incidents a year,
not one of those is related to GMO's, whether it is
saminela or raspberries from Guatemala or whatever it
is. People in Europe talk about BSE, they talked about
dioxin chicken, they talked about Coca-Cola contamination.
None of that has anything to do with GMO's. What you
are looking at there is a question about the regulatory
regime. The third thing we can do is improve knowledge
by labeling, so people have information and they can
choose what they want to do. Behavior changes are up
to people to decide about what they want to do. And
the last part which we need to address is the intellectual
property rights issues and there are suggestions there
about how to keep some parts of that so you don't block
the processes that could be used for other things from
being used, but these are technical questions and I
really don't think we can get into them. So dividing
the issues, clarifying them, clarifying therefore the
terms of the debate, which clarify when we are talking
about science and evidence and when we are talking about
political judgements and cultural and ethical issues
we feel strongly about.
Chair:
Well, unfortunately time is running out and we can not
prolong this discussion. On behalf of all of us, I would
like to thank you for this very thorough lecture you
gave us and the time you took to answer the questions.
AFTERNOON
SESSION: "IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIETY"
Eric
Claassen, ID-DLO Netherlands
Juan Enriquez, Harvard University
Introduction
by Eric Claasen: Part of
the goals of this conference is the continuous education
of all of us. The scientists should be educated to communicate
in a proper way and to challenge viewpoints, but also,
of course scientists have the responsibility to engage
in the public debate and to educate the public. It is
our great pleasure to welcome today our first speaker,
Neysa Call, who is standing in for Rita Colwell, who
is of course, the Director of the National Science Foundation
and who will tell us more about biotechnology and the
future of scientific research.
Neysa
Call for Rita Colwell, National Science Foundation "Biotechnology
and the Future of Scientific Research"
For those
of you who know Rita Colwell well, you will know that
she is quite a petite woman, but for such a petite woman,
she has left me huge shoes to fill here today. It is
a tremendous honor to step in for her today on behalf
of the National Science Foundation. The topic of our
discussion today is what motivated me in my career path.
I went the extra mile in my graduate education program
to combine science and policy. If you know graduate
education systems in science they do not even like to
use the words "science" and "public policy" in the same
sentence. From there, I went immediately to the U.S.
Congress and now I am at the National Science Foundation,
working specifically on iotechnology issues to help
shape policy.
I want
to start first by offering Dr. Colwell's apology for
her absence today. At the last minute, her schedule
was changed so she could accompany President Clinton
to California. Some of you might have heard the news
snippets about President Clinton's budget proposal for
2001. Most of those rumors are true. He will be highlighting
a significant budget increase for the National Science
Foundation and other R and D programs. I am going to
deliver a message that is similar to Dr. Colwell's on
behalf of the foundation. An added bonus is that you
get the perspective of two generations of scientists.
Her talk was entitled "Biotechnology and the Future
of Scientific Research". I find it appropriate, as did
she, to broaden that theme and talk about biotechnology
in the broader scope of science. It was Dr. Colwell's
hope to identify different parts of the scientific landscape
where we could find common ground. I will do this by
touching on three topics. First, the history: how we
got to where we are. Second biotechnology's role in
the future of research generally. Finally, the paramount
importance of fostering a broad base public discussion
on the full range of issues, from the scientific, to
the economic, to the moral and ethical.
I would
like to begin with a brief survey of how we got here.
This science timeline helps frame how biotechnology
and its public perception developed. We have come a
long way since Mendel taught us the laws of heredity,
which begins our timeline in the upper left-hand corner.
This issue began to take hold of the public psyche some
eight years later, when we learned that DNA governed
heredity in cells. You see that benchmark in the middle
of our timeline. We knew it was time to step back and
take stock of the situation in the early seventies.
That is when we first mastered modern gene splicing
techniques. This technique left scientists and the public
intrigued and concerned. This inspired the 1975 Assilimar
Conference in California, which ends the timeline. Scientists
called for a moratorium on recombinant DNA research
until we better understood the implications of this
powerful capability. In many respects, Assilimar outlined
the framework that allowed work in this area to forge
ahead. The conference in California was convened for
two purposes:
1. Confronting
concerns about the safety of this line of research.
2. For recommending actions.
Over two
decades ago, scientists suggested the guidelines for
safe conduct on the new DNA experiments. During the
two decades since Assilimar, the science has continued
to progress. You can see that the adoption, views and
impact have progressed even faster, especially in recent
years. This timeline shows some of those highlights.
Products of biotechnology have moved out of petridishes
and into the marketplace. Today, it is clear that we
are at a juncture similar to the one that brought scientists
to Assilimar twenty years ago. On the scientific side,
we are ready to say full steam ahead. On the societal
side, we are saying let's make sure we know where we
are headed. All of this makes our gathering here especially
timely and appropriate. Like many emerging sectors of
the global economy, biotechnology owes much of its advance
to public investment in basic research. For this reason,
it is important to consider research funding in a larger
context when we consider the future of biotechnology.
We find ourselves in a paradoxical situation. I will
illustrate with the trends of U.S. R and D funding.
The two major sources of financial support for research
and development in the U.S. are industry and federal
Government. You see them here as the yellow and red
areas on the chart. It is easy to see that together
they provide 95% of all the funds spent on R and D performed
in the U.S. In 1980, industry surpassed the federal
Government as the leading supplier of R and D dollars.
Since then, industry's share of the national R and D
performance has been rising steadily, from two-thirds
of the total in the 1970s, to nearly three-fourths in
the late 1990s. More than ever, public investments are
decline as a share of the total investment and at the
same time, industry is increasingly dependent of public
funded research at the frontier.
You may
be familiar with a now famous study by Dr. Francis Neran
and his colleagues at Kie Research. Since 1968, Kie
Research has pioneered the developments of science and
technology citation analysis. This study demonstrates
the linkage between patents granted in the U.S. system
and frontier research published in archival journals.
Nearly two-thirds of the papers on patents were published
by organizations primarily supported by public funding.
This tells us that the knowledge that drives innovation
comes predominantly from publicly funded research. Even
more important is the rate that this link is increasing.
The latest data shows that over 100,000 citations on
U.S. patents issued in 1998, referred to scientific
and technological articles. Granted that some of this
increase is due to our new capabilities to search on-line
with computers, but that does not explain the entire
trend. We see a ten-fold increase since 1998 and a doubling
in just the past two years. Just as pay-offs have blossomed,
we have let publicly funded research investments whither.
This situation makes President Clinton's imminent announcement
even more exciting.
We at
NSF are very aware of this funding trend. We recently
unveiled our poster to launch our celebration of NSF
50, the fiftieth anniversary of the Science Foundation.
We choose the theme "Where Discoveries Begin." We are
marking the occasion with a campaign to spread the word
about how investments in fundamental research and education
spawn discoveries and advances that benefit everyone.
Even today's
sophisticated tools of biotechnology can be traced to
earlier investments in basic research by NSF, such as
the case of PCR the polyimerate chain reaction. This
technique was pioneered in the private sector in the
1980s, but only after heat resistant DNA polimeraze
was discovered. A NSF supported research found the source
of bacteria in the hot springs at Yellowstone National
Park. Fundamental research like that searching for the
bacterium was traditionally focused on understanding
the tiny components of nature, but lately we are watching
discrete disciplines fuse. We see places where information
technology merges with biotechnology, like the recent
advent of DNA on a computer chip. This is a microarray,
a long strand of DNA spread out on a chip. With this
technique, the genetic code of any organism can be probed
and key genes located, like the genes that predispose
us to cancer. It is easy to see that the links between
all aspects of science and engineering at all levels
are strengthening with each passing day. This takes
the future of science in a new direction. At NSF we
call it biocomplexity. Biocomplexity refers to phenomenon
that arise as a result of dynamic interactions that
occur in living systems and between systems and their
physical environments. These systems range from microscopic
to global in scale and they exhibit properties that
depend not only on the individual interactions of the
components, but also on the interactions of these components.
The time is right for this approach to biological systems.
We have a very solid understanding of many of the system
components. That gives us the intellectual platform
to address how these components interact in complex
systems. Biotechnology will be key to understanding
the complexity of life on our planet.
Let us
use some research snapshots to briefly survey some of
the tools and discoveries providing insights into this
complex world. You see here a simulation of a DNA fragment
in water. You are not only able to read this three-dimensional
structure, but we can see its behavior when we manipulate
it. This research has broad applications. On the left,
you see a plant and on the right a fruit fly. Scientists
funded by the NSF reprogrammed the DNA of this plant
in sync with its Arcadian rhythm. It is appropriately
called the clock gene. The plant glows as its sense
of daylight, literally shedding light on the molecular
mechanism of its Arcadian rhythm. On the right, you
see the same technique applied to the fruit fly. As
we move to an even larger scale, biotechnology offers
solutions to environmental problems, like those posed
by landfills. Non-degradable plastics are a prominent
feature. A NSF grant for exploratory research marked
the beginning of biodegradable polymers in plants. Here
is the core plast of a transgenic Arabidoxis plant,
filled with a naturally produced biodegradable plastic.
Here we see biotechnology as a force to protect our
environment; a primary component of any global sustainable
development. In terms of potential, we have only just
begun to reap the benefits of biotechnology. As scientists,
we understand that technology is the easy part of the
equation. The more complex element concerns our societal
goals, ethics and values. No area of science calls for
more public outreach and discussion as much as biotechnology.
This is the bare substance of life itself. We must approach
it with both respect and with perspective.
A number
of recent surveys make clear that, as a society, we
are both impressed by the science and concerned for
a moral standpoint. These results from a 1997 cross-national
survey of Canadians, Americans and Europeans tell us
that over 70% of the public think that the insertion
of human genes in bacteria to produce medicines is useful,
moral acceptable and should be encouraged. We are more
divided when it come to the food we eat. Two-thirds
of Canadians and Americans think bio-engineered foods
are useful and morally acceptable. A majority of Europeans
agree, but only half find it morally acceptable. We
all agree that these technologies are potentially the
most powerful and revolutionary in recorded history.
They will literally touch every part of our lives, from
our kitchens, to our closets, to our medicine cabinets.
I would argue that all of us, scientists, educators,
the media, public officials and experts from all sectors,
have an absolutely critical role to play in these issues.
We must foster a broad-based discussion that includes
public comment and interest. Many of my friends in research
often say, if the public only understood the science,
they would accept it. Reality is much more complicated
than that. Our goal for science education should not
be to have everyone nod in agreement. It is to provide
a foundation for a fully informed and inclusive discussion.
In that way we can help society gauge tough, but critical
concepts of life. Another survey from the NSF's science
and engineering indictors illustrates with a case in
point. It tells us that only one in five Americans can
provide a minimally acceptable definition of DNA. Granted
Deoxyribonucleic acid is a mouth full for anyone, but
grasping the concept of this technology is even tougher,
especially without pertinent background information.
Only with an appropriate grounding can policymakers,
parents and the public make informed choices about new
technologies. I assure you that, during the next century,
the public will have to come to grips with more advances
than just biotechnology. We have E-commerce, digital
divides, at home healthcare, educational technologies
and much more. Just last month, Science published one
of a series of essays on visions of the future. It talked
of virtual intelligence, synthetic genetics, metabolic
pathway redesign, artificial cell design and multi-universe
cosmology. We need to be ready for the next generation
of scientific breakthroughs.
As we
expand our understanding of the world and all its complexity,
no longer can science be a mysterious ritual for a single
class of professionals. Public involvement and informed
discussion are essential to set priorities for science
and engineering. In turn, scientific progress is meaningless
without strong public support. To forge ahead with discovery,
we must come to a common understanding. Only with open
discussions like this today will we find common ground.
Finding common ground will require combined abilities.
It will require work across governments, civics groups
and communities. It will require an extraordinary level
of compromise and cooperation. Dr. Colwell would say
that we need to extend the frontiers of science and
open its doors to society at the same time. She and
all of us at the NSF look forward to moving ahead thoughtfully,
with a measured sense of both the potential and perspective.
We agree that the capabilities before us can help us
conquer society's most persistent challenges. NSF looks
forward to its part in realizing its promise for all
of science and society. Thank you.
Eric
Claasen: I like your statement about public involvement.
I still feel we should also talk about the scientific
commitment because by definition the public is involved,
but by definition we as scientists are not always committed
to this dialogue. The second speaker is Isi Siddiqui
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We have already
heard about the necessity of biotechnology for the Third
World, but I am sure it is also necessary for the developed
world.
Isi
Siddiqui, U.S. Department of Agriculture
"Biotechnology and Agriculture"
Thank
you very much for that kind introduction, and for the
opportunity that you have given me to offer my thoughts
on this defining issue for the new century.
It's my
hope that this conference and others like it are the
beginning of a more intellectual and productive dialogue
on genetic engineering, one where we move toward consensus
rather than further isolating ourselves in rigid ideological
camps.
Let me
begin by saying that (Agriculture) Secretary (Dan) Glickman
and I are believers in the life sciences and their ability
to alleviate human suffering and enhance the productivity
and sustainability of agriculture around the world.
But we also believe that technological progress must
never come at the expense of environmental degradation
or human safety ... that government has a responsibility
to protect the people where they are largely powerless
to protect themselves.
People
always want us to choose sides in this debate, but I
don't think it is government's job either to actively
promote or thwart biotechnology. Rather, our role is
as impartial judge. We evaluate prospective biotechnology
products, ensuring that they meet our rigorous human
safety and environmental standards.
To do
this, we have a regulatory process that is tight, comprehensive
and grounded in the most demanding, scrupulous science.
There are many strict checkpoints through which a GM
product must pass on the road from petri dish to grocery
store shelf.
Those
checkpoints are manned by three different federal agencies
working in sync with one another. At the Department
of Agriculture, we guard against potential risks to
plants and animals. The Food and Drug Administration
is the watchdog for a GM product's impact on food safety.
And the Environmental Protection Agency examines products
that can be classified as pesticides. Regulators at
all three agencies are scientists who work full-time
on review of new products. They are not beholden to
any political party or movement, nor to any entity that
stands to profit from biotech commercialization.
In addition
to being scientifically rigorous, the process is open
and inclusive. We hold public meetings with scientific
advisory panels. For each product, information is regularly
posted on the Internet. Americans can believe in the
integrity of the process because they have the opportunity
to watch it happen and participate in it themselves.
This system
has worked. In 13 years, not a single product that has
made it to market has been proven environmentally hazardous
or unsafe for human consumption. Thirteen different
GMO applications have been withdrawn voluntarily because
of possible risks that our regulators would have caught.
For example, a soybean variety that had been infused
with a Brazilian nut gene was withdrawn because of the
possibility that those allergic to the nut would have
a similar reaction to the soybean.
In the
next few minutes, I would like to focus specifically
on the Agriculture Department's role in the approval
process for transgenic crops.
The Department's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service -- or APHIS,
as we call it -- is the federal government's lead agency
in regulating the safe development and release of biotechnology-derived,
new plant varieties into the environment. Since 1987,
we have overseen field testing at more than 22,000 sites
and granted determinations of non-regulated status for
50 new crop varieties, thus allowing them to come to
market. These products have already become a huge presence
in the commercial marketplace. In 1998, 43 percent of
the total U.S. cotton crop, 44 percent of the soybean
crop, and 36 percent of the corn crop were genetically
engineered. This year's figures will likely surpass
those benchmarks.
Our authorities,
under the Federal Plant Pest Act and the Plant Quarantine
Act, require scientific researchers to obtain authorization
prior to introducing genetically engineered organisms
that are, or could possibly be, derived from plant pests.
Thus,
when any entity -- a company, an academic research institution,
a non-profit organization, or a government scientist
-- wishes to field test a biotechnology-derived plant,
they must first contact USDA for permission.
The field
testing can proceed in one of two ways. The first involves
obtaining a permit from us before testing, to ensure
that the test is conducted in accordance with all regulatory
requirements. USDA issues field testing permits annually,
and each permit requires specific information from the
tester about the plant, including all new genes and
gene products, their origin, the purpose of the test,
how the test will be conducted, and specific precautions
that will be taken to prevent the escape of pollen,
plants, or plant parts from the field test site.
Before
authorizing a field test, we review the permit application
for possible effects on the environment, endangered
or threatened species, non-target species, and the potential
for any gene transfer to cultivated wild or weedy species.
We also
have a streamlined permit process, which most applicants
can now use. The applicant provides a notification of
the intent to field test, which USDA has 30 days to
review and approve. Although these simplifications have
shortened the overall permitting process, these field
tests are still required to meet all the same safety
standards as required under the original procedure.
And no matter which permit process you pursue, even
when the permit is approved, USDA officials and their
state counterparts may inspect the field test site before,
during, or after a test to ensure that it is conducted
and managed safely. After several years of laboratory
and field testing, a developer may decide to commercialize
the genetically engineered variety and petition USDA
to be released from regulatory oversight. In other words,
the developer will submit a petition for "determination
of non-regulated status."
Upon receipt
of a petition, USDA thoroughly evaluates the scientific
information provided. Specifically, we examine the biology
and genetics of the plant; the nature and origin of
the genetic material used; possible effects on other
agricultural products and organisms in the environment;
and all field test reports. Depending upon the particular
plant line, we evaluates a variety of potential effects
such as:
1. the
potential for creating plant pest risk;
2. disease and pest susceptibilities;
3. the expression of gene products, new enzymes, or
changes to plant metabolism;
4. weediness, and impact on sexually compatible plants;
5. agricultural or cultivation practices;
6. effects on non-target organisms, including humans;
7. effects on other agricultural products; and
8. the potential for gene transfer to other types of
organisms.
USDA also
completes an environmental assessment of the new variety
to ensure the plant poses no significant risk to the
environment, other plants or non-target species, including
humans. Our agency evaluates all available scientific
information, including the information provided by the
developer in the petition. We then work to ensure that
the new transgenic plant:
1. exhibits
no plant pathogenic properties;
2. is no more likely to become a weed than the non-engineered
plant;
3. is not likely to increase the weediness of any other
plant with which it is sexually compatible;
4. will not cause damage to processed agricultural commodities;
and
5. is not likely to harm other organisms that are beneficial
to agriculture.
We then
either approve or reject the petition for technical
completeness. If rejected, the developer may choose
to either amend and resubmit the petition or withdraw
it. We publish both the petition and the environmental
assessment in the Federal Register for public comment,
and we consider public comments before publishing the
final environmental assessment and before deciding that
the transgenic plant is no longer regulated. Copies
of these our decision documents are available to the
public.
If it
is determined that the new plant poses no significant
risk to other plants in the environment and is as safe
to use as more traditional varieties, USDA finalizes
the environmental assessment and writes a determination
of non-regulated status. This determination enables
the new plant to be cultivated, tested, or used for
traditional crop breeding without any additional action
on our part. In essence, this determination allows the
plant to be widely grown and commercialized.
As you
can see, our biotech approval process is thorough, demanding
and transparent. As confident as we are in it, we are
working diligently to make it better, more airtight,
more accessible and more responsive to the accelerating
pace of technology.
At USDA,
we asked the National Academy of Sciences to conduct
an outside review of the approval process, and they
came back with 89 suggestions. And soon we will announce
the men and women who will serve on a committee that
will advise Secretary Glickman on biotechnology issues.
To ensure that the Secretary receives balanced advice,
the committee will bring together a broad cross-section
of opinions and expertise. Farmers and private sector
representatives will sit on the panel, but so too will
consumer advocates and representatives from environmental
groups.
It is
this kind of oversight, this kind of system of checks
and balances, that is lacking in the EU. And that, I
believe, is the source of consumer skepticism about
GMOs among Europeans. Given the mad cow scare and the
discovery of dioxin-tainted chicken, the skepticism
is less a reaction to or a judgment about biotechnology
itself ... than a lack of faith in their government
to protect them from unsafe foods.
There
have been some encouraging signs. During his visit to
the United States in October, European Commission President
Prodi signaled his commitment to establishing an independent
European regulatory authority modeled on the United
States' FDA. And just last week, the Commission issued
a white paper that calls for the establishment of an
independent, transparent, science-based food safety
regime.
President
Prodi also has said that he understands that risk can
never be eliminated altogether, that we have to make
decisions about new technologies based on the science
that is currently available. This would appear to be
at least a slight retreat on the "precautionary principle,"
which has been the basis of European GMO policy. President
Prodi is setting the right tone, and I believe a dialogue
has at least begun that will help us resolve these issues.
But any
such resolution will be a long time coming. And in the
meantime, we're still in the middle of a divisive conflict
on biotechnology, one that's creating serious transatlantic
tension and a polarization that is counterproductive
at best and destructive at worst.
All of
us have a role to play in toning down the debate and
building common ground. While the anti-GMO forces have
been responsible for most of the outrageous rhetoric,
even the biotech industry is not without blame.
In focusing
their research and development on technologies that
would help farmers -- those who grow the food -- industry
overlooked the concerns of those who have to eat the
food - consumers. Few current GMO products have the
better taste, freshness and nutrition that consumers
would expect from enhanced food. New genetically engineered
rice fortified with Vitamin A and iron, developed by
the Swiss Research Institute in Zurich, is a perfect
example of the next generation of bioengineered crops
from which consumers can accrue direct benefits.
The good
news is that industry has begun to recognize some of
its mistakes and adjust its strategy. At the same time
that they have improved their marketing efforts and
better explaining the benefits of biotechnology, they
are also extending something of an olive branch to consumer
groups and environmentalists, in an attempt to launch
a more reasoned dialogue.
Further
belligerence benefits nobody, certainly not farmers,
many of whom rightly feel they've been sold a bill of
goods on biotechnology. Already battered by low prices,
they are now caught in the middle of what is literally
and figuratively a food fight. They embraced GMOs at
the behest of the seed companies. But when it turned
out that the companies had miscalculated the market
for GMOs, farmers were asked by those very same companies
to perform the logistical and financial impossibility
of segregating their GMO seeds from traditional varieties.
The United
States stands by its biotechnology approval process.
It is not simply a routine rubber-stamp. It is an exacting
system that never begins with the assumption that the
product is safe. The burden of proof is always on the
product and its purveyors to prove safety, not on the
consumer or on government to prove hazards. And we believe
that, to increase the flow of agricultural trade, the
EU and other nations need to adopt a similar system.
But we
also remain open-minded. We hear the doubts and concerns
about biotechnology expressed by people on both sides
of the Atlantic and around the world, and we respect
their concerns. Let's work together, so that we can
allow for scientific progress without in any way compromising
human or environmental safety.
Thank
you very much.
Chair:
This morning we talked about animal production and actual
production of medicines by farming, described by Dr.
Hersbach and now we have Dr. John Pierce of Dupont who
will tell us something about the realization of all
the promises considering plant and microbiobial biotechnology.
John
Pierce, DuPont Agricultural Enterprise
"Realizing the Promise of Plant and Microbial Biotechnology"
First
slide: This slide is just to remind us that for this
entire past century, there have been issues facing global
agriculture that seem almost timeless - to feed an increasing
world population, to protect the environment, to keep
a safe and healthful food supply, which is becoming
ever safer and ever more healthful, to provide renewable
resources and to do so in a way that is economically
viable. We've had help along the way, and the help comes
from our neighbors on this planet, the plants and the
microbes, and we turn we plants and crops for food and
feed and shelter. And microbes are our friends in making
all types of food, beers wines and breads and cheeses
and medicines and materials. so this type of biotechnology
in conversion ultimately of the sun's energy into carbohydrates,
and then ultimately, into somewhat more interesting
materials has been going on for some time. As we heard
this morning from the speakers on both the plant and
the microbial side, developments in biotechnology are
providing additional opportunities to utilize plants
and microbes to produce improved products and materials,
ultimately stemming from agriculture. So the impacts
that we've had and are having are summarized in this
slide. I'll give some examples of the current products
on the market that provide for increased crop yields,
improved environmental aspects of agriculture and economics
for people participating in the production of crops.
And in the second part of my talk, I'll talk about the
so-called second wave of products - products that provide
improved quality of harvested yield with benefits for
food safety and nutrition. And then finally, I would
like to give an example of some of the uses of microbial
technology in renewable production of materials. Now
in many ways, and as we have just heard, some of the
issues have to do with the folks on the other side of
the Atlantic importing something over here, while we're
busy over there, dealing with an import from Europe,
too, and that's the European corn worm. It's a insect
that is present in most all fields of corn in the U.S.,
it burrows into the plant where it becomes unavailable
to insecticide treatments and causes losses and a variety
of other damages. The so-called BT corn, the ECB protected
corn is one arrow in the quiver to try to control this
billion dollar a year pest, it's been rapidly adopted
in the U.S. because it provides improved pest control.
Another thing that has been found is that the insect
serves as a vector for fungal contaminants and fungal
contaminants produce micro-toxins these highly toxic
material from fungi in the corn and the majority of
the plant in the ECB corn has a much reduced amount
of micro-toxin in them as an add-on effect to the control
of this insect. But perhaps an even larger insect pest
in the U.S. is the corn root worm. These pictures show
the adults but the most of the damage comes from the
larvae who feed on the roots and current control methods
require the use organelle phosphates insecticides, soil
fumigation and rather certain uneconomical cooperation
practices. There is another follow on generation of
BP products coming. There a number of companies working
on them. This just gives an idea of some root systems
of corn, controlled corn plant that has not been treated
but the roots have been hurt by the corn root worm,
an insecticide treated control and the genetically enhanced
product that shows even better control than insecticide
treatment, so we're hoping this will be a second addition
to enhancing the sustainable yield of corn production
that we heard about this morning.
Now going
further, there is a whole area of the quality of what
is produced in agriculture. These major crops constitute
some 80% of calories consumed in the world: corn, soy,
wheat and rice are used in processed into a variety
of value added ingredients that people consume. I'd
like to focus here on soy beans, a major crop in the
United States. Soy beans are grown primarily for 2 reasons:
for oil and for protein. Oil products that can be obtained
from soy beans these days, to the use of biotechnology
include soy bean oil with high amounts of mono insaturated
fatty acids that was discussed a bit this morning, I'll
show you a little more: increased flavor stability and
decreased amounts of anti-nutritional components. Many
plants that have to live in the environment and take
whatever the environment throws the, fill themselves
up with compounds that make them unpalatable to organisms
that want to eat them. Soy beans are the same way and
they cause problems with digestion and we have ways
to deal with them. And also there a protein products
and I will talk about that.
But soy
beans contain a number of bioactive components like
soflavones, phytic acid, amino acid constituents and
after a long series of clinical studies in the U.S.,
it was shown that a diet containing soy produced a substantial
decrease in total cholesterol and low density lippro
proteins in humans. So this is a good thing, people
take medicines to try control their tryglyceride levels
and recently, last year, FDA allowed for a health claim
to be provided on soy products indicating the beneficial
affects of an increased soy diet on cardio-vascular
health. Now one of the problems with soy beans is getting
it widely adopted and used in those parts of the world
that have cardio-vascular issues, that is to say the
western world. Many people don't like the taste of soy
beans and the soy beans indeed have, I personally find
them bitter, and they have anti-nutritional components
in them. But through breeding, we've been able to develop
soy beans that are very low in these anti-nutritional
carbohydrates called golacticides and instead have a
high concentration of sucrose. So now these soy beans
are very low in anti-nutritional components and very
high in sucrose, so you have a sweet bean that is digestible
and now you can take these soy beans and use them in
a variety of products; in soy milks, in cereals in any
number of let's say main stream products where normal
consumers can consume normal products and get the benefits
that are inherent in a soy diet.
You can
make them even better by modifying the oil content.
Soy beans have a certain amount of oil in them, a large
amount, and I believe that 80% of the oil consumed in
the U.S. is soy bean oil and some 30% world wide, so
this a very major source of calories in this world and
to biotechnology we have been able to modify the types
of oils that are produced in soy beans. We can make
very high mono-insaturated oils, very stable oils for
frying and other uses. Very low polyone saturates, very
high saturates, very low saturates, some of these are
made by GMO techniques, some of them are made by breeding
techniques. One in particular, the hiolaic soy bean
oil has 85% of hiolaic acid, this is mono-insaturated
fatty acid that is found, that predominates in olive
oil. It's very stable and as a result you can use this
oil in a variety of applications where normally you'd
have to hydrogenate and produce trans-fatty acids. Trans-fatty
acids have been implicated again in cardio-vascular
diseases and we are thinking that adoption of this oil
will provide for improved nutritional use of soy beans.
This is an interesting case where this is a GMO. We
had studied a non-GMO version of this, but we found
that the non-GMO version was unstable in various environmental
conditions, so if you grew it in the South it had hiolaic,
if you grew it in the North it didn't and the hiolaic
acid content varied all over the place and that's because
it was hiolaic in all parts of the planet and they responded
to the environment differently. This plant is hiolaic
only in the seed and so it provides a stable production
of hiolaic acid. And we again are anticipated by the
FDA who in November proposed a new rule for labeling
in the U.S. for trans-fatty acids, after some year or
whatever, the FDA's process is if it works out there
will be labels in the U.S. indicating the amount of
the trans-fatty acids in foods. These labels can be
reduced by the use of this material. And if you couple
the high sucrose bean with the hiolaic you get a very
tasty soy bean that is very stable and has all types
of new foods uses. So what we hope is this lowly soy
bean comes from China, grows in the U.S. will be able
to have even further utility in the food supply to take
advantage of its inherent qualities.
Now just
for the last couple of moments, I would like to turn
to biotechnology materials. It hasn't been discussed
much today, but you know agriculture and petroleum are
both huge huge sources of raw materials. I mean we forget
about it's the sheer magnitude of material 'carbon'
that is produced in agriculture or dug out of the ground.
In fact they are marginally equivalent in size and they
cost about the same. They cost about $0.06 a pound to
produce corn or petroleum. And now biotechnology as
we have heard this morning enhances the use of microbes
for further utilizing let's say products such as sucrose
or glucose from agriculture to produce value added materials.
I would like to give one example of that: polyester.
So there is some polyester in the room I am sure. Normal
polyester is called 2GT, it's made by alternating molecules
of 2 carbon molecules and an A carbon molecule. It's
been known for about 50 years that if you make polyester
with a 3 carbon molecule so-called propane diol, that
you get a polyester that has improved stretch recovery
and softness better dye binding capacity, basically
a better polyester. The problem is to make it from petroleum
you couldn't make it cheap enough to be able to sell
it into the market required so it wasn't made and we
all have 2GT around. It turns out that there are some
bugs, microbes, that can convert glycerol to propane
diol and there are microbes that can convert glucose
to glycerol. So we were able to study the enzymes involved
in this transformation, isolate the genes associated
with these transformations and have them incorporated
into one microbe, with a result that we now have fermentation
process that will now take glucose from corn and make
propane diol. So the question then is: Can you make
it cheap enough? And in fact, this shows our progress
in creating, let's say high concentrated fermentation's
to produce propane diol. At present our current process
has a greater efficiency than the process used to make
ethanol today. Now the ethanol process of course is
something that has been done for some time and studied
forever and we are just knocking on the door, we are
not quite ready to pull the trigger but we certainly
are ready to make development investments because we
believe we are on the track to success here. We hope
in the very near future to make very large quantities
of a very nice polyester from a renewable resource deriving
from agriculture. So again this is the type of capabilities
that will become more and more common in the future.
So I'd just like to close again these few examples of
actual developments, actual commercializations. First
generation crops with improved yields and environmental
performance continuing the history of agriculture in
adopting the latest technologies to improve productivity.
Second generation crops just knocking on the door now
with improved nutritional components and health aspects
and just coming out of the starting gates but destined
to become an important component of biotechnology is
the development of new materials from renewable sources
that have high value. Finally whilst all of this is
going on, and as we've heard this morning, the computational
techniques, genomic techniques are adding daily to our
understanding of the common processes underlying this
web of life and so we can look forward to an ever increasing
ability to accurately specify desirable uses of plants
and microbes.
Thank-you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. The Ambassador reminded me of the
fact that in the Netherlands we make cars from potato
proteins at ATO in Wageningen, people are here in the
audience actually so if you have missing car parts you
should talk to Peter Symons, he'll only charge you a
bag of potatoes! No GMO's involved, lots of biotechnology
.
Benedikt Haerlin,
Greenpeace
"Genetic Engineering vs. Biotechnology: An Organic
Vision of Sustainable Agriculture"
The
Dawn of the Biotech Age.
There
seems to be little doubt that this brand-new century
will be the beginning of the Biotech Age. Biological
processes and their proper understanding and use by
human ingenuity will replace today's predominately mechanical
and chemical production of the industrial age. This
will include subsequent replacement of pyrotechnical
energy and transformation systems by organic, phyto-technical
and biotechnological systems, In combination with the
ongoing, revolution of information technologies biology
will be the lead science base of technological innovation
and transformation of our production system. We all
know that today's industrial system is about to destroy
and exhaust this planets life support systems and will
be unable to sustain future generations. But let's not
fool ourselves, there is no automatism or guarantee
that the bio-technological revolution will be more sustainable.The
only difference is that it has the potential to be sustainable.
What
is Biotechnology?
Biotechnology
is probably nearly as old as humankind and can be defined
very generally as the use of biological processes or
organisms for human purposes. Plant breeding and animal
husbandry, beer brewing and yoghurt fermentation as
well as more advanced technologies of using micro-organisms,
phyto-pharmacology, vaccination or the use of biomass
for energy production - All these technologies are forms
of biotechnology. Progress in all areas of biology,
but especially in molecular biology and biochemistry
have added powerful additional tools to biotechnology
over recent decades.
What
is Genetic Engineering?
There
is also the remarkably diffuse term of "modern Biotechnology"
which some PR guys have coined to avoid calling genetic
engineering genetic engineering. However there is a
precise definition for genetic engineering, which is
the direct intervention on the genetic makeup of an
organisms usually by introducing foreign DNA into it's
gene pool by means that would not occur naturally. This
very specific subset of biotechnology enables humans
since less than three decades to create artificial organisms,
which are no longer the result of the natural rneans
of evolutionary development.
What
is GPs position on Genetic Engineering?
Greenpeace
is not fundamentally opposing or condemning genetic
engineering technologies. Given the still very limited
experience with this technology as well as the even
more limited understanding of it's overall impacts however
we advocate utmost precaution in using this technology,
especially on a large scale. However we appreciate the
biomolecular insights this type of manipulations have
provided over the past years and we believe that genetically
engineered organisms can play an important role in the
production of new pharmaceutical substances as well
as in the conversion of other chemical production methods.
The only limit we suggest to this use of GMOs is that
they should be kept in hermetic containment and not
enter the biosphere.
Why
are we opposed to releases of GMOs into the environment?
The fundamental
disagreement we have with some genetic engineers and
their employers is whether or not such genetically engineered
organisms should be releases into the environment. At
this point we principally reject the release of GMOs
into the environment and the reasons for this fundamental
position are probably well known to most of you. So
I will repeat then here only in a nutshell:
1. Genetic
engineering of organisms creates unprecedented and qualitatively
new transgenic lifeforms that have not occurred in nature
before.
2. The
present scientific knowledge about the functionality
of DNA but even more about the dynamics of interaction
between organisms are completely insufficient to assess
the possible impacts of the release of such new lifeforms
the environment. Only a portion of all existing organisms
is even known today. And our understanding of their
interactions is in its infancy. There are no valid concepts
nor is there substantial experience to especially assess
long term evolutionary effects of transgenic organisms.
While we do not know too much about the possible direct,
indirect, cumulative and synergistic effects of GMOs
in the environment, we do know that organisms reproduce
and adapt to their environments. They are neither stable
in their genetic composition nor in their behavior,
location and interaction with the environment. Once
released into the environment however we have to assume
that GMOs cannot be recalled.
This leads
us to the conclusion that the only responsible way to
handle this technology in the foreseeable future is
to prevent tile release of GMOs into the environment.
We derive this conclusion primarily from our assessment
of what is not known and want cannot be known and to
a much lesser extend from what is and can known about
the possible impacts of GMOs on the environment. The
combination of massive uncertainties about possible
detrimental effects of GMOs in the environment and the
global and long time potential of such possible effects
leads us to demand the strictest possible application
of the precautionary principle to refrain from releasing
GMOs into the environment.
What
are the challenges of Agriculture in the new century?
We certainly
all agree that agriculture and food production faces
tough challenges and choices, which are determined by
environmental and demoscopic imperatives. It has:
· To supply access to sufficient food and a balanced
diet for an estimated world population around 8 to 9
billion people in 2030,
· To drastically reduce its emission of climate
gases and persistent organic polluters from inputs,
production, transport and food processing,
· To stop and reverse soil erosion,
· To stop contamination of water and adapt to
the regional levels of sustainable water supply,
· To reduce its destructive impact on habitats
and biological diversity,
· To and it will finally have to adapt to highly
probable but still unpredictable effects of climate
change over the next century. In addition rural production
and distribution structures will be decisive for the
question of employment and social security of the majority
of citizens of this planet. It will determine the speed
of emergence and growth of entirely unsustainable mega-cities
all over the world. And it will shape the development
of global consumption patterns. The total challenge
to agriculture in this context is therefore to provide
for an increasing number of rural jobs and livelihoods.
To put
it a bit simplistic, the challenge is to replace toxic,
energy intensive and otherwise detrimental inputs by
smart and qualified intensive labor using the state
of the art of biotechnology.
Over the
past decades, during which we have realized these imperatives,
little consequences have been drawn.
· Food production and distribution related energy
consumption and climate gas emissions are still steeply
growing
· Water consumption is not reduced and increasingly
relies on non renewable resources
· Toxic emissions are still unacceptably high
and accumulating · Soil erosion continues in most regions
of tile world
· All we know about man made extinction rates
indicates they are still increasing
· The number of rural livelihoods is decreasing
dramatically in most parts of the world, especially
in relative terms to the growth of populations.
Further
rationalization by increasing industrial input and emissions
leads to further extermination of rural livelihoods
and employment as well as invaluable so called traditional
know-how about the land, the weather and the habitats.
The proportional share of industrial inputs, transport,
processing and distribution in food production is continuously
increasing. The diversity of crops and varieties used
in agriculture Is still decreasing and so is the pool
of germplasm these varieties are based upon. And last
not least the inequality in access to food as well as
total per capita use of arable land has rather increased
than decreased and is still one of the ftindarriental
shames of this world, which leaves hundreds of millions
of people hungry and malnourished at a stage of substantial
overproduction of food.
Why
do we cafi our vision organic?
Over the
two decades of Greenpeace campaigns against the emission
of persistent toxic substances into the environment
and especially during the last years of campaigning
against the release of GMOs into the environment, we
have come to distrust more and more any short term technical
fixes offered by industry in this area. Our conclusion
today is that there are fundamental contradictions between
industrial agro-chemical production, including genetic
engineering and sustainability.
Let me
name a few of these contradictions and opposing visions:
· the pursuit of principally unlimited growth
and accumulation as opposed to the search for appropriate
and sustainable equilibria
· the tendency to speed up and optimize processes
to the achievable limit as opposed to adaptation to
natural life cycles
· the tendency to optimize single aspects of
the production at the expense of it's broader context,
resulting in technical solutions frequently creating
more problems than they solve
· the tendency to fully exploit economies of
scale at the expense of the best small scale solution
· the tendency to standardize processes, products
and knowledge at the expense of optimal adaptation to
varying local and regional needs and conditions of biological
and cultural diversity
· the need to cut costs irrespective of their
nature, which leads to destructive exploitation and
enforces neglect of unprized or underprized common goods
· the exclusive search for commercially viable
products, which progressively include science, know-how
and information and the inability to develop, provide
and share free access to science, know-how and common
goods
· a tendency for short term technical fixes as
opposed to longer term integrated and systemic solutions
· the tendency to develop high tech and high
risk systems requiring continuous control and elimination
of errors as opposed to decentralized small scale and
diverse, error-friendly and error-utilizing systems
Organic
farming today
Derived
from these structural contradictions we have come to
learn that the movement and concept of organic farming
is by far the closest to address these problems and
provide an integrated and forward looking vision of
future agriculture.
Let me
name some of their basic principles as codified in IFOAM
organic standards:
· To produce food of high quality in sufficient
quantity
· To interact in a constructive and life-enhancing
way with natural systems and cycles
· To consider the wider social and ecological
impact of the organic production and processing system
· To encourage and enhance biological cycles
within the farming system, involving microorganisms,
soil flora and fauna, plants and animals
· To develop a valuable and sustainable aquatic
ecosystem
· To maintain and increase long term fertility
of soils
· To maintain the genetic diversity of the production
system and its surroundings, including the protection
of plant and wildlife habitats
. To promote the healthy use and proper care
of water, water resources and all life therein
· To use, as far as possible, renewable resources
in locally organized production systems,
· To create a harmonious balance between crop
production and animal husbandry
· To give all livestock conditions of life with
due consideration for the basic aspects of their innate
behavior
· To minimize all forms of pollution
· To process organic products using renewable
resources
· To produce fully biodegradable organic products
· To produce textiles which are long lasting
and of good quality
· To allow everyone involved in organic production
and processing a quality of life which meets their basic
needs and allows an adequate return and satisfaction
from their work, including a safe working environment
· To progress toward an entire production, processing
and distribution chain which is both socially just and
ecologically responsible.
We know
that organic agriculture is still a niche economy, just
like solar energy is today in the field of energy production.
Despite the fact that it is actually one of the fastest
growing businesses in many developed and less developed
countries, organic farming is still in its infancy.
Not only regarding the scale of the operation, but also
regarding it's technological and scientific development.
Organic
farming at its present stage of development is not and
does not claim to be a drop in solution for all problems
in food production today. In order to meet the global
challenges outlined above, organic agriculture needs
a boost of scientific and technological input and development.
In 1998 according to FAOS agricultural committee 0,01%
of USDAs research budget is directed to organic farming.
EU figures may not look much better.
The ecological,
but also socioeconomic successes of organic ventures
are striking and by far outpace anything we have heart
from genetic engineering which has absorbed billions
of R&D investments and public spending.
Still
the organic vision will require the collaboration and
concerted efforts of governments, business and civil
society in order to make it happen over the next one
or two generations. While it is a widespread myth that
it could not provide comparable and sufficient yields
over the long run, organic conversion does require the
investment of reduced yields over a period of transition.
And we are about to run short of time: With progressing
depletion of farm land, water resources and diversity
and increasing numbers of people on this planet it is
actually conceivable that there will be a time where
short term and unsustainable yield increases may appear
as the only option left. This would be obviously shortly
before we face real and massive catastrophic consequences
of the present farming system. The political and moral
strength needed for change by then might go beyond our
capabilities.
If there
is one lesson we have learned from closer and closer
collaboration with the organic movement, but also with
more thoughtful scientists and experts in the field,
than it is that there are no quick fixes and there is
no such thing as a free lunch, as Americans would say.
To pursue this organic vision requires substantial investments
and the ability to wait for their return sometimes a
little longer than the next shareholder meeting or the
next election.
This appears
to be one of the most challenging aspects to the conversion
from unsustainable, destructive agricultural practices
to more and more sustainable and ultimately organic
solutions.
The whole
concept does not lean to the short term perspectives
of corporate and political decision makers and it appears
to contradict the business concepts of major companies
in the field. How could Monsanto, however it will be
called by then, DuPont, .Aventis, Syngenta actually
become organic players? Where is the profit for them?
What kind of products could be organic blockbusters?
Certainly not pesticides, certainly not monocultural
wonderseeds, and probably not even copyrighted or patented
software packages. There is most likely no "Agricultural
Windows 98" or "Farm Office 2000" that could effectively
serve the world- wide diverse need for appropriate information,
training, exchange and interaction (however truly effective
you might deem Microsoft's products in reality
We have
started to talk to more open minded representatives
of Life Science companies, to scientists, farmers, politicians
about this. We are committed to pursue this discussion
further and one of the messages I am trying to get across
to you today is that we would like to invite all of
you to participate in trying to solve that riddle. However
Our preliminary conclusion at this point is that an
organic future also requires, if I may say so, more
organic business structures and that size as Well as
the type of customer-relation required may not match
with present company structures.
This is
no good news from our perspective. Because from a Greenpeace
campaign point of view telling a company to simply get
lost, is the least promising of all proposals you can
make to them. We certainly love confrontation as a special
form of public dialogue, but we do not seek to make
real enemies. Whatever action we do - it is always an
invitation to cooperate. So we are still -working hard
oil this problem.Yet maybe the reason we have not found
fully satisfying solutions also has to with the fact,
that industrial agriculture as it works today, is an
open invitation to a majority of farmers and their communities
to get lost. And from what I have said so far, YOU Will
Understand that Greenpeace would obviously never subscribe
to such a concept of food production.
So
where will we be in 10 to 20 years time from now and
where might the "battle royal" as Dan Glickman dubbed
the great global debate about the use of GMOs in agriculture
have taken us by then?
You will
not be surprised to hear that I do not see any future
for GMOs in agriculture and that my prediction is that
we may be smiling about a few arguments we are exchanging
now. There are two reasons for this prediction. The
first is the presently unfolding global rejection of
GMOs in food, which has already significant repercussions
in the very few countries that have embraced this technology
so far.
We are hearing of reduced GMO planting in the USA in
the range of 10 to 30 percent. And we expect similar
developments in Canada as well as Argentina. We also
realize that major commodity traders are preparing for
full segregation of GMO and non-GMO products. We also
realize that the great expectations on the future of
so called functional foods seem to work pretty well
without food producers embracing any GMO inputs. We
also realize that major players in the Life Science
business are planning to spin off their ag-biotech departments
as they are seriously concerned about their future and
do not want them to hurt their pharmaceutical business.
And we read about consumer attitudes in North America
coining closer and closer to those in Europe.
But there
is a second reason, which leads me to that prediction
the more we will understand about the functionality
of genes and the genetic composition of organisms the
more likely we %\,-III develop much more elegant and
less intrusive and brutal methods of achieving our goals
in plant breeding. The better we will be able to combine
classical methods of breeding and selection with genomic
information and understanding, the smarter and easier
we will be able to achieve and use certain traits of
plants without shooting foreign DNA at random places
of their genome or infecting them with genetically manipulated
viruses to incorporate bits and pieces of entirely unrelated
genetic information from other species. Genetic engineering
as we know it today will soon be seen as an extremely
primitive and ignorant way to interfere with the filigreed
and complex genetic makeup of individual organisms as
well as the web of life.
When we
look at the really breathtaking progress of plant, animal
and human genomics, we can see how the genetic information
of organisms is revealed faster and faster. And we can
foresee thousands of books. Of life to unfold literally
within months. Of course it will take more than high
throughput screening to make sense of this wealth of
new information. It actually will take hundreds Of thousands
of scientist-years to sit down and read this information
carefully in order to better and better understand it
I wonder how well trained today's young scientists really
are in order to do that job. I am quite certain that
young farmers and agricultural advisors are by no means
prepared for this. And then again it may well take even
longer to put this information and understanding into
an ecological context and to analyze and understand
exchange, communication and general interactions between
all these organisms. That will, by the way, include
the discovery of hundreds of thousands of new organisms
we are presently not even aware of. There will be plenty
of most exiting work for generations of taxonomists
and ecologists and molecular biologists and farmers.
They will work with devices that will probably compare
to today's sequencing equipment just like the latest
palmtops to mainframe computers of the early 60ies.
And genetic information only the biggest and richest
companies can gain and compile today will most likely
be as cheap as today's throwaway chips. Probably we
will ultimately see still within our lifetime paradigmatic
changes in our present concept of information as such,
which will be derived from advanced computer, biological
and neuro-science All these developments are extremely
exiting and hold enormous promises for the biotech age.
Certainly this technology will also entail massive risks
and probably unprecedented destructive potentials, They
may put options in front of societies as well as the
international community, which are far beyond our present
Imagination. For certain this unfolding knowledge will
require the development of ethical and cultural principles
and societal adaptation that goes far beyond such simple
questions as whether or not we should release GMOs into
the environment today.
I personally
perceive this global debate about the release of GMOs
as a starting point of a much broader and complex challenge
we all have to prepare for. And I see certain elements
within this debate that I suspect to survive the present
dispute:
· The
question whether we are able to abstain from the immediate
use of something that can be done, but probably should
not be done
· A vastly
extended realm of scientific uncertainty we will have
to deal with in a responsible, which means precautionary
manner
· The
ability of the scientific community as well as the media
and many other institutions to bring together information
and knowledge from very different disciplines in a way
that enables informed judgement of and democratic decision
making of laypersons (who we all realize to be to a
higher or lower degree at this time of knowledge and
information explosion)
· The
question whether governments role Is simply to regulate
and adapt to corporate driving forces and structures
or whether they are able to organize democratic decision
making about technological options
· And
finally there is the obvious and actually quite dramatic
need for global ethical principles in dealing with decisions
of global impact
The organic
vision I have tried to sketch out and Greenpeace is
pursuing is one contribution to this challenge. And
so is our principal rejection of releasing GMOs into
the environment. We will be happy to share our visions
with other visions and to refine them together with
you.
BIOSAFETY
NOW!
Last
not least let me put these thoughts in context with
the most pressing challenge of our political agenda
today. I will be flying to Montreal the day after tomorrow,
where negotiations of a global Biosafety Protocol have
just started and I look forward to meet quite a few
of you there again. The establishment of minimal global
rules and of an international body to further develop
safety standards, is the most obvious prerequisite for
any further discussions on this issue.
You all
know that negotiations for this Biosafety Protocol,
which aims to set at least minimal standards for the
transboundary movement of GMOs, have collapsed nearly
a year ago because the position of six nations that
represent nearly 100 % of today's GMO exports appeared
to be incompatible with the position of the rest of
the 130 nations represented. And you may also know that
the United States of America have been the most important
and powerful opponent to tile adoption of that Biosafety
Protocol. Negotiations basically collapsed because there
was no common ground on these questions:
· Should
all GMOs be regulated under this agreement or should
more than 95% of all traded GMOs, which are declared
as "commodities" be exempted?
· Should
the Precautionary Principle guide decisions or only
proven detrimental effects of GMOs allow nations to
reject their import?
· Should
there be a liability scheme holding GMO exporting companies
responsible for possible damage or not?
· Should
a clear system or traceability of GMOs be introduced
or not?
· Should
this agreement be guiding trading rules under the WTO
or should WTO regulations override the Biosafety Protocols
provisions?
Greenpeace
has been following closely these negotiations ever since
they have been started under the Biodiversity Convention
5 years ago. The majority consensus on this agreement
by no means reflects what we would consider advisable
and necessary. We never pretended that our demand to
stop the release of GMOs could be imposed on the participating
sovereign nations. But we equally believe that the international
community must not and cannot accept that this urgently
needed first international agreement on Biosafety is
prevented by a single nation, however powerful it may
be. The arrogance of the United States Senate's decision
not to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of nuclear
weapons last year would actually to some respect be
dwarfed by the achievement of the United States administration
to wreck this Biosafety Protocol.
If short
term commercial interests of presently three GMO exporting
nations can prevent the establishment of minimum safety
rules on this issue, than any further discussions about
common ground and perspectives must appear the government
simply futile. Another failure of the negotiations in
Montreal next week would not only be the most embarrassing
declaration of bankruptcy of the worlds governments
democratically establish international law under the
long shadow of the WTO. It would also withdraw any reasonable
common ground for further discussions about the use
of genetic engineering in agriculture. And hundreds
of congresses like this could never make up for the
fundamental loss of credibility of a nation, whose government
has chosen to be the most vociferous advocate of GMOs
worldwide. It can be in nobody's interest to enter the
age of Biotechnology by frivolously missing the chance
to establish an international framework of Biosafety.
Els
Borst, Minister of Health, Welfare and Sports and Deputy
Prime Minister, Government of the Netherlands
"Biotechnology and Health"
Madame
Ambassador, ladies and gentlemen,
We have
just embarked upon a new century. It will no doubt become
known as the era of two important technologies: Information
and Communications Technology - ICT and biotechnology.
It is certain that both will have a dramatic impact
on our lives, but there is a major difference. The two
technologies are perceived in very different Ways. ICT
gives rise to far less anxiety and suspicion than biotechnology.
I have never heard anyone ask 'should people really
to go that far?' in connection with the Internet. Yet
biotechnology constantly gives rise to this question,
probably because people regard it as a development which
seeks to tamper with life itself.
Government
policy with regard to any new technology cannot be based
on scientific facts alone. When devising policy, a minister
must also take public opinion into account. How do people
view the new technological possibilities, their benefits
and their risks? The Dutch writer Harry Mulisch, in
his novel "The Discovery of Heaven" recounts a discussion
between two gods in heaven about us humans here on Earth.
I quote:
With each new invention people have stolen a piece
of our omnipotence. With their rockets they are already
traveling faster than the wind, sound even, and one
day they will approach the speed of light. They can
see in the dark, they can look into the insides of a
human being without opening him up- (.,) If they want,
they can even destroy the Earth. Excuse my saying so,
but that power really was our prerogative. In the foreseeable
future they will have mastered our absolute privilege:
the creation of life. End of quote.
There
are differences in the level of acceptance of the various
applications of biotechnology. There is, for example,
a greater degree of social resistance in the case of
food than there is in the field of medicine. Haernophilia
patients are on the whole much happier with clotting
agents produced with biotechnology than with those isolated
from donor blood. With the natural product, the chance
that this may be contaminated with HIV hepatitis B virus,
or some virus we haven't even discovered yet, is always
at the back of their minds. Their wish for safety seems
to overrule any negative feelings about biotechnology
procedures. I now turn to my main theme: What contribution
can biotechnology make to healthcare? I have no doubt
that biotechnology will provide us with new knowledge
which will lead to many improvements in prevention and
therapy. Yet it can also provide us with knowledge which
may lead to increased suffering.
Let me
first give you some examples of the medical advancements
of biotechnology. To begin with, better vaccines. Many
vaccines produced by traditional methods have drawbacks,
such as allergic reactions to vaccines cultured on chicken
protein. Biotechnological techniques circumvent such
problems. This development has already been put into
practice.
Then there
is the development of better, safer drugs. I have already
mentioned Factor Vill for the treatment of haernophilia.
Another example is insulin for the treatment of diabetes.
A completely new field is that of pharmaco-genomics:
the development of never drugs by the application of
our knowledge of DNA sequences. This approach will lead
to more effective and more specific drugs. Currently,
around thirty per cent of patients using some form of
medication derive no benefit from it at all. By targeting
the drug to the
And it
is this last application which brings me to the other
side of the biotechnological coin, the side that can
lead to increased suffering. Unfortunately, the opportunities
for diagnosing genetic abnormalities are developing
faster than the therapeutic possibilities. One of the
most harrowing examples of this is Huntington's Disease.
Here, a genetic defect inevitably leads to a condition
which reveals itself in early adulthood and then steadily
progresses to result in death within ten to twenty years.
By 'inevitably', I mean just that: one hundred per cent
certainty. In the final stages of the disease, the patient
develops dementia. We now have excellent means of prognosis,
but absolutely no means of prevention or treatment.
In a situation like this, it is essential that people
receive the very fullest information, so that they can
decide for themselves whether they wish to know their
fate or not. Everyone has the 'right not to know'. This
is a fundamental and inviolable right which we must
conscientiously uphold.
Knowing
that biotechnology can bring many improvements to health
care, what should be the government's role in the development
and introduction of medical biotechnology?
The Dutch
government has a positive attitude towards medical biotechnology.
It is essential that the government is seen by the general
public to be both trustworthy and credible. People's
confidence in science and scientific methods can no
longer be taken as read. However, people are prepared
to place their confidence in careful and conscientious
procedures, by which I mean procedures in which various
parties examine a development or product from various
perspectives. The government must ensure that this is
what happens. The policy I advocate is one which is
open, careful and pro-active.
We therefore
apply a number of measures to ensure that the patient's
interests are foremost. First, all health risks are
identified and assessed. The moral issues are raised
and discussed both in a public debate and in parliament
The benefits of the new applications are examined and
weighed against the risks. A Central Committee must
be trained in providing proper guidance to patients
to help them in dealing with the new knowledge which
predictive medicine provides.
We shall
lose a great deal if we don't move forward with biotechnology
in healthcare, but many questions remain to be addressed.
These questions are not primarily the concern of doctors
and geneticists, but that of the social scientists,
behavioral scientists, ethicists and public administration
experts. My request to the medical biotechonologists
is therefore: be open to cooperation and interaction
with these disciplines. Your work and its products will
not automatically be accepted by society. You are dealing
with extremely complex matters with far-reaching consequences.
They require a process of continuous communication.
Or, if Harry Mulisch will allow me to paraphrase the
title of his book, "Only together can we discover heaven."
Annemarie
Jorritsma, Minister of Economic Affairs and Deputy Prime
Minister, Government of the Netherlands
"Biotechnology and Economic Development"
Madam
Ambassador, Ladies and Gentlemen,
On the
one hand, I feel sorry for you. If I have counted correctly,
I am the 18th speaker who you are expected to listen
to today. On the other hand, I also envy you. Because
today and tomorrow, you will be faced by a large number
of people who can tell you everything there is to know
about biotechnology, and its significance to society.
People from the world of science, industry, politics
and the environmental protection movement. I would therefore
like to compliment the American embassy for its choice
of speakers, because both supporters and opponents have
been invited to tell their side of the story.
In me
you will find a proponent, for the simple reason that
I anticipate that this new millennium will be the era
of IT and biotechnology. Both IT and biotechnology will
expand to become important and high-quality economic
clusters. And, as minister of Economic Affairs, I therefore
believe that the Netherlands should do everything in
its power to take advantage of the potential inherent
in these fields.
We are
already quite successful in the field of IT. According
to a recent study conducted by the American International
Data Corporation on the subject of IT applications and
developments, the Netherlands ranks 7th in a group of
55 countries. We are now counted amongst the leaders,
the 'information elite', together with the US, Singapore
and the Scandinavian countries.
With respect to biotechnology, we don't rise above average,
despite growing investments and an increase in the number
of biotech companies. Currently, there are about 50
young Life Sciences companies active in the Netherlands,
and almost 300 somewhat older companies involved in
research and the quest for new product applications
in this field. As such, these figures are no reason
for us as a country to hang our heads in shame, but
I want more. I am not satisfied with a place in the
pack. I want to be amongst the leaders, like we are
when it comes to IT. Don't misunderstand me, I don't
mean the world top - that would be too ambitious - but
I do want to aim for the European top, the European
'biotech elite'. Surely that must be possible. The Netherlands
has an excellent level of scientific knowledge, and
cooperation between industry and science is good.
The Netherlands
therefore has everything Life Sciences companies could
wish for - at least, that's what I thought. But there's
one thing the Netherlands lacks, or has too little of:
I am referring to starting Life Sciences companies.
Studies
have shown that the Netherlands comes tenth in Europe
with regard to the number of starting biotech companies.
This is an alarming figure, because it is precisely
these start-up companies that are so important. Not
only to commercialise scientific knowledge, but also
to expand those industries that are already so vital
to the Netherlands: the chemical, food and pharmaceutical
industries.
Using
the benchmark method, where we compared our own situation
to a number of successful regions in the field of biotech,
we discovered why there is such a shortage of start-up
companies. The Netherlands is lagging behind considerably
when it comes to a number of important issues:
-
For
example, researchers within our knowledge institutes
don't really think in terms of commercial application.
They study many subjects with good results, but
they don't 'do' enough with the final product. A
patent application is rarely submitted, and - even
more important - there is not enough follow-through
about how the final product can be marketed.
-
In
addition, too little starting capital is available
for new Life Sciences companies. That's because
investment during the early phase of a biotech company
is very expensive, and associated with many uncertainties;
-
In
addition, good 'incubators' are lacking. In other
words: we don't have good facilities such as accommodation
and supporting infrastructure;
-
Finally,
there is a major shortage of good managers who can
act as coach and mentor to these young entrepreneurs.
Keeping
these facts in mind, I called a meeting with experts
and people from the field. Together, we drew up an action
plan aimed at two things: to catch up with the lags
I have described, and to ensure that the Netherlands
attracts more starting Life Sciences companies as soon
as possible. Put in more concrete terms: currently,
we welcome about 5 biotech starters each year. We must
boost that number to at least 15.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I won't
bore you with all the details of this plan, but I would
like to describe a number of measures to you. In summary,
as far as the government is concerned, this relates
to funding and the establishment of a platform. We don't
wish to involve ourselves any further, because I believe
that the primary responsibility lies with the parties
involved.
As far
as funding is concerned, I will make a total of 100
million guilders available over the next 5 years. This
money will be used in various ways. First of all, to
stimulate enterprising researchers to set up their own
company, based on their findings. Also, to set up office
space and lab facilities and to purchase research equipment.
Finally, I want to use part of that money to supplement
the available venture capital by introducing a start-up
participation fund to the market. This fund is designed
to support new companies with start-capital.
In addition,
following the example of the US, Germany and Canada,
I want to establish a Life Sciences Platform. This platform,
where scientists, industry, investors and governments
will be represented, must assure the progress of the
action plan. Furthermore, the Platform will be involved
in all kinds of important activities, such as creating
and expanding networks, providing courses on entrepreneurship
to researchers and promoting the Dutch Life Sciences
cluster, both at home and abroad. This platform is due
to commence no later that June this year. In early February,
at the opening of the European headquarters of Genzyme,
I will go into further details.
Ladies
and Gentlemen,
That's
the action plan to date, and that's my story almost
told. A story that puts strong emphasis on the economic
opportunities of Life Sciences and biotechnology - and
a story about the measures designed to enhance these
opportunities enormously. In particular, because our
neighbours are more active than we are in stimulating
this cluster. As a consequence, companies may prefer
to base themselves in these countries, rather than in
the Netherlands.
Apart
from this threatened loss of employment opportunities,
another factor to consider is that the Life Sciences
cluster is an ideal knowledge cluster. A saying we also
have here in the Netherlands says it all: knowledge
is power. Companies, universities and knowledge institutes
know that they must develop increasingly more sophisticated
products and production processes if they are to survive.
And this knowledge is also very important to Dutch industry,
because it should help us to overcome a number of boundaries,
a number of barriers. For example, space-restricting
boundaries, barriers to mobility and environmental barriers.
Biotechnology in particular has served us very well
in this area already. For example, technologies used
for soil decontamination and water purification, and
applications in the chemical industry that have led
to reduced emissions.
Therefore,
we are very keen to have and to keep the knowledge that
will generate a strong Life Sciences cluster within
the Netherlands. Does that mean biotechnology at all
costs? No, of course not. Nevertheless, I have great
confidence in science and technology. And I have great
confidence in the way new products must undergo thorough
controls by industry. I also trust the public and the
environmental movements, because any excesses will be
severely punished, and rightly so.
Finally,
the public has the assurance that the Dutch government
will also keep a close scrutiny on new developments.
Together with my colleagues, minister Els Borst who
also spoke here today, Laurens Jan Brinkhorst, who will
speak here tomorrow and Jan Pronk, we are drafting a
policy document that will indicate exactly under which
scientific, social and commercial preconditions these
technological applications will be accepted. I anticipate
that this policy document will be published shortly.
All these,
to my mind rock-solid certainties mean that I must conclude,
in unison with my colleague Els Borst: 'We lose a great
deal if we don't move forward.'
José Sarukhán, Instituto de Ecología,
Mexico
"Biotechnology and the Environment"
The agricultural
revolution has been, arguably, the most fundamental
innovation in the history of the cultural and socio-economic
development of humankind. This was, from the beginning,
a revolution with a definite environmental impact on
Biodiversity through the complete removal of natural
ecosystems. Contrastingly, it also increased biological
diversity through the creation of new, formerly non-existent
domesticated plants and animals. This was achieved through
a process of selection under domestication and germplasm
management. Due to the expansion of the agricultural
frontier through the centuries to provide food and goods
for an ever-increasing human population, it has been
repeatedly mentioned that agriculture has been a human
activity intrinsically destructive of biological diversity
(1). It is not surprising that this argument has been
used to palliate statements concerning the possible
negative effects of the use of GMO's on the biological
diversity of a region. This is particularly true when
agriculture is practiced in a resource-inefficient way,
or when it uses technologies not adapted to the environmental
characteristics (soils, slopes or climatic regimes)
of an area. But it is not acceptable as a "blanket statement"
to justify risks imposed by GMO's. Small holding, poor
quality and highly pervasive agricultural systems in
developing countries, as well as resource-and-energy
inefficient, high-input, "monetarily-productive" agriculture
in great extensions in developed countries, are both
equally destructive of biological diversity.
In my
presentation today, I will analyze the environmental
effects of the release of genetically modified organisms
(GMO's) into the environment, mostly regarding the conservation
and sustainable use of biological diversity (Fig. 1).
Besides referring to the effects of agriculture in general
and GMO's in particular, I will deal with aspects of
risk assessment and monitoring as well. However you
will see, by the examples I will be using, that much
of what I will say about the potential environmental
risks or impacts of the use of transgenic technologies,
is equally applicable to present day conventional agricultural
practices the world over.
SELECTED
EXAMPLES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF AGRICULTURAL
ACTIVITIES
By far,
the most important global cause of Biodiversity loss,
habitat fragmentation, soil degradation, reduction on
aquifer replenishment, etc., is the loss of natural
habitats by their conversion into agricultural and grazing
land (Fig. 2). It is also the second most important
emitter of green house gasses. Virtually all of the
territorial extension of Europe was thoroughly transformed
due to agriculture since the last few thousand years.
85% of the old growth forests in the US disappeared
due to the extension of the agricultural frontier since
European colonization. The present high rates of deforestation
in the world's tropics result from habitat loss to agriculture.
One-fifth of the world's forest has been lost to agriculture
in the last 300 years.
Human
activities, fundamentally agriculture, have at least
doubled the equivalent of N fixed by plants and made
it available in the environment (31). This has exacerbated
acidification of soils and water bodies, changing species
composition of ecosystems, raising nitrate levels beyond
acceptable levels in drinking water and causing eutrophication
of lakes and the sea. The most dramatic example (Fig.
3) of the latter is the "marine dead-zone" created in
front of the delta of the Mississippi in the Gulf of
Mexico. Global fertilizer use soared from less than
14 million tons in 1950 to 145 million in 1988, falling
back to 135 in 1996 (Fig. 4).
In 1995,
world pesticide consumption reached 2.2 million metric
tons of active ingredients. Pesticide use causes 3.5
to 5 million cases of acute poisoning a year. Developed
countries use 70% of the world total pesticides in about
26% of the Earth's total landmass, while developing
countries use the rest in roughly 72% of that landmass.
Agriculture
accounts for some 70% of water consumption worldwide
and the UN forecasts an increase of 50-100% in irrigation
water in 25 years. However, agriculture is the single
biggest and often most inefficient user of surface and
groundwater worldwide.
HOW MUCH
DO WE KNOW ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF GMO USE
GMO's
have been released into the environment relatively recently
and their geographical expanse and ecological conditions
are so far relatively constrained. Consequently, solid
information about their actual effects on the environment
and on biological diversity is still very sparse, and
there is not yet an agreed measurement of the seriousness
of their environmental harm.
Most of
the released GMO's have traits that fall into the following
four categories (Fig. 5): 1) Herbicide resistance, allowing
the use of broad spectrum, short lived herbicides, to
which the GMO is resistant; 2) Resistance to viral,
bacterial and fungal infections, mostly through the
introduction in the plant of genetic material of the
viruses, in a technique similar to vaccination in humans;
3) Resistance to insect attacks, mostly through the
introduction of the Bt gene from Bacillus thuringiensis,
a bacterium toxic to many insect species, specially
moths and butterflies, and 4) Resistance to conditions
of high salinity or toxic concentrations of certain
metals such as aluminum in degraded tropical soils.
These are traits difficult to obtain since numerous
genes regulate them. Undoubtedly, to each beneficial
aspect it is possible to also define a possible harmful
effect. There will always be risks inherent in any technological
intervention with nature.
The British
Nuffield Council of Bioethics' report on Genetically
modified crops (3) concludes that, regarding damage
to the environment by GMO technology, they believe there
is no evidence of harm to justify calls for bans or
moratoria on GMO plantings in Britain (2). Basically
a similar conclusion was reached by the Bern conference
sponsored by Swiss Governmental agencies last year,
when over a 100 worldwide specialist from different
disciplines met. In both the Nuffield report and the
conclusions of the Bern conference it was concluded
that risk assessment activities should be based on scientific
grounds and results validated case by case, and step
by step, before they are accepted by regulatory bodies.
A few
instances of specific environmental harm related to
GMO's have been reported in the literature. A well-known
and publicized example is the one referring to the effect
of pollen of Bt maize on larvae of Monarch butterflies.
John E. Losey and collaborators reported (15) that caterpillars
of the butterfly fed with milkweed leaves dusted with
Bt engineered maize pollen, showed 46 % mortality. However,
the authors point out that caterpillars normally avoid
eating leaves that contain normal pollen of any species,
probably due to behavioral traits. They conclude- very
wisely in my opinion- that given the projected increase
of acreage of Bt maize in the U.S., "it is imperative
to gather data necessary to evaluate the risks associated
with this new agrotechnology and to compare these risks
with those posed by pesticides and other pest-control
tactics".
I think
it convenient to make a reference also to potential
positive influences that GMO's might have towards the
environment, some of which may also take place in areas
different from agricultural fields. The genetic changes
that have made possible the domestication of agricultural
crops have not been possible for trees, since hundreds
of generations are required to achieve some degree of
selection of a trait. Now genetic engineering provides
the opportunity to achieve such changes in a few years.
Scientists at the Forestry Department of the North Carolina
State University are developing a gene that reduces
the accumulation of woody tissue (lignin) in the trunk
increasing the amount of cellulose, and stimulates the
growth of aspen used for the production of cellulose
for paper. Fast growth is an attractive economic trait
and the reduction of lignin from the cell walls helps
solving the most energy intensive and environmentally
harmful step in the industrial process of pulp and paper
production.
An additional
potential beneficial application of genetic engineering
of use at a global scale may be the future development
of different non-crop plants adapted to grow in highly
stressful conditions with the purpose of ecologically
restoring severely deteriorated soils.
APPLYING
THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.
The paucity
of reliable data on the effects of GMO's on Biodiversity,
does not make acceptable the argument stating that "the
lack of evidence of harmful effects is evidence of lack
of harmful effects". Adopting a precautionary approach
when releasing a GMO into the environment, is clearly
and scientifically sustained by the theoretical and
empirical knowledge provided by evolutionary ecology.
It is extremely dangerous to generalize about the ecological
properties of a species. There is no meaningful way
in which a study made of one sample from a species can
be said to represent that species, until the range of
variation within and between its populations can be
established (3).
However,
to be consistent in applying the precautionary principle
for the protection of the environment from the risks
of GMO technologies, we should also consider in all
fairness its application to current agricultural practices,
whose severe environmental effects at the local and
global level we have briefly seen. However, arguments
have been advanced by eager GMO promoters saying that:
a) there is no reason to apply such principle now, because
it was never applied before in deciding which agricultural
technologies are acceptable in relation to their effects
to the environment or, b): the principle constitutes
a hindrance to further research and development of new
technologies.
These
arguments make little sense. The precautionary principle
should be interpreted as a vigorous promoter of more
research to understand better the possible implications
of these new agricultural technologies for the environment,
and not as an obstacle to innovative research.
ENVIRONMENTAL
RISK EVALUATION.
The range
of ecological variation affecting a given GMO crop is
dependent on the biology of a species and its geographic
and environmental ranges. Therefore, a case-by-case
risk evaluation must always be practiced, based on a
descriptive "equation" of risks (Fig. 6):
Characteristics
of the GMO + Its intended use + Environmental characteristics
= RISK ASSESSMENT
The
information necessary to properly carry out risk assessments
is not simple to obtain, if it exists at all. Basic
data are needed for such environmental assessments.
To begin, full information of the biological aspects
of the living organism before it is genetically modified
is needed including, among other elements, its ecology,
reproductive systems, taxonomic and phylogenetic information,
dispersal and distribution mechanisms. Concerning the
innovative traits the living modified organism has acquired
(e.g. herbicide or insect resistance), we need to know
about the methods of expression of the trait, new genotypic
or phenotypic attributes, characteristics of the host
or parental organism, and interactions of the GMO with
the target environment (27).
To determine
the possible risk scenarios it is essential to define
the uses a GMO is intended for, since this is an important
part of risk assessment (2, 8,15, 27, 28). This is to
say the planned extensions and volumes of production,
the objectives of the release and the human-health risk
assessments. Relevant ecological data about the intended
sites of release needs to be collected at local and
regional scales. Examples are temperature, precipitation,
surrounding vegetation types, presence of taxa phylogenetically
related to the GMO (potential recipients of a GMO's
gene flow), and relevant invertebrate fauna (particularly
pollinators and herbivores). The possible effects on
populations of wild species (e.g. birds) need to be
assessed as thoroughly as practicable, in order to reassure
the public of the exact effects of the release of GMO's
on those populations (4). It must be shown that the
various impacts of the GMO technology have been carefully
considered and that they are at least neutral or innocuous
(5, 16, 17).
MONITORING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF GMO'S.
Finally,
when all these data are available at an adequate level,
a decision can be made to release a GMO into the environment
(2, 6,19, 29, 30). The need for risk management and
monitoring commences at this point. Monitoring of the
possible effects of GMO's on the environment, particularly
on the biological diversity of a site or region, is
essential if one wants to evaluate the impact of these
new agricultural technologies and learn more about how
to use them efficiently. The methods needed to evaluate
and monitor biological diversity in both natural or
man-managed ecosystems are essentially similar: one
needs base-line information on the original biological
diversity at the species and genetic levels, population
sizes of key species, characterization of guilds of
species, etc.
Countries
or regions which are centers of origin of crops, possessing
many relatives of domesticated or semi-domesticated
species, should receive specially careful consideration
about possible impacts of the release into the environment
of transgenic crops of which they are centers of origin
or diversification (6, 7, 8).
Experiences
regarding genetic or DNA flux from GMO´s into wild relatives
of cultivars and into the cultivars themselves are concentrated
on species of economic importance in European agriculture.
A virtual absence, particularly in highly susceptible
species like maize, impose the need to carefully and
continuously monitor the effects of GMO´s, on an individual
basis, in the field (9, 10,).
Some of
the environmental questions that in my opinion deserve
research and observation in a monitoring effort are
(Fig. 7):
a) Is
the escalation of the "co-evolutionary war" between
GMO plants and their pests equal or greater than that
occurring by the use of the traditional agricultural
techniques? (11, 12,13)
b) If
genetic traits of stress tolerance were passed into
wild taxa, is there an expansion on the niche of these
species that may result in the suppression of biological
diversity in the surrounding areas affected by the GMO
cultivation?
c) Would
the adoption of stress tolerant GMO's (e.g. adaptation
to severe soil deficiencies), promote a considerable
extension of the agricultural frontier, further reducing
extensions of natural ecosystems where formally no agriculture
could be practiced?
d) Do
high diversity communities (e.g. in the tropics) have
greater resilience and therefore are less prone to potential
risks represented by GMO's?
e) Is
the greater pollinator specificity found in general
in tropical species a barrier to pollen flow from GMO's?
Finally,
there is need to monitor the cumulative effects of modified
crops, since it is this impact what may become unacceptable,
rather than the individual cases.
SOME FURTHER
CONSIDERATIONS.
The aptitude
to evaluate and manage the potential risks of GMO´s
is directly related to the capacity to produce and/or
use them in a safe and efficient manner. This is an
important issue. Both the potential benefits and risks
of releasing GMO's into the environment are site, region
and country dependent. This implies that national, regional
and local aptitudes are key components not only to make
decisions regarding the environmental release of GMO's,
but also defining the economic success and the environmental
safety with which transgenic organisms can be utilized
in agriculture. These aptitudes involve not only a country's
scientific and technical skills; they are also related
to regional or national agricultural policies, as well
as socio-economic and cultural traits, which should
also play an important role in a country's decision
to adopt GMO technologies.
Such traits
and skills are fundamental in determining whether the
use of the new GMO technologies may be a true alleviator
of environmental stresses posed by present day agriculture
(14), or if they will become one more deleterious addition
to already existing conventional technologies which
negatively impact the biological diversity of the world.
Both poverty and structural change in rural areas have
historically resulted in severe environmental deterioration.
The adoption of modern biotechnologies should not generate
these processes or make them advance further.
CONCLUSIONS
Three
premises must be observed in order to reduce the negative
impacts of agricultural systems on the environment,
whether using GMO's or not (Fig. 8). The first one is
that we have a limited knowledge on how ecological systems
operate and react to different impacts of human activities;
consequently, particular care should be taken in the
assessment of the environmental effects of GMO's on
impact assessments by establishing truly efficient and
long-running monitoring mechanisms. The second is that,
globally speaking, no single agricultural technology
is the answer to an ecologically sustainable and economically
successful agriculture. If we want to preserve as much
as possible the biodiversity of an area, we must adopt
diversified agricultural systems that maximize such
diversity, developing multi-strategy technologies, based
in the best available agricultural practices that are
environmentally "friendly". These may include anything
from the so-called "traditional or indigenous agricultural
practices" to the use of GMO's. A good model to study
in detail are the biologically diverse agricultural
systems practiced in many parts of the world, particularly
in biodiversity-rich, developing countries (17, 18,
19). Here, the biological diversity of the agricultural
system is maximized at the genetic, species and community
level. This is achieved by simultaneously cultivating
several genotypes (or land races) of a crop; mixing
the main crop with other, secondary crops and maintaining
a highly diversified floristic community, which is both
a source of useful plants for the farmer and is host
to many biological controls of pests. And finally, the
third is that it is technically feasible to design GMO
crops which avoid the potential risks that some of the
present generation of GMO's have. An example would be
avoiding the expression of Bt genes in pollen. Also,
the development of genetically engineered organisms
with bioremediation and ecological restoration purposes
should be encouraged and made available at very low
costs for utilization the world-over.
In order
to achieve in the following decades the enormous potential
that genetic engineering has for securing food production
and their possible role for ecological restoration,
the development, introduction and adoption of GMO's
cannot be based in regarding the environmental damage
as an externality in the economic considerations of
both genetic engineering companies and Nations alike.
A final
conclusion is that Science must be at the center of
any discussions or controversies about the potential
benefits or harms of GMO' on the environment. And the
well-being of mankind should be the aim of those discussions,
considering humans as a species totally dependent on
the ecological systems which contain the world's biological
diversity and provide the ecological services essential
for sustaining life on Earth as we now know it.
Jim
Murray, The European Consumer's Organization (BEUC)
"Biotechnology and the Consumer"
Consumer
concerns about biotechnology in Europe, in terms of
environment, health and other issues have tended to
focus on foodstuffs. The use of biotechnology in other
sectors is less apparent and tends to present a different
risk/benefit aspect. The introduction of GM food and
food ingredients in Europe has been disastrous for everybody:
producers, industry and consumers.
BEUC does
not oppose the development and introduction of GM food
and food ingredients; nor do we think that there is
any inherent general risk to human health in the use
of these products (although we do oppose some specific
products). We believe that there must be a good authorisation
system for such products (which we do not have at present),
that certain potential health issues must be addressed
and above all that consumers must be able to choose
to cat or not to eat products derived from genetic modification.
GM products
did not come on the market one by one for consumers
to accept or reject. They came through derivatives of
commodities, particularly soya, which potentially may
be found in 60-70 % of packaged or processed foods.
As a result, we launched our Campaign for Consumer Choice
two years ago. The attached slides give a "flavour"
of our demands, which were two-fold: that consumers
should continue to have a choice between GM and non-GM
products and that they should have the necessary information
to exercise that choice. In other words, we wanted availability
(of non-GM products) and labelling of products derived
from GM organisms.
At the
beginning we saw little hope of persuading the Commission
or other public authorities to take action in the form
of new regulations and our initial objective therefore
was to try to change conditions in the market, which
would then be followed by the appropriate regulatory
response.
The new
labeling regulations announced by the European Commission
last week will not meet consumer demands. On our analysis
of the text, it seems that it will not be necessary
in practice to label food containing highly processed
soy oil derived, from GM soya. It will be easy to avoid
having to label modified starch and GM maize/corn derivatives
such as maltodextrin, fructose syrup, glucose syrup,
or additives such as sorbitol and mannitol.
The exact
effect of the regulations is not yet known, because
we do not yet know the scope of the proposed "negative
list". It seems clear, however, that the labeling requirement
can be avoided for many ingredients, by way of extra
processing (to remove DNA or protein) and/or by putting
such products on the negative list.
If our
interpretation is correct, there will be many food products
on the market containing ingredients derived from GM
plants which will not have to be labeled, even when
the producer and manufacturer (but not consumers) know
very well that the ingredient comes from a GM plant.
This is not consumer choice. I call on the Commission
to bring forward new measures to close the loopholes
opened up by the use of so-called "principle of equivalence"
and the negative list", and to ensure that food and
food ingredients derived from GM organisms are labeled
accordingly.
Juan
Enriquez, Harvard University
"Conclusion"
I
want to talk to you today about systems. I want to talk
to you about how systems are changing and how quickly
they are changing. In 1700, the difference between the
richest country in the world and poorest was about four
to one. The reason for that was that in an agricultural
society or in a system based on mining, it was very
hard for one human being to be leveraged to the extent
that if he got up an hour earlier, he worked a little
bit more or he got a better plot of land, that region
or that society could generate a much greater differential
with other societies. What happened with the industrial
revolution was that all of a sudden a machine did the
work of 1000 people and so the people who had access
to those machines and who were able to build those machines
all of a sudden started generating very much more product,
in terms of the economic output, then other societies.
One of the effects of that is that last year, the difference
between the richest nation in this world and the poorest
nation in this world was about 245 to 1. So you go from
a 4 to 1 ration to a 245 to 1 ration.
Now I
would like to just show you what has been happening
as of the 1930s and 40s. Most of the nations in this
world, including the Netherlands, were following pretty
much a parallel track even after the industrial revolution.
You had a system where the Netherlands, Japan and Germany
were basically on the same track. After World War II,
one of the things that happened with the computer revolution
was that some people became computer literate and IT
literate. Communications, information technology and
electronics have been a driver along with a series of
other technologies that have continued to separate nations
that develop technologies and that do not. You can see
this change in who are the largest corporations. If
you look at the U.S. the names in 1900 of which companies
were large companies were cotton, oil steel, sugar,
refining tobacco, electric, lead, mail and gas. Not
one of those is in the list of the largest companies
in 1998. What you are going to see with the IT and biotechnology
revolutions going forward is that the companies that
you are going to see on this list in fifty years are
going to be very different companies that you see on
the list now. Meanwhile, the rest of the world, Latin
America, Africa, parts of Asia, are still such in a
commodity economy. If you look at the largest companies
in Latin America, you find that they are oil, gas, cars,
tabacco, utilities and one telecom. That differential,
the ability to produce and use knowledge, has incredible
consequences for the life styles and the ability of
people to survive. It is incredible how quickly this
is happening. Even if you assume that there is a Wall
Street bubble, which there probably is, even if you
assume that the Internet economy is overvalued, which
it is, the speed of change in this economic structure
is absolutely staggering, because you have established
firms in almost every field; media, finance, transport,
even in the auction business, that have been around
for 100 years, that have relatively large market capitizations.
A company like Yahoo, which was founded in 1994, all
of a sudden has twice the market capitalization of a
company that has been around for 100 years. That becomes
consistent. You see it in places like Sears, that has
been around since 1893 and Amazon.com is now valued
at twice what Sears is. Then you look at employment.
Sears is working with 325,000 people and Amazon is working
with 2100. That has implications. What this is telling
me is that you can create an awful lot of value. You
do not need factories. That value can move. You do not
have to depreciate a factor over ten years and if you
lose the people who are able to generate a knowledge
economy in your society. You are going to lose a lot
of value and it can happen very quickly.
Let me
give you a sense of how quickly this is happening in
the biotech revolution. The ability to sequence genes
is like a new alphabet. If you think in terms of what
the digital revolution did, the digital revolution took
an alphabet that was 26 letter and it said that everybody
in the world, instead of speaking in 26 letters, is
going to speak in two letters, in ones in zeros. A common
language started driving businesses that were completely
separate together. All of a sudden the guys who were
doing photography, music, cable, pagers and phones,
were speaking the same language as the guys doing newspapers.
You started getting industrial combinations like Time
Warner, CNN/AOL, MSNBC, and ABC Disney. Disney is not
buying ABC because it wants to advertise Mickey Mouse.
It is buying this company because the language that
both of these companies are speaking is interchangeable.
Now think of a base four alphabet. Think of what it
means to be able to describe all forms of life as long
strings of ATCG. Think of what happens when you have
a basic computer code. If you rewrite the computer code
the screen looks different. That is the source code.
If you get the source code for life, you can start rewriting,
and directly and deliberately influencing the course
of evolution. That is an absolutely mind bending task,
because it puts enormous power not in the hands of nations,
but in the hands of individuals. It is individuals who
are driving the world economy today. Let me give you
a sense of how quickly that id happening. The cost of
sequencing a gene in 1974 was about $150 million. Today
it is about $150. This is not a slow revolution.
I am not
going to go into why it is happening, because previous
speakers have said it. What I do want to say is there
are reasons why this goes way beyond biotech. Biotech
was very quickly cutting, splicing and shooting. What
you have today is an absolutely extraordinary explosion
of an ability to build on a molecular level. Think of
it as being able to build with bricks, but on a molecular
level. It is driven by a whole series of technologies
that are additional to and complementary to biotech.
What it is doing is that it is having the same effect
as the digital revolution did. The digital revolution
led to five of the largest mergers in this world over
the past decade. The life science revolution by bring
together chemical, pharmaceutical, energy, cosmetic
companies and others, all of these companies are going
to start speaking the same language. The implication
of them speaking the same language is that their scientists
are going to start interchanging information and if
you see anywhere near the effects that you saw in the
IT revolution, this is going to drive a series of mergers
that are going to be very large. In fact, the Glaxo
SmithKline merger creates an entity that is larger than
about 150 countries in this world in terms of market
capital and GNP.
There
is a poor guy sitting in the patent office in the U.S.
In 1991, someone shows up with 4,000 requests for patents.
The other guy is overwhelmed. What is he going to do
with 4,000 requested patents? Four years go by, and
as he is processing these things, he gets 22,000 applications.
One more year goes by and 500,000 applications arrive.
What this is telling you is that this stuff is happening
faster than Moore's Law. The amount of data being deposited
in Gendaq is about fifty percent faster than the speed
at which computers double their power and halve their
price. This is a revolution of an absolutely unprecedented
order of magnitude and speed. It takes basic industries
like agriculture and because seeds are packets of DNA
that you can reprogram, it raises the value of seed
companies and it does so very quickly whether you company
is old, relatively new or very new. All of a sudden,
a company goes from a stock price of $1.67 for a boring
old seed company producing corn every year, to about
$ 3. When you start seeing returns like that, one of
the things that happens is systems start driving even
faster. Your price earnings were issued on the stock.
What people are expecting seeds to produce, how quickly
they are expecting it to produce, you can see by the
PE ratio. How much am I willing to pay for a stock?
How much is it earning? How much is it expected to earn?
These go from ten, to fourteen, to thirty-two. In the
case of something like Delta Pineland, which produces
most of the cotton in the world, they have a PE ratio
of about 494. These are expectations. Maybe they will
become reality or not.
One of
the things that happens is that the approval of GM foods
goes very quickly. It is not just the products, but
the products derived from these products that very quickly
hit the supermarket shelf. There are a lot of people
in Europe upset about this. They are trying to stop
this. One of the things that people should be think
is: what are the potential consequences in a system
that is moving this quickly, of getting into a debate
like that. The labeling debate requires segmenting a
commodity system. That is a very interesting thing to
do because it decommoditizes what has so far been a
commodity system. Let us assume for a second that bad,
old Montsanto has to decommoditize and actually create
a traceability system from seed through shelf. Right
now, in the supermarket, there is GM corn and non-GM
corn. You are probably going to buy the non-GM corn.
If you start seeing rice with beta-carotene, or a series
of nutriceuticals, and these products actually come
to market, one of the consequences of separating these
commodity systems is that there is going to be one system
with the ability to trace farm to shelf. The other system,
the European system, will remain commoditized. Guess
where you make more money? Guess who is going to be
more competitive? The second thing that people might
want to think about is differentials in productivity.
Agriculture is big business in Europe. Agriculture uses
50% of the EU budget. Agriculture has very low margins.
What happens in this system if one part of the system
becomes a lot more productive a lot quicker? The third
thing that you might want to think about is how quickly
can you generate a lot of capital, a lot of brainpower
and a lot of investment. The second largest super computer
in the world has been built in the last nine months.
It was built by a company that did not exist in Europe.
You will hear from the founder of that company tomorrow.
Let us take a look at the subsidy system. If you are
using 50% of the EU budget right now to sustain agriculture
and the reason is you want to sustain a lifestyle, you
want to sustain a structure and the stuff has a three
to five percent margin. If you find a way to make farmers
in the rest of the world more productive by three percent
a year through biotechnology, in the first year it eats
up all the profits that exist in the European system
so far. Every year there after, to maintain the same
lifestyle farmers, the Europeans will spend $1-1.5 additional
in the EU budget to stay on the same treadmill. I wonder
if that is a sustainable system. Particularly at a time
when the real value of commodities is about one-fifth
of what it was in 1945. You are paying a lot of money
to produce something that the world is getting very
good at producing and is producing at a lower price.
This is not unprecedented change. Agriculture, precisely
because it has low margins, is a system that changes
very quickly. Framers that fall behind go out of business
very quickly and you see a series of examples, when
you started using grain elevators, the cost of moving
a bag of grain in the 1850s went from about 5 cents
to about one-tenth as much and very quickly. You saw
the same thing with horses and self-propelled combines,
where over the course of a decade you go from $1.75
an acre to 25 cents an acre. In 1809, nine out of ten
Americans lived on a farm. By 1884, 50% and by 1998,
2% living on a farm. In systems that have low margins,
you do not have a lot of margin for error and you do
not have a lot of time to change if your neighbor changes.
Churchill
said, "the great empires of the future will be the empires
of the mind." He said in 1953. The empires of the mind
today are in Silicon Valley and in Massachusetts. That
is where the IT and biotech companies are and the amount
of wealth being generated by these companies is staggering.
They are not generating it in the same way. Massachusetts
started out because of Harvard and MIT having an enormous
advantage over Silicon Valley in the 1950s. If you look
at the founding date and the employment rate of these
companies, in 1959, Massachusetts was about five to
one over Silicon Valley. Massachusetts followed a series
of policies that frittered the stuff away. Within twenty
years you saw the employment in Silicon Valley about
three times the employment in Massachusetts. One of
the windows to what is going to happen are patent trends.
The patent trends and who is patenting in a global economy
is important, because it tells you, over the next twenty
years, who is going to dominate technology. If you look
at the bottom line on this, the amount of people it
takes, in the Netherlands, to produce one U.S. patent,
is about 11,360 people. In Japan, it takes about 4,000
people and in Taiwan, it takes about half the people
it takes in the Netherlands. The other thing that is
important to realize about this chart is that the rate
of growth of patents in the Netherlands between 1985-98
increased 66%. Patents in Taiwan went up about 137%,
about twice that rate and in Taiwan, 1812 and Korea
1600. You can argue those rates of growth are not sustainable,
but it tells you that on the ramp of knowledge and what
is going to happen over the next twenty years, there
are countries that are getting a lot better producing
knowledge and protecting knowledge. By the way, they
are on a much faster growth curve. When you think of
who is going to be generating the wealth and having
lifestyles, these are important points.
I want
to finish by telling you a cautionary tale. Think here
is one more American haranguing us. I come from Mexico.
I watched this happen in my country. We have a lot of
oil and we thought we were going to get rich on basis
of oil, while keeping our culture and we were a strong
culture and society, and therefore, we keep things going
the same way as they were. We did not have to invest
in people, education and small businesses and so on.
As a result, in 1985, the number of patents being produced
in Korea and the number in Mexico, Brazil and Argentina
were basically comparable. One of the things that happened
from 1985-98, is that South Korea got better at becoming
a knowledge economy and Latin America did not. Latin
America basically doubled the amount of patents it was
producing per country. This is what South Korea did.
Let me close by telling you what the impact of that
was. In terms of productivity and real wages of one
society versus the others, wages in Korea went up 950%.
From 1960-1990. Wages in Mexico today are, in real terms,
are below what they were in 1960. That is what happens
if you try and maintain a commodity economy. Productivity
and income are the same story. That is why it is important
to understand that in this debate there are a lot of
precautions you should take, but you do not want to
create a society that is not on board changes in technology
that are occurring very quickly.
Question
and Answer Session
with a panel of afternoon speakers
Question
from the audience: This question
is for anyone, particularly Jim Murray and Dr. Mayer.
This whole question about consumer choice and what is
it about GMOs that is so intrinsically different that
consumers have to be informed. We have products on the
selves that were made with plants that were hybrids
using x-ray mutation and other very high-tech methods,
but no one is demanding labeling of those products.
Who decides which technologies are so fundamentally
different that products must be labeled because of the
production process? US regulations on labeling talk
about health, nutrition and other characteristics. They
do not talk about labeling based on process. The other
consumer right, consumers do have a right to know, but
consumers do have a right to low prices, it seems to
me. If you did a survey of consumers in several countries
and asked them if they would purchase a product if it
were less expensive, you would probably have a much
higher rate of agreement than you did on buying GMOs.
This question of choice and why GMOs have to labeled,
when all our other industrialized products, many of
which are very different than what our grandparents
ate or even our parents ate, where do you draw the line
on labeling?
Answer
given by Jim Murray: To answer first your question
on who decides on labeling, you will be glad to know
that I do not. We are here to make an argument about
that and at the end of the day the decision will be
made partly by people in the market, as it has been,
in response to consumer demand and by government regulators
and so on. As to what should be labeled, the consumer
organization did not even lead this charge. We were
following consumer concern. Consumers are more concerned
about this than other issues which could well be labeled,
for example, the question of labor and social issues,
animal rights and so on and so forth. There seems to
be a strong political imperative for labeling. As it
happens, I also believe, that is for you to disagree
with, that it is now probably the way in which we can
win public, citizen and consumer acceptance for this
new technology on the supermarket shelves. I do not
have the slightest problem with presenting consumers
with two products of differential prices, provided that
those prices are not rigged, and letting consumers choose
between them, assuming the basic regulatory issues are
dealt with. As a consumer organization we would be perfectly
happy to see that. I believe in the longer term, if
it happens, the consumers are presented with GM products
by reputable companies and reputable retailers in particular,
and particularly if they see an advantage in it, they
will grow to accept it over time. That is unless they
have reason to believe there is something bad happening
in the other areas where there is environmental or health,
or something like that. We certainly do not decide.
We argue. We are in a free market for ideas on this
and arguing that this is something, which should be
labeled. It is an argument which, two years ago, we
were told we had no hope of winning which now I feel
more hopeful about.
Question
from the audience: This question is for Jim Murray.
It is nearly the same question, formulated in a sharper
way. The way you presented your talk, you were happy
about the evolution. You were enjoying that it took
this road. My question is whether you are puzzled by
the fact that you announce that you agree there are
no health hazards with the genetically engineered food
that is produced now. Your colleague from the Dutch
consumer association said that everyone has been saying
today that there are so many questions and so many dangers
around it. Indeed, if you would ask any consumer why
they are against, he would also say that it is because
it is dangerous. Actually, what is happening is an enormous
level of scientifically incorrect situations that have
enormous implications at the moment, that all the science
for the developing countries is not going on and other
things are stopped. Are you not worried about the kinds
of successes you are having?
Answer
given by Jim Murray: Yes, I think you misunderstand
me if you feel that I rejoice in all the things that
have happened. I tried to describe some of them as a
matter of fact. Of course, there are bad aspects about
it as well, including the fact that there is an awful
lot of nonsense talked about GM food. There is an awful
amount of misinformation talked about GM technology.
That, I have to say, does not come from my organization
or from our members. Just for the record, while I have
the highest respect for the "Alternatieve Consumenten
Bond" (a consumers interests organization), who you
described as my colleague, they are not in fact members
of my organization. I should say that. They may indeed
wish me to say that. Some of the things that have happened
have not been good. Demonizing of GM food for whatever
reasons has not been good. We happily concede that point.
Demonizing goes on in many different ways. Sometimes
it goes on for marketing reasons. Somebody says our
product does not contain GM or our product contains
no this or that. This is a process that can be driven
for marketing reasons too. Sometimes it can be driven
by the media. Of course, it can be driven by NGOs. I
find it hard to worry about that. If you take Brussels,
there are according to the Wall Street Journal, somewhere
between ten and fifteen thousand lobbyists in Brussels,
who I assume are not stupid and do not lack resources.
There are at best a few hundred NGOs and public interest
groups. The only thing we have going for us is words.
I have no economic power. I can not tell consumers to
vote this way or that way. We are there making an argument.
Within that argument it is certainly open to people,
because it is a free society, to be wrong, to be stupid,
to make wrong arguments. That is the first amendment
right in the US, though it is not quite so entrenched
in Europe, but nonetheless it is there and it is a free
market of ideas. That means that what we say should
also be open to attack. I have no problem with that
and trying to defend it. I do believe that some of the
nonsense that is written in the media and other nonsense
written by people, we should simply attack it and say
this is nonsense and have a more robust debate about
it. But there are serious points here, reflecting serious
concerns and they must also be addressed.
Question
from the audience: Mr. Pierce, do you feel that
the safety of GM products, on an ecological level are
adequately tested in the US and do you have experience
with contradictory market entrance requirements from
the FDA on several different products? Is it a homogeneous
playing field?
Answer
given by John Pierce: In terms of the first question,
there are series of tiered tests regarding the release
of GM crops and these are analyzed on a product by product
basis. There are tests regarding allergenicities, effects
on non-target organisms, and durability in the environment.
When they have reached the types on analyses that take
a few years and the package is prepared and judgement
is made as to their safety, and then approval is given.
Yes, my belief is that they have been safe and are as
safe as other crops. Current history with them and observations
suggest that that is the case. For the second question,
the regulations are on a tiered system. There are a
number of questions that are asked and they start off
depending on the type of product you would be thinking
about commercializing. Depending on whether this is
protein, a history of food use, does it look like an
allergen, is it in fact an allergen? There is a series
of tiered questions. Depending on the answers you go
through ever more stringent analyses or if you can not
answer them in a satisfactory fashion, then you have
a different burden of proof. In fact, different products
have different regulatory hurdles. That is rightly so.
Question
from the audience to Jim Murray: If the reactions
of a number of big retailers to stop selling GM food
continue then the future will be that genetically improved
foods can not be bought anymore by me or other consumers.
That does not fit with the philosophy of freedom of
choice, which I think should be possible. That could
be a real risk, missing out on potentially interesting
products. Are you or your organization actively persuading
retailers to sell labeled GM foods?
Answer
given by Jim Murray: The strict answer to your last
question is no. But I agree with everything else you
said. We do not want a ban on GM foods. We do not want
them to be taken off the market. We do not want consumers
to be denied the possible benefits. That is not to say
that I believe in specific claims about specific benefits.
We do not want that to happen. I think you are, with
respect, putting on to my poor shoulders everything
that every NGO says everywhere about GM products. I
am not responsible for all of them. Benedikt Haerlin
from Greenpeace is a good friend of mine, but I am not
responsible for anything he says and he is not responsible
for anything I say. He does not wish to be. Our own
points are quite clear. The points by our members are
quite clear, that we are not against them and we want
choice. We do not see any point in demonizing. As it
happens, to some degree, some choice has come about
by the fact that at the moment, and this is a slight
improvement but not an ideal one, that if you want to
avoid GM you have the possibility of shopping in one
place rather than another. That is an improvement. It
is not the ideal solution, but it is definitely an improvement
of some kind. It means that the juggernaut is stopping
and people have to rethink it. I hope this is only a
temporary situation and as I said in my speech, we do
not have the slightest problem with the idea of properly
identified GM and non-GM products existing side by side
on the supermarket shelves and let consumers choose.
Question
from the audience: This is a question for Juan Enriquez.
I was fascinated by your presentation and I want my
question to be answered by you and any other panelists
who have comments on this. I think that your charts
were telling us that the rate at which innovation is
taking place in different parts of the world is quite
varied. What I gather from this is that the Asian economies
are moving forward rapidly, based on this increased
number of patents. Moving then from a commodity based
economy to a knowledge economy, which should be a priority
for all of us, is something that is happening at very
different paces. Europe lags far behind. The Netherlands
seems to lag far behind, despite the fact that it is
relatively advanced in terms of ICT in Europe. Could
you comment on the impediments to innovation? What you
did not have a chance to say was what was causing the
Asian countries to go ahead. Is it the regulatory environment?
Is the black box here, government policy making is more
complex, less user friendly to innovations or to firms?
Do you have any thoughts to this and how it can be changed?
Answer
given by Juan Enriquez: The traditional answer that
you get is let us upgrade the educational system. That
seems to be an overall fix it. That is an essential,
but not sufficient component to this. The cautionary
tale that I offer is India. India has an extraordinary
system of six Indian institutes of technology that graduate
some of the best mathematicians, physicists and scientists
in the world. The problem is that most of them get up
and leave. The problem is that right now 40% of the
businesses founded in Silicon Valley are founded by
Indians. You have this phenomenon where they contracting
labor back home in Bangelore and creating a software
city in Bangelore which has become the second largest
software producer in the world after the US. The precautionary
tale on this is that much of the value of the intellectual
capital stays in the US. Last year India registered
one patent in the UK. Given the ties between India and
the UK that is not a good number. Part of what this
tells us is that you do not only need a good educational
system and smart people, but you also need a system
of support that has a tremendous incentive for those
smart people to stay in your place and not get on KLM
and fly. In ten hours that person can be in Silicon
Valley. Believe me, the US will give them an H1V- visa
and the venture capitals will show up and say, here
is five billion dollars. It will be easy to incorporate
the business and there will be people in favor of that
business. That does not mean that every country has
to accept that. Not every country has to be a biotechnology
power, but as this debate goes forward and positions
polarize, it is very important this not become an anti-science
debate. If you try and stay in the same place you are
going to lose. The world is moving too fast.
Comment
from a panel member: The last point that Juan made
is very important. The distinction between both East
Asia and other parts of the developing world is that
they have had both a relatively stable micro economy
and much greater openness to foreign capital for many
years. Therefore, they were able to invest. The models
are very different. Taiwan has a lot of little companies.
Korea has five huge conglomerates that account for 60%
of exports. The top sixty companies in Taiwan account
for five percent of the exports. It is really a reverse
model. It is not the East Asia model. The other thing
that is different between Europe and the US is the enormous
difficulty in getting venture capital in Europe. The
fact that in Silicon Valley someone can go bankrupt
once or twice and still go back to the top again and
get funded. Because there is this knock down, get up
again and try again, this is extremely important in
a situation where you have a lot of start-ups in new
technologies which are coming. People are willing to
put money and expect that they will lose in six or seven
out of every ten ventures, but that they will hit in
two or three of those and that those will become the
big ones. That kind of thing is not yet sufficiently
found on the European stock markets or capital markets.
That is a difference. In developing countries, of course,
with the exception of East Asia, the markets are quite
small in most developing countries.
Question
from the audience: A point that was raised several
times throughout the day was the soundness of the science
that is at the basis of the practice of recombinant
DNA technology. Indeed, if that science is sound and
we get on board with these rapid evolutions then certainly,
as humanity, we will go to a bright world where we will
all be healthier, happier and affluent. But this science
is developing very rapidly. We are not in the same place
as yesterday. A few years ago a biophysicist named Rolands
told us that we interpret DNA as children in the first
year of primary school read words. We have very little
understanding of the levels of organization of DNA which
correspond to whole phrases, paragraphs and chapters,
let alone the whole book. Since then a number of scientists
have researched these higher levels of integration of
the DNA and a few integrating principles which span
bigger domains than a single genome or a few genomes.
On the basis of these principles a number of experiments
have been done with genetic manipulation which show
that in each and every case recombinant DNA technology,
this localized insertion of chimerical DNA into a whole
genome, inevitably in each and every case, damages these
higher levels of integration of the DNA thereby scientifically
establishing that recombinant DNA technology is an inherently
damaging and flawed technology. This information is
largely ignored or even suppressed. My question is about
intellectual candor. Are the scientists, who are in
this business, willing to look at it and adapt their
behavior, because this entails dropping the current
level of biotechnology that is being produced, which
has products on the market?
Answer:
If you look at the scale of knowledge we have for the
last 53 years, since Crick and Watson came up with DNA,
we are talking about understanding the human genome,
we are talking about the genome of corn and rice. I
personally think saying that this information has been
suppressed in an open society, US or Europe. I do not
think any suppression of information is going on. With
this predictable behavior of the recombined DNA I think
it is really amazing that you have reached the conclusion
that there is something inherently wrong with this technology.
I think it is a different story when you talk about
consumer choices. But as for the safety of these products,
in nature there has been modification of genes going
on. Through trial and error we then perfected the technology
into hybrid seed. Now we are talking about precise insertion
of genes. To me there is more predictability by doing
what we are doing with gene splicing, then what we used
to do 20-30 years ago. I have to disagree with you that
this is inherently unpredictable technology. I think
there is more predictability of what you are going to
get in the product derived from biotechnology than from
previously used techniques.
Comment
from John H. Monyo: I would like to comment on what
Mr. Haerlin from Greenpeace said. He said that we should
concentrate on organic agriculture. Taking into account
that we have some 800 hundred million people or more
in developing countries hungry. Many of them can not
use chemicals. They are therefore using organic methods
that are not working. Therefore, we do need improved
technologies to make things change. On the question
of international regulation of food safety, as you are
probably aware, the Codas Elementarius is a commission
in FAO, shared with the WAO, there are one hundred and
sixty member countries who participate in this commission
to determine standards which are acceptable internationally
for food. Food safety is a major theme. Recently, last
year, at a meeting of the commission, they did create
a task force on biotechnology, which is going to meet
in Japan in March. The Question of labeling is going
to be taken into account. I have a question for Mr.
Siddiqui. You said, and I agree, that some science is
very important. A transparency in the regulatory system
and testing is very important. It seems like the US
has done the job well and the public has been susified
in many ways. Were you surprised by what happened in
Seattle? A new survey shows that 56% of consumers in
the US would like to be told if the food is GMO or not.
Does this surprise you?
Additional
answer given by Dr. Siddiqui: What happened in Seattle
is like mixing apples and oranges. In a society as open
as we are, everyone has the right to express. If you
look at the reaction to what happened in Seattle, by
and large, the American public was really puzzled and
upset that the meeting of the WTO was essentially jeopardized
and essentially disrupted by some people who broke the
law and took the law into their own hands. As for us
trying to put more meaning in to it, there are concerns.
Environmental concerns, concerns of losing sovereignty,
that WTO is dictating some things which some people
do not like. I did not see that there was a connection
there. Some people, who were also protesting against
GMOs, in a population of close to 300 million people,
I think that you see a few hundred or a thousand people
demonstrating it is still a small fraction. There are
still some people who do not like this technology. We
have been saying is to me the same thing. There have
been people for the last 30-40 years who do not like
the use of pesticides and chemicals in their food. For
that there is an emerging industry and that is organic
food. They can prefer if they do not like pesticides
in food more and more you can buy organic. For the same
reason, I would like to see the labeling issue settled
that where non-GM food is labeled where these who do
not want GM contents can buy non-GM food.
Question
from the audience: I do not think it was correct
of Professor Montagu to dismiss consumer concerns as
unscientific. I think Mrs. Mayer this morning and Mr.
Haerlin this afternoon, and Mr. Sarukhán have given
some of the scientific controversy about some of the
risks concerned with genetically engineered food. Maybe
you would like to illustrate some of that?
Answer
given by Mr. Haerlin: Maybe I should point out that
Greenpeace, maybe you have noticed as well in my presentation,
is not predominantly concerned about the safety of GM
food. We do see major gaps in the regulations. We believe
that the concept of substantial equivalence, which is
the basis of the risk assessment, is scientifically
flawed. We do not see risks comparable to the type of
environmental risks. We are really concerned about,
that could not be handled. It is a different level of
concern. We are not a consumer organization in the first
place. Greenpeace, for instance, does not believe that
the safety of the environment should be put to vote
on the supermarket shelves in all cases. We do not believe
that consumers put in front of different products at
different prices are the best arbitrators about what
is the best, environmentally most sound method of producing
food necessarily. We are also not predominantly campaigning
for choice. By the time there was freedom choice everything
was OK. In other cases, you would certainly agree that
freedom of choice can not be the only ground for democratic
decision making. On the other hand, I think labeling
is a prerequisite for any citizen to take his or her
stand on this issue. My personal experience is that
most people I have been talking to about this issue
are not mainly concerned about immediate health impacts,
such as allergic reactions to GMO food. My other experience
is also that many people to whom I try to explain what
our concerns are about GMOs would not listen very long
to this, but much earlier say, well, this outrageous.
You do not do this. I believe that many of you might
want to consider that a large portion of the rejection
of GMOs is not about food safety, and probably not even
about environmental risks, such as the risks that have
been described, such as to the Monarch butterfly that
has been discussed, or rather risks that can be named
and identified with existing GMOs at the moment. A lot
of people say this is simply not right. It does not
feel right. I think it is a big mistake not to take
this into consideration. You say, but that is an emotional
reaction. Emotion should have nothing to do with our
decisions. I think emotion must have a lot to do with
our decisions. The people I am really afraid of are
those who try to exclude their emotions from decisions.
One species who have developed this to a very high level
is actually scientists, who are extremely emotional.
I am sitting in these types of conferences often and
getting purely emotional reactions from scientists.
As I have trained myself to quite a few of these arguments
over the past ten years looking at these issues. As
I know a little bit about the scientific discussion,
I can tell you scientists are perfect at abusing scientific
facts for sheer emotional purposes. It is by no means
true that in an open society information can not be
suppressed. Information can very well be suppressed.
Scientific communities can be extremely harsh and not
based on scientific scrutiny, but on self-interest,
like any other group in society. I have learned, hat
is a comment on the question of sound science, to very
much distrust the emotions of scientists in this field.
Comment
from another panel member: With due respect to my
colleague here, you said it is not an issue of safety
or the environment. You said it just does not feel right.
Given that choice, I feel sometimes about certain things
as well, but I want to reverse the role. If I do not
feel right about something, I do not want to deny you
your rights. I think saying it just does not feel right
so you want to deny this technology a chance to contribute
to answering a number of problems, such as nutritional
enhancement of products or reducing pesticides. Where
you were using ten applications in cotton, now because
of BT cotton you have to use one application. That is
a ninety percent reduction in pesticide usage. I am
addressing to you, that "it just does not feel right",
if it were my case I would not use that product, but
I would not want to deny other segments of society the
right to use that product.
Mr.
Haerlin: I probably said a little more today then
"it does not feel right". What I was saying is that
this is a frequent consumer reaction.
Question
from the audience: The speeches this afternoon have
underlined the importance of science and technology
in the future. We see the excellent performance of South
Korea, Japan and India in this respect. But, if I look
around at the universities here we see that there is
almost no sex appeal in engineering. We have few students
in physics, mathematics and chemistry. How are we going
to solve this if it is so important? What we do see
are many students in business administration and management.
The point is that they do not do the work, but we want
to tell others how to do the work. It is the same in
the US. American professors are surrounded by Chinese
and Indians who they publish with. Afterwards when they
start a company. The Americans are not interested. They
say why should I become a scientist if it is easier
to become his boss. It is easier to have a salary that
is 3 to 4 times higher.
Answer
given by Juan Enriquez: The trends you are talking
about are exceedingly worrisome. In the US, 27% of the
doctorates that are coming out of science and engineering
are Asians. About 2% are African Americans. About 1%
are Hispanics. If you want to address, in the long-term,
income inequalities in the US you have to start addressing
these trends, because the way in which you generate
knowledge is through more and more technology and science
enterprises. How do you go about creating more of a
science in kids? One of the things that is important,
science is a wonderful adventure. It is not a dirty
thing that is simply involved in manipulating genes
and scientists are only involved in creating Frankenstein
monsters. Societies that go out of their way to portray
scientists as liars or who go out of their way to portray
scientists as different from us because they have less
emotion, or go out of their way their way to portray
science as something that they do that we do not do,
are going to have trouble surviving in the long-term.
I want to remind you in terms of national competitiveness,
three quarters of the nation states in this world did
not exist 50 years ago.
Comment
from Professor Krol: I think we do a very bad job.
If you look at the start of secondary school, there
is no difference in talents between boys and girl. But
if you look at science faculties, there are no women
there. We have lost 50% of all talents to start with,
not because they have less talent. We lose it for social
reasons. Maybe it is not important. We do well economically.
But you say that science and engineering are so important
for the future.
Question
from the audience: Mr. Serageldin was quoted by
the chair this afternoon of having given us the vision
of how GMOs could actually help the world or to be exact,
help us feed the poorest people in the world. If I understand
your talk during lunch right, you also say that the
way we structure science, at the moment, as mainly driven
by economic interests and also the way we handle patents,
these benefits will not arrive at the poorest people.
Is it not actually a very hollow, empty vision that
has been quoted and what needs to be changed, given
that GMOs are actually be beneficial, which I still
question. What needs to be changed?
Answer
given by Mr. Serageldin: This gives me a chance
to clarify. If I gave that impression it is not quite
correct. You are absolutely correct. I did say that
a large part of the global problems we are facing which
is with very poor communities, malnourished people,
in remote areas, and I showed you pictures of those,
are not going to be serviced by the private sector.
Certainly, that problem is not going to be solved by
excess production in the north that is shipped to the
south. You can only deal with the problems of poverty
reduction, food security and environmental protection
on a global scale by improving the productivity of the
small holder farmers. That is the premise. That will
require the recognition of public goods research, which
is research that is not going to be marketable for orphan
crops. I gave the examples of cassava and that it is
likely to be sequenced if it turns out to be an effective
feed stock for hogs in the US, but the fact that 300
million Africans depend on it is not going to generate
private sector response, because it is not a marketable
one. We have seen this also in medicine.
My demand
is the following. The contextualization of research
is needed, so that crop research is fitted within an
overall context. The context is ecological. I showed
you examples of different ecologies. The context is,
in terms of farming systems at the small holder level,
for the synergies between livestock and manure of livestock,
where the crops, cash crops and food crops. It is also
socio-economic. The recognition of the agenda I mentioned.
Food production tends to be most handled by women. Cash
crops by men in many parts of Africa. The small holder
farmer focus. The second part, which is enormously complimentary,
is this gene revolution: the genetic imperative. This
enables us to do things which Steve Tanksley and Chris
Sommerville showed, which you can not see by the normal
breeding practices where you screen by the appearance
of the plant. It enables you to do things which you
can not do otherwise, such as increasing the nutritional
content. We talked about the example of vitamin A rice.
We also talked about the examples of resolving the feed
problem by increasing the feed problem. There is a piece
of the equation that requires biotech research. That
biotech research is not going to be done exclusively
by the private sector, but we can not ignore that the
private sector is the driving engine for that research
today. Therefore, we have to find a way for a public/private
partnership and I showed you a picture of how we are
trying to get together to establish that partnership
between north, south, farmer's associations, NGOs, private
sector and public research institutions, and also in
the field. I showed you pictures of the organization
of farmer's on the ground. That is the vision. The recognition
that we need all the pieces. The challenges are enormous.
It is not an either/or, I can do it all with one way
or not. Different parts of the world require different
problems and we need to be able to mobilize the talents
and abilities of everybody and not deny ourselves the
potentialities of what could be very benign technologies.
Unlike mechanization, for example, which is scale sensitive,
biotechnology which is transferred through a seed, is
not necessarily scale sensitive. Therefore, it could
be useable for assisting the small holder farmer. Whereas,
if you say, mechanization and high input capital would
not be. These are the pieces that I saw and tried to
sketch out as a vision of where we should be going and
where in fact all the pieces really come together with
the recognition that there is no single fix. There is
no magic bullet. There is no single solution to all
the problems.
FRIDAY,
JANUARY 21, 2000
"THE CHALLENGES "
Chair-
Sir Robert May,
Chief Scientific Advisor to the Prime Minister of Great
Britain Introduction
A cartoon
by the British cartoonist Gilray speaks to the fuss
made two hundred years ago about the immunization that
got rid of small pox. It captures some of the apprehensions
and the riots in the streets of those days and you see,
in full Frankenstein mode, the cows appearing out of
people's arms. It was an intensely controversial subject.
This is not, however, to suggest that such apprehensions
in the past, that have beset so much novelty, are not
to be thought about carefully. It is often said that
when trains appeared, also two hundred years ago, there
were many dire predictions that this would be the end
of life as we know it. My own view is that there were
contained within the sometimes exaggerated apprehensions,
real concerns which had we taken notice of would have
made for much less inconvenience and ill health brought
by smog from trains in cities in the last century and
early in this century.
My point
in beginning this way is against the background of the
discussion yesterday, which dwelt more on the underlying
science and questions about it. To move to this morning,
where we think about the challenges and how we manage
consequences of innovation. The perspective I bring
to it personally, in many ways reflecting the perspective
the British Government brings to it, is in many ways
one that says we have just come to the end of a century,
which more than any other century in history has been
a century of betterment of life, but often accompanied
by unintended consequences.
One hundred
years ago, the global population was one and a half
billion. Today, it has doubled twice, to six billion.
Fifty years ago, the average life expectancy at birth,
on this planet, was forty-six. Today it is sixty-four
years. Fifty years ago, the difference in life expectancy
at birth, between the developed and the developing world
was a shameful twenty-six years. Today it is twelve.
The unintended consequences of that are, today, a still
growing population and a human population that consumes
between a quarter and a half of all the globe's primary
productivity. All the plant material, from the tropical
forests to the prairies, that grows on Earth each year,
today, we consume. We are pressing limits. One clearly
demonstrated consequence is that we do not know the
rates of extinction of other creatures we share the
globe with, because we do not know how many other species
there are. We do know, with an almost physics like precision,
that for birds and mammals, the rates of extinction
over the past century have accelerated to one thousand
times the average extinction rate in the background
fossil record. They will surely accelerate another factor
ten in the coming century, putting us squarely in the
extinction rate regime that characterizes the big five
episodes in the fossil record, such as that which ended
the dinosaurs.
Just in
the last thirty-five years, the human population has
increased sixty percent, but as a result of the green
revolution, we have doubled food production. We have
doubled food production using what is sometimes called
"natural" methods of crop breeding. However, before
the advent of molecular genetics based methods, the
so-called GM, the methods which created, particularly,
the later stages of the green revolution, are as different
as what went before in this long evolutionary history.
The co-evolutionary history of humans and their plants
and animals, that reaches back ten thousand years (what
we did before GM; tissues, cell-based methods) are as
different from what went 100 years ago as GM is from
what we do today. In doubling food production, we are
keeping pace with population growth. The problem with
feeding the world today is about distribution, not food
abundance. No simple problem is older than agriculture
itself. In so doing, we have increased land under cultivation
only about 20-30%, but other non-linearities, such as
the increased input of fertilizers like nitrogen. It
poisons many water supplies. If you want one headline
figure to underline the singularity of our time, it
is this, half the atoms of nitrogen and phosphorus incorporated
in plant material around the world this year, are there
as a result of fertilizer, not natural process. Against
that background, I think it is very important that we
think about unintended consequences as we move forward
to take advantage of our increasing understanding of
the molecular machinery of life, which we need to do,
because we could not feed today's population with yesterday's
agriculture. We can not feed tomorrow's population with
today's agriculture.
As we
embark on this next stage of a series of transformations
that characterize our history, in the developed world
and particular in the UK and Europe, we hear many opinions
expressed. You will hear them expressed with a different
balance on emphasis depending on the particular conference
you are at. All of them, in my mind, have legitimacy.
There is the voice of agri-business that sees the potential;
the voice of science, that takes pleasure in its increasing
understanding of how the world works and its ability
to further improve human health and other aspects of
our lives; the voice of government which seeks wide
consultation in a world delightfully less respectful
of authority, which sees itself as a referee, creating
regulations and inviting the discourse that is the only
way to go forward; environmental lobbies, English Nature,
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Britain,
with concern and worry for biological diversity in the
countryside; ideological political groups, who are opposed
to globalization, big business and raise, in my mind
legitimate questions about unintended consequences,
often raising that political agenda obliquely under
the cloak of environmental concern; the public in general,
informed by media whose agenda is a mixture of information
and their own competitive advantage. The competitive
commercial concerns of many newspapers will not necessarily
be precisely congruent with dissemination of the most
accurate facts in an unbalanced way, which is natural,
not to be criticized, but is sometimes a problem for
enlightened discourse.
In the
UK, I would say that my own personal taxonomy of the
worries and concerns are of three broad kinds. Human
health, which will be the focus of an OECD meeting on
the basic science at the end of February, where I see
the real need to focus on safety aspects of all novel
foods, but where I do not see GM foods as particularly
different and in some ways less threatening than other
kinds of novel foods. We need to think about consequences
for cross-fertilization and pollen escaping. Again,
this is not a new problem. The problem is actually,
around the world, much more attached to the escape of
things brought in as garden plants, which are much more
robust than your average crop, which is pretty wimpy.
The third category of worries, as I have already touched
on, are worries that deal with the increasing and legitimate
aspiration to intensify more competitive agriculture,
which conflicts with the desire to have a countryside
with creatures populating it other than us. Intensification
means growing crops that no one eats but us. There is
a tension there that needs to be more carefully exposed
and discussed. To my mind, the increasing sophistication
of the methods that you heard about yesterday, poses
us interesting choices as to whether we use these tools
primarily to realize benefits for agriculture itself.
Or will we put the focus on using the techniques to
bring benefits to the consumer and the environment.
The sad paradox is that the ideals of the organic farming
movement make them, in some sense, potentially the most
important beneficiaries of GM techniques and yet, if
you do not see it clearly, it does not look that way.
This is
not something where differences between American and
European approaches reflect deep cultural differences.
If you actually ask people about different applications
of advances of our understanding of our molecular machinery
of life and what they see as the risks, benefits, and
ethical concerns about medicines, GM food, and zynotransplantations,
people in Europe or in the U.S. will say I see the risks
and I see the benefits or I see no ethical dimension,
I am in favor of it. For zynotransplantation, they will
say they see a modest benefit. I see a risk. I worry
about the ethical dimensions and I am unhappy about
it. For GM foods, they say I see a risk, I see no benefit,
I see no ethical dimensions. Let us avoid any potential
worries until we see a benefit. In the 1970s, as this
technology was born, following the Assilimar meeting
on gene splicing, there was much apprehension and reservation
in the U.S. The building of the molecular biology building
at Princeton was delayed, which I at that time had responsibility
of, by a year or more. There was no such apprehension
in Europe. Today in the wake of BSE, it is very much
the other way. It is not innate to the cultures. What
do I see as the way forward? Procedures and discussion,
as we increasingly have in Britain with our guidelines
for science advising and policy making, that embrace
wide consultation and open discussion.
Even more
importantly, I see the need for products that benefit
the consumer. It is not that I believe that an emphasis
on agri-business is wrong, but it is not a good way
to motivate people to engage in the debate. When I say
products that benefit the consumer, in the developing
world, I mean products that remedy vitamin deficiencies
or many of the other potential benefits of detail, as
well as the transcendent benefit of feeding tomorrow's
world. In the developed world, they may be more the
kinds of products that address a privileged elite on
the globe, who have never had a problem with food. They
will be things like nuts without allergies. Ultimately,
there might be a GM apple that will make you thin. We
will really have a product that will motivate people
to engage.
Ambassador
David L. Aaron
Under Secretary for International Trade,
U.S. Department of Commerce
"Making Biotechnology Safe"
Good morning.
Thank you Sir Robert May for that introduction and thank
you Ambassador Schneider for organizing this important
conference on biotechnology. I hope it will contribute
to a more informed and productive transatlantic dialogue.
Biotech
foods have generated enormous real and potential benefits
to mankind and the environment. But somehow, when we
hear charges of "Franken Foods" and find biotech linked
to unrelated food problems such as dioxins and mad cow
disease, we're seeing prudent skepticism overcome by
hysteria.
Hysteria
over food is nothing new in Europe or the United States.
Take the history of the tomato. It was once widely believed
in the U.S. and Northern Europe that tomatoes were poisonous
because of their relation to the nightshade family of
plants. Tomatoes even had their own "Franken Food" title
- the "Wolf's Peach."
In fact,
the belief that tomatoes would bring sudden death was
so strong that in 1820 the state of New York banned
their consumption.
That was until 1830, in Salem New Jersey, when Colonel
Robert Gibbon Johnson changed the image of tomatoes
forever. In what was thought to be a suicidal act, Johnson
announced that he would appear on the courthouse steps
and eat an entire basket of these "Wolf's Peaches."
With 2000 on lookers and a marching band playing a somber
tune, Colonel Johnson recited this speech: "The time
will come when this luscious, scarlet apple...will form
the foundation of a great garden industry, and will
be eaten, and enjoyed as an edible food...and to help
speed that enlightened day, to prove that it will not
strike you dead - I am going to eat one right now!"
Well,
just by driving past the miles of hot houses dedicated
to "wolf peaches" in Holland, you know how things turned
out for the Colonel and the tomato. And I am certain
things will turn out similarly for biotech foods, considering
that today, instead of the Colonel, we in the U.S. have
an extensive system to ensure our new foods are safe.
The question
is, how can we work together to expand the benefits
of biotechnology while ensuring the safety of our people
and the environment.
To do
this we must address regulatory issues, and consumer
confidence. So I would like to discuss first, the U.S.
approval process, second, some principle issues related
to bioengineered foods, and third, the evolving EU system
and the problems it may raise.
Thirteen
years of experience with biotech products in the U.S.
have shown us that biotech foods developed and used
in the U.S. present no food safety risks beyond those
of their "natural" counterparts -- not a single ailment
has been attributed to biotech foods. Not one! Not a
sneeze, not a rash, not a headache.
That is
the fundamental fact about biotech foods. And it is
the effectiveness of our regulatory system that has
ensured this. The key to our regulatory system is that
it is transparent, science -based, politically independent
and responsive to new scientific evidence. As a result,
our public has a high degree of confidence in the system
and subsequently in their food - be it bioengineered
or not. There is no great public anxiety despite the
furor in the EU and the best efforts of some advocacy
groups in the U.S..
U.S.
law requires companies to ensure that any bioengineered
foods they sell meet stringent safety standards. This
means they must pass a rigorous approval process through
three different agencies. If they don't, they don't
go to market. It's that simple.
Today
bioengineered agricultural products are subjected to
five to seven years of regulatory review from the time
that permission is requested to conduct crop field tests
until a product is commercialized and marketed. With
two crop yields per year, that means up to 14 generations
or more of a bioengineered plant variety is reviewed
before approval.
The fact
is that in the United States, bioengineered foods go
through more extensive and intensive food safety and
environmental evaluation than any other food in human
history.
Dr. Siddiqui
has talked about the role of the USDA. I'll focus on
FDA and EPA. The FDA has focused on the questions of
allergenicity and antibiotic resistance on human health.
If genes from foods known to create an allergic reaction,
such as nuts or eggs, are transferred to non-allergenic
foods, such as corn, the allergenicity could be transferred
to the safe food.
The FDA
advises companies on how to assess new genetically modified
foods for potential allergenicity. If there is a suspicion
of allergenicity in any foods, the FDA requires extensive
testing of the food. Under U.S. law and the FDA's biotech
food policy, companies must tell consumers on the food
label when a product includes a gene from one of the
common allergy-causing foods.
The second
principal issue for the FDA is antibiotic resistance.
Some believe that industry use of antibiotic resistance
marker genes in product development will cause infectious
germs to develop and adversely affect human health.
The FDA has determined that this is highly unlikely.
The particular
antibiotic being employed was approved by the FDA for
industry because it has no medical significance and
is not being used in human or veterinary medicine.
Nevertheless,
to be on the safe side and respond to public concern,
the FDA has advised GM food developers to avoid using
any clinically important antibiotic as a marker and
industry is increasingly turning to non antibiotic markers
such as color.
On the
environmental side, our regulators principally focus
on gene transfer and pest impact. The concern with gene
transfer is that genetically modified herbicide resistant
plants might cross pollinate with their wild cousins
creating super-weeds that cannot be controlled by herbicides.
For cross
pollination to occur there has to be an indigenous species
or a wild cousin growing in the same region. Not only
must this wild cousin exist, but it must be a threat
as a weed. For corn, and soybeans there are no cross
cousins in the United States, nor as far as we know,
in Europe.
In addition
to the possibility of gene problems arising from transfer
being very low, precautions are taken to prevent it.
Cross pollination can be avoided through buffer zones
planted around the fields, a practice developed, tested,
and mandated by the EPA.
Another
environmental concern has arisen from the use of genetic
engineering to build inherent pest protection into plants.
For example, the gene from a microbe called Bt is inserted
into corn making it resistant to the European corn borer.
Building in such pest protection is less dangerous and
less polluting than insecticide sprays. In California
Bt cotton needs only one application of insecticide
per season instead of 13!
Bt is
so safe it is commonly used by organic farmers. However,
there is concern that its widespread use will lead to
pests that are resistant to it. Resistance to an insecticide
over time, particularly through improper use, is a potential
problem for most chemical insecticides as well. That
is why, pesticide use, including the use of bioengineered
plants, is regulated and monitored for signs of pest
resistance by the EPA and the USDA and regulated by
the use of refuges.
The EPA
consistently revises its regulations in response to
evidence from the field and scientific research. For
example, because of the success and the unexpectedly
rapid increase in planting biotech pest resistant crops,
the EPA has just increased its refuge requirements for
most Bt corn varieties.
In summary
I would like to stress that our regulatory structure
has more than adequately addressed the real concerns
about biotech foods and has provided specific safeguards.
And we are constantly updating our testing procedures
and precautions. For example, the National Academy of
Sciences, an independent body, reviews the regulatory
process of the FDA and the USDA, periodically in order
to ensure that they are as safe as can be based on the
best scientific knowledge available.
So what
about the EU system? It's no secret that we are having
problems with it. We share a common purpose, we all
want to protect our people, we all want to protect the
environment, and we all want to do so with credibility.
In our experience, an effective system dealing with
biotechnology and food safety must be transparent and
rigorously based on science. It must confront the issues
of:
1. Product Approvals,
2. Labeling, and
3. Testing.
So far,
Europe's system is still under construction and so does
not yet meet these tests. The EU's product approval
system for agri-biotech goods, EU Regulation 90/220,
has effectively broken-down. For over two years, no
products have been approved. That amounts to an eternity
when we consider how rapidly biotech products are developing.
In fact,
there is no truly EU-wide approval system. Approvals
are carried out by the Member States. This is a big
part of the problem. The information required for product
approval is not uniform throughout Europe. And this
makes it difficult for all the Member States to accept
with full confidence that all the necessary testing
has been preformed.
We are
intrigued by proposals for an EU food safety agency
but disappointed so far that its scope would be limited
to analysis not actually guiding EU-wide risk management
decisions. The EU and the US began in 1999 to address
this issue cooperatively, albeit from different perspectives
-- the US concerned about science based decisions, the
EU about public credibility. In December we had the
first meeting of the US-EU high level group on biotech
to address market access concerns. We also are forming
a private sector eminent persons group on biotechnology
to advise the US and EU on biotech matters -- including
ethical and moral issues. Both groups will be reporting
to the next US-EU Summit in June.
Labeling
is also problematic. We think it is a mistake to stigmatize
a technology that has had no demonstrable ill effects.
Nonetheless, our companies are prepared to try to meet
the one percent threshold for incidental contamination
by genetically modified material. But be aware that
this one percent threshold is on the ragged edge of
scientific feasibility. It will lead to a lot of false
positives. News stories that professor "so and so" or
activist group "such and such" has found GM contamination
in officially GM free food, could jeopardize the entire
process.
So, unless
Europe establishes strict testing protocols and licensed
labs, labeling will actually undermine confidence in
products, in government, and in the regulatory process.
It will add to, not reduce, public concern.
The lack
of public trust in Europe on biotech foods has a lot
to do with people being confused about the issue. Observer
after observer has noted that these reservations are
not so much related to biotech foods per se, but a lack
of trust in the EU system to regulate any foods. This
has been exacerbated by a number of scares from mad
cow to dioxins in chicken and even AIDS tainted blood.
This confusion doesn't just hurt U.S. companies, Europe
suffers too. In an October 1999 survey by the EU's Environment
Directorate, genetically modified organisms ranked last
in a list of European citizen's top environmental concerns.
The same
survey found that chemicals and pesticides in food and
drinking water were one of their top concerns. European
farmers apply pesticides at two times the rate of U.S.
farmers and biotechnology could significantly reduce
the application of harmful pesticides, yet public and
official confusion have curbed the availability of such
products in Europe.
In my
judgement, what we really need are vigorous efforts
on both sides of the Atlantic to educate the public
on the science, risks, and promise of biotechnology.
We teach very little about this subject in schools on
either continent. We can't leave our education to the
tabloids.
Before
I conclude, I also want to say a few words about the
"Precautionary Principle." Precaution must of course
be a central feature of any regulatory system. But I
fear its elevation to a political principle could create
a false public expectation that food risks can be cut
to zero. The real issue is how much risk and uncertainty
is acceptable and still considered safe. Should we wait
until both are at absolute zero? That's infeasible.
How many people here have cell phones? Some people claim
they cause brain tumors. Can we be absolutely sure that's
not true? No. Have we banned them or labeled them? No,
we made a judgement about risk and uncertainty and got
on with our lives.
The U.S.
system is not perfect. It can't be. But when problems
arise, public fears do not grow out of control because
they trust that the authorities are doing the best and
not covering up. That is because the system is open,
reacts quickly and does not promise absolutely zero
risk.
With biotech's
great promise and over 13 years experience, our people
as well as our government are persuaded that these products
are safe. It is urgent for Europe too, to create a transparent,
timely, and consistent system to assess risk and regulate
of biotech foods. This is not just for the sake of our
transatlantic relationship. It is crucial to restoring
the trust of EU citizens in their governments' ability
to regulate foods, and most importantly, to making sure
that the EU does not exclude itself from the rapidly
growing fruits of the biotech revolution. We want to
help and we want to cooperate. As a first step I propose
a truce. Americans have to stop accusing Europeans of
being luddites for caring about their food, and politicians
in Europe have to cease trying to recoup their credibility
by attacking U.S. biotechnology.
When looking
at its vast benefits, I think it is safe to say that
the biotechnological revolution is here to stay. In
my judgement, we can do much for the prosperity of our
own peoples and of the rest of the world by working
together to advance the development, scientific regulation
of, and use of biotech foods.
Thank
You.
J.
Craig Venter, Celera Genomics
"The Human Genome"
I'm going
to give an update on what's happening with the genomic
revolution (refers to slide). So in 1995, we published
a paper in this issue of Science, which described
the first complete genome of a free living organism.
This was "mopholis influenza" that causes meningitis
in children, ear infections, it does not cause the flu,
that's a virus.
Next slide.
Since that time, and you might have heard this from
Jonathan Eisen yesterday from TIGR, we've been in an
exponential growth phase of new information in genomics,
but it is really important to keep in mind that this
field is barely 5 years old, yet the data is growing
clearly at an exponential rate. We now have complete
genomes of close to 30 micro-organisms most of these
key pathogens that affect the human condition like tuberculoses
and malaria. A cholera genome is just about finished
at TIGR and will be published soon. In addition, just
a couple of weeks ago in Nature, a combination
of efforts from TIGR and a European consortium, published
the first two plant chromosomes from 'Arabadobis', primarily
under the leadership of what you heard yesterday from
Chris Somerville. This new information is now changing
our view of biology, taking us literally from the dark
ages to where we actually have solid information to
go on and make rational decisions. So there should be
no excuse going forward for the irrational.
Next slide.
In fact we had covered genomes with a wide variety of
chemical content from very high GC contents with tuberculoses
'Dynacoccus Radiodurands', the extreme radiation resistant
organism, down to the malaria genome which has mostly
"A"s and "T"s in it. The concerns were that a lot of
genomes were non-sequencable, the human genome for example
was considered to be a multi-decade, multi-country,
multi-billion dollar project.
Next
slide. Well we had the opportunity and scientists don't
get these opportunities very often, where I offered
close the US$ 400 million and some new technology, to
apply what we learned with genomics to sequence the
human genome. That was the formation of Celera the former
'Percanome' corporation putting up the money based on
a new technology, they developed the first automated
DNA sequencer. This was also based on the whole genome
shot gun method that we developed at TIGR with the first
genomes.
Next slide.
As is any field of science new instruments change what
can be done, the telescope back in Galileo's day made
a big difference, having an automated DNA sequencer
totally changes what we can do and understanding the
chemical constituents of all living species including
ourselves. This was such powerful instrument and the
first truly automated one (next slide) that we decided
we would need several of these. We actually ended up
getting 300 of these US$ 300,000 machines each and set
up the world's largest sequencing factory in Rockville,
MD, just outside of Washington, D.C.
Next slide.
The amazing thing though is, because of this automation,
all this work is done with only 50 people, but as a
consequence we use a lot of electricity and our electric
bill is about US$1 million a year, so the local utilities
are very pleased with us.
Next slide.
In fact the biggest challenge of all was not with the
sequencing, but with the interpretation of the information.
It's a great slide for this to crash on, this is talking
about our new super computer (laughter). So we built
the world's largest civilian super computer in collaboration
with our partner Compaq Computers. The largest super
computers are in the U.S. Department of Energy for simulating
nuclear weapon blasts.
Next slide.
Well what are we doing with this technology? We are
sequencing multiple genomes. The first one we decided
to undertake was the fruit fly genome. It may be disturbing
to some of you to learn that your genome is very closely
related to that of the fruit fly and not being insulting,
mine is too, and it is the first organism actually with
a central nervous system. Tremendous work has been done
over the past one and half decades, both in England
and in the U.S. The information from the fruit fly has
led to more advances in our understanding of our own
central nervous system than any other development. I'll
give you an update that sequencing has been finished
and that took only a few months. End of September we
switched to the human genome, flashing over there on
the far side are 2 key species: rice & Arabadopsis.
Those are model organisms for maybe 250,000 different
plant species including species representing over 50%
of the world's food production.
Next slide.
Well as soon as a human is finished, and that will be
done we think in June of this year, we will switch to
doing the mouse genome. What you might have heard yesterday
from Jonathan Eisen is that field of comparative genomics
is going to be one of the most important ones going
forward. In other words we will only understand the
human genome, our own genetic code, by comparing it
to data from all other species. The mouse has been the
key experimental model and is having a huge impact.
Next slide.
In fact an example is, there is a gene called Pact 6,
that in 'trasoffala', when you knock out this gene,
it leads to an 'illospheno' type. In mice it leads to
blindness and this has been demonstrated in 3 different
mice now, it's an English fairytale about 3 blind mice
and mutations in this gene cause 'anariddia', leading
to blindness in children, so we can carry information
forward we learn from one species to another.
Next slide.
Well with the fruit fly genome we finished this in August.
There were 2,500 genes known when we started, now there
are 14,000 genes characterized.
Next slide.
Just to put this is in context, when we sequence the
genome of 'hymopholys' influenza, it took about 4 months
with 24 people had to do 26,000 sequences. 'Drosophola',
which is about 80 times bigger, we had to do about 3
million sequences but it only took 4 months and only
about 40 people. So because of all the technology we
can go up 80-fold with the similar number of people.
Next slide.
I'll skip this one in terms of the algorithm for assembly
which has been controversial but if you'll take my word
on it, it clearly works and scientists have just underestimated
the power of computing and the power of the uniqueness
of each of our genomes. If it was not a single mathematical
solution, none of us would be alive today.
Next slide.
In fact one of the reasons we chose 'trasoffala', was
we knew it would be well-validated as how well this
new procedure worked. There were 22 million base pares
that had been sequenced by our collaborators in Berkeley,
CA and we found by comparing our data to the map there
was only a tiny fraction of the data bits that didn't
agree.
Next slide.
In fact when we actually compared it to the sequence,
there was one discrepancy. Jerry Ruben, our key collaborator
said 'Before you say anything, let me go back and check
in the lab' and he went back and checked and found they
had sequenced a 'cimaric' clone which can happen with
the standard cloning procedures that most labs use.
Gene Meyers who developed the computer out rhythms said
well of course we knew the error was theirs, there was
only a single mathematical solution.
Next slide.
It is impossible to read down at the bottom, but I think
one of the most humbling parts of all of this, with
every genome that we have sequenced, about half of the
genes are new to biology. It has never been seen before,
we don't know what they do. And its very key, tells
us a lot about our state of knowledge and state of science.
Next slide.
Well the same is true with 'trasoffala' in fact 48%
of the genes and the 'trasoffala' genome are of unknown
function. We expect the same percentage to carry forward
into human. So half the genes we are discovering right
now in the human genome are in this new unknown function
category. It means discovery in analysis of genomes,
understanding of our own physiology is going to be going
on for this entire century and at the end of this century
scientists will still be examining the genetic code
we have determined in these few years and making major
discoveries.
Next slide.
Major new neuro-transmitter receptors - I think you
will hear in the next talk about how some of this information
affects drug development - these receptors have the
key in terms of targeting drugs that change disease
and also because 'trasoffala' is an insect in this case,
to develop new insecticides that can may be help cure
and eliminate diseases such as malaria in the world.
Next slide.
What with the human genome, we now go up a little bit
higher in scale, but it's only going to take us 10 months
to finish the genome. And we've only increased from
40 to 50 scientists but the algorithm team - the mathematicians
- we have we've to increase that group even more.
Next slide.
As of this last week, we have close to 6 billion letters
of human genetic code. The human genome for those of
you who have been keeping track has around 3 billion
letters in it, and this effort started only on September
8th, and we are adding around 2 billion letters of genetic
code to this database every month.
Next slide.
This just shows the tremendous acceleration. The human
genome project started officially in 1990. It really
started in 1985 but it was the stimulus for all the
work that we and others are doing, but essentially we
started in May and we will have the genome completed
in June.
Next slide.
We just announced last week that we now have 90% of
the human genome in our database and that covers 97%
of the human gene, but again about half of those are
of unknown function. We expect to finish the sequencing
phase in June and have the complete human genome sequence
put together annotated and hopefully published in the
scientific literature by the year's end. That is a considerable
change in scale from 15 years to about 1 year.
Next slide.
This is a cartoon of the human chromosomes. Next slide.
People have been asking the difference between the methods
we developed. The EST method versus the whole genome
method, and it turns out that even though people have
been claiming they've had all the genes with the "Arapadobis"
chromosomes, it looks like at best half the genes were
discovered by the EST method. With "trasoffola" only
about 60% had EST matches, with the human genome these
numbers are about the same. So tens of thousands of
new genes have been discovered just in the last few
months in Rockville.
Next slide.
That's an interesting slide. This is talking about the
impact of what starts to happen with science when having
the complete genetic code. If we have 80,000 genes and
that number is still looking very reasonable, each of
us probably has close to 1 million different proteins
circulating in our bodies. Some of those proteins like
insulin have tremendous medical importance. What's happening
going forward is that a new field called 'proteiomacs'
is developing on a worldwide basis to finally look at
these proteins and we can only do that for the first
time on a reasonable level because we will have the
complete genetic code.
Next slide.
Now I think that the most important thing we are going
to get out of sequencing the genome is better information
about ourselves. If we were going to sequence any one
of your genomes the chromosomes that you got from your
mother and the set that you got from your father differ
from each other in about 3 million letters out of 3
billion in the genetic code. For probably only 10 to
20 thousand of those lead to the substantial differences
that you think you see when you're looking at the person
sitting next to you. We are sequencing the genome of
5 different individuals. We've been concentrating on
one for the early phases, that will give us 2-3 million
of these 'polymorphic' variations. By the summer we
will have tens of millions potentially of these 'polymorphic'
variations in our database, being able to link these
changes in the genetic code to key human traits. For
example, in Africa it has been demonstrated that there
is certain alleles associated with increased susceptibility
to tuberculoses infections, increased susceptibility
to malaria infections. Conversely, some of us carry
alleles that allow us to be resistant to tuberculoses,
resistant to malaria. Understanding the fundamental
basis of our own generic code will allow us to understand
and hopefully impact and change medicine throughout
the world.
Next slide.
This is going to lead us to what we think the era is
coming starting in the next few years of personalized
medicine. Most people don't realize that the drugs that
are given affect at the most 50% of the population usually
about only a third of the population due to the genetic
differences. We have different structures in our receptors,
different structures in our genes of these different
proteins that these different drugs interact with by
understanding what your unique genetic profile will
be will determine which drugs you should get in the
future to treat a disease you might have and which ones
you shouldn't get. For example, a new class of Type
II diabetes drugs are just phenomenally effective in
treating Type II diabetes, except roughly 1 in 10,000
people either die or develop severe liver toxicity.
If we can understand the genetic differences of those
few people then we can do a prescreen to make sure only
the effective benefit of the drug takes place and not
the toxic affects. Our goal is to provide this information
to individuals allowing them to interact with physicians
and solution providers.
Next slide.
Security of the information is very key. We feel very
strongly that only you should be the controller over
your own genetic code. It should not be in a government
database, it should not be in a company database and
so we are going to be providing genetic profiles for
people but you will have your own CD-Rom or DBD disk
with that information that you can work with physician
or solution providers.
Next slide.
The collective information is beginning to change the
linkage of genes to disease, so the pharmaceutical industry
knows what genes to target to try and block disease.
Several years ago I was involved with Bert Bogalstein
at John Hopkins University in finding genes linked to
colon cancer and it is now with non-polyposis colon
cancer we know all the genes that lead to a greatly
increased susceptibility, greatly increased odds of
you having colon cancer.
By you
having that information earlier in your life, it gives
you power over your own lives. Because instead of just
waiting until symptoms appear, which by then it's usually
too late and mortality rates are very high, if you know
you have greatly increased chances of having colon cancer
you can have increased physical exams at increased frequency.
And if cancer is caught early it's virtually 100% treatable.
So the goal is to empower individuals with this information
and I think it's going to have a dramatic impact in
changing the medical world.
The last
slide is just a cautionary note in terms of this is
a quote from a state senator in the U.S., it's an abortion
of a Shakespeare quote "People used to think their destiny
was in the stars, now we know it's in our genes, it's
in our DNA". But I don't think you'll find too many
reputable scientists in this field that believe in genetic
determinism. In fact with identical twins, you might
call them clones today that have the exact genetic code
to one another, only have a 50/50 chance of developing
some of the same diseases. So our genes determine a
set of repertoire that of susceptibility interactions
with the environment but they are not deterministic,
in fact the only thing that's truly deterministic in
genes is sexual determination and we can determine that
pretty easily with 'x' and 'y' chromosomes. So I think
this is going to have a big impact on the legal system,
people are looking to absolve themselves of personal
responsibility but I don't think they will find solace
in the genetic code that allows them to do that.
Thank
you very much.
Jean-François
Mayaux, Aventis Pharma
"Functional Genomics: Impact on Drug Discovery"
What I
am going to talk about today is a follow up to the previous
conference, um, the previous presentation, What is the
impact of the functional genomics on drug discovery?
So I am responsible for biotechnology at Aventis Pharma,
Aventis is the product of a merger between ("Rond Blank
& Huegts"?) it has been, for a very limited period of
time, number one in life science, worldwide. It has
been for a very limited period of time because so many
companies are merging these days so it is getting very
difficult. Our goal is to remain among the ten first
companies.
So the
background is to tell you that we are facing a challenge
in the pharmaceutical industry. Drug development is
indeed becoming a long and risky process and I think
this is something that should be clear to all of you
and what is indicated here is some figures. Roughly
the length and complexity of drug development has increased.
As you can see, we need about twice as much time now
to develop a drug than in the 1960s. Since 1980, the
number of clinical trials needed has doubled. The number
of patients, everything has doubled or tripled. The
well-known figure is that the total average pre-tax
cost for drug development worldwide is in the range
of 500 million dollars and this is approximately a ten-fold
increase in twenty years. What you should bear in mind
is that only three out of ten drugs that are approved
do recover the average R&D cost and fund the R&D process….
A few more figures just to tell you that spending in
research-based is indeed increasing in a very significant
way. For instance over the last twenty years the percent
of U.S. domestic sales allocated to R&D has increased
from 11 to 21 percent. And to give you an idea, all
other industries is less than 4 percent so we are very
much above the average and probably very close to the
maximum (pro-rate?). So we are faced with pressure,
and the pressure is of course due to the fact that the
payers and regulatory agencies request more and more
from us, which is fair enough and I guess we have no
choice by the way, but the point is that we do have
to find solutions to improve the process and what I
am going to try to convince you about is that genomics
part is only one key aspect of our response to that.
Clearly not the only one so don't believe that genomics
is going solve everything but clearly it is one key
point. Other aspects I am not going to discuss are new
technologies for screening drugs, -?chemistry, and non-strategic
types of things such as the merger frenzy and other
stuff.
A few
words about biotechnology. Question is, Will biotechnology/genomics
offer breakthrough treatments for the next centuries?
As you can see, some of our leaders do believe it will
be the case if the expectations have already been mentioned
by the previous speaker. We want to prevent, cure and
treat more diseases.We want to develop more precise
and effective new medicines with fewer side effects.
We want to anticipate and prevent disease rather than
just react to disease symptoms as is most often the
case currently. And the third aspect which is mentioned
here and is pretty well known, we want to provide replacement
human protein therapies without risks but this is already
pretty much in place.
The message
I would like to convey to you is that the revolution
is still to come. Interestingly enough, we have talked
about biotechnology already for twenty years. When I
personally started in research a little more than 20
years ago, there were already articles in the media.
So what happened recently, what happened during those
20 years? Recombinant proteins, recombinant DNAs, in
the beginning of the 80's it was suppose to revolutionize
the industry. In fact, there was a very significant
evolution, we are using recombinant proteins, ?-transgenetic
animals, models? organisms, we are using yeast organisms-
as explained by Dr. Venter, but if we look at the products,
the recombinant proteins remain rather a limited part
of the business of the pharmaceuticals. Probably around
five… less than 10 percent. So the impact has been limited
so we should bear that in mind. Gene therapy, there
has been a lot of excitement around gene therapy, and
I am not going to talk about gene therapy today, although
we have a rather significant effort at Aventis in gene
therapy, but as you know it is not yet there. Our most
advanced product is clinical trials in the U.S. and
we should have some good or bad news in one or two years.
So it is not yet there. The full impact on drug finding,
which I am going to discuss in a little bit more, is
still to come, so the age of biotechnology has just
begun.
What is
going to be the impact of genomics on drug discovery?
Currently, you should know we have only about 500 distinct
targets for the current drugs. Of course this is a very
limited amount of potential targets. The number is expected
to increase by 6 to 20 fold as we have been told, because
we believe will have 3,000-10,000 possible targets.
If you say the human genome is 80,000 it is very likely
that not all the genes are targets, 10,000 is a little
optimistic, but at least 3 to 5,000 is likely to be
the number. As you know, we will have either from Celera,
or from other parts, we should have a draft of the humane
genome soon. We already have an already pretty extensive
covering of ESTs and CDAs from humans and other organisms
but especially humans. So this is going to be a very
major change as already alluded to. So the key point
is the efficient use of this information and most relevant
technology platforms and expertise is going to provide
a key competitive advantage. Dr. Venter said that he
can sequence in 10 months, but I can tell you it is
going to take years, tens of years to extract the information
to derive drugs. So the challenge is to select the most
relevant targets, translate that into effective, safe
and rapid treatments, and devise new ways of carrying
out high-throughput functional genomics methods in the
chain of drug discovery to identify the best targets
to pursue. So the goal is really to identify susceptibility
genes for common diseases, translate those discoveries
into target selection and apply genetic methods to the
development of the right medicines for the right patients.
The expectations
from the industry are pretty high. Those are numbers…
I am not going to go into those numbers. This is from
a real survey, so it is not my own fantasy and you have
for 1996 the real numbers, the real statistics, and
what is expected of the industry so you can see that
the impact of genomics is believed to be very signicant,
the discovery time is going to be much lower, the number
of leads per year per employees is going to rise, rise
very significantly, discovery spending per NCE (new
chemical entities) is expected to be much lower etc.
and so on and so forth.
It is
interesting because despite that we have such a survey,
it happens that very few pharmaceutical companies have
effectively integrated genomics into the overall discovery
process and most remain uncertain how, and how much
they will invest in genomics capabilities. So the belief
is functional genomics will be key in the near future.
Just to
give you an example for that, this is a real survey,
so 1-13 are major companies, I am not just talking of
biotech start ups here. They have been asked what is
the percentage of targets you are currently working
on which is derived from genomics, and interestly one
has answered 95 percent, but you see also that quite
a few of them have 'no', so the impact of genomics is
currently null and the average is around 20 percent
for the major pharmaceutical companies. So what do you
think, what do we think, will be future scheme for drug
discovery, what will be the process for drug discovery
in the genomic age. We will start more and more from
sequence information. That is absolutely key so I can
readily and happily confirm what has been said by the
previous speaker on that, at least. Then we will have
a filtering process and we will start classifying what
are those genes of interest. Then we will have to "functionalize",
which means ascertain the biochemical function and how
it fits in a biochemical pathway. Then we will have
to carry out some target validation, target validation
means role in a disease model and therapeutic index,
at least enough to convince us to move forward in a
rather costly process and then only the drug discovery
process per see can start, which means assay development
& screening, identification, optimization and so on
and so forth… to lead to a new drug. The new part of
it is the beginning because that is not exactly the
way we proceeding until now.
What
happens in the so-called genomics companies? I am not
going to talk about Celera but I am going to talk about
the first, historically-speaking, genomics companies
called human genome sciences, and this is of course
from public claims/ information. They have started in
1983 and have claimed to have sequenced ESTs, covering
95 percent of human genes. They say that over 75 to
80 percent are fully functional and one of their major
stratagies to isolate complete set of human genes capable
of producing secreted or signaling proteins, the believe
being that those secreted proteins are the most relevant
ones for future development. They have identified 12,000
genes. They say that over 11,000 are not yet recorded
in the scientific literature and they are busily involved
in full length cDNA cloning and sequencing and not just
getting a small piece of it, but the whole gene. They
have 9000 genes and only a little more than 500 are
closely related to known proteins. So as the previous
speaker said, the conclusion for them and for us, is
that the great majority of signaling molecules evolved
recently and can not be discovered by homology searches
based on the small universe of known proteins and based
on bacterias and yeast and lower (bacarates?). What
are they doing with that? They are carrying out some
biological screening, gene mapping, they do expression
profiling, and I will come back to that later on, then
they expression/purification of recombinant proteins
of interest to them, do some cellular screening, develop
some tools, and what is the output? What is output for
these companies for several years now? Patents. That
is the key message. The output is patents. Primary output
is patents. They have over 5000 patent applications
and something like a 100 now applications allowed and
about 70 issued in the US and in terms of products it
is little less good. Of course, this is getting more
and more complex, I would like that you understand the
difference between getting genes and getting products.
So the
products they are currently involved in are two recombinant
proteins and one project is by the way a joint product
in gene therapy. So as you see a real discrepancy between
the huge amount of information and the real output as
products.
So let
me now give you very quickly a few examples how we can
use this information. One has already been mentioned
and this is what we call the target family approach.
The principle is very simple with genomic based strategies
you can now access many new members of a protein family,
the pharmeceutical relevance of which is already well
established. You can do that either through directed
cloning approaches or electronic searches in databases
which now are getting quite relevant to do that. This
relevant target families approach can be defined on
the basis of properties of known members their biological
function and specificity, their operational advantages
in the drug development process. The two examples I
will give you, one of them has already been mentioned
is orphan nuclear receptors and the other G Protein
Coupled Receptors. So of course the challenge behind
that is really target validation is how to make sure
there is a disease relevance. So very quickly for instance
orphan nucleur receptors which as you know are already
a target for hormones and receptors for hormones, so
we can now find many different receptors in this family
and some of them have already been identified as being
receptors for quite relevant (lygens?).
A key
aspect of functional genomics is what we call gene profiling/
gene expression profiling. I will give you just one
example for that, which is the so-called chip, for instance
a (?)chip, which I think is one of the most advanced
and utilized ways of doing that, so you can extract
messager RNA from a given a biological sample and really
understand what is the gene expression provide, what
genes are expressed, what genes are down regulated,
etc. It gives you a very precise map of any given organisms,
or tissues or cell. What can we do with that? Of course,
we can compare diseased states and normal states, cells
which have been submitted to a drug for instance, and
can derive very relevant information from that, either
markers or even in some cases targets. We can not only
do that with messager RNAs but you also can do that
with proteins because as already mentioned, we now have
access to technologies which really enable us to directly
look that whole (protell?) of a given cell and really
analyse those proteins of importance and this is not
science fiction, we already have very nice examples
of that.
So the
very last point I would like to make is about the future
impact of genetics, human genetics, this was also mentioned.
The differences in gene function between individuals
are indeed a major component of the differential drug
responsiveness and differential susceptibility to common
human diseases. One of the predominant variant sequence
type is the so-called SNP and there are some very major
scientific achievements that are going to occur in the
next three years or so that should really revolutionize
the impact of human genetics and drug discovery and
development. We will get a complete human genome soon,
how soon is still a matter of debate. We will have a
high-density snip, map, of the human genome and Aventis
is part of a Consortium that will help identify some
300,000 SNPs. And also very importantly we should have,
in the next two years, very high-throughput genotyping
platforms, that will deliver millions of genotypes per
day or per week and this is very important of course
to be able to really access and use this information.
The future impact of human genetics is going to be on
drug target discovery because of the high scale snipping
and association studies that will be able to carry out
on both diseased and normal populations and so we will
be really able to identify disease susceptibility genes
and new disease related pathways. This is going to be
important for drug development and pharmengenomics.
We will understand the human polymorphisms of a drug
target, we will understand the variations in metapolizing
enzyme coding genes and we will be able to incorporate
this genetic susceptibility knowledge into clinical
trial design and clinical practice and the final goal
is to derive several individualized therapy or the right
drug the first time, which I think is still a little
bit of science fiction. So I think I will end my presentation
here. Yes, biotechnology has a very significant importance
for drug development for providing tools, for products
it is not exactly yet there. We really believe the next
stage, which is going to be genomics, functional genomics,
is going to be one of the key assets we will have that
can meet the challenge to provide you with more effective
and safer drugs.
Thank you.
Chair:
I thank the speaker particularly for the foresight for
bringing backup material. I think we have time for one
question.
Question
from the audience: I just wonder, you mentioned,
and Craig Venter also mentioned, personalized medicines,
but does the pharmeceutical industry get enough benefits
to produce personalized medicines, you can't produce
them in bulk.
Mr.
Mayaux: That is a very relevant point. I am not
saying that we are already ready to cope with all the
possible consequences of that. So I agree with you.
Let me give you one example where we have decided not
to step in. This is called cellular therapy, which is
a little different from gene therapy. Cellular therapy
means that we get your cells, we modify them in a therapeutically
relevant way, and we re-inject them for you to get a
potential benefit. It is difficult for the time being
to envision genetic cellular therapy, so you have to
do it in a very individualized way. We have been involved
for at least two years in thinking about how it could
be done and the conclusion was no, we are not going
to get in that business and we have stopped all our
activities in cellular therapy. So this is just to give
you an example. To say that yes, it is a difficult question.
I mean this individualized therapy is not something
that we do readily grasp currently.
Chair:
Thank you very much again.
Matthias
Kummer,
Political and PR-Organization of Swiss Business
"Biotechnology and Public Communication"
transcript
will soon be available
Noëlle
Lenoir, French Constitutional Court
"The Ethics of Biotechnology"
The European
Perspective.
In 1947,
Canguilhem, a French epidemiologist, wrote that "
the renewal of metaphysical and no longer just scientific
interest in biological problems could have wide-ranging
practical implications for our civilization... Quite
an understatement, isn't it. Canguilhem hit the nail
on the head. His observation is precisely what the ethics
of biotechnology is all about. I mean that the ethics
of biotechnology is based on the idea that there is
no real separation between science and politics, contrary
to what was postulated by Max Weber some decades ago.
According to Weber, science is strictly separated from
politics because it is not of the order of action, but
seeks only the pursuit of knowledge. The responsibility
of the scientist is thus limited to the faithfulness
of the reflection and his fidelity to the search of
the truth.
Nevertheless,
this classical view of science is now difficult to maintain
since science is narrowly linked to technology. This
transformation is mostly important as regards the attitude
of society towards scientists. Indeed, they are asked
to participate in the same ethics of responsibility
as is traditionally asked of public decision-makers.
Biotechnology
in particular entails this ethics of responsibility.
Indeed, everyone acknowledges that it is a source of
profound change in our way of living - the food we eat
and the medical treatments we have, for instance - and
is even able to change the nature of all living species,
the human species. Is this why biotechnology is subject
to so many controversies? I think so.
And in
my view, it is quite understandable that people raise
questions about the long-term consequences of a technology
which, of course, may help to wipe out' famine and eradicate
many of the world's most feared diseases, but which,
on the other hand, may go one step too far in manipulating
life. For example, human reproductive cloning.
I'll see
the ethics of biotechnology from the point of view of
a European, of course. Indeed, I've had the good fortune
to have been associated from the very beginning, as
a member and then chairperson, with the EGE, an then
be able to think about ethics at the EU level. I've
observed the way ethical considerations have progressively
been introduced in European Community law especially
with regard to research, the environment, patents, animal
welfare and medicine. Undoubtedly the setting up of
"ethical standards", if I may say so, is closely linked
to building of the EU, which is not only a single market,
but is also more and more deemed to be a political community.
That's to say that European ethical values, and especially
those concerning science and technology, defined by
law are intimately connected to Europe's cultural and
political identity.
But the
ethical debate is not limited to Europe. It also exists
in the US, in Canada, in Japan and in more and more
countries throughout all parts of the world. That's
why I think it is essential to deal with the issue at
the highest level, which cannot be but on the international
level. In my opinion, there is an urgent need for a
permanent body at the international level where views
between the different cultures of the world can be exchanged
and where there's access to experts whose legitimacy
and accountability are universally recognized. Why not
create a kind of true international Agency of the UN,
, with advisory capacity, to act on contradictory expertise
in particular in the field of safety ? Researching food
safety, for instance, in cooperation with other organizations
such as the FAO and the OECD. The agency would include
an ethics department which is multidisciplinary and
independent, and whose task would be to foster widespread
consultation for all the parties involved (industries,
scientists and NGOs, for example ). The Agency could
be consulted, if necessary, at any country's request.
There
are many different places where the ethics of biotechnology
is discussed, but there lacks a well identified, independent
and permanent body. Sooner or later, one must be established,
and the sooner the better. Such an innovative initiative
is not unrealistic, since the UN already showed its
interest in bioethics in endorsing in late 1998 the
"Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights",
elaborated by UNESCO one year before. Keep in mind that
the adoption of this Declaration was strongly supported
by the US, which approved the balancing in the text
between safeguarding respect for individual rights and
ensuring freedom of research.
Worldwide
dialogue is all the more essential as it is the only
way to ease to lift misunderstanding and search for
solutions to common problems. The world is our village,
technology has no boarders. Dialogue is key and especially
International dialogue. What about the situation in
Europe. What strikes me is that, although Europe and
the US share the same values, in Europe the ethical
debate has much more influence on politics than anywhere
else in the world.
The
European background is indeed different from the American
one in three ways:
1.
Europe's concern with the ethical aspects of technological
development is rooted in old juridical tradition.
For example, as early as the nineteenth century, ethical
considerations made their first appearance in European
law on patents. Indeed the first European treaties on
the subject stipulated that inventions could be denied
a patent where they were "contrary to morality". And
the same restriction is set up, in a more contemporary
context, by the patenting life" Directive of 1998, which
singles out as contrary to morality (and therefore unpatentable)
human cloning, modification of the human germ-line,
and inventions involving the use of human embryos for
industrial and commercial purposes.
2. For
many Europeans, and not only the older ones, biotech
research also revives horrific memories of the medical
experiments carried out by the Nazis. This explains
why embryo research in particular is strictly forbidden
by German law. This explains also why the Europeans,
by and large, are much more pessimistic than Americans
about science and progress. Biotechnological developments
are more feared in Europe, in the food sector as well
as in the medical field. Generally speaking, unlike
in the US, the biotech industry is often suspect and
its inventions eyed askance.
3. Recent
history has only strengthened this distrust towards
science. In the post mad cow era, anything which
has to do with food technology is suspect. I suppose
subconsciously the plagues are too. The radical changes
in public opinion in the UK are striking. Before the
discovery of the transmission of the mad cow disease
to human beings, the Britains raises no objections to
biotech developments of in the food sector. British
consumers regularly bought for instance genetically
modified tomato sauces. How things have completely changed
now! Public opinion, in the UK, has become mostly skeptical
about the benefits of GMO. And this skepticism is now
shared by the rest of Europe. Result? No new GM crops
have been authorized in the EU since April 1998. Obviously,
public opinion is influencing more and more the European
decision making process since the EU Parliament, whose
deputies are ever sensitive to public concerns, now
has extensive legislative powers.
This
all points to the fact that European decision makers
have striven to take into account public concerns in
making biotech policy. This Policy has three characteristics.
1. First,
the choice was made very early on to give the horizontal
approach precedence over the vertical one based on a
product by product regulation. That's to say that
the main European Directives on biotech - on safety
of deliberate release of GMOs as well as on life patenting,
for instance concern all life-science applications.
This approach has facilitated the ethical debate about
the social and political implications of genetic engineering
as such. "Ethics must never be subordinated to biology"
said E.0 Wilson. This sums up the European approach.
The debate on the patenting life Directive was so hot
that its first version was rejected by the European
Parliament on March 1995. It's illustrative to see that
the reason why Parliament vetoed the text is due to
its ambiguity with regard to the respect of the principle
of non-commercialization of the human body, including
the human genes. As everyone can see, the ongoing debate
on the modification of the 1990. Directive on approving
GM crops is much more political than strictly scientific.
2. The
second choice was to open by creating in 1991 the first
European ethics committee ( the EGE), whose task defined
by the European Commission, at that time chaired by
Jacques Delors, is to play an advisory role in policy
making. This shows that without question ethics
would be an essential part of the EU community law.
Setting up an ethics committee was the more ambitious
as, unlike other bodies of its kind, its remit was to
deal with all the ethical aspects of biotech by and
large, and not only biomedicine. It's interesting to
note that among the fourteen opinions already made public
by the EGE, more than half of them did not deal with
human genetics, but with other applications of genetics:
· Bovine
somatotrophin, GM food, patenting, cloning and genetic
modifications on animals,...for instance. It's also
very noticeable that the Group, which now can be consulted
not just by the Commission of Brussels, but by the European
Parliament and the Council of ministers too, has also
become the interface between the Parliament and the
Commission. Indeed, their approach is quite different,
for the latter has to take into account commercial and
industrial imperatives while Parliament sticks closer
to public opinion and to the NGOs claims.
3. The
third specificity of biotech ethics at the EU level
is that "fundamental ethical principles" are enshrined
in public law.
I don't use this term by chance. The concept has indeed
become part of European community law. For instance,
the decision made by the European Parliament and the
Council of Ministers on December 1998 to refuse funding
for research involving human reproductive cloning or
the modification of the human germ line, provides that
"the Union, in its research and technological activities,
respect fundamental ethical principles". And it is not
unusual for these ethical principles, such as in particular
the right to privacy, the principle of non commercialization
of the human body or the principle of human dignity,
to be expressly referred to in different legislation.
This
is the main difference which exists, in my view, between
the American and the European approaches. Unlike Americans,
we Europeans hold the view that public authorities must
establish the principles according to which research
must be conducted. What are these principles ? I've
identified four main "Fundamental ethical principles"
which express, in my view what is at the heart of the
biotech ethics in Europe.
1. First,
the principle of human dignity and the respect for human
life seems stronger in Europe than the principle of
unrestrained research. This explains, as I said
before, why are banned at the European level reproductive
cloning and on human germ line modification and why
this ban remains unchallenged. Let's be clear. The principle
of the respect for human life does not mean that one
can cultivate morality simply by following nature. The
idea that morality is located in the prolongation of
biological nature is praised by a tiny minority in Europe.
Respect for human life implies means considering that
the genetic make up of human beings cannot be manipulated
as if they were mere objects.
2. A
second important principle has to do with animal welfare
and the protection of animals against excessive and
unnecessary suffering. This results in legal restrictions
in Europe on the use of animals either for farm purposes
or for experimental and other scientific purposes. Animals
are now regarded as "feeling beings" and many European
regulations are aimed at protecting them. One of the
most illustrative regulations is the patenting life
Directive which states that " processes for modifying
the genetic identity of animals which are likely to
cause them suffering without any substantial medical
benefit to man or animal, and also animals resulting
form such processes" are unpatentable.
3. The
right to privacy with regard to genetic data is also
considered a fundamental ethical principle since the
principle of medical secrecy is deeply rooted in European
culture. In this respect, it's illustrative to note
that the Directive on data protection of 1995 is officially
based on this principle. It thus strictly restricts
the processing of data concerning health or sex life.
Its preamble stresses that "the establishment and functioning
of the free market in which the free movement of goods,
persons, services and capital is ensured, require not
only that personal data should be able to flow freely
from one Member State to another, but also that fundamental
rights of individuals should be safeguarded". Am I right
when I assert that the ongoing debate in Congress about
the protection of the confidentiality of medical data
is being partially influenced by this European statement?
· (Indeed
the Directive states that the transfer of personal data
from Europe to a third country must be authorized only
if the country in question "ensure an adequate level
of protection").
4. The
last important ethical principle, now expressly mentioned
in the European Treaty, is called the "precautionary
principle". This principle, in spite of its environmental
origin, is deemed applicable to all kinds of biotechnological
products and processes. Contrary to what is often thought,
it does not imply a call for a moratorium each time
there is no absolute proof that such products and processes
are safe in the long term. First, such absolute proof
is impossible in so far as all risk assessment evaluations
are based on knowledge which by definition may be Subject
to improvements in the long term. Second, the precautionary
principle is essentially aimed at ensuring that the
decision makers remain ever mindful of the possibility
of detrimental eventualities. The European Commission
is going to issue in a month or two a publication on
the precautionary principle. There is also a pending
case before the European Court of Justice which will
lead to clarification of the concept. However, at the
risk of being too personal, I'd like to just mention
one principle which I believe is very useful in the
present context, namely that irreversible damage is
very possible unless strong emphasis is placed on safety
and caution above economic interests. As a consequence,
ethical evaluation and open public debate must come
before research or before the marketing of new products
in the most controversial areas. I admit that things
are not so simple. One could indeed think that to underline
possible risks, while these risks remain unknown, is
unjustified and could even be dangerous. But one must
also admit that our society is evolving. European citizens
in particular aren't asking for absolute safety, but
rather for a safety net to be safeguarded by public
authorities. Of course, there are few real differences
in the safety standards applied in the US and in Europe,
but our mentalities differ considerably in the US, the
FDA is trusted and its decisions are generally go unchallenged.
In Europe, however, we don't and won't have such a federal
type structure. Indeed the Food Safety Agency, whose
creation was recently announced by President Prodi,
will only have an advisory capacity. I bet that Europeans
will in any case continue to doubt the benefits of GMOs,
for there is a lack of trust in industries as well as
in politicians. In addition, it's uncertain that the
risk assessment evaluation process is really appropriate
with regard to food safety contrary to what is the case
in medicine. In other words, as is shown in surveys
such as the "Eurobarometer", Europeans accept risks
in using new medical treatments, but not in eating new
foods which are thought as even less "genuine" than
those now on the market. On another hand, the right
to transparency, asserted by the Treaty of Amsterdam,
is now seen as fundamental in order to ensure that the
people regain confidence in public and private decision
makers, including, of course, industries. That's why
GM food labeling is now regarded in Europe as part of
freedom of choice and something which must be guaranteed
to consumers.
The ethics
of biotechnology, whose emergence has led to the introduction
to European community law of provisions directly inspired
by ethical principles, is now part of the very fabric
of European Union identity. Nevertheless, it does not
reflect the extreme diversity of national cultures in
Europe. Sometimes the ethical imperative is to respect
this diversity by giving precedence to the so called
"subsidiarity principle" which prohibits the legislation
at the EU level, for example when it is not really necessary
and when it would be more adequate to leave it up to
each country to decide the appropriate regulation. Along
these lines, the EGE stated regarding human embryo research,
that " because of lack of consensus, it would be inappropriate
to impose one exclusive moral code". But in case legislation
is thought necessary either at the national or at the
European level, then, unlike in the US, this regulation
must be applicable to the public as well as to the public
sector. I quote again the EGE which stressed in its
opinion of 1998 on human embryo research that "it is
crucial to place this research, in the countries where
it is permitted, under strict public control, while
ensuring maximum transparency, whether the research
in question is carried out either by the public or by
the private sector".
I'll
wind up by asking what's ahead?
1. Since
we are facing considerable scientific progress in the
life-sciences, our democratic society requires very
high awareness by all citizens regarding progress in
view of ensuring that they fit with their needs and
aspirations. The ethics of biotechnology, especially
in Europe, corresponds to this democratic imperative.
2. I'm
convinced that the ethical debate cannot be but enlarged
in Countries other than Europe. It will oblige decision
makers - in industry and politics to take into account
the fears and claims of the citizens, some of which
are expressed in the media by NGOs. The media are indeed
a strong vector of ethics since they allow groups of
interests to exert pressure on the decision making process,
namely in the field of biotech.
3. In
order for this debate to be conducted in an unbiased
way, it's not Just reasonable but crucial to call for
the creation of an international permanent Agency able
to produce scientific evaluations as well as evaluations
on ethics when needed by countries that need to consult
it. This implies that the agency experts are not only
top level, but enjoy a status which enables them to
assume their task with sufficient means and total independence.
We're
no longer the passive playthings of evolution. We are
almost able to grow strawberries on grapevines or to
change rocks to roses, it seems. That's why I believe
that those who pretend that ethical concerns are not
Justified are either insincere or don't know the huge
responsibilities now confronting society as a whole.
Laurens
Jan Brinkhorst,
Minister of Agriculture, Government of the Netherlands
"Biotechnology - Implications for Agriculture and Society"
In
1818 'Frankenstein, Or The Modern Prometheus´ was published,
written by the twenty-year old Mary Shelley . The novel
was made into a film many times. We are all familiar
with Victor Frankenstein´s monster. He is the product
of a technique, an artifact, the result of a scientific
experiment that went badly wrong. Nowadays the monster
stands for the horror scenario attendant on modern biotechnology.
Thus there is talk of Frankenstein food and European
Frankenfears. But this does no justice to Mary Shelley´s
book nor to modern biotechnology. Mary Shelley was a
product of the Age of Enlightenment. She did not intend
to discredit science or technology. She wanted to show
us how a creature of human mind could turn into a monster
when left unattended. Mary Shelley´s book teaches us
that we must never lose sight of the relations between
science and technology or society and nature. The search
for new answers is a continuous process, a process we
must adopt to keep the spirit of the Enlightenment alive
and realize the progress promised by science and technology.
This by
way of introduction. I will first sketch what I believe
are the implications of biotechnology for agribusiness
and society.
After
that I will talk about the challenges for the agrofood
sector and the government. I will come back to Mary
Shelley at the end.
Now let
us look at the implications of biotechnology for agribusiness
and society. The impact of modern biotechnology on the
agrofood sector is enormous. It will drastically change
the nature of production. It will blur the traditional
boundaries with other sectors of production. Agricultural
sciences are turning into life sciences. Factories will
be replaced by plants. New product categories will come
about, such as nutriceuticals, functional foods, drugs,
novel proteins. The forces that link up information
technology, biotechnology and transport technology will
create an enormous impact. International production
and marketing chains will change beyond recognition.
But the
public support for the use of modern biotechnology in
the agrofood sector will profoundly affect the relations
between the links in the international production and
marketing chain. Producers will get a thorough shake-up.
An international market has emerged which is driven
by consumer demand. The final links in the chain, the
retailers and multinational food processors, are demanding
a new position. They will force the chain to adapt and
that is not infrequently done with strong-arm tactics.
Just look at the actions of the European retailers.
Consumer autonomy, freedom of choice, consumer concerns,
flexibility and transparency of the production and marketing
chain are the key words here. The large multinationals
with their brand names are more vulnerable than ever.
The relationship
between civil society and the industry is also undergoing
change. In an international demand driven market the
industry can no longer ignore the demands society makes.
The post Brent Spar effect. Food producers will not
only need a legal license but also a license to produce.
The consumer organizations, single issue organizations
and NGOs have become a force to be reckoned with. Globalization
is not just restricted to the industry, single issue
organizations and NGOs know their way around. The influence
of NGOs has increased strongly, worldwide.
Now something
about the impact of biotechnology on society. Biotechnology,
in my view, is a key technology of the 21st century.
It will have major consequences for our individual way
of life. Dietary patterns will change but so will our
agricultural landscape, which will be furnished with
novel crops. Biotechnology will help us solve problems
in our society. Problems in health care, the environment,
food security, poverty. But this will only work if we
know how to deal with this complex technology, how to
keep it in check. We shall have to keep asking questions
about our modern risk society. About or relationship
with nature, our cultural identity, ethics, the risks
involved for man and the environment and the fair distribution
of wealth and natural resources. We shall have to keep
asking ourselves whether something is ethically acceptable.
For one thing is clear: with biotechnology, hitherto
unknown applications come within our reach. We will
have to find out again and again whether an application
is still socially acceptable. With biotechnology we
will break new grounds: it is even possible to cross
the boundaries of species.
The questions
raised here will certainly be similar to those raised
by our transatlantic partners. And, given our global
markets and common interests, we will have to make a
joint effort to agree on how to formulate the answers.
We can only do this if we accept the fundamental point
that people in Western Europe and people in the US think
differently about the acceptability of risks, the cultural
role of food and the monitoring role of the government.
Now let
us look at the challenges for the agrofood sector. The
open society I talked about calls for new forms of governance
in which the creation of trust and stakeholder value
for the agrofood business should come first. In this
way the agrofood business can obtain a licence to produce.
I would therefore urge the business to come forward
in the debate, rather than take a passive role and just
respond to changes. The agrofood sector is my firm believe
cannot do other than respect consumer autonomy. This
requires transparency in the production and the marketing
chain and clearly identifiable products. Market segmentation
is on the increase.
* We now
see a modest but growing market for organic products
* Alongside, we will see the segment for traditional
agricultural products.
Within
the latter we see a further division between guaranteed
GMO-free products and products which can contain genetically
modified organisms for which labeling is or is not yet
compulsory. Freedom of choice is what the consumer wants.
The right to make your own decision about what to eat
and what not is deeply rooted in the European culture.
It was a point overlooked when genetically modified
maize and soy was introduced on a large scale. Meeting
the demand for the right to chose is a major challenge
for the entire food industry. I am well aware of how
fundamental the changes will be and how complex the
tasks ahead:
* of introducing a reliable, unequivocal labeling system;
* of ensuring that all the links in the chain guarantee
the quality they claim to provide;
* of ensuring the separate production flows; and
* of reorganizing the trade in commodities where bulk
handling will be replaced by the handling of smaller
volumes for specific market segments.
The second
challenge lies in communication. How do we communicate
in a way that is open, honest and factual about how
biotechnology can help us solve problems in our society.
This is a rather crucial issue for the food industry.
The recent food scares and the introduction of the first
generation of GMO products have made the food industry
extremely vulnerable. It was not exactly clear how the
first generation of GMO products served consumer interests.
Let alone the public interest as might have been the
case in the pharmaceutical industry or medical technology.
The claimed environmental benefits of these agricultural
food products were questionable. Some even argued there
weren't any. Therefore, when environmental claims are
made for new transgenic crops or when transgenic animals
are said to benefit public health, researchers and the
industry are obliged to give full and factual information.
The industry
has omitted to do so, so far. Which may have been one
of the reasons why the public is hesitating on modern
biotechnology. But I am convinced that the public sees
reduced pesticide use in crop production as a benefit.
This must however first be proved. It is therefore vital
that public interest groups have full access to the
dossiers that are being presented by companies to obtain
a license. This has already been done in the Netherlands
where the dossiers of transgenic animals and applications
for field trials were open to inspection.
The industry
should not only be clear about the envisaged benefits
but also about the possible risks. Of course the risks
involved are sometimes incalculable. Prudence is therefore
of the essence and the latest scientific insights. I
would therefore be in favor of a case-by-case approach.
We are after all still learning. If we adopt Mary Shelley´s
attitude and address the questions fair and square there
is no need to resort to doom scenarios, to think in
black-and-white or make the precautionary principle
absolute, as some environmentalists seem to do. Such
an attitude can call a halt to all technological developments.
It is not necessary. Take the opposition against the
antibiotics resistant marker gene that is used in plant
production. The public debate helped to make the industry
develop an alternative. I am very glad that the industry
picked up this signal.
What
are the challenges presented to the government? The
government must prevent new trade barriers and harmonize
existing regulations. We must seek compromises given
that international forums such as WTO and Codex Alimentarius
are always offering the latest findings new perspectives
on progress and improvement. We must therefore make
joint investments to develop new methods and technologies
for technology assessment. The international forums
active in this area will become increasingly important.
We will have to make a major effort here. We must invest
in the mutual adaptation of risk management systems
and here too the law of the moving scientific insight
applies. We can learn from one another. We could learn
to make the decision-making process in Europe more efficient
and transparent. Perhaps the US might learn something
from the thoroughness of European risk analysis. In
my view the government should also enable third world
countries to profit from the new technology by for instance
encouraging free technology transfer. We might for instance
give third world countries access to our knowledge of
the enrichment of local rice and cereal species with
vitamins. Regarding Western societies, we must not forget
that differences of view will continue to exist given
the historical, philosophical and religious backgrounds
of the various cultures in the western world. This insight
however must not be used as a license to impose new
trade barriers.
Let me
conclude by returning once again to Mary Shelley. In
her book Victor Frankenstein recoils from the sight
of what he has created. This was not what he had had
in mind. So he leaves his creation, alone and unattended.
It is then that the monster turns on his creator and
starts to kill all the things his master loves. In my
introduction today I have tried to point out that that
was 200 years ago and we have come a long way since.
We have learned, albeit with ups and downs, to take
the responsibility for what we have created. The responsibility
for embracing the new must only be taken from the realization
that uncertainty is inherent in all new technology.
This is why I strongly believe in a transatlantic co-operation
and a transatlantic public debate. I therefore very
much appreciate the fact that Ms Schneider has organized
her conference here in The Hague and encourages the
debate in the media in Europe and in the Netherlands.
Mr
David Byrne,
European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Affairs
"Biotechnology and the Public"
Ladies
and Gentlemen,
I would
like to begin by thanking Ambassador Schneider for the
opportunity to speak at the end of this important conference
organized, around the topic of the science and impact
of biotechnology.
As European
Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, I am
particularly pleased to be here today and to give you
my perspective on biotechnology and the public. In the
past, the citizen in his capacity as consumer, has often
been overlooked in discussions on biotechnology even
though he or she is a legitimate stakeholder in the
debate and the decisions taken on the utilization of
this new technology. I , am also pleased that the aim
of this conference is to discuss both advantages and
disadvantages of biotechnology. The application of biotechnology
has far- reaching consequences for society as it. has
already been pointed out by many speakers before me
- and apart from risks and benefits, ethical concerns
are also important to-the public.
The only
way forward to face the controversy surrounding biotechnology
is to promote an open-minded and balanced dialogue between
all stakeholders - scientists, industry, farmers and
consumers and by ensuring full transparency in the risk/benefit
assessment of biotech products. Furthermore, we have
to accept and respect the consumers' right to have clear
information in order to take informed decisions on which
products they want to buy. I will return to this issue
later, but let me first outline the recent European
experience on food safety in general and the public
concerns about biotechnology in particular.
Simply
put, in the 'minds of, the European public, safety is
the most important ingredient of their food. Other considerations
- very important considerations - such as quality, value
for money, choice, taste etc, come second. When the
consumer chooses a product from the supermarket shelve,
their first and over- riding presumption is that it
should be safe.
The recent
crises or scandals in Europe such as BSE or the more
recent dioxin contamination have called into question
the very safety of food. The fall-out from such events
can have grave consequences for health as well as the
economy. One clear lesson from the BSE and the dioxin
crises is that there are no winners.
Compromising
on food safety is not a way for a farm or a company
to reduce costs. It is actually a very dangerous path,
not only for, consumers, but also for the farm or company
itself and for the whole sector involved. In an industry
worth 600 billion euros annually in the European Union,
that is about 15% of total manufacturing output, even
a slight dip in confidence can have significant effects.
Between the agro-food sector and the farming sector,
there are about 10 million employees in Europe. High
levels of confidence are necessary to boost job numbers
and competitiveness. Confidence and Predictability are
also essential elements to boost trade and you all know
how important this is between the EU and the US who
are each other's best trading partner.
I fully
accept that in many respects food has never been safer.
I am also fully aware that zero risk is not achievable,
as in most other human activities. Nevertheless the
public's demands and expectations have never been higher
and confidence is very fragile. We have one of the best
informed, discerning and sophisticated group of consumers
in the world.
Each successive
crisis undermines the public's trust in the capacity
of the food industry, in its broadest sense, and in
the public authorities, to ensure that their food is
safe. You can, see from the press the extent of consumer
unease about what they eat, you can read articles full
of questions and analysis -right and wrong about genetically
modified foods, the use of growth promoters, pesticide
residues in food, salmonella, E-Coli, anti-microbial
resistance to name only some. And, in addition to food
safety, other legitimate factors play a significant
role for many European consumers. Issues like animal
welfare, environmental considerations, sustainable agriculture,
consumers' expectations and fair information are being
discussed more than ever Ethical questions concerning
food production- have also entered into the political
agenda all over Europe and needs to be addressed.
We all
suffer from the fall-out from this loss of confidence.
The crisis of confidence has had the unfortunate but
inevitable effect of eroding the trust of consumers
in systems and institutions at national and international
level that should monitor and assure the highest standards
of food safety. In saying all this, I would like to
make it clear that Europe, nevertheless, has one of
the best food industries in the world. And also one
of the safest food control systems. The challenge is
to make the systems even better.
In order
to rebuild European citizens confidence that their food
is safe "from the farm to the fork", the European Commission
adopted last week THE WHITE PAPER ON FOOD SAFETY, on
which I would like now to say a few words. I believe
that, in the White paper, the Commission has put forward
an ambitious, action plan to transform today's EU food
policy. The actions planned are based on a comprehensive,
integrated approach throughout the food chain - in other
words from "farm to table" designed to make EU-legislation
more coherent, understandable and flexible. The more
than 80 separate actions proposed include proposals
on GMOs as we are acutely aware of the need to have
a coherent and predictable framework on GMO foods, animal
feeds, and seeds, for example.
The White
Paper provides that scientific assessment and advice
must be based on independence, excellence and transparency.
Public confidence can only be maintained in a system
where scientific assessments are carried out by eminent
scientists and independently of industrial and political
interests. Scientific advice must be open to rigorous
public scrutiny. The Commission has proposed the establishment
of an independent European Food Authority with particular
responsibilities for risk' assessment and risk communication.
The Food Safety Authority should provide a single, highly
visible, point of contact for all stakeholders. It would
not only act as point of scientific excellence, but
would also be available to consumers to provide advice
and guidance. The Food Safety Authority will not be
a European FDA, but -will work in close co- operation
with national scientific agencies and institutions in
charge of food safety. Unlike the FDA, and this is very
important, it will not have regulatory powers. These
are entrusted to the Commission, the European Parliament
and the Council of Ministers. We wish to make a clear
distinction between, on the one hand, risk-assessment
which has to be based on sciencific excellence- and
independence and, on the other hand, risk-management
which is the responsibility of decision-makers, who
are politically accountable to the citizens.
One very
important element in the system is that the roles of
all stakeholders must be clearly defined. This includes
a clear understanding that feed manufacturers, farmers
and food operators have the primary responsibility for
food safety. In this new comprehensive approach to,
food safety we are trying to meet some very specific
consumer demands.
First
of all, consumers have their right to make informed
choices. I firmly believe in and support the consumers
right to information and to take informed decisions
about what products they want to purchase. Consumers
want to be in a position to take informed choices. Information
on production methods and labeling of products are key
to this increased awareness and to the development of
a civil responsibility .in this respect. I am of course
not talking of products which are judged to be unsafe;
clearly those should not be put on the market at all.
The Amsterdam Treaty, our new I legal framework for
European integration, has explicitly introduced the
right to information for the consumers. European consumers
have consistently demanded that GMO-food be labelled
- not for reasons of safety, but in order to make an
informed choice. A survey carried out in 1998 showed
that 86% of the European consumers demand labelling
of GMO food. I think that consumers in Europe have never
been so united on any one issue as on the labeling of
GMOs. Regulators and the food industry must ensure that
this demand for information is met if GMOs are to win
acceptance.
The Commission
is currently working on improving the EU-legislation
on labeling of "GMO-free" and on the legal framework
for a "GMO-free" production line, to which producers
can adhere on a voluntary -basis The objective is to
provide consumers with clear information, and a choice
between products. I believe that an appropriate labeling
system of genetically modified food is one of the cornerstones
in resolving the current controversy concerning the
application of biotechnology to food. Without appropriate
consumer information, mistrust about biotechnology and
GMO food is bound to proliferate. I am therefore pleased
to see that many other countries, such as Japan, Korea,
Australia and New Zealand, are adopting a similar approach.
In some cases they have already acted! This responds
to the demands we have had from consumers in the Transatlantic
Consumer Dialogue.
Information
is of course very much linked to the issue of traceability.
A successful food safety policy also demands traceability
of feed and food. This obviously applies to GMOs Adequate
procedures to facilitate traceability must be introduced.
This includes the obligation for feed and food businesses
to ensure that procedures are in place to withdraw feed
and food from the market where it presents a risk to
the consumer. It must be emphasized however that unambiguous
tracing of feed and food is a complex issue and must
take into account the specificity of different sectors
and commodities.
Let me
now turn to another element: control. European Consumers
have repeatedly stressed the link between consumer acceptance
of biotechnology and rigorous and transparent .control
of GMOs. Biotechnology is a new area. Because of this
I believe that it is fully Justified that authorizations
should be reviewed and time-limited and that genetically
modified organisms are carefully, monitored in the light
of evolving science. Indeed, when important new scientific
information on an authorized product becomes available,
a new scientific assessment should be carried out. Another
of the central elements in restoring consumer confidence
is to make decisions concerning food safety which are
based on science -that is a scientific assessment of
potential risks. The Commission is determined to continue
to use the best available science in developing its
food safety measures. Under the current European legislation,
genetically modified food can only be placed on the
European market after it has been, scientifically evaluated
and when, according to the latest scientific knowledge,
it is considered to be safe for human health and the
environment. This is a science-based approach. However,
in cases where scientific evidence is insufficient,
inconclusive or uncertain, and where possible risks
to health or the environment are unacceptable, measures
should be based on the precautionary principle. This
is in line with the consumer demand for a precautionary
approach not only in relation to GMOs but also -to a
variety of food safety issues, where scientific data
are sparse and scientific judgement is uncomfortably
imprecise.
The Commission
is currently working on a communication defining the
precautionary principle and clarifying when and how
it can be applied to protect the public while avoiding
its use for trade protectionist purposes. The Commission
also wants to clarify the conditions for the use of
the precautionary principle, and develop multilaterally
agreed guidelines for that purpose. To sum up, I think
that the principles I have outlines are fundamental
for a new framework on GMOs:
· first and foremost, GMOs must be safe
· there is a need for proper information
· the traceability of novel feed and food must be ensured
· authorizations must be time-limited and
· there must be careful monitoring
They are
all contained in the Common Position recently adopted
by Council on the revision of the EU-legislation on
the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment,
and I believe that this is the way forward. The debate
on GMOs so far in Europe and elsewhere has been characterized
by a great deal of emotion and insufficient reason.
The EU is not against the application of biotechnology
but I feel that the biotechnology industry has moved
forward very quickly without taking sufficient account
of the concerns of society and a parallel failure, to
inform citizens sufficiently as to the merits of this
technology. A recent Euro-barometer survey revealed
that only every second European finds it morally acceptable
to apply biotechnology to food. Opposition to, GMOs
products has to date been largely, found in Europe,
but, I am aware of growing concerns in the US as well.
I believe
we all need to have a predictable and coherent framework
in place, and I am determined to do my utmost in full
collaboration with my other colleagues in the Commission,
in particular the Commissioner in charge of the environment
Ms Walstrom, listening, to all interested parties. Many
consumers have questioned the benefits of biotechnology
to the man in the street. In the public debate, there
is a tendency to overlook many different aspects of
biotechnology and sometimes to focus on negative effects.
I am sympathetic to the fact that for some products,
the benefit to man may not be so obvious. However, it
has to be recognized that most of the GMOs currently
on the market are not targeted to deliver clear benefits
for the consumer, rather to provide benefits for producers.
From a consumer point of view, this has given rise to
skepticism, .independent from safety questions. The
public attitude towards GMO food might change once products
with clear benefit to consumers are marketed.
But it
is also essential to point to some of the advantages
of, biotechnology as many speakers have already done
during this conference. Can we afford to ignore the
potential offered by biotechnology to address many important
medical, environmental and nutritional challenges? Taking
the risk of repeating other speakers let me give you
some examples. For instance, we can now treat children,
who suffer from retarded growth, without risking contaminating
them with Creutzfeldt-Jacobs Disease, as was the case
when we had to rely on growth hormone extracted from
cadavers. I need not remind you that the latter practice
led to a number of tragic deaths of children.
We can
also alleviate the sufferings of hemophiliacs with unlimited
sources of coagulation factors free from the AIDS or
Hepatitis C viruses, which have killed many patients.
For that alone, I think we should be grateful to biotechnology.
Take the situation on rare diseases. As most of them
are caused by genetic disorders, the advances in gene
technology will contribute very much to the understanding
of the causes of these diseases and perhaps lead to
a cure.
Gene therapy
is currently the biggest hope for people suffering from.
genetic diseases. Without biotechnology, the causes
of such diseases could not have been tackled. However,
even though science is an indispensable basis for decisions
on food safety measures, we have to acknowledge the
inescapable limitations on its role. Determining the,
acceptable level of risk is a political exercise and
cannot be confined to science. In some cases, there
are demands - due for instance to ethical or environmental
considerations to go further in the area of health.
protection measures than the scientific evidence suggest
is necessary.
Let me
now conclude. Ladies and Gentlemen, I firmly believe
that biotechnology and GMO-products can only produces
in an environment where the consumer is fully recognized
as a legitimate stakeholder the consumer is given a
free choice, where risk/benefit assessments are fully
transparent and where consumer concerns, including ethical
questions, are addressed and taken into account.
Consumers
not only want to understand, for instance the health
and nutritional implications of their- choices, but,
in many cases, they are interested in the environmental
and ethical implications of the way the products are
produced. Clarity and improvement are needed in this
area in order to provide essential information to consumers.
We do not solve problems by digging trenches. I have
sometimes heard scientists and industrialists dismissing
consumers' apprehensions as being groundless and irrational.
I do not share this view. Consumers are entitled to
clear information and a free choice of products. It
is after all, the consumer who decides what products
to buy and who pays. Only an open-minded, transparent
and balanced dialogue between all stakeholders, including
the consumer, can in the long-term help to de-mystify
the application of biotechnology.
Thank
you for your attention.
Question
and Answer Session with a panel of Industry, Consumer,
Academic and Government Representatives, including the
morning speakers and:
- Alain
Labergère, Confederation of the Food and Drink Industry
of the European Union
- David
Bowe, Member of the European Parliament Committee on
the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy
- John
H. Monyo, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations
Introduction
by Alain Labergère: I am chairman of the food and
drink industry for Europe, which you can imagine, is
an easy job. This gathers all the federations of Europe,
plus a certain number of branch associations, plus the
incoming countries. We are working on horizontal subjects
as well as vertical, such as labeling, consumer protection,
and nutrition, the same as international market competition.
When Ambassador Schneider invited me very nicely two
months ago, she told me again this morning that I could
use my second minute to tell you what my key concerns
are. I must say that we are proud to run the food industry.
This is the biggest industry in Europe; bigger than
automobile or chemical. We have done a fabulous job
of improving the quality and the offer of our product,
but today we have lost the consumer's confidence. Nobody
has anymore, in Europe, the consumer's confidence; not
politics or scientists… nobody. I think the thing which
I heard in these two days, which I encapsulate in fifteen
seconds, is that we should not forget that we did it
all wrong for the GMO. We started with a commodity product
which was widespread overnight. We have been taken by
surprise. There was as, Sir Robert said, no consumer
advantage. When we have asked the consumer if they want
a choice they say, "sorry, it is too late. It is too
complicated; forget about it". Last but not least, when
he has asked scientific questions, there has been total
confusion. In this world of media, anyone could talk,
primetime, on any television, and everything and the
contrary has been said by everybody. I think we should
start with a clean sheet of paper. The food industry
agrees that we have to go forward. The way forward is
to go quietly, well organized and with a common communication,
as Mr. Kummer was saying. A lot of things I heard here,
including what Mr. Byrne said, are very encouraging.
Introduction
by David Byrne: I am the European Parliament spokesperson
on the Deliberate Release Directive. It is my report
which will be coming back into focus in the next few
months, as we do the second reading of the Deliberate
Release Directive. Many of the issues you have heard
being discussed today, we will deal with in the next
few months in the Parliament; whether it is risk assessment,
the liability regime, the need for an ethical committee
to be consulted, or most important of all, the need
to uphold the precautionary principle. They are the
issues we will be talking about. They are the issues
we will be answering questions about today. We need
to go forward and get ourselves a good piece of legislation
that we can put into practice, that develops public
confidence in it, and is workable for the industry.
Hopefully, if we achieve that, we will have achieved
something in Europe from which will progress the biotechnology
industry.
Introduction
by John Monyo: Lately, I have been asked to be chair
of an interdepartmental working group on biotechnology.
This came on board because the membership of the FAO
organization felt that they should be more pro-active
in the ongoing debate on biotechnology. The most important
thing is that FAO, as a food and agricultural organization,
believes, supports and promotes the production of sustainable
agricultural production. It advocates the right to food;
that it should be accessible, adequate, nutritious and
safe. We embrace developments and new technologies.
That is necessary in particular for developing countries,
where if we can help through biotechnological solutions,
which are incorporated into the genotype, be it a plant
or animal, to make the biotech stresses contained, to
be better for them. I would just like to say, before
I stop, that before I came to FAO, I lived on organic
agriculture. Many of the 850 million people in developing
countries and a big proportion of those who will come
on board in the next twenty years, are forced to live
on organic agriculture, which is inadequate, not because
they want to, but because they can not afford the inputs
required to produce more. But we are trying to produce
more anyway and we believe that biotechnology can provide
some help.
Question
for David Bowe and John Manyo: The issue of contamination
in the field just came up. Contamination of transgenic
seeds in the West, mainly to organic farmers, but in
Southern countries to most farmers who work with open
pollinating varieties. Could you indicate how the revision
of the Directive deals with this issue?
Answer
given by John Manyo: I come from a plum green background,
therefore it is very important that if you breed a crop,
if you want the intended people to benefit, you must
prevent as much as possible, contamination. FAO also
has the commission for food and agriculture, where it
is important to preserve biodiversity for the use of
future generations. The most important thing to do,
of course, is before a new development crop or process
comes on to the market, there should be the sorts of
things that are done for us by the FDA. What you need
most is a good national regulatory system, which should
be science based, but science is not going to be enough
if you are to use it as a basis for policy to engage
the public. We have heard that. You need to have the
public to have confidence in the science and to understand
the intentions. You can provide guidelines on how best
to contain a given new variety. This happens not only
with GMOs, but it would happen in conventional plant
breeding, in which I was involved for many years.
David Bowe's response to the question: First
of all, we will deal with the issue of farmers in non-EU
countries, who may be using openly fertilized seeds.
The Parliament itself has been very clear about this.
We want to see controls on the exports of GM products
to the EU. We want to see an authorization procedure
and we want to have instituted, if you like, a prior
informed consent procedure, where you will have the
import consent of the importing country. That is not,
unfortunately, very easily within our control. It is
very much an issue that will be discussed next week
at the Biosafety protocol meeting in Montreal. Nevertheless,
we recognize that problem. That is what we would like
to see. That is the current view of the Parliament.
In terms of within the EU, we have looked very carefully
at the risk assessment. We have added to the risk assessment,
specifically issues related to gene transfer. We are
particularly concerned to ensure that there is not a
damage to biodiversity in some protected areas of the
Union. That having been said, let me say one thing that
we are very critical about, in terms of the organic
farmers. There seems to be a considerable effort from
the organic lobby to condemn gene, and specifically,
pollen drift, as a major dangerous, damaging issue.
I can not understand this because the organic lobby
has been coping perfectly well with pesticide drifts
for years. They never raised the same issues of concern.
They simply set quietly, without telling very many people,
a minimum percentage of contamination which is acceptable
to remain an organic product. I do not see why you can
not do the same for possible GMO contamination.
Comment
from Chair: Nothing in nature is static. There are
no closed systems. An earlier speaker spoke of solving
problems of pesticide resistance. Anyone who understands
evolution knows there will always be pesticide resistance.
You put and you challenge and you get a response.
Question
from the audience: What role could genetic engineering
play in the development of biological weapons?
Answer
given by Noëlle Lenoir: I am not a scientist, but
nobody is perfect. I have no idea of the mechanism,
but what I must say is that the declaration at international
level on human genetics has been adopted by all member
states of the UN, including the US, which states in
a specific provision that human genetics must not be
used in view of making weapons. Of course, it is a declaration
with no binding effects, but it is a statement that
is important to see that it has been introduced in this
state, because there was concern from several groups
of interest.
Answer
given by Ambassador Aaron: We do have a biological/chemical
weapons treaty in this area. I do not know about the
feasibility of this. It strikes me that it would be
quite feasible to develop specific biological weapons.
That is why this convention is so important. That is
why, for example, the case of trying to root out the
biological weapons of certain countries, such as Iraq
has been so terribly important to demonstrate that the
international community will not tolerate that. I think
that this is a worry and it puts a premium on making
the biological weapons convention truly effective.
Answer
given by Craig Venter: This is something that comes
up a lot on the Internet, that there will be biological
weapons targeted at specific races or ethnic groups.
It is just bunk. Just like genetic determinism will
not come out of the genetic code, neither will the ability
to target weapons against certain individuals.
Answer
given by Chair: To hold the view that you can produce
race targeted biological weapons, you have to be profoundly
ignorant of population genetics, because for all the
occasional surface differences in a handful of genes
that give us different skins and other superficial things,
the variation within humanity hugely swamps the differences
between any two groups. There is much more variation
within any one group than there is among groups.
Question
for Mattias Kummer: I want to ask you about the
follow up since you engaged in this very intense debate
in Switzerland. It seems to me that one of the purposes,
even the main purpose of a meeting such as this is to
establish a dialogue and some communication. In a meeting
of this size, there are a few hundred of us here, and
hopefully a few thousand connected on the Internet.
It seems to me that in Switzerland you engaged in a
debate of a few million people. Yesterday, we discussed
that we need to start a debate that ultimately will
involve billions of people. We also heard yesterday
about the fast rate of change and complexity of what
is going on. I was wondering, since your intense, large
debate, how have you followed up on the debate? Have
there been specific plans and actions taken to continue
the debate and the education? If so, what kind of follow
up has been planned and if not, why not?
Answer
given by Mattias Kummer: I can, of course, only
give you the Swiss view. The Swiss Government published
a package, Genelex. Civil liabilities, ethics and all
the things, we will deal with this. This is, of course,
will produce quite a discussion in our country again.
I think the most important thing for business is that
we keep up our credibility. Credibility was a very important
element during the whole campaign. We should never lose
credibility. I think we have it now in Switzerland.
It was three hard years of work, at least. Even with
the media, for instance, who are commonly not very close
to us, we have this credibility and we must keep it
up. Otherwise we will really fall back to the middle
ages concerning communications. We will deal with this
package. We will, of course, keep up the discussion
concerning food and agro in a climate that is not emotional.
I told you about Internutrition, the organization that
we founded to deal especially with these two issues.
This is a long haul program.
Then
if you are talking about communicating with millions
of people, if I have learned one thing in my life concerning
communications, it is that you have to concentrate on
target groups. Do not think that overall communications
is of great value. You have to define target groups
and contact people where they are interested. I would
not say that it is of much value now really to have
a discussion all over the world or the globe on these
themes. I think that every country, industry and industry
sector has to do it properly concerning its own target
groups. If we can help you, we have certain experiences.
The situation in Switzerland, which is a very small
country, direct democracy is perhaps not a typical case.
Our people are forced to vote at least twenty times
a year. They are used to dealing with things. They are
not touchy. I could imagine that in other countries,
this could be tremendously different.
Question
to Craig Venter and John Manyo: The other sequencing
consortium, namely the Sanger Center, supported with
financial aid from the Wellcome Foundation, have a different
view to companies such as HGS, that they regard the
basic, primary sequences as owned by the public for
the benefit of mankind. They also recognize, on the
other hand, the interest of pharmaceutical companies
in patents, but they are only going to support patents
after functions of genes have been established. Can
you comment on what your view on this matter is? What
would be the preferred situation in your opinion?
Answer
given by Craig Venter: I think US patent law and
European patent law are coming together in this area
in terms of that you have to know a function to even
have a chance of getting a patent. That is what we are
hearing from the pharmaceutical industry. They do not
want to have happen what HGS has done and just patenting
genes with no known function. Because of the expense
that you heard for developing pharmaceuticals and the
fact that I gave you that about half of the human genes
have no known function at this point in time. Patents
have a finite lifetime. The pharmaceutical industry
does not want patents on those genes until they have
a chance of having an impact on therapeutic development.
The only genes that people want to have patented are
those that are going to have a direct impact immediately
on developing new treatments for disease that effect
all of us. I think it is a greatly exaggerated problem
because the press loves this issue.
Comment
from Jean-Francoise Mayaux: Within the pharmaceutical
industry, it happens that some industries have rather
different attitudes to this problem. For instance, a
company like SmithKline is going to become SmithKline
Glaxo, is probably very aggressive in terms of patenting.
It will be interesting because Glaxo is not as aggressive.
They will have to change their strategy. What is definitely
going to be requested and what the industry would like
to see is patent applications based on utility, and
real utility. It is easy to write a patent application
for a person who is knowledgeable in the art, but, I
think, real utility is going to be key. In some cases,
the gene might have a direct utility and it will be
adequate for a patent application. In some other cases,
the gene is going to only be a first step to very significant
further developments. Then, the importance of a patent
for these particular cases is, I think, highly questionable.
Answer
given by John Monyo: In principle, in line with
the WTO, patenting is here to stay. The only thing I
will say is that many developing countries, of course,
are disadvantaged in this, because the race is already
on and they have not started. There will be cases where
a patent could be made available to those who would
not make a difference to the type of profit you make,
for example, something you use on maize, but could also
be used on cassava, which is not going to change the
market.
Comment
made by Noëlle Lenoir: I am not an expert on patent
law, but I think that there are very few difference
between US legislation and the EU directive on patents,
with regard to the difference between a discovery and
an invention. One must recall that the patent law, which
was invented in the US in 1780 and in France at the
same time, was based on the social contracts between
the inventor, who gave society the benefits of his intelligence
and the industry. Now we have a lot of data. What of
the new social contract with this data, because as we
said, some industries open their data banks to the public
or to the academics and researchers when the use is
surely not commercial or industrial. Some other industries
do not do that. They keep it secret. Is there an idea,
because I think it is necessary and even urgent to have
a clear view of the new social contract which has not
to do only with invention and the prevision where absolutely
needed because life sciences raise new issues concerning
the differences between invention and discovery- different
from the inert matter. What is the basis of the social
contract concerning genetic data as such when their
functions are known or unknown?
Additional
comment from Craig Venter: This is one area where
the EU is well ahead of the US law, because in Europe,
you can copyright a database and have protection. That
is what has been happening with genetic databases, DNA
databases in Europe. Legislation is pending in the US
and it is very uncertain which way it is going to go.
I think Europe is very much ahead. It is the same social
contract, but I want to make something very clear. Even
though we are using private money to sequence the Drysophala
genome and the human genome, we have already made one
hundred percent of the Drysophala sequence available
on the Internet, it is in Genebank, free to the public,
even though we are using our own money. We will be doing
the same later this year with the human genome. We will
be on the Internet and through a DVD disk, giving it
to scientists for free, because we do not see the value
in the genetic code itself, but in the computational
interpretation of this information. We had to build
a hundred million dollar super computer to understand
the information and that is what we are providing access
to. It is the basic information itself, although it
will be available even faster if we had laws in the
US allowing us to do the same copyright we can do in
Europe.
Comment
from Chair: It is not simply the Sanger Center.
The public money sequencing operation is roughly two-thirds
US, one third UK (largely federal money, public money,
NIH money in the US, charity money in the UK, with other
contributions from other countries). Those other countries
are united in a clarity of principal, that the basic
sequenced information is the common property of humankind,
and that basic sequencing information should no more
be patentable than it should be possible to patent a
newly discovered primate species in the Amazon, of which
six have been discovered in the last ten years. Without
any editorializing unduly, it may well be as Craig just
said, between his and the others I just articulated,
in practical terms really quite small. My personal opinion
is that as issues of principle, there is a gulf and
it is something we do not have time to discuss further.
I am convinced that in practice the differences are
much less than maybe in principle.
Question
from the audience: I would like to come back to
the question of labeling and consumer choice. I was
very glad to hear many speakers speak out for consumer
choice, particularly Commissioner Byrne. My question
is: can we actually do it? Genetic pollution is inevitable
and we also have slowly that a farmer can not guarantee
that the crops are actually GM free. Would it not be
more honest to tell the consumer that he will not have
a choice in the long run if we release GMOs into the
environment?
Answer
given by David Byrne: The legislative structure
that is in mind at the moment focuses first of all on
the deliberate release instructive, that is 19-20. That
is going through the amending procedure, as David mentioned
a moment ago. It is hoped that that directive will be
in amended form and enacted some time by sometime in
mid-summer or autumn. That particular directive focuses
on the issuing of labeling. So also will the novel food
directive, which has been, up to February 1, the responsibility
of my colleague, Commissioner Lickenen and DG Enterprise,
and is about to be transferred to my DG from February
1. We will be looking at this with a view to also suggesting
amendments to the Novel food directive to bring it in
line with 19-20. We also have in place a draft novel
seed directive and we are currently drafting the novel
seed directive. In all of these we will be focusing
on the issue of labeling. Somebody touched on it earlier,
that in the event that there is accidental contamination
to a threshold of 1%, in those circumstances there will
not be as the law and as the thinking is at the moment,
there will not be a requirement to label that product
as being GMO derived. Nor will there be an entitlement
to label it as being GMO free. During the process, before
Parliament recently, my colleague Commissioner Lickenen
was asked if would he reduce that threshold level to
a lower level. I understand the position to be from
him, and we will be looking at this ourselves in the
near future, that the measurement mechanisms that are
available to us can not measure to a threshold level
below one percent. He gave an undertaking to Parliament
in his presentation that if such mechanisms do become
available that a lower threshold level would be put
in place.
I realize
that your question was focusing more on the practical
consequences of that, rather than the legal aspects
of it. That, I suppose, is more in the scientific realm
of it than myself, but I have to say that our decisions
in relation to these issues in the Commission, are going
to be science based and time limited. We will be bringing
forward our proposals on that basis. Obviously, we have
to seek and get the very best scientific advice that
is available to us and put it through the legislative
process at that stage. My belief is that it is necessary
to give the information to the consumer. In the vast
majority of situations, the consumer is going to accurately
informed of the situation. In the circumstances of accidental
contamination, that situation will be identified earlier
and the consumer will also be aware in those circumstances.
It may well be that scientists can give a more accurate
response to the technicalities of that, but that is
how I see it from a legal point of view.
Comment:
I do not claim to be a scientist, although I did do
a science degree. I learned one thing from my science
degree and that is there is no such thing as zero, certainly
in terms of risk and certainly in terms of possibilities.
When we talk about gene-transfer, of course there is
a possibility, even in circumstances where you put similar
species together that might cross-fertilize. I am not
saying it would happen. What I am saying is that there
is no natural assumption that there is going to be genetic
pollution every where, because, quite frankly, take,
for example, maize. If you grow maize as a fodder crop
in the UK, there is no chance that there is going to
be pollution from GM maize being grown as a fodder crop.
One, it does not produce pollen and two, it as very
little in the way of natural relatives to cross with.
I do take exception to this continuous suggestion that
there is going to be massive pollution. We have drawn
up a very carefully worded directive because we realize
that it is possible. We realize that the possibility
of gene-transfer exists. We have taken necessary safeguards
to guard against it. The idea that you can not have
GM free food again is silly, because we are already
getting GM free food. We are getting GM free food from
GM free sources. Go look in the supermarket. The labeling
regime that has been in since the beginning of the year
as already got virtually no GM food on the supermarket
shelves. To suggest that it is going to 100% free does
not work. I have seen it with regard to admissions from
incinerators, where people demand zero admissions from
incinerators, but we can get down to three. I have seen
this argument used fruitlessly so many times and in
so many circumstances when we have been framing legislation.
I think we should start living in the real world.
Question
from the audience: There have been several comments
on the benefits to GMOs for the Third World. My question
is to Mr. Monyo and Ambassador Aaron. I would contend
that it is hugely more important to Third World development,
for the Third World farmer to have full and free access
to First World markets than access to GMOs. Do you agree?
Answer
given by Ambassador Aaron: I do think that for the
economies of Third World countries there is nothing
that we could do that would be better than to change
the rather massively distorting set of constraints that
are on agricultural trade. And in particular, though
this will not be popular here to say, the massive distorting
effects of the European agricultural system, in particular
its export subsidies. If we get rid of that, that would
be enormously helpful to these countries. I also believe
that it is important, as we are going to need new kinds
of crops. We are going have an enormous increase in
population, some say by two billion. Some people say
that by 2040, we will have almost a doubling of the
population. I am not a demographer. Whatever it is they
are not making anymore Earth. It is quite clear that
we are going to have to use more marginal land. We are
going to have to have plants that can grow in these
circumstances. We are going to have to have plants that
need less water and a number of things of that sort
in order to feed that population. I think it can make
an enormous contribution. It is essential and we have
to see biotech go in that direction. I would encourage
our industry to do that. It is another part of the social
compact that was mentioned earlier, that this industry
has got to respond to human needs of the developing
world as well as the developed.
Comment:
In the context of the WTO negotiations in Seattle recently,
this issue arose and the negotiator on behalf of the
EU made it public that the EU is receptive to this proposal
and would agree to that proposal being put in place.
There may have been one or two small caveats, but I
think, we may have been alone in that. There were one
or two others, some of the other large trading blocks
were not involved as far as I am aware.
Answer
given by John Monyo: We are not producing enough
in the developing world. It is important to have low
cost technologies which increase production. If you
can increase production you will meet the subsistence
needs and hopefully have a surplus for export.
Question
for Ambassador Aaron: Can we expect next week the
US to welcome commodity crops into the biosafety protocol
and if not, how are we going to take that basic regulation
forward? How would the US feel about Europe having that
in their regulations and whether you would welcome that
in the biosafety protocol as well?
Answer
given by Ambassador Aaron: As you probably know,
we are not actually direct participants in the biosafety
protocol because we are not members of the over-arching
agreement that goes with the protocol. I think you will
find that we will be present and that we are working
with the Miami group and we are not rejectionists in
any way about this. We are prepared to be flexible,
but we are also looking for flexibility from the EU.
I must say that we deeply concerned about some aspects
of trying to take the precautionary principle beyond
the way it was described here this morning, which I
think was very sensible and enshrine it as something
that could be exploited by others as a trade barrier.
On the specific question of labeling commodities, I
think, we are going to be prepared to discuss that issue
and whether or not there are ways that could be done
that could be informative for people and not stigmatize
the products.
Question
from the audience: Many objections voiced during
the conference may prove to be irrational, but what
if people prefer to be irrational. Rational answers
to their questions does not mean that have persuaded
them.
Answer:
I will repeat what I said. You are obliged to really
drive your down your arguments till the end. It is a
long-term job. The worst that can happen is that all
these little accidents are terrible to build up confidence.
You said it is emotion that leads the scene. When the
consumer sees that there are benefits, it is a matter
of time.
Answer:
What we believe in the food industry is that if we can
agree with the trade, the agriculture, commerce and
the consumer on one product, which should be in a niche
market with clear consumer benefit, with the same communication
all over the place and start with a clean sheet of paper
again, that would restore confidence. We are working
on that.
Ambassador
Cynthia P. Schneider
"The science and the Impact"
"Conclusion"
I
would like to begin by thanking all the speakers. You
did such a wonderful job. I asked the scientists to
speak in terms that a layperson, such as myself, could
understand. You did so just beautifully. And, in so
doing, you have shown the value of scientists taking
a more prominent role in the public debate over biotechnology,
and I hope you will do so. I would also like to thank
the audience. You have been wonderful in participating
and asking so many good and interesting questions.
I would
like to take a few minutes to review some of the ideas
that have emerged from the conference.
-
In
the last two days we have heard about the tremendous
potential for biotechnology.
-
We
learned from the three Dutch ministers we were privileged
to host here that the Netherlands is interested
in moving forward in this technology.
-
We
heard exciting news about the fundamental evolution
of medicine from a reactive to a proactive mode,
and towards even personalized medicine. I remember
in particular one quotation from a speaker today:
"If cancer is caught early, it can be one hundred
percent treatable." Think of the difference that
would make.
-
We
have had a real dialogue and exchange of views.
That exchange has pointed out many differences in
perspectives and viewpoints.
-
The
difference in the acceptance level of pharmaceutical
(high) and agricultural biotechnological products
(lower) was noted by multiple speakers.
-
Yet
we also heard a general consensus that there is
no evidence that biotechnological agricultural products
pose any danger.
-
We
heard that when biogenetically engineered foods
present a tangible benefit to the consumer, they
will be more widely accepted. And we learned of
one very exciting example, golden rice, of particular
benefit to the developing world.
-
We
heard that the known benefits of biotechnology and
increasing crop yield can, should and hopefully
will play an increasing role in alleviating problems
of hunger in the developing world, and that neutraceuticals,
combinations of pharmaceuticals with food, in development
hold great promise for solving problems of disease
as well.
-
We
heard pleas for a more extensive analysis of risk
and benefits and potential consequences, interspersed
with some very sound reminders of what is realistic.
-
We
did hear, of course, of some differences between
European and American views. For example, the lack
of consumer trust in Europe, reflecting the history
of food scandals, was contrasted to the relatively
high level of consumer confidence in America.
-
We
heard today excellent presentations from Ambassador
Aaron of the United States Department of Commerce
and Commissioner David Byrne of the European Union
discussing the different approaches in the respective
regulatory systems in the two continents. The fundamental
difference, it seems to me, is that the United States
is based on an independent, science-based regulatory
system whereas in the European member states and
in the European Food Safety system as it is now
being outlined, science advises, but politicians
ultimately take responsibility for decision-making
and making the final risk-benefit assessment for
new products. There the two systems differ, but
their goals remain the same.
A goal
of this conference was to bridge some of the differences
and to find common ground between the U.S. and Europe.
We agreed on the mutual goal of bringing the very best
product to the consumer, taking full advantage of the
scientific advances that we are privileged to witness,
and, at the same time, maintaining the highest standards
of safety. Let us hope that we will be able to maintain
the momentum of dialogue begun here, and move forward
sensibly, prudently, and productively with biotechnology.
I would
like to conclude with my own version of a quotation
from Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Toward the end
of the book, the savage, who you will remember resists
the "brave new world" where everything is controlled
and where emotions or problems do not exist, insists
on living in something comparable to the world we live
in today. He says, explaining his position, "I am claiming
to be unhappy. Not to mention the right to grow old
and ugly and impotent. The right to have syphilis and
cancer. The right to have too little to eat. The right
to live in constant apprehension of what might happen
tomorrow. The right to catch typhoid. The right to be
tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind."
Over the
past two days, we have heard about biotechnological
medicines, which treat hitherto untreatable diseases,
alleviating "unspeakable" pains. We have heard of innovations
and plant biotechnology in agriculture that hold the
promise of feeding the hungry so that they need never
worry about "what will happen tomorrow". And we have
heard about human genome sequencing that holds the promise
one day of curing cancer.
I will
conclude, then, by rephrasing Huxley in the hopes that
in the coming biotechnological century perhaps the savage,
who we will now call the citizen, will claim the right
not to be unhappy; the right not to grow
old and ugly and impotent; the right not to have
syphilis and cancer; the right to have enough
to eat; the right not to live in constant apprehension
of what might happen tomorrow; the right not
to catch typhoid; and the right not to be tortured
by unspeakable pains of every kind.
Thank
you very much.
|
|