RSB 1st phase discussions on biotechnologies
From BioenergyWiki
Sustainability > Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels > RSB 1st phase discussions on biotechnologies
| The Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels | ||
| Note: This RSB-related page is not actively updated. For up-to-date information on the RSB, see the BioenergyWiki RSB page or the RSB Website The RSB has released "Version 2.0" of the "Principles on Sustainable Biofuel Production" | 
| |
PLEASE NOTE THAT CRITERIA ON BIOTECHNOLOGIES ARE NOW DISCUSSED ON A SEPARATE PAGE HERE!
Principle: "The use of biotechnologies for biofuels production should improve their social and/or environmental performance, and always be consistent with national or international biosafety protocols"
- From your discussions I understand that there is a concern that technology may increase the biofuels efficiency and that the application of technology may cause unacceptable environmental and social impacts. But, if I look at the way principle 11 is drafted at the moment, it does not really add anything that isn't already mentioned in any of the principles 1 to 10. At the same time the benefit case necessary to justify the use of any technology is missing in the principles. To me, any sustainable solution has to address the tipple bottom line resulting in social-, environmental- and economic benefits, and has therefore to be based on a thoughtful risk-benefit analysis. I would therefore suggest the following:
Principle 11: (Use of) Technology
Any technology used in the production of biofuels should seek to increase the efficiency of crop or feedstock productivity and/or contribute to gains in production process efficiency and output. Incorporated technology should align with all the principles outlined above. Juan Gonzalez-Valero (9th January 2008)
- Juan stated: "...if I look at the way principle 11 is drafted at the moment, it does not really add anything that isn't already mentioned in any of the principles 1 to 10." Yes it does. It uses the word "biotechnology" specifically, which is nowhere mentioned in principles 1-10, or 12. As stated in the background paper, "Biotechnologies are presented as a concrete solution to reach global targets in terms of energy supply through biomass...." I would suggest "aggressively marketed" is the case, not simply "presented." I feel strongly that it is incumbent on RSB to explicitly address biotechnology in its principles.Kirk Leonard (9th January 2008)
- Re principle 11 on biotechnology: To me it looks as if “biotechnology” is meant to cover GM-plants, however we should not forget that GM-microorganisms for the production of enzymes necessary for the biofuel production can also be called “biotechnology”. In this way the use of “biotechnology” will always lead to improving at least the environmental performance of biofuels.Kirsten Birkegaard Stær (December 2007)
- Biotechnologies as a separate principle or not? The steering board chose to make it a principle with the original GMO statement and I firmly believe that should be the case, as well, especially with our expanding it to "biotechnology," a broader set of methods. A principal reason and a specific aspect is the fact that they are marketed so heavily, both appropriately and inappropriately, and are being widely seen as something like a "holy grail" vis-a-vis increasing agricultural production values, which may or may not be true.
There are beneficial biotechnologies (Bacterium thurigensis is one that comes to mind) and there are bad ones (so-called "traitor" and "terminator" crops, for example), and I believe the RSB must take a stand on agricultural technologies for biofuels that are not sustainable. It is not a political statement to suggest that "Round-Up Ready" crops are not a sound, sustainable technology -- it is a fact, well-demonstrated in scientific research and practical experience. A Pandora's box of other biological problems have emerged, yields cannot be sustained, and increased toxic chemical use is required. It is likewise a fact that Bt cotton has not proved appropriate, or sustainable, in Indian agriculture, and that many biotech crops have been inappropriately marketed in Africa.
The "politicization" of biotechnology has been created by powerful corporate purveyors of biotech for whom market and political dominance is more important than long term agricultural productivity or sustainability. We can identify and rely on facts.
Biotechnology as a principle may indeed be unique. Because biofuels and sustainability are critically important for our planetary future, and because "technology" -- biotechnology in the realm of agriculture -- is increasingly being seen as "the" solution, I believe that RSB needs to distinguish between biotechnologies that are in fact beneficial and those that are not, and that it should begin at the principle level. In my mind, it might present the shortest listing of criteria; and the proposed principle, less the social reference incorporated in another principle, is a good start. Kirk Leonard (September 2007)
Precautionary principle, social acceptance and others
- Two articles from Nature: Scientists cry foul as Europe plays politics with GM crops and Another inconvenient truth Christian Hardtke (February 2008). And one article from Food Navigator USA: Biotech reports spark debate over potential benefits. Sebastien Haye (February 2008)
- Thanks for the additional readings. I would point out that the original piece Sebastien sent also had zero comments on soil effects. In biotech research, it's as if soil life is taken for granted, ignored, not a variable, hmm?
On Bt crops, I have not seen any studies that present conclusions on the long-term effects of Bt concentrations, which have been observed in soil. Are there any out there? I've seen 180-day and 234-day reports, many open questions; and "glufosinate tolerance" just causes me more pause. We know that herbicides and synthetic fertilizers are not beneficial for soils.
I'm sad about the EU MON810 debate, too. If people don't want to eat or have GMO's fed to animals, it ought not to happen. WTO has created un-democratic traps, exploited by corporations in unfair ways... similar to the big holes in the Cartagena Protocol.
On the positive side, I agree with the conclusion of the Lynd08 piece Christian sent: ""Biotechnological approaches—including systems biology, imaging and computational tools—are likely the most powerful approach available to address the dual challenges of biomass recalcitrance and large-scale sustainable production. By focusing the transformative power of biotech on these challenges, while considering sustainability in all its dimensions, we can reasonably hope to enable the ‘second industrial revolution’ that society now requires."
I understand better now why biofuels provide a new and better opportunity for biotech. It's not for food so it shouldn't compete, and will be less contentious. It can be targeted at marginal and damaged lands, and adapted for adverse conditions like the global warming we have caused.
As long as we can assure biofuel crops do not contaminate food crops via gene transfer, soil ecosystem effects are acceptable (and studied) long-term, and greater efficiency and productivity are actually achieved, we should be ok.
With respect to the Italian corn experiments, it has been observed that seed changes can produce increased yields, initially, simply because different soil organisms are engaged, and there are several possible explanations for the fumonism phenomenon. I have seen US studies indicating that fumonism increases with GE corn. Is the original study now available or are we to rely on this editorial comment? Kirk Leonard (19th February 2008)
- Thanks for the additional readings. I would point out that the original piece Sebastien sent also had zero comments on soil effects. In biotech research, it's as if soil life is taken for granted, ignored, not a variable, hmm?
- From the AgBioWorld 11/20 post: "But the results of the trials were never formally published, spurring scientists to accuse the government of suppressing the information because of its anti-GMO stance. Meanwhile, the state-run National Institute for Research of Food and Nutrition (INRAN) today issued a statement saying it had not actually received the results as claimed. INRAN added that it has actually conducted its own analysis, which goes further than the original results, and that it now deems suitable for publication."
OK, so we'll hear more soon? Is the point here that the Italian government is anti-GMO or that the results were mis-represented? And now they want to do it again? Why is that? Very interesting set of conflicts but certainly not informative. Strikes me as a notice to biotech advocates for more political pressure on the Italian government, given what I know about the site. Christian, you have asserted there are valid, 5-10 year GMO crop studies out there, and referred us to studies I wasn't able to get. And with your response to my question about the precautionary principle, you responded with a purely political answer. A scientist is politicizing this discussion? Yes, the precautionary principle can be mis-used, but that doesn't make it irrelevant, or "fake." Clear minds with good information can make valid decisions. Can we make a ground rule here that scientific information used in our deliberations must be accessible to all? As I suggested in a prior email, I would think EPFL-RSB should be able to get access for our efforts, if not for wiki posting. As with Tamara, I have not seen any 5+ year GMO crop studies, most are 1-3 year studies. A 9-year study I referenced with a publicly accessible link shows that yields decline after the third year (with increased pesticide use and superweed growth). What I see as disasters in Africa and India also indicate poor results despite great promises. Show me the long term studies that demonstrate the efficacy, safety and benefit of GE crops and I will be convinced. Given what I have seen in several years of looking, I am not. If the data is out there, that should not be difficult. If it's not, flags should be raised, seriously. I also agree with Eric. In the US, the USDA decision of "substantial equivalence" of GMO and non-GMO crops was made by non-scientists behind closed doors in 1997, well before there was any valid, independent research. I don't believe there is a consensus on the safety or efficacy of GMO crops in the scientific community. I have found a tremendous amount of feel-good biotech promotional material on the web and I wish for us not to be mis-lead, or politicized in this effort. Facts are out there and we need to find them. Kirk Leonard- The link was placed on http://www.pubresreg.org/, a generally good reference on biotech issues.
Regarding studies, I was not aware of the composition of this group, so I did not know that many of you might not have access to primary literature. I will bundle up the cited papers as well as some other relevant primary research articles and reviews in a zipped file, which I will put on a publicly accessible server, where you can download it for your personal use only, please. Give me a few days on this, though. In that context, it might also be useful to define what we consider research here. For me, studies like the nine year link you provided show nothing in a scientific way, because they contain no primary data. They are summary reports of secondary data provided by others, spiked with extrapolations. They are surely necessary and useful, but they are not science. I reiterate my view of the pre-cautionary principle in the context of our discussion. It prevents access to the benefits by protecting against fake or overblown threats. Being cautious would be enough now, i.e. go ahead stepwise and carefully monitor. And again, among active plant scientists there is a strong positive consensus on GMOs, that you do not believe it does not change it. I don't mind politicizing. Ultimately, the effort of our group serves to formulate recommendations on policy. A few questions from my side:
- Could you please clarify which disasters happen in Africa and India?
- "In Makhathini Flats, South Africa, the majority of small-scale farmers that used Bt cotton have stopped planting it because they could not repay their debts. A five-year study by Biowatch South Africa showed most farmers that planted Bt cotton had not benefited. In India, Bt cotton failed huge numbers of farmers in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, many of whom were driven to suicide as a result of heavy debts from purchasing Bt cotton seed, which was 3-4 times the price of conventional cotton."
From Biotech Crops and Foods: The Risks and Alternatives:[1]. The disaster in Africa is thousands of small farmers (the vast majority of farms) have experienced this, and hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to drive GE crops into agriculture there when better solutions to local issues were known and simply needed much less resources to realize. An interesting exposition of this is available at [2]. Click "View Resource" for the paper. It vividly demonstrates the cultural and political inappropriateness of GE crops in Africa, which is an important consideration in biofuels sustainability. The disaster in India, the tragedy, is the suicide of thousands of farmers based on inappropriate marketing and major crop failures, continuing today. Need I say more? Please permit me a moment of anger: We are dealing with multinational mongrels here. Kirk Leonard
- "In Makhathini Flats, South Africa, the majority of small-scale farmers that used Bt cotton have stopped planting it because they could not repay their debts. A five-year study by Biowatch South Africa showed most farmers that planted Bt cotton had not benefited. In India, Bt cotton failed huge numbers of farmers in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, many of whom were driven to suicide as a result of heavy debts from purchasing Bt cotton seed, which was 3-4 times the price of conventional cotton."
- Who exactly was making the decision on substantial equivalence in 1997, and where were those closed doors located?
- Looking back, it was actually 1996. 1997 sticks in my mind because that was the year the USDA prohibited GE crops from organic certification. Since I wasn't there, I can't exactly say who. I might be able to find out but the point here is that the decision was made NOT based on valid science or any experience. It couldn't have been because there wasn't any. It was made based on industry assertions, by US FDA and USDA officials in concert with industry executives in Washington DC. Kirk Leonard
- What do you mean by "valid" science ? Christian Hardtke
- Replicable or replicated. Based on data others can review and arrive at the same or a confirming conclusion. Independent done and independently verifiable. Transparent and based on methods and instrumentation that are currently and generally agreed to be reliable. Fully disclosed methods and results. In the instance of GMO crops, a time consideration is also necessary, because of their unique agronomic and environmental impacts. Five years is a minimum, ten years preferable, and twenty years better, seems to me, but the kinds of risks suggested, many observed with GE crops, may not be known for several generations, hmm? Kirk Leonard
- Could you please clarify which disasters happen in Africa and India?
- I have found the discussion to be quite interesting and also fascinating to read the following article in the New York Times on biofuels and biotechnology:[3]. It seems like this is a discussion that needs attention and it will be worthwhile if RSB can shed some light on the subject. I also would like to see what long term studies have been conducted on GMOs, I am not aware of many over the 5 year time frame. Tamara Benjamin
- As per both Christian's and Kirsten's suggestions of GMO's for biofuel processing, I made a wiki biotechnology edit noting that a while ago. I'm not sure about "anything goes" there, but I definitely think it's safer territory. An interesting development I learned of recently was a natural bacterium identified by a USDA(!) scientist that could do a one-step cellulose to ethanol conversion at 140dF, which suggests to me another question we might consider: Are GMO's actually needed or have we not done enough research with natural organisms? Kirk Leonard
- I've been doing some homework to prepare for our discussions, and I found this article. I grew up in the US Southwest and revere Mexico, its culture and people. This hit me hard, so I hope you will indulge me in sharing it, and using it to inform our deliberations.
Few people know as much about this as John Ross, and while I don't agree with all his sentiments, it tells a true story and illustrates the two reasons I believe biotechnology needs to be a principle in RSB recommendations.
I don't agree that capitalism will, or that "globalizers" want "to destroy the planet and what it grows." I do believe the quest for economic domination drives people not to care about consequences, and often ignore risks. I can understand why Ross may think so.
On our agenda, here are the two reasons we should keep biotechnology as a principle, and constrain GE crops:- Genetic drift, gene flow, is natural, inevitable, and its GMO consequences are unknown. I see there is a current EU debate with biotech advocates once again complaining that politics are trumping science. I would ask "what science?"
Where are the long term studies of the impact of GE crops on human and animal health, on soils and watersheds, on gene flow effects? “Long term” is the operative element of this question. Indicators I am aware of are not good. One year or three years or five years is not long term, and the industry has not provided appropriate studies.- There are indeed long term studies available that range in the five to ten year time frame, but I think this is not even the basic question. To me it is rather whether long term studies are really needed? Maybe, but this should be decided case by case. But let me separate the food/feed and environmental issues. First, with respect to food/feed, I do not see why such studies would be needed if the chemical equivalency of GMO-derived food or feed with respect to its non-GMO background has been established. I think that when it comes to food or feed, there is no reason to single out GMOs. Even more so as pseudo-natural food varities have no restrictions whatsoever, although they pose a theoretically much much higher toxicity threat than any GMO imagined. Take for instance citrus fruits. Most of the varieties on the market do not occur naturally. Even worse, many are genetically totally artificial, produced through tissue culture regeneration including chromosome doubling after artificial hybridization of separate species. Anybody can bring a variety produced in this way on the market and will not have to justify at all what could be the consequences of combining several thousand genes from one species with several thousand genes from another. The metabolic consequences are manifold, which is already apparent in the taste, but again, no justification needed. So in summary, I believe the only arguments to single out GMOs and require their special evaluation on top of the established procedures are of a psychological and ideological nature.Christian Hardtke
- Would you also provide citations for the 5-10 year GMO studies you say are out there? Are they accessible without subscriptions? If not, how can we see them? I would think special accommodation for RSB is possible. Kirk Leonard
- Long term GMO studies are for instance: [Pest Manag Sci. 2005 May;61(5):491-8];[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Feb 18;100(4):1519-23];[Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000 Oct;32(2):156-73];[J Insect Sci. 2004;4:3. Epub 2004 Feb 9] or the recently discussed Italian study [4]. Christian Hardtke
- Would you also provide citations for the 5-10 year GMO studies you say are out there? Are they accessible without subscriptions? If not, how can we see them? I would think special accommodation for RSB is possible. Kirk Leonard
- A nine-year study has shown there are serious problems and failings with GE crops [5].Kirk Leonard
- So what about the environmental impact? I think in this area it is particularly important that apples are compared to apples, not oranges. I.e. conventional high intensity agriculture should be the bench mark, which is not always the case. So are there serious problems and failings as described in this report? Maybe, at first glance. Let's take a look at the herbicide resistant plants first. These are surely the so far worst incarnation of GMO plants, but are they as bad as they seem? I think one aspect that is frequently ignored is the benefits of using glyphosylate as a herbicide. This is a highly biodegradable compound, which does not survive very long in the soil, unlike many other more stable and equally more toxic herbicides that make it into the water cycle. So in environmental terms, total herbicide applied might not be the right criterium. Even if glyphosylate use gradually increased, this might not have been the case for the remainder of the chemical army, which could mean that overall the herbicide resistant crop was still beneficial on the ecosystem level. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the easy bio-degradability of glyphosylate is reflected by easy evolution of glyphosylate-detoxifying activity in weeds, and thus such herbicide-resistant GMOs cannot be used forever or have to be rotated. The report is milder on Bt crops, and I think the environmental benefits of these crops are undisputed by anybody taking an objective look at this. Yields have gone up, insecticide use is down. Resistance might occur, but is not a long-term problem, since hundreds of effective natural Bt protein varieties are known and resistance is isoform-specific, so exisiting Bt crops can be easily replaced by new ones and eventually be rotated. The different results on herbicide- versus insect-resistant plants also illustrate nicely that GMOs should not be judged collectivelyChristian Hardtke.
- This report does not address the issues of gene flow but it clearly shows that the benefits of pesticide resistant crops have been oversold, resulting in increased pesticide use, "superweeds," and reduced yields over time, and better farm profit has not been sustained.
Gene flow is on my mind because of the article I've attached, so that's where I started. The GE corn/maize crops reported on there are largely pesticide resistant... and affecting the world's original source of maize germplasms.- True, gene flow is natural, but it is also rare, particularly in the vertical direction. I think one thing we forget to ask is whether gene flow would pose a problem? Most people would say yes, but rather out of ethical reasons or fear. To start with, gene flow is surely natural. It is noteworthy with respect to GMOs that the genes used for genetic engineering are already out there, and thus already flowing. Taking this into account, I would like to put forward a simple and surely provocative line: gene flow does not matter. Or to be more precise, it does not matter for highly managed landscapes, such as for example Europe. The simple reason for my stance here is the fact that nothing in Europe is purely natural any more. Flying out from Montreal, where I lived several years, I was always struck by the contrast between the lake- and wood-patterned loneliness of the Quebec wilderness and the square field layout of Europe. In other words, Europe is largely a totally sculpted landscape, even in those places where it seems natural. Every field planted, every wood exploited, every glacier with a ski station. And covering nearly the whole area: crops of non-endemic origin, flanked by the survivors of human disturbance. I would like to argue that here the impact of gene flow would be negligeable. But there are better reasons to support this argument. One of the more important ones is that crops are genetically degenerated material, shaped by human selection. They survive in the pampered environment provided by humans, with competition suppressed, but not in the wild., not even outside the fields. Think about the last time you accidentally saw a corn plant come up in your yard. So the GMO system is restrained by its own inherent weakness. Nevertheless, what could the escape of a transgene into the wild, and maybe, very rarely even into another species do? Render other plants resistant. But this would be useless outside the agricultural context, and such single genetic burdens would be efficiently purged from the population in the absence of the selective advantage. So at worst, I see that the GMO crop would become useless, because its competitors have acquired the same property.Christian Hardtke
- There are indeed long term studies available that range in the five to ten year time frame, but I think this is not even the basic question. To me it is rather whether long term studies are really needed? Maybe, but this should be decided case by case. But let me separate the food/feed and environmental issues. First, with respect to food/feed, I do not see why such studies would be needed if the chemical equivalency of GMO-derived food or feed with respect to its non-GMO background has been established. I think that when it comes to food or feed, there is no reason to single out GMOs. Even more so as pseudo-natural food varities have no restrictions whatsoever, although they pose a theoretically much much higher toxicity threat than any GMO imagined. Take for instance citrus fruits. Most of the varieties on the market do not occur naturally. Even worse, many are genetically totally artificial, produced through tissue culture regeneration including chromosome doubling after artificial hybridization of separate species. Anybody can bring a variety produced in this way on the market and will not have to justify at all what could be the consequences of combining several thousand genes from one species with several thousand genes from another. The metabolic consequences are manifold, which is already apparent in the taste, but again, no justification needed. So in summary, I believe the only arguments to single out GMOs and require their special evaluation on top of the established procedures are of a psychological and ideological nature.Christian Hardtke
- The biotechnology industry is jumping on biofuels as the next, great growth opportunity. They have immense power, little to no respect for developing countries, and major influence in developed countries, especially the US. GE crops are being pushed for agrofuels with the same false promises, as in early years, and with increased enthusiasm. BIO and ISAAA websites confirm this, so I believe it is incumbent on RSB to stand up and firmly apply the precautionary principle, perhaps even to say no to crops requiring toxic chemical inputs, and terminator crops, per the attached article. It's clear they are not ultimately beneficial or sustainable. I support genetic engineering research, development and use, but when it involves open-pollinated plants I believe we are getting dangerously ahead of natural evolutionary boundaries, and good sense. Kirk Leonard
- Coming back to biofuels, I think based on previous experience, there is no reason to apply the pre-cautionary principle, mainly because it is a fake. I agree that toxic chemical inputs should be avoided. And I think that Terminator technology could be applied as a safe-guard. In this context, it is worth mentioning that the terminator technology was developed in response to criticism of potential gene flow from GMOs through outcrossing. When marketed, the anti-GMO movement turned the issue around, accusing the producers of hijacking the farmers' purse. Unfortunately, the latter is true one way or another, anyway. Even in developing countries, most farmers rely on seed companies for their supply, since the most performant seed varieties are produced by crosses between two inferior varieties, a profesionally managed task. So whatever seed they use, they have to pay for it, but clearly GMO producers try to get a premium on the added value of their crops. The latter also illustrates my general discomfort with the GMO topic. I am not a fervent proponent of GMO for all means, I am not and never was funded by industry, and for my own research, the commercial application of GMOs has no meaning. But I am a plant scientist, and I strongly oppose to the constant mingling of scientific issues concerning the technology as such, and socioeconomic issues that result from managment and political handling of technology. I suggest that we keep a sharp line between them in our discussion.Christian Hardtke
- What is "fake" about the precautionary principle? Would you elaborate on that? Kirk Leonard
- I apologize for the colloquial expression, but by my statement that the pre-cautionary principle is fake when it comes to GMOs, I wanted to express that it serves to deter a highly hypothetical, often undefined threat and erects an unsurmountable barrier to application, because it is easily undermined. The GMO crop debate is the best example for this. The pre-cautionary principle is based on the idea that it is better to stay overly cautious if there is a lack of scientific consensus about the potential impacts of introducing a novel technology. Now in the case of GMOs, there is a strong consensus that the potential risks fall within the accepted risks of conventional agriculture among the active scientific community. Sure enough, some, often isolated, voices who disagree will always exist (examples like Duesberg "HIV is not the cause of AIDS"), and this can be presented as absence of consensus by opponents of the technology. Moreover, if non-active scientists, scientists without expertise in the field of question, or activists who once received a science degree are included, this can be blown up to be propagated as absence of consensus. So as a result, even if the consensus exists among the active scientists, the pre-cautionary principle will be abused to turn things on their head. It ends up with an unrealistic excess of burden of proof for the scientists, and at that moment the opponents of the novel technology have won. This is because any scientific evidence will not be good enough. This can be stretched endlessly, like saying, "OK, there was no toxin A found in rats fed with Bt maize over 12 months. But what if you feed them for five years?". So the potential risk is extended from hypothetical to speculative, and there is no way to ever counter this once it has settled in the political sphere. This is the reason why I would not like to see this principle explicitly mentioned with respect to biofuels, I would be afraid that this would be potentially very counterproductive and shift the focus away from the benefits. I would rather prefer formulating positive goals, like "An environmental benefit has to be obvious.", etc. This would put the emphasis on the benefits, which are the raison d'être for any technology.Christian Hardtke
- I respect your opinion, but I strongly disagree with the idea that “there is a strong consensus that the potential risks fall within the accepted risks of conventional agriculture among the active scientific community” There are lots off evidences in opposite direction that are increasing worldwide concerning about GMO, specially in EU. This is not the best forum to deal with the scientific evidences about GMO´s Risks, but certainly this is not the case of “often isolated voices who disagree”.Eric Shayer
- I apologize for the colloquial expression, but by my statement that the pre-cautionary principle is fake when it comes to GMOs, I wanted to express that it serves to deter a highly hypothetical, often undefined threat and erects an unsurmountable barrier to application, because it is easily undermined. The GMO crop debate is the best example for this. The pre-cautionary principle is based on the idea that it is better to stay overly cautious if there is a lack of scientific consensus about the potential impacts of introducing a novel technology. Now in the case of GMOs, there is a strong consensus that the potential risks fall within the accepted risks of conventional agriculture among the active scientific community. Sure enough, some, often isolated, voices who disagree will always exist (examples like Duesberg "HIV is not the cause of AIDS"), and this can be presented as absence of consensus by opponents of the technology. Moreover, if non-active scientists, scientists without expertise in the field of question, or activists who once received a science degree are included, this can be blown up to be propagated as absence of consensus. So as a result, even if the consensus exists among the active scientists, the pre-cautionary principle will be abused to turn things on their head. It ends up with an unrealistic excess of burden of proof for the scientists, and at that moment the opponents of the novel technology have won. This is because any scientific evidence will not be good enough. This can be stretched endlessly, like saying, "OK, there was no toxin A found in rats fed with Bt maize over 12 months. But what if you feed them for five years?". So the potential risk is extended from hypothetical to speculative, and there is no way to ever counter this once it has settled in the political sphere. This is the reason why I would not like to see this principle explicitly mentioned with respect to biofuels, I would be afraid that this would be potentially very counterproductive and shift the focus away from the benefits. I would rather prefer formulating positive goals, like "An environmental benefit has to be obvious.", etc. This would put the emphasis on the benefits, which are the raison d'être for any technology.Christian Hardtke
- What is "fake" about the precautionary principle? Would you elaborate on that? Kirk Leonard
- Coming back to biofuels, I think based on previous experience, there is no reason to apply the pre-cautionary principle, mainly because it is a fake. I agree that toxic chemical inputs should be avoided. And I think that Terminator technology could be applied as a safe-guard. In this context, it is worth mentioning that the terminator technology was developed in response to criticism of potential gene flow from GMOs through outcrossing. When marketed, the anti-GMO movement turned the issue around, accusing the producers of hijacking the farmers' purse. Unfortunately, the latter is true one way or another, anyway. Even in developing countries, most farmers rely on seed companies for their supply, since the most performant seed varieties are produced by crosses between two inferior varieties, a profesionally managed task. So whatever seed they use, they have to pay for it, but clearly GMO producers try to get a premium on the added value of their crops. The latter also illustrates my general discomfort with the GMO topic. I am not a fervent proponent of GMO for all means, I am not and never was funded by industry, and for my own research, the commercial application of GMOs has no meaning. But I am a plant scientist, and I strongly oppose to the constant mingling of scientific issues concerning the technology as such, and socioeconomic issues that result from managment and political handling of technology. I suggest that we keep a sharp line between them in our discussion.Christian Hardtke
- Genetic drift, gene flow, is natural, inevitable, and its GMO consequences are unknown. I see there is a current EU debate with biotech advocates once again complaining that politics are trumping science. I would ask "what science?"
- In addition to Europabio's statement (See the [[6]] page), I would also mention the potential contribution of different cropping systems that more closely mimic natural processes (poly-cropping as opposed to conventional mono-cropping). We need to be explicit that sustainable biotechnologies meet the following criteria: lead us toward the phase-out of persistant chemical inputs; reduce water consumption; reduce energy intensity of crop production; and safeguard biodiversity (both in terms of existing non GMO agricultural varieties and peoples right to grow them, and ecosystem health). I think the biotechnologies need to be kept as their own principle in order for their environmental implications (both positive and negative) to be seen as a whole package. For example we cannot trade off water savings from biotechnology for a potential loss of crop diversity (be it through hybridization with native vegetation or intellectual property rights extending to existing crop varieties). By keeping biotechnology as it's own principle we can avoid peicemeal assessments of biotechnology through individual principles and ensure that sustainable biotechnology crops meet all the criteria we are concerned about.Kyle White
 Navigation
| ||
|
What is bioenergy? | Benefits/Risks | Who is doing what? | ||
