April, 2003
Electronic Forum on Biotechnology
in Food and Agriculture: "Regulating GMOs in developing and
transition countries"
1. Introduction
As observers of the biotechnology debate will be very aware, the
subject of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food and
agriculture is highly controversial. Although, genetic
modification is generally seen as a tool offering potential
benefits to farmers and consumers in a wide range of food and
agriculture areas, there is concern about the potential impacts
on human health and on the environment.
The significance of the potential benefits it offers can be
appreciated by considering the tremendous progress that has been
made in recent years in the field of genetics and the
realisation that, as the identity, location, impact and function
of the majority of genes affecting traits of importance for food
and agriculture are still unknown, this is only the tip of the
iceberg. In the future, it will be possible to better understand
the genetic mechanisms behind a whole range of key traits in the
agro-industry, crop, fisheries, forestry and livestock sectors
and to use this information to produce GMOs with the desired
characteristics.
Human health issues have been raised because GMOs can be a
direct source of food (by eating a GM plant, animal or fish) or
an indirect source, where ingredients in processed foods may be
GM
(e.g. soybeans are widely used in processed foods, including
margarine, biscuits and sausages) or where domestic animals or
fish, eaten by humans, may be raised on GM feed. Currently, GMOs
are primarily an indirect food source, as the dominant crops in
commercial use are used in livestock feed and food processing
and GM fish or livestock are not commercially available for food
consumption.
Environmental issues have been raised because of potential
consequences of gene flow from GM to non-GM individuals of the
same species (a topic covered in
Conference 7
of this Forum) or because GMOs may have a negative impact on
unrelated species (e.g. crops genetically modified for insect
resistance might harm non-target organisms, such as soil
microbiota and beneficial insects).
Regulation of GMOs has therefore always been a central part of
the general GMO debate i.e. what kind of regulations they should
be, what exactly they should regulate, how strict they should
be, how GMOs should be regulated compared to their
conventionally-bred counterparts etc.. The theme is especially
important because of the impacts of regulation on the trade of
GM products and on the research and development climate for
GMOs, in what is still a relatively new field. For example, an
FAO report (document 03/7) prepared for the biennial session
of FAO's Committee on Commodity Problems (March 2003) notes the
current impacts on trade of crops: "the presence of GM products
has affected trade, both in commercial transactions and in food
aid deliveries. Segregated markets are developing for non-GM
products to accommodate consumer preferences, with some
countries focusing on supplying the markets for non-GM
commodities and some major importers sourcing part of their
products in countries known to be free of GM varieties". The
issue of GMO regulation has also engaged policy-makers at the
highest international level, where for example, 103 countries in
2000-2001 signed the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the
Convention on Biological Diversity, an important international
agreement concerning GMOs.
It is therefore appropriate to dedicate a conference of the FAO
Biotechnology Forum to this theme. The outcome of the conference
will also be used in preparation of The State of Food and
Agriculture (SOFA) 2003, which is one of FAO's main
publications, providing an annual report on current developments
affecting world agriculture. SOFA 2003 will be entitled
"Agricultural biotechnologies: Meeting the needs of the poor?".
In this Background Document, Section 2 provides a brief overview
of the current status regarding GMOs in food and agriculture. In
Section 3 the areas that might be regulated are covered while
Section 4 considers some key factors concerning regulation of
GMOs. Section 5 lists some specific questions that should be
addressed in the conference.
Note, this Forum hosts conferences about specific topics
concerning biotechnology in food and agriculture for developing
countries. As a simplification, the term "developing countries"
in this context has always been intended to include the
"transition" countries (i.e. the central and eastern European
countries and the new independent states of the former Soviet
Union), although there has been little participation from these
countries in the Forum so far. To encourage their participation,
the conference title for the first time specifically mentions
transition countries.
2. Background and current status
regarding GMOs in food and agriculture
A GMO is an organism that has been transformed by the insertion
of one or more genes (called transgenes). The genes may be from
a different kingdom (e.g. a bacterial gene into plant genetic
material), a different species within the same kingdom or even
from the same species. For example, two genes from the daffodil
Narcissus pseudonarcissus and one gene from the bacteria Erwinia
uredovora were inserted into the genetic material of rice to
produce the transgenic rice variety commonly known as "Golden
Rice", which produces a precursor of vitamin A.
Active research into genetic modification of living organisms
has been ongoing since the 1980's. However, large-scale
production of GMOs in agriculture has only become a reality in
the past few
years, with the commercial planting of GM crops. Here, we will
briefly look at the current status of GMOs in the crop,
forestry, animal, fisheries and agro-industry sectors. GMOs are
currently commercially available in two sectors - crop and
agro-industry.
a) GM crops
Estimates indicate that the global area planted with transgenic
crops increased from 2 to 59 million hectares from 1996 to 2002
respectively (ISAAA, 2002). Each year, four countries (the
United States, Argentina, Canada and China) and four crops
(soybean, maize, cotton and canola) have dominated the
transgenic acreage statistics. For example, in 2002, the four
countries were responsible for 66, 23, 6 and 4% respectively of
the global transgenic acreage, with the four crops covering 62,
21, 12 and 5% respectively of the transgenic area planted. Of
the 59 million hectares planted with transgenic crops in 2002,
75% contained crops modified for herbicide tolerance, 17% were
modified for insect resistance while 8% were modified for both
traits.
b) GM forest trees
There is no reported commercial-scale production of GM forest
trees. However, there is much active research in the area of
genetic modification of trees and a large number of laboratory
and field trials, involving a range of tree species, has taken
place since the 1980's. The traits of interest for GM forest
research include herbicide tolerance and pest resistance (as for
crops), but also other features, such as delayed flowering (so
that trees can be harvested before they pollinate) or lowered
amounts of lignin (to reduce the costs and environmental
pollution associated with paper-making). Breeding trees for
drought, flooding or salt tolerance may find useful applications
in environmental rehabilitation, and soil and water restoration.
A study commissioned by FAO to review the global status and
trends regarding genetic modification of forest trees is
currently under way.
c) GM animals
Although transgenic animals (especially mice) are used routinely
for research purposes, no GM animals are commercially produced
for food purposes. Regulatory approval for GM food animals
(excluding fish, that are covered below) has only been sought in
a single case, for a GM pig in Australia containing a growth
hormone transgene allowing the animals to produce meat more
efficiently, which never made it to the market. The kinds of
transgenes currently being studied for potential use in
commercial populations include the growth hormone gene (to
increase growth rates), the phytase gene from bacteria (to
reduce phosphorous emissions from pigs) or keratin genes (to
improve the properties of wool in sheep).
d) GM fish
There is much research and commercial interest in the production
of GM fish. The trait of major interest is increased growth
rate, although disease resistance and improved environmental
tolerance
are also being researched. Transgenic fish from about 20
species, including carp, catfish, salmon and tilapia, have been
produced for experimental purposes. Two transgenic fish species
are awaiting regulatory approval for food purposes - a GM salmon
in the United States and a GM tilapia in Cuba. The GM salmon is
the AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon which contains the Chinook
salmon growth hormone gene together with a promoter from the
ocean pout's antifreeze protein gene, allowing the salmon to
continue to grow well in winter when, in non-GM salmon, growth
would slow down. The GM tilapia is a hybrid containing a
modified tilapia growth hormone gene to improve growth and
conversion
efficiency.
e) GM micro-organisms
The genetic modification of micro-organisms offers considerable
prospects for the food industry in the production of food
additives (amino acids, peptides, flavours, organic acids,
polysaccharides
and vitamins) and processing aids (enzymes, micro-organisms).
Genetic modification of micro-organisms is already applied for
the purpose of increasing efficiency and reducing cost in the
production of a number of food additives (artificial sweeteners,
amino acids). GM yeasts are applied for flavour development in
brewery applications. Recombinant enzymes which are the products
of GM micro-organisms are also widely applied in the food
industry in the areas of baking, brewing, and in dairy and fruit
juice processing. For example, GM chymosin, a crucial enzyme for
cheese-making, was first approved in 1990 in the United States
and is currently used in several counties. Current applications
of genetic modification in the agro-industry sector are taking
place primarily in developed countries.
3. Areas for regulation
Regulations governing GMOs can potentially act at a number of
key stages:
a) Research and development (R&D)
Development of GM individuals or a GM variety can be a long
process. It begins in the laboratory, where the GMOs are
produced and where presence of the transgene is confirmed etc.,
and proceeds to field testing of the organisms produced to
ensure they have the desired characteristics. Regulations here
may cover the conditions under which laboratory experiments take
place; exchange of GM material between laboratories and
conditions for testing GMOs in greenhouses, other contained
facilities or in the field.
b) Seeking approval for commercialisation
After the R&D stage, there may be interest in bringing the GM
product to the market. Regulations here may cover assessment of
the potential human health and environmental risks, to be
carried out prior to eventual approval.
c) Commercial release
If approval is granted, the next stage is the commercial release
of the GMOs. Regulations here may cover aspects such as how and
where GMOs may be released (e.g. minimum distance of GM crops
from organic agriculture or non-GM fields; need for GM-free
refuges) and, if used for food, the kind of labelling needed, if
any; whether post-commercialisation monitoring of the impacts of
GMOs is necessary or what kinds of sanctions should be imposed
following eventual violation of the regulations.
d) Imports of GM material or food
Applications may be made to import GMOs or their genetic
material (semen, seeds etc.) for release in the environment.
Similar GM varieties may or may not already be approved in the
importing country. Regulations here may cover the kind of
information required for approval e.g. whether information on
potential environmental impacts from the exporting country is
sufficient or whether new tests are required in the importing
country.
Applications may also be made to import "GM food", food from
GMOs (e.g. GM fish) or food that contains ingredients from GMOs
(e.g. chocolate containing GM soybean). Regulations may cover
the kind of information required for approval e.g. whether
new food safety data is needed or whether data from the
exporting country may be used.
Phillips, in a 2003
IFPRI
publication, points out that the GM crops currently
commercialised are extensively traded internationally and that
the countries growing them are also major exporters of these
crops. For example, in 2000, a total of 168 countries imported
maize, with 85% of the trade coming from the main countries
growing GM maize. Although many developing countries may not be
actively involved in developing their own GM products, they may
nevertheless wish to introduce regulations to cover the import
of GM material or food.
4. Some key factors concerning
regulation of GMOs
a) The majority of developing countries currently do not have a
regulatory system for GMOs in place
Whereas European and North American countries have been at the
forefront in developing regulatory systems for GMOs (see e.g.
Nap et al., The Plant Journal (2003), 33, 1-18), the majority of
developing countries currently lack them, although many are now
being established.
Nap
et al. (2003), as well as Phillips (2003, see above), point
out that there are significant differences between the kinds of
regulatory systems already in place in developed countries. Some
countries have taken a cautious approach regarding regulation
with the result that only few GMOs have been commercially
released. Others instead have approved most of the new GM
products for production and consumption. As a clear example of
divergences in existing systems, Philips points out that some
countries have adopted, or are developing, provisions requiring
mandatory labelling of products derived from GMOs,
whereas others have opted for voluntary labelling systems.
b) Key elements in developing a regulatory framework
Development of a regulatory framework may be a costly,
time-consuming process involving extensive consultation and
effort. For example, the web-based "Decision
Support Toolbox for Biosafety Implementation", developed by
ISNAR and FAO in consultation with UNEP/GEF, describes four key
elements to be considered when developing a regulatory
framework. The first concerns the legislative framework,
including whether to use voluntary guidelines or legally binding
regulations and whether to
modify existing legal instruments or introduce new ones. The
second concerns the criteria making a product subject to
regulatory assessment e.g. whether the determining factor should
be that the organism is produced by genetic modification (as in
almost all current GMO regulatory frameworks) or, as in Canada,
that the organism contains novel traits, irrespective of whether
genetic modification or traditional plant breeding methods were
used to introduce the novel traits. The third element concerns
transparency and public involvement in the decision making
processes e.g. whether there should be public participation in
the development of the regulatory framework and whether the
public should be informed about products being evaluated and
whether any supporting data should be made public.
The fourth element is potentially quite contentious and concerns
approaches to risk assessment and risk management. This includes
how to assess the risk from GMOs, how to decide when the human
health and environmental risks posed by the GMOs are too great
(e.g. should they first be compared with potential risks from
their conventionally-bred counterparts) and whether the
regulatory framework should weigh up the potential benefits, as
well as the risks, of GMOs. It also includes decisions on
whether economic issues and market potential, social impacts or
ethical concerns should be considered in the risk assessment and
management. In this context, it is important to note that the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (see below), while asserting
that assessments are to be undertaken in a scientific manner
based on recognised risk assessment techniques, also recognises
the right of importing countries to take into account
socio-economic considerations, such as the value of biological
diversity to its indigenous and local communities, in reaching a
decision on import of GMOs.
c) International instruments
A number of existing international agreements have direct
relevance to GMOs and they can be of assistance to developing
countries in establishing appropriate regulatory structures that
deal with potential concerns while, at the same time, promoting
harmonisation of national regulations at the international
level. In a recent study
commissioned by FAO, Glowka reviewed the legal instruments
available in this area. He showed that at the international
level there is no single comprehensive legal
instrument that addresses all aspects of GMOs or its products
and that in the biosafety area (i.e. addressing the risks posed
to the environment and human health when GMOs are released in
the environment (for research or commercial purposes)), there
are at least 15 international instruments. Seven of these are
legally binding, namely the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
(1982), the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), the WTO
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures (1995), the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to
Trade (1994), the
International Plant Protection Convention (1997), the Aarhus
Convention (1998) and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
(2000).
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which seeks to protect
biological diversity from the potential risks posed by living
modified organisms (LMOs, i.e. living GMOs), specifically
focusing on transboundary movements, is due to enter in force
after it has been ratified by 50 countries (as of 4 April 2003,
just five countries were lacking). It has provided an important
stimulus to the development of national GMO regulatory
frameworks in developing countries. In June 2001, a three year $
US 38 million UNEP/GEF project was launched to help
participating countries to set up their national frameworks for
the management of LMOs, allowing them to meet the requirements
of the Protocol. As of 15 March 2003, there were 33, 35, 17 and
28 countries from the Africa, Asia-Pacific, Central and Eastern
Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean regions respectively
participating in the project.
The Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission is the principal
forum in which the food safety aspects of GMOs are addressed. A
number of Codex Committees deal with matters related to GM
foods. In 1999, the Commission established the ad hoc
Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology
to consider the health and nutritional implications of GM foods.
The Commission is developing a series of guidelines covering
areas such as the labelling of GM foods or food safety
assessment of foods derived from GM plants.
d) Biosecurity
The development and enforcement of a regulatory framework for
GMOs may need to be co-ordinated within cross-sectorial national
approaches to the management of biological risks associated with
food and agriculture and the development of national
institutions for these purposes. This concept is referred to as
Biosecurity by FAO (see
document COAG/2003/9). It covers food safety, plant life and
health, animal life and health and the environment, including
the introduction and release of GMOs and their products.
National regulatory and export certification systems are being
challenged by large increases in the volume of food and
agricultural products being traded internationally, by the
expanding variety of imported products and by the growing number
of countries from which these imports originate. Increased
travel is also creating more pathways to spread pests, diseases
and other hazards that are moving faster and further than ever
before, both between and within countries. Investments
(infrastructure and human resources) in regulatory frameworks
are high, with high recurrent costs. Improved co-ordination is
therefore being sought among national bodies responsible for
enforcing sanitary, phytosanitary and zoosanitary measures to
better protect human, animal and plant life and health. Models
for rationalising relevant regulatory functions among sectors
are appearing in a number of countries. For example, in Belize,
food safety, animal and plant quarantine and environmental
issues are dealt with by a single authority.
e) GMOs are very heterogeneous
When considering the kinds of GMO regulatory systems that might
be appropriate for developing countries, it is important to
consider that GMOs for food and agriculture are a very
heterogeneous
group, covering crops, fish, forest trees, livestock and
micro-organisms, and thus they may present a range of different
challenges. The potential environmental risks from GM forest
trees that may live 100 years and grow to large heights differ,
for example, from the release of a GM yeast to make bread. In
addition, within each of these five sectors, GMOs may vary
considerably, requiring different kinds of regulations. For
example:
- Some species (e.g. cotton or
forest trees) are not grown for food, so food safety
regulations are not strictly an issue. [Although, it should be
kept in mind that some material, e.g. pollen/honey derived
from GM trees, may still enter the food chain].
- The same species may be
modified for very different traits e.g. an agricultural crop
or animal may be modified to produce human pharmaceuticals
(e.g. tomatoes producing vaccines against the Norwalk virus or
sheep producing proteins for treatment of cystic fibrosis).
"Pharmed" products under development include vaccines,
antibodies and industrial proteins and, in the crop sector,
involve banana, maize, potato and tomato plants. Special
regulations covering potential gene flow to their conventional
counterparts may be necessary.
- Regulations may vary depending
on whether the GM species is produced for export or domestic
use. For example, a 2002 ISNAR
study by Burachik and Traynor on Argentina's GMO
regulations highlights this point: "the Argentine economy
depends strongly on exports of primary agricultural
commodities; consequently, maintaining and protecting markets
is a major economic concern. For this reason, GMO
commercialization is subject to a strict marketability
requirement. GMOs intended for export are approved if and when
they are accepted in Argentina's export market, primarily
European countries. Otherwise, GMO varieties are not approved
for commercialization. When exports are not a significant
factor (e.g., in the case of cotton), commercial release can
be approved irrespective of the regulatory status elsewhere,
since there are no 'sensitive' markets for the product".
f) Balancing costs and benefits
of regulation
The goals of GMO regulatory frameworks are to ensure safe
release and use of these products. While developing the
frameworks, policy makers have to consider the play off between
the need to minimise risk and to promote technology development.
Strict regulatory frameworks will act to minimise the potential
risks associated with GMOs but they may also act as a barrier to
investments in GMO research and to the development of
potentially useful GM products. If the costs (in terms of
finances, time and human resources) of complying with the
regulations are substantial they will obviously act as a
disincentive for parties with limited resources.
As mentioned in previous Forum conferences (e.g.
Background
Document to Conference 8), the agricultural biotechnology
field is currently dominated by developed countries and by the
private
sector in these countries, with the result that the research and
the biotechnology products being developed or released are
directed primarily to farmers in the developed (and not
developing) countries and of richer (and not poor) farmers that
can afford the products. Establishment of strict regulatory
regimes in developing countries may therefore exacerbate this
situation as they have fewer available resources. This is
expressed dramatically by Nap et al. (2003, see earlier) i.e.
"the cost of meeting regulatory requirements is currently a
significant negative impact on the release of GM crops compared
to the release of cultivars from traditional breeding. Excessive
regulatory reviews will frustrate and curtail research and
application to such an extent that only a few large
multinational companies can afford to make progress. In this
manner, over-regulation will help to promote a situation that is
a concern of many: corporate control of agriculture. This trend
is already clearly apparent and may result in the creation of a
single (or a few) companies dominating world food production and
increasing world dependence". On the other hand, relaxed
regulations, allowing rapid and easy approval of GMOs, may not
effectively protect citizens and the environment from potential
risks. Policy makers have therefore to carefully balance these
costs and benefits.
Costs and benefits have also be weighed up when considering the
monitoring and enforcement aspects of GMO regulations. Strict
measures, involving frequent, long-term and careful checks and
inspections of GMOs, strain the limited resources of developing
countries. Relaxed measures may, on the other hand, encourage
parties to flout the rules.
5. Some topics to be considered in this
conference
This conference considers the subject of regulating GMOs, for
food and agriculture, in developing countries (including
transition countries). More specifically, some items we would
like to see discussed here are:
- How strict should the
framework be in developing countries i.e. how should policy
makers balance the need to guard against potential
environmental and health risks with the need to economise on
resources to monitor\enforce the regulations and the wish to
promote development of appropriate products for their own
country?
- GM varieties may be exported
world-wide. How appropriate is it to use environmental and
food safety data from one country when seeking approval for
commercialisation in a second country? Is the sector involved
(agro-industry, crop, fisheries, forestry or livestock)
important in this context?
- Developing countries are
facing increasing challenges in regulating to better protect
human, animal and plant life and health. Given this situation,
and given the limited resources (financial and personnel)
available, what priority should they give to the development
of regulatory frameworks for GMOs?
- A regulatory framework can be
quite detailed and cover a number of different areas (see
Section 3). For developing countries with limited resources
wishing to establish a GMO regulatory framework, what are the
key areas that should first be prioritised?
- How useful is the Biosecurity
concept, involving a cross-sectorial national approach to the
management of biological risks associated with food and
agriculture (see Section 4.d), for developing countries
wishing to establish or enforce a GMO regulatory framework?
- Monitoring of the development,
import, release and use of GMOs to ensure compliance with the
laws or guidelines can be expensive for developing countries
with limited finances and qualified human resources. How can
monitoring be carried out efficiently in this situation?
- When addressing risk analysis
and risk management in the regulatory framework, should a) the
risks associated with GMOs be compared with those from their
conventionally-bred counterparts? b) economic, social and
ethical factors be included, in addition to potential human
health and environmental impacts?
- Different issues are raised by
the application of genetic modification in the agro-industry,
crop, forestry, animal or fisheries sectors. Are different
sets of regulations required for each sector?
NB: When submitting messages
(which should not exceed 600 words), participants are requested
to ensure that their messages address some of the above
elements. Before sending a message,
members of the Forum are requested to have a look at the Rules
of the Forum and the Guidelines for Participation in the E-mail
Conferences. These were provided when joining the Forum, and
they can also be found on the
Forum website.
One important rule is that participants are assumed to be
speaking in their personal capacity, unless they explicitly
state that their contribution represents the views of their
organisation.
Abbreviations: FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations;
GEF = Global Environment Facility;
GM = Genetically modified;
GMOs = Genetically modified organisms;
IFPRI = International Food Policy Research Institute;
ISAAA = International Service for the Acquisition of
Agri-biotech Applications;
ISNAR = International Service for National Agricultural
Research;
R&D = Research and development;
UN = United Nations;
UNEP = United Nations Environment Programme;
WHO = World Health Organization;
WTO = World Trade Organization
FAO, April 2003.
Join the Forum
For more information, contact
biotech-mod1@fao.org
|