BIOPLAN POSTING 2001-5-8

David.Duthie@unep.org
Sent by: owner-bioplan@undp.org
05/15/01 03:07 PM
bioplan
David.Duthie@unep.org
Dear BIOPLANNERS:

I have been hesitant to post anything on the safe use of biotechnology
because the topic has become a bit of a "hot potato".  But we have a
responsibility to work in this area so I will try to contribute postings
when I feel they offer sound and constructive news and information.

Firstly,  would like to draw attention to an extremely good repository for
articles on biotechnology and the environment which carefully avoids the
extremist positions currently dominating much of the debate in this area.

The link to these background papers is:

http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidtech/whatsnew.html
 

Secondly, everyone working with biosafety regulation should read two
excellent articles, now available on-line, which provide overviews of the
history and implementation implications of the Cartegena Protocol on
Biosafety.

1. Aarti Gupta (2000) Governing Trade in Genetically Modified Organisms:
the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety.  Environment 42(4) 23-33.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1076/4_42/62214886/print.jhtml
 

2. PAUL E. HAGEN AND JOHN BARLOW WEINER (2000) The Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety: New Rules for International Trade in Living Modified Organisms.
THE GEORGETOWN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW Vol.12:697-717.
Go to:   http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidbiotech/links/biotech_environ-rp.htm
and click on the title to download.
 

Finally, I include the article below, from Kiosk, the in-house magazine of
the University of Minnesota,  which demonstrates the positive approach to
biosafety being taken by some sectors in the aquaculture industry.

Happy reading.

David Duthie

****************************************************************8
The Spawning of a New Era:  GM Super Salmon and the Wisdom of Tinkering
with Fish

Amidst the steady stream of controversy worldwide over the development of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs), there arise occasional case studies
that are easier for us to comprehend. We can understand the applications
and
the benefits of these GMOs, and it's not too difficult to envision some
dire
consequences with their introduction. Such is the case with genetically
engineered, or transgenic, salmon.

In secure tanks on an island off New Brunswick, Canada, an American company
called Aqua Bounty Farms is cultivating Atlantic salmon modified to carry
growth-enhancing genes from Pacific chinook salmon. The transgenic Atlantic
salmon grow at an astounding rate, reaching maturity?or market size?in 18
months, at least twice as fast as regular salmon. At maturity, transgenic
salmon look and taste the same as their natural counterparts, which is one
reason why A/F Protein, the biotech parent company of Aqua Bounty Farms,
reportedly already has orders for 15 million GM salmon eggs. Aqua Bounty
Farms has applied to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for
permission to market these salmon, and if the application is approved,
these
super salmon would be the first transgenic animals approved in the U.S. for
commercial use and human consumption.

The possibility of this fish entering the marketplace, and maybe the
waterways, brings up questions similar to those we ask of any genetically
modified plant or animal: Do we really need it and is it safe?

Case study: transgenic salmon

For Americans, who seem to have an increasing appetite for fish in general
and salmon in particular, the development of GM salmon could translate to
increased production and lower market prices without a further strain on
wild salmon stocks. For consumers worldwide, other GM fish, such as carp,
could be one piece of a targeted effort to use biotechnology to help
alleviate hunger. Research is under way across the globe to genetically
modify some 30 aquatic species, from carp to crayfish, salmon to shrimp.
The
People's Republic of China already has approved two species of transgenic
carp. Cuba is raising biotech talapia?a staple fish from the Nile River
basin in Africa?and is considering a proposal for its commercial use.

"Salmon are getting all the attention because they're the first application
in the United States and the U.S. is at the headwaters of the development
and promulgation of biotechnology," says University fisheries and
conservation biology professor Anne Kapuscinski, one of the world's experts
on risk management of GMOs.

[Anne Kapuscinski, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation
Biology,is a Pew Marine Conservation Fellow for 2001. Only 122 people have
received the fellowship worldwide in 10 years. Kapuscinski plans to use the
three-year, $150,000 fellowship to conduct research and outreach on the
proposed release of genetically modified organisms in marine environments].

It's what could happen downstream?or down the road a few years?that
concerns
Kapuscinski. It also alarms opponents of these so-called "Frankenfish."
Wild
salmon numbers, both Atlantic and Pacific, have been declining for years.
Natural Atlantic salmon populations in North America have shrunk from 1.5
million 30 years ago, to about 350,000 today. And the federal government
recently listed salmon populations in eight rivers in Maine as endangered.

This decline has given rise to a marked increase in salmon farming on both
coasts, with Atlantic salmon also being raised across the country in
Washington and British Columbia. These conventionally farmed, nontransgenic
salmon are grown in floating cages in shallow coastal waters and they
escape
by the millions and find their way to salmon streams. In Washington state,
there is concern about the effects of escaping Atlantic salmon on already
dwindling Pacific salmon numbers. "Given the fact that so much fish
biodiversity is in trouble already, I don't think that it's wise to add
another ecological risk to the beleaguered wild salmon populations,"
Kapuscinski says.

Effects on ecosystem

What would happen if transgenic salmon escaped into the wild remains a
mystery. Proponents of the GM fish note that it is relatively simple to
create sterile salmon. If GM eggs are subjected to a heat or pressure shock
shortly after fertilization, their chromosomes are altered. The fish do not
develop normal sexual characteristics and the females are sterile.

But the sterilization techniques are not 100 percent effective, which
confines GM salmon producers to two seemingly safe options: keeping the
fish
in a controlled environment, i.e., closed tanks on land rather than
floating
cages; or testing each and every fish to assure sterility. What if a
fertile, transgenic fish were to slip through the net, so to speak, and
breed with its wild counterpart as farm-raised salmon regularly do? One
study projects some startling outcomes.

Two scientists from Purdue University, William Muir and Richard Howard,
conducted experiments with GM medaka?a fast-breeding Japanese fish. They
found that male medaka, which are larger than average, are four times more
successful in breeding. Transgenic male medaka, which are larger still, are
up to seven times more successful in breeding. But they also found that the
offspring of transgenic males had a low survival rate.

Then the researchers plugged their results into a computer model to see
what
might happen if 60 transgenic male medaka were introduced into a population
of 60,000 wild medaka. The wild female medaka, looking through
big-is-better
goggles, naturally sees the larger transgenic male as the more attractive
mate. But looks, in this case, are deceiving, because even though the
transgenic male is bigger and mates better, his offspring die sooner than
those of his smaller, wild counterpart. In just 40 generations, the whole
of
the species is driven to extinction.

This weakness in the transgenic male medaka is what Muir and Howard dubbed
the "Trojan gene effect"? hidden inside an attractive package is the gene
that can destroy an entire population. And, says Muir, "The Trojan gene
hypothesis is a very real possibility."

Looking toward the future

Although passionate about safety in biotechnology, Kaspuscinski, like many
of her colleagues, recognizes that GMOs are here to stay and aren't
necessarily inherently evil. "There could be some contexts where
genetically
engineered fish would be a good thing," she says, but adds that there
should
never be "adverse effects that can be avoided."

Kapuscinski is part of the USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural
Biotechnology, charged with advising U.S. agriculture secretary Dan
Glickman
on policies related to ag biotechnology. She's also director of the
Institute for Social, Economic, and Ecological Sustainability (ISEES),
which
is housed at the University of Minnesota. ISEES brings together scholars,
practitioners, and other interested parties to analyze all types of issues
regarding sustainability.

In all of Kapuscinski's roles, she's been attempting to "step out of the
lab
to fully participate in the 'agora.'" Agora is a Greek word that translates
to a gathering place or an assembly. Kapuscinski prefers a different
definition: "the public space in which science meets the public and the
public speaks back to science." She feels this conversation has been a
missing link in the development of bioengineering to date; that public
opinion has been unsolicited, if not ignored, and the result has been
fervent accusations based on an underlying sense of mistrust. Kapuscinski's
goal has been "to find a scientifically credible and socially accepted
(trusted) way to achieve ecological and human health safety of GMOs."

A new model for safety

Recently, Kapuscinski and her colleagues learned "to turn the preoccupation
with 'risk' on its head and to focus instead on safety first." Through a
leading safety engineer in the aerospace industry, she came to appreciate
that in aerospace engineering, as in auto engineering, a preoccupation with
safety permeates the entire process, from blueprint to performance and
maintenance. "Safety thinking has improved in the training of company
safety
engineers, FAA certification of safety engineers, and government auditing
of
company compliance with rigorous industry safety standards," she says.

Kapuscinski is now passionate about developing the idea of an industry-led
GMO safety development process that would request input from consumers,
public interest groups, government, and academics alike. The key is
"industry-led." "The [biotech] industry would become its own harshest
critic," Kapuscinski says. Safety would permeate every level of thinking,
from deciding which gene constructs to use in genetic engineering to
determining how to best test for harm to humans or the environment. "And
with government oversight maintaining the motivation for safety programs to
remain scientifically reliable, responsible, and responsive," she adds.

Toward that goal, ISEES is coordinating a two-day workshop in early March
entitled "Safety First: Active Governance of Genetic Engineering for
Environment and Human Health Worldwide." The first day will focus on
learning about safety first movements in other industries, while the second
day will examine what each of the concerned groups?industry, government,
consumers, public interest organizations, and media?can do "to produce
scientifically and socially robust safety governance of genetic
engineering."

Kapuscinski is also helping bring this new model of safety thinking to the
classroom. "I think that the public university should be one of the sites
of
the agora," she says. She'll coteach a graduate class this spring. Her
students will attend the March workshop and the February sesquicentennial
event, "Governing GMOs: Developing Policy in the Face of Scientific and
Public Debate." They will also be expected to participate in a community
GMO
governance activity during the second half of the course. Says Kapuscinski,
"This is an opportunity for students to not only learn about the issues and
the science of genetic engineering, but also contribute to helping shape a
proactive approach to solve a major social dilemma."

Few would question that this social dilemma exists. The science is already
in place to deliver GM salmon to our dinner plates before the next walleye
opener. The question is, in the absence of industry-driven standards, is
there enough of a safety net in place to warrant taking any chances? That's
now up to the FDA to decide. And even though the salmon controversy seems
worlds away from the shores of Mille Lacs Lake, it doesn't take much
extrapolation to bring it closer to home. "These gene transfer
techniques?you could easily apply them to Minnesota species and panfish,"
Kapuscinski says, "but the only application that would be accepted [here]
would be in indoor research systems." Maybe attitudes will change. Anyone
ready for super crappies?

?Rick Moore
Contact Rick at moore112@umn.edu
 

BIOPLAN is an electronic list server established by the UNDP-UNEP implemented
 Biodiversity Planning Support Programmme and maintained by UNDP-GEF to serve the
 global community involved in planning for national implementation of the Convention on
 Biological Diversity. To unsubscribe (remove yourself) from this list send a message to:
 majordomo@undp.org with the subject line BLANK and the following text in the body of
 the message: UNSUBSCRIBE  BIOPLAN followed by your e-mail address,
or go to http://stone/undpweb/bpsp/bioplan.cfm

BACK TO LISTINGS  HOME