International Biosafety: A Global Imperative

An international biosafety protocol is being debated under the Congress of the Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity (COP) that emerged from the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This might seem superficially odd. What does biodiversity have to do with biosafety? Yet the convention provides a unique opportunity to try to prevent dangerous projects with recombinant DNA and related techniques-"biotechnology" as the term is popularly used. The journey of biosafety to the COP began because biotech promoters convinced United Nations agencies and Third World countries that root economic problems that contribute to the loss of biodiversity can be solved by investing heavily in biotechnology. Biotech would also mine "genetic gold" from tropical biodiversity and thus provide a rationale for preserving biodiversity. Biotech promoters managed to include in Chapter 16 of Agenda 21 (the Rio agenda for action) a $20 billion-per-year Third World investment in biotech to solve their problems and thus protect biodiversity. Conservation organizations objected on the grounds that a crash program of investment in an expensive technology with a poor track record for living up to its assurances, even in technologically advanced countries, would be an enormous gamble. Failure of many projects is likely, and this would increase Third World debt and thus actually hasten the destruction of nature, because ob- ligations to service interest on foreign debts forces governments to support commercial overexploitations of nature. Another danger was that a crash program to develop biotech in technologically unsophisticated countries would lead to its irresponsible use. Thus began the call for a biosafety protocol. Following Rio, those with biosafety concerns contacted scientists who had published analyses of potential dangers from biotechnology. Biosafety advocates learned that many scientists, especially in the United States and Europe, had studied risk issues in depth, had reviewed aspects of the matter at dozens of scientific workshops, and had concluded that-contrary to what biotech promoters were claiming-there are indeed potential environmental and health risks from some types of projects. Biotech promoters had been quiet about an extensive 1989 report by the Ecological Society of America that spelled out scientific reasons to be concerned about ecological dangers from some types of transgenic organisms. It explained that arguments for the generic safety of transgenic organisms were being based on outdated ecological concepts, and discussed extensively scientific principles that should be used in screening for risks (J. Tiedje et al., Ecology, 70:298-315, 1989; see also P. Regal, Molecular Ecology, 3:5-13, 1994). Critics are correct that biotech is overregulated (H. Miller, The Scientist, June 12, 1995, page 13). Critics are also correct that it is underregulated. Both are correct because biotech is poorly regulated. Scientists who were astonished when regulatory agencies demanded that safe herbicide-resistant corn be burned had a right to be taken aback. But all who have been astonished that only after public protest did the Environmental Protection Agency drop its plans to field-test a potentially dangerous transgenic Klebsiella bacteria that thrived in test soils and killed plants in the laboratory also have a right to be shocked. One international group of scientists has detailed reasons why a campaign for a moratorium on commercial introductions may soon become necessary if more forthright and convincing approaches to risk issues cannot be developed. The "Scientists' Statement" can be ordered from twn@igc.apc.org at no cost. There is a definite danger that confused regulation will spread to the world community. The biotech community must study the growing scientific literature on risk (I can E-mail reading lists), look beyond short-term interests, demand that the world community build a biosafety infrastructure, and frame regulations that will make scientific sense. The COP might seem to be an inappropriate forum for the biosafety issue, but at least there is a modicum of ecological expertise represented by that body, and a fighting chance that biosafety can be dealt with scientifically. Biotech leaders have been arguing that nations can use voluntary guidelines. But larger ecological disasters would have effects beyond national borders. A free-market approach would encourage biotech companies to threaten to locate in countries where regulation is easiest, and thus pressure all countries to lower environmental and health standards in order to remain competitive. The laws of economics and the competitive race would everywhere sacrifice safety to deadlines and budgets. Philip J. Regal is a professor in the department of ecology, evolution, and behavior at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul. His E-mail address is regal001@maroon.tc.umn.edu and his web site is: biosci.umn.edu/~pregal/phil.html (The Scientist, Vol:9, #21, pg.13 , October 30, 1995) (Copyright © The Scientist, Inc.)

International Biosafety: A Global Imperative

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of