Mar 12, 2004

Archive

Send

Debate: What constitutes ecological damage?

“Ecological damage occurs in particular when genetic information is lost.”

GMO Safety: What do you regard as ecological damage, generally and in the context of using genetically modified plants?

Roger Busch: We should use the term “ecological damage” if it has been caused, or at least triggered, by humans. By contrast, ecological events which have not been caused or triggered by humans should be regarded as “changes”: they may be undesirable, but must be put up with. The term “damage” implies an evaluation of human acts and is therefore aimed at human agents who cause damage (either intentionally or through negligence). Nature cannot, by definition, be such a human agent.

Human beings modify plants, usually crop plants, through a process of breeding and selection to obtain the characteristics they desire and/or require. This applies to mankind’s manipulation of nature since time immemorial and, perhaps in a more intensive form, since people started using genetic procedures. From this point of view, the introduction of novel traits into crop plants, whether by breeding or with the help of genetic engineering, should be regarded in the same way in the first instance.

To give a concrete example: the breeder has the same obligation to study the impact of his plant in the chosen ecosystem as the bioengineer who develops genetically modified plants and passes them on for further breeding. Both can cause “ecological damage”. This would happen if the ecosystem into which the plant was introduced sustained irreversible or extensive damage, e.g. through the destruction of important organisms in the soil, the destruction of beneficial organisms, the outcrossing of traits to wild relatives that confer on them a selection advantage which would weaken the ecosystem in question and consequently lead to further human conservation measures.

GMO Safety: How do you differentiate between “ecological damage” and “acceptable environmental impact”?

Roger Busch: Through plant breeding, man has developed crops that are far removed from their ancestors. These crops are generally used for commercial purposes. Consequently, from a farmer’s point of view, fields are commercial sites. Humankind must exploit natural resources in order to survive. Making changes to the natural environment is part of being human. Environmental changes and impacts are acceptable if those who come after us have the opportunity to choose other paths: a different type of land use, access to the genetic information contained in those plants which were not used by their ancestors. Ecological damage occurs in particular when such genetic information is lost. Consequently, great importance is attached to safeguarding the genetic information of plants that exist today (not just crops).

GMO Safety: How can changes to ecosystems caused by GM plants be assessed? What assessment criteria would you allow? Only scientific ones, or would you also include ethical, religious and socio-economic criteria?

Roger Busch: The prerequisite for assessing changes to ecosystems must be the availability of sound, reliable scientific data. This must then be used as a basis for an interdisciplinary process of interpretation and assessment. Aesthetic considerations are just as important as economic, cultural and ethical considerations and impact assessments in this process.

From an ethical perspective it is clear that there can be no blanket assessment of “green genetic engineering”. Assessments must be carried out on a case-by-case basis. The “sustainable development” model, as outlined in Rio in 1992, is the guiding principle. Any human intervention in ecosystems must be measured against the processes set in motion in the target areas of ecological stabilisation and the safeguarding of prosperity and social security. In this respect, genetic modifications to crops are subject to the same requirements as modifications brought about by traditional breeding methods.

GMO Safety: Do GM plants have any particular requirements in terms of the embodiment and application of the precautionary principle?

Roger Busch: The precautionary principle with its regulatory interventions in projects put forward by industry and/or research, as formulated by the European Commission in 2000, may be applied by governments and government bodies only in special cases. It applies to proposals where there are reasonable grounds for concern that the environment and/or human, animal or plant health could be adversely affected, and where it is clear that this risk cannot be determined with sufficient certainty using existing scientific methods.

Political and administrative application of the precautionary principle shall explicitly not be based purely on economic grounds, for instance to protect the domestic market.

If we take the European Commission specification seriously, then the scientific evaluation of proposals, including those for genetically modified crop plants, becomes fundamentally important. Such evaluations should draw on international studies and long-term monitoring. Special requirements for the development and cultivation of genetically modified crops are therefore unnecessary. The requirement for an in-depth assessment of the anticipated effects prior to introducing a technical innovation into an established environment should already have set the bar high enough.