Environmental Pollution & its

Application in Biotechnological

Tools in Environmental

Cleanup Programme.Page | 1

Page | 2

ContentSerial No. Topic Page No.

1. Introduction 3

2. Environmental Pollution 4

3. Types of Pollution 4 -- 9

4. Pollutants 9 -- 13

5. Pollution Control 13 -- 17

6. Report Objectives 17 -- 18

7. Methodology 18 -- 20

8. Needs of Bio Technology 21 -- 24

9. Sustainability 24 -- 26

10. Conclusions 26 -- 27

11. References 28

Page | 3

IntroductionThe application of biotechnology to environmental processes is not only transforming how we manufacture products but is also providing us with new products that could not even be imagined a few years ago. Because environmental biotechnology is so new, its benefits are still not well known or understood by industry, policymakers, or consumers. This report includes analysis of only five environmental sectors to illustrate the potential to use environmental biotechnology for pollution prevention, energy savings, cost reduction, and other process improvements. It is intended to introduce readers to the possibility of pollution prevention and other benefits from greater use of environmental biotechnology. Our hope is that this information will inspire more interest in understanding, developing, and adopting these new environmental biotechnology processes.Pollution control usually means adding equipment at the end of a process to capture or transform pollutants after they have been created. Devices ranging from a car’s catalytic converter to a wastewater treatment plant to scrubbers on a power plant are technologies that are designed to manage pollution once it has already been created by everyday activities. American industry spends billions of dollars yearly on technology systems to manage waste and capture polluting effluent and emissions. The more sustainable and less expensive alternative is preventing pollution in the first place. From the beginning, environmental biotechnology has integrated product improvements with pollution prevention. Nothing illustrates this better than the way environmental biotechnology solved the phosphate water pollution problems of the 1970’s caused by the use of phosphates in laundry detergents. Biotechnology companies developed enzymes that remove stains from clothing better than phosphates, thus enabling replacement of a polluting material with a non-polluting bio based additive while improving the performance of the end product.This innovation dramatically reduced phosphate-related algal blooms in surface waters around the globe, and simultaneously enabled consumers to get their clothes cleaner with lower wash water temperatures and concomitant energy savings. Environmental biotechnology is one of the most promising new approaches to pollution prevention and reduced resource consumption. Often referred to as the third wave in biotechnology, environmental applications of biotechnology are already successfully transforming traditional manufacturing processes and show promise as a tool for achieving sustainable environmental development. Generally, sustainable development means continuous innovation, improvement, and use of clean technologies or green chemistry to make fundamental changes in pollution levels and resource consumption.

Page | 4

Environmental PollutionPollution is the effect of undesirable changes in our surroundings that have harmful effects on plants, animals and human beings. This occurs when only short-term economic gains are made at the cost of the long-term ecological benefits for humanity. No natural phenomenon has led to greater ecological changes than have been made by mankind. During the last few decades we have contaminated our air, water and land on which life itself depends with a variety of waste products. Pollutants include solid, liquid or gaseous substances present in greater than natural abundance produced due to human activity, which have a detrimental effect on our environment. The nature and concentration of a pollutant determines the severity of detrimental effects on human health. An average human requires about 12 kg of air each day, which is nearly 12 to15 times greater than the amount of food we eat. Thus even a small concentration of pollutants in the air becomes more significant in comparison to the similar levels present in food. Pollutants that enter water have the ability to spread to distant places especially in the marine ecosystem. From an ecological perspective pollutants can be classified as follows: Degradable or non-persistent pollutants: These can be rapidly broken down by natural processes. Eg: domestic sewage, discarded vegetables, etc. Slowly degradable or persistent pollutants: Pollutants that remain in the environment for many years in an unchanged condition and take decades or longer to degrade. Eg: DDT and most plastics. Non-degradable pollutants: These cannot be degraded by natural processes. Once they are released into the environment they are difficult to eradicate and continue to accumulate. Eg: toxic elements like lead or mercury.

Types of Pollution:-

Factory Farm Pollution 

In today’s world there are a host of serious environmental problems, and factory farming is one of the top causes of pollution. Scientific research has found that factory farming’s method of crowding and confining animals in warehouse-like conditions before killing them and mass-producing both “meat” from cows, pigs and chickens as well as dairy and eggs poses “an unacceptable level of risk to public health and damage to the environment…” Yet, despite factory farming’s severe social and ecological costs, many governments promote this unsustainable industry to supply a growing global “meat” market that is projected to double by 2050.Factory Farm Pollutants 

Page | 5

In general, there are two primary sources of factory farm pollution:

Waste from Animal Farms 

Factory farms typically concentrate tens or hundreds of thousands of animals in one area, and a large operation can produce as much excrement as a small city. According to the EPA, “A single dairy cow produces about 120 pounds of wet manure per day, which is equivalent to the waste produced by 20–40 people. That means California’s 1.4 million dairy cows produce as much waste as 28–56 million people.” So, when taking into consideration tens or hundreds of thousands of animals, it’s not surprising that this amounts to about 130 times more excrement than is produced by the entire human population every year. For centuries, farmers have used animal manure to fertilize their fields, but factory farms produce far more waste than the land can absorb, turning disposal of this toxic by-product into a big problem for both the agriculture industry and society.

Unlike human waste, animal excrement from factory farms is not processed as sewage—making it about 500 times more concentrated than treated human waste while leaving pathogens (like Salmonella and E. coli) and volatile chemicals intact. Even so, farmers typically spray some liquidized manure onto the food being grown for animals using giant sprinkler jets, and store the rest in open-air cesspools that can be as large as several football fields and hold millions of gallons of waste. However, neither of these dispersal techniques is environmentally safe or sustainable.

Agricultural Chemicals 

Of all the agricultural chemicals applied in the U.S. every year, about 37 percent are used to grow crops for animals raised for food. Agricultural chemicals (or agrichemicals) refer to the wide variety of chemical products used in agriculture, such as pesticides (including insecticides, herbicides and fungicides), as well as synthetic fertilizers, hormones and antibiotics. Farmers spray agricultural chemicals onto food grown for animals in order to kill bugs, rodents, weeds, and other organisms that would otherwise supplant or eat the grain grown for the animals. They also apply these substances directly to animals’ skin, fur or feathers to combat insect infestation.

Page | 6

However, many of the agricultural chemicals approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contain ingredients that are known carcinogens, while others cause severe allergies, birth defects and various health problems. In addition, those who grow food for animals rely heavily on synthetic petroleum-based fertilizers, and animal waste itself contains residues from the massive doses of non-therapeutic antibiotics and artificial growth hormones that animals are routinely fed or injected with to prevent illness and accelerate weight gain. Ultimately, the dangerous compounds found in agrichemicals end up as pollutants when wind and rain disperse them into the environment.

Environmental Impacts of Factory Farm Pollution 

Factory farms dump tens of millions of tons of animal waste and agricultural chemicals into the environment every year—driving land, water and air pollution in the process:

Land Pollution 

Most food produced for animals is grown using a combination of untreated animal waste and synthetic fertilizers, both of which contain excessive amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus and heavy metals (such as zinc, copper, chromium, arsenic, cadmium, and lead). Even though most of these substances usually act as nutrients that nourish plants, environmental farmers overuse them to increase crop yields, and the remainder that cannot be absorbed into the earth—especially when it is already saturated after heavy rains —ends up polluting the soil, while degrading its water retention ability and fertility over time.In addition, U.S. farmers use 750 million pounds of some 20,000 different agricultural chemicals every year, and those that are used to kill insects and weeds that threaten crop yields end up poisoning natural ecosystems. Plus, as some weeds and bugs have developed resistance to these compounds over the

Page | 7

years, chemists have continued to create ever more powerfully-toxic pesticides that are even worse for the environment.

The residues of these chemicals are found at every level of the food chain, and—through the process of bioaccumulation—become more concentrated the higher up the chain one looks. Meaning, in a system that runs the gamut from micro-organisms to humans, people who eat animal products get the highest dosage of toxins.

Water Pollution 

The most common cause of water pollution in the U.S. is excess levels of nitrogen and phosphorous, the main source of which is fertilizer runoff [23] that occurs when rain carries fertilizer into waterways. Runoff from both synthetic fertilizers and animal waste can poison drinking water and aquatic ecosystems, wreaking havoc on human health and wildlife. In the Southern U.S. , where there is an abundance of chicken factory farms, as many as one-third of all underground wells fall below EPA safe drinking water standards for nitrate, a form of nitrogen concentrated in chicken waste.

Page | 8

Excrement from animal waste cesspools can also seep through the soil into nearby groundwater and overflow during storms. In 1995, for example, an eight-acre pig-manure lagoon in North Carolina ruptured, spilling 25 million gallons of untreated waste into the New River, which killed about 10 million fish. In California, the nation’s top dairy-producing state, officials found animal agriculture (specifically dairy operations) to be the largest source of nitrate pollution in more than 100,000 square miles of contaminated groundwater. Throughout the U.S., animal excrement from factory farms has contaminated groundwater in 17 states and polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states.Factory farm runoff also causes algal blooms that kill fish by depleting water of its oxygen, contributing to the formation of hundreds of “dead zones” worldwide where sea creatures cannot survive. The largest of these can be found in the Gulf of Mexico and is nearly the size of the State of New Jersey.Aquaculture (basically, the factory farming of fish in underwater enclosures) also makes a large contribution to water pollution, especially in the coastal mangrove swamps where these operations are typically located. Like land-based animal agriculture, intensive fish farming maximizes production efficiency by concentrating as many animals into the smallest amount of space possible—and also creates tons of untreated faecal waste that pollutes and de-oxygenates aquatic habitats.

Air Pollution 

Page | 9

Various gases from animal waste are all major sources of factory farm air pollution, and particulate matter and bacterial toxins found in high concentrations at and around environmentalized animal facilities have caused serious respiratory and cardiac disorders. The ammonia from waste slurry lagoons also breeds bacteria, which creates acid that evaporates and combines with nitrous oxide from fertilizers and environmental pollution to form nitric acid rain—which leaches nutrients from the soil, despoils forest habitats, and kills fish by releasing toxic minerals from the earth that flow into aquatic ecosystems. Even though agricultural fertilizer emissions are the leading cause of nitric acid rain (after motor vehicles and coal plants), they remain virtually unregulated in the U.S.In addition, animal agriculture is responsible for more than half of humanity’s total greenhouse gas emissions (largely created by using arable land to grow food for animals, animal belching and flatulence, and chemical emanations from manure). This includes 37 percent of anthropogenic (i.e., human-made) methane, and methane gas is 23 times more potent a climate change agent than carbon dioxide. Yet, despite factory farming’s leading role in the climate change crisis, the EPA does not currently have the authority to regulate the U.S. livestock industry’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Pollutants A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or property values. Some pollutants are biodegradable and therefore will not persist in the environment  in the long term. However the degradation products

Page | 10

of some pollutants are themselves polluting such as the products DDE and DDD produced from degradation of DDT.

Sources and causes

Air pollution produced by ships may alter clouds, affecting global temperatures.

Air pollution comes from both natural and human-made (anthropogenic) sources. However, globally human-made pollutants from combustion, construction, mining, agriculture and warfare are increasingly significant in the air pollution equation.Motor vehicle emissions are one of the leading causes of air pollution. China, United States, Russia, India, Mexico, and Japan are the world leaders in air pollution emissions. Principal stationary pollution sources include chemical plants, coal-fired power plants, oil refineries, petrochemical plants, nuclear waste disposal activity, incinerators, large livestock farms (dairy cows, pigs, poultry, etc.), PVC factories, metals production factories, plastics factories, and other heavy industry. Agricultural air pollution comes from contemporary practices which include clear felling and burning of natural vegetation as well as spraying of pesticides and herbicidesAbout 400 million metric tons of hazardous wastes are generated each year. The United States alone produces about 250 million metric tons. Americans constitute less than 5% of the world's population, but produce roughly 25% of the world’s CO2, and generate approximately 30% of worlds. In 2007, China has overtaken the United States as the world's biggest producer of CO2, while still far behind based on per capita pollution - ranked 78th among the world's nations.

Page | 11

An environmental area, with a power plant, south of Yangzhou's downtown,China

In February 2007, a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), representing the work of 2,500 scientists, economists, and policymakers from more than 120 countries, said that humans have been the primary cause of global warming since 1950. Humans have ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions and avoid the consequences of global warming, a major climate report concluded. But to change the climate, the transition from fossil fuels like coal and oil needs to occur within decades, according to the final report this year from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Some of the more common soil contaminants are chlorinated hydrocarbons(CFH), heavy metals (such as chromium, cadmium–found in rechargeable batteries, and lead–found in lead paint, aviation fuel and still in some countries, gasoline), MTBE, zinc, arsenic and benzene. In 2001 a series of press reports culminating in a book called Fateful Harvest unveiled a widespread practice of recycling environmental by products into fertilizer, resulting in the contamination of the soil with various metals. Ordinary municipal and fills are the source of many chemical substances entering the soil environment (and often groundwater), emanating from the wide variety of refuse accepted, especially substances illegally discarded there, or from pre-1970 landfills that may have been subject to little control in the U.S. or EU. There have also been some unusual releases of polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, commonly called dioxins for simplicity, such as TCDD. Pollution can also be the consequence of a natural disaster. For example ,hurricanes often involve water contamination from sewage, and petrochemical spills from ruptured boats or automobiles. Larger scale and environmental damage is not uncommon when coastal oil rigs or refineries are involved. Some sources of pollution, such as nuclear power plants or oil tankers, can produce widespread and potentially hazardous releases when accidents occur.In the case of noise pollution the dominant source class is the motor vehicle, producing about ninety percent of all unwanted noise worldwide.

Page | 12

Different types of pollutants in nature

Stock pollutantsPollutants that the environment has little or no absorptive capacity are called stock pollutants(e.g. persistent synthetic chemicals, non-biodegradable plastics, and heavy metals. Stock pollutants accumulate in the environment over time. The damage they cause increases as more pollutant is emitted, and persists as the pollutant accumulates. Stock pollutants can create a burden for future generations by passing on damage that persists well after the benefits received from incurring that damage have been forgotten.

Fund pollutantsFund pollutants are those for which the environment has some absorptive capacity. Fund pollutants do not cause damage to the environment unless the emission rate exceeds the receiving environment's absorptive capacity (e.g. carbon dioxide, which is absorbed by plants and oceans).Fund pollutants are not destroyed, but rather converted into less harmful substances, or diluted/dispersed to non-harmful concentrations.

Notable pollutantsNotable pollutants include the following groups:

Heavy metals Persistent organic pollutants Environmental Persistent Pharmaceutical Pollutants Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Volatile organic compounds Environmental xenobiotics

Page | 13

Zones of influence

Pollutants can also be defined by their zones of influence, both horizontally and vertically.

Horizontal zoneThe horizontal zone refers to the area that is damaged by a pollutant. Local pollutants cause damage near the emission source. Regional pollutants cause damage further from the emission source.

Vertical zoneThe vertical zone is referred to whether the damage is ground-level or atmospheric. Surface pollutants cause damage by concentrations of the pollutant accumulating near the Earth's surface Global pollutants cause damage by concentrations in the atmosphere.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Pollution control is the process of reducing or eliminating the release of pollutants (contaminants, usually human-made) into the environment. It is regulated by various environmental agencies that establish limits for the discharge of pollutants into the air, water, and land. A wide variety of devices and systems have been developed to control air and water pollution and solid wastes

Page | 14

Air pollution control

Methods of air pollution control can be divided into two categories: the control of particulate (pronounced par-TIK-you-let) emissions and the control of gaseous emissions. The term particulate refers to tiny particles of matter such as smoke, soot, and dust that are released during environmental, agricultural, or other activities. Gaseous emissions are environmental products such as sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen also released during various manufacturing operations.

Methods for particulate control tend to operate on a common principle. The solid particles are separated from the gases in which they are contained by physical procedures such as passage through a settling chamber. A settling chamber is a long, wide pipe through which gases from a manufacturing process are allowed to flow. As these gases slow down in the pipe, the solid particles settle out. They can then be removed from the bottom of the pipe.

A cyclone collector is another device for removing particulates from stack gases. The gases are fed into a rotating cylindrical container.

Centrifugal forces (the forces that move things away from the center of rotation) send solid particles in the gas outward against the walls of the container. They collect there briefly, then fall to the bottom of the container. Gases from which the particles have been removed then escape from the top of the container.

Many different methods are available for removing unwanted gases, most of which are acidic. Scrubbers are smokestack devices that contain a moist chemical such as lime, magnesium oxide, or sodium hydroxide. When gases escape from a factory and pass through a scrubber, they react with the moist chemical and are neutralized. From time to time, the scrubbers are removed from the smokestack, cleaned, and replaced.

Another method for controlling gaseous emissions is by adsorption. Activated charcoal is charcoal that has been ground into a very fine powder. In this form, charcoal has the ability to adsorb, or adhere to, other chemicals. When unwanted gases flow over activated charcoal on the inside of a smokestack, they are adsorbed on the charcoal. As with scrubbers, the charcoal is removed from time to time, and a new lining of charcoal is installed in the smokestack.

Page | 15

Water pollution

Methods of controlling water pollution fall into three general categories: physical, chemical, and biological. For example, one form of water pollution consists of suspended solids such as fine dirt and dead organisms. These materials can be removed from water by simply allowing the water to sit quietly for a period of time, thereby allowing the pollutants to settle out, or by passing the water through a filter. (The solid pollutants are then trapped in the filter.)

Chemical reactions can be used to remove pollutants from water. For example, the addition of lime (calcium hydroxide) to water results in the formation of a thick, sticky precipitate. When the precipitate begins to settle out, it traps and carries with it solid particles, dead bacteria, and other components of polluted water.

Biological agents can also be used to remove pollutants from water. Aerobic bacteria (those that need oxygen to survive) and anaerobic bacteria (those that do not require oxygen) attack certain chemicals in polluted water and convert them to a harmless form.

Solid pollutants

Solid pollutants consist of garbage, sewage sludge, paper, plastics, and many other forms of waste materials. One method of dealing with solid pollutants is simply to bury them in dumps or landfills. Another approach is to compost them, a process in which microorganisms turn certain types of pollutants into useful fertilizers. Finally, solid pollutants can also be incinerated (burned).

Taking on pollution: a global attempt

While artificial chemicals have improved the quality of life around the world, they have also posed a threat to the health of people and wildlife. In late 2000, in an effort to control the effect of toxic global pollutants, the united nations environment program organized a meeting to draft a treaty to restrict the production and use of twelve persistent organic pollutants (POPs), especially those used as pesticides. The twelve toxic chemicals cited, which environmentalists have called the "dirty dozen," include eight pesticides (aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, mirex, and toxaphene), two types of environmental chemicals (hexachlorobenzene and polychlorinated biphenyls

Page | 16

or PCBs), and two types of environmental byproducts (dioxins and furans). These toxic pollutants were chosen not because they are the most dangerous, but because they are the most widely studied. Since it is still widely used in Africa to control malaria, DDT was given a special exemption: it can be used in those countries until replacement chemicals or strategies can be developed and put into place. One hundred and twenty-two nations (including the United States) agreed to the treaty. Before it can take effect, however, at least fifty of those nations must also ratify it.

What Is Environmental Biotechnology?

“Environmental biotechnology builds on the technological advances pioneered in health care. It uses the same genomic, proteomic, and bioinformatics techniques used in medical biotechnology. These techniques are most often applied in the world of microorganisms. By working in concert with nature, environmental researchers discover new ways to enable cleaner production of environmental raw materials, intermediates, and consumer goods.”

Rudimentary environmental biotechnology dates back to at least 6000 B.C. when Neolithic cultures fermented grapes to make wine, and by 4000 B.C. Egyptians were making leavened bread using yeast. Babylonians used microbial yeasts to make beer, and yogurt and vinegar production was documented in China in early times. The production of wine through fermentation has long been well established in many parts of the world. These examples are, in essence, rudimentary forms of environmental biotechnology where microorganisms were used to catalyze or perform biochemical reactions for humans. Over time, our ability to work with these microorganisms has grown. The early Chinese used certain melds as topical treatments for skin infections. In the 1800s, Louis Pasteur proved that fermentation was a result of microbial activity. In 1897, the German scientistEduard Buchner discovered that specialized proteins, called enzymes, were responsible for converting sugar to alcohol in yeast. Buchner’s discoveries about the function of enzymes were a key element in transforming the crude applications of fermentation for making cheese, wine, and bread into modern environmental biotechnology. In 1928, Sir Alexander Fleming discovered that penicillin could be extracted from meld, and in the 1940s, large-scale fermentation techniques were developed to make environmental quantities of this wonder drug. Despite the existence of these early applications, scientific understanding of microbial fermentation at the molecular level is fairly recent.

Page | 17

A more detailed history of the business of environmental biotechnology is found in Appendix I. This progress in our scientific understanding of microbial systems launched the field of environmental biotechnology.

Report Objectives1. Provide context for Environmental biotechnology.

This report discusses the evolution and recent blossoming of environmental biotechnology, development of pollution prevention policy, and increasing potential for environmental biotechnology to offer new and transformative ways to prevent pollution and sustain development.

2. Quantify potential pollution prevention benefits achieved by applying certain environmental biotechnology processes to entire sectors within the United States.

This report applies performance outcomes reported in the original OECD case study report to environmental sectors within the United States. Data for these sectors was drawn from EPA and other publicly available databases. Extrapolations were then made from the OECD case studies across several discrete industry sectors in order to illustrate the largest potential magnitude of benefits.

3. Educate stakeholders about environmental biotechnology.

Environmental biotechnology is already reducing pollution and manufacturing costs in some industry sectors. It holds great promise to further reduce pollution and the consumption of raw materials if deployed more broadly; this, in turn, can reduce the cost of producing goods and may lead to better products. Because environmental biotechnology can utilize many renewable feed stocks, such as corn and other agricultural crops and crop residues, it may provide new sources of income for farmers. This report aims to deliver information on these powerful new biotechnology tools to the public, policymakers, NGOs, the press, and corporate America. All of these groups have a stake in a cleaner future and need to be informed about the latest technological developments that are available to improve our world.

Page | 18

4. Inspire a wider inquiry into environmental biotechnology.

The Environmental and Environmental Section of BIO, its members, and some national policymakers possess greater familiarity with the current and potential uses for environmental biotechnology than the target audience for this document. From that familiarity comes our optimism about the possible benefits that can be derived from greater environmental biotechnology use. BIO strongly believes that as an understanding of this field spreads, so, too, will the general sense of enthusiasm about this powerful technology. At the same time, we cannot expect that reaction on the strength of this document alone. Environmental biotechnology encompasses a multitude of products and processes. Each will need to endure the scrutiny of potential customers, policymakers, NGOs, and the public. Our expectation is that this report will inform as well as raise questions. We invite those, whose interest is aroused, but whose questions are not satisfied, to join with BIO in future research dialogues and other efforts to widen the inquiry into environmental biotechnology’s current and potential benefits.

Methodology

In 2001, OECD released a report called The Application of Biotechnology to Environmental Sustainability. This report was developed by the OECD Task Force on Biotechnology for Sustainable Environmental Development to assess how widespread the use of environmental biotechnology was in 2000–2001 and to assess the real-world experiences of 21 companies worldwide that furnished case study data. The purpose of the report was to use these case studies to help answer questions regarding the costs and benefits of environmental biotechnology and to describe the factors that affected decisions by companies to use this technology. The OECD report provided a useful basis for this document because it examined numerous environmental sectors in nations with a range of economic resources and regulatory circumstances. Despite the varied settings where environmental biotechnology was used, the OECD found generally consistent results. The report found that environmental biotechnology processes invariably led to less expensive and more environmentally friendly processes. The distribution and the environmental and cost benefits of the 21 OECD case. This report’s analysis begins with the OECD report and goes on to address the question: What if environmental biotechnology was more widely used? The analysis in this report takes the performance results of several OECD case studies in the pharmaceutical, chemical, paper, textile, and energy sectors

Page | 19

and assumes that they are applied across the board in similar industry sectors within the United States. In addition, information on bio plastics is drawn from the OECD report and from other sources. An important simplifying assumption of our analysis is that performance achieved through the application of a process in a case study can be extrapolated across the entire sector in the United States. For example, where a case study showed environmental benefits at a pulp and paper plant, our results assume that the same performance would be achieved across the U.S. pulp and paper industry. The purpose of this report is to develop a sense of the best-case scenario of the maximum potential environmental benefit that could be achieved. The decision to employ the simplified analysis is the result of data and resource limitations. Much of the data necessary to do a finer analysis are not available—they are either gathered in an aggregated form or held as competitively sensitive information. It is also used in service of the larger objectives for this document: namely, to provide a sense of environmental biotechnology’s maximum potential, and to stimulate interest in and support for more robust analysis of the topics touched On here. The widespread uptake of this technology will not occur at the same speed in all sectors. We believe, however, that making projections across industry sectors is valid since there are many existing examples of entire environmental sectors using a technology. In some cases, this sector wide uptake is based on economic considerations, in some it is based on technology availability and in others it is based on legal regulatory requirements. For instance, virtually all paper pulping operations using the Kraft pulping process and virtually all coal-fired power plants use sulphur dioxide scrubbers. We further acknowledge that in some cases, environmental biotechnology may be used in only part of a given sector. Nevertheless, projecting for a whole sector is a valid means of highlighting what is possible in the future. For example, more than 90% of riboflavin (vitamin B2) is currently produced with a biotechnology fermentation process that replaced a conventional chemical process that employed several highly toxic chemicals. In large part this transformation of standard production techniques was possible because A) the biotechnology-based process was less expensive and B) the pharmaceutical and vitamin industries are accustomed to, and structured for, rapid turnover of capital stock and processing techniques. Such rapid penetration of biotechnology in sectors less situated for rapid transformation is less likely. At the same time, because biotechnology has so many potential environmental applications, its uptake may occur differently—but with equally dramatic results—in other sectors. For example, nearly every aspect of papermaking from pulping wood to de-inking recycled paper could benefit from existing enzyme-based processes. So, instead of a single biotech process permeating the industry, one could envision the complete conversion of a single paper plant from chemical to biotechnology-based production. The authors recognize that environmental plant age, technology availability, and cost are but three factors that can result in performance variability. Studies of

Page | 20

technology uptake suggest that diffusion of technology into the broad economy can take decades or longer as individual companies and governments experiment with, deploy, and then adopt new technology Rapid changes, however, can occur as a result of traditional fossil fuel feedstock cost increases, changes in environmental regulations, or other factors. A presentation by Barbara Miller of Dow Chemical Company describes the diffusion of technology and is included in Appendix II. In addition, this report does not attempt to quantify the costs associated with adoption of biotechnology processes. As is also discussed by Miller, disruption and capital costs would be associated with uptake of these processes. This is an area for further research. Pollution prevention performance for specific processes is derived from the OECD case studies and applied to U.S. industry sector data obtained from EPA and other public sources. In some cases, more recent data is now available than was used in assembling this report. Additional assumptions are included in the footnotes We use examples drawn only from OECD case studies measuring pollution reduction in a manner matching reasonably well with the data available from EPA and other public sources. Our analysis is also limited because environmental biotechnology does not have a discrete North American Environmental Classification System (NAICS) code that would allow for the collection of broad categories of data regarding its usage. It became apparent during our investigation that the formulation and adoption of such a code for the biotechnology sector in general and for discrete biotechnology sectors in particular would contribute to more accurate assessments of costs and benefits. More analysis is needed by federal agencies to draw out additional empirical information about possible environmental benefits in this rapidly expanding field. This report considers only a few of the many environmental biotechnology process available today. It does not examine either upstream or downstream benefits. Because environmental biotechnology presents such a broad array of potential intersections with existing environmental activities one could easily speculate that the potential benefits of significant environmental biotechnology diffusion would be greater and more diverse than described in the following analysis. Finally, our work leaves to future efforts detailed examinations of barriers, life-cycle, and cost benefit considerations, and existing protocols for storage, transportation, and use of environmental biotechnology materials. Each of these considerations is outside the scope of this report. Furthermore, that work would best be done by cooperative efforts between private, government, and NGO entities. This report may stimulate new interest in such cooperative research.

Page | 21

NEEDS OF BIO TECHNOLOGY

Biotechnology companies, national and international organizations, including the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), and numerous academics (e.g., Ruttan 1999) have continued to argue for the need to increase agricultural productivity so that sufficient food supplies exist to meet the demand forthcoming from a swelling world population. Despite Altieri and Russet's (this issue) assertion, population density is hardly the issue. In the absence of significant productivity gains, or expansion of agriculture into marginal lands (e.g., forests), there will be not be sufficient food quantities to feed the projected levels of population. This simple reality is independent of income distribution or the location of the population. And hardly anyone, including Altieri and Russet, will argue about the pragmatism of population projections. So in the absence of a good alternative—and in the face of a proven slow down in the productivity gains from the Green Revolution—biotechnology is by default our best, and maybe, only, way to increase production to meet future food needs.

1. The argument that hunger is a complex socioeconomic phenomenon, tied to lack of resources to grow or buy food, is correct. Equally correct is the

Page | 22

argument that existing food supplies could adequately feed the world population. But how food and other resources (e.g., land, capital) are distributed among individuals, regions, or the various nations is determined by the complex interaction of market forces and institutions around the world. Unless our civic societies can come up quickly with an economic system that allocates resources more equitably and more efficiently than the present one, 50 years from now we will be faced with an even greater challenge. Calorie for calorie there will not be enough food to feed the projected population of about 9 billion. With the purchasing power and wealth concentrated in the developed countries, and over 90 percent of the projected population growth likely to occur in developing and emerging economies, it is not difficult to predict where food shortages will occur. Unless we are ready to accept starvation, or place parks and the Amazon Basin under the plough, there really is only one good alternative: discover ways to increase food production from existing resources. Bottom line, Altieri and Russet may want to argue against Western-style capitalism and market institutions if they so choose to—but their argument is hardly relevant to the issue of biotechnology.

2. The assertion that most innovations in biotechnology are not need driven is incorrect. Here are a few well - documented examples of biotechnology innovations targeting pressing needs:

Development of a rice strain that has the potential to prevent blindness in millions of children whose diets are deficient in Vitamin A. Vitamin A is a highly essential micronutrient and widespread dietary deficiency of this vitamin in rice-eating Asian countries has tragic undertones: five million children in South East Asia develop an eye disease called xerophthalmia every year, and 250,000 of them eventually become blind. Improved vitamin A nutrition would alleviate this serious health problem and, according to United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), could also prevent up to two million infant deaths because vitamin 

The argument that the integration of chemical pesticides and seed-use has led to lower returns for farmers is incorrect. To support their argument Altieri and Russet reference an obscure manuscript while they ignore several comprehensive studies that point to increased net returns and reduced chemical loads (Rice, 1999; Klotz-Ingram et al., 1999; Falk-Zepeda, Traxler, & Nelson, in press; Gianessi, 1999; Abelson & Hines, 1999; USDA/ERS, 1999a, 1999b).

Page | 23

Because of their improved production economics, the introductions of Bt- and herbicide resistant crops have forced tremendous competition in herbicide and insecticide markets. Prices of many herbicides and insecticides have been slashed by over 50% in these markets in order to compete with the improved economics of biotechnology seed/chemical solutions. Such price reductions have led to significant discounting of weed and insect control programs and have benefited even farmers who have not adopted biotechnology crops. Because of lower prices and reduced volumes synthetic pesticides from the use of biotechnology crops, the agrichemicals sector has experienced significant financial losses over the last two-three years.

The assertion that "there are potential risks of eating (bioengineered) foods" is alarmist. Citing unspecified "recent evidence" Altieri and Russet fail to acknowledge the extensive scientific evidence that consistently finds that the use of biotechnology methods and biotechnology products pose risks no different from those of other genetic methods and products.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has evaluated technical evidence on all proteins produced through biotechnology and which are currently in commercial food products. All of the proteins that have been placed into foods through the use of biotechnology and are currently in the market are non-toxic, sensitive to heat, acid and enzymatic digestion, and hence rapidly digestible, and have no structural similarities with proteins known to cause allergies (Thompson, 2000). Under their oversight structure, the FDA does not routinely subject foods from new plant varieties to pre-market review or to extensive scientific safety tests, although there are exceptions. The agency has judged that the usual safety and quality control practices used by plant breeders, such as chemical and visual analyses and taste testing, are generally adequate for ensuring food safety The argument that the new bioengineered varieties will fail, as pests develop resistance to the natural Bt-toxins produced by these varieties because they violate the basic principles of integrated pest management (IPM), is misleading. Pests tend to overcome any control mechanism, including those introduced through biotechnology, synthetic pesticides, or even the broader integrated approaches suggested by Altieri and Russet. In biology no solutions are permanent. Once selection pressure is

Page | 24

applied on a population, that population is effectively enriched for resistant organisms. That is why it is imperative to develop a multi-pronged approach. Integrating crop rotation and ecology with biotechnology is not only feasible but also the logical way to progress. Indeed biotechnology companies like Ecogen and Agra Quest use biotechnology to identify and enrich natural predators of damaging pests.

However, biotechnology supplies yet one more mode of defence. For instance, many variations and combinations of But genes are currently being produced to minimize pest selection pressure. Indeed, Altieri and Russet are incorrect when they drive a parallel with the "one pest-one pesticide" paradigm. Biotechnology is striving for a "one pest-many genes" paradigm. Molecular biologists recognize the need to study and apply multiple and diverse mechanisms for controlling pests and pathogens to reduce selection pressure. Simultaneous or sequential deployment of different resistance genes has the same rationale as crop rotation. Pathogen evolution is less able to overcome a changing environment or an environment made inhospitable by an array of resistance genes.

Bio technological tools for environmental sustainability

Environmental Sustainability

Sustainability is the capacity to endure. The word sustainability is derived from the Latin sustinere (tenere, to hold; sus, up). In ecology the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over times. For humans it is the potential for long-term maintenance of well-being, which in turn depends on the well-being of the natural world and the responsible use of natural resources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Sustainability_Index). Environmental sustainability is the process of making sure current processes of interaction with the environment are pursued with the idea of keeping the environment as pristine as naturally possible based on ideal-seeking behaviours. An “unsustainable situation” occurs when natural capital (the sum total of nature’s resources) is used up faster than it can be replenished. Sustainability requires that human activity only uses nature’s resources at a rate at which they

Page | 25

can be replenished naturally. Theoretically, the long-term result of environmental degradation is the inability to sustain human life. Such degradation on a global scale could imply extinction for humanity.

A healthy environment is one that provides vital goods and services to humans as well as other organisms within its ecosystem. This can be achieved in two ways and include discovering ways of reducing negative human impact and enhancing the well-being and vitality of all living organisms (plants and animals) in the environment. Daly suggested three broad criteria for ecological sustainability: renewable resources should provide a sustainable yield (the rate of harvest should not exceed the rate of regeneration); for non-renewable resources there should be equivalent development of renewable substitutes; waste generation should not exceed the assimilative capacity of the environment.

It is important to also clearly define what the environment is to the humans who are the focus and are adversely affected positively or negatively according to their activities within their surroundings. Thus, Bankole reported that “Environment” refers to the physical surroundings of man, of which he is part and on which he depends for his activities, like physiological functioning, production, and consumption. His physical environment stretches from air, water, and land to natural resources like metals, energy carriers, soil, and plants, animals, and ecosystems. For urbanized man, a large part of his environment is man-made. But even then, the artificial environments (buildings, roads) and implements (clothes, automobiles) are the result of an input of both labour and natural resources.

Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI)

This is a composite index tracking 21 elements of environment sustainability covering natural resource endowments, past and present pollution levels, environmental management efforts, contributions to protection of the global commons, and a society’s capacity to improve its environmental performance over time.

The Environmental Sustainability Index was developed and published between 1999 and 2005 by Yale University’s Centre for Environmental Law and Policy in collaboration with Columbia University’s Centre for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), and the World Economic Forum. The ESI developed to evaluate environmental sustainability relative to the paths of other countries. Due to a shift in focus by the terms developing the ESI, a new

Page | 26

index was developed, the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) that uses the outcome-oriented indicators, then works as a benchmark index that can be more easily used by policy makers, environmental scientists, advocates and the general public.

ConclusionsThis report attempts to take the next step in answering the question:

What if industrial biotechnology were more widely used?

The answer is that industrial biotechnology can revolutionize pollution prevention, control, and innovation strategies and overall environmental protection strategy. Furthermore, industrial biotechnology can revolutionize how goods are manufactured.Industrial biotechnology is revolutionary because it provides new tools for the manufacturing sector that not only reduce pollution but reduce costs and improve profitability all at the same time. During the past half century, advances in biotechnology have launched a new wave of biotechnology—industrial biotechnology— which offers new tools to safely reduce manufacturing costs and consumption of energy and raw materials; it also promises the creation of new markets for innovative products that are superior to existing ones. The analysis articulated in this report can—and should—be expanded in numerous directions. For example, greater use of industrial biotechnology will have multiple upstream and downstream consequences. We believe that further study will show these to be overwhelmingly beneficial. Nevertheless, quantifying the benefits and addressing trouble spots before they become problems necessitates additional work.Given the wide scope of industrial biotechnology in terms of business sectors it would be futile for this report to attempt to address every question. This document should encourage enough interest so that corporate, government, and NGO entities will join our future efforts to frame questions and find answers.

What could this mean for our future?

As previously stated, the sectors examined in this report may account for up to 40% of energy use, 50% of industrial pollution, and are also a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. With accelerated diffusion of industrial biotechnology into these sectors, rapid and dramatic environmental improvements are possible. Because industrial biotechnology reduces—and in some cases eliminates—industrial waste, businesses will spend less on cleanup, disposal, and control of pollution. Bio processing primarily uses renewable

Page | 27

agricultural products, such as corn, corn Stover, wheat straw, rice straw, and other materials, as raw feed stocks and it could provide new markets for these agriculture crop residues. Industrial biotechnology is on the leading edge of a green industrial revolution.Admittedly, the analysis provides an overview at best; however, even this rough overview reveals that the potential magnitude of benefits is startling. As described in this report: Biotechnology process changes in the production and bleaching of pulp for paper reduce the amount of chlorine chemicals necessary for bleaching by 10–15%. If applied across the industry, these process changes could reduce chlorine in water and air as well as chlorine dioxide by a combined 75 tons per year. Biotechnology processes cut bleaching-related energy uses by 40%—a savings that has the potential to create additional pollution reductions—and lower wastewater toxicity. Biotechnology process changes in the textile finishing sector reduce water usage by about 17–18%, cost associated with water usage and air emissions by 50–60%, and energy demand for bleaching by about 9–14%. Biotechnology process changes in plastics production replace petrochemical feed stocks with feed stocks made from organic material such as corn or even corn Stover, thereby reducing demand for petro-by 20–80%. Because these bio plastics are biodegradable, their use could also reduce plastics in the waste stream by up to 80%. Waste burdens are reduced partly because disposable food service items such as plates, cups, and containers can be composted along with the food waste, eliminating the need for separation. These bio plastics can be used to make products ranging from clothing to car parts, all of which can be composted instead of disposed in landfills or incinerators. Biotechnology process changes allow for bio ethanol production not only from corn but from cellulosic biomass such as crop residues; bio ethanol from cellulose generates 8 to 10 times as much net energy as is required for its production. It is estimated that one gallon of cellulosic ethanol can replace 30 gallons of imported oil equivalents. The closed-loop nature of using cellulosic biomass to produce bio ethanol can contribute substantially to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and can help provide a partial solution to global warming. Biotechnology process changes in the nutriceutical and pharmaceutical sector in the production of riboflavin (vitamin B2) reduce associated carbon dioxide emissions by 80% and water emissions by 67%. Changes in the production of the antibiotic cephalexin reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 50%, energy demand by 20%, and water usage by 75%. The market share of the biotechnology method of vitamin B2 production increased from 5% in 1990 to 75% in 2002.

Page | 28

ReferencesBiomass Research and Development Board, “Fostering the Bio-economic Revolution in Bio- based Products and Bio energy” (2001).

Healthtech Institute, “Biotechnology & pharmaceutical applications overview” (2004) available at http://www.genomicglossaries.com/content/genomic_overview.asp Energetic, Incorporated, Report for the Department of Energy, “Industrial Bio products: Today and Tomorrow,” India, MD (2003).

Bajpai, Pratima, “Biotechnology for Environmental Protection,” Executive Summary (1998) available at http://wwwenvironmental-center.com/publications/springer/3540656774.html

Environmental Protection Agency, “Pollution Prevention Act: 42 U.S.C. 13101 and 13102, s/s et seq.” (1990) available at http://www.epa.gov/region5/defs/html/ppa.html

Environmental Protection Agency, “2001 Alternative Solvents/Reaction Conditions Award” (2001) available at www.epa.gov/greenchemistry/ascra01.html

Page | 29