SUMMARY OF THE NRP 59 PROGRAMME SYNTHESIS
Benefits and Risks of the Deliberate
Release of Genetically Modified PlantsAVOIDING RISKS, SEIZING OPPORTUNITIES, PRESERVING COMPETENCES
The respective research teams are responsible for the cited results. The synthesis and
the recommendations are the responsibility of the NRP 59 Steering Committee, whose
views do not necessarily coincide with those of the Swiss National Science Foundation
or the consultative group.
SUMMARY OF THE NRP 59 PROGRAMME SYNTHESIS
Benefits and Risks of the Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified PlantsAVOIDING RISKS, SEIZING OPPORTUNITIES, PRESERVING COMPETENCES
SUMMARY OF THE NRP 59 PROGRAMME SYNTHESIS
Avoiding risks, seizing opportunities,
preserving competences
The programme synthesis is based on thirty research projects
conducted within the National Research Programme “Benefits
and Risks of the Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified
Plants” (NRP 59) and three detailed analyses of a large number
of relevant studies performed abroad.
DIRK DOBBELAEREPresident of the NRP 59 Steering Committee
CONTROVERSIAL GENETIC ENGINEERING
Human beings have cultivated crops for thousands of years and they con-tinuously adapted them to their needs. Conventional plant breeding is built on the encouragement of genetic modifications in a given plant by spe-cifically selecting useful properties. Today, so-called “green genetic engi-neering”offers perspectives that go far beyond those of standard plant breed-ing techniques: genetic modifications can be precisely introduced into plants and selection of the desired properties is easier to control.
Genetically modified plants (GMPs) have been commercially grown in many countries for over fifteen years. Meanwhile, more than forty different GMPs are approved for use as food and fodder in the EU.
However, the cultivation of GMPs is controversial. Therefore, only two dif-ferent genetically modified crop plants are commercially used in Europe: maize and starch potato.
For quite some time, green genetic engineering has been controversially discussed in Switzerland as well. On November 27, 2005, Swiss voters de-cided a five-year moratorium on the commercial use of GMPs. In the mean-time, the Parliament has extended this moratorium by three additional years until November 2013. It does not apply to research. The aim of this exception
THOMAS BERNAUERMember of the National Research Council
SUMMARY OF THE NRP 59 PROGRAMME SYNTHESIS
5is to more closely examine the advan-tages and disadvantages of green ge-netic engineering. In December 2005, the Federal Council therefore request-ed that the Swiss National Science Foundation implement NRP 59.
The central objective of the pro-gramme was to determine to what extent green genetic engineering can contribute to sustainable agriculture in Switzerland, that is to determine whether genetically modified plants are profitable for Switzerland in terms of environmen-tal protection and from the point of view of farmers and socie-ty. The research pro-gramme also aimed to examine whether specific problems or advantages arise from Switzerland’s small-size struc-tured agriculture and whether coex-istence of agricultural forms working with and without genetic engineering is possible.
MAN’S SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURE
Due to adaptations achieved through breeding, crops in use today, in tradi-tional as well as organic farming, bear very little resemblance to the original wild plants. Such adaptations usually
serve to achieve increased yields and to reduce losses due to pests and dis-eases. By doing so, mankind has, over thousands of years, strongly interfered with the evolution of many plants.
Target-oriented plant breeding relies on the creation of genetic var-iations and subsequent selection of useful traits. This does not exclusive-ly involve naturally occurring genetic
variations. In many crops, such variations were also induced by ionizing radiation or mutagenic chem-icals. Generally, it is not precisely known which genetic mod-ifications took place in the course of these interventions, as it was the end-product with its new charac-teristics, rather than
the method used to produce it, that were of interest.
Hence, very few consumers are for instance aware of the fact that the wheat cultivated today mainly stems from the einkorn wheat into which the entire genomes of two wild grasses were in-troduced by cross-breeding. This mas-sive modification of the genetic compo-sition of the plant was brought about by the use of colchicine. Colchicine is obtained from the autumn crocus and displays genome-modifying properties.
Human beings are a part of
nature. Mutual adaptations form
the basis for the interactions
between human beings and
the environment. In this sense,
adaptations of plants to the
needs of modern agriculture
are equally natural, providing
they are consistent with the
goal of sustainability.
6Paving the way to the synthesis
Mandate and budget
In December 2005, the Federal Council requested that the Swiss National Science Foundation
implement NRP 59 and examine the benefits and risks of genetically modified plants with regard
to the environmental, social, economic, legal and political situation in Switzerland. For the
implementation of the programme, a total sum of CHF 12 million was allocated over a period of five years.
NRP 59 included four main research topics:
1. Plant biotechnology and the environment: 19 projects; 6.7 million Swiss francs;
2. Political, social and economic aspects: 9 projects; 2.2 million Swiss francs;
3. Risk assessment, risk management and decision-making processes: 2 projects;
0.6 million Swiss francs;
4. Overview studies based on the specialised literature available worldwide: 0.2 million Swiss francs.
After vandals damaged part of the testing grounds in Zurich-Reckenholz in June 2008,
the budget was increased by three million Swiss francs to protect the field trials in Pully
and Zurich-Reckenholz.
Research project selection and duration
A total of thirty research projects were carried out. These were selected from a large number of propos-
als according to criteria of scientific quality and relevance for the Swiss context. For lack of time
and for financial reasons, NRP 59 did not include projects addressing long-term impacts of GMPs on
human and animal health. All available relevant research results worldwide were however evaluated
in an extensive literature study. Consequently, reliable conclusions regarding health issues can also
be drawn. Two further literature studies summarise the internationally available literature on the
subjects of ‘Environment and Risk’ and ‘Society, Agricultural Economics and Coexistence in Europe’.
The NRP 59 research projects were launched during the second half of 2007 and were
completed between spring 2009 and the end of 2011.
Intermediate report to the Federal Council
On the Federal Council’s request, the NRP 59 Steering Committee wrote an intermediate report
which was adopted on October 13, 2009, by the National Research Council and on October 14, 2009,
by its presiding board. It was delivered to the Federal Council on November 16.
In 2010, the Federal Chambers ordered an extension of the moratorium, allowing them
to await the final results of NRP 59 before taking further decisions.
SUMMARY OF THE NRP 59 PROGRAMME SYNTHESIS
7Continuous communication
The NRP 59 attached great importance to open and transparent communication within the programme
as well as with stakeholders and the population. For this purpose, the website was continuously kept
up-to-date with news regarding the programme. Additionally, six newsletters were published and sent
to 1000 recipients electronically or by mail. The researchers published approximately 70 scientific
papers and met for interdisciplinary exchanges during two conferences organised in the context of the
programme. In addition, scientists as well as members of the Steering Committee regularly participated
in public symposia and panel discussions. A public lecture series including roundtable discussion
was also organised.
From the very beginning, this research programme was received with broad interest: for instance,
more than 1000 reports on NRP 59 appeared in newspapers in Switzerland and abroad.
Broadly supported consultative process
The results of NRP 59 were discussed in a multi-level process with stakeholders of importance to the
programme. Several stakeholder workshops were held for this purpose. The participants included
representatives of research institutions, federal and cantonal offices, academies of science, seed and
plant producers, the Federal Ethics Committee, the Swiss Expert Committee for Biosafety, inter-trade
organisations, NGOs, farmers’ associations, industry, the Centre for Technology Assessment, trade
associations and consumer organisations. The three discussion rounds were devoted to the following
topics: 1. Legal framework and Coexistence; 2. Risk: Identification, Evaluation, Monitoring;
3. Consumption, Communication and Acceptance.
Towards the end of the programme, during the synthesis phase, a consultative group including
representatives of the most important stakeholder groups (genetic engineering supporters as well
as opponents) was involved in the process. They provided important input and feedback regarding
the designing and the development of the synthesis report on three occasions.
On the whole, NRP 59 managed to integrate the stakeholders into the programme and to
discuss the complex subject in a broad and objective manner.
8
Over time, far-reaching interven-tions into the genome of hundreds of crop plants have taken place. These plants are today considered safe and healthful.
Green genetic engineering too should be measured by this scale and evaluat-ed accordingly, as it is a further develop-ment of classic plant breeding methods. Furthermore, modifications generated by means of genetic engineering are more precise and efficient than con-ventional breeding methods. They also make it possible to transfer new and valuable characteristics to crop plants beyond the limits of a given species.
MOLECULAR PROCESSES AND ADAPTATION RATE
Genetic variations occur spontane-ously and rather rarely in nature. They do not happen in a targeted manner and their repercussions are more or less coincidental. Plant breeding, on the other hand, strives to achieve quicker variations and ad-aptations. And modern genetic engi-neering again significantly increases the speed of these events. However, no fundamental differences are to be found when comparing the mo-lecular processes that lead to the
Classic breeding involves genetic
modifications and selection of
useful traits. Under man’s influence,
today’s varieties of rice, wheat and
maize thus arose from their wild
primitive forms.
Source:
Riz sauvage classique: Henk Mentink, flickr.com
Plante de riz: Prisma
Petit épeautre: Prisma
Plante de blé: Simone Nägeli, UZH
Téosinte: Karl Haro von Mogel, flickr.com
Plante de maïs: Prisma
Illustration A: From the primitive form to the cultivated plant
Rice plantClassic wild rice
SUMMARY OF THE NRP 59 PROGRAMME SYNTHESIS
9
generation of genetic variants, be it spontaneously in nature or purpose-fully by means of genetic engineering.
Years of experience have shown that neither natural evolution nor classic breeding methods harbour se-rious risks for man and nature. Thus, based on the important similarities between natural genetic processes and genetic engineering techniques, one can expect that possible risks linked to green genetic engineering are comparable to those arising from conventional plant breeding.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED PLANTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
NRP 59 intensively dealt with the topic of ‘biosafety’. Eleven out of thirty pro-jects, with a total budget of 3.2 million Swiss francs, addressed the potential environmental risks of genetically modified plants. These projects stud-ied soil ecology, biodiversity, gene flux and the impact on non-target organ-isms. Nine of these projects formed an interdisciplinary consortium including research groups working at the ETH Zurich, the Universities of Zurich, Berne, Basel, Lausanne and Neuchâtel
Wheat plant TeosinteEinkorn wheat Maize plant
10
SUMMARY OF THE NRP 59 PROGRAMME SYNTHESIS
as well as the Agroscope Recken-holz-Tänikon and Changins-Wädens-wil research stations run by the Swiss Federal Office for Agriculture. In field trials carried out in two locations, the consortium studied the effects of ge-netically modified wheat on symbiotic root fungi, wild grasses, insects, soil microorganisms and plants growing in the vicinity.
The wheat varieties chosen for these experiments had been developed in Switzerland prior to the launch of NRP 59 and with the support of public funds. In the trials, they were used as model plants devoid of any commer-cial purpose.
One project at the University of Neuchâtel also examined the impact of genetically modified maize on ben-eficial soil-dwelling organisms. The Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) analysed the consequences of the cultivation of geneti-cally modified maize on soil fertility. These experiments were performed in the lab-oratory, in greenhous-es and in the field.
None of the research projects re-vealed environmental risks linked to green genetic engineering as such, in-cluding risks specific to Switzerland. This result is consistent with more
than 1000 studies performed world-wide and evaluated within the context of NRP 59.
For over twenty years, field trials with GMPs have been performed throughout the world and four negative effects have been identified:
• resistances in target organisms;
• damage to non-target organisms;
• restriction of biodiversity;
• development of undesirable weeds due to excessive use of herbicides.
These, however, are not typical consequences of genetic engineering and can also arise when cultivating conventionally bred plants or due to unprofessional agricultural practices.
Specialised literature mentions a few laboratory experiments that de-scribe detrimental effects of GMPs
on non-target organ-isms. However, these effects could not be confirmed under re-alistic conditions in the field and are therefore considered by most experts to be negligible.
Several NRP 59 projects have gen-
erated novel scientific methods that can be applied to environmental monitoring of GMP cultivation, be it in the context of field trials or com-mercial crop growing.
None of the identified negative
effects are typical consequences
of genetic engineering, as they
also occur during cultivation
of conventionally bred plants
or due to unprofessional
agricultural practices.
11HUMAN AND ANIMAL HEALTH
Many studies on the repercussions of GMPs on human and animal health have been performed abroad. No ad-ditional investigations in this domain were undertaken within NRP 59, for there is no reason to expect that the human or animal organism in Swit-zerland reacts differently to GMPs than abroad. Additionally, it is not pos-sible to conduct long-term studies within the time frame of a National Research Programme. For this reason, NRP 59 un-dertook a broad anal-ysis of the specialised literature available worldwide. This analysis refutes the often expressed fear that GMPs might pose a risk to human and animal health.
Abroad, genetically modifie plants of the first generation have been cultivated on a large scale for more than fifteen years. These plants car-ry genes of plant or microbial origin, inducing tolerance to herbicides or resistances to pests. All these prop-erties are based on mechanisms of action that are present in nature. Pest resistance, for example, is often brought about by the so-called Bt proteins. In nature, these proteins are produced by Bacillus thuringiensis
soil bacteria. They act specifically on various insect species. In a crystalline form, they are often applied in con-ventional and organic farming, and are considered harmless to human beings, livestock and pets.
Genetically modified plants com-mercially grown abroad have under-gone all intensive safety evaluations. To date, long-term observations and a large number of scientific studies
were not able to de-tect negative effects of commercially used GMPs on human and animal health.
In certain cases, the use of genetical-ly engineered plants might even contrib-
ute to the prevention of health risks. Herbicide-tolerant plants, for exam-ple, make possible the use of less tox-ic pesticides. Especially in developing countries, this can contribute to a re-duction of poisoning in farmers. The use of Bt-maize can also be a source of positive health effects, as it leads to lower concentrations of neuro-toxic or cancer-inducing mycotoxins in food and fodder. These toxins are produced by fungi mainly afflicting diseased and wounded plants.
Genetically modified crop plants of the second generation are in the development phase. They are modi-fied with regard to their components
To date, long-term observations
and a large number of scientific
studies could not demonstrate
negative impact on health of
commercially used GMPs.
12so as to become a healthier alterna-tive to the conventional plant varie-ty or in order to cater to consumers’ special needs. Genetic engineering can for instance serve to improve a plant’s nutritional value or to rid it of undesirable compo-nents. Practical ex-amples thereof are ‘Golden Rice’ with its increased concentra-tion in provitamin A helping to prevent blindness in people suffering from malnutrition, or different varieties of apples, peanuts, rice, tomatoes and soya beans in which the main aller-gens have been reduced, rendering these pla nts easier to digest for peo-ple subject to allergies. The targeted reduction of gluten proteins in cere-als can benefit people suffering from coeliac disease.
Positive effects on health are also ex-pected from geneti-cally modified plants of the third genera-tion. These are used to produce pharmaceutical sub-stances. Finally, GMPs bred for the production of industrially used raw materials are not intended for con-sumption.
ACCEPTANCE OF GREEN GENETIC ENGINEERING
Even though green genetic engineer-ing has been in use in agriculture in various countries for approximate-
ly fifteen years, it is still considered to be a “new technology fraught with risk”. Its acceptance in Europe, including Switzer-land, is still weak. It is striking that the use of genetic engineer-
ing in medicine, so-called red genetic engineering, is now largely accepted (for instance for the production of in-sulin or vaccines).
The concerns of large parts of the population regarding green genet-ic engineering contrast with the fact that, to date, none of the feared neg-
ative effects on health and the environment have been scientifi-cally proven.
It has also been shown that most con-sumers do not recog-nise a direct benefit to be gained from genet-
ically modified foods. NRP 59 research results show that application of genet-ic engineering resulting in a directly perceivable advantage, such as a lower price or prolonged shelf life, is judged more favourably. Consumers are more
SUMMARY OF THE NRP 59 PROGRAMME SYNTHESIS
Even though green genetic
engineering has been in use
for approximately fifteen years,
it is still considered a new
and unsafe technology.
The use of Bt-maize can lead to
positive health effects. It can
lower concentrations of
neurotoxic or cancer-inducing
mycotoxins in food and fodder.
13inclined to buy such products. One can therefore expect that GMPs which are less harmful to the environment, which contribute to a more sustaina-ble form of agriculture or which pres-ent health benefits would be more readily accepted.
EVALUATION OF THE PRODUCT OR THE PROCESS?
The methods applied in the early stag-es of green genetic engineering were based mainly on the integration of foreign DNA from non-cross-able species such as other plants or micro-organisms. The new methods produce a new generation of GMPs. It is, for exam-ple, possible to create plants that do not car-ry foreign DNA. Or one can produce novel plants by means of genetic en-gineering, while leaving behind only small or no traces of the intervention. An-other method enables scientists to carry out genetic modifications in specifically prede-fined rather than ran-dom sites. This makes it possible to check and to follow inter-ventions more precisely, thus simplify-ing risk evaluation. Lastly, one can also
produce plants in which only certain parts, such as leaves or stems but not the fruits, are genetically modified.
Other newly developed techniques enable the steering of gene activity while the genome of the plant remains unaltered.
These new methods make use of ge-netic engineering, but the genetic mod-ification is hardly detectable or even absent in the plants ultimately used for cultivation. Consequently, to describe
these plants as being genetically modified is only partially correct.
Less unexpected effects are linked to these ‘new genera-tion GMPs’ than to conventionally bred plants. With regard to biosafety and from a plant science point of
view, they are therefore superior to con-ventionally bred plants, which harbour many unknown genetic modifications.
For this reason, the potential risks of GMPs of the latest generation should be assessed in a man-ner analogous to that used for plants bred by conventional
methods. Risk assessment should deal with the product, i.e. the plant, and not the plant breeding process.
New methods in green
genetic engineering can
contribute to the
improvement of biosafety.
Concerns regarding the use
of green genetic engineering
in agriculture contrast with
the fact that, to date, none
of the feared negative effects
on health and the environment
have occurred.
14Incidentally, this matches the risk
assessment approach used in the food industry, where a newly developed food item containing the same ingre-dients as an already available one is considered equally safe. The method by which a product was produced is not relevant for its risk assessment.
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND COEXISTENCE
Most GMPs developed to date are not aimed at increasing yield but rath-er at reducing crop losses or, as the case may be, at achieving this reduction at the lowest possible cost. An analysis of the economic potential of GMPs in Swiss ag-riculture shows that these plants could reduce production costs, especially when indirect bene-fits such as direct seeding are taken into account. Direct seeding is of inter-est, not only from an economic but also from an environ-mental point of view: strongly reduced till-age contributes to the reduction of soil ero-sion, a positive feature both in terms of the environment and sustainability.
When the global trend to replace GMPs carrying single traits by plants with combined characteristics is tak-en into account, the agro-economic balance is further shifted in favour of genetically modified plants. Under Swiss agricultural conditions, a com-bined resistance to herbicides and diseases could, for instance, lead to an improved economic efficiency of GMPs.
The expenses arising from coex-istence measures also play an impor-
tant role in terms of economic efficiency. Coexistence is the side by side presence of agricultural sys-tems with and with-out genetically mod-ified plants, neither of these cultivation forms being exclud-ed from the outset
or having to experience drawbacks. This involves safeguarding produc-
tion forms without genetic engineering and guaranteeing consumers’ freedom of choice.
Coexistence meas-ures can lead to addi-tional expenses, par-ticularly due to the
small-scaled agricultural structures in Switzerland. However, calculations
SUMMARY OF THE NRP 59 PROGRAMME SYNTHESIS
In Swiss agriculture, genetically
modified plants could reduce
production costs, particularly
if direct seeding were to be
introduced simultaneously.
Genetic modifications achieved
by new techniques are no longer
detectable in plants intended
for cultivation. Consequently,
to describe these plants as
genetically modified is only
partially correct.
15also show that for all crops the costs of coexistence measures are small com-pared to the total production costs. Expenditures linked to coexistence could also be reduced by creating production zones for agricultur-al forms using GMPs. Such zones already exist, for example for the production of genetically modified maize in certain parts of Portugal. The comparison of Portugal and Switzer-land is relevant, as the size of farming operations is approximately the same in both countries.
Whether or not the savings achieved thanks to the use of GMPs compensate the additional expenses associated with the safeguarding of coexistence varies from case to case. It is important to consid-er the costs and ben-efits of GMPs in the overall context of an agricultural opera-tion. However, calcu-lations indicate that the additional profit achieved thanks to GMPs is relatively small in relation to the total income of the operation and that it is nev-er higher than the direct payments
the farmers are entitled to. For this reason, proof of ecological perfor-mance, which is linked to the direct
payments, remains of central importance to all farmers, including those growing GMPs. If Swiss agriculture decides to support coexistence, the re-quirements linked to these direct pay-ments must not pe-
nalise any form of sustainable plant production.
SIGNIFICANCE OF FIELD TRIALS
Field trials are essential to plant breeding in order to identify interac-tions between plants and their envi-ronment. This applies to conventional
as well as genetic en-gineering methods. While the climate in the greenhouse can be controlled, plants growing outdoors are subject to chang-ing weather condi-tions. The numbers and the diversity of pests in the green-house are also very
different from those to be found in the field. All these factors influ-ence growth and yield of the plants.
The additional profit
achieved thanks to GMPs
is relatively small in relation
to the total income of
an operation and is never
higher than the direct
payments the farmers are
entitled to.
The costs of coexistence
measures are small compared
to the total production costs.
And they could be further
reduced by creating GMP
production zones.
16Opposite trends and an opportunity for sustainability
Worldwide increase
The use of green genetic engineering in agriculture is increasing
worldwide. It is however strongly concentrated in a small number
of countries (including USA, Brazil, Argentina, India and Canada).
In 2011, the global acreage devoted to the cultivation of genetically
modified plants increased by eight percent to 160 million hectares.
In the meantime, GMPs are cultivated in 29 countries, 19 of which are
emerging or developing nations, showcasing a GMP acreage growth
that is twice as high as in industrial countries. They comprise approxi-
mately 15 of the worldwide 16.7 million GMP-cultivating farmers.
The ISAAA (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-
biotech Applications) estimates that ten additional countries
will be growing GMP crops by 2015.
The increased use of genetically modified plants is pre-
dominantly observed for crops which have been on the market for
quite some time, namely soya beans, maize, rapeseed and cotton.
To a significantly smaller extent, sugar beets, potatoes, alfalfa,
zucchini, tomatoes, papayas, peppers and poplars can be added
to this list. Some of these crops might also be of interest to
Swiss agriculture.
Approximately one quarter of the worldwide crop acreage
(40 million hectares) is dedicated to GMPs into which several traits
(‘stacked traits’) have been introduced by genetic engineering.
Currently, research on more than 90 additional crops is being
performed abroad, aiming to equip these plants with improved
features by means of genetic engineering and to make them
available to agriculture.
Opposite trend in Europe
In Europe, on the other hand, the development and testing of new
GMPs has significantly decreased in the last ten years. In 2004, the
Swiss company Syngenta relocated its research in the area of plant
genetic engineering to the USA. In 2012, the German company BASF
SUMMARY OF THE NRP 59 PROGRAMME SYNTHESIS
Caption
Developing and emerging countries
Industrial countries
Total
17
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Illustration B: Global cultivation area of genetically modified plants(in millions of hectares)
Source: Surface mondiale de culture de
plantes génétiquement modifiées, ISAAA
18also announced that the development and commercialisation of all
GMPs destined for the European market would be discontinued and
that the headquarters of the BASF Plant Science group company
would be moved to the USA. The BASF research facilities in Gatersleben
(Germany) and Svalöv (Sweden) will be closed. Only the production
of already existing products, such as the Amflora potato variety
displaying increased starch content, will be continued.
Relocation of research and development is not only due to the
critical attitude towards genetic engineering. The development
costs in Europe are also particularly high, which must in no small
part be attributed to the tremendous safety requirements. At
the same time, the consequence of these high development and
safety costs is that very few companies are at all able to develop
GMPs. Hence, precisely the extensive authorisation and safety
requirements favour the (equally criticised) concentration of GMP
development on just a few companies
A contribution to sustainability
The increasing global demand for and production of food affect
the environment. Swiss agriculture too is reaching its limits in the
implementation of economic, environmental and social requirements.
Green genetic engineering offers prospects for reducing production
costs, environmental impact and risk of crop losses, for example
through the use of genetically modified sugar beets or potatoes.
Furthermore, the application of genetic engineering methods
could serve to reduce the treatment of apple trees with fungicides
or streptomycin to fight apple scab and fire blight.
In addition, trends in research and development suggest
the availability in the foreseeable future of new plant varieties,
better adapted to climate change and capable of reducing the
continued high use of nitrogen and phosphor in Swiss agriculture.
SUMMARY OF THE NRP 59 PROGRAMME SYNTHESIS
19For this reason, it is important to examine genetically modified plants not only in the laboratory and the greenhouse but also in the field, whether they are earmarked for re-search purposes or a concrete ap-plication. As is the case with every oth-er breeding meth-od, lines displaying unwanted side ef- fects are excluded from further breeding steps.
Not only unde-sirable but also un-expected positive effects can emerge in the field. For in-stance, the resistance to certain path-ogens can be stronger outdoors than in the greenhouse.
The numerous experiments per-formed in the context of the field trials in Zurich-Reckenholz and Pully pro-vide a comprehensive picture of the interactions between transgenic wheat and its environment. Several differences between convention-ally bred and geneti-cally modified wheat varieties were thus identified. For many traits however, these differences were smaller than those observed between various con-ventional wheat lines. Site-specific
variations were also found. These too were more important than the differences between transgenic and non-transgenic plants.
Only field trials can yield such results, and they provide the foun-
dation for designing wisely further exper-iments in the labora-tory and the green-house. Authorisation procedures, com-munication, logistics and implementation, as well as protection of the fields were also challenging fea-
tures of the NRP 59 field trials. The required expertise and the expenses were enormous.
Particularly the protection of the trial plots against targeted acts of vandalism resulted in high costs. The safety measures implemented during NRP 59 cost an additional 0.78 franc
per franc spent on research. For future field trials involving GMPs, an improve-ment of the general set-up is therefore recommended. This should above all in-
clude the setting up of so-called ‘protected sites’, trial fields guarded against willful acts of destruction. This request has already been taken
The creation of protected
sites would substantially
facilitate the performance
of field trials.
Field trials are needed
to pinpoint interactions
between plants and their
environment. This applies
to conventional as well
as genetic engineering
methods.
20into account within the scope of the new message issued by the Feder-al Council concerning the advance-ment of education, research and in-novation for the years 2013 to 2016: special funds will be allocated to build a protected trial site on the grounds of the Agroscope Recken-holz-Tänikon (ART) research station.
In order to be able to carry on with plant science research in Switzerland, it is also recommended to facilitate au-thorisation procedures for the delib-erate release of genetically modified plants.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
An analysis of the legal aspects, per-formed within the context of NRP 59, determined the extent to which the Swiss Gene Tech-nology Act (GTA) defines an adequate framework for the co-existence of agricul-ture forms with and without genetically modified plants. The study concludes that article 7 of the Gene Technology Act should continue to serve as the target standard for this coexistence, but that
an adaptation of the legal framework is necessary. The study in particu-lar suggests that article 7 includes a detailed delegation of competence to the Federal Council, which would
then be in charge of guaranteeing the co-existence of various production forms.
Furthermore, ad-aptations of the le-gal framework, to be implemented before the moratorium runs
out, should also include criteria and procedures regarding the potential establishment of GMP-free or GMP production zones.
The creation of protected trial sites would considerably facilitate the car-rying out of field experiments. Sim-plified registration and authorisation procedures for field trials are con-ceivable within article 14 of the law on genetic engineering. A long-term
moratorium on the commercial cultiva-tion of genetically modified plants in Switzerland, as de-manded by certain stakeholder groups, would require a re-vision of the Federal
Constitution: in its current form, it li-cences certain protective and support-ive measures favouring agricultural
SUMMARY OF THE NRP 59 PROGRAMME SYNTHESIS
A long-term moratorium on
the commercial cultivation
of GMPs in Switzerland would
require a revision of the Federal
Constitution.
The legal framework for the
potential establishment of GMP-
free or GMP production zones
needs to be created before the
moratorium runs out.
21forms using conventionally bred plants, but on the whole it allows for a well-regulated and equitable coexist-ence of various agricultural methods.
CENTRE OF LEARNING AND MONITORING
Inevitably, social opposition as well as regulatory restrictions of green ge-netic engineering in Switzerland also influence the research performed at universities and the education of stu-dents and Ph.D. students. Ultimately, this could lead to an exodus of the available expertise in the area of green genetic engineering.
However, maintaining expertise is essential: even if Switzerland decides to permanently forbid green genetic engineering in agriculture, the num-ber of products worldwide produced by genetic engineering or containing genetically engineered components is increasing steadily. And these will not stop at the Swiss border. A loss of expertise in Switzerland would eventually lead to a weakened abili-ty to efficiently monitor biosafety. In the same way, scientific research de-pends on expertise to further develop technology needed to guarantee the sustainability of our agriculture.
«I noted it is very difficult to always base policy on evidence.
I do appreciate that a lot more factors influence policy: ethical factors,
social factors, economic factors. But where scientific evidence is not
being used, there is an obligation for our policy makers and politicians
to explain why they reject the evidence. I think as long as they do
that, as long as there is transparency, I would be content with that.»
Anne Glover
Chief Scientific Advisor, European Commission
22Central conclusions and recommendations
1. Genetic engineering to serve sustainable agriculture Swiss agriculture is not in a position to reach the assigned environ-
mental objectives with its current production methods. At the same
time, it is under strong pressure to increase its competitiveness
by reducing production costs. This double challenge can only be
successfully met if new technologies, including green genetic
engineering, are not excluded from the outset.
Research and development in the field of genetically modified
plants (GMPs) must give these two objectives the highest priority.
In this context, the support granted to research and development
by the public sector is particularly important. It does not pursue
commercial goals, is interested in common welfare and respects
small farmers’ and seed companies’ interests.
2. Risk evaluation must be geared towards the final product rather than the plant breeding procedure
GMPs do not, in principle, present a higher risk than conventionally
bred crops. Basically, any breeding process is liable to generate
plants that have negative effects on the environment or human and
animal health. Plants harbouring such traits are eliminated during
the development phase.
Pertaining to possible consequences of deficient agricultural
practices (e.g. resistance development), no significant differences
between conventionally bred crops and GMPs were detected.
Neither NRP 59 nor the numerous similar research projects
performed abroad found any environmental or health risks linked
specifically to genetically modified plants. For this reason, risk
evaluation of crop plants should focus on the plant and its concrete
application in agriculture, irrespective of the breeding technique
chosen to produce it. Prior to approval for commercial cultivation,
new crops should be tested as to how well tolerated they are by
humans, animals and the environment. This assessment should
be performed in the context of the planned application and
SUMMARY OF THE NRP 59 PROGRAMME SYNTHESIS
23independently of the breeding method used to produce these plants.
This approach is also advisable as the technological developments
have made it very difficult to distinguish the differences between
conventionally bred plants and GMPs.
3. Field trials are important and must be facilitated
Positive or negative properties of plants can be more or less pronounced
in the laboratory, the greenhouse and the field. Therefore, field trials are
important for the evaluation of biosafety and the improvement of GMPs
and conventionally bred plants. Ultimately, plants need to be developed
in the field and their potential advantages and disadvantages examined
in the same setting, as that is where they will be commercially grown.
As compared to the international situation, the costs related to
field trials in Switzerland are extremely high. For this reason, Swiss
researchers and companies usually perform their experiments abroad.
However, the high additional expenses linked to safety measures could
be significantly reduced thanks to the establishment of protected sites.
Such sites would also make it possible to considerably simplify
the authorisation procedure for field trials. The reduced additional
costs would allow Swiss plant scientists to perform their research in
Switzerland more often, leading to a strengthening of the attractiveness
of this country as a centre of research.
4. Long-term observation of health effects is advisable Scientific studies performed abroad in large numbers during the last
20 years have not detected negative impacts of GMPs on the health of
humans and animals. Such studies have not been conducted within
NRP 59, as there is no reason to believe that humans and animals in
Switzerland react differently to GMPs from those abroad. Nevertheless,
long-term observation for the purpose of post-market monitoring
is advisable and could be organized similarly to the reporting office
for adverse drug reactions.
In principle, long-term observations should apply to all new crops,
regardless of the chosen breeding procedure, and should take into
account positive as well as negative effects.
24 5. In Switzerland, the economic benefit of GMPs currently available
for commercial cultivation would be relatively small. It might however increase in the future
Crop plants already commercially cultivated abroad and carrying a
combined herbicide and disease resistance could contribute to a
reduction of production costs in Swiss agriculture as well; particularly
because such plants allow for direct seeding, a method that also
has a positive effect on the environment.
The increase in yield that could arise from pest and disease preven-
tion thanks to the use of GMPs is different for each crop. For the GMPs
presently available for commercial cultivation abroad, this increase
is rather small. However, among the nearly 90 GMPs developed in
other countries, some crops, such as sugar beets and potatoes, could
generate significant additional value with respect to production costs
and yield in Switzerland.
For this reason, Switzerland should not base its legal framework on
the benefit of GMPs presently cultivated abroad, but on the potential
of future plants to promote sustainable agriculture.
Upcoming research should put more emphasis on combined plant
traits as well as the likely future potential of GMPs.
6. La coexistence de plantes utiles conventionnellement sélectionnées et de PGM est possible dans l’agriculture suisse
En principe, la coexistence de systèmes de culture avec et sans utili-
sation de plantes génétiquement modifiées est possible en Suisse.
Les coûts varient selon la plante utilisée et la structure de la région de
culture, et ne représenteraient en moyenne qu’un faible pourcentage
des frais de production. De plus, ces coûts diminueraient fortement
en cas d’accords à grande échelle entre exploitations agricoles
avoisinantes, ou grâce à la culture de plantes à très faible risque
de dissémination fortuite (par exemple, les pommes de terre).
Le problème principal est toutefois que le total des économies
réalisées au niveau des coûts de production et que les bénéfices dus
à la suppression des ravageurs et des maladies grâce à l’utilisation de
PGM sont du même ordre de grandeur que les suppléments de frais
SUMMARY OF THE NRP 59 PROGRAMME SYNTHESIS
25engendrés pour l’achat des semences génétiquement modifiées
et la coexistence des deux modes de culture. D’un point de vue
économique, la culture de PGM serait donc surtout avantageuse dans
les régions où les frais liés à la coexistence sont bas grâce à des
accords entre exploitations agricoles, ainsi que lorsque sont
employées des PGM ne nécessitant que de très faibles, voire aucunes
distances d’isolation par rapport aux exploitations voisines.
Lors de l’élaboration de la règlementation sur la coexistence,
il sera donc recommandé aux législateurs de se baser sur des
critères scientifiquement fondés (par exemple, dans le cas des
distances d’isolation) et d’encourager les accords entre agriculteurs
ou, dans la mesure du possible, la mise en place de zones de
culture pour les PGM.
7. The conditions under which direct payments are granted and the Proof of Ecological Performance (PEP) record should not discriminate GMPs
The subsidies distributed in the context of the PEP are significantly
higher than the increase in productivity to be gained from the
cultivation of GMPs. Denying farmers growing GMPs the PEP in fact
translates into a prolongation of the moratorium. This is not
justifiable from a scientific point of view, as GMPs and
conventionally bred plants are not a priori different in terms
of their environmental impact. The characterisation of the PEP
and the associated direct payments should not be based on the
plant breeding procedure, but rather on scientifically identifiable
environmental impacts of specific crops and the corresponding
cultivation methods.
8. Consumers and voters are critical of green genetic engineering, but most want freedom of choice
Only 20 to 30 percent of all Swiss consumers are willing to buy
genetically modified foods. However, 70 to 80 percent back freedom
of choice between genetically modified and conventional products.
Investigations performed within NRP 59 as well as similar studies
26completed abroad show that there is an upward trend in terms of
acceptance of genetically modified products when the products
offered present substantial and readily communicated advantages
for consumers and the environment. However, the currently
available commercially cultivated GMPs do not yet meet these
requirements. The regulations that apply in Switzerland at the
present time regarding the labelling of genetically modified
products are sufficient to guarantee consumers’ freedom of choice.
But genetically modified products would need to be on offer to
ensure that this freedom of choice is de facto existent and that
the market can ultimately decide on the competitiveness of GMPs.
9. Legal framework should facilitate coexistence At least implicitly and even though this is mainly to curtail the
potential risks linked to genetic engineering, the Federal Constitution,
the Gene Technology Act (GTA) and the law on agriculture call for an
orderly and equal coexistence of the agricultural use of crops having
been bred by different methods. A short-term prolongation of the
moratorium, providing time to define the legal framework for
the period after its expiration, is possible. The establishment
of a long-term moratorium or a ban on GMPs would however require
a modification of the Federal Constitution.
In the revised law on genetic engineering, article 7 should continue
to serve as the target standard for the regulation of coexistence. To
this effect, the law should however be amended so as to allow for the
coexistence without losses of various agricultural production forms.
Additionally, the Federal Council should be empowered to decree
detailed regulations for the safeguarding of coexistence.
The Gene Technology Act should also include additional provisions
regarding traceability, documentation and labelling, enforcement
of measures guaranteeing coexistence as well as liability.
Finally, legislators should define criteria and procedures for
the establishment of genetic engineering-free zones. Such criteria
should deal with specific protection and promotion needs.
SUMMARY OF THE NRP 59 PROGRAMME SYNTHESIS