Alexander Golikov

Nezavisimaya Gazeta” (“The Independent Gazette”), Moscow, 25 September 2002, p. 14
 
Any decision made on genetic engineering may become a lawsuit

The European parliament has voted for obligatory labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms (GMO) or derived from them. Since September binding labeling of such food has been enforced in Russia. Earlier, Europe has practically banned commercialization of new GMOs submitted to registration after 1998. Along with this Japan gave the O.K. to “Hercules” – genetically modified corn resistant to insects, and India – to cotton. Recently Germany and France have approved large-scale field trial releases of genetically modified corn varieties from leading biotech companies. At the same time a number of countries of the south of Africa have refused to accept humanitarian help because it contained genetically modified corn (not having forgotten, however, to ask for equivalent cash loan instead). And they did it despite of the most severe famine, which according to the UN forecast may take away more than 12 million lives.
In other words life goes in an impetuous and unpredictable way; conflict between supporters and opponents of GMOs becomes tougher, the number of interdictions and moratoriums as well as that of approvals grows almost in geometrical progression. And nothing is easy to understand …
Alexander GOLIKOV – UNEP expert on biosafety and one of developers of the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol (signed in Montreal in 2000), considers that the coming of GMOs in the world’s life is inevitable no matter what obstacles are on the way.

Dr. Golikov, what do you think is the reason for such an obvious conflict around GMOs?
I tried to analyze the situation and came to a conclusion that such polarization of opinions on modern biotechnology is an absolutely normal situation caused by the social uniqueness of biotechnology; at least, it is difficult to find another technology close to it in terms of controversy and social perception..

So, where is the uniqueness?
First, we deal with “replacement technology”. With its introduction, genetic engineering (practical synonym of modern biotechnology) does not merely supplement or “assist” existing technologies but rather replaces them or “sets them aside”. Unlike other technologies it initiates redistribution of power and interests, supersedes traditional practices, occupies a dominating position and “subdues” technological fields, which were previously undisputed “kings”. Breeders and agricultural chemists ruled undividedly before agricultural biotechnology came into practice and biotechnology significantly moved them off their “thrones” – agricultural chemistry is noticeably losing its involvement. Thus, according to the latest data decline in herbicide use on soy plantings in USA (more than 60% of the crop is genetically modified) and Argentina (more than 90%) is considerable although wavy – up to 20 percent. Amount of insecticides used on GM crops resistant to insect pests dropped by 60-100 percent! The situation is similar in China (world number one user of insecticides) where farmers growing insect-resistant cotton have practically stopped using insecticides!

All this would hardly please former principals of agriculture. With emerging conflicts of interest- and redistribution of influence and property rights, opposition to genetically modified products grows. I don’t think there is much risk in predicting a new boom in the conflict with the appearance on the market of GM plants as environmentally friendly sources of renewable energy (plant oil for production of combustive materials, fuels and lubricants). It is very unlikely that the traditional industry of energy sources (crude oil, gas, coal) will remain indifferent.. So, time will come again to learn many “new and interesting” opinions regarding GM thrillers and nightmares.

Genetic engineering is leading technology requiring huge capital investments, which may naturally lead to concentration of property rights and know-how in the hands of a restricted club of owners. As a rule these are large multinational corporations. At the same time there is no place on Earth where agricultural biotechnology and its products would not be requested. Public activists treat the situation as a threat of imperialism and globalization. This is where war starts against globalization in general regarding companies in particular with genetic engineering as a target. This is extremely convenient – the technology is new and often associated with fiction thrillers and it is not easy to understand the technology because special knowledge is required at least at the slightest degree. Therefore, hindering technology is much easier.. And it could be presented as a noble occupation for one rescues both humankind and the environment. So, conflicts of interest will multiply along with the development of biotechnology and it is unlikely that the opposition to GMOs will decrease..


Is it really so? Counteraction grows mainly in Europe and in the Western hemisphere the situation is opposite as you know.
The perception of GMOs has a very strong national flavor and depends on the political and economic structure of the country, and interrelations between the state, society and industry. These three basic forces – the state, the industry and the public (to be precise, the consumer voting for the technology with his pocket money) – constitute the frame for the perception of GMOs. Countries where all three components are strong and dependent upon each other have developed biotechnology industry and along with it an advanced regulatory mechanism preventing from the commercialization or release into the environment of a GMO that poses a threat to human health and/or to the environment (we speak in terms of real scientifically justified risks, not imagined ones). In the countries where one of the three forces is lacking or is weak, regulatory mechanisms are as a rule “limp”, often because of mechanical copying of regulatory approaches working in the developed countries.

Therefore national flavor could be defined as the interrelation of the three forces. In the USA where the economy is producer driven (“good to Ford is good to America”) the producer guarantees the safety of a product and bears all relevant expenses. Here the principle of “Napoleon’s” codex operates - “the product is safe unless proven unsafe”. In Europe the system is traditionally public driven and the consumer will never buy a product until he is convinced that the product is harmless, so another principle operates – “the product is unsafe unless proven safe”. And each country brings its own nuances, which are sometimes amazing. In England the product is considered unsafe unless proven safe while in France it is considered unsafe even if proven safe. Moreover,in Austria the product is considered unsafe especially if it is proven safe. Such distinctions are stipulated by public perception of technology in the countries and depend entirely on who regulates biotechnology (assesses risk and makes a decision) and on the degree of trust of the public in the regulatory body. We should also note that public perception of any new technology before it becomes a part of habitual and daily life is quite a provisional thing. We could hardly expect that the average person would have the capacity to understand the technology in enough detail to be able to make a competent judgment about it. He would rather follow public statements of few active public groups (industry, environmentalists, human rights, religious, youth, feminist, etc.) and act according to scenario of the group with whom he feels more empathy.

The situation is quite different in developing and less developed countries. They have no industry or if so, it is poorly developed, the population is poor and people are not consumers in the same sense as in the developed world. They are ready to consume everything and cannot vote with their pocket money because they have none. Therefore the operating principles are different. Thus, in India “the product is considered safe even if proven unsafe”. Internationally the country seems to be anti-GM, but domestically they take the genetic construct of the approved Monsanto cotton product and create their own varieties. Still in all international forums India expresses its sincere concern about potential threats of modern biotechnology. More than that, in many African countries the product could be considered safe even if proven unsafe. Their approach – offer us anything you can and we will decide ourselves.

And what do we have?
We have a classical Shakespearean situation “As YOU like it?” The main aim of any bureaucrat or any politician is to guess correctly who (or what) is “YOU”, and what YOU would like at the moment. Guess correctly and you are the hero, guess incorrectly, and – sorry…
This approach is typical incountries with economies in transition – countries of the former USSR and socialist countries. At the first glance there are - the state, the industry and the consumer but the last two forces are weak and completely depend on the first.. Industry is controlled by the government, and the consumer can hardly vote with his pocket money if statistically 70-80% of his budget is spent on food of which lion’s share is reserved for only two products – bread and potato (at least in a number of countries). The consumer would hardly think of choice – his priority will be “more in number, less in price”. Therefore everything depends not on the benefits biotechnology could bring, and not on real or mythical risks but solely on the current political and economic priorities of the country.

Accession to EC (“YOU”) is key priority for many of these countries. Pursuing this aim Estonia, for example, has declared itself a GMO-free zone and said it should become a shield on the way of GMOs from Russia to Europe (therefore EC should help it in creating potential). Similarly Croatia has banned GMOs including research. In our country following “as you like it” has led to a very strange and eclectic situation – different governmental agencies are guided by opposite principles.

Thus according to the government’s decree the Ministry of industry, science and technologies is entitled to determine the biosafety status of GMOs. The Ministry has elaborated the order of GMO registrations approved by the government and developed corresponding rules and procedures. And if the procedures have been carried out strictly under corresponding rules and the Ministry has certified the biosafety status of a GMO, it is logical that in the future, the registered GMO would be treated as a conventional organism.

Far from it! Federal law “On the protection of the environment” came into force in January 2002. Article 50 of this act is strange even with our legislation. It prohibits release into the environment of any living organism that is obtained via an “artificial way” or to which the recipient environment is not the natural habitat. Article 50 of this act also prohibits release of the GMOs without plans for ecological monitoring of the organism and a positive decision of the state ecological expertise (regulations of neither ecological monitoring nor ecological expertise of GMO exist and nothing is said regarding the interpretation of “artificial way”). Permit of the Ministry of Natural resources is required along with the consent from “interested organs of executive power” (another open-ended question - who is going to define this interest?). In other words the Law literally prohibits cultivation (except for in a contained greenhouse) of any man-made hybrid (which means all - alas! – Michurin’s masterpieces) including absolutely all commercial hybrid plants. All commercial hybrids are obtained via an artificial way (they are unlikely to occur in nature and give no fertile posterity), which means that it is forbidden to plant them without a permit (through an unclear, uncertain and extremely long procedure). Moreover, I believe there will be no problem to prove in any court that neither tomatoes nor potatoes should be grown in Russia without special permits because they were brought to Europe only 200-300 years ago and Russia is not their natural habitat. Maize is even more recent, and I won’t speak about such an exotic thing as rice in Kuban’ region, which (if I am not mistaken) was brought there during Soviet times.

So how Russian biotechnologies could be developed in this case?
I am afraid that the only way is per aspera… The situation is such that any (!) decision can trigger a long lawsuit.

What could be done then?
First of all the state itself shall decide what to do with biotechnology. And if it is said that biotechnology should be developed, then the professional regulatory framework should be built. Each state body involved in the regulatory process should have its own precisely designated field, which will not overlap (or at least not disturbing) another agencies’ fields. Not only direct questions regarding biosafety evaluation, GMO registration, etc. should be dealt with. In addition, there are questions of property rights, possible concentration of knowledge and know-how in the hands of the limited “club” of megacorporations, relations between large companies and small producers, ethical problems, etc.

A professional regulatory system is needed and it needs investments, and considerable money. We still invest peanuts while USA and EU spend hundreds of millions dollars on maintenance of the regulatory system. Ireland alone allocates more than 200,000 pounds from the state budget! It is our old practice when regulation of technology is assigned to the agency responsible for its development and promotion. In this case regulatory business is often dealt with just “in combination” and regarded as “another burden”.

There are many other questions to be answered. It was announced recently that variety trials of three Russian potato varieties resistant to Colorado beetle have started. These varieties have been developed by Russian scientist in cooperation with Monsanto using genetic constructs granted by this company. Excellent achievement indeed! But on the other side there is a chance to get into a situation “when we produce boots first and start a campaign to make people wear it afterwards”. Potato which protects itself against Colorado beetle will work only if the concentration of the active protein in leafy tops is several fold higher than the level lethal to the pest. If we don’t maintain seed quality the variety will sooner or later degenerate with the possible loss of the useful trait. Therefore seed producers strictly stipulate that farmers shall not leave seeds for planting and purchase them every season. How do we do that with our potato producers (more that 90% is grown in private “dacha” plots)? It is an open-ended question at this moment, at least to my understanding. Besides that, in order to avoid development of pest resistance, growers must leave 20-40% of the field for non-modified variety – the so-called refuge. How can we make our potato growers do that and not to use their neighbors’ traditional plantings as refuge? So, we have more questions than answers now and we must do serious education to explain to farmers what GMOs are and how they should treat them. And we must start this work right now, not after commercial GMOs become available -to avoid an unfair and irreparable impact on the reputation of the technology.
There is another obligatory condition of the civilized regulation of GMOs. It had been precisely formulated by the EU-U.S. Consultative Forum on biotechnology: “The individuals charged with risk assessment should be well qualified to make decisions in the area under review, be individuals of the highest integrity, and meet stringent requirements for public disclosure of actual and potential conflicts of interest”.

Do you think you could find such people in Russia?
Wrong question – we have enough honest and at the same time professionally educated people. The problem is that the same people develop products, assess risk, make decisions and are even involved in commercialization. Perhaps it is an inevitable transition stage because the three main forces (see above) are literally united (and are presented by the state), therefore in any case a person involved is bound corporately and cannot escape lobbying someone’s interests even theoretically. The situation is complicated with the fact that working groups are mostly formed based not on professional skills of people but rather on their administrative belonging. Thus we have an excessive representation of pure bureaucrats on expert boards. This as well as the absence of independent public funds makes independent assessment difficult (“independent” assessments referred to by public activists often turn out to be a kind of social order with the results easy guessed).

Is the situation so hopeless that the enemies of transgenic potatoes can sleep completely quietly. Too much work to be done that nobody wants to do, poor possibilities, too many enemies, right?
No. There are really many opponents but the number of friends multiplies. The overall cost of US biotech companies is about a trillion dollars. China has declared biotechnology its national priority and is developing about 150 genetically modified plants. Would you believe me if I told you that the world is moving towards biotechnology and the process cannot be reversed despite any resistance. No matter how we protect ourselves against GMOs we will come to the inevitable: the whole world is moving towards the market economy, so if products offered by a new technology are better, cheaper and as safe as traditional products they will be chosen. Besides, time proves the word of the ingenious Max Plank who said about 60 years ago “Not a single scientific innovation came in gradually step by step occupying its place under the Sun. Rather, vice versa its opponents gradually step by step died out and new generations came in the world getting the idea from the very beginning”. The problem is how much time is needed and by what manner will this or that country will regulate the technology. If we fail to create our own reliable, professional and transparent regulatory system in a timely manner, we may be too late and lose our share in this super-useful and super-profitable business.