SUMMARY OF THE NRP 59 PROGRAMME … · SUMMARY OF THE NRP 59 PROGRAMME SYNTHESIS Benefits and Risks of the Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified Plants AVOIDING RISKS, SEIZING

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.


Benefits and Risks of the Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified PlantsAVOIDING RISKS, SEIZING OPPORTUNITIES, PRESERVING COMPETENCES


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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 effects 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


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


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


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.


Benefits and Risks of the Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified Plants National Research Programme NRP 59

Documents

SUMMARY OF THE NRP 59 PROGRAMME … · SUMMARY OF THE NRP 59 PROGRAMME SYNTHESIS Benefits and Risks of the Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified Plants AVOIDING RISKS, SEIZING