Risk assessment dialogue: J. Wirz

The leaked document on the EUROPABIO public relation strategy paper from Burson Marstellar has provoked considerable concern. Like others, I was disturbed by the recommendation to focus exclusively on products, thus ignoring technologies. The reason for my concern may be naive. As a biologist I believe that products from living beings are always the results of life processes and that whatever the biotechnology, - genetic engineering included - it would not result in products but would interfere with, master or suppress processes. Therefore, risk assessment research and in particular evaluation of transgenic plants, which excludes the evaluation of production systems and technologies, would be unlikely to fulfil principle ethical demands.

To use a metaphor: There is no point in talking about whether money is good or bad without taking into account the way it was obtained. Money earned by selling drugs is of a different value from that earned by labouring eight hours daily. Or, money used to corrupt is different from that used to pay for bread at a bakery. Obviously, the aspects of context and processes are as important for ethical judgement formation as the substances and products involved.

A prerequisite for discussing the evaluation of technologies is to integrate them into the widest context possible. As a consequence, risk assessment evaluation of transgenic plants must include aspects other than just risks and benefits that have a bearing directly on the environment and health. Transgenic plants pay off only under very precise conditions of agricultural production, socio-political constraints and economic factors. Widening the frame of assessment of transgenic crop plants does not mean drawing attention away from the immediate questions related to them but necessitates, in addition, focusing on long standing and persistent questions and problems related to modern farming.

In his book "Gentechnik fùr die Dritte Welt?" Klaus M. Leisinger (1991) - director of the Novartis foundation for collaboration with third world countries - clearly states that the implementation of modern agricultural technologies is dependent on suitably adapted political and economic contexts. New technologies are likely to improve the nutritional, health and ecological situation in these countries only under fair and balanced political and economic conditions. The balance between technology, economics and politics holds true for European countries too, albeit in a modified or adapted form.

I would like to depart from the assumption that there are no immediate ecological and health risks or benefits of transgenic crop plants. What are the advantages or disadvantages of their implementation in agriculture? Some economic as well as socio-political responses to this question can be given.

It is beyond any doubt that the prevalent agricultural system, i.e. conventional farming follows the rule of privatised profits and socialised costs. Agriculture is one of the most important sources of water and air pollution (e.g. 90% of the total NH3 emission) and thus results in considerable environmental and public health costs that are only partly compensated for by the prices of the products.

A comparison of different agricultural systems in the Netherlands evaluated their economic sustainability (Klaverkamp & van Hoytema 1990, Davidson et al. 1996). Conventional farming was compared with a system following the National Environmental Plan (NEP) and biodynamic (BD) agriculture. NEP basically intends to reduce the ammonium emissions by closing the mineral cycles by manure processing. BD farming intends to reduce any external input to a minimum and thus allow the mineral cycle to reach complete equilibrium. It should be mentioned that this farming system was introduced by Rudolf Steiner in 1923 and includes the development of substances (the preparations) to increase health and fertility (Koepf 1989, 1993). Table 1 gives some figures from this analysis.

	Conventional	NEP	BD
Input of N^a	920,000	460,000	66,000
Efficiency of N-use	29%	49%	>100%^d
Biocides^a	18,000	9,000	0
Copper^a	1,300	650	0
Cadmium^a	10.8	5	0
Cost effectiveness^b		7.90	4.80
Environmental return^c	23.00	42.00	112.00

Table 1: Comparison of different agricultural systems with respect to environmental loads and costs. a) in tons per year b) reduction of added value/reduced amount of emission in NLG(Dutch Guilders)/kg compared with the conventional farming system c) added value/amount of emission in NLG/kg; the added values is calculated as gross production value minus raw materials and services to third parties; d) this value is due to the fact that the output of N in the products exceeds the input by processed manure; the surplus is due to biological N-fixation.

Conventional farming is most ineffective with respect to N-usage and contributes to a considerable environmental load of heavy metals. This fact is reflected economically by a moderate environmental return. On the other hand, BD and NEP agriculture exhibit more favourable characteristics, both in terms of environmental load and economy.

It should be mentioned that NEP, as well as BD farming result in a reduction of gross production and that consequences for the industries providing fertilizers, cattle fodder etc. are not included in the study. Also, the economic situation of the individual farmer is worst in BD agriculture due to reduced gross production and increased labour intensity. However, if farmers were made liable for the environmental costs of their production systems, the economic disadvantage of BD might disappear.

Currently, transgenic crops are designed exclusively for conventional farming systems. Here, they are likely to improve ecological impacts and the economic situation. At the same time, they do not contribute to true sustainable agriculture. Problems related to pollution and health remain. Since most countries in Europe exhibit agricultural overproduction, the search for solutions based on thorough economically and ecologically sustainable agriculture seems mandatory. Up to now, transgenic plants do not provide a tool for the transformation of European agriculture.

Recent polls (see e.g. Eurobarometer 1997) have shown that consumers are not only sensitive to issues related to health and ecological risks of transgenic plants but also express great concern about the "ethics" of production. Their concerns include matters related to aesthetic qualities of farming, i.e. diversity, landscape management and the notion of intrinsic values of both animals and plants. Food quality is considered to consist of good products as well as good farming practices. The difficulty assessing such categories by means of conventional reductionist approaches cannot be overlooked; they escape the frame of technology assessment research and evaluation.

Nonetheless, approaches to include such categories have been undertaken. Based on the fundamental attitudes towards nature and man distinguished by Petran Kockelkoren (1995) a trial has been undertaken to transform his attitude categories into instruments for judgment formation (Hamstra and Matze 1996). Whether a person sees themselves as "dominator", "steward", "partner" or "participant" of nature makes a huge difference with respect to his actions. Biotechnological and agricultural methods are set in a relational context with these attitudes and may be accepted or rejected, accordingly.

Such attempts have not resulted in final solutions to how genetic engineering should be used in food production, but nonetheless, they should belong to an open and public debate. Unorthodox views should not be discarded because of their novelty, but only on the basis of proven invalidity.

As a consequence, the black and white picture drawn by promoters and opponents of transgenic crop plants could give way to a more detailed, graded one. Respect for consumer's values and needs is a prerequisite for evaluating the necessity of genetic engineering in food production. To what extent are public concerns integrated into the considerations when launching transgenic crops?

We should not overlook the fact that most scientific attempts to improve or change current farming practices are strongly biased: they are technology oriented. The preceding observations have shown, however, that the narrow focus on technology neglects broader ecological and economic contexts, as well as consumer's concerns. Is there a scientific basis for working on these neglected aspects? A closer inspection of the current scientific paradigm can show that the answer is yes.

It is a prescientific presupposition (Rehmann 1996) which has led the sciences to reduce questions about life to questions about functions. The success of this reduction must be fully acknowledged in view of the insights we have thereby gained into biological processes. At the same time, the very same reduction has expelled questions related to meaning and quality from the scientific agenda. Approaches are needed that reintroduce "quality" and "value" in biological science. These concepts do not represent additional categories in the conventional scientific methods but emphasise new non-functional, i.e. meaningful contexts.

There exists a substantial number of approaches: holistic biology, Goethean science, science of complexity etc. They all share the notion of the "whole". In this respect they could be called anti-reductionistic. Consequently, these approaches result in new agricultural technologies. Organic agriculture, BD farming, perennial, multi-species agriculture are not relics of bygone ages but production systems with an entirely different underlying paradigm. Diversity, closed production cycles, local farming etc. are components of a contextual production that explicitly forfeits maximal yields in favour of true sustainability. Man does not compete with nature but cooperates with her.

Understanding life and life processes calls for a pluralistic scientific approach. Our task to nourish mankind in the future asks for pluralism of agricultural production systems. Both need joint efforts and the insight that competition has to be replaced by cooperation. Are industrial agriculture and the agro-industry ready to prove their real partnership by allowing for and stimulating the development of alternative technologies?

Davidson, M. D., van Soest, J. P. and de Wit, G. (1996): Financiële waardening van der milieuschade door de Nederlandse landbouw. Delft.

Hamstra, A. and Matze, M. (1997): DNA and food technology - between natural food and food design. In: The future of DNA, Wirz & Lammerts van Bueren eds. Dordrecht, Boston, London.

Koepf, H. H. (1993): Research in biodynamic agriculture. Methods and results. Kimberton.

Kockelkoren, P. J. H. (1995): Ethical aspects of plant biotechnology. In: Agriculture and Spirituality,Essays from the Crossroad Conference at Wageningen Agricultural University, Utrecht.

Kalverkamp, D. G. and van Hoytema, D. N. (1990): In the search of sustainable agriculture. Utrecht.

Rehmann-Sutter, Chr. (1996) Das Leben beschreiben. Über Handlungszusammenhänge in der Natur. Würzburg.

Evaluation of both products and technologies