This statement from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors raises many important issues. To take just one example,

'...the Commission is currently undergoing a number of studies looking at any so far unforeseen risks. One of these studies states:

".....there is no precise harmonisation of methodologies to assure the safety of transgenic food products, it being difficult to use traditional animal feeding studies for toxicological assessments. This clearly raises biosafety issues for the use of GM products in food. In vivo and in vitro validated nutritional-toxicological testing procedures are urgently required. ..... if the testing procedure investigated in this project does not allow assessment of the toxicity of the gene products introduced into the food product via the GM plants, the whole strategy for the safety assessment of novel foods from GM plants will need to be revised". Ref
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life/gmo/04-food/04-04-project.html

We believe it would be inappropriate to allow GM releases, particularly into the food chain, until such research is complete. Otherwise the purpose of the research - to inform biosafety decision making on a scientific basis - will be frustrated.'
---
http://www.rics.org/ricscms/bin/show?class=Policy&template=/includes/showpolicy.html&id=646
Towards a strategic vision of life sciences and biotechnology

18 December 2001

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

TOWARDS A STRATEGIC VISION OF LIFE SCIENCES AND BIOTECHNOLOGY:
CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

A RESPONSE BY THE ROYAL INSTITUTION OF CHARTERED SURVEYORS (RICS)

RECOMMENDATIONS

*RICS urges caution against prematurely converting science into applied technology without thorough risk assessments having been fully carried out and without regulations in place to ensure cross contamination does not occur.

*RICS sees the potential benefits that are to be had from the development of GM technologies, particularly in relation to the health of people in developing countries. However, lack of enthusiasm for GM testing in the West may mean such countries become expensive controlled experiments for the developed world. This is not acceptable.

*RICS supports the development of other, less risky forms of biotechnology which may benefit developing countries whilst other technologies are still being tested. An example of this is Marker Assisted Selection or MAS.

*RICS is concerned about the prospect of cross contamination and recognises the impact this could have on other agricultural sectors, in particular the organic sector. We believe caution should be exercised in relation to separation distances and harvested crop segregation and that proper regulations must be in place to stop such situations occurring. Cross contamination in North America has lead to a loss in exports for some companies. This will have an impact on capital land value.

*For such safeguards to be made robust it may be advisable in Europe to require all produce from holdings growing even small amounts of GM crops to be labeled as GM crops. This would minimise any chance of consumers inadvertently consuming GM material when they choose not to.

*RICS is concerned at the use of intellectual property rights in the form of patenting that is being use to protect GM innovators. Whilst recognising the need for this protection, RICS is concerned that landowners may be unfairly penalised when, for example, their land is contaminated through no fault of their own.

*RICS is concerned that without proper regulations and safeguards, medicinal GMOs may cross into the food chain with unknown consequences. Containment considerations should be addressed prior to introduction.

*RICS calls for continued monitoring of GMOs already licensed for use.

*Traceability and registration of land is essential if the land and property rights of landowners are to be protected.
 

TOWARDS A STRATEGIC VISION OF LIFE SCIENCES AND BIOTECHNOLOGY:

Introduction

This response by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) is largely confined to those areas of direct interest to its members as professional managers and advisers on land, property and construction issues. Our comments are referenced in relation to the numbered pages of the consultation document, together with supplementary observations of relevance. The majority of the comments provided relate to the introduction of GMOs in agriculture. However, other forms of GMO environmental release such as in forestry and land bio-remediation also have potential implications for sustainable land management.

Comments on consultation document

Below are the detailed comments of RICS relating to specific text in the consultation document. Text from the document itself is given below bold type and is referenced to the original page document numbers.

p3 At the European Council in Lisbon in March 2000, the European Union set itself a new strategic goal for the next decade: to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion;

RICS does not take issue with the importance of building a knowledge based economy. However, it is important to recognise the limits of current knowledge at any one point in time, particularly in relation to biology. It is especially important that the conversion of science into applied technology does not take place prematurely in this field given that biological organisms form the core foundation of agriculture and the wider living environment. The consequences of creating novel biological situations are not yet known and the potential for damage is very real. We therefore urge a scientific approach to the development of GMOs in which thorough and proper risk assessments can be carried out.

The publication of the sequencing of the human genome in 2001, in particular, suggests a greater level of complex functioning in higher organisms than had originally been expected. Little is yet known about this functioning.

p 7 How can the potential of life sciences and biotechnology best be harnessed while at the same time ensuring that this occurs in a manner which is safe for consumers and the environment and consistent with fundamental societal values?;

The RICS believes that there are potential benefits to be gained from the use of biotechnology. As a global organisation, land use in developing countries is an issue we take a great deal of interest in. With suitable agricultural land a relative rarity in many such countries, the ability to ensure good crop yields from fertile land, and in particular, crops with added vitamins to fight disease, would certainly be a huge benefit that advancements in biotechnology may well be able to deliver.

However, it is essential that any such crops have been assessed in terms of safety for the population, the environment, and biodiversity. We would not like to see the developed world’s scientific experiments being carried out in the less developed world. Thorough risk assessments under controlled conditions must be properly carried out.

A report published in 2000 by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation’s (FAO) Global Perspectives Unit, Agriculture: Towards 2015/30, examines global food demand and production projections to the year 2030. The report concludes that "for the world as a whole there is enough, or more than enough, food production potential to meet the growth of effective demand". Ref:
http://www.fao.org/es/ESD/at2015/toc-e.htm

Whilst future use of intensification and expansion of cultivated land is expected, the prognosis for developing countries is positive, with their crop production projected to be 70 percent higher than in the 1990s.

The quantitative analysis in the FAO report has been carried out based on the application of existing technologies only. The FAO calculations specifically exclude a contribution from genetic engineering due to ongoing uncertainties regarding technical performance, biosafety and consumer acceptance.

On the basis of this report there would seem to be little overriding urgency to deploy GM technology in global agriculture in advance of thorough research and risk assessment.

In addition to controversial GMOs, other forms of biotechnology exist which may have great benefit and which may be able to be put into use to the benefit of all at a considerably earlier date. A review should be carried out to establish which biotechnologies are most acceptable to the public. For example, the use of marker assisted selection (MAS) using DNA finger printing techniques is likely to deliver substantial innovation together with considerably reduced risk.

It is worth noting that MAS technology is simultaneously endorsed by both the biotechnology industry and the organic sector.

p 7 To what extent might agricultural biotechnology innovations harm the viability of conventional and organic farming and increase farmer dependency on fewer suppliers for integrated crop management and protection systems? What are the prospects for the co-existence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops, or the assimilation of the techniques of modern biotechnology into conventional and organic farming?;

Agronomic and litigation experience to date in North America, particularly with oilseed rape (canola), has already demonstrated that the arrival of GM crops can lead to the contamination of the non-GM sector. This, of course, includes organically produced food. As a result of this cross contamination, canola in Canada has now lost its export market into the EU. Even growers who have planted non-GM varieties have found no market in Europe for their produce because of the perceived risk of contamination. This situation has arisen because consumer preferences in Europe are currently for non-GM foods.

The situation that has occurred in North America has demonstrated the need for adequate separation distances between GM and non-GM crops. Owing to the number of unknown facts still surrounding GM technology, many members of the general public feel the current separation distances prescribed for the field trials here in the UK are inadequate and do not err enough on the side of caution.

Because of additional pre and post harvest on farm segregation difficulties, particularly through the carry over of seed in planting and harvesting machinery, it may be necessary in Europe to require all produce from holdings growing even small amounts of GM crops to be labelled as GM crops, as there may be difficulty in establishing beyond doubt that these crops are GM free.

RICS believes that above all, consumers must be able to make a choice as to whether or not to purchase GM crops ­  and this means issues such as the possibility of trace elements of GM foods in non GM produce need to be addressed in the current EU proposals for legislation on food traceability.

RICS believes that traceability issues have significant implications for the economic performance of individual businesses, and also for entire sectors of the agricultural industry. There are also issues arising out of GM technologies relating to the operation of the legal system in relation to the protection of property rights and obligations. The potential impact on the capital and rental value of real estate should be considered.

p10 As the costs of production and distribution are relatively low, innovators need protection from copycat competitors to stimulate research and discovery. The method used is the same intellectual protection system of patents that has served the developed world well over the last two centuries. This provides for a temporary right to exclude others from developing a product, while requiring that the information becomes publicly available. Protection of knowledge is thus vital to any innovative biotechnology company;

Whilst RICS appreciates the difficulties faced by innovators and the need for them to be protected from copycat competitors we are concerned about the method of using the intellectual protection system of patents. Cases exist where, under this system, landowners have found themselves unfairly penalised and the potential for cases such as these to grow in occurrence certainly exists. RICS therefore holds the view that law related to intellectual property rights in biotechnology must not be applied in such a way as to impinge on existing real property rights. Below are some worrying case studies:

a) Monsanto (Canada) V Schmeiser

This case establishes infringement of intellectual property rights by Canadian farmers if proprietary (i.e. patented) DNA is found on their holdings regardless of how it arrived there (i.e. even if the arrival is through transfer of pollen in the wind). This situation imposes inequitable financial and land management sanctions on farmers through no fault of their own.

b) Patent No 6,239,072 (USA)

This patent imposes extensive restrictions on farmers’ use of herbicide tank mixes; in relation to the control of genetically modified herbicide resistant volunteers; in follow on crops, and specifically imposes restrictions on farmers’ use of herbicides not even in the proprietary ownership of the patent holder.

More information on these cases can be found at the following web addresses:
http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?RecID=390
http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=319
http://tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/canola/index.html

These matters need to be equitably resolved within the European patent system.

p15 The Commission proposes to focus on the following actions: Engaging in public dialogue; matching societal needs with research; addressing ethical aspects and fostering ethics in research, addressing socio-economic aspects; enhancing public understanding. Areas of activity: Human genetics, cloning, genetic testing, gene therapy, embryo research, stem cells, transgenic animals, genetic modification in agriculture and food production.

There is a substantial overlap between medical biotechnology and land management when it comes to the case of genetically modified crops being grown for the generation of pharmaceutical proteins. This is an area where the distinction between food and drugs is already becoming blurred and there is a perceived risk of potent pharmaceuticals entering the food chain. For this reason RICS would again stress the need for full risk assessments to be carried out under controlled conditions in order to prevent this from occurring. Whilst GM technologies undoubtedly have huge potential in the arena of medical science, to make such leaps forward whilst at the same time compromising food safety, the environment and delicate biodiversity would be unhelpful.

Worrying examples are already in existence. There is a case in North America of pig meat which has been genetically modified to express proteins for the treatment of a diabetes related illness and which has mistakenly entered the food chain. Such accidents have huge potential knock on effects and should not be able to occur.

RICS recognises that similar worries may apply to the creation of other novel organisms for non-food purposes. In all cases, thorough scientific risk assessment and tight regulations preventing potentially dangerous oversights must be in place.

p17 In the White Paper on Food Safety, the Commission identified the need to address the issue of securing the confidence of consumers and trading partners in the European food supply. This was reconfirmed in the proposal on the General Food Law and establishing the European Food Authority which lays down the general objectives of European food law and a number of principles, including precaution, traceability, liability and protection of consumers' interests. Increasing concerns have also been expressed with regard to potential risks from the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment and the application of modern biotechnology to seed, food and feed although no peer-reviewed scientific evidence exists for any adverse effects to human health or the environment of the GMOs which have so far been authorised for marketing.

In the event of human health risks arising from any GM foods there are likely to be significant land management repercussions, particularly in relation to those holdings which have grown the food concerned. This was indeed the case during the BSE crisis when beef production holdings dropped significantly in value.

Although the consultation paper states that no scientific evidence exists for any adverse effects to human health or the environment of the GMOs which have so far been authorised for marketing, it is impossible to prove a negative and the Commission is currently undergoing a number of studies looking at any so far unforeseen risks. One of these studies states:

".....there is no precise harmonisation of methodologies to assure the safety of transgenic food products, it being difficult to use traditional animal feeding studies for toxicological assessments. This clearly raises biosafety issues for the use of GM products in food. In vivo and in vitro validated nutritional-toxicological testing procedures are urgently required. ..... if the testing procedure investigated in this project does not allow assessment of the toxicity of the gene products introduced into the food product via the GM plants, the whole strategy for the safety assessment of novel foods from GM plants will need to be revised". Ref
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life/gmo/04-food/04-04-project.html

We believe it would be inappropriate to allow GM releases, particularly into the food chain, until such research is complete. Otherwise the purpose of the research - to inform biosafety decision making on a scientific basis ­ will be frustrated.

p18 The Commission aims to complete the regulatory framework for GMOs and derived products by [introducing a range of measures]. In order to maintain public confidence in European agriculture RICS believes that such measures need to be introduced and fully implemented before the commercial growing of GM crops is sanctioned. RICS firmly believes that consumers should be fully aware of what they are potentially consuming and therefore the proposal for a Regulation relating to the traceability and labelling for GM food and animal feed must become a reality sooner rather than later.

It will be especially important for the Commission to monitor the effective implementation of the new requirement for member states to introduce registers of land growing GM crops.