Environ. Risk. Chap 00 Prelims
23/8/04
9:31
Page i
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS Volume 1. A Case Study of Bt Maize in Kenya
Environ. Risk. Chap 00 Prelims
23/8/04
9:31
Page ii
Environ. Risk. Chap 00 Prelims
23/8/04
9:31
Page iii
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS Volume 1. A Case Study of Bt Maize in Kenya
Edited by
A. Hilbeck Geobotanical Institute Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich Switzerland and
D.A. Andow Department of Entomology University of Minnesota USA Series Editors:
A.R. Kapuscinski and P.J. Schei
CABI Publishing
Environ. Risk. Chap 00 Prelims
10/9/04
14:22
Page iv
CABI Publishing is a division of CAB International CABI Publishing CAB International Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8DE UK Tel: +44 (0)1491 832111 Fax: +44 (0)1491 833508 E-mail:
[email protected] Website: www.cabi-publishing.org
CABI Publishing 875 Massachusetts Avenue 7th Floor Cambridge, MA 02139 USA Tel: +1 617 395 4056 Fax: +1 617 354 6875 E-mail:
[email protected] © CAB International 2004. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owners. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library, London, UK. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms / edited by A. Hilbeck and D. Andow. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-85199-861-5 (alk. paper) 1. Crops--Genetic engineering--Environmental aspects. 2. Transgenic plants--Risk assessment. 3. Corn--Genetic engineering--Kenya--Case studies. I. Hilbeck, A. (Angelika) II. Andow, David Alan. III. Title. SB123.57.E59 2004 631.523--dc22 2004007981 ISBN 0 85199 861 5 Disclaimer The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to the Global Environment Facility, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Development Programme or World Bank. These bodies do not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accept no responsibility for any consequence of their use. Recommended citation Hilbeck, A. and Andow, D.A. (eds) (2004) Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms: Vol. 1. A Case Study of Bt Maize in Kenya. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Typeset in 10/12pt Souvenir Light by Columns Design Ltd, Reading. Printed and bound in the UK by Biddles Ltd, King’s Lynn.
Environ. Risk. Chap 00 Prelims
23/8/04
9:31
Page v
Contents
Series Foreword
vii
Contributors
xi
Preface
xv
1
Bt Maize, Risk Assessment and the Kenya Case Study D.A. Andow and A. Hilbeck
2
The Maize Agricultural Context in Kenya L. Muhammad and E. Underwood
3
Problem Formulation and Options Assessment (PFOA) for Genetically Modified Organisms: the Kenya Case Study K.C. Nelson, G. Kibata, L. Muhammad, J.O. Okuro, F. Muyekho, M. Odindo, A. Ely and J.M. Waquil
4
Transgene Locus Structure and Expression of Bt Maize D.A. Andow, D.A. Somers, N. Amugune, F.J.L. Aragão, K. Ghosh, S. Gudu, E. Magiri, W.J. Moar, S. Njihia and E. Osir
5
Biodiversity and Non-target Impacts: a Case Study of Bt Maize in Kenya A.N.E. Birch, R. Wheatley, B. Anyango, S. Arpaia, D. Capalbo, E. Getu Degaga, E. Fontes, P. Kalama, E. Lelmen, G. Løvei, I.S. Melo, F. Muyekho, A. Ngi-Song, D. Ochieno, J. Ogwang, R. Pitelli, T. Schuler, M. Sétamou, S. Sithanantham, J. Smith, N. Van Son, J. Songa, E. Sujii, T.Q. Tan, F.-H. Wan and A. Hilbeck
6
Gene Flow and its Consequences: a Case Study of Bt Maize in Kenya J. Johnston, L. Blancas and A. Borem
1 21
57
83
117
187
v
Environ. Risk. Chap 00 Prelims
23/8/04
9:31
Page vi
vi
Contents
7
Resistance Risks and Management Associated with Bt Maize in Kenya 209 G.P. Fitt, D.A. Andow, Y. Carrière, W.J. Moar, T.H. Schuler, C. Omoto, J. Kanya, M.A. Okech, P. Arama and N.K. Maniania
8
Risk Assessment of Bt Maize in Kenya: Synthesis and Recommendations A. Hilbeck, D.A. Andow, A.N.E. Birch, G.P. Fitt, J. Johnston, K.C. Nelson, E. Osir, J. Songa, E. Underwood and R. Wheatley
Index
251
271
Environ. Risk. Chap 00 Prelims
23/8/04
9:31
Page vii
Series Foreword
The advent of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) offers new options for meeting food and agriculture needs in developing countries, but some GMOs used in agriculture can also affect biodiversity and natural ecosystems. These potential environmental risks and benefits need to be taken into account when making decisions about the use of GMOs. International trade and the unintentional trans-boundary spread of GMOs can also pose environmental risks depending on the national and regional contexts. The complex interactions that can occur between GMOs and the environment heighten the need to strengthen worldwide scientific and technical capacity for assessing and managing environmental risks of GMOs. The Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) provides strategic scientific and technical advice on GEF policies, operational strategies and programmes in a number of focal areas, including biodiversity. Its mandate covers inter alia providing a forum for integrating expertise on science and technology, and synthesising, promoting and galvanizing state of the art contributions from the scientific community. The GEF, established in 1991, helps developing countries fund projects and programmes that protect the global environment. GEF grants support projects related to biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants. Global environmental management of GMOs and the strengthening of scientific and technical capacity1 for biosafety will require building policy
1By
‘scientific and technical capacity’ we mean ‘the ability to generate, procure and apply science and technology to identify and solve a problem or problems’ including ‘the generation and use of new knowledge and information as well as techniques to solve problems.’ (Mugabe, J. (2000) Capacity Development Initiative, Scientific and Technical Capacity Development, Needs and Priorities. GEF-UNDP Strategic Partnership, October 2000.) vii
Environ. Risk. Chap 00 Prelims
viii
23/8/04
9:31
Page viii
Series Foreword
and legislative biosafety frameworks. The latter is especially urgent for developing countries, as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety of the Convention on Biological Diversity makes clear. And the World Summit on Sustainable Development also identified the importance of improved knowledge transfer to developing countries on biotechnology. This point was also stressed in recent international fora such as, the Norway/UN Conference on Technology Transfer and Capacity Building and the capacity building decisions of the first meeting of the parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The STAP is collaborating with a number of international scientific networks to produce a series of books on scientific and technical aspects of environmental risk assessment of GMOs. This complements the projects being undertaken by the United Nations Environment Programme and the GEF to help developing countries design and implement national biosafety frameworks. The purpose of this series is to provide scientifically peer-reviewed tools that can help developing countries strengthen their own scientific and technical capacity in biosafety of GMOs. Each book in the series will examine a different case study in developing countries. The workshops and writing teams used to produce each book are also capacity building activities in themselves because they bring together scientists from the case-study country, other developing countries and developed countries to analyse and integrate the relevant science and technology into the book. This first book, a case study of Bt maize in Kenya, was written by 52 chapter co-authors, including 24 scientists from Africa as well as scientists and technical experts from Brazil, China, Vietnam, Europe and the USA. A second book, a case study of Bt cotton in Brazil, is in preparation. Each book provides methods and relevant scientific information for risk assessment, rather than drawing conclusions. Relevant organizations in each country will therefore need to conduct their own scientific risk assessments in order to inform their own biosafety decisions. This book is the outcome of a scientific partnership between the STAP and the Global Working Group on Transgenic Organisms in Integrated Pest Management and Biological Control (under auspices of the International Organization for Biological Control). An international Advisory Board provided scientific and strategic advice that led to this book and included representatives from the STAP, the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and numerous agricultural, environmental, academic and governmental organizations, listed in the preface. The STAP then conducted an independent, international and anonymous scientific peer review.
Environ. Risk. Chap 00 Prelims
Series Foreword
23/8/04
9:31
Page ix
ix
We hope that this book will help governments, scientists, potential users of GMOs and civil society organizations in Kenya, other parts of Africa, and other regions of the world to strengthen their understanding of the scientific knowledge and methods that are available for conducting environmental risk assessments of GMOs. We encourage readers to draw their own insights in order to help them devise and conduct robust environmental risk assessments for their own countries. Julia Carabias Chair, Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel, Global Environment Facility Mexico City, Mexico Anne R. Kapuscinski Member, Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel, Global Environment Facility St Paul, Minnesota, USA Peter J. Schei Member, Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel, Global Environment Facility Trondheim, Norway 21 June 2004
Environ. Risk. Chap 00 Prelims
23/8/04
9:31
Page x
Environ. Risk. Chap 00 Prelims
23/8/04
9:31
Page xi
Contributors
Dr Nelson Onzere Amugune, Department of Botany, University of Nairobi, Riverside Drive, Chiromo, PO Box 30197, GPO, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr David A. Andow, Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota, 219 Hodson Hall, 1980 Folwell Avenue, St Paul, MN 55108, USA. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Beatrice M. Anyango, Department of Botany, University of Nairobi, PO Box 30197, GPO, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Francisco J.L. Aragão, EMBRAPA Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia (CENARGEN), PqEB W5 Norte, 70770-900 Brasília, DF, Brazil. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Peter Arama, Department of Horticulture, Maseno University, Private Bag, Maseno, Kenya. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Salvatore Arpaia, ENEA – Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Environment, S.S. 106 Jonica km 419.5, I-75026 Rotondella (MT), Italy. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr A. Nick E. Birch, Host Parasite Coevolution, Scottish Crop Research Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee DD2 5DA, UK. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Lesley Blancas, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, 321 Steinhaus Hall, Irvine, CA 92697-2525, USA. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Aluizio Borem, Department of Agronomy, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa 36571-000, MG Brasil. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Deise Capalbo, EMBRAPA Environment, Caiza Postal, Rodovia Campinas Mogi Mirim, Km 127.5 Barrio Tanquinho Velho, CEP 13820-000, Jaguariuna, Brazil. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Yves Carrière, Department of Entomology, The University of Arizona, Forbes Building 410, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA. E-mail: ycarrier@ ag.arizona.edu xi
Environ. Risk. Chap 00 Prelims
xii
23/8/04
9:31
Page xii
Contributors
Mr Adrian Ely, Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex, Mantell Building, Brighton BN1 9RF, UK. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Emana Getu Degaga, Entomologist, Crop Protection, Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organisation (EARO), PO Box 436, 251-2-Nazret, Ethiopia. Email:
[email protected] Dr Gary P. Fitt, Long Pocket Laboratories, CSIRO Entomology, 120 Meiers Road, QLD 4068 Indooroopilly, Australia. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Eliana Fontes, EMBRAPA Genetic Resources and Biotechnology, Caixa Postal 02372, Parque Estacao Biologica, Av. W3 Norte-Final, DF 70770901 Brasilia, Brazil. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Kakoli Ghosh, FAO of the UN, Seeds and Plants Genetic Resources Service, Viale DelleTerme di Caracalla, Rome 00100, Lazio, Italy. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Samuel Gudu, Moi University, PO Box 1125, Eldoret, Kenya. E-mail:
[email protected] or
[email protected] Dr Angelika Hilbeck, Geobotanical Institute, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurichbergstrasse 38, CH-8044 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Jill Johnston, Plant Biology, University of Minnesota, 250 Biological Sciences Center, 1445 Gortner Avenue, St Paul, MN 55108, USA. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Patrick Kalama, Kitale Field Station, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, PO Box 450, Kitale, Kenya. E-mail:
[email protected] Mr James Kanya, International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, PO Box 30772-00100, GPO, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Gilbert Kibata, National Agricultural Research Laboratories, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, PO Box 14733, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail:
[email protected] Mr Elijah Lelmen, International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, PO Box 30772-00100, GPO, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Gabor L. Løvei, Department of Crop Protection, Danish Institute of Agricultural Science, Flakkebjerg Research Centre, DK-4200 Slagelse, Denmark. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Esther Magiri, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, PO Box 62000, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Nguya K. Maniania, International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, PO Box 30772–00100, GPO, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Itamar Soares Melo, EMBRAPA Microbiology, Senior Research, Rua Avelina do Amaral 160, Sp.26 Campinas, 13095-130 Brazil. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr William J. Moar, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, College of Agriculture, Auburn University, 301 Funchess Hall, Auburn, AL 36849, USA. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Lutta Muhammad, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, National Dryland Farming Research Centre, Katumani, PO Box 1764, Machakos, 2544420828, Kenya. E-mail:
[email protected] Environ. Risk. Chap 00 Prelims
Contributors
23/8/04
9:31
Page xiii
xiii
Dr Francis Muyekho, International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, Field station Mbita Point, PO Box 30772-00100, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Kristen C. Nelson, Forest Resources/Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, 115 Green Hall, 1530 Cleveland Avenue North, St Paul, MN 55108, USA. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Adele Ngi-Song, International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, PO Box 30772-00100, GPO, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Samuel Njihia, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Muguga Research Centre, PO Box 30148, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail: marcmuguga@ africaonline.co.ke Mr Dennis Wanyama Ochieno, International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology, PO Box 30772-00100, GPO, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Maurice Oduor Odindo, Community Capacity Building Initiative (CCBI), PO Box 1244-00606, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail: communityinitiative@ rediffmail.com Dr James Ogwang, Namulonge Agricultural Research Institute, Biocontrol of Pests and Weeds, PO Box 7084, Kampala, Uganda. E-mail: jogwang@ naro-ug.org Dr Matilda Angela Okech, International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, Molecular Biology and Biochemistry Research, PO Box 3077200100, GPO, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr James Ouma Okuro, Embu Station, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, PO Box 27, Embu, Kenya. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Celso Omoto, Escola Superior de Agricultura ‘Luiz de Queiroz’, Entomology, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Avenida Pádua Dias 11, Piracicaba, 13418-900, SP, Brazil. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Ellie Osir, Molecular Biology and Biotechnology Department, International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology, PO Box 30772-00100, GPO, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Robinson A. Pitelli, Universidade Estadual Paulista – UNESP, Departamento de Biologia Aplicada à Agropecuária, Via Paulo D. Castellane, s/n, 14.884900 Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Tanja H. Schuler, Division of Plant and Invertebrate Ecology, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden AL5 2JQ, UK. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Mamoudou Sétamou, Beneficial Insects Research Unit, ARS-USDA, 2413 E Highway 83 Building 200, Weslaco, TX 78596, USA. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr S. Sithanantham, International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology, PO Box 30772-00100, GPO, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Julian Smith, CAB International UK Centre (Egham), Bakeham Lane, Egham, Surrey TW20 9TY, UK. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr David A. Somers, Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, 411 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St Paul, MN 55108, USA. E-mail:
[email protected] Environ. Risk. Chap 00 Prelims
xiv
23/8/04
9:31
Page xiv
Contributors
Dr Nguyen Van Son, Institute of Agricultural Genetics, Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Head of Scientific Management, International Cooperation Division, Pham Van Dong Str., Tu Liem, Hanoi, Vietnam. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Josephine Songa, Biotechnology Centre, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, PO Box 14733, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail: jmsonga@ africaonline.co.ke Dr Edison Ryoiti Sujii, Biological Control, EMBRAPA Genetic Resources and Biotechnology, PqEB Final Av. W5 Norte, Caixa Postal 02372 Brasilia, DF 70 849.970, Brazil. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Tran Quang Tan, National Institute for Plant Protection, Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Dong ngac, Tu Liem, Hanoi, Vietnam. E-mail:
[email protected] Ms Evelyn Underwood, IOBC GMO Guidelines Project, Geobotanical Institute, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurichbergstrasse 38, CH-8044 Zürich, Switzerland. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr Fang Hao Wan, Biological Control Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 12, Zhong-Guan-Cun, Nan-Da-Jie, 100081 Beijing, China. E-mail:
[email protected] or
[email protected] Dr José Magid Waquil, EMBRAPA Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Milho e Sorgo, Rodovia MG 424 Km 65 S/N, Caixa Postal 151, Sete Lagoas 35701-970, Brazil. E-mail:
[email protected] Dr R. Wheatley, Plant–Soil Interface, Scottish Crop Research Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee DD2 5DA, UK. E-mail:
[email protected] Environ. Risk. Chap 00 Prelims
23/8/04
9:31
Page xv
Preface
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety of Living Modified Organisms (Biosafety Protocol) under the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) and many other international forums identify a need in both developing and developed countries for comprehensive, transparent, scientific methods for meaningful pre-release testing and post-release monitoring of transgenic plants to ensure their environmental safety and sustainable use. This need has been repeatedly expressed by both the private and public sector (CBD, 2000). For example, Chapter 16 of Agenda 21 recognizes that the maximum benefits of genetically modified crops can be achieved only if appropriate biosafety procedures are in place and the relevant capacities to implement them are acquired (UN DSD, 1999). There is wide recognition that the regulatory and scientific capacity for conducting risk assessments needs to be strengthened worldwide. Most importantly, the needs of developing countries for capacity building and policy development must be addressed. Article 22 of the Biosafety Protocol requires that parties shall cooperate in the development and/or strengthening of human resources and institutional capacities in biosafety. It is also recognized that this capacity building activity will require significant investments, as many countries do not have the capability to make independent risk assessments or to evaluate independently submitted risk assessments on biosafety. This Kenya case study is a product of the GMO Guidelines Project, ‘Development of International Scientific Biosafety Testing Guidelines for Transgenic Plants’. This Project was launched by scientists of the Global Working Group on ‘Transgenic Organisms in Integrated Pest Management and Biological Control’, under the aegis of the International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC). It is funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) as a part of the Swiss governments’ commitment to the Biosafety Protocol. The project is advised by a 20-member advisory board representing a wide array of agricultural, environmental and development xv
Environ. Risk. Chap 00 Prelims
xvi
23/8/04
9:31
Page xvi
Preface
organizations from around the world. The board members function both as scientific advisors and as international mediators to the policy arena and relevant decision-making processes. The Project addresses the environmental and agricultural impacts of transgenic organisms, and does not evaluate human health impacts or ethical implications. Because most of the presently available transgenic plants produce a novel gene product used in pest control, the Project has focused on these kinds of transgenic crop plants. This focus is propitious, because there is more information available on this class of transgenic organisms than any other class, plus it is possible to mobilize considerable expertise in this area. One of the aims of the Project is to improve the capacity of scientists to support environmental risk assessment of transgenic crop plants in each of their countries. To accomplish this, the project concentrates on scientist-to-scientist exchange, because these personal connections are likely to persist over time. To leverage these efforts, the project focuses on a few countries with reasonably developed scientific infrastructures, a desire to develop the scientific basis of risk assessment, and a need to do so. By strengthening the scientific capacities for risk assessment in these countries, expertise should be able to diffuse more readily to neighbouring countries. Kenya was the first focal country of the Project and work conducted in Kenya forms the basis for this book. Among the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Kenya and South Africa have two of the better-developed scientific infrastructures related to agriculture and the environment. Kenya became the first case study in part because of interest in using Bt maize in its production system. The other main aim of the project is to develop risk assessment methods for use in developing countries. The Biosafety Protocol and the EU Directive on release of genetically modified (GM) plants specify that risk assessment should be conducted on a case-by-case basis. A case-by-case approach is necessary because there is insufficient experience available to allow aggregate analysis and assessment. Each GM plant and ecosystem must be looked at individually, because the relevant questions will differ on a case-by-case and country-by-country basis. Consequently, it is premature to propose general risk assessment guidelines, but it may be possible to develop general, robust approaches by extrapolation from detailed case studies. Hence, the project has focused on developing scientifically sound, transparent case studies to instantiate the principles of risk assessment. This book is the final product from the first case study of the project, Bt maize in Kenya. We would like to thank the International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), and its Director, Dr Hans Herren, for hosting the workshop on which this book is based, and the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) for their support of the workshop and project. Dr Josephine Songa (KARI) and Dr Ellie Onyango Osir (ICIPE) were instrumental in setting up the Workshop in Nairobi, Kenya. Without their assistance, we would not have been able to have the considerable Kenyan expertise at the Workshop. We would also like to thank Professor William Overholt (Chapters 2 and 5), Dr Danny Llewellyn (Chapter 4), Dr Gavin Ramsay (Chapter 6), Professor Norman Ellstrand, Dr
Environ. Risk. Chap 00 Prelims
Preface
23/8/04
9:31
Page xvii
xvii
Remy Pasquet (Chapter 6) and Professor Mike Cohen (Chapter 7) for their substantial suggestions. We thank the six reviewers associated with the STAP review process, including Drs David Bergvinson and David Hoisington (CIMMYT), Bruno Le Ru and Fritz Schultess (ICIPE) who provided important information in their signed reviews. We would also like to thank Dr Ana Cristina Brasileiro, Dr Weber Amaral and all of the members of the Advisory Board to the project, who read and commented on an early draft of this book. These Board members are Dr Ana Lucia Assad (Brazil Ministry of Science and Technology), Dr Joel Cohen (ISNAR), Dr Les E. Ehler (President, IOBC), Dr Les G. Firbank (Coordinator, UK Field Trials Programme), Dr Helmut Gaugitsch (Austrian Federal Environment Agency), Dr Hans Herren (Director General, ICIPE, Kenya), Mr Ryan Hill (Biosafety Protocol Secretariat, CBD), Dr Katharina Jenny (Swiss Development Cooperation), Dr Anne Kapuscinski (UNEP-GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel), Dr Peter Kenmore (Director, FAO Global IPM Facility), Dr Chris Ngichabe (Kenya Agricultural Research Institute), Dr William Padolina (International Rice Research Institute), Dr Francois Pythoud (Swiss Agency for Environment, Forest and Landscape), Dr Maria José Sampaio (EMBRAPA), Dr Julian Smith (CABI), Dr Wilson Songa (Kenya Plant Health Inspection Service), Dr Braulio Souza de Dias (Brazil Environment Ministry), Dr Sutat Sriwatanapongse (Thailand Biotechnology Centre), Dr Hermann Waibel (University of Hannover) and Dr Jing Yuan Xia (Chinese Ministry of Agriculture). We also acknowledge the considerable efforts of the Steering Committee of the Project, without whom the Project would not exist. These members are Drs Nick Birch, B.B. Bong, Deise Capalbo, Gary Fitt, Eliana Fontes, K.L. Heong, Jill Johnston, Kristen Nelson, Ellie Osir, Allison Snow, David Somers, Josephine Songa and FangHao Wan. Most importantly, we acknowledge Evelyn Underwood, without whose help the Kenya Workshop and this book would not have been possible. The overall task of the project is large and complex, and we invite the involvement of all public sector scientists and encourage interested researchers to contact us via our website. We are presently discussing how to involve both the private sector and the non-government organizations to further improve the quality of the project’s products. The more people who become involved and engage in developing these products, the better they will become and the more widely they will be recognized. Interested public sector scientists can enrol in the project at www.gmo-guidelines.info Angelika Hilbeck Zürich, Switzerland David Andow St Paul, Minnesota, USA December 2003
Environ. Risk. Chap 00 Prelims
xviii
23/8/04
9:31
Page xviii
Preface
References CBD (2000) Cartagena Protocol in Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity: text and annexes. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, www.biodiv.org/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en-pdf (accessed 1 December 2003). UN DSD (1999) United Nations Division for Sustainable Development. Agenda 21 Chapter 16: Environmentally sound management of biotechnology, www.un.org/esa/ sustdev/agenda21chapter16.htm (accessed 1 December 2003).
Environ. Risk. Chap 01
1
23/8/04
9:31
Page 1
Bt Maize, Risk Assessment and the Kenya Case Study D.A. ANDOW AND A. HILBECK Corresponding author: Dr David Andow, Department of Entomology and Center for Community Genetics, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN 55108, USA. E-mail:
[email protected] In September 2003, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety went into force, calling for scientific risk assessments of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) prior to their introduction into the environment.1 The use and utility of GMOs has been hotly debated for about 15 years and one of the purposes of the Protocol is to establish the basis on which these controversial organisms will be evaluated. This book provides a detailed examination of one controversial GMO, Bt maize, in its proposed application in Kenya. We develop components of a scientific risk assessment process, which are consistent with that called for by the Protocol, and illustrate how they can be applied to the case study. In our view, risk assessment is not a decision-making process; it is an activity that supports a decision-making process. Indeed, in this book we do not even attempt a full-blown risk assessment of Bt maize in Kenya. This would take far more pages than this book could hold. Instead, through this case study, we illustrate the scientific and logical process by which risk assessment can be conducted. At its best, science is both transparent and rigorous. Science is transparent when all participants and observers have full access to the evidence, can verify the methods used to gather the evidence, and can understand the processes used to analyse and interpret the evidence. When conducted transparently, science invites and addresses criticism while making rapid progress in measured sure steps. Science is rigorous when the interpretation follows logically from the evidence and competing interpretations are proven inadequate. Indeed, it is its logical rigor and exacting methodological standards that gives science the perceived value-neutrality and predictive power that is assumed to provide the best basis for risk assessment. 1The Biosafety Protocol addresses ‘living modified organisms’ (LMOs), but for the purpose of this book, our use of GMO is equivalent to the definition of LMO in the Protocol.
© CAB International 2004. Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms: Vol. 1. A Case Study of Bt Maize in Kenya (eds A. Hilbeck and D.A. Andow)
1
Environ. Risk. Chap 01
23/8/04
9:31
Page 2
2
D.A. Andow and A. Hilbeck
In this case study, we develop transparent and rigorous scientific methodologies for assessing potential environmental risks of Bt maize in Kenya. Although human health risks are also important to assess, the expertise we mobilized on this case study allowed us to focus on the potential environmental risks. By focusing in this way, we were able to make considerable progress toward developing the needed protocols for the environmental risk assessments called for by the Biosafety Protocol. Bt maize is produced by transferring a gene that codes for a toxin from a soildwelling bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) by transgenesis. This chapter provides some of the scientific background to understand the Kenya Bt maize case study. We first give a brief overview of transgenesis, summarize the production of transgenic crops worldwide, describe the various kinds of Bt maize that have been grown commercially throughout the world, and give a brief overview of the complex subject of maize breeding. We then describe a commonly used model of risk assessment, discuss the evidential standards that are used typically in risk assessment, and then indicate how these will be applied throughout the case study. We finish this chapter with a description of two significant valuation issues, biodiversity and appropriate scientific controls, and then indicate the potential scope of the Kenya Bt maize case study, discussing the timeliness and geographical generality of this case study, and outlining the rest of the contents of the book.
Transgenesis and Bt Maize Use of transgenic crops worldwide The first commercial transgenic crops were planted in China during the early 1990s, primarily virus-resistant tobacco and tomato. During 1995, numerous transgenic crops were commercialized, and by 1996, the USA was planting more transgenic crops than any other country in the world (Table 1.1A). The large decrease in planting area in China during 1998 (Table 1.1A) was caused by a collapse of the international markets for transgenic tobacco and tomato. The USA, Canada, China and Argentina dominate world production of transgenic crops; indeed, about 68% of the world’s transgenic crops were planted in the USA alone during 2001. Initially, a large variety of transgenic crops were planted commercially (Table 1.1B). By 1998, however, four crops dominated – soybean, maize, cotton and oilseed rape – and these continue to dominate. The primary traits are herbicide tolerance and insect resistance (Table 1.1C). In 1999–2001, herbicide-tolerant soybeans, Bt maize, herbicide-tolerant maize, Bt cotton, herbicide-tolerant cotton and herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape accounted for over 99% of the commercial transgenic crops grown worldwide. Although Bt genes have been incorporated into broccoli, cabbage, oilseed rape, cotton, maize, aubergine, poplar, potato, soybean, tobacco and tomato, the only crops planted on significant commercial hectarage in 2001 were Bt maize and Bt cotton. After being introduced during 1995, the cropping area of
Environ. Risk. Chap 01
23/8/04
9:31
Page 3
Bt Maize and Risk Assessment
3
Table 1.1. Area of transgenic crops in the world from 1996 to 1999 (in millions of ha).
A. Country USA China Canada Argentina Australia Mexico South Africa B. Crop Soybean Maize Cotton Oilseed rape Tobacco Tomato Potato Papaya Squash C. Trait Herbicide tolerance Insect resistance Virus resistance Quality traits D. Total
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1.5 1.1 0.1 0.1 + + 0
8.1 1.8 1.3 1.4 + + 0
20.5 + 2.8 4.3 0.1 + 0
28.7 0.3 4.0 6.7 0.1 + +
30.3 0.5 3.0 10.0 0.2 + 0.2
35.7 1.5 3.2 11.8 0.2 + 0.2
0.5 0.3 0.8 0.1 1.0 0.1 + 0 0
5.1 3.2 1.4 1.3 1.7 0.1 + 0 0
14.5 8.3 2.5 2.5 + + + 0 0
21.6 11.1 3.7 3.4 + + + 0 0
25.8 10.3 5.3 2.8 0 0 + + +
33.3 9.8 6.8 2.7 0 0 + + +
0.7 1.0 1.1 + 2.8
6.9 4.7 1.8 + 12.8
20.1 8.0 + + 27.8
31.0 11.8 + + 39.9
35.9 11.5 + + 44.2
44.8 12.0 + + 52.6
Data from James (1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002). + Indicates that 700 550 300–550 500 550 500
