Is GM Aquaculture Legislation Precautionary Enough?

1. Is GM Aquaculture Legislation Precautionary Enough? Emma Issatt ASfPG 19-21 January 2009

2. Aquaculture is an extremely fast growing industry -enormous demand for fish as foodstuff -clear economic benefits from genetic modification… …GM fish grow quicker = market ready sooner (modified with promoter genes from other species eg ocean pout) …May be modified to grow to large size on less feed …Easy to modify- painless and easy to remove eggs, modify then place in hatcheries to grow. Young fish are later transferred to pens in open water. c.18 GM aquaculture projects in development at present.

3. Will GM Aquaculture be a problem? Known hazards in conventional fish farms: •Escape: fish are reared in net pens in the sea, prone to wear and tear, storm damage. eg: Norway – c.1% fish escape per annum= 100,000s. •Hybridization: escaped fish interbreed if species similarity is close enough. eg: Sweden – hybrids of atlantic salmon and brown trout

4. •No legislation against use of sea-pens in GM aquaculture.•Sea-pens are comparatively cheap containment method, so we can presume they will be used.•Therefore we can presume escape of GM fish and possible threat to ecosystems. “Because those genes were not present previously in a fish population in a particular ecosystem, it is difficult to predict how these genetic changes will alter fish behaviour or disrupt the ecosystem processes” Pew Initiative on Food & Biotechnology “Future Fish”

5. “Net Fitness Methodology” Computer modelled scenarios for gene flow, based on the net fitness of a fish: 6 components create net fitness: eg: chance of survival to maturity fecundity (♀) or fertility (♂) success at attracting a mate, etc. Altering the strengths/weaknesses of the 6 elements led to 3 hypothetical scenarios of interplay with local wild fish population…

6. Net Fitness Scenario 1: “Purge”

7. Net Fitness Scenario 2: “Spread”

8. Net Fitness Scenario 3: “Trojan Gene”

9. When a wild population has been over-fished and has lost its resilience, the “purge” option, which seems to be the best, may still shock the population into extinction. Scientists “are not even close to having an overview of the roles individual genes play.” Akvaforsk Select Breeding Center, Norway

10. The legislation to tackle the problem- some key legal documents. •Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity 2000 •EC Directive 2004/35 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage. •US Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act

11. Are they precautionary enough? Do they use precautionary words?Are they effective- do they enable precautionary actions?Are they precautionary at all?

12. Precautionary Words: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992, Principle 15.

13. Precautionary Actions • Moratorium (refrain from positive action for a period of time) • Step-by-step (case-by case strategy with pre-defined targets for research before development takes further steps forward) • Go-slow (practical use is restricted to a few applications over a period of time) • Monitoring (system set up to report problems immediately) M. Kaiser, NENT Lecture on Xenotransplantation

14. Cartagena Protocol 2000 Precautionary words: “In accordance with the precautionary approach contained within Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration… the objective…is to contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.” Art.1

15. Cartagena Protocol 2000 Precautionary Actions: “Monitoring” •Creates a Biosafety Clearing House - information sharing - tracking/identification of GMOs for feed/food at every stage of transboundary movement. BUT- •Legislates for intentional movement of market-ready animal, so not much use for GM fish escapes. (Also, USA not a signatory so its powers are reduced.)

16. EC Directive 2004/35 Precautionary words: (doesn’t cite PP) “Where environmental damage has not yet occurred but there is an imminent threat of such damage occurring, the operator shall, without delay, take necessary preventative measures.” Art 5(1)

17. EC Directive 2004/35 Precautionary actions: moratorium/ step-by-step •Take GM aquaculture firm to court to seek injunction or attempt to gain a binding judgement on GM sea-pens. BUT •Somewhat unrealistic. Directive must be incorporated into each country’s national laws. Court cases are slow and expensive. •“Polluter Pays” principle of liability after the event- burden of proof on the claimant. “damage should be concrete and quantifiable… causal link…established”

18. US Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act Precautionary words: doesn’t cite PP The FFDCA enables the US Food and Drug Administration to delegate power to the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) to regulate GM animals as “New animal drugs” on condition that they “will not cause undue harm to the environment”

19. US Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act Precautionary actions: none FFDCA “has no provision expressly dealing with environmental risk, [and] interpreted this provision broadly to include environmental effects [to the GM fish]” PEW “Future Fish” = no provision to protect wild fish populations.

20. Other US legislation •National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) disclosure of information on environmental risk (= monitoring) •Endangered Species Act doesn’t protect other non-endangered wild fish stocks from gene flow eg Tilapia •Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act no evidence as yet that it will be interpreted to include GM fish escapes.

21. Q: Does legislation for GM aquaculture really exist? -did I miss something? Q: What is “enough” precaution and who decides? -easier to identify “not enough” precaution - GM fish = no precaution at all? Q: How do budding GM aquaculture firms feel about the responsibility? - they are unregulated but liable for gene flow disaster

22. “Safety First” Initiative for GM Fish Group of concerned scientists working in: private industry, local govt., academia, NGOs. Created “Cross-industry Safety Standards” -attempt to self-regulate i Safety Criteria Setting --{ step- by- step ii Safety Verification --{ step- by- step iii Follow Up ---{ monitoring iv Safety Leadership ---{ monitoring

23. The Myth of Sterility “Induced Triploidy” containment method- -the fish embryo is subject to heat/chemical shock, develops extra pair chromosomes, is sterile, so if it escapes, there’s nothing to worry about, all problems solved, hurrah! •Success rates vary- 10% to 90%- who is going to screen each fish for potential fertility? •Sterile fish can still attract mates who expend their gametes not on a fertile fish= lower population. •“Neutered” animals are larger, stronger, live longer= competition for food in the wild, or could even be predatory. •Evidence of triploid shellfish reverting back to fertility= uncertainty.

24. Lateral legislation Is it worth looking at “post disaster” legislation for some comparative regulation? eg: •1992 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage •2000 Protocol “Preparedness, response and cooperation to pollution incidents by hazardous and noxious substances” (marine oil spills) •1997 Protocol amending the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage 1963 (Chernobyl)

25. A side query… Q: If previous Risk +Exposure = tendency to strong PP in face of new Risk Then will (oil polluted) marine coastline countries be more strongly precautionary? Or coastline countries v inland countries? eg Austria could be less PP than Spain??

26. Thank you!