GROUP 8 – BIODIVERSITY

A. International Year of Biodiversity

<The United Nations has declared 2010 the International Year of Biodiversity
(IYB). The term biodiversity describes the variety of all life and natural
processes on Earth, including all living things from microscopic bacteria to
large animals and small plants; we also form part of biodiversity, and no
matter how far removed we may seem from the 'natural' environment in our
daily lives, we are intimately connected with the ecosystems and their
processes through our diets, our use of materials, water, and much more.>
Today, 201 natural and mixed World Heritage sites in 81 countries protect over
177,000,000 hectares of land and sea, the equivalent of half of Europe. The World
Heritage Convention is unique in that it recognizes and protects both cultural and
natural sites, but it is also the only international legislative instrument that
regularly monitors sites to ensure integrity, protection and management. Of the ten
criteria for inscription on the World Heritage List, four cover natural sites and two
are specifically related to biodiversity

B. Biotechnology
<Biotechnology is technology that utilizes biological systems, living organisms
or parts of this to develop or create different produc ts.

At its simplest, biotechnology is technology based on biology - biotechnology

harnesses cellular and biomolecular processes to develop technologies and
products that help improve our lives and the health of our planet. We have
used the biological processes of microorganisms for more than 6,000 years to
make useful food products, such as bread and cheese, and to preserve dairy
products.>

Modern biotechnology provides breakthrough products and technologies to

combat debilitating and rare diseases, reduce our environmental footprint,
feed the hungry, use less and cleaner energy, and have safer, cleaner and more
efficient industrial manufacturing processes.
<Biotechnology for Health
Biotechnology is also helping to heal the world by harnessing nature's own
toolbox and using our own genetic makeup to heal. Such guide lines of
research are by:

 Reducing rates of infectious disease;

 Saving millions of children's lives;
 Changing the odds of serious, life-threatening conditions affecting
millions around the world;
 Tailoring treatments to individuals to minimize health risks and side
effects;
 Creating more precise tools for disease detection; and
 Combating serious illnesses and everyday threats confronting the
developing world.

Biotechnology for Fuel

Biotechnology also uses biological processes such as fermentation and
harnesses biocatalysts such as enzymes, yeast, and other microbes to become
microscopic manufacturing plants. Biotechnology is helping to fuel the world
by:

 Stream lining the steps in chemical manufacturing processes by 80% or

more;
 Lowering the temperature for cleaning clothes and potentially saving
$4.1 billion annually;
 Improving manufacturing process efficiency to save 50% or more on
operating costs;
 Reducing use of and reliance on petrochemicals;
 Using biofuels to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 52% or more;
 Decreasing water usage and waste generation; and
 Tapping into the full potential of traditional biomass waste products.

Biotechnology for Food

Biotechnology improves crop insect resistance, enhances crop herbicide

tolerance and facilitates the use of more environmentally sustainable farming
practices. Biotech is helping to feed the world by:
  Generating higher crop yields with fewer inputs;
 Lowering volumes of agricultural chemicals required by crops-limiting
the run-off of these products into the environment;
 Using biotech crops that need fewer applications of pesticides and that
allow farmers to reduce tilling farmland;
 Developing crops with enhanced nutrition profiles that solve vitamin
and nutrient deficiencies;
 Producing foods free of allergens and toxins such as mycotoxin; and
 Improving food and crop oil content to help improve cardiovascular
health.>

Currently, there are more than 250 biotechnology health care products and
vaccines available to patients, many for previously untreatable diseases. More
than 13.3 million farmers around the world use agricultural biotechnology to
increase yields, prevent damage from insects and pests and reduce farming's
impact on the environment. And more than 50 biorefineries are being
built across North America to test and refine technologies to produce biofuels and
chemicals from renewable biomass, which can help reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.

C. Genetically Modified Organisms

<A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an animal, plant,
or microbe whose DNA has been altered using genetic engineering techniques.

For thousands of years, humans have used breeding methods to

modify organisms. Corn, cattle, and even dogs have been selectively bred
over generations to have certain desired traits. Within the last few decades,
however, modern advances in biotechnology have allowed scientists to directly
modify the DNA of microorganisms, crops, and animals.>

<Conventional methods of modifying plants and animals—selective

breeding and crossbreeding—can take a long time. Moreover, selective
breeding and crossbreeding often produce mixed results, with
unwanted traits appearing alongside desired characteristics.> The specific
targeted modification of DNA using biotechnology has allowed scientists to avoid
this problem and improve the genetic makeup of an organism without unwanted
characteristics tagging along.
<Most animals that are GMOs are produced for use in laboratory research.
These animals are used as “models” to study the function of specific genes
and, typically, how the genes relate to health and disease.>Some GMO animals,
however, are produced for human consumption. Salmon, for example, has been
genetically engineered to mature faster, and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration has stated that these fish are safe to eat.

<GMOs are perhaps most visible in the produce section. The

first genetically engineered plants to be produced for human consumption
were introduced in the mid-1990s. Today, approximately 90% of the corn,
soybeans, and sugar beets on the market are GMOs.>Genetically engineered
crops produce higher yields, have a longer shelf life, are resistant to diseases and
pests, and even taste better. These benefits are a plus for both farmers and
consumers. For example, higher yields and longer shelf life may lead to lower
prices for consumers, and pest-resistant crops means that farmers don’t need to buy
and use as many pesticides to grow quality crops. GMO crops can thus be kinder to
the environment than conventionally grown crops.

<Genetically modified foods do cause controversy, however. Genetic

engineering typically changes an organism in a way that would not occur
naturally. It is even common for scientists to insert genes into an organism
from an entirely different organism.> This raises the possible risk of unexpected
allergic reactions to some GMO foods. Other concerns include the possibility of
the genetically engineered foreign DNA spreading to non-GMO plants and
animals. So far, none of the GMOs approved for consumption have caused any of
these problems, and GMO food sources are subject to regulations and rigorous
safety assessments.

In the future, GMOs are likely to continue playing an important role in biomedical
research. GMO foods may provide better nutrition and perhaps even be engineered
to contain medicinal compounds to enhance human health. If GMOs can be shown
to be both safe and healthful, consumer resistance to these products will most
likely diminish.

D. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

What is the Biosafety Protocol?
<The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is a legally binding protocol to the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). It was named in honor of
Cartagena, Colombia, where negotiations were expected to conclude in
February of 1999. One year later, on January 29, 2000, the Protocol was
finalized and adopted in Montreal, Canada by unanimous consent with 135
countries present.

In 1994, the first genetically modified food crop, Calgene’s Flavr-SavrTM

tomato, was produced and consumed in an industrialized country. Since that
time, genetically modified (GM) crops have been rapidly adopted worldwide
reflecting the satisfaction of growers. While advances in biotechnology have
great potential to improve human well-being, the technology must be
developed with adequate safety measures. The Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety is a legally binding global protocol that seeks to contribute to
ensuring the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms
(LMOs) created through modern biotechnology.>

What is the Protocol’s objective?

<Article 1 of the Protocol states that it aims 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, taking also into account risks to human health, and specifically
focusing on transboundary movements”. In short, it seeks to protect
biodiversity from the potential risks of living modified organisms (LMOs)
resulting from modern biotechnology.>

<What does the Protocol cover?

The Protocol covers the “transboundary movement, transit, handling and use
of all living modified organisms that may have adverse effects on the
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into account
risks to human health”.
It does not cover:

 Products derived from LMOs (e.g. paper from GM trees)

 LMOs, which are pharmaceuticals for humans that are addressed by other
relevant international agreements or organizations

What does the Biosafety Protocol do?

It assists developing countries in building their capacity for managing modern

biotechnology

 It creates an advanced informed agreement (AIA) procedure that

requires exporters to seek consent from importing countries
before the first shipment of LMOs meant to be introduced into the
environment (e.g. seeds for planting, fish for release, and
microorganisms for bioremediation)
 It establishes an internet-based “Biosafety Clearing-House” to
help countries exchange scientific, technical, environmental and
legal information about LMOs.
 It requires bulk shipments of LMO commodities, such as corn or
soybeans that are intended to be used as food, feed or for
processing, to be accompanied by documentation stating that such
shipments “may contain” LMOs and are “not intended for
intentional introduction into the environment”.
 The Protocol includes a clause that makes clear the Parties’ intent
that the agreement does not alter the rights and obligations of
governments under the World Trade Organization (WTO) or
other existing international agreements.
What does the Biosafety Protocol not do?
 The Protocol does not address food safety issues. This is addressed
by experts in other international fora.
 The Protocol does not require segregation of bulk shipments of
commodities that may contain living modified organisms.
 It does not require consumer product labeling.
 It does not subject shipments of bulk commodities to the
Protocol’s AIA procedure.>

The Protocol will enter into force 90 days after it is ratified by the 50th state or
regional economic integration unit.

As of June 2002, 103 countries have signed but only 21 have ratified. When a
country signs the Protocol, it signifies its general support for the principles in the
Protocol and commits to take the steps necessary to consider and pursue its
ratification. The Protocol only becomes legally binding when a country deposits an
instrument of ratification with the United Nations.

E. GMO Golden Rice

The Golden Rice Project

<The Golden rice is a genetically modified, biofortified crop. Biofortification

increases the nutritional value of crops. Golden rice is genetically modified to
produce beta-carotene, which is not normally present in rice. Beta-carotene is
converted into vitamin A when metabolized by the human body. We need
vitamin A for healthier skin, immune systems, and vision.

The Golden Rice Project was introduced in 1999, when two professors, Ingo
Potrykus and Peter Beyer, proposed a plan to The Rockefeller Foundation to
genetically engineer rice to increase its nutritional value. The Rockefeller
Foundation supported their goal to provide a sustainable biofortification
approach to combat vitamin A deficiencies (VADs) in developing
countries. VAD is prevalent in countries with populations that are dependent
on rice or other micronutrient-poor carbohydrate foods. VAD can have
numerous negative health effects such as dryness of the eye that can lead to
blindness if untreated, reduced immune system response, and an increase in
the severity and mortality risk of infections. It is one of the main causes of
preventable blindness in young children from developing countries. The
World Health Organization estimates that about 250 million preschool
children are affected by VAD and that vitamin A supplementation could
prevent 2.7 million childhood deaths.>

The Golden Rice Debate

<When the Golden Rice Project was first announced, it was advertised as an
exciting solution to VAD in developing countries. However, opposition to the
GMO formed, blocking the expansion of the project. Countless people and
organizations including Friends of the Earth, MASIPAG (a farmer-led
network of organizations based in the Philippines), and Greenpeace made
arguments trying to halt the Golden Rice Project. At the same time,
supporters of the project, including the International Rice Research Institute
(IRRI) and the Humanitarian Board for Golden Rice, continued touting its
benefits. It is clear that the golden rice debate is about not only golden rice,
but also GMOs in general.>

The Opposition to Golden Rice

<Golden rice may seem like a realistic solution for VAD, but those in
opposition say the project is deeply flawed. Friends of the Earth and
MASIPAG agree that merely planting golden rice will not solve the VAD
crisis. They point out that other planned solutions for malnutrition as well as
programs currently in place are cheaper and do not require GMOs, thereby
making golden rice unnecessary. For example, UNICEF employs a vitamin A
supplementation program that improves a child’s survival rate by 12 to 24
percent and costs only a few cents.> In addition, golden rice may specifically
target the deficiency of vitamin A but does not address the countless additional
social, economic, and cultural factors that contribute to VADs. Friends of the Earth
states that golden rice produces too little beta-carotene to eradicate VAD (1.6 mg/g
of rice, or 10 percent of the daily requirement of vitamin A). The amount of golden
rice needed for sufficient vitamin A intake would be too great in comparison with
the rice available in developing countries.
<Another source of opposition to the project stems from questions regarding
the Golden Rice Project’s motives and its ties to several large biotech
industries. Is it a ploy to enhance public support for GMOs, which could take
funding away from cheaper, more realistic solutions? Or are they out to make
a profit? The biotech industry’s push of their technology raises concerns
about their motives and contributes to the negative connotations of genetically
modified crops. Those involved with the Golden Rice Project vehemently deny
that their ties to biotech companies undermine their integrity.

MASIPAG notes concerns about the employment of the Golden Rice Project
such as the set-up cost, technology transfer, accessibility of the project,
sustainability and credibility of the rice, and stable support from
governments. Finally, there are social and cultural roadblocks, such as eating
preferences deeply rooted in longstanding tradition. The yellow color of the
rice may not be accepted because of different countries’ social and cultural
history.>

The Supporters of Golden Rice

<Supporters of the Golden Rice Project consistently tout its public health
benefits. Golden rice may significantly decrease disease morbidity due to VAD
in developing countries. Proponents claim that even if it didn’t totally
eliminate VAD in developing countries, it might make a positive impact on
public health. Planting and consuming golden rice alongside other
interventions (like UNICEF’s supplement program) will make more of a
difference than any one intervention alone. We should use all tools at our
disposal to prevent disease and lifelong disability.>

<Supporters of the project also reject the opposition’s concern over the fact
that the Golden Rice Project has partners in the biotech industry and for-
profit companies. The Golden Rice Project has freedom to operate under
humanitarian use, so the technology can be provided free of charge in
developing countries. Contrary to another opposing view, the Golden Rice
Project claims to be a sustainable one in contrast to the ongoing
supplementation and fortification programs. Existing programs need millions
of dollars per country per year to run. In contrast, the Golden Rice Project
supplies free technology transfer to support developing countries.>

<Finally, supporters of the project consistently point out that anti–golden rice
groups also have their own political agenda—they are not focusing on helping
the consumer, but rather represent the radical fight against technology and
political success. Greenpeace argues against GMOs for fear of advancing
biotechnology, but when enhanced it can improve conditions in developing
countries beyond micronutrient malnutrition. Biotechnology could improve
the productivity and sustainability of developing countries’ agricultural
systems, supply greater quantities and availability of micronutrients, and
reduce large quantities of chemical inputs in both economically and
environmentally sustainable ways.>

<The International Rice Research Institute’s (IRRI) mission is to objectively

evaluate the new proposed resolutions that biotechnology may offer the rice
industry; they work with national agricultural research systems to test the
sustainability of strategies in different countries. In their analysis, the IRRI
has deemed golden rice an “exciting new option provided by biotechnology.”>
A clinical trial testing the effectiveness of vitamin A conversion from golden rice
in humans and children in China was conducted in 2009 and published in
the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The results supported the effective
conversion of vitamin A in humans. The results showed the potential for golden
rice to have a better bioconversion rate compared with any other biofortified crop,
while supplying 50 percent of the recommended daily amount of vitamin A in just
one cup of rice. In addition, the Food Allergy Resource and Research Program of
the University of Nebraska researched the rice in 2006 and concluded that no
allergenic properties were found in proteins from the new genes, a fear from the
GMO debate about potential new allergens in genetically modified crops.

The Current Debate About Golden Rice

<As a result of opposition, the Golden Rice Project employed golden rice in
fewer developing countries than originally proposed. Currently, it has 16
national rice research institutions under the Golden Rice Humanitarian
Board including those in Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, India, South Africa,
the Philippines, and Vietnam.

Despite opposition, the Golden Rice Project continued to gradually gain

support, including a blessing from the Pope on November 7, 2013, and the
2015 Patents for Humanity award. In June 2016, 5,591 scientists and citizens,
including 110 Nobel laureates (out of the living 296 laureates), signed a letter
in support of GMOs, rejecting Greenpeace’s opposition to GMOs.>
<Sir Richard Roberts, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine,
led the letter campaign entitled Laureates’ Letter Supporting Precision
Agriculture (GMOs). Opens in a new tab.

The letter addresses Greenpeace’s opposition to biotechnological innovations

in agriculture, and asks the organization and its supporters to reexamine their
stance as the scientists believe them to misunderstand the risks, benefits, and
impacts that GMOs could have, especially in developing countries. This letter
specifically addressed golden rice, and the potential benefits it could have if
fully employed in developing countries. The letter stated, “We call upon
Greenpeace to cease and desist in its campaign against golden rice specifically,
and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general.”>

<With the letter came opposition. Authors of a 2016 article in the Journal of
Agriculture and Human Values, “Disembedding grain: Golden Rice, the Green
Revolution, and heirloom seeds in the Philippines,”. Opens in a new tab argue
that opposition from anti-GMO activists is not to blame for the lack of
progress on the Golden Rice Project. They argue that even after 24 years of
research and billions of dollars, the project is still many years away from
being released to developing countries. Many research questions remain about
golden rice such as: Is beta-carotene converted into vitamin A in
malnourished individuals? Does the crop sustain after long periods between
harvest seasons? Could golden rice be incorporated into traditional cooking
methods? These questions remain because of a lack of studies that show the
future safety of golden rice in regard to human health and the environment.
As it has for many years, the fight for and against GMOs continues with no
immediate promise of resolution.>

What Are the Ethical Issues Raised?

<Despite ample research on golden rice, there remain many unanswered
questions and ethical concerns. In addition to weighing risks and benefits,
there is a question about who should decide whether golden rice is utilized.>
Consequentialism: Do the Benefits Outweigh
Risks?
<A consequentialist ethical framework says that we should look at whether
planting golden rice will bring about more good, or more harm. An analysis of
the risks of planting golden rice and the benefits of doing so may yield clarity
about whether it will have an overall positive or negative effect on the world.>

Golden Rice Risks

<Many anti-GMO activists voice potential negative consequences of planting
and consuming golden rice. Risks include potential allergies or antibiotic
resistance. There is also the possibility that genetically modified foods may
enter the food supply inadvertently when GMO crops are planted near non-
GMO crops, without the consumers' knowledge. As genetically modified crops
would have to be grown, there are concerns about the effect they would have
on the surrounding environment. Could the crops negatively impact
biodiversity? A possible threat to biodiversity arises when genetically
modified crops breed with wild species.

Another issue concerns the spreading, escaping, or crossing of genes from

genetically modified crops. This could create unwanted pesticide or herbicide
resistance. As with human safety concerns, there is a possibility that other
animals that eat genetically modified crops will be affected. Studies of the
long-term impacts of planting and consuming golden rice have been minimal.
Even though these very minimal risks are still discussed in popular discourse,
many scientists now agree that genetically modified crops are just as safe to
consume and to plant as traditional crops.>

On a different note, there are possible socioeconomic implications that genetically

modified foods can have on developing countries. Since for-profit companies back
genetically modified foods, some fear that their possible market dominance could
negatively affect small-scale farmers, particularly poor farmers who cannot
compete with large biotech companies for land and a share of the rice market.
Golden Rice Benefits
Golden rice has the promise to help prevent millions of deaths and alleviate the
suffering of children and adults with VAD and micronutrient malnutrition in
developing countries. In addition, allowing its further development may open up
more possibilities of enhancing genetically modified, biofortified crops to combat
micronutrient malnutrition in developing countries—the main benefit of golden
rice. Supporters of the project believe that improving public health in developing
countries outweighs golden rice’s associated risks.

Unheard Voices in the Debate

<In a debate dominated by anti-GMO activists and Nobel laureates, some
views are left in the dark. Ironically, the unheard voices are those of
developing countries’ inhabitants, the intended beneficiaries of the proposed
resolutions in the fight against micronutrient malnutrition. Ethical decision-
making demands that we consider an issue from a variety of perspectives.
Drowning out the voices of those lacking resources impedes our ability to do
so.>

<Luckily, with the support of both anti- and pro-GMO activists, voices from
developing countries are starting to emerge. For example, as told to Jill
Kuehnert for IRRI, Edwin Paraluman presented his story of his golden rice
harvest in the Philippines as a rice farmer. He approved, saying that, like
other farmers in countless countries dreaming that their crops may feed their
families, communities, and countries with healthy food, golden rice meets his
needs. At the end, he gave his enthusiastic support to the development and
expansion of golden rice.> Other Philippine farmers, however, gave contrasting
reports. Some raised concerns about small farmers becoming indebted to larger
corporations for seeds, exploitation of farmers, and human and environmental
health. The voices of farmers are often broadcast by activist organizations, which
may lead us to wonder: what are the developing country farmers’ true beliefs?
Their viewpoints are lost in the debate, prompting ethical concerns over who
should get to decide what crops to plant in a particular country or region.

F. Tuskegee Experiment
<The Tuskegee experiment began in 1932, at a time when there was no
known treatment for syphilis, a contagious venereal disease. After
being recruited by the promise of free medical care, 600 African
American men in Macon County, Alabama were enrolled in the
project, which aimed to study the full progression of the disease.>

<The participants were primarily sharecroppers, and many had never

before visited a doctor. Doctors from the U.S. Public Health Service
(PHS), which was running the study, informed the participants—399
men with latent syphilis and a control group of 201 others who were
free of the disease—they were being treated for bad blood, a term
commonly used in the area at the time to refer to a variety of
ailments.>

<The men were monitored by health workers but only given placebos
such as aspirin and mineral supplements, despite the fact that
penicillin became the recommended treatment for syphilis in 1947,
some 15 years into the study.>PHS researchers convinced local
physicians in Macon County not to treat the participants, and instead
research was done at the Tuskegee Institute.(Now called Tuskegee
University, the school was founded in 1881 with Booker T.
Washington at its first teacher.)

In order to track the disease’s full progression, researchers provided

no <effective care as the men died, went blind or insane or experienced
other severe health problems due to their untreated syphilis.>

<In the mid-1960s, a PHS venereal disease investigator in San

Francisco named Peter Buxton found out about the Tuskegee study and
expressed his concerns to his superiors that it was unethical.> <In
response, PHS officials formed a committee to review the study but
ultimately opted to continue it—with the goal of tracking the
participants until all had died, autopsies were performed and the
project data could be analyzed.>

<Buxton then leaked the story to a reporter friend, who passed it on to

a fellow reporter, Jean Heller of the Associated Press. Heller broke the
story in July 1972, prompting public outrage and forcing the study to
finally shut down.
By that time, 28 participants had perished from syphilis, 100 more had
passed away from related complications, at least 40 spouses had been
diagnosed with it and the disease had been passed to 19 children at
birth.

In 1973, Congress held hearings on the Tuskegee experiments, and the

following year the study’s surviving participants, along with the heirs
of those who died, received a $10 million out-of-court settlement.
Additionally, new guidelines were issued to protect human subjects in
U.S. government-funded research projects.

As a result of the Tuskegee experiment, many African Americans

developed a lingering, deep mistrust of public health officials and
vaccines. In part to foster racial healing, President Bill Clinton issued
a 1997 apology, stating, “The United States government did something
that was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong… It is not only in
remembering that shameful past that we can make amends and repair
our nation, but it is in remembering that past that we can build a
better present and a better future.”

During his apology, Clinton announced plans for the establishment

of Tuskegee University’s National Center for Bioethics in Research and
Health Care.

The final study participant passed away in 2004.>