"Guidelines for the definition of acceptable distances between fields with genetically modified (GM) crops and fields without GM crops have to be established." This was the recent call from Mariann Fischer Boel, the EU commissioner responsible for agriculture. But what shape should such guidelines take?

Support from Switzerland

The aim of the GMO-Guidelines project (1) is to try to provide an approach of how this or similar questions on the safety of GMOs can be answered scientifically. The project was launched at ETH Zurich a little more than three years ago, says its co-ordinator, Angelika Hilbeck from the ETH Geobotanical Institute. The impetus for it, however, goes further back. The Brazilian government had charged its researchers with setting up guidelines for the ecological risk assessment of transgenic plants. The South American scientists went looking for support and found it in Switzerland.

Project co-ordinator Angelika Hilbeck from ETH's Geobotanical Institute with the book on the first phase of the project (2). large

North helps south

In Switzerland the researchers concerned were able to count on financial support from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) to the tune of a million CHF. The reason for this lies in Switzerland's ratification of the Cartagena Protocol. This stipulates that the planting out of transgenic plants be subject to sensible and transparent guidelines. In addition, the countries in the north should help lesser-developed countries in the south to develop the necessary scientific capacities.

The project soon took on greater dimensions. Around 130 public sector scientists from more than twelve countries pledged their active participation, above all from Brazil, Kenya, Switzerland, the USA and Vietnam. Over 100 individual researchers from 35 countries registered with the project and receive regular up-dates of the progress made. For Angelika Hilbeck the interest the project met with is the manifestation of a great need in the international scientific community. The working out of the guidelines was divided into four areas: the expression and locus structure; the effect on non-targeted organisms and biodiversity; genetic flow and its consequences; and the risk of resistance development and its management.

Case studies in Brazil, Vietnam and Kenya

In addition, a basis has been laid for risk analyses in country specific frames and contexts. The core of this is a documented formulation of problems in which central questions are discussed, such as "Why is a certain GMO used in agriculture?“, "Who has a problem?“ or "Who benefits from the use of GMOs?". Based on what is known so far, possible advantages and disadvantages of diverse solutions are also assessed. The guidelines have been tested by the scientists in three case studies: in Brazil and Vietnam with Bt-cotton and in Kenya with Bt-maize. These studies are published (or in preparation) in an international series of books(2), (3) and given, free of charge, to interested parties in countries of the south.

Big cultivators haven't signed up: A comparison of the global production of transgenic plants (above) with the signatory states to the Cartagena Protocol (below) shows a complementary situation between the most important cultivator states (in dark blue) and signatories to the protocol (in red). Brazil is the only exception. large

Checklist in the second phase

Does the project now serve to provide countries that cultivate GMOs with a checklist to ensure biosafety? That stage has not yet been reached, says Angelika Hilbeck. The first phase of the GMO Guidelines Project, which was concluded with a conference at ETH at the beginning of this year, had only taken the initial step with a scientifically defined framework for concrete regulation. In order to implement this achievement, however, in a second phase public offices and politicians now have to be brought on board. Socio-economic aspects and issues pertaining to biodiversity also needed to be subjected to deeper analysis.

Big cultivators don't sign up

Angelika Hilbeck is aware that, in many countries, the implementation of the guidelines will not be easy, politically. Countries such as Argentina, China, Canada, and the USA–the biggest GMO producers in the world–are the most important non-signatories to the Cartagena Protocol. Of all the big GMO producers (dark blue on the upper map), only Brazil has ratified the agreement.

For the ETH researcher, however, this is no reason to be disheartened. If the proposed guidelines stand the test of the political process perhaps other countries will take note that these guidelines could be of great help in assessing the risk of transgenic plants and implementing the Cartagena Protocol.

Co-operation across the divide

Hilbeck also draws optimism from the fact that her work is supported by a wide-based scientific fundament. Because both, critics and advocates of genetic technology worked on the GMO Guidelines Project. The head of the section "Resistance development and management", for example, is a keen supporter of Bt cotton and his counterpart in the section "Transgenic expression and position structure“ will shortly commence a new job with a big biotech company. According to Hilbeck scientific duty came first with all the participants involved. This is why they were able to work together in a collegiate and constructive atmosphere, regardless of discipline.

Fervent debate on genetic technology in Brazil

Looking back, Hilbeck says that it was interesting to see the reactions generated by the case studies. In Brazil, for example, where public debate on GMOs was particularly fervent, only thanks to the case studies did field entomologists come to realise that they could contribute to research on safety issues. With the Vietnamese, Hilbeck says, she was particularly struck by their pragmatic approach to the matter in hand. Investigations into the safety of GMO technology went without saying for the Asians, as they wanted to market their products with as little delay as possible.

For Hilbeck, the goal of the second phase is to make her own group redundant. This would mean that the competence for the scientifically determined guidelines would lie fully in the hands of her colleagues in the south, where they would naturally be spread and continue to be developed. After that she could readily imagine working in an advisory capacity for Switzerland or the EU on the elaboration of concrete regulation.