International conference on sustainable development and legal control with regard to the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms

Minister of the Environment Thorbjørn Berntsen

Introduction speech at the International conference on sustainable development and legal control with regard to the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms

Soria Moria,Oslo 13. - 14. September 1995.

Ladies and Gentlemen

First of all I would like to thank you for inviting me to conduct the opening of this very important conference on «sustainable development and legal control» with regard to the deliberate release and use of genetically modified organisms.

I am pleased to see all the capasities within this field present here today. I look upon that as a confirmation that the concept of sustainability is taken seriously.

I also believe that the high professional standard of the participants of the conference can give important contributions in relation to applying the concept of sustainability.

Before we continue, I would like to underline what I consider the most important preconditions to have a fruitful debate which will improve our understanding of «sustainability» and «benefit for society»:

First it is important to underline that it is not the sustainability and benefits of genetechnology itself which is the subject of discussion. The opinions of this technology can be divided, but the technology in itself is a fact we have to relate to. Genetechnology is not good or bad in itself, it can be used to produce good and bad products. The technology has therefor introduced a new subject of legal discretion; namely that discretion of which products are considered good and which are considered bad. We need to develop sustainability criteria to be able to execute legal control in a beneficial way for society considering both short and long term aspects.

Secondly, we must bear in mind the unified international opinion of the the need for regulations with regard to preventing GMOs from constituting an unacceptable risk to health and environment. All OECD countries have national regulations, and we are now working within the UN-system to establish regulations on transboundary movement of these organisms. What Norway and some other countries, for instance Austria, have done in their national regulations, is to take risk assessment a step further so that the regulations cover a broader and more longerterm consept of risks than the direct, immediate and primary effects on health and environment.

The third and last condition, which meets with general agreement, is the importance of public participation in this field. Genetechnology and products derived from it have a growing impact on the everyday life of us all. Since we know that opinions are divided on the subject of what genetechnology can and should be used for, it is of vital importance that the communication of the risks involved is correct, to prevent growing fear and an increased sense of impotence. It is only through broad public debate, public consultations, hearings etc that the technology can be legitimized and guided in a direction which is beneficial for society. We cannot accept that the development is shaped by researchers, technocrats and bureaucrats alone. We don´t need products customers hesitate to use due to fear of possible risks involved. This conference gives the opportunity not only to give recommendations on what kind of products are wanted and unwanted, but also on how to legitimize the products we want and hence create a sustainable production and development.

The object of this conference is to try to give a clearer meaning to the terms «sustainable development» and «benefit for the society» in relation to genetechnology. The critics allege that the terms are inconcrete and valueloaded. Moreover, they claim that the consepts are ambigous because they can be interpreted in various ways. The expression «sustainable development» is for example commonly interpreted differently by the nature conservationist and the industrial leader. It is, however, my strongest belief that it is possible to come to a common understanding of certain aspects of these principles. I have observed a more unified understanding among people of that the need to take the consept of sustainability seriously is not really optional. The current development of society is threatening basic premisses for survival and these are threats which will strike the society as a whole, included the nature conservationist and the industrial leader. Discussions about sustainable development and benefits for society with regard to the deliberate release of GMOs are hence a small but important part of the big debate which should take place within all sectors of society.

Critics have also questioned why genetechnology is singled out as an area for strict regulations on risk assessment, sustainability etc. To this I would like to say that genetechnology in fact entails something new because it implies the possibility to select certain genes. The reason behind the choise of genes can be various, but in one way or another they are all found beneficial. The interest and evaluation behind this choise may differ from other interests in society. When a conflict of interests appears, we can draw on the consepts of sustainable development;- that we at any time must use the resources in such a way that we, the present generation, meet our needs without doing so at the expence of future generations.

Our deliberation do not start from scratch. We know that the selection and possible use of particular genes and genetic resources may entail negative consequenses. We know that continuos use of certain genes can create a development towards a monoculture which is more vulnerable and a maybe a threat to biological diversity. We know that the use of certain genetically modified products can have irreversible consequenses to health and environment. We know there is a risk of an unwanted spread of genes and their traits.

As you all know, development of society can be steered in several ways, where legislation is one of the tools in the steeringprosess. Laws are passed in order to reach certain objectives and protect certain values. The Norwegian gentechnology act is a steering tool to make sure that production, use and research of GMO´s shall not endanger the conditions for life that we all depend upon, but be beneficial on a long term basis. To reach this objective it is necesarry to monitor the development carefully, evaluate it step by step, and activly apply the precautionary principle.

A law without a stated objective in this area can easily transfer too many of the conditions of development of society to the technologists. The researchers and technologists are creative people. And creativity is an ability that must be supported if we want development at all. We want development which is sustainable and which can be beneficial, and therefore we support creativity. But the moment creativity is not stretched far enough or is applied at the expense of other values, we can, by using the objective in the gentechnology act, say : «This is not good enough. We don´t want for example resistance to antibiotics because it is not sustainable. You have to think a bit further and in a slightly different way.» In this way we can correct the course of development in order for it to become beneficial in the longer term.

We won´t conceal that the evaluation of sustainability and benfit for society can be difficult.

There is the uncertaincty of the negative aspects of a release to consider. In addition, there are the long term consequenses of releases as such. The knowledge of not knowing, and the acceptance of possible risks are factors which are determinant in our evaluation of sustainability. The benefits of a product must be seen in the light of the uncertaincty as regards risks and lack of knowledge which still prevails in using this technology. Facing these risks, we see it as legitimate to ask questions like: «Is this product really necesarry?» «Does this product solve the problems we face in a better way than products made in the traditional way ?» «To whom is this product necesarry?» «What may the consequences be?» The evaluation of benefit of new products must be seen in the perspective of global sustainability, and the result might be that products accepted in the past as beneficial now are seen as a threat to sustainability. The precautionary principle and the admission of the fact that we have not been cautious enough in the past force us to make these evaluations. To be precautious in this field gives us the room we need to correct failures made and avoid making similar ones. By that we contribute to create a sustainable development.

I will end my introduction by wishing you all good luck over these two days. We admit that even if the Norwegian law states principles we believe in, we need help in developing their content. We appreciate all good advice and it is our hope that this conference will yield results which can be followed up internationally.

Good luck with your work !

---

Lagt inn 27 september 1995 av Statens forvaltningstjeneste, ODIN-redaksjonen