BREW MEDIUM AND LONG-TERM OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS OF THE

BIOTECHNOLOGICAL PRODUCTION OF BULK CHEMICALS FROM RENEWABLE RESOURCES

 

DRAFT REPORT and

PREPARATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Fabio Terragni/CerissWP5 - ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC PERCEPTION

23-24 September 2004Utrecht University Unnik Building

 

• IDENTIFY THE FACTORS ABLE TO INFLUENCE THE PUBLIC RESPONSES TO FUTURE BREW PRODUCTS IN THREE AREAS:– ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS– SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS– IMPACT OF EVENTUAL INCIDENTS

• RANK FACTORS BY THEIR RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

AIMS OF WP5 – Public Perception

PROBLEM: QUALITATIVE RANKING OF FACTORS

AVAILABLE DATA ARE NOT SUFFICIENT (PREVIOUS SURVEYS FOCUSED ON ‘GREEN’ AND ‘RED’ APPLICATIONS OF BIOTECHNOLOGY)

WE DECIDED THAT A NEW SURVEY IS NEEDED TO PROVIDE FRESH DATA ON PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF WHITE BIOTECHNOLOGY

TWO DOCUMENTS WILL BE PRESENTED TODAY:• AN INTERIM REPORT• A QUESTIONNAIRE

SECOND INTERIM REPORT

BASED ON SCREENING AND ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE STUDIES ON THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF BIOTECHNOLOGY (MAINLY FOCUSED ON RED AND GREEN BIOTECH)

THE REPORT HELPS US TO FRAME THE PROBLEM, TO LIST THE FACTORS, TO RECALL CLOSE RESULTS FROM BIOTECH SURVEYS AND EXPERIENCES

THE STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT CHANGED FROM THE FIRST VERSION (SEPT. 2003)

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS (1)

- SUSTAINABILITY OF FARM PRACTICES

- IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY (CROPS AND WILDLIFE)

- LAND USE (CONFLICT WITH FOOD PRODUCTION): CONDITIONAL FACTOR RELATED TO SCALE OF PRODUCTION

OVERALL IMPACT ON GREENHOUSE EFFECT NET IMPACT ON GHG EMISSIONS CANNOT BE ASSESSED A PRIORI, DEPENDING ON WHICH OPTIONS ARE ADOPTED (FARM WASTE / DEDICATED CROPS, FORESTS / ARABLE CROPS)

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS (2)

- WATER CONSUMPTION (MORE RELEVANT IN SOUTHERN EUROPE)

- ALTERNATIVE USE OF BIOMASSES

- TRANSPORTATION DISTANCE

- WASTE DISPOSAL

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS (3)

IMPACT ON NON-PRODUCTIVE FUNCTIONS OF AGRICULTURE (LINKED ALSO TO THE FUTURE OF EU CAP)

MULTIFUNCTIONALITY AS BASIC FEATURE OF THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE

STRONG INDUSTRIALIZATION OF AGRICULTURE MAY CONFLICT WITH THE RECREATIONAL ROLE OF COUNTRYSIDE AND LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS (4)

GMOs: PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL FACTOR

WHITE BIOTECHNOLOGY (CONTAINED USE) MUCH LESS CONTROVERSIAL THAN GREEN BIOTECHNOLOGY (DELIBERATE RELEASE) ACCORDING TO THE EUROBAROMETER

ENZYMES VS. FERMENTOR SYSTEMS BASED ON LIVING ORGANISMS

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS (5)

IMPROVING SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF GMOs IMPACTS

- RELEVANT FOR GM CROPS (EVEN IF SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS ARE ALSO IMPORTANT)

- RELEVANT FOR GMOs IN INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS (7)

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS (1)

GEOPOLITICAL FACTORS: SECURITY OF SUPPLY AND INDEPENDENCE FROM OIL IMPORTS POTENTIALLY IMPORTANT TO IMPROVE ACCEPTANCE, BUT NOT YET A PRIORITY IN THE EU PUBLIC

ENVIRONMENT SEEN AS MORE IMPORTANT(EUROBAROMETER ON ENERGY 2002)

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS (2)

REDISTRIBUTION OF POWER BETWEEN SOCIETAL ACTORS (LINK TO THE POSSIBLE INDUSTRIALISATION OF AGRICULTURE)

INCREASING MARKET POWER OF BIG CORPORATIONS SEEN AS POTENTIALLY THREATENING FARMERS (ESPECIALLY ORGANIC FARMERS) AND THE THIRD WORLD ECONOMIES

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS (3)

TRUSTREPUTATION AND CREDIBILITY OF INDUSTRY AND CONCERNED INSTITUTIONS AS A KEY FACTOR FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF A NEW TECHNOLOGY

SURVEYS (EUROBAROMETER) SHOW THAT INDUSTRY IS NOT AMONG THE MOST TRUSTED GROUPS

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS (4)

TRUST INFLUENCE ALSO THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANTS AT LOCAL LEVEL

IMPORTANCE OF APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES TO PREVENT LOCAL OPPOSITION (NIMBY ATTITUDES)

IMPORTANCE OF CAREFUL SITING ESPECIALLY FOR LARGE-SCALE PLANTS (SIZE IS ANOTHER MAJOR FACTOR)

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS (5)

JOB CREATION IS ONE OF THE KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE

THE NET IMPACT ON THE DIFFERENT SECTORS CONCERNED SHOULD BE ASSESSED

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS (6)

CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF SOCIAL USEFULNESS OF FINAL PRODUCTS

USUALLY THE PERCEPTION OF SOCIAL BENEFITS OF BIOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS (EXCEPTED DRUGS) IS RATHER LOW

PERCEPTION OF RISKS FROM USING FINAL PRODUCTS ALSO NOT RELEVANT (EXCEPT FOR FOOD PRODUCTS)

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS (7)

ETHICAL EVALUATIONSURVEYS (EUROBAROMETER 2002) SUGGEST IT IS A RELEVANT FACTOR (ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS)

ROLE OF THE MEDIA IMPORTANT IN SOCIAL AMPLIFICATION, NOT IN GENERATING ANXIETIES

PRICE OF FINAL PRODUCTSCERTAINLY A KEY FACTOR (BIOFUEL)

IMPACT OF EVENTUAL INCIDENTS (1)

RISKS OF

- ACCIDENTAL RELEASE OF GMOs (IN CASE OF MISHAPS)

- INCIDENTAL RELEASE (IF WASTE STREAM IS NOT CAREFULLY MONITORED)

MAJOR ACCIDENTS CAN RADICALLY CHANGE PUBLIC PERCEPTION (TCHERNOBYL, BASEL)

OPENNESS, TRANSPARENCY AND DIALOGUE DO HELP TO MANAGE THE IMPACT OF ACCIDENTS

SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTY: NEED TO IMPROVE SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING

IMPACT OF EVENTUAL INCIDENTS (2)

PREVENTIVE MEASURES: GMOs MUST BE UNABLE TO SURVIVE IN THE OPEN ENVIRONMENT

WORKERS SAFETY: ANY DAMAGE TO WORKERS’ HEALTH WOULD AFFECT THE IMAGE OF THE INDUSTRY

FEAR OF TERRORIST ATTACKS: POSSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE, STRESSES IMPORTANCE OF PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS

IMPACT OF EVENTUAL INCIDENTS (4)

QUESTIONNAIRE

Directed to European stakeholders in

the following categories:

Industry,

Academia,

Research,

Policy,

Agriculture,

Science,

Journalists,  

Trade unions,

NGO Environment,

NGO Agriculture,

NGO Industry,

NGO Consumers,

QUESTIONNAIRE

General part (1)

The first part of the questionnaire on the public perception is aimed at framing the sustainability of the assessed technology in comparison with other competing options:

- food/feed production by conventional/organic agriculture

- energy production from fossil/renewable resources

- bulk and fine chemicals derived from fossil fuels.

QUESTIONNAIRE

General part (1)

We assume that biotechnological production of bulk chemicals occurs in Europe and that it is performed at substantial scale and that additional requirements for biotechnological production of bulk chemicals will not lead to land scarcity for food and other uses in Europe or elsewhere.

QUESTIONNAIRE

Special part (2) focus on polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA)

 

Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) have been chosen as an exemplary model product to illustrate the various production options within the BREW concept.

PHA are naturally occurring polymers synthesised by several living organisms, mainly bacteria, from biomass as substrate; they can replace certain plastics and also have unique properties for new applications.

QUESTIONNAIRESpecial part (2) based on four options

Option 1: The chemical industry produces PHA by bacterial fermentation in a reactor. Waste biomass (e. g. whey, hydrolysates of lignocellulosic waste, plant and animal wastes) is used as feedstock.

Option 2: The chemical industry produces PHA by bacterial fermentation in a reactor. The production organism is genetically modified to optimise its production characteristics. Agricultural crop plants (e. g. wheat or maize starch) which are only grown for this purpose are used as feedstock.

Option 3: Farmers produce PHA by growing special agricultural crop plants. The ability to synthesize PHAs has been conferred to these plants by genetic modification (= genetic engineering, gene technology).

Option 4: The chemical industry produces polymers functionally equivalent to PHA by chemical synthesis from fossil fuels.

QUESTIONNAIRESpecial part (2): appraisal criteria

•Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

•Reduction of fossil resources consumption

•Reduction of the economy's dependency on fossil resources

•Reduction of total energy requirements

•Decoupling economic performance and total energy requirements

•Need to demonstrate superiority for key environmental impacts (e. g. LCA)

•Sustainability in industrial production

•Sustainability in agriculture

•Supporting long-term international competitiveness of EU industry

•Contribution to the development of rural areas and to farmers wages

•Impact on agricultural land use

•Impact on local dimension (agricultural production and/or processing plants)

•Impact on centralised dimension (large scale agricultural production and/or processing plants)

•Effects on preferences for sustainably produced goods and products

•Customers and consumers specific evaluation of the value for money and willingness to pay for it

•Need to allow customers/consumers to do an informed choice (labelling, standards, certificates).

QUESTIONNAIRESpecial part (2): appraisal criteria

•Social and/or regional distribution of benefits and costs/risks of this option (e. g. employment, income, environmental impacts, structural change) is fair

•Technical feasibility (with available state-of-the art knowledge and technologies)

•Need to introduce specific support schemes (e. g. policy priorities, regulations, RTD programmes, subsidies and taxes) for the realisation of this option

•Economic feasibility (production costs in an acceptable cost range)

•Need of incentives such as tax exemptions or subsidies to make the option economically attractive/viable

•Requirement of major adaptation processes along the value chain (new equipment, know-how, processes…)

•Need to pursue stakeholder involvement/consultations in decision making processes

•Favourable evaluation because it avoids the use of GMOs

•Undesired and unintended impacts of GMOs effectively prevented/managed

•Adventitious mixing of food and non-food crops of GMO and non-GMO products can be effectively prevented

COMMENTS

AND

STAKEHOLDERS NAMES/ADDRESSES

PLEASE SEND TO

TERRAGNI@ASNM.COM