Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

Making 'safety first' a reality for biotechnology products

Nature Biotechnology volume 21, pages 599–601 (2003)Cite this article

A critical challenge facing the advocates of biotechnology is to fortify the biosafety of genetically engineered organisms. Readers of this journal have seen competing notions on how to achieve biosafety. For some, scientists carry the burden of designing better biosafety through 'backup safety precautions'1 and 'molecular gene-containment strategies'2. Some have advocated that industry should take the lead in adopting more stringent safety criteria3. Others have argued that biosafety science requires significant public investment in order to assess the potential risks of biotechnological products4. All seem to agree that 'some form of control mechanism is needed' to minimize genetically modified (GM) product risks and maximize product and environmental safety5. Prospective and preventative approaches to strengthening biosafety science and policy, however, have been lacking.

Over the past three years, our colleagues and we have developed a new 'Safety First Initiative,' a public-private partnership for transparent development of proactive safety standards that anticipate and resolve safety issues as far upstream of commercialization as possible. The Initiative's purpose is to establish cross-industry (agriculture, biotechnology, food processing, food marketing and retail) and socially robust safety standards for designing, producing and monitoring the safety of agricultural biotechnology products from laboratory bench to the consumer's dinner plate, with safety a primary criterion from the outset. The Initiative's executive advisory board (John Block, former Secretary of Agriculture; Charles S. Johnson, former executive vice president, DuPont; Margaret G. Mellon, program director, Union of Concerned Scientists; Vin Weber, former US representative; John Woodhouse, former CEO, SYSCO Corp.) and steering committee (representatives of biotechnology businesses, farming, retail food business, consumer and environmental groups and diverse scientific experts) have decided to apply a consultative and transparent process to incorporate scientific, technical, social and governmental considerations in developing environmental and human health safety standards for genetically engineered products6. Our collaborations with a diverse range of stakeholders and responsible observers have demonstrated that public concerns about the risks of biotechnology can be addressed through such a participatory and open process to make safety a first priority in the development of biotechnological products. As a result, this Initiative is building a rare and extraordinary convergence among previously acrimonious parties in the agricultural biotechnology debate.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Johnson, B. & Dallimore, R. Nat. Biotechnol. 20, 871 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Editor. Nat. Biotechnol. 20, 527 (2002).

  3. Shubert, D. Nat. Biotechnol. 20, 969 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Snow, A.A. Nat. Biotechnol. 20, 542 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Smyth, S., Khachatourians, G.G., & Phillips, P.W.B. Nat. Biotechnol. 20, 537–541 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kapuscinski, A.R., Jacobs, L.R. & Pullins, E.E. (eds.). Safety first: making it a reality for biotechnology products: final report of the April 22, 2002 workshop (Institute for Social, Economic and Ecological Sustainability, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 2002). http://www.fw.umn.edu/isees/biotech/sfreport.pdf

  7. Scientists' Working Group on Biosafety. Manual for Assessing Ecological and Human Health Effects of Genetically Engineered Organisms (Edmonds Inst., Edmonds, WA, 1998).

  8. Letourneau, D.K. & Burrows, B.E. (eds.). Genetically Engineered Organisms: Assessing Environmental and Human Health Effects (CRC Press, New York, NY, 2001).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. USDA ABRAC Working Group on Aquatic Biotechnology and Environmental Safety. Performance standards for safely conducting research with genetically modified fish and shellfish (USDA Office of Agricultural Biotechnology document no. 95–2004, 95–2005, USDA, Washington, DC, 1995).

  10. Committee on Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants. Genetically modified pest-protected plants: science and regulation (National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000).

  11. Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants. Environmental effects of transgenic plants: the scope and adequacy of regulation (National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2002).

  12. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the convention on biological diversity (Articles 15, 16 and Annex III) (UNEP, Montreal, ON, 2000).

  13. Committee on Defining Science-Based Concerns Associated With Products of Animal Biotechnology. Animal biotechnology: science-based concerns (National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2002).

  14. Aldrich, M. Safety First: Technology, Labor and Business in the Building of American Worker Safety 1870–1939 (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ruttan, V.W. Technology, Growth and Development (Oxford University Press, New York, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Stern, P.C. & Fineberg, H.V. (eds.). Understanding Risk (National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gibbons, M. Nature, 402, C81–C84 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Davison, J. Environ. Biosafety Res. 1, 9–18 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, the Pew Fellows Program on Marine Conservation and numerous colleges and programs at the University of Minnesota.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, 200 Hodson Hall, 1980 Folwell Ave., St. Paul, 55108, Minnesota, USA

    Anne R Kapuscinski

  2. Institute for Social, Economic and Ecological Sustainability, 186 McNeal Hall, 1985 Buford Ave., St. Paul, 55108, Minnesota, USA

    Anne R Kapuscinski

  3. Department of Plant Pathology and Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, 53706, Wisconsin, USA

    Robert M Goodman

  4. commercial aerospace system safety engineer based at 21382 Pensacola Cir., Huntington Beach, 92646, CA, USA

    Stuart D Hann

  5. Department of Political Science University of Minnesota, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 55455, Minnesota, USA

    Lawrence R Jacobs

  6. Institute for Social, Economic and Ecological Sustainability,

    Lawrence R Jacobs

  7. Institute for Social, Economic and Ecological Sustainability,

    Emily E Pullins

  8. C.S.J. formerly of Dupont is retired and now living at 4935 Mesa Capella Drive, Las Vegas, 89148, Nevada, USA

    Charles S Johnson

  9. Department of Applied Economics at The Food Industry Center, 317 Classroom Office Building, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 55108, Minnesota, USA

    Jean D Kinsey

  10. GlaxoSmithKline, P.O. Box 1539, King of Prussia, 19406, Pennsylvania, USA

    Ronald L Krall

  11. World Resources Institute, 10 G St. NE, Ste. 800, Washington, 20002, DC, USA

    Antonio GM La Viña

  12. Food and Environment Program, Union of Concerned Scientists, 1707 H St. NW, Ste. 600, Washington, 20006, DC, USA

    Margaret G Mellon

  13. Department of Applied Economics University of Minnesota, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 55108, Minnesota, USA

    Vernon W Ruttan

Authors
  1. Anne R Kapuscinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert M Goodman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stuart D Hann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lawrence R Jacobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Emily E Pullins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Charles S Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jean D Kinsey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ronald L Krall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Antonio GM La Viña
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Margaret G Mellon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Vernon W Ruttan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kapuscinski, A., Goodman, R., Hann, S. et al. Making 'safety first' a reality for biotechnology products. Nat Biotechnol 21, 599–601 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0603-599

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0603-599

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing