| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next |

Green Technology Foresight about environmentally friendly products and materials

4 Environmental perspectives within biotechnology

• 4.1 Introduction
  • 4.1.1 Environmental perspectives and concerns
• 4.2 The desk study
  • 4.2.1 Sources for the desk study
  • 4.2.2 Biotechnology - environmental focus in the late 1980s
  • 4.2.3 Further development of the focus on processes and products
• 4.3 Danish activities and expectations to biotechnology development and its environmental perspectives
  • 4.3.1 Danish biotechnology activities
• 4.4 Selected biotechnology areas of environmental interest
  • 4.4.1 Enzyme production and application
• 4.5 Environmental assessment of enzyme technology
  • 4.5.1 Fermentation efficiency
  • 4.5.2 Bio-polymers
  • 4.5.3 Bio-ethanol
  • 4.5.4 Biological base-chemicals
  • 4.5.5 Bio-remediation
• 4.6 Discussion and summary statements
  • 4.6.1 Discussion of the environmental perspectives
  • 4.6.2 Discussion of the structural conditions
• 4.7 Policy aspects

Annegrethe Hansen & Henrik Wenzel

4.1 Introduction

Since the first successful genetic modification with a commercial viable technique in 1973, biotechnology was predicted an industrial future within a number of industrial areas: chemical industry and pharmaceuticals, food and beverage industry, energy production and agriculture.

The optimistic technical and economical prospects were put forward by both researchers and industry.

The aim of the research within biotechnology has been:

• To analyse how biotechnology and environmental perspectives have been conceived
• To analyse the future environmental potentials and risks within some areas of application for biotechnology, where environmental perspectives have been formulated
• To assess  the role of environmental concerns in research, innovation and governmental regulation related to the areas of biotechnology application

As a generic technology, biotechnology was considered important for the competitiveness of industry and thus attracted political attention. A large number of countries from the late 1970s and especially through the 1980s introduced R&D programmes to stimulate new biotechnology developments. Resources primarily went to pharmaceutical and chemical R&D, although perspectives also were assumed for the other areas  mentioned above.  However, fewer resources went into these other areas, and R&D concerning positive environmental perspectives or negative consequences, was not high on the list either It was assumed that there were large potentials especially

within pharmaceuticals and medicine, and the majority of funding, private and public went into ‘red biotechnology’^[8]. Universities and dedicated biotechnology companies, as they became known as, invested in the new biotechnologies, and large pharmaceutical companies followed, either with own investments in new biotechnology activities or by buying into a number of the new biotechnology companies and into university research.

The new biotechnologies offered opportunities for the production of new pharmaceutical products without the use of scarce resources or with the use of fewer resources, or using more efficient techniques.

The green biotechnology, primarily addressing agricultural applications and primarily changing the traits in agricultural or horticultural crops, has been an area expected to overtake the pharmaceutical area with regard to long-term economic impact. The expected traits were predicted as improving the plant with regard to yielding or enduring certain growing conditions, thus making the plants herbicide resistant. So far, herbicide resistance is still the major trait, with an increasing share of the GM cultivated area, consisting of herbicide resistant crops.

The main arguments for the development of GM-plants have been efficiency, including losses due to pests and weather, and the exploitation of more land for agricultural crops. Environmental advantages have, however, also been argued, primarily by the chemical and seed industry, but also by parts of the research community, parts of the farming community and parts of the governmental system. Environmental arguments were stated especially in relation to the herbicide resistant crops. The potential advantages concerned s the possibilities of reducing the number of herbicide sprayings and as the possibility to spray later, consequently reducing herbicide application and prolonging the lifetime of the weeds and thereby also the lifetime of the animals and insects living on them.

The environmental concerns regarding genetic engineering had been discussed since the first modifications in 1973 and throughout the 1980s. The regulation of the contained use of genetically modified organisms led in most of the industrialised countries to a relatively large acceptance of industrial production on the basis of genetically modified organisms. Though accidental leaks did happen, there was a general confidence among regulators and NGOs that production as well as accidents were controllable.

Genetic modification of plants, primarily for agricultural and food production, has been termed “the second generation of biotechnology” and green biotechnology. R&D in plant agricultural biotechnology increased in the 1980s within a number of different application areas. The dominant applications were the development of herbicide resistant crops, primarily soy beans, corn and cotton. In Europe, research was carried out on an increasing number of other traits and plants in the 1990s, but the area with herbicide resistant plants increased, both in absolute and in relative terms.

Environmental consequences were, and still are the main concern with regard to genetically modified plants. A number of NGOs and researchers raised concern and criticism during the 1970s, and this concern and criticism  has been continued, with increasing international cooperation between many of the NGOs on documenting and forwarding the concerns for:

• increasing use of herbicides
• diffusion of traits, amongst other herbicide and pest resistance, from which follows concerns with regard to
• risk of the need for stronger herbicides to combat ao. weeds with resistance
• erosion of wild life,
• intoxicating and altering animal/plant life, and
• turning herbicide resistant crops into weed for other crops

Only few concerns have been repudiated, and different conclusions are drawn when weighing benefits and negative consequences against each other.

The white biotechnology (Webster, 2001) is primarily used about ‘biotechnology applied to industrial processes’ (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/english/Bi/Biotechnology.html), and is, as previously mentioned, also termed as the third generation biotechnology. The white biotechnology were introduced to distinguish some of the industrial biotechnologies from the ‘red  biotechnology’ representing biotechnology in medicine and in pharmaceuticals, from ‘green biotechnology’ representing plant biotechnology, and from the ‘blue biotechnology’ representing marine and aquatic applications of biotechnology.

The term white biotechnology is of newer date (around 2000), with NovoNordisk A/S, Novozymes A/S and EuropaBio (EuropaBio, 2003) being rather active in promoting the term. Forerunners of the term may be industrial biotechnology, encompassing primarily the contained use of GMOs in production. The term white biotechnology aimed at signalling the white coats of the laboratory and cleaner solutions for industry – referred to as the gateway to a more sustainable future – as in the headline of EuropaBio’s  pamphlet.

The term has thus been used to potentially ease the way for the use of biotechnology in industrial applications ensuring political acceptance, as argued amongst others by the producer of industrial enzymes, DSM, (DSM, 2004).

With the OECD report from 2001 on Application of Biotechnology to Industrial Sustainability, the environmental perspectives of new biotechnology has very much been associated with the ‘cleaning’ of industrial processes and products. The use of renewable resources in production, by substituting for example fossil fuel based materials with agricultural crops and crop residues are included in these perspectives (see ao. www.bio.org).

The use of new biotechnology for remediation, as dealt with in ao. OECD, 1994, and mentioned very early on in biotechnology development, falls between these three ‘generations’. A number of explanations can be suggested for this. There are risk concerns due to deliberate release of GMOs into the environment.  However, both researchers, industry and regulators mention that this “inter generation” biotechnology for remediation may play a role in future pollution control..

4.1.1 Environmental perspectives and concerns

Although  low on the list of R&D resource allocations, the potential positive environmental perspectives of new biotechnology have been pointed to by researchers from very early on: Biotechnological treatment of waste before or after it ends up in the environment; biotechnology for cleaner industrial processes and products, and biotechnology for detection and monitoring.

According to  several stake-holders ( see ao.Europabio, 2003, OECD 1998, d Danish Ministry of Environment, 1985) focus in the beginning was on biotechnology as  an end of pipe solution, either to clean air or water before leaving the production plant or to clean already polluted air, water or soil. Biotechnology for detection and monitoring was partly part of this.

In Denmark, the positive environmental perspectives of new biotechnology have at least from the 1980s been on the agenda, in broader debates on new biotechnology, in arguments for specific new biotechnology product developments (Kjærgaard, 1986), and in policy considerations (Danish Ministry of the Environment, 1985)

Later on biotechnology was identified as offering alternative production processes, reducing the use of unwanted chemicals, reducing the use of resources and/or making the use of alternative resources possible. OEDC (OECD, 2001) has identified and presented a selection of industrial examples of this, and also EuropeaBio (EuropaBio 2003) has presented various examples on how ‘white biotechnology’ may lead to environmentally sounder production processes.

Both the public and scientific debate focused more on the new biotechnology’s  potential negative environmental consequences than on the potential positive environmental gains.

From the mid 1970s environmental concerns were an issue at scientific conferences and in science magazines and journals, and potential introductions of regulatory measures were discussed. Genetic researchers and industry were pressed by critical researchers and environmental NGOs, who questioned if the environmental consequences had been sufficiently considered.

As a consequence of this debate, the question about regulation was brought to discussion. In the 1980s, especially concerns related to the industrial use were met by regulatory measures, responding to the developments within this sector, especially in the pharmaceutical industry.

Later discussions focussed on the deliberate release, especially of plants. Again both critical scientists and environmental NGOs initiated these debates. Agricultural and other organisations, have increasingly participated in these debates on the side of the environmentally concerned. Concerns have addressed both the consequences of contamination of crops with GMOs, the development of herbicide resistance (to the same herbicide) in a number of crops potentially making the crops weeds, and the costs related to any groundwater contamination.

4.2 The desk study

The desk study on biotechnology and environmental perspectives is meant to give the background for the status of how biotechnology and its environmental perspectives have been conceived, and for scoping the Danish study on biotechnology and the environment. The survey of the Danish activities  is given in the following and a number of studies are discussed.

Focus has been on the environmental aspects. The biotechnologies and their applications discussed in the following have been selected because of formulated environmental perspectives, primarily their  potential positive perspectives with regard to the reduction of  environmental and health consequences, and with regard to the reduction of resource utilisation.

Attempts to survey any negative environmental and health consequences are also made. As will be returned to later, these consequences have been more difficult to identify within white biotechnology. The more radical and extensive uses of biotechnology within pharmaceuticals and agriculture, with far reaching environmental, health and ethical consequences have not been part of this foresight. The strong economic and industrial interests of the plant, food, and pharmaceutical industries as well as the strong interests of the medical area, and the NGO’s focus on release and human ethics, are not as distinct within industrial biotechnology, and the negative environmental consequences thus not so much an issue in policy or debate.

Though positive environmental perspectives have been mentioned all along, they have especially become prevalent in the broader political debate from the 1990s. As it appears from the following, the positive contributions of new biotechnology to the environment has been on political agenda longer, but for the first many years of new biotechnology development, the drivers and the political motivation for the focus on biotechnology were the productivity gains it offered and the possibility for developing new product qualities. This was the case within pharmaceuticals, foods and plants.

In foresights on new biotechnology and reports on the environmental perspectives, a number of applications of new biotechnology in industrial production were launched, in addition to biotechnology for remediation. As a focus in this report five main fields of biotechnology were chosen, namely:

1) the development of new industrial processes, mainly enzymes,

2) fermentation efficiency (including fermentation efficiency in enzyme production)

3) the development of processes for producing bioplastics and degradable biopolymers,

4) bio-ethanol, and

5) the development of micro-organisms for treatment and remediation.

The two large areas of biotechnology development, medicine and health, and genetically modified plants and new biotechnology based foods, have been included in other foresight surveys, and have therefore not been included here, though the economic productivity gains which have been obtained, may also have an environmental, resource saving side to them. As will be demonstrated, this focus means leaving out a very substantial part of new biotechnology developments.

4.2.1 Sources for the desk study

For the account of the development of biotechnology development and the expectations regarding the environmental consequences, a number of Danish and OECD reports will be drawn upon, together with EuropaBio documents and industry statements. It is demonstrated how the environmental perspectives have always been part of the agenda, but also how the development until the 1990s has been rather anonymous, in rethorics as well as in policy and concrete activities. Table 4.1 gives an overview of the studies presented and discussed.

Table 4.1, overview of sources for the desk study

4.2.1.1 The Ministry of Environment , The Genetic Engineering Group of the Danish Technological Council

In 1985, the Ministry of Environment edited a booklet on the environmental perspectives in new biotechnology. They ‘wanted a survey of wether genetic engineering could be applied in industry or other business with positive effect on the environment’ (authors translation).  The report points to the general advantages of new biotechnology as:

• contribution to the improvement of the efficiency of the organisms in existing biotechnology production
• substitution of chemical industry, which is a heavy polluter

The report is divided into three parts:

• genetic engineering in general
• the application of genetic engineering in Denmark
• examples of application possibilities, and comparison of aspects of genetic engineering versus traditional use

Application of genetic engineering in Denmark is referred to be within

a)    Chemical production etc. 1) enzymes and 2) pharmaceuticals

b)    reprocessing of  vegetable raw material 1) in breweries

c)    reprocessing of animal raw material  1) in dairies 2) in the food industry

d)    agriculture

e)   hospitals

Areas where genetic engineering is expected to be of future importance are identified as

a)    processing of mineral oil

b)    chemical production etc.

c)    reprocessing of vegetable and animal material

d)    processing of waste

e)    husbandry, agriculture and forestry

f)     wild life population

In the report, a comparison of the application potentials is made within the examples of:

• enzyme production
• production of animal and vegetable oils
• waste treatment, water sewage and waste water from chemical industry
• vitamin production, vitamin c og vitamin B2
• herbicides (alternative products)  such as a) production af herbicides and b) introduction of resistance into the plants
• vaccines
• plant modification, for example modification of barley

The way these environmental potentials will be realized are categorized as:

• making industrial processes more effective
• substituting  the methods for production existing agents and products with biotechnology production methods
• the construction of organisms to combat pollution, pests and weed
• production of food with a high nutritional content

The report concludes that:

• biotechnological processes in many cases are an advantage
• changes from chemical to biotechnological processes will lead to substantial changes in resource and raw material use
• genetic engineering may be used  to renew and improve in food production
• genetic engineering may be used to sewage treatment and to combat of existing pollution
• nitrogen absorbing plants do not substantially solve the problem of  the washing out from agricultural soil, but may bring down the need for nitrogenous fertilizer

4.2.2 Biotechnology - environmental focus in the late 1980s

Though the report from 1985 identified a number of ways in which new biotechnology would contribute positively to the environment, the potential positive environmental aspects were not a high profile issue in the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s.

Herbicide resistant plants were not mentioned in the 1985 report as environmentally advantageous, but were promoted by seed- and chemical industry as having positive environmental consequences. However, the many controversies over the release of plants meant, that plant technology did not become regarded as environmental biotech, only as potentially having also positive environmental consequences.

Activities and environmental enthusiasm were therefore modest in the late 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s. And when the OECD decided to initiate activities in 1991, focus in these activities was on combating existing pollution, not on biotechnology as a more sustainable production technology or leading to more sustainable products.

Industry, primarily, argued the genetically modified herbicide tolerant plants as environmentally advantageous. The industry’s driver for the development of the herbicide tolerant plants had, however, been one of efficiency or productivity. So together with the many environmental controversies with regard to diffusion of the GM plants, the disputed environmental advantages to be disadvantages, and the potential reduction in biodiversity and damage to flora and fauna, the herbicide tolerant plants were disputed as an environmental advantage.

The environmental perspectives from the use of genetically modified organisms for remediation and their application for ao. industrial enzyme production were acknowledged as potentials, but not a big issue. Regarding remediation, activities were modest, amongst other because of the release issue, whereas enzyme production progressed without big arm swinging regarding the environmental perspectives, but not with much scepticism towards it either.

4.2.2.1 The OECD, 1994

In 1991 (OECD, 1994) the OECD initiated activities with regard to the environmental perspectives within biotechnology. With their report from 1994 (OECD, 1994) they focussed on the role biotechnology might play in relation to already existing pollution with the report ‘Biotechnology for a clean environment. Prevention, detection, remediation’.

It was amongst other meant to respond to ‘the occasional misapprehension that the environmental implications of biotechnology are mainly a cause for concern´, and addressed the application of biotechnology to ‘clean’ after industrial productions.

The report refers to the relatively modest development of environmental biotechnology. It is stated that biotechnology for a clean environment has developed much slower than biotechnology in the medical and food sector. This slow development is explained with the science-push character of modern biotechnology in general, and suggests the following explanations:

• that environmental biotechnology ‘often could not compete in glamour with medical and agricultural biotechnology’
• that environmental biotechnology ‘does not have the same ‘’natural’’ R&D constituency as medical and agricultural research sectors’ – ‘ it is too vast a field, complex and ill-defined
• the ‘greater difficulty of some underlying scientific questions’ (multitude of interactions between plant and microbial species and the environment’

They categorize the number of ways in which biotechnology can prevent or reduce environmental damage as:

• added-value processes, which convert a waste stream into useful products
• end of pipe processes, in which the waste stream is purified to the point where the products can be released without harm into the environment
• development of new biomaterials, the manufacture of materials with reduced environmental impact;
• new biological processes, which generate less waste.

The report notes the increasing growth in environmental biotechnology, but refers to the uncertainties regarding the environmental and economic aspects as limiting diffusion. Increasing environmental regulation and support for environmental initiatives are referred to promote environmental technology; but it is also referred that application of biotechnology to environmental purposes, will take many years because there are many scientific, technological and economic black boxes.

It further refers to the lack of engineers with a biological or biotechnology background within the productions, where biotechnology could be used for environmental purposes, as contributing to the slow development of biotechnology for environmental purposes. Biotechnology is not regarded as a possibility, because engineers are not educated in the biological or biotechnology thinking.

However, despite the referred environmental uncertainties, which might limit biotechnology applications, the report also mentions that the high public acceptance of biotechnology for environmental purposes (stated in Eurobarometer 1991 and 1993) as potentially reducing uncertainty and contributing to the reduction of the development times needed.

The later increased focus on the contribution of biotechnology to the development of cleaner processes and products in the industry, has according to EFB, been a general tendency in industrial production following amongst other the Brundtland Report from 1987 and the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

Though the potentials for biotechnology to contribute to cleaner production, were referred to also earlier, e.g. in the small popular publication from the Danish Ministry of environment in 1985, where biotechnology is stated to:

• contribute to the improvement of the efficiency of the organisms in the existing biotechnological production
• change parts of the chemical industry that are very pollutant
• the focus on these perspectives remained low on the strategic or political agenda.  Biotechnology developments in medicine, in the human genome project, in the pharmaceutical  industry and in the herbicide tolerant plant development, dominated.

The increased focus on the environmental potentials of using biotechnology as a cleaner technology in industrial processes from the mid-1990s, is amongst other demonstrated with a number of publications from the OECD and others.

4.2.2.2 OECD, 1998

The report states the shift in paradigm which has taken place since the early 1990s. From the need to remove pollutants, to the possibilities for reshaping industrial processes and thus prevent pollution at the source.

But it is also stated that the concepts of cleaner industrial production is further ahead than the technical possibilities. And the report aims at pointing to the initiatives needed to close this gap and the bottlenecks which exist.

The report  p. 7,  identifies three main drivers for cleaner technology:

1) Economic competitiveness, with companies considering the advantages of clean products and processes in terms of market niches or cost advantages;

2) government policies, which enforce or  encourage changes in manufacturing practices; and

3) public pressure, which takes on strategic importance as companies seek to establish environmental legitimacy’.

The report is referred to address politicians, industry and the public, who should be alerted to the potentials of new biotechnology, and the initiatives needed to realize these potentials (authors’ formulation).

The report (in chapter 2) goes through examples of how biotechnology is used in six of the sectors, which contribute substantially to pollution in the OECD. Also their economic importance is evaluated.

The OECD distinguishes between biotechnology as:

• leading to new (end) products, such as e.g. biopharmaceuticals and seeds
• leading to new processes for producing known products (e.g. insulin)
• leading to improved final products or improved processes, e.g. Enzymes

The six sectors:

• Chemicals. The chapter reviews commodity chemicals, fine chemicals, enzymes, pharmaceuticals, refined petroleum and coal products, plastics and crop protection chemicals. The chemical sector is stated to be a major generator of materials, a major consumer of energy and non renewable resources and a major contributor to waste and pollution. Biotechnology is most widely used in fine chemicals. Biotechnology is stated to be able to reduce fossil carbon consumption and thus also global warming in various ways: improving industrial processes and energy efficiency and producing biomass-based materials and clean fuels.
• Pulp and paper sector. Biotechnology penetration is referred to as large in Europe
• Textiles and leather
• In food and feed: penetration of new biotechnology is referred to as greatest in the USA
• In mining bioleaching/minerals oxidation and in metals, bioremediation and recovery are mentioned as having economic potentials.
• The energy sector biotech is stated to be especially important in pollution control, via development of bio-diesel, bioethanol and biodesulphurisation, which will replace energy-intensive and polluting systems with systems that are more environmentally friendly.

In OECD 1998 chapter 3 the science and technological trends and potential for exploiting the environmental biotechnology potentials are described.  It is referred that ‘The possibilities for developing environmentally friendly products and processes and to clarify which areas of research require efforts, it is necessary to examine public demand, economic demand and scientific and technological feasibility’ (OECD 1998 p. 63).

The report categorizes the number of ways in which biotechnology can prevent or reduce environmental damage as:

• added-value processes, which convert a waste stream into useful products
• end of pipe processes, in which the waste stream is purified to the point where the products can be released without harm into the environment
• development of new biomaterials, the manufacture of materials with reduced environmental impact;
• new biological processes, which generate less waste

It is stated that biotechnology is not clean per se, and it is mentioned that innovations in chemical industry within the existing technology paradigms, reduce its environmental impact as well. For example, the biotech and chemical processes may produce different environmental problems.

The report states that so far, limited experimental results and general statements are used to argue for biotechnology as contributing to environmentally sounder production. Further it is said that evaluation is however requested as well as methods for these evaluations and a number of methods for these evaluations are mentioned  in OECD 1998 p. 87 and categorised in table 4.1 p. 88:

• Environmental Management Systems (EMS) (Focus on auditing management systems)
• Risk Assessment (RA) (the likelihood that environmental safety limits may be exceeded or that adverse effects may occur)
• Technology Assessment (TA)
• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
• Material Flow Analysis (MFA)
• Life Cycle Analysis /LCA)

LCA is mentioned to be an important instrument for evaluations, only recently used for evaluating biotech. In addition to the general problem of weighting the different pollutions against each other, data and measuring problems are mentioned. The secrecy of many industrial LCAs also limits possibilities for evaluation and thus policy making.

As introduction to chapter five it is claimed that the preceding chapters demonstrated the potential of biotechnology to provide basis for more environmental production. And from there on, the chapter discuss the importance of public attitudes.

Numerous surveys are referred to, including the Eurobarometer surveys and some American and Canadian surveys. Though none of these, as noted in the chapter, address industrial biotechnology and bioremediation techniques, the importance of informing and educating the public is emphasised, and it is suggested to build on the public support for improving the environment.

It is stated that global environmental development and international commitments are very important for the development of cleaner industrial processes. Regulation and voluntary agreements are mentioned to increase the need for innovation, and policies that involve the public are referred to have the most far-reaching effects. Also consumer demand for cleaner products is referred to as putting pressure on manufacturers to meet this demand.

In a chapter on political recommendations, the recommendations to policy makers and industry are particular policies to act together to facilitate the penetration of biotechnology as an enabling technology: R&D policy, particularly building a bridge from basic research to implementation, ao. via demonstration projects.

Though the report identifies the two major drivers as regulatory policy and peoples’ life styles, these are not addressed in the political recommendations.

4.2.3 Further development of the focus on processes and products

Also, The European Federation of Biotechnology, which presents themselves as the non-profit association of all national and cross-national Learned Societies, Universities, Institutes, Companies and Individuals interested in the promotion of Biotechnology throughout Europe and beyond, in a EU Commission supported article from 1999 refers to ‘a pervading trend towards less harmful products and processes; away from “end of pipe treatment” of waste streams, indicating that end of pipe contributions had been dominant until then.

In the beginning of the 2000s, several reports appear in which focus increasingly is on biotechnology as contributing to environmental improvements:  cleaner products and processes in industry, products that save resources or substitute resources in user industries, and products which reduce waste problems. Examples of these reports are:

• IDA (The Danish Association of Engineers), 2001, Bioteknologi – mellem drøm og dilemma (Biotechnology – between dream and dilemma)
• OECD, 2001, The Application of Biotechnology to Industrial Sustainability- New Biotech Tools for a Cleaner Environment;
• EuropaBio, April 2003, White Biotechnology: Gateway to a More Sustainable Future; and
• Royal Belgian Academy Council of Applied Science, January 2004, Industrial Biotechnology and Sustainable Chemistry.
• The American, Biotechnology Industry Organisation, 2004, New Biotech Tools for a Cleaner Environment

These reports focus on application of biotechnologies, and their contributions to reduce environmental load/strain on the environment, either by reducing resource use in production; by reducing resource use by using a biotechnology product; or by reducing waste. All reports give a number of examples where biotechnology reduces environmental strain.

4.2.3.1 IDA, 2000

IDA, 2000, reviews the Danish biotechnology development, and identifies environmental potentials, drivers and barriers for this development. The report, based upon amongst others OECD, 1998, identifies the potentials of industrial biotechnology as within:

• chemicals and pharmaceuticals, including bio-polymers
• paper, bio-bleaching, trans-genetic trees, reuse of paper masse and removal of by-products
• foods (including biological pest control)
• textiles and leather
• metals and minerals
• energy – improved  regain of oil and hydrogen production

Additionally, the cleaning potentials of new biotechnology are stated to be within: earth/the ground, where a distinction is made between different ways of combating pollution:

a) already existing microorganisms in the ground which with minimal help can remove the pollution

b) bacteria which can be grafted on to the polluted ground and break down the unwanted substances

c) planting of plants which can take up or break down environmentally damaging substances

water – in sewage plants, in the ground water, in the sea and in lakes etc. In sewage plants, focus is referred to be on optimising at different levels: developing processes that generate less sludge, give more usable products for fertilisers and give more energy efficient cleaning air, where 3 principles for cleaning is referred:

a) biofilter with a biofilm of microorganisms

b) a trickle bed bio reactor (to some extent similar principle as the bio filter)

c) bioscrubber reactor (a chamber for gas adsorption and a mud tank)

The report gives a thorough account of the technical possibilities which biotechnology offers to reduce resource use, to substitute chemical raw materials and to contribute to cleaning within a number of areas.

The report on the one hand identifies technical possibilities for environmental applications of new biotechnology, on the other hand identify the companies and institutions in which new biotechnology development take place.

The report thus opens up for discussions of the structural conditions for the development of biotechnology for environmental purposes, and opens for identifying areas which may be further stimulated by research grants etc.

The report also mentions the strong positive impact that environmental regulation may have on biotechnology development; but these regulations are primarily found in industries in which biotechnology is applied, not in the biotech industry.

4.2.3.2 OECD, 2001

OECD, 2001, distinguishes between the environmental perspectives of new biotechnology as:

• the replacement of fossil fuels raw materials by renewable (biomass) raw materials
• the replacement of a conventional, non-biological process by one based on biological systems, such as whole cells or enzymes, used as reagents or catalysts

A substantial part of the report, and a part whose contribution has been cited extensively for its collection of 21 examples of industrial biotechnology. The cases compare the environmental impact of using traditional/existing technology with new biotechnology, and find that new biotechnology in these cases contribute to the reduction of the measured negative environmental impact.

The descriptions of the 21 examples comprise:

• Manufacture of Riboflavin (vitamin B₂)
• Production of 7-Amino-cephalosporanic Acid
• Biotechnological Production of the Antibiotic Cephalexin
• Bioprocesses for the manufacture of Amino Acids
• Manufacutre of S-Chloropropionic Acid
• Enzymatic production of Acrylamide
• Enzymatic Syntheses of Acrylic Acid
• Enzymatic-Catalysed Synthesis of Polyesters
• Polymers from renewable Resources
• A Vegetable Oil Degumming Enzyme
• Water Recovery in a Vegetable-processing Company
• Removal of Bleach Residues in Textile Finishing
• Enzymatic Pulp Bleaching Process
• Use of Xylinase as a Pulp Brightener
• A life Cycle Assessment of Enzyme Bleaching of Wood Pulp
• On-site production of Xylinase
• A Gypsum-free Zink Refinery
• Copper Bioleaching Technology
• Renewable Fuels – Ethanol from Biomass
• The Application of LCA Software to Bioethanol Fuel
• Use of Enzymes in Oil-well Completion

The examples are taken from Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Austria, South Africa, the United States and Canada, and cover the pharmaceutical, the fine chemicals, the bulk chemicals, the food and feed, the textiles, the pulp and paper, the minerals and the energy sectors (OECD 2001, table 1 p. 12).

4.2.3.3 Europa Bio, 2003

Europa Bio, April 2003’s, ‘White Biotechnology: Gateway to a More Sustainable Future’, gives a ‘brief summary of a study, conducted by six innovative companies who are amongst the pioneers of white biotechnology’, to demonstrate the contributions of white technology.

From this selection of case studies, the environmental impact factors of biotechnology and traditional processes are identified as:

• energy use
• raw materials
• emissions
• land use
• toxicology

The six examples have repetitions from the OECD study, and include:

• vitamin B₂,
• antibiotic Cephalexin,
• Scouring enzyme,
• NatureWorks^tm,
• Sorona^r , and
• Ethylene from biomass

From the examples they make estimates for the potentials for a more sustainable society.

More examples are found on their home page, including enzymes produced by genetic engineering for detergents, for cheese production, for sweeteners, for breakdown of pectin in cotton, for industrial stonewashing (without stones), and for bread’s extended shelf life (www.europabio.org, accessed 22/4-2004).

4.2.3.4 The Royal Belgian Academy, 2004

The report from the Royal Belgian Academy Council of Applied Sciences from January 2004, draw on the examples of:

• food additives and food supplements
• bio-pesticides
• bio-colorants
• solvents
• plastics or bioplastics
• vitamins
• fine chemicals and pharmaceuticals

and within biofuels:

• bio-ethanol
• bio-diesel
• biogas

The descriptions of the applications are less company specific than those of OECD and EuropaBio, and to a larger extent relate to general environmental problems. The recommendations – to industry as well as to public policy – are therefore also to generally strengthen biotechnology development – though it is recommended that this is ’done in a structured, strategic and goal oriented manner.

4.2.3.5 The American Biotechnology Industry Association, 2004

The American Biotechnology Industry Organisation, 2004, explicitly builds on OECD, 2001, and expands the findings from the OECD, 2001, primarily in relation to the US industrial sector. The case studies encompass:

• Pulp and Paper Production and Bleaching
• Textile Finishing
• Plastic and Chemical Production
• Fuels Production
• Pharmaceutical and Vitamin Production

Additional Examples of Biotechnology in Action, including energy, mining, textile manufacturing and food processing.

In the summary for policy makers, the key findings are referred to as:

Industrial biotechnology offers the private sector remarkable new tools for pollution prevention which have not been widely available before now.

These new tools not only prevent pollution but can also significantly cut energy demand, natural resource consumption, and production costs while creating high-quality intermediates or consumer products.

Accelerated uptake of new industrial biotechnology processes could lead to further pollution prevention, waste reduction, and energy cost savings in related services such as waste disposal or energy production.

Public policies and regulations do not provide adequate incentives for technological innovations, such as biotechnology-based pollution prevention and energy savings.

The industrial biotechnology processes used in this analysis involve cutting-edge technologies. More research and development must be undertaken to increase the utility and efficiency of these biotechnology processes across a broad range of industrial applications. The policy considerations are rather general and not very binding, and limit themselves to - considerations.

4.3 Danish activities and expectations to biotechnology development and its environmental perspectives

As referred to in the previous paragraph, the Danish Ministry of Environment already in 1985 identified applications of new biotechnology that might imply environmental benefits. At the same time the potential negative consequences were discussed within a number of fora, with focus on regulation needs.

The potential positive environmental arguments for new biotechnology did not disappear completely from the agenda, but the drivers for the biotechnology development were others. Pharmaceutical industrial research and public medical research dominated both the public and private research and development.

The plant and seed  industry’s response to the environmental concerns for pollen diffusion, harmful effects on insects of pest resistance, and concerns over increased herbicide spraying as the consequence of introducing gm-plants, was to argue for environmental benefits of the plants, stemming from potential reductions in herbicide use and increased biodiversity as a consequence of later sprayings. Based on the argumentation research agendas continued to focus on herbicide resistance.

The environmental benefits of industrial use of a.o. enzymes from genetically engineered micro-organisms, were, to some extent, referred to, but these were not used as a ‘sales argument’ by industry, neither to customers, nor to policy makers, as far as we found. The production of enzymes, produced on the basis of genetically engineered organisms, became increasingly efficient, and was consequently welcomed in a number of industrial processes, resulting in increased productivity by reducing the use of resources.

However, the tendency of not promoting environmental benefits changed. Enzymes increasingly became envisaged as applicable within a larger number of areas, enabling the use of amongst other waste materials, reducing scarce resources or substituting unwanted chemical agents.  Consequently, industry as well as public institutions became more promotive of new biotechnology as a more environmentally sustainable technology.

The mentioned OECD reports contributed to that; parts of the biotech industry organisations hired consultants to analyse the potential environmental benefits (or they carried out assessments on their own); a number of institutions and companies worked with substitution of scarce resources by using biomass; and professional as well as Government institutions, such as the Danish EPA with this report, again considered ways in which they might introduce policies that would lead to the use of biotechnology to improve environment in areas where existing structures (price structures, company structures, regulation etc.) would inhibit the use of new biotechnology.

Also the Engineering Association’s report from 1999, ‘Biotechnology - Between dream and dilemma’ was in the same line and aimed at identifying the role that engineers might play to support broader applications of ingenious (in Danish ‘snilde’) and cleaner biotechnologies (The aim is more diverse in the report, and the aim here is the authors’ interpretation of it.)

The Danish development with increased focus on biotech as contribution to sustainable biotechnology, has thus been part of the wave of revived focus on the environmental perspectives of new biotechnology. And with more than 50% of the world enzyme production, Denmark, or especially  Novozymes A/S has been central for contributing to this wave.

4.3.1 Danish biotechnology activities

The mapping of the Danish biotechnology development described in this chapter, aims at showing the role of the industrial biotechnology development in the overall biotech development and to give some impression of the environmental biotechnology activities.

A number of sources have been used for this mapping, both quantitative sources and more descriptive reports. Reports and surveys and a variety of company material and institutional material have been used to identify specific companies and research environments for subsequent interviews.

A limited number of interviews were made  for the purpose of identifying ongoing industrial and public research activities, the conditions for these activities, and the potential environmental aspects and developments..

Primarily research and development departments have been approached with the inquiry for an interview, with one or more persons, together or separately.

With the limited resources for the survey on the one hand, and the limited number of institutions on the other, it has been assumed that this way of mapping perspectives, networks, institutional conditions, etc. has enabled a nuanced image of the industrial biotechnology activities and their environmental perspectives. Interviewees have been asked about their development activities and the role of universities and research institutions, suppliers, customers, and regulation for this development.

Regarding especially the potential  negative environmental consequences of new biotechnology,  NGOs and the Ministry’s ‘Agricultural and biotechnology office’ have been approached, the latter being responsible for the regulation of the contained use of GMOs and for the preparation of notes for the Parliamentary decisions on deliberate release.  Only one NGO has been interviewed.

4.3.1.1 New biotechnology R&D in Denmark

Biotechnology R&D has developed rapidly in Denmark, in public research as well as in industry. The biotechnology development, measured as biotechnology R&D, has increased and operational costs in 2001 were five times the size of what they were in 1987. Also the distribution between private and public R&D has shifted, with an increasing share of research carried out in the private sector, see table 4.2.

Table 4.2. Operational costs in biotechnology R&D in Denmark 1987, 1995 and 2001 mio. DKK.

Source: Analyseinstitut for Forskning, Forskningsministeriet,

Forskningssekretariatet Undervisningsministeriet and Forsknings- og teknologiministeriet, selected years.

Medicine and health, and genetically modified plants and new biotechnology based foods also in Denmark have constituted the majority of R&D. These areas have been included in foresight surveys initiated by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation and the Ministry of Environment, with the latter plant foresight explicitly focussing on the environmental consequences.

The focus in this project is on industrial biotechnology and new biotechnology as a remediation technology, and it therefore only covers a rather limited, but maybe in the future increasing part, of new biotechnology.

Figure 4.1. Estimate of the distribution of new biotechnology research.

Note: Authors’ very rough estimate, on the basis of R&D statistic, annual reports, interviews and more. Analyseinstitut for Forskning 2001, estimates 90% of research to be within pharmaceuticals.

The environmental aspects have been the focus, and the technologies discussed in the following have been selected because of their perceived positive environmental perspectives, regarding the reduction of environmental and health consequences, and with regard to the reduction of resource utilisation.

The distribution of the biotechnology research and development between industrial areas are rough estimates. The Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy is under obligation of secrecy, and is therefore only allowed to publish the medical and the pharmaceutical research and development. They estimate (Analyseinstitut for Forskning, 2001) that 90% of the private biotechnology research and development is carried out within pharmaceutical products and new medical treatments. Hansen, 1996, made a loose estimate of 50% of the private biotechnology research and development to be within pharmaceuticals and medicine, and to be increasing. The increase to 75% is thus also very rough.

Also the other estimates are very uncertain, due both to the uncertainties in delimiting the definition of new biotechnology, the applications of new biotechnology and the lack of both public statistics and statistics in general. But it is generally agreed that a large share of new biotechnology research and development is carried out within medicine and pharmaceuticals. The uncertainties, however, mean that more substantial conclusions cannot be made.

Enzyme research and development has increased (estimated, with the use of R&D percentages from 2001 -2003 used on sales figures from the 1990s), while new biotechnology based food research has been relatively modest throughout the period. Consumer concerns have been referred to both by industry and by policy consultants as contributing to the low R&D activities (see for example IDA, 2000, Kjeldahl, 2004, Mortensen, 2004).

Public research is even more difficult to categorise, since it is less application oriented. Much of the basic research is applicable in a variety of areas, though it is not always applied in the many areas. Mostly medical and pharmaceutical R&D and production are referred to as being the actual users of the R&D, though often not formulated potentials may be found in other areas (Nielsen, interview 2004).

An increasing share of the R&D resources was by several interviewees mentioned to be allocated to more application oriented research. The large share of resources going to application oriented institutions such as the Technical University of Denmark, may point in the same direction, as well as private donations from a.o. Novozymes A/S to technical research.

Plant research has been mentioned to have been reduced in the public sector as well as in the private sector. Private research to some extent was driver of public research – supporting public research as well as contributing by being on the research front in specific areas. Some of the public research was in addition spurred by the need for public knowledge for risk and environmental assessments.

4.3.1.2 Public biotechnology R&D in Denmark

As many other countries, Denmark has experienced a marked increase in biotechnology research and development. The number of person years within new biotechnology has tripled within a decade, an increase to which a number of public R&D programmes contributed.

Table 4.3. Public biotechnology R&D in Denmark.

Source: Analyseinstitut for Forskning, Forskningsministeriet,

Forskningssekretariatet, Undervisningsministeriet and Forsknings- og teknologiministeriet, selected years.

New biotechnology and the public R&D programmes within new biotechnology have been promoted with reference to the Danish experience within biological production. This background has been argued to form the basis for exploiting the new biotechnologies and contribute to growth.

The localisation of the public R&D is concentrated around Copenhagen, but with important biotechnology research environments also in Århus, Aalborg and Odense universities. At Technical University of Denmark, DTU, a substantial part of the R&D directed towards the use of biotechnology in industrial processes is located; research in the cleaning technologies are located at DTU and at Aalborg university, and biotechnology processes for the production of or for use in the production of alternative fuels or materials are found at Risoe, DTU and at Odense universities.

Estimates point to medicine and pharmaceuticals as the major area, followed by research and development of which the eventual application will be in industry, and to plants.

The new biotechnology plant research has been referred by several to have decreased in the recent 5 years, with also decreasing private grants for public research. But figures are not very transparent to say the least.

For food research, a number of large R&D grants have been given to R&D institutes addressing applications in food industry and sustainable processes in various industries. And biotech food related research may be increasing, though again transparency is not characterising the area.

R&D institutes within remediation, base their research on new biotechnology R&D. But application potentials are referred to very cautiously.

4.3.1.3 Private biotechnology R&D in Denmark

The industrial biotechnology development in Denmark has, as mentioned and as in many other countries, been dominated by the development within medicine and pharmaceuticals, and to some extent within plants.

However, increasingly, R&D is found within industrial biotechnology, especially the production and use of enzymes, following substantial improvements in their production, and an increasing acknowledgement of the possibility for resource savings in application.

The number of companies with biotechnology research and development has generally been increasing from 1987 to 2001. Also the number of researchers has increased. The missing figures are not publicly available for discretionary reasons, or are estimated by the Analyseinstitut for Forskning to be too uncertain for publication (personal communication, 2004).

Table 4.4. Development in private biotechnology R&D, 1987-2001.

Source: Analyseinstitut for forskning, Forskningsministeriet, Forskningssekretariatet, Undervisningsministeriet,  Undervisningsministeriet and Forsknings- og teknologiministeriet, selected years.

The size of  the R&D activities are unevenly distributed, with a few large companies estimated to have the major share of the activities.

The pharmaceutical biotechnology companies have been dominated by Novo Nordisk A/S, though a number of other pharmaceutical companies have important activities within new biotechnology as well. These have different backgrounds, amongst other being:

• spin-offs from large pharmaceutical companies, with activities outside their original company’s  core business
• spin-offs, that supply the original company
• new companies supplying companies and industries
• new companies developing into new pharmaceutical companies
• spin-offs from universities, which commercialise the university research

The private biotech plant research in Denmark was through the 1980s dominated by Danisco A/S. GM herbicide resistant sugar beets was the dominant area of research. Research activities were found within other crops as well as traits.

In the 1990s also the smaller seed firm, DLF-Trifolium A/S in cooperation with Danisco, has carried out research within genetically modified plants, fodder beets as well as other, among them energy crops. Several of the agricultural R&D institutions have also carried out biotech research, alone as well as in cooperation with DLF-Trifolium A/S, Danisco and Monsanto.

In food industry, in which R&D in general constitutes a small share of revenues, most of the science based research and development take place in a few large companies and very few smaller R&D companies.

Novozymes A/S dominates, in Denmark and in the world, within R&D in industrial enzymes. And within private R&D of new biotech methods for remediation, the Novozymes A/S owned American companies have a prevalent role.

The new biotechnology research in private companies is primarily located around Copenhagen, with an estimated larger concentration of private R&D of private R&D, than of the public R&D.

All the above mentioned companies’ R&D, is located within 25 km of Copenhagen, with the exception of some parts of plant and food research.

The application of new biotechnology products, especially the application of enzymes, will however be much less regionally concentrated. The localisation of the applying industry will therefore be important to identify potential regional environmental consequences.

4.4 Selected biotechnology areas of environmental interest

Regarding the environmental perspectives within new biotechnology, the following areas of biotechnology application have been selected, on the background of the literature survey and the Danish activities:

• enzyme production and application
• fermentation efficiency,
• bio-polymers,
• bio-ethanol,
• biological base-chemicals, and
• bio-remediation

4.4.1 Enzyme production and application

As referred to above, enzyme technology is by far the largest field of industrial- or ‘white’ biotechnology, and is the major area of white biotechnology in Denmark, with Novozymes, Danisco A/S, Danisco-Genencor and Chr. Hansen A/S as large players in the field of enzymes and within their specialties.

The field of enzyme technology is referred to have been developed from pharmaceutical research and production, a strong agricultural base (in Denmark) and from thorough experiences with agricultural research and production. Large public as well as private investments in biotechnology R&D contributed to the biotechnology development from which the enzyme industry developed. The research and development budgets are relatively large, 12.8% of turnover in Danish Novozymes A/S in 2003 (Lhepner, 2004), less in the other Danish companies, though a breakdown on biotechnology is not possible.

Private industry is a prime driver of enzyme development, with public research supporting this development. The dominant players in the enzyme business have market shares of:  Novozymes A/S 46%, Genencor 20% (now owned by Danisco A/S) and DSM  7% (Lhepner, 2004).  (Novozymes A/S cooperates with the Dutch DSM). According to Lhepner, 2004, increasing fermentation capacity is installed (or achieved by fermentation efficiency increase) by the major players all over the world.

Advances in biotechnology enabled commercial enzyme production, and as the technology developed, an increasing number of enzymes have become commercially available. Production efficiencies still undergo rapid improvements, rendering enzymes more cost-effective and thus more competitive. Thereby an increasing number of applications fields for the enzymes are developed.

Another driver for increasing development and use of enzymes has been stated by industry to be driven be industrial and societal developments, towards greening and resource restrictions. Industrial customers and industrial end-users, are increasingly demanding ‘greener’ and energy saving products and processes, either to save on scarce/increasingly expensive resources or to comply with environmental regulation.

Collaboration with customers is therefore by Novozymes A/S regarded as very important for identifying areas where enzymes can contribute, and they have a number of internal activities aiming at identifying potential areas/industries of enzyme application. Both Novozymes A/S and Danisco A/S collaborate with large industrial customers, but not with the final consumers. Assumed demands and wishes of final consumers are considered more indirectly, either via the business customers or via Novozymes A/S’/ Danisco A/S’ assumptions and assessments.

Collaboration with smaller companies is limited because of scale advantages or maybe scale necessities. Learning and investments are referred to limit the implementation in smaller companies by amongst other Novozymes A/S (Jensen, interview 2004), and the point made by ao. OECD, 2001 is similar, stating that not trivial shifts from chemical to biotechnology production, may require new competences and investments and thus be prohibitive.

R&D collaborations and specific demands to university environments were not mentioned explicitly as being driver of or prerequisite for green innovation. But though focus in the interviews were not on the needs for development of the public research (as has been the case in earlier surveys, see for example Hansen et al., 1991), all companies cooperated with Danish as well as other universities. However, collaboration was not referred to as paramount for the green aspects of development.

Industries, in which the enzymes from Novozymes A/S and others are used as catalysts for reducing resource use or for substituting resources, are amongst other:

• detergents
• the textile industry,
• pulp and paper industry,
• food and drink industries,
• animal feed industry and, as mentioned later,
• ethanol production.

Detergents have been known as an area of applications of enzymes since the 1950s, an area which has increased immensely in the last 20 years and still increases. The use of enzymes together with developments in detergents, reduced washing temperatures to 30-40 degrees, temperatures which are expected to be reduced even further. Scarcity of water and increasing oil and water prices are expected to further the development. Detergent enzymes, produced to a few customers, are still the biggest market for enzymes, for Novozymes A/S and in general. The production accounts for about 30-40% of Novozymes’ revenues (Jensen, E.B., interview 2004), and the share of detergent enzyme research is approximately 30%.

The use of enzymes in textile industry, has amongst other addressed ‘stonewashing’ .  A cellulase enzyme has been developed to replace abrasive pumice (volcanic) stones (EuropaBio, May 2002). Instead of getting the worn look of jeans by adding stones to the washing (followed by several rinsings), enzymes are added instead. The environmental advantages stated (EuropaBio, May 2002) are:

• a gentler treatment, and thus less wear on the garment and longer lifetime
• reduction in the amount of water for rinsing
• reduced wear on the machines (the stones wear on the machines)
• time reduction(– not necessarily an environmental advantage)

The use of enzymes breaking down pectin and other impurities in cotton, has been another application of enzymes in textile production. Compared to the most widely used alternatively process, the use of enzymes halve the use of rinsing water and lower the temperature from 95 to 55 degrees. Further, the milder process is stated to increase yield. And lastly, fewer chemicals are released into the environment. (EuropaBio, May 2002).

The pulp and paper industry has used amongst other chlorine to the bleaching of paper. The use of enzymes in the bleaching process has, according to Novozymes A/S, reduced the chlorine use with 30%, contributing also to reduced release of chlorine with constant production. (The constant use has not been the case, however.) Work health and environmental focus on reducing toxic chemicals were strongly contributing to the change of process.

The leather industry is also increasingly applying enzymes in the tanning process. In Denmark enzymes from animal pancreases have since 1908 been used in tanning processes, but with genetic engineering, enzymes can be developed to be used for several individual processes in the tanning (IDA, 2000). The environmental advantages are stated as both the reduction in chemical use, increased recirculation of rinsing water and better quality of the leather.

In animal feed industry, the development of phytase has contributed to a better exploitation of the phosphorus in animal feed and thus contributed to better bone building. The main driver for phytase application was however the contribution of phytase to the reduction of phosphorus from pigs and poultry in the ground water, in streams and lakes, and thus to the reduction of growth in algae and deoxygenation. The use of phytase increased with the introduction of strict Dutch regulation on phosphor release, a development which had had a very slow start. The use of phytase in fodder was further spurred by the ban on MBM use in fodder, following the BSE discussion and regulation.

Regarding enzyme development within new areas, Novozymes A/S looks for industries with large conversion of raw materials, the use of which can be more efficient with the use of enzymes. Potentials include efficiency gains, and the production of for example bio fuels or bio plastics, substituting fossil fuels for these applications. The costs are still high for these, but increasing fossil fuel costs may contribute to the cost advantages of alternatives.

Both Novozymes A/S and Danisco A/S refer to industrial and societal agendas as input to their consideration of research and development initiatives, in the short run as well as in the long run. Waste issues, water treatment issues, pesticide use and resource and fuel scarcity were mentioned by Novozymes A/S as general environmental problems, which technology development would have to address seriously in the coming years. More specifically, Hansen, interview 2004, also Danisco A/S refers to ‘societal agendas’ as influencing their development strategies – for example the use of emulgators as substitutes for phthalates in plastic packaging and the development of ingredients for low carb food production.

Though these societal developments were expected to further the development of enzyme development and application, very specific environmental benefits were mentioned not to be drivers of technological development, unless they were a result of actual regulation (Jensen, interview 2004 and Hansen, interview 2004), as in the mentioned cases. However, Hansen, interview 2004, mentioned the development of an alternative softener, as a potential substitute, in the case of a ban on phthalates.

With regard to negative consequences of enzyme development, very little or no research was referred to, as being carried out on potential negative risk and health effects, neither in the referred literature nor in industry, academia or public institutions.

To some extent this is not so surprising. Industry, industrial organisations and economically and growth oriented institutions have been responsible for most of the surveys conducted on the contribution of enzyme technology to environmental sustainability. But this is not the only explanation. Non-governmental organisations have not been pointing to negative consequences in general, either. The Danish environmental organisations have, since the 1990s focussed their concern and their critique of genetic engineering on the release of plants and micro-organisms into the environment. As Greenpeace campaigner Dan Belusa stated (Belusa, interview 2004), the regulatory framework for contained use in Denmark has to a large extent worked, and though there is still reason to criticise, when the systems ‘leak’, the environmental organisations focus their attention on release of plants and micro-organisms.

The regulatory authorities express some of the same considerations. Their main concern is release and coming releases – of plants, microorganisms and fish. Though there are still issues to assess with regard to enzyme production, the framework for doing it is supported. These potential environmental concerns may be allergic reactions to an increasing number of enzymes in the environment, in products, in air (from release) and in sludge.

Efforts to reduce allergic reactions have focussed on both ‘technical’ reductions e.g. coatings of the enzyme production, and by release control. However, the increased production and application of enzymes and new enzymes may however be followed to be able to react to unwanted or unforeseen consequences.

4.5 Environmental assessment of enzyme technology

Enzymes have various modes of operation in the process, in which they are applied. Typically, the enzymes catalyse a chemical reaction/degradation. The alternative process often implies the use of chemical auxiliaries, and using the enzymatic process, thus substitutes the use of other chemicals often being more hazardous to the environment. Moreover, the use of enzymes often increase raw material efficiency of the process and often reduces energy consumption as enzymatic process take place at lower temperatures.

Like for all other technologies, the environmental properties of enzyme technology are judged by a comparison with alternative technological means to do the same operations/provide the same services in industrial and household operations. Thus, an application of enzyme technology will imply an induction of certain environmental impacts from the production and use of enzymes as well as an avoidance of environmental impacts from the substitution of alternative operations.

Figure 4.2 illustrates the principle of induced and avoided operations. The figure, thus, shows the generalised system underlying any environmental assessment.

Figure 4.2. The system affected when using an enzyme technology instead of its alternative.

Note: The production system, in which the enzyme is applied is called the FU (‘functional unit’) system, e.g. an apple juice production. This system is assessed from its cradle to its grave, and any alternative technology has to provide one and the same functional output of this system. ‘Induced’ operations are the systems for providing the enzyme and any supplementary auxiliaries and energy flows connected to the enzyme application. ‘Avoided’ operations are the flows of auxiliaries and energy avoided by substituting the alternative operation. Moreover, flows of raw materials (in the FU system) can be either induced or avoided when the enzyme alternative alters the raw material efficiency of the operation, and so can flows related to alternative provision of any by-products in case the production of these are altered by the application of enzyme technology.

A screening level assessment of 11 enzyme applications of large variety was conducted (Andersen & Kløverpris, 2004) assessing the holistic energy consequences of using enzyme technology instead of its alternatives. The assessment was based on a life cycle perspective, i.e. all changes when choosing the enzyme solution over its alternative were comprised, including raw material extraction, production, use and disposal within both the enzyme system and the alternative system. The 11 enzyme applications fall within the industries of:

• baking operations and bread conditioning
• textile wet treatment operations, e.g. bleaching, stone washing, scouring and more
• paper manufacturing, e.g. bleaching and deinking
• leather processing
• animal feed preparation, and
• food preparation

General results and conclusions on enzyme technology were extracted. Figure 4.3 shows the result on energy consequences of choosing enzyme solutions over their alternatives.

Figure 4.3 Overall energy consumption consequences of using an enzyme technology instead of its alternative for 11 enzyme applications.

Note: In each column pair, left column indicates induced- and right column avoided energy consumption. Source: Andersen and Kløverpris, 2004.

As evident from the figure, the enzyme alternative in all cases is the better alternative in terms of overall energy consumption. Moreover, enzymes are non-toxic, degradable substances of biological origin, and they often substitute chemical auxiliaries. Most often, therefore, chemical emissions and their potential hazard to the environment are lower from the enzyme alternative. On the two major environmental issues of energy and chemicals, thus, this screening strongly suggests that enzyme technology is highly favourable environmentally. Any potential environmental draw-backs of enzyme technology still remain to be documented. Issues like the use of land (enzyme fermentation requires agricultural products as substrates), any consequences of GMOs and any consequences in terms of allergic reactions by actors exposed to enzymes in the system still needs further quantification.

4.5.1 Fermentation efficiency

The rapid development of ‘white biotechnology’ involves a continuous search for more efficient organisms to provide the fermentation of the various products. This development comprises both the identification and selection of the most suitable host organisms and the genetic modification of these organisms. The development that has taken place over the last decade in this area is unprecedented with respect to the efficiency increases it has provided for the industrial processes based on fermentation. Increases in efficiency/yield of 5-10% are common, and this exceeds the parallel efficiency increases of any competing technologies by far. Genetic modification in this way provides a technology leap favouring the use of fermentation processes radically and implying a continued efficiency improvement of any fermentation operation, and thereby also an environmental efficiency increase. Moreover, the fermentation efficiency increase leads to increased cost-efficiency of enzyme production, and this strongly contributes to the continuous gain of new fields of enzyme application from conventional processes using chemical auxiliaries.

4.5.1.1 Environmental assessment of increased fermentation efficiency

The environmental aspects of the achieved increase in fermentation efficiency are quite unambiguous. The efficiency increase leads to resource savings on both raw materials, energy, water and other auxiliaries involved in the fermentation. Consequently, environmental impacts from the production of such resources are reduced accordingly. An increase of 5-10% per years corresponds to a halving of resource consumption and its related environmental impact over around 10-20 years provided that the efficiency increase stay at the same level as seen over the latest years (the realism of this has not been evaluated). The potential environmental trade-off is the use of more genetic modification that underlies the efficiency increase.

4.5.2 Bio-polymers

Bio-plastic production from organic (waste) material and plastic production with the help of enzymes has been an example in several of the conducted surveys on sustainable biotechnology in industry (a.o. OECD, 2001, Biotechnology Industry Organisation, and Royal Belgian Academy Council of Applied Science, 2004). Two environmental objectives, not necessarily interdependent, have been advanced: the release of plastic production from fossil fuels, and biodegradation of the plastics material to reduce waste, especially in food packaging and field covering plastic, referred to be used extensively in Asia and also in Southern Europe.

Commercial production is referred to take place in the US by Cargill Dow and in Japan by a.o. Mitsubishi Rayon. So far the activities in Denmark are referred to as having taken place in public institutions and in private consultancy, primarily with support from EU programmes’ and primarily at the Risø National Laboratory  and at Centre for Advanced Food Studies (LMC), The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University.

At the Centre for Advanced Food Studies, focus is on the development of biopolymers for cheese packaging that will give the cheese extended shelf life. The environmental benefit is stated (http://www.flair-flow.com/industry-docs/ffe56602.html) as ‘substituting fossil plastic materials by renewable biopolymers’ which may at the same time ‘improve the utilization of agricultural by-products.’

According to http://www.flair-flow.com/industry-docs/ffe56602.html, ‘the new biopolymers may be based on proteins like casein, on carbohydrates like starch, cellulose or chitosan, on lipids, and also on polymers from surplus monomers produced in agriculture such as polylactate (PLA), and finally, on bacterial produced polymers from microorganisms grown on waste, like poly 3-hydroxy-butyrate (PHB).’

Risoe National Laboratory has had an ambition of building up R&D competences within bio-polymers, and to offer education of polymer students also in bio plastics. Projects have amongst other focussed on the development of biodegradable polymers for use in high-value applications for medical purposes.

With regard to more immediate production related R&D activities in industry the US based Cargill Dow produce biopolymers on a commercial scale, and also Mitsubishi and Du Pont is referred to have activities within biopolymers.

In Denmark, Coloplast A/S and other companies within the medical industry are referred by Plackett, interview 2004, to be interested in bio compatible polymers. They are interested for qualitative reasons, for as to improve the medical and health functionality of their polymer products. But with the words of Plackett, interview 2004, the medical industry is never going to use megatons of plastics.

Medical uses of plastics are included in the Plastsammenslutningen’s 20% of plastics used for other than: packaging (30 % ), building appliances (20%), electrical and technical objects (15%) and transportation and other industrial applications (15%). Within packaging, the other interesting area for developing compostable plastics amongst other Jysk Vacuum Plast A/S and R. Færch Plast A/S can be found.

Biodegradable polymers have been mentioned especially with regard to the use for single-use tableware and packaging. Changing lifestyle and changing eating habits has been mentioned to increase the demand for sustainable food containers. .  . The compostable alternatives of plastic table ware has been stated to both reduce waste and to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Characterising food packaging is that it is not suited for being recycled, or for being separated into specific waste fractions that can be treated separately.

In the Canadian report, Strategic Market Management System, 2002, the European market is estimated to depend on enforcement of regulation to use composting polymers, as well as taxes on fossil fuels. Further, it is estimated that large scale advantages will increase productivity in the biopolymer production.

Concerns regarding negative environmental consequences have not been a distinct part of the debate. One of the critics, mindfully.org estimates that the production of biopolymers will require 50% more oil based chemicals and toxic chemicals in the mix, softeners, colours, uv-protection etc. Also other concerns are mentioned by www.mindfully.org.

Another consequence of producing plastics from crops is the use of land that would otherwise be available for other purposes, for example food productions. A point which has been made even more distinct for bio-ethanol.

The Danish activities are hard to place in a technology development context. However, the Danish activities can be seen as important for building up knowledge for both contributing internationally to the development of plastics and for knowledge building and transfer to Danish industry. The knowledge, transferred in the education of polymer scientists and PhD’s may enable engineers in the plastic industry to follow, possibly influence and adapt to future developments.

This knowledge building may also be important for influence on policy making, in EU and elsewhere. Radical, and internationally directed initiatives seem to be important for influencing environmental innovation agendas in the plastics industry.

4.5.2.1 Environmental assessment of bio-polymers

As mentioned, the environmental claims of bio-polymers typically relate to the un-coupling of the production of plastics from fossil fuels and to degradability of bio-polymers as opposed to synthetic polymers. However, it should be emphasized that the manufacture of bio-polymers also implies the use of fossil fuels for supplies of process energy for manufacturing processes.

In assessing the environmental consequences it should also be noted that the manufacture of bio-polymers requires biological raw materials/substrates, typically originating from agriculture or forestry. Such organic matter is in general a priority resource to reduce society’s environmental impact, especially global warming and other energy related impact categories. Manufacture of bio-polymers is, thus, not the only way to achieve environmental benefits from using biological resources in society – there is for example the opportunity of using such resources in the energy systems of society and substituting fossil fuels there.

Assessing the environmental implications of producing bio-polymers is, therefore, not just a matter of comparing bio-polymers to synthetic polymers of petrochemical origin, but also a matter of comparing to the lost opportunity of using the same biological resources for substituting fossil fuels elsewhere in society.

The degree to which the opportunity cost of using biological resources has to be included depends on the availability of the biological resources in question. If availability is limited compared to the potential uses of such resources, the opportunity cost would have to be included. Looking at a region like Europe and at the potential future needs to reduce the use of fossil fuels for energy purposes deriving from e.g. the Kyoto agreement, availability of biological resources seems to be limited.

There may, therefore, well be an objective of achieving the highest possible substitution efficiency of fossil fuels by organic matter. In plain language, we may be better off converting oil and gas and maybe even coal to polymers and organic mater to heat and electricity, instead of converting oil, gas and coal to heat and electricity and organic matter to polymers. As long as society uses fossil fuels for heat and electricity generation in large quantities, and as long as organic matter can be used to reduce fossil fuel consumption on this arena, other uses of organic matter may be judged on their ability to achieve a higher fossil fuel substitution efficiency than on this arena. And it yet remains to be proven that conversion of organic matter to polymers implies higher substitution efficiency.

In the holistic assessment of fossil fuel substitution efficiency, it should of course be noted that plastics in large parts of the world are incinerated with energy recovery, and the tendency to do so is increasing.

Within product categories and regions of the world, where waste disposal in nature is a significant priority compared to e.g. energy related impacts, there may be environmentally immediately justifiable applications of bio-polymers without considerations of fossil fuel substitution efficiency. Likewise, if the biological resource in question is found to be of unlimited availability, implying there is no opportunity cost of using it.

4.5.3 Bio-ethanol

The production of bio-ethanol has been another biotechnology development motivated by the possibility of partially substituting fossil fuels, reducing CO2 emissions and reducing/substituting the use of MTBE. Though bio-energy technologies have not been the focus in this survey, bio-ethanol will be mentioned shortly.

In Europe, according to BACAS, 2004, most of the bio ethanol is produced from fermenting sugars from beets and wheat. In the US and Brazil, producing 11% and 16%, respectively of the world’s bio-ethanol, corn and sugar cane is used for the production. Increasingly, BACAS states, waste materials are used for production.

The activities in Denmark are regarded as very modest compared to a number of other European countries (Haagensen, 2003 & Thomsen, interview 2004). Development activities are prominent at DTU, Risoe National Laboratory, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, at Novozymes A/S, ELSAM and Green Farm Energy A/S. These activities have been publicly funded; the activities at Novozymes A/S with a grant from the American Ministry of Energy (DOE).

According to Larsen, Kossmann and Petersen, 2003 the possibilities for developing and producing bio-ethanol in Denmark are underdeveloped. As examples of this Thomsen, interview 2004, mentions France and Sweden to have prioritised the development of bio-ethanol much higher, reaping environmental benefits in the form of reductions of CO2 emissions, from these investments.

It has been stated by both public and private researchers (ao. Jensen, interview 2004, Thomsen, interview, 2004) that public funding is essential for the research and development within bio-ethanol, as is public regulation of the taxing and/or price system. Further the spurring of development and increased used of bio-ethanol, potentially in combination with fossil fuels, is referred to depend on publicly initiated changes in the energy system and in the pricing and tax system. This leads Larsen et al., 2003, in ‘New and emerging bioenergy technologies’, to suggest the key messages on driving forces to be:

• security of supply, based on to the use of domestic resources;
• local employment and local competitiveness
• local, regional and global environmental concerns and
• land use aspects in both developing and industrialised countries

and the barriers as being:

• lack of competitiveness of the bio-energy technologies – some being competitive others not
• the competitiveness is strongly depending on eg. the amount of  externalities included in the calculations
• in general bio-energy needs to be moved down the learning curve
• resource potentials and distribution
• costs of bio-energy technologies and resources
• lack of social and organisational structures for the supply of bio-fuels
• local land-use and environmental aspects in the developing countries and
• administrative and legislative bottlenecks

Their recommendations are:

• modern bio-energy has large potential, both globally and for Denmark, but more R&D is needed
• Denmark has a long tradition of agriculture, highly qualified farmers and a leading industrial position in biotechnology, pharmacy, plant breeding, seed production, energy technologies and renewable energy. Together these factors give Denmark the opportunity to become the first mover on most key issues in modern bio-energy
• to exploit these advantages we deem it of utmost importance that Danish research institutions establish cross-institutional research platforms and co-operative interdisciplinary projects. Such projects should include as stakeholders politicians, industrialists and venture capitalists. In particular politicians must contribute by setting out the way for bio-energy, and supporting the transition from basic research to competitive technologies ready to enter the market.

These suggestions for developing ethanol are made with focus on the substitution of fossil fuels. But other considerations may be included in the assessment of the environmental aspects, as discussed in the following. In addition to comparing the environmental benefits with regard to CO2 emissions, CO2 emissions may have to be ‘weighted’ against land use for feed stock for the ethanol production, feed stock which may have been used for food, for fertilizer or heating (the use of agricultural waste).

4.5.3.1 Environmental assessment of bio-ethanol

A holistic environmental assessment of bio-ethanol as fuel for cars has been performed comparing it to conventional gasoline (Nielsen and Wenzel 2005). The assessment has included all cradle-to-grave changes in our fuel systems, including of course running the car, when producing and using ethanol from corn in USA as a substitute for MTBE and/or gasoline in conventional fuel.

Figure 4.4 next page illustrates the result of the assessment. The figure suggests that there are both environmental benefits and draw backs when using bio-ethanol. Benefits are seen on the conventional environmental impacts from fossil fuel driven transport: global warming, photochemical ozone formation (photo smog) and resource consumption, whereas draw backs are seen on environmental impacts typical for agriculture: nutrient enrichment and acidification.

Moreover, producing bio-ethanol is not surprisingly seen to require extra land (for the corn production) compared to conventional fuel. This highlights the issue as outlined in the previous section on environmental assessment of bio-polymers, namely that there is an opportunity cost related to bio-ethanol production in terms of land use, or use of the organic material, corn. The land or the corn may well be used for other purposes that can achieve higher fossil fuel substitution efficiency than the conversion of the corn into ethanol by fermentation. The study referred here has been confined to the conditions for bio-ethanol production in USA, and this implies among other things that the substrate for bio-ethanol production is corn. This would most probably not be the chosen crop for a Danish situation. But the point made by the study is general, namely that there is the trade-off between the immediate advantage of e.g. the CO2-neutral fuel and the land used by production of the crop, and that this use of land/crop has an opportunity cost that very well may prove to be higher than the benefit. In fact, the opportunity cost was assessed in the mentioned study (Nielsen and Wenzel, 2005) and it proved indeed to imply an overall increase in environmental impact.

Figure 4.4 Contributions to global warming, acidification, nutrient enrichment, photochemical ozone formation and use of primary energy (LHV – Lower Heat Value) and agricultural land for driving 1.6 km (one mile) in cars fuelled gasoline mixed with 0% (baseline conventional gasoline), 10% (E10) and 85% ethanol produced from corn.

Source: Nielsen and Wenzel 2005

4.5.4 Biological base-chemicals

A potential that was revealed by some of the interviewees was the fermentative production of base chemicals for multiple uses. One such example was succinate which is a substance having many potential uses as precursor for further chemical synthesis, one of which was polymerisation. Other such base chemicals may potentially be produced by fermentation – ethanol is an example.

The potential environmental benefits or draw backs related to these are, of course, to be judged by a comparison to chemical synthesis from petrochemical precursors. Given the rapid increase in fermentation efficiency compared to chemical synthesis, there may well turn up base chemical substances to be taken over by fermentation due to better cost-efficiency having in turn also better environmental efficiency.

4.5.5 Bio-remediation

New biotechnology used for pollution control and remediation, was mentioned early in the development of new biotechnology as an application area, and one of the early new biotech patents was the patent on an ‘oil eating’ bacteria issued in the 1970s.

Genetically modified micro organisms for remediation have been mentioned in policy documents on new biotechnology development since then, including the OECD report from 1994. And though there has been a shift in policy towards ‘cleaner production’ over ’end of pipe’ solutions, the use of micro-organisms for remediation is still an issue, debated with regard to both its positive cleaning potentials, as well as the risks associated with these.

Publicly undertaken activities as well as industry activities have been modest. IDA, 2000, identifies public research mainly at Aalborg University.

With regard to private activities, Novozymes A/S has bought up a number of smaller companies within bioremediation in the states, but states to have very little activity in Denmark.

The reason for the relative limited bio-remediation activities going on in Denmark, has been suggested to be uncertainty regarding environmental and health consequences, regarding economic consequences, and regarding regulation. The environmental uncertainties are also expressed in public opinion polls.

Research has consequently been scarce. The widespread conception in the research environments, that cultures of not modified micro organisms are regarded as doing a good job without being genetically modified, has contributed to lack of pressure for research and development..

This apparently also means that very little research has been carried out on the potential negative environmental consequences of the release of the micro-organisms. A further argument against the research in release has been the difficulties in doing this on release without releasing.

It might however be changing, or at least indications of an increasing interest is emerging. This indication of micro organism coming to play a role in future remediation comes from both public and industry actors, such as Novozymes A/S with their investment in a number of US companies in bioremediation, and biotech regulators expressing to see and increasing industry interest.

However, our interviews give the impression of hesitation, for exploring the potentials, especially with regard to risk. And though both private and public researchers acknowledge the potential negative consequences as a central concern for further development,  both public and private research in the potential negative environmental consequences and risks are very limited and on the back burner for the time being.

Contributing to the low interest in carrying out more consequence research may also be that this research may not lead to a more widespread use. Research may reveal that the negative consequences outweigh the expectations to the positive effect.

Also IDA, 2000, in 1999 identifies possibilities in the long run, but point to the necessity for public investments. This reference also points to the necessity for risk assessments, which, within some areas, will require research in methods for to do so.

4.6 Discussion and summary statements

The often stated advantages for developing new biotechnology in Denmark – the large R&D activities in the public as well as in the private sector and a large agricultural based industry including a biological based pharmaceutical industry – has been mentioned also within the industrial and environmental area in addition to pharmaceuticals and plants.

In this chapter on the environmental perspectives in biotechnology we have looked at selected new biotechnology productions and applications with an assumed environmental potential. We have on the one hand looked at their potentials regarding:

• resource efficiency
• substitution of scarce resources/ exploitation of ‘wastes’
• substitution of toxic chemicals
• detection, monitoring and cleaning

and on the other hand on the basis and conditions for exploiting the potentials with regard to:

• R&D and industry structure
• environmental regulation
• other societal developments

In our present characterisation of biotechnology, we have, as mentioned, limited ourselves to a selected number of applications, especially within the ‘white’ or industrial use of biotechnology. We have excluded both ‘green’ and ‘red’ biotechnology, and environmental aspects related to these.

The potential positive environmental perspectives have been the focus, and potential positive aspects have been the background for the selection of cases. We have discussed these, and discussed the terms on which these positive assessments were made. And raised some of the contrasts in these assessments, amongst other related to alternative uses of raw material.

Potential negative consequences of applying new biotechnology have been touched upon as well. But very little has been referred to, regarding specific environmental consequences of new biotechnology.

4.6.1 Discussion of the environmental perspectives

As visualised in the previous sections, the environmental performance of biotechnology is not an unambiguous issue. The mere fact that biological resources are degradable and of biological origin does not in itself imply any indication that biotechnology is environmentally superior to its alternatives. It should be borne in mind that any environmental assessment of a technology is a comparison to the alternative pathway to provide the services in question, and that the alternative is most often a well matured technology having had a long period of time to achieve its level of resource efficiency.

This implies that up-coming technologies have to compete with matured ones, and often there has to be some kind of bottleneck to be broken for the up-coming alternative to be competitive. In the case of biotechnology, one such breaking of bottleneck is, of course, the genetic modification of micro-organisms implying huge efficiency increases of biotechnology, and there is no doubt what-so-ever that this will lead to the fact that bio-technology gains a lot of land from conventional chemical synthesis and products of petrochemical origin.

In the process of identifying the new fields of application, market mechanisms and economic reality will, of course, in the long run reveal where the benefits are. On the way there, however, research and development efforts may be more or less well put, and an up-stream assessment of the characteristics of biotechnology and its strong points compared to its alternatives helps to improve cost/benefit of the effort and eliminate unfruitful tracks as early as possible.

The first essential characteristic of biotechnology is the heavy increase in process efficiency of fermentation. This leads in itself to undisputable benefits in terms of resource savings and related environmental impacts from the manufacturing and use of these resources. Moreover, it rapidly renders new application areas of fermentation products economically competitive to their conventional alternatives and allows for harvesting any benefits related to using fermentation products in industrial and household processes worldwide.

Secondly, fermentation products within the concept of ‘white biotechnology’, especially enzymes, seem to have inherent advantages in terms of resource- and environmental efficiency. A quite large number of technically completely different enzyme applications have been studied, and there is an unambiguous tendency that enzymatic processes – in a holistic assessment – imply huge environmental and resource benefits over their alternatives. The underlying reason is probably that enzymes are active in such low doses, and that they can operate under a variety of conditions. The implication of this is that use of enzymes often leads to lower process temperatures and to substitution of much higher quantities of chemical auxiliaries. Moreover, enzymatic processes often lead to higher overall process efficiencies leading to savings of raw materials in general.

It seems, therefore, that there is a self-enforcing positive driving force in the combination of the facts that fermentation becomes increasingly economically competitive and that use of enzymatic processes in both industry and households have inherent advantages. In some enzyme applications, huge environmental benefits are found even at the global scale. Examples are enzymes in detergents lowering washing temperatures all over the world or enzymes in animal feed potentially eliminating phosphorus emission from agriculture. Most enzyme applications, however, even though the avoided environmental impact from introducing the enzyme solution is like 10 times higher than the induced impacts, will lead only to marginal environmental improvements when looking at the global impact of the enzyme application. Examples are using enzymes in industrial processes like the so-called stone-wash of jeans in textile industry, in leather processing and many other industrial processes. A more thorough investigation is needed in order to quantify the overall potential of enzymatic processes on the global scale.

Thirdly, however, conversion of organic matter in fermentation or other processing implies conversion losses. This is an important characteristic for both bio-polymer production and fermentation of e.g. ethanol. Combined with the fact that the substrate for fermentation or other conversion is not necessarily an unlimited resource, but may well be a priority resource for achieving environmental benefits in society in general, it means that there may be an opportunity cost of using the organic matter. The bio-polymer or bio-ethanol or whatever product of biological origin, shall in such cases, therefore, not only compete with the alternative product, but also with the alternative use of the organic matter. If we choose to make bio-ethanol out of agricultural product or even waste in e.g. Denmark, we do not take these resources from the field or dumpsite, we take them virtually out of the heat & power plants implying an increased need for fossil fuels there. This is crucial to realise, and the acknowledgment of it is not present in the discussion of this field of biotechnology application today. Looking at conversion losses in fermentation compared to incineration, it seems at the first glance that incineration has a higher efficiency of fossil fuel substitution than fermentation in the cases of bio-polymer and bio-ethanol production. The matter should be investigated in detail, and in the light of the ongoing efforts on both bio-polymer and bio-ethanol production, it seems urgent to do so.

Fourthly, though, biotechnology can often lead to substitution of specific chemicals that may be hazardous to the environment. The case of bio-ethanol – or ethanol in general – as octane booster in gasoline, is a good example. The use of ethanol to substitute MTBE is not an issue of overall energy balances, but an issue of targeting a specific unwanted chemical. In such cases, biotechnology may be a route to provide alternatives, but again it should be borne in mind, that alternative pathways of providing the chemicals exit, e.g. ethanol can be produced from petrochemical sources as well. Other examples of targeting specific issues is the bio-polymers’ ability to avoid littering of plastics in nature, but again a holistic assessment should address whether measures to do so are superior to measures of e.g. establishing waste incineration with energy recovery in society. Probably both concepts have their place in the various regions of the world for a longer period of time.

4.6.2 Discussion of the structural conditions

Only a very limited part of new biotechnology development has been related to environmental benefits. Efficiency gains and especially product enhancements have spurred industrial development – and large projects of genetic mapping have been an important part of development as well.

The largest area of new biotechnology application, the pharmaceutical industry, has not been driven by an environmental advantage. There may in some instance be an environmental advantage from new biotechnology production in the form of resource savings; but this is not a main driver.

Regarding development of GM plants, this was not driven by environmental benefits. In the 1980s, environmental benefits were advanced by especially industry to be a consequence of introducing herbicide resistance into the plants. An advantage which is still an issue of heated dispute for several reasons.

Differently with the industrial biotechnology and biotechnology developed for remediation. It has since the 1970s and as mentioned in Naturkampen, 1981 and by the Danish Ministry of Environment in 1985, been regarded as having environmental perspectives. But, for a large part, has not been developed because of economic barriers: the application of enzymes has, in the short run or not at all, been economically efficient, without changed relations in the price structure or as a consequence of cost increasing regulation.

Research and development is, as mentioned, very unevenly distributed between areas, with pharmaceuticals taking the lead. The areas within ‘environment’ that we have selected cover only a very small part of new biotechnology development – app. between 5 and 15 percent of biotechnology research and development, and of the selected areas, enzyme research and development, covers far the largest share.

Enzyme development is in Denmark and in the world dominated by Novozymes A/S with more than 40% of production, and, with a rough estimate, at least the same share of R&D. As mentioned above, efficiency gains as a result of genetic engineering and increasing efficiency in fermentation processes account for the very large increase in enzyme production, also influencing the efficiency in the processes where they are used, and thus contributing to increased industrial enzyme applications to substitute chemical processes. (As will be returned to later, also regulation of the industries using enzymes in their process and rising energy prices for these, have been an important driver for the increasing enzyme production).

Research and development within biotechnology has, as mentioned also above, within important areas been driven by industry; or private industry has at least been very important for the relatively large R&D capacity. Novozymes A/S has become an even more important driver of research within certain applications of biotechnology with their involvement (DKK 2 million per year plus a professorship financed by the Novo Nordisk Foundation) in the Novozymes Bioprocess Academy, the purpose of which is ‘to enhance chemical engineering research and the education of graduates and researchers in the biotechnological field’

The concentration of knowledge and competences in very few companies, gives these a central role in the development and application of enzymes. Conditions for enzymes to be developed were by the companies mentioned as both relating to the industry structure, to environmental regulation and in selected cases to research and development support.

Regarding the industry structure it was referred that it is characterised by large markets served by industries with the knowledge and competences to engage in development and use of enzymes. Industries with these large players will more likely develop and use enzymes, whereas industries consisting of small companies/producers have less basis for taking part in development and use of enzymes. (Size is however not the only prerequisite, since large monopolistic players will be able to refrain from introducing more efficient and environmentally sustainable processes, if they have no competitors).

The Danish activities regarding the development of bio-ethanol and the development of biopolymers are still primarily publicly financed, though also carried out in private or semiprivate institutions. The potential substitution of fossil fuels with renewable organic material from agriculture or new crops, or from forestry, or from agricultural or forestry waste, are main arguments.

The projects face a number of uncertainties regarding the efficiency compared to existing technologies and to alternative uses of the organic materials to go into the ethanol and biopolymer productions.

In Denmark, the innovative activities are carried out by public institutions, in consultancies or similar institutions and no private research has been identified. This is in contrast to the general picture of the industry, in which private industry carries out majority of the research into biopolymers, with important activities in the US, Japan and Germany.

Within both areas, interviewees mentioned public initiatives as essential for development, with regard to technical developments as well as with regard to price regulation and infrastructure.

The Danish research in genetically modified organisms for remediation, monitoring and cleaning is, as referred, primarily public, and applied research estimated as very modest. Both public and private research directed at applications which require release, has been limited by the uncertainties related to the deliberate release and the consequent risks of gene transfer or the diffusion of genetic modified organisms. No applied research on these consequences have been indicated, and according to the Bioteknologikontoret, interview 2004, the government has no plans yet to initiate risk research related to these applications.

Companies and institutions within bioremediation, monitoring and cleaning have hitherto stated combinations of existing micro organisms to do the job sufficiently; and genetic engineering is not regarded necessarily as ‘solutions’ to specific difficult ‘jobs’. But according to Bioteknologikontoret, interview 2004, an increasing number of conference contributions on genetically modified organisms to be released for remediation, may indicate an increasing interest. But we have not identified drivers for an increased public or private interest in more application oriented research, except maybe reduction of environmental uncertainty regarding potential negative consequences.

Environmental regulation has been important for the increasing application of new biotechnologies. Though the application areas for the biotechnologies are diverse, and the structures for the different developments are differing in various ways, regulation is referred to, in most cases, to be important for the application. Few of the applications seem to have been introduced or gained ground, without some kind of political regulation or regulation to consider long term consequences. These regulations include both regulations to reduce work health or environmental effects, and the regulation of prices.

The demand for enzymes has been spurred by for example:

• regulation limiting or banning existing processes (bans on the use of certain chemicals in for example the tanning and leather industry),
• restrictions on release of phosphor into the environment as for example in the Netherlands and the ban on the use of meat and bone-meal
• price increases on the unwanted or less wanted scarce or toxic substances (for example regarding plastic waste)
• price increases (via political agreements and taxing) on oil and water, stimulating for example the development of detergent enzymes enabling lower washing temperatures

Governmental regulation, aiming at improving environmental sustainability and/or societal efficiency, has thus been an important prerequisite for commercial efficiency. According to Novozymes A/S, there are technically many opportunities for applying enzymes to reduce environmental strain, which will be spurred by regulation. However, Novozymes A/S for commercial reasons does not want to be specific about these potentials.

In addition, it has to be underlined that these regulations have to be international. Novozymes A/S’s market and production is highly international, and enzymes are developed for large markets. High national standards may spur innovation, but not without expectations of larger markets. Introduction of regulation and standards in third world countries will be part of both ensuring market as well the environment, by improving industrial processes in these countries as well as avoiding relocation to these countries.

With regard to bio-ethanol:

• ban or out-phasing of MTBE
• substitution of oil schemes and
• taxing, either lower taxing of bio-ethanol of higher prices or taxing of fossil fuels
• have all been  mentioned as contributing to the diffusion/increased demand of bio-ethanol.

The development of bio-ethanol and the diffusion of it/demand for it, has been largest in countries which have both allocated more substantial resources for the development of  it and which have introduced tax exemptions on their use, as for example France and Sweden (for example Thomsen, interview 2004 and Enguídanos, 2002). In the US and Japan, out-phasing schemes for MTBE  has been referred to having spurred substitution, including large investments in the research and development of bio-ethanol.

Regarding also bio-plastics, the prices of fossil fuels are important for the bio-plastics ability to compete – in addition to the technical problems in developing the different plastics material. The production and the potential taxing of bio-plastics and its alternatives is referred to have been important for diffusion also in other countries, as is the alternative uses of the feed-stocks.

For degradable plastics to be developed and diffused, waste regulation and recycling systems have been stated to be important: taxing of waste being promotive of biodegradable plastics, recycling systems reducing the economic advantage of degradability, maybe except for special and medical applications.

Increased regulation and cleaning needs are referred to as what may initiate increased research and development of genetically engineered organisms to supplement the use of non-modified cultures of micro-organisms. But at the same time the environmental regulation, responding to the large environmental uncertainties of releasing the organisms into the environment, limit application.

4.7 Policy aspects

In the chapter on the environmental perspectives of new biotechnology, in contrast to the chapters on nanotechnology and ICT, we have chosen to focus on areas where biotechnology has been pointed to as offering environmental potentials. For remediation, potentials have been pointed to since the 1970s; substitution or reduction of chemical use has been another vision for new biotechnology, as has the substitution of fossil fuels with biotechnology based products; and for the industrial applications, potentials have been known also before the break through of genetic engineering, but have become increasingly commercially interesting with the increasing fermentation efficiency in enzyme production and with increasing environmental regulation, and scarcity and price increases on water and oil/energy.

These visions have been prevalent – in research, in research programs, in the Ministry of Environment and in industry since the 1970s and 1980s. But research and development addressing environmental issues has been modest, whereas pharmaceutical applications of new genetic engineering and until recently, also plant research and development increased immensely.

A number of reasons may be mentioned in this relation, as well as possible policy suggestions.

New biotechnology research addressing environmental issues specifically, appears very little in public research. ‘Environment’ has not been a ‘grant releasing concept’, and both basic research and more application related research have been argued with other issues, not illuminating potential implications for environmental understandings or research.

Specific focus in research policy on environmental issues AND specific grant allocation to environmental issues may contribute to the analysis of possible environmental benefits, instead of the very vague environmental claims made in some of the first new biotechnology programs, which had very modest effect, if any.

Also within industrial innovation, visions have only slowly been realised. The biotechnology solutions have in many cases been more ‘expensive’ solutions , due to long development times, existing price structure of raw materials and common goods (water, air etc.), the existing acceptance of chemical and other agents, an industrial structure without the possibility of adapting the new techniques (size, competence structure etc.) etc.

The biotechnology solution can therefore either be supported with more direct support for technology development, as in the case of enzyme development for ethanol production, ethanol production or biopolymers, or indirectly, with more general regulation; the latter implying that biotechnology solutions compete with other technological and social solutions.

Government and international regulation of toxic substances and regulation of prices on scarce or expensive resources has been shown to be a strong motivator for green innovation by many, and both literature survey and actual biotech development indicate that this also goes for biotechnology development, and also will in the future.

Regulation, e.g. of hazardous chemicals was found to initiate the search for enzymes to reduce or substitute application of chemical substances. Though it was stated by industry to be dangerous to initiate development on the basis of expectations for regulation, introduced regulation seems to have been rather effective in bringing about environmentally sounder innovations. Examples have been mentioned within textile and leather, within fodder ingredients, and within pulp and paper, and Novozymes A/S, in addition to further development within enzymes in response to regulation, also expect regulation to be important for bioremediation. If new biotechnology will actually be the answer is not certain; but for a number of issues, Novozymes A/S indicate that enzymes may be developed – however without being open about which issues.

Governmental prioritisation through influencing the price mechanism, for example via taxes and fees may be another instrument for motivating both industrial and public green innovation. Price increases, politically or because of exploitation of scarce resources or both, have been a strong motivator for both research and development. Regarding biopolymers and bio-fuels, further government intervention in the price relations are stated by industry and researchers, to be important drivers for continued development. But these interventions obviously may change relations between technologies, industries and environmental focus. Therefore, such interventions may be based on continuous analyses of the possible environmental and other consequences, and the political weighting of these, as the example with the bio-ethanol amply demonstrates.

Regarding contained use under the existing circumstances little concern has been expressed in the surveyed literature and in the undertaken interviews . It has been expressed during the interviews that production of new and more enzymes, increased use of enzymes, use of new enzymes and the use of enzymes in new processes, need to be monitored. Research may need to analyse the potential consequences of releases from production, which may not only be a matter of monitoring but also a need for more basic research.

The need for research into the environmental consequences of release of e.g. GMO for monitoring and remediation, has however been referred to, and the uncertainties regarding release referred to as inhibiting R&D into the potential developments. Research into these consequences may not lead to a more widespread use of new biotechnology for monitoring or remediation, because the negative consequences may outweigh the expectations to the positive effect. This research therefore cannot be expected to be carried out by industry, for economic and credibility reasons, but must be governmentally initiated and governmentally financed.

In general, the scarce and decreasing R&D resources in regulation and control may inhibit more proactive considerations of new biotechnology developments. This may be restricting also new biotechnology developments with environmental perspectives, since it contributes to increased industrial and societal uncertainty.

Footnotes

^[8]  There are number of jargon terms for sub-fields of biotechnology, here from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotechnology#Sub-fields_of_biotechnology).

Red biotechnology is biotechnology applied to medical processes. An example would include an organism designed to produce an antibiotic, or engineering genetic cures to diseases through genomic manipulation.

White biotechnology, also known as '\grey biotechnology', is biotechnology applied to industrial processes. An example would include an organism designed to produce a useful chemical.

Green biotechnology is biotechnology applied to agricultural processes. An example would include an organism designed to grow under specific environmental conditions or in the presence (or absence) of certain agricultural chemicals.

Green biotechnology tends to produce more environmentally friendly solutions than traditional industrial agriculture. An example of this would include a plant engineered to express a pesticide, thereby eliminating the need for external application of pesticides.

The term blue biotechnology has also been used to describe the marine and aquatic applications of biotechnology, but its use is relatively rare.

| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next | | Top |

Version 1.0 September 2006, © Danish Environmental Protection Agency