Agricultural Biotechnology: Environmental Benefits for Identifiable Environmental Problems

Drew L. Kershen

Earl Sneed Centennial Professor of Law, University of Oklahoma College of Law. (c) 2002, Drew L. Kershen, all rights reserved. This Article was presented to the 6th International Conference on Agricultural Biotechnology Research, held in Ravello, Italy, July 11 through July 14, 2002. The author express his deep appreciation to the conference organizers for allowing him to present this Article to an international audience. He also thanks Dr. David R. Ledoux, Associate Professor (Animal Sciences) University of Missouri-Columbia; Dr. Alan Richardson, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Plant Industry Division, Australia; and Derek Smithee, Chief, Water Quality Programs Division, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, for their very helpful comments.

[32 ELR 11312]

Agricultural biotechnology has generated much debate about the environmental consequences of field trials and commercialization of transgenic crops. Thus far, the debate has focused on opponents' claims of alleged risks presented by transgenic crops and the proponents' responses to those asserted risks.¹ To date, three issues have dominated the debate:

. the risk of gene flow;

. the risk of weediness; and

. the risk of insect-resistance.²

When debates regarding the environmental consequences of agricultural biotechnology have addressed potential benefits, the discussions have largely concentrated on general issues, such as whether agricultural biotechnology will result in less pesticide use and whether agricultural biotechnology will protect a larger area of wildlife habitat from conversion to agricultural uses than other agronomic methods.³

This Article proposes to go beyond the general issues that characterize the present debate about the environmental risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology. It identifies [32 ELR 11313] an environmental problem in the United States and discusses the contribution that agricultural biotechnology likely can make toward a solution for that specifically identified problem. The focus is on the specific, the identified, and not on the general.⁴

This focused approach on identified environmental problems and the potential contribution of agricultural biotechnology to solutions to those identified problems is important for three reasons.

First, if agricultural biotechnology likely can provide sensible solutions to identified environmental problems, it may become, using U.S. legal terminology, the best available technology (BAT).⁵ Second, if agricultural biotechnology is BAT for specified environmental problems, governmental environmental agencies should encourage or adopt agricultural biotechnology as a regulatory approach to the identified environmental problems.⁶ Finally, if agricultural biotechnology is BAT, governmental environmental agencies may have an attitudinal shift toward its use. To this point, these agencies most often have been either cautious or openly hostile toward agricultural biotechnology. Environmental agencies may respond differently if they perceive agricultural biotechnology as BAT.

This Article focuses on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and manure. In the United States, large animal feeding operations in cattle, poultry, and swine generate significant quantities of manure. The manure is generally collected in manure lagoons or litter piles before being spread on fields as fertilizer for the crops or forages on those fields. Excessive application of manure can result in nutrient runoff (particularly nitrogen and phosphorous) to streams, lakes, and rivers. Agricultural biotechnology has advanced research that addresses the phosphorous nutrient issue.

This Article argues that agricultural biotechnology is a likely BAT to address—expeditiously, flexibly, and efficiently—the environmental problem of phosphorus from animal manures. More specifically, it looks closely at phosphorus pollution of the scenic waters of the state of Oklahoma.

CAFOs and Manures

In the tri-state area of northwestern Arkansas, southwestern Missouri, and northeastern Oklahoma, the major agricultural industry is the production of broiler chickens for food consumption. Numerous poultry houses, generally averaging 30,000 chickens per house, are located in the area. While legally these farms do not qualify as CAFOs,⁷ they produce a large quantity of manure. The volume of manure is sufficiently large that the state of Oklahoma has adopted special measures to manage the manure from the chicken houses.⁸

The primary environmental concern is the application of chicken manure to fields as fertilizer and soil amendment. If the farmer applies too much fertilizer, excess nutrients (particularly phosphorus) can run off to surface waters, causing eutrophication and other water quality problems.⁹ To address this nutrient runoff, the state mandates that chicken farmers develop an animal waste management plan (AWMP) that determines the appropriate rates for the use of chicken manure.¹⁰

Even with these AWMPs, the state, acting through the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB), decided that the level of phosphorus from these chicken-farm nutrients was too high in the Illinois River, which is located in northeastern Oklahoma. Approximately 4.4 million kilograms per year (kg/yr) of phosphorus is produced in the watershed, 3.7 million kg/yr in the state of Arkansas, and 770,000 kg/yr in the state of Oklahoma. The Illinois River is designated as a scenic river.¹¹ In spring 2002, in order to protect the Illinois River, the OWRB adopted a numeric phosphorus level for scenic rivers. The OWRB set the level for allowable phosphorus as follows: "The thirty (30) day geometric mean total phosphorus concentration in waters designated "Scenic River" . . . shall not exceed 0.037 [milligrams per liter (mg/L)]."¹² Poultry farmers and the chicken industry have until June 30, 2012, to comply consistently with the phosphorus standard.¹³ The estimated present level of phosphorus [32 ELR 11314] in the Illinois River is 2.7 mg/L.¹⁴ Consequently, within 10 years, Oklahoma chicken farmers must reduce their phosphorus runoff by approximately 100 times.¹⁵

Agricultural biotechnology offers three approaches that may help provide a solution, allowing both the state of Oklahoma and the chicken farmers to attain the statutory goal.

Chickens, like other monogastric animals (including swine),¹⁶ cannot digest the phytic acid that the feed rations of soybeans and maize contain. Consequently, chickens excrete the undigested acid, thereby becoming the source of phosphorus in the manure. If the soybeans or maize were lower in phytic acid, chickens would excrete less phosphorus in their manure.¹⁷ Agricultural biotechnologists have created low phytate soybeans and maize precisely to reduce phosphorus in chicken manure in order to address phosphorus pollution from manure.¹⁸ One scientist reported that preliminary tests indicated that low phytic acid soybeans reduced phosphorus levels by 30%.¹⁹ Low phytic acid corn is being grown in a limited market in the Delmarva region (Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia) of the eastern United States.²⁰

In addition to the low-phytate grains, biotechnology has also developed transgenic microbial phytase as a feed supplement. The microbial phytase provides the phytase enzyme monogastric animals need to utilize the phytic acid in the feeds. By using microbial phytase, chicken growers can significantly reduce phosphorus in the chicken manures.²¹ Indeed, combining the two biotechnology products (transgenic low-phytate feed with transgenic microbial phytase) may likely be the best phosphorus reduction dietary strategy of all.²²

Animal biotechnology is less well-known than plant biotechnology. However, both chickens and pigs have been created [32 ELR 11315] with transgenic characteristics.²³ More to the point for this Article, agricultural biotechnologists have created a transgenic swine that produces phytase in its saliva. By having phytase in its saliva, the swine can digest the phytate in the feed rations, turning indigestible phytic acid into a usable source of phosphorous for the animal's nutrition and health. Scientists working on this transgenic pig begin their article by stating that "the main challenge for agriculture in this century is to sustain and increase food production without degrading the environment."²⁴ The transgenic swine—nicknamed the Enviropig²⁵ —reduces fecal phosphorus by 64% to 67%, which appears to be the maximum reduction achievable through swine digestion.²⁶

Chicken manure is spread on fields as fertilizer for the plants. The best management practices for fertilizer use strive to match the nutrient needs of the plants with the types and rate of fertilizer applied to the field. However, much phosphorus applied as fertilizer is poorly available to plants because it quickly becomesfixed in the soil. The problem is particularly true for phytate.²⁷

If plants could effectively use the phosphorus in the soil, farmers could apply chicken litter without causing as much, if any, environmental damage. Agricultural biotechnologists are working on the creation of plants that can efficiently and effectively use the phosphorus available in soils from fertilizers.²⁸ Two recent scientific studies establish that transgenic plants can increase their uptake of a form of soil phosphorus when grown under controlled conditions by twentyfold.²⁹

Transgenic plants, in addition to increased utilization of the phosphorus applied to the field as fertilizer, are likely to have better nutrition and health. Better plant nutrition and health occur because phosphorus is an essential mineral for plant growth, but plants have been able to access available phosphorus only inefficiently.³⁰ Consequently, transgenic forages (alfalfas and grasses) may be able to address the environmental problem of phosphorus management and also improve the quality of the resulting plants either as grazed forage or bailed hay.³¹

When the three agricultural biotechnology approaches (low phytate grains, phytase in animal saliva, and phosphorus-efficient forages) to phosphorus in manures are considered together, there appears to be a very strong likelihood of a significant reduction in excess phosphorus. Agricultural biotechnology thus may well be the best available control technology for achieving the OWRB's new phosphorus standard.³²

Conclusion

This Article has focused on one environmental problem in agriculture—the manures from CAFOs. Currently achievable technology, agricultural biotechnology, appears to offer great promise as a BAT to help provide a solution.

Several scientific studies show agricultural biotechnology as a feasible, currently available technology. Moreover, the studies demonstrate that the use of agricultural biotechnology would be a relatively cost-effective technology for the chicken industry. By using low-phytate feeds, farmers would likely avoid expenditures for the dietary supplements presently used to give the animals adequate nutrition.³³ By using transgenic forages that better utilize soil phosphorus, farmers would likely avoid expenditures for commercial [32 ELR 11316] phosphorus fertilizer,³⁴ and the chicken litter itself would likely become a more valuable resource for farmers as a fertilizer.³⁵ These cost savings would likely offset significantly, if not totally, cost increases (if any) associated with the use of low-phytate feeds, transgenic animals, and transgenic forages.

Yet technological and economic feasability are not the only hurdles that agricultural biotechnology must surmount in order to be part of the solution. An equally significant obstacle is the mental image that both the poultry industry and environmental agencies hold about agricultural biotechnology. The industry and the agencies must perceive agricultural biotechnology as an environmental technology for it to be successfully applied.³⁶

There is a saying in the western part of the United States: "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink." This Article has sought to gently lead the chicken industry and environmental agencies to agricultural biotechnology in the hope that they will mentally drink the reality: agricultural biotechnology is the best available environmentally sound method of achieving phosphorus concentration goals.

1. For a good comparison about agricultural biotechnology and its environmental impacts, see A. Shelton et al., Economic, Ecological, Food Safety, and Social Consequences of the Deployment of Bt Transgenic Plants, 47 ANN. REV. ENTOMOLOGY 845 (2002) (favorable toward agricultural biotechnology), and M. Paoletti & D. Pimentel, Environmental Risks of Pesticides Versus Genetic Engineering for Agricultural Pest Control, 12 J. AGRIC, ENVTL. ETHICS 279 (2000) (unfavorable toward agricultural biotechnology).

For a recent comprehensive review of the environmental impact of agricultural biotechnology, see J. CAPRENTER ET AL., COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF BIOTECHNOLOGY-DERIVED AND TRADITIONAL SOYBEAN, CORN, AND COTTON CROPS (2000):

A comprehensive review of the scientific literature supports the conclusion that overall the currently commercialized biotechnology-derived soybean, corn, and cotton crops yield environmental benefits. Furthermore, a critical analysis of the literature supports the idea that biotechnology-derived soybean, corn, and cotton pose no environmental concerns unique to or different from those historically associated with conventionally developed crop varieties.

Id. at 1.

The debate about agricultural biotechnology is a subset of a broader debate about conventional agriculture and sustainable agriculture. For a good comparative introduction to this broader debate, compare BJORN LOMBORG, THE SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST (2001) (especially, Ch. 5, Food and Hunger, and Ch. 22, Our Chemical Fears) with L. Horrigan et al., How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture, 110 ENVTL. HEALTH PERSP. 445 (2002).

2. For a good review article of these three exemplary issues, see P. Dale et al., Potential for the Environmental Impact of Transgenic Crops. 20 NAT. BIOTECH. 567 (2002).

3. The articles cited supra note 1 also debate the environmental benefits of agricultural biotechnology.

For other recent studies about the general environmental impact of agricultural biotechnology, see the following:

L. GIANESSI ET AL., PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY: CURRENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACT FOR IMPROVING PEST MANAGEMENT IN U.S. AGRICULTURE (National Center for Food & Agricultural Policy June 2002) ("In 2001, eight biotech cultivars adopted by U.S. growers increased crop yields by 4 billion pounds, saved growers $ 1.2 billion by lowering production costs and reduced pesticide use by 46 million pounds."). Id. at 1.

R. Phipps & J. Park, Environmental Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops; Global and European Perspectives on Their Ability to Reduce Pesticide Use, 11 J. ANIMAL & FEED SCI. 1 (2002):

The estimates presented in Table 6 indicate that if 50% of the maize, oil seed rape, sugar beet, and cotton was grown in the EU as HT or Bt varieties the amount of pesticide used would fall by 14.5 million kg formulated product/annum which represents a decrease of 4.4 million kg of active ingredient. In addition there would be a reduction of 7.5 million ha sprayed.

Id. at 12.

L. KENT & M. MONIEM, THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS FOR EGYPT (Agricultural Policy Reform Project Feb. 2002):

Overall, under a scenario where 50% of the land in each of these crops is planted in [genetically engineered] varieties, total benefits are estimated to include on an annual basis: an increase in net farmer income of $ 142 million; an increase in food production of 589 thousand tons; an increase in cotton production by 115,000 canters; a decrease in pesticide use of 10 million fedayeen-sprays, equivalent to 2 million liters less pesticide applied.

Id. at 9.

M. MARRA ET AL., THE PAYOFFS TO AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE (International Food Policy Research Inst. Jan. 2002):

It is fair to say only three things at this point with much confidence, and these apply only in the context of the United States (although they might be expected to have parallels in other countries): Growing transgenic cotton is likely to result in reduced pesticide use in most years in most states, and it is more likely than not to be a relatively profitable enterprise in most of the U.S. cotton belt; Bt corn will provide a small but significant yield increase in most years across the Corn Belt, and in some years and some places the increase will be substantial; Although there is some evidence of a small yield loss in the RR soybean varieties, in most years and locations savings in pesticide costs and, possibly, tillage costs will more than offset the lost revenue from yield discrepancy.

Id. at 34.

4. By focusing on specific, identifiable environmental problems in agriculture, this Article hopes to imitate ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD), THE APPLICATION OF BIOTECHNOLOGY TO INDUSTRIAL SUSTAINABILITY (2001) [hereinafter APPLICATION OF BIOTECHNOLOGY]. The OECD report focused on 21 case studies concerning the adoption or rejection of biotechnology for industrial processes. It noted:

As the case studies make clear, biotechnology does not necessarily always offer the single, best route; sometimes it may be most effectively used as one of a series of tools or integrated into other processes. However, the studies show that the application of biotechnology invariably led to a reduction in either operating costs or capital costs or both. It led to a more sustainable process, a lowered ecological footprint in the widest sense, by reducing some or all energy use, water use, wastewater or greenhouse gas production.

Id. at 10.

5. E.g., Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1342, ELR STAT. FWPCA §§ 301, 402 (control of pollutants from point source discharges). Section 301(b) uses the words "best available control technology."

6. See generally Wendy Wagner, The Triumph of Technology-Based Standards, 2000 U. ILL. L. REV. 83.

7. Under CWA regulations, a chicken operation is a CAFO only if the production system uses a continuous overflow watering system or a liquid manure system. 40 C.F.R. § 122.23 App. B. To avoid the CAFO legal designation, the chicken industry abandoned those production methods and handles chicken manure as a dry litter.

8. OKLA. STAT. tit. 2, §§ 10-9.1 to 10-9.21 (2001). Sections 10-9.1 to 10-9.12 are the Oklahoma Registered Poultry Feeding Operations Act; §§ 10-9.13 to 10-9.15 are the Oklahoma Poultry Waste Transfer Act; §§ 10-9.16 to 10.9-21 are the Oklahoma Poultry Waste Applicators Certification Act.

9. In northeastern Oklahoma, agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution (primarily the field application of chicken litter as fertilizer) accounts for 73% of the total phosphorus loading of Lake Eucha, a lake on the Grand River. D. Storm et al., Final Report: Executive Summary, in MODELING PHOSPHORUS LOADING FOR THE LAKE EUCHA BASIN 1, 4, 12 (Tulsa Metropolitan Utility Auth. 2001), available at http://biosystems.okstate.edu/home/dstorm/eucha/modeling.

10. OKLA. STAT. tit. 2, § 10-9.7 (2001) ("Utilization of best management practices—Animal waste management plans—Soil testing—Carcass disposal plans.").

11. OKLA, ADMIN, CODE tit. 385, ch. 45, App. A (2002).

12. Id. §§ 785:45-5-19(c)(2), 785:45-5-25(d). In the Grand River watershed adjoining the Illinois River, the city of Tulsa has its major water supply in the Spavinaw-Eucha Lake system. Surrounding these two lakes, and along the Grand River, many families have built their vacation and retirement homes. The city of Tulsa has sued the poultry industry concerning the nutrient level and other pollutants in the Grand River. The state has warned of lawsuits against the poultry industry as well. B. Hoberock, States Looking to Avoid Lawsuit, TULSA WORLD, May 25, 2002, at A1. Vacation and recreation homeowners have also filed a lawsuit. P. Lassek, Forum Previews Upcoming Lawsuits, TULSA WORLD, Apr. 5, 2002, at A19.

13. OKLA, ADMIN. CODE § 785:45-5-28.

14. OWRB, BENEFICIAL USE MONITORING PROGRAM 2001 REPORT (2002).

15. As of spring 2002, phosphorus is the only nutrient for which the state of Oklahoma has set a numeric level for scenic waters. However, phosphorus is not the only excess nutrient from chicken manure that concerns the state. Oklahoma is also concerned with nitrogen and potassium. See OKLA. STAT. tit. 2, § 10-9.7(D)(1) & (E)(1) (2001).

Agricultural biotechnology has also addressed excess nitrogen. See C. Stout, Who's Afraid of David Lightfoot?, PRAIRIE FARMER, Sept. 2000, at 102 (discussing the research of agricultural biotechnologist David Lightfoot of Southern Illinois University; Lightfoot has dramatically increased the nitrogen uptake of corn while boosting yields an average of 10%).

Agricultural biotechnology is not the only agricultural technology that can be used to address environmental impact, Specifically with respect to phosphorus, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) scientists have determined that an environmentally friendly compound—polyacrylamide—can be added to irrigation water to reduce significantly phosphorus runoff, M. Wood, PAM Protects Against Pollutants and Pathogens, AGRIC. RES., July 2002, at 4, available at http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/ju102. With respect to nitrogen, agricultural researchers using nonbiotechnology techniques have addressed nitrogen fertilizer use in order to protect against nitrogen runoff. USDA, GIANT SOYBEANS HAVE MULTIPLE USES (1998) (discussing conventional plant breeding of giant forage soybeans (for hay or silage) that "absorbs nitrogen from the soil and preserves it in plant tissues—rather than releasing it into streams and lakes"), available at http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/may98/gian0598.htm and M. Stone et al., Sensing Nitrogen Deficiencies in Winter Wheat and Bermudagrass, 81 BETTER CROPS 15-16, 19 (1997) (prototype fertilizer machinery equipped with near infrared diffuse reflectance spectrophotometry can detect nutrient needs in the field and apply differential rates to each 10 square foot area. "The variable N applicator developed at Oklahoma State University . . . will likely decrease the risk that over fertilization poses to the environment while maintaining or increasing yield."). Id.

16. Monogastric means having one digestive cavity. Monogastric animals should be contrasted with ruminant animals, e.g., cattle, that have more than one digestive cavity. For an excellent discussion of the phosphorus (phytic acid and phosphate) cycle in agriculture and the limited availability of phosphorus to monogastric animals in that cycle, see H. Brinch-Pedersen et al., Engineering Crop Plants: Getting a Handle on Phosphate, 7 TRENDS IN PLANT SCI. 118 (2002).

17. Transgenic Soy Feed Could Reduce Phosphorus Pollution, ASSOCIATED PRESS, June 4, 2001 [hereinafter Transgenic Soy Feed]. One researcher states that "approximately 60-75% of P in cereal grains, grain by-products, and oilseed meals is in the form of phytate P which is largely unavailable to poultry and as a result rations based on these commodities need to be supplemented with inorganic sources of P." See http://www.missouri.edu/nutsci/ledoux.htm (research description for Prof. David R. Ledoux, Nutritional Sciences Faculty, Univ. of Missouri).

18. D. Benbow et al., Soybeans Transformed With a Fungal Phytase Gene Improve Phosphorus Availability for Broilers, 77 POULTRY SCI. 878 (1998); Y. Li, Effects of Low Phytic Acid Corn on Phosphorus Utilization, Performance, and Bone Mineralization in Broiler Chicks, 79 POULTRY SCI. 1444 (2000).

19. Transgenic Soy Feed, supra note 17. Low phytic acid soybeans and maize may also have nutritional advantages for animals, including humans, that eat the transgenic, low phytate grain. Phytic acid tends to bind other trace mineral nutrients and carry these minerals along in the excrement; lower phytic acid grains means that these other nutrients may be available for the health and nutrition of the consuming animal or human rather than excreted. Id. See, e.g., M. Manary et al., Dietary Phytate Reduction Improves Zinc Absorption in Malawian Children Recovering From Tuberculosis but Not in Well Children, 13 J. NUTRITION 2959 (2000); C. Mendoza et al., Effect of Genetically Modified, Low-Phytic Acid Maize on Absorption of Iron From Tortillas, 68 AM. J. CLINICAL NUTRITION 1123 (1998) ("Consumption of genetically modified, low-phytic acid strains of maize may improve iron absorption in human populations that consume maize-based diets." Id. at 1123).

20. R. Irwin, Will Pig Be Cash Cow? (Agricultural Pub. Co., Ltd. 1999); L. Grooms, New Corn Improves Manure, FARM INDUS, NEWS, Dec. 1, 1998; J. Wehrspann, New Traits of Seed Buying, FARM INDUS, NEWS, Sept. 1, 1998 (these articles discuss a Pioneer Hi-Bred low-phytate hybrid maize). See also Value Enhanced Grains—Products—Low Phytate Corn, available at http://www.vegrains.org/english/varieties_lowphytate.htm.

While this Article focuses on low-phytate grains developed through agricultural biotechnology, low-phytate grains have also been developed by conventional, i.e., nontransgenic, plant-breeding methods. Dr. Victor Raboy, a U.S. Department of Agriculture research scientist, has been at the forefront in developing low-phytate nontransgenic grains. When fed to monogastric animals, these low-phytate grains too result in greatly reduced phosphorus excretion in manures and urine. See Low Phytic Acid/High Available Phosphorus Barley, available at http://www.arsgrin.gov/ars/PacWest/Aberdeen/lowphytic.htm and Low Phytic Acid Crops That Reduce Runoff and Protect Water, available at http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/misc/FLC2000awards.htm.

21. S. Sohail & D. Roland, Fabulous Phytase: Phytase Enzyme Proving Helpful to Poultry Producers and Environment. 46 HIGHLIGHTS OF AGRIC. RES. n.p. (1999), available at http://www.ag.auburn.edu/aaes/information/highlights/spring99/phytase.html. See also D. Bosch et al., Economic Returns From Reducing Poultry Litter Phosphorus With Microbial Phytase, 29 J. AGRIC. & APPL. ECON. 255 (1997).

22. G. CROMWELL, GENETICALLY MODIFIED CORN AND SOYBEAN MEAL AND MICROBIAL PHYTASE AS MEANS OF REDUCING PHOSPHORUS EXCRETION BY SWINE (NPPC Project 99-068, Aug. 2000), available at http://www.porkenvironment.org/Downloads/Research

Feeding a combination of low-phytate corn and low-phytate soybean meal with no added inorganic P resulted in optimal performance and bone traits. In addition, pigs fed this diet excreted 53% less P in their manure, compared with pigs fed conventional corn and soybean meal. When used in combination with microbial phytase, the reduction in P excretion would be even greater. The use of these genetically enhanced feedstuffs will enhance the environmental aspects associated with application of swine manure to cropland.

Id. from Abstract.

23. Genetically Engineered Fatless Chicken, REUTERS, June 10, 2002 (discussing a research project at the Hebrew University in Rehovot, Israel); R. Irwin, In a Groundbreaking Development, Ontario Researchers Have Developed a Pig That Excretes 50 Per Cent Less Phosphorus, AGRIC. PUB. CO., LTD. (1999) (discussing a transgenic pig from a research project at the University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada).

24. S. Golovan et al., Pigs Expressing Salivary Phytase Produce Low-Phosphorus Manure. 19 NAT. BIOTECH. 741, 741 (2001).

25. The nicknames, bestowed by a Canadian research project, of the initial three little "Enviropigs" were Wayne, Jacques, and Gordie, to honor Canadian hockey greats. Press Release, U of G's "Enviropig" A Success, New Study Reveals (July 31, 2001), available at http://www.uoguelph.ca/mediarel/01-07-31/enviropig.html.

26. Golovan et al., supra note 24, at 744. From the farmers' perspective, the transgenic swine has another desirable advantage. Farmers will not need to purchase supplemental inorganic phosphate because the transgenic swine obtains the phosphorus it needs for health and nutrition solely from feed rations, Id.

27. A. Richardson et al., Extracellular Secretion of Aspergillus Phytase From Arabidopsis Roots Enables Plants to Obtain Phosphorus From Phytate, 25 PLANT J. 641 (2001).

28. Z. Wang, Tissue Culture and Genetic Transformation of Cool-Season Forage Grasses, in THE SAMUEL ROBERTS NOBLE FOUNDATION, INC, ANNUAL REPORT 2001, BUILDING ON OUR LEGACY 46 (2002) [hereinfter ANNUAL REPORT]. Dr. Wang is working on genetic improvement in forage grasses for quality, drought tolerance and phosphorus uptake through tissue-culture and biotechnology transformations. Regarding phosphorus uptake, Dr. Wang heads a project "aimed at improving plant phosphate acquisition by expressing phytase and/or acid phosphatase." Id. at 47. Dr. Maria Harrison, another Noble Foundation scientist, is also working on improving plant phosphorus uptake although she is focusing on the interaction between plants and mycorrhizal symbiosis. M. Harrison et al., The Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis and Phosphate Acquisition by Plants, in id. at 16. The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation is a world-class scientific institute located in Ardmore, Oklahoma.

29. A. Richardson et al., Extracellular Secretion of Aspergillus Phytase From Arabidopsis Roots Enable Plants to Obtain Phosphorus From Phytate, 25 PLANT J. 641 (2001); J. Lopez-Bucio et al., Enhanced Phosphorus Uptake in Transgenic Tobacco Plants That Overproduce Citrate, 18 NAT. BIOTECH. 450 (2000).

A. Richardson et al. make explicit the connection between their research and environmental protection when they write:

There is also an increasing need to manage the use of P fertilizers in cropping and rangeland systems more effectively, to minimize the potential adverse environmental effects of P leakage from agricultural systems. . . . The development of plants with increased ability to meet the P requirements from "poorly available" sources of P, such as phytate, would therefore be of significant benefit to agriculture throughout the world.

Richardson et al., supra, at 647.

30. M. Harrison, Plant Biology Division: Lab Reports, in ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 28, at 55.

31. See, e.g., N. Grotz & M. Guerinot, Limiting Nutrients: An Old Problem With New Solutions?, 5 CURRENT OPINION IN PLANT BIOLOGY 158 (2002) (discussing transformation of plants so as to improve plant uptake of iron, a micronutrient, and phosphorus, a macronutrient, that often limit plant growth because of the inability of plants to access these nutrients in the soil).

32. Indeed, if it were possible to combine the 30% reduction of phosphorus in low-phytate feeds with the 64% reduction in phosphorus excrement from transgenic animals, plus the twentyfold increase in phosphorus uptake from transgenic forages, the scenic waters of Oklahoma might be able to achieve the 0.02 mg/l standard that many environmentalists and environmental organizations proposed to the OWRB for adoption as the appropriate numerical limit. OWRB, Summary of Comments Submitted on Amendments to OAC 785:45, Oklahoma's Water Quality Standards Proposed for Adoption in 2002 (2002).

33. Anon., Seeds of Change for Feed Grains, 27 PIG INT'L 10 (1997).

34. Richardson et al., supra note 29, at 647 ("The development of crop plants that are more efficient in utilization of P from soil and fertilizer sources would be particularly beneficial to agriculture in reducing the consumption of P-based fertilizers.").

35. Chicken litter is presently a valuable resource to chicken farmers. Fertilizer for Free, PROGRESSIVE FARMER, Aug. 2002, at 25 (discussing the nutrient content of chicken litter for nitrogen, phosphate, and potash).

36. The OECD study on biotechnology and industrial sustainability makes the same textual point. The report states that:

The principal audience of the volume is expected to be senior executives and members of company boards and government policy makers. One aim of the volume is to heighten the business community's awareness of biotechnology and the contribution it can make to the "triple bottom line" [economic, environmental, and societal benefits], by demonstrating what others have achieved and providing a process assessment tool to focus their decision-making process. For policy makers, it seeks to provide a basis for expanding the role of biotechnology and supporting the development of national R&D and technology transfer programmes targeted at sustainable development.

APPLICATION OF BIOTECHNOLOGY, supra note 4, at 9.