Environmental

Pollution
& its
Application in
Biotechnological
Tools in
Environmental
Cleanup Programme.
Page | 1

Page | 2

Content
Serial No.

Page | 3

Topic

Page No.

1.

Introduction

2.

Environmental Pollution

3.

Types of Pollution

4 -- 9

4.

Pollutants

9 -- 13

5.

Pollution Control

13 -- 17

6.

Report Objectives

17 -- 18

7.

Methodology

18 -- 20

8.

Needs of Bio Technology

21 -- 24

9.

Sustainability

24 -- 26

10.

Conclusions

26 -- 27

11.

References

28

Introduction
The application of biotechnology to environmental processes is not only
transforming how we manufacture products but is also providing us with new
products that could not even be imagined a few years ago. Because
environmental biotechnology is so new, its benefits are still not well known or
understood by industry, policymakers, or consumers. This report includes
analysis of only five environmental sectors to illustrate the potential to use
environmental biotechnology for pollution prevention, energy savings, cost
reduction, and other process improvements. It is intended to introduce readers to
the possibility of pollution prevention and other benefits from greater use of
environmental biotechnology. Our hope is that this information will inspire
more interest in understanding, developing, and adopting these new
environmental biotechnology processes.
Pollution control usually means adding equipment at the end of a process to
capture or transform pollutants after they have been created. Devices ranging
from a cars catalytic converter to a wastewater treatment plant to scrubbers on
a power plant are technologies that are designed to manage pollution once it has
already been created by everyday activities. American industry spends billions
of dollars yearly on technology systems to manage waste and capture polluting
effluent and emissions. The more sustainable and less expensive alternative
is preventing pollution in the first place. From the beginning, environmental
biotechnology has integrated product improvements with pollution prevention.
Nothing illustrates this better than the way environmental biotechnology solved
the phosphate water pollution problems of the 1970s caused by the use of
phosphates in laundry detergents. Biotechnology companies developed enzymes
that remove stains from clothing better than phosphates, thus enabling
replacement of a polluting material with a non-polluting bio based additive
while improving the performance of the end product.
This innovation dramatically reduced phosphate-related algal blooms in surface
waters around the globe, and simultaneously enabled consumers to get their
clothes cleaner with lower wash water temperatures and concomitant energy
savings. Environmental biotechnology is one of the most promising new
approaches to pollution prevention and reduced resource consumption. Often
referred to as the third wave in biotechnology, environmental applications of
biotechnology are already successfully transforming traditional manufacturing
processes and show promise as a tool for achieving sustainable environmental
development. Generally, sustainable development means continuous innovation,
improvement, and use of clean technologies or green chemistry to make
fundamental changes in pollution levels and resource consumption.

Page | 4

Environmental Pollution
Pollution is the effect of undesirable changes in our surroundings that have
harmful effects on plants, animals and human beings. This occurs when only
short-term economic gains are made at the cost of the long-term ecological
benefits for humanity. No natural phenomenon has led to greater ecological
changes than have been made by mankind. During the last few decades we have
contaminated our air, water and land on which life itself depends with a variety
of waste products. Pollutants include solid, liquid or gaseous substances present
in greater than natural abundance produced due to human activity, which have a
detrimental effect on our environment. The nature and concentration of a
pollutant determines the severity of detrimental effects on human health. An
average human requires about 12 kg of air each day, which is nearly 12 to15
times greater than the amount of food we eat. Thus even a small concentration
of pollutants in the air becomes more significant in comparison to the similar
levels present in food. Pollutants that enter water have the ability to spread to
distant places especially in the marine ecosystem. From an ecological
perspective pollutants can be classified as follows: Degradable or non-persistent
pollutants: These can be rapidly broken down by natural processes. Eg:
domestic sewage, discarded vegetables, etc. Slowly degradable or persistent
pollutants: Pollutants that remain in the environment for many years in an
unchanged condition and take decades or longer to degrade. Eg: DDT and most
plastics. Non-degradable pollutants: These cannot be degraded by natural
processes. Once they are released into the environment they are difficult to
eradicate and continue to accumulate. Eg: toxic elements like lead or mercury.

Types of Pollution: Factory Farm Pollution

In todays world there are a host of serious environmental problems, and factory
farming is one of the top causes of pollution. Scientific research has found that
factory farmings method of crowding and confining animals in warehouse-like
conditions before killing them and mass-producing both meat
from cows, pigs and chickens as well as dairy and eggs poses an unacceptable
level of risk to public health and damage to the environment Yet, despite
factory farmings severe social and ecological costs, many governments
Page | 5

promote this unsustainable industry to supply a growing global meat market

that is projected to double by 2050.
Factory Farm Pollutants
In general, there are two primary sources of factory farm pollution:

Waste from Animal Farms

Factory farms typically concentrate tens or hundreds of thousands of animals in

one area, and a large operation can produce as much excrement as a small city.
According to the EPA, A single dairy cow produces about 120 pounds of wet
manure per day, which is equivalent to the waste produced by 2040 people.
That means Californias 1.4 million dairy cows produce as much waste as 28
56 million people. So, when taking into consideration tens or hundreds of
thousands of animals, its not surprising that this amounts to about 130 times
more excrement than is produced by the entire human population every
year. For centuries, farmers have used animal manure to fertilize their fields, but
factory farms produce far more waste than the land can absorb, turning disposal
of this toxic by-product into a big problem for both the agriculture industry and
society.

Unlike human waste, animal excrement from factory farms is not processed as
sewagemaking it about 500 times more concentrated than treated human
waste while leaving pathogens (like Salmonella and E. coli) and volatile
chemicals intact. Even so, farmers typically spray some liquidized manure onto
the food being grown for animals using giant sprinkler jets, and store the rest in
open-air cesspools that can be as large as several football fields and hold
millions of gallons of waste. However, neither of these dispersal techniques is
environmentally safe or sustainable.

Page | 6

Agricultural Chemicals

Of all the agricultural chemicals applied in the U.S. every year, about 37 percent
are used to grow crops for animals raised for food. Agricultural chemicals (or
agrichemicals) refer to the wide variety of chemical products used in
agriculture, such as pesticides (including insecticides, herbicides and
fungicides), as well as synthetic fertilizers, hormones and antibiotics. Farmers
spray agricultural chemicals onto food grown for animals in order to kill bugs,
rodents, weeds, and other organisms that would otherwise supplant or eat the
grain grown for the animals. They also apply these substances directly to
animals skin, fur or feathers to combat insect infestation.
However, many of the agricultural chemicals approved by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contain ingredients that are known
carcinogens, while others cause severe allergies, birth defects and various health
problems. In addition, those who grow food for animals rely heavily on
synthetic petroleum-based fertilizers, and animal waste itself contains residues
from the massive doses of non-therapeutic antibiotics and artificial growth
hormones that animals are routinely fed or injected with to prevent illness and
accelerate weight gain. Ultimately, the dangerous compounds found in
agrichemicals end up as pollutants when wind and rain disperse them into the
environment.

Environmental Impacts of Factory Farm Pollution

Factory farms dump tens of millions of tons of animal waste and agricultural
chemicals into the environment every yeardriving land, water and air
pollution in the process:
Land Pollution
Page | 7

Most food produced for animals is grown using a combination of untreated

animal waste and synthetic fertilizers, both of which contain excessive amounts
of nitrogen, phosphorus and heavy metals (such as zinc, copper, chromium,
arsenic, cadmium, and lead). Even though most of these substances usually act
as nutrients that nourish plants, environmental farmers overuse them to increase
crop yields, and the remainder that cannot be absorbed into the earth
especially when it is already saturated after heavy rains ends up polluting the
soil, while degrading its water retention ability and fertility over time.
In addition, U.S. farmers use 750 million pounds of some 20,000 different
agricultural chemicals every year, and those that are used to kill insects and
weeds that threaten crop yields end up poisoning natural ecosystems. Plus, as
some weeds and bugs have developed resistance to these compounds over the
years, chemists have continued to create ever more powerfully-toxic pesticides
that are even worse for the environment.
The residues of these chemicals are found at every level of the food chain, and
through the process of bioaccumulationbecome more concentrated the
higher up the chain one looks. Meaning, in a system that runs the gamut from
micro-organisms to humans, people who eat animal products get the highest
dosage of toxins.

Water Pollution
Page | 8

The most common cause of water pollution in the U.S. is excess levels of
nitrogen and phosphorous, the main source of which is fertilizer runoff [23] that
occurs when rain carries fertilizer into waterways. Runoff from both synthetic
fertilizers and animal waste can poison drinking water and aquatic ecosystems,
wreaking havoc on human health and wildlife. In the Southern U.S. , where
there is an abundance of chicken factory farms, as many as one-third of all
underground wells fall below EPA safe drinking water standards for nitrate, a
form of nitrogen concentrated in chicken waste.
Excrement from animal waste cesspools can also seep through the soil into
nearby groundwater and overflow during storms. In 1995, for example, an
eight-acre pig-manure lagoon in North Carolina ruptured, spilling 25 million
gallons of untreated waste into the New River, which killed about 10 million
fish. In California, the nations top dairy-producing state, officials found animal
agriculture (specifically dairy operations) to be the largest source of nitrate
Page | 9

pollution in more than 100,000 square miles of contaminated

groundwater. Throughout the U.S., animal excrement from factory farms has
contaminated groundwater in 17 states and polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22
states.
Factory farm runoff also causes algal blooms that kill fish by depleting water of
its oxygen, contributing to the formation of hundreds of dead zones
worldwide where sea creatures cannot survive. The largest of these can be found
in the Gulf of Mexico and is nearly the size of the State of New Jersey.
Aquaculture (basically, the factory farming of fish in underwater enclosures)
also makes a large contribution to water pollution, especially in the coastal
mangrove swamps where these operations are typically located. Like land-based
animal agriculture, intensive fish farming maximizes production efficiency by
concentrating as many animals into the smallest amount of space possibleand
also creates tons of untreated faecal waste that pollutes and de-oxygenates
aquatic habitats.

Air Pollution

Page | 10

Various gases from animal waste are all major sources of factory farm air
pollution, and particulate matter and bacterial toxins found in high
concentrations at and around environmentalized animal facilities have caused
serious respiratory and cardiac disorders. The ammonia from waste slurry
lagoons also breeds bacteria, which creates acid that evaporates and combines
with nitrous oxide from fertilizers and environmental pollution to form nitric
acid rainwhich leaches nutrients from the soil, despoils forest habitats, and
kills fish by releasing toxic minerals from the earth that flow into aquatic
ecosystems. Even though agricultural fertilizer emissions are the leading cause
of nitric acid rain (after motor vehicles and coal plants), they remain virtually
unregulated in the U.S.
In addition, animal agriculture is responsible for more than half of humanitys
total greenhouse gas emissions (largely created by using arable land to grow
food for animals, animal belching and flatulence, and chemical emanations from
manure). This includes 37 percent of anthropogenic (i.e., human-made)
methane, and methane gas is 23 times more potent a climate change agent than
carbon dioxide. Yet, despite factory farmings leading role in the climate change
Page | 11

crisis, the EPA does not currently have the authority to regulate the U.S.
livestock industrys greenhouse gas emissions.

Pollutants
A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has
undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant
may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or
animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or
property values. Some pollutants are biodegradable and therefore will not
persist in the environment in the long term. However the degradation
products of some pollutants are themselves polluting such as the products DDE
and DDD produced from degradation of DDT.

Sources and causes

Page | 12

Air pollution produced by ships may alter clouds, affecting global temperatures.
Air pollution comes from both natural and human-made (anthropogenic)
sources. However, globally human-made pollutants from combustion,
construction, mining, agriculture and warfare are increasingly significant in the
air pollution equation.
Motor vehicle emissions are one of the leading causes of air pollution.
China, United States, Russia, India, Mexico, and Japan are the world leaders in
air pollution emissions. Principal stationary pollution sources include chemical
plants, coal-fired power plants, oil refineries, petrochemical plants, nuclear
waste disposal activity, incinerators, large livestock farms (dairy cows, pigs,
poultry, etc.), PVC factories, metals production factories, plastics factories, and
other heavy industry. Agricultural air pollution comes from contemporary
practices which include clear felling and burning of natural vegetation as well as
spraying of pesticides and herbicides
About 400 million metric tons of hazardous wastes are generated each
year. The United States alone produces about 250 million metric tons.
Americans constitute less than 5% of the world's population, but produce
roughly
25%
of
the
worlds CO
2, and generate approximately 30% of worlds. In 2007, China has overtaken the
United
States
as
the
world's
biggest
producer
of CO
2, while still far behind based on per capita pollution - ranked 78th among the
world's nations.

An environmental
downtown,China

area,

with

power

plant,

south

of Yangzhou's

In February 2007, a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC), representing the work of 2,500 scientists, economists, and policymakers
from more than 120 countries, said that humans have been the primary cause of
global warming since 1950. Humans have ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions
and avoid the consequences of global warming, a major climate report
concluded. But to change the climate, the transition from fossil fuels like coal
Page | 13

and oil needs to occur within decades, according to the final report this year
from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Some
of
the
more
common soil contaminants
are chlorinated
hydrocarbons(CFH), heavy metals (such as chromium, cadmiumfound in
rechargeable batteries, and leadfound in lead paint, aviation fuel and still in
some countries, gasoline), MTBE, zinc, arsenic and benzene. In 2001 a series of
press reports culminating in a book called Fateful Harvest unveiled a
widespread practice of recycling environmental by products into fertilizer,
resulting in the contamination of the soil with various metals. Ordinary
municipal and fills are the source of many chemical substances entering the soil
environment (and often groundwater), emanating from the wide variety of
refuse accepted, especially substances illegally discarded there, or from pre1970 landfills that may have been subject to little control in the U.S. or EU.
There have also been some unusual releases of polychlorinated dibenzodioxins,
commonly called dioxins for simplicity, such as TCDD.
Pollution can also be the consequence of a natural disaster. For
example ,hurricanes often involve water contamination from sewage, and
petrochemical spills from ruptured boats or automobiles. Larger scale and
environmental damage is not uncommon when coastal oil rigs or refineries are
involved. Some sources of pollution, such as nuclear power plants or oil
tankers, can produce widespread and potentially hazardous releases when
accidents occur.
In the case of noise pollution the dominant source class is the motor vehicle,
producing about ninety percent of all unwanted noise worldwide.

Different types of pollutants in nature

Stock pollutants
Pollutants that the environment has little or no absorptive capacity are called
stock pollutants(e.g. persistent synthetic chemicals, non-biodegradable plastics,
and heavy metals. Stock pollutants accumulate in the environment over time.
The damage they cause increases as more pollutant is emitted, and persists as
the pollutant accumulates. Stock pollutants can create a burden for future
generations by passing on damage that persists well after the benefits received
from incurring that damage have been forgotten.

Page | 14

Fund pollutants
Fund pollutants are those for which the environment has some absorptive
capacity. Fund pollutants do not cause damage to the environment unless the
emission rate exceeds the receiving environment's absorptive capacity (e.g.
carbon dioxide, which is absorbed by plants and oceans).Fund pollutants are not
destroyed, but rather converted into less harmful substances, or
diluted/dispersed to non-harmful concentrations.

Notable pollutants
Notable pollutants include the following groups:

Heavy metals

Persistent organic pollutants

Environmental Persistent Pharmaceutical Pollutants

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Volatile organic compounds

Environmental xenobiotics

Zones of influence

Page | 15

Pollutants can also be defined by their zones of influence, both horizontally and
vertically.

Horizontal zone
The horizontal zone refers to the area that is damaged by a pollutant. Local
pollutants cause damage near the emission source. Regional pollutants cause
damage further from the emission source.

Vertical zone
The vertical zone is referred to whether the damage is ground-level or
atmospheric. Surface pollutants cause damage by concentrations of the pollutant
accumulating near the Earth's surface Global pollutants cause damage by
concentrations in the atmosphere.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Pollution control is the process of reducing or eliminating the release of

pollutants (contaminants, usually human-made) into the environment. It is
regulated by various environmental agencies that establish limits for the
discharge of pollutants into the air, water, and land. A wide variety of devices
and systems have been developed to control air and water pollution and solid
wastes

Page | 16

Air pollution control

Methods of air pollution control can be divided into two categories: the control
of particulate (pronounced par-TIK-you-let) emissions and the control of
gaseous emissions. The term particulate refers to tiny particles of matter such as
smoke, soot, and dust that are released during environmental, agricultural, or
other activities. Gaseous emissions are environmental products such as sulphur
dioxide, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen also released during various
manufacturing operations.
Methods for particulate control tend to operate on a common principle. The
solid particles are separated from the gases in which they are contained by
physical procedures such as passage through a settling chamber. A settling
chamber is a long, wide pipe through which gases from a manufacturing process
are allowed to flow. As these gases slow down in the pipe, the solid particles
settle out. They can then be removed from the bottom of the pipe.
A cyclone collector is another device for removing particulates from stack
gases. The gases are fed into a rotating cylindrical container.

Centrifugal forces (the forces that move things away from the center of rotation)
send solid particles in the gas outward against the walls of the container. They
collect there briefly, then fall to the bottom of the container. Gases from which
the particles have been removed then escape from the top of the container.
Many different methods are available for removing unwanted gases, most of
which are acidic. Scrubbers are smokestack devices that contain a moist
chemical such as lime, magnesium oxide, or sodium hydroxide. When gases
escape from a factory and pass through a scrubber, they react with the moist
chemical and are neutralized. From time to time, the scrubbers are removed
from the smokestack, cleaned, and replaced.
Another method for controlling gaseous emissions is by adsorption. Activated
charcoal is charcoal that has been ground into a very fine powder. In this form,
charcoal has the ability to adsorb, or adhere to, other chemicals. When
unwanted gases flow over activated charcoal on the inside of a smokestack, they
are adsorbed on the charcoal. As with scrubbers, the charcoal is removed from
time to time, and a new lining of charcoal is installed in the smokestack.
Page | 17

Water pollution
Methods of controlling water pollution fall into three general categories:
physical, chemical, and biological. For example, one form of water pollution
consists of suspended solids such as fine dirt and dead organisms. These
materials can be removed from water by simply allowing the water to sit quietly
for a period of time, thereby allowing the pollutants to settle out, or by passing
the water through a filter. (The solid pollutants are then trapped in the filter.)
Chemical reactions can be used to remove pollutants from water. For example,
the addition of lime (calcium hydroxide) to water results in the formation of a
thick, sticky precipitate. When the precipitate begins to settle out, it traps and
carries with it solid particles, dead bacteria, and other components of polluted
water.
Biological agents can also be used to remove pollutants from water. Aerobic
bacteria (those that need oxygen to survive) and anaerobic bacteria (those that
do not require oxygen) attack certain chemicals in polluted water and convert
them to a harmless form.
Solid pollutants
Solid pollutants consist of garbage, sewage sludge, paper, plastics, and many
other forms of waste materials. One method of dealing with solid pollutants is
simply to bury them in dumps or landfills. Another approach is
to compost them, a process in which microorganisms turn certain types of
pollutants into useful fertilizers. Finally, solid pollutants can also be
incinerated (burned).
Taking on pollution: a global attempt
While artificial chemicals have improved the quality of life around the world,
they have also posed a threat to the health of people and wildlife. In late 2000,
in an effort to control the effect of toxic global pollutants, the united nations
environment program organized a meeting to draft a treaty to restrict the
production and use of twelve persistent organic pollutants (POPs), especially
those used as pesticides. The twelve toxic chemicals cited, which
environmentalists have called the "dirty dozen," include eight pesticides (aldrin,
chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, mirex, and toxaphene), two types
of environmental chemicals (hexachlorobenzene and polychlorinated biphenyls
Page | 18

or PCBs), and two types of environmental byproducts (dioxins and furans).

These toxic pollutants were chosen not because they are the most dangerous,
but because they are the most widely studied. Since it is still widely used in
Africa to control malaria, DDT was given a special exemption: it can be used in
those countries until replacement chemicals or strategies can be developed and
put into place. One hundred and twenty-two nations (including the United
States) agreed to the treaty. Before it can take effect, however, at least fifty of
those nations must also ratify it.

What Is Environmental Biotechnology?

Environmental biotechnology builds on the technological advances pioneered
in health care. It uses the same genomic, proteomic, and bioinformatics
techniques used in medical biotechnology. These techniques are most often
applied in the world of microorganisms. By working in concert with nature,
environmental researchers discover new ways to enable cleaner production of
environmental raw materials, intermediates, and consumer goods.
Rudimentary environmental biotechnology dates back to at least 6000 B.C.
when Neolithic cultures fermented grapes to make wine, and by 4000 B.C.
Egyptians were making leavened bread using yeast. Babylonians used microbial
yeasts to make beer, and yogurt and vinegar production was documented in
China in early times. The production of wine through fermentation has long
been well established in many parts of the world. These examples are, in
essence, rudimentary forms of environmental biotechnology where
microorganisms were used to catalyze or perform biochemical reactions for
humans. Over time, our ability to work with these microorganisms has grown.
The early Chinese used certain melds as topical treatments for skin infections.
In the 1800s, Louis Pasteur proved that fermentation was a result of microbial
activity. In 1897, the German scientist
Eduard Buchner discovered that specialized proteins, called enzymes, were
responsible for converting sugar to alcohol in yeast. Buchners discoveries
about the function of enzymes were a key element in transforming the crude
applications of fermentation for making cheese, wine, and bread into modern
environmental biotechnology. In 1928, Sir Alexander Fleming discovered that
penicillin could be extracted from meld, and in the 1940s, large-scale
fermentation techniques were developed to make environmental quantities of
this wonder drug. Despite the existence of these early applications, scientific
understanding of microbial fermentation at the molecular level is fairly recent.
Page | 19

A more detailed history of the business of environmental biotechnology is found

in Appendix I. This progress in our scientific understanding of microbial
systems launched the field of environmental biotechnology.

Report Objectives
1. Provide context for Environmental biotechnology.
This report discusses the evolution and recent blossoming of environmental
biotechnology, development of pollution prevention policy, and increasing
potential for environmental biotechnology to offer new and transformative ways
to prevent pollution and sustain development.
2. Quantify potential pollution prevention benefits achieved by applying
certain environmental biotechnology processes to entire sectors within the
United States.
This report applies performance outcomes reported in the original OECD case
study report to environmental sectors within the United States. Data for these
sectors was drawn from EPA and other publicly available databases.
Extrapolations were then made from the OECD case studies across several
discrete industry sectors in order to illustrate the largest potential magnitude of
benefits.
3. Educate stakeholders about environmental biotechnology.
Environmental biotechnology is already reducing pollution and manufacturing
costs in some industry sectors. It holds great promise to further reduce pollution
and the consumption of raw materials if deployed more broadly; this, in turn,
can reduce the cost of producing goods and may lead to better products.
Because environmental biotechnology can utilize many renewable feed stocks,
such as corn and other agricultural crops and crop residues, it may provide new
sources of income for farmers. This report aims to deliver information on these
powerful new biotechnology tools to the public, policymakers, NGOs, the press,
and corporate America. All of these groups have a stake in a cleaner future and
need to be informed about the latest technological developments that are
available to improve our world.

Page | 20

4. Inspire a wider inquiry into environmental biotechnology.

The Environmental and Environmental Section of BIO, its members, and some
national policymakers possess greater familiarity with the current and potential
uses for environmental biotechnology than the target audience for this
document. From that familiarity comes our optimism about the possible benefits
that can be derived from greater environmental biotechnology use. BIO strongly
believes that as an understanding of this field spreads, so, too, will the general
sense of enthusiasm about this powerful technology. At the same time, we
cannot expect that reaction on the strength of this document alone.
Environmental biotechnology encompasses a multitude of products and
processes. Each will need to endure the scrutiny of potential customers,
policymakers, NGOs, and the public. Our expectation is that this report will
inform as well as raise questions. We invite those, whose interest is aroused, but
whose questions are not satisfied, to join with BIO in future research dialogues
and other efforts to widen the inquiry into environmental biotechnologys
current and potential benefits.

Methodology
In 2001, OECD released a report called The Application of Biotechnology to
Environmental Sustainability. This report was developed by the OECD Task
Force on Biotechnology for Sustainable Environmental Development to assess
how widespread the use of environmental biotechnology was in 20002001 and
to assess the real-world experiences of 21 companies worldwide that furnished
case study data. The purpose of the report was to use these case studies to help
answer questions regarding the costs and benefits of environmental
biotechnology and to describe the factors that affected decisions by companies
to use this technology. The OECD report provided a useful basis for this
document because it examined numerous environmental sectors in nations with
a range of economic resources and regulatory circumstances. Despite the varied
settings where environmental biotechnology was used, the OECD found
generally consistent results. The report found that environmental biotechnology
processes invariably led to less expensive and more environmentally friendly
processes. The distribution and the environmental and cost benefits of the 21
OECD case. This reports analysis begins with the OECD report and goes on to
address the question: What if environmental biotechnology was more widely
used? The analysis in this report takes the performance results of several OECD
case studies in the pharmaceutical, chemical, paper, textile, and energy sectors
Page | 21

and assumes that they are applied across the board in similar industry sectors
within the United States. In addition, information on bio plastics is drawn from
the OECD report and from other sources. An important simplifying assumption
of our analysis is that performance achieved through the application of a process
in a case study can be extrapolated across the entire sector in the United States.
For example, where a case study showed environmental benefits at a pulp and
paper plant, our results assume that the same performance would be achieved
across the U.S. pulp and paper industry. The purpose of this report is to develop
a sense of the best-case scenario of the maximum potential environmental
benefit that could be achieved. The decision to employ the simplified analysis is
the result of data and resource limitations. Much of the data necessary to do a
finer analysis are not availablethey are either gathered in an aggregated form
or held as competitively sensitive information. It is also used in service of the
larger objectives for this document: namely, to provide a sense of environmental
biotechnologys maximum potential, and to stimulate interest in and support for
more robust analysis of the topics touched On here. The widespread uptake of
this technology will not occur at the same speed in all sectors. We believe,
however, that making projections across industry sectors is valid since there are
many existing examples of entire environmental sectors using a technology. In
some cases, this sector wide uptake is based on economic considerations, in
some it is based on technology availability and in others it is based on legal
regulatory requirements. For instance, virtually all paper pulping operations
using the Kraft pulping process and virtually all coal-fired power plants use
sulphur dioxide scrubbers. We further acknowledge that in some cases,
environmental biotechnology may be used in only part of a given sector.
Nevertheless, projecting for a whole sector is a valid means of highlighting
what is possible in the future. For example, more than 90% of riboflavin
(vitamin B2) is currently produced with a biotechnology fermentation process
that replaced a conventional chemical process that employed several highly
toxic chemicals. In large part this transformation of standard production
techniques was possible because A) the biotechnology-based process was less
expensive and B) the pharmaceutical and vitamin industries are accustomed to,
and structured for, rapid turnover of capital stock and processing techniques.
Such rapid penetration of biotechnology in sectors less situated for rapid
transformation is less likely. At the same time, because biotechnology has so
many potential environmental applications, its uptake may occur differently
but with equally dramatic resultsin other sectors. For example, nearly every
aspect of papermaking from pulping wood to de-inking recycled paper could
benefit from existing enzyme-based processes. So, instead of a single biotech
process permeating the industry, one could envision the complete conversion of
a single paper plant from chemical to biotechnology-based production. The
authors recognize that environmental plant age, technology availability, and cost
are but three factors that can result in performance variability. Studies of
Page | 22

technology uptake suggest that diffusion of technology into the broad economy
can take decades or longer as individual companies and governments
experiment with, deploy, and then adopt new technology Rapid changes,
however, can occur as a result of traditional fossil fuel feedstock cost increases,
changes in environmental regulations, or other factors. A presentation by
Barbara Miller of Dow Chemical Company describes the diffusion of
technology and is included in Appendix II. In addition, this report does not
attempt to quantify the costs associated with adoption of biotechnology
processes. As is also discussed by Miller, disruption and capital costs would be
associated with uptake of these processes. This is an area for further research.
Pollution prevention performance for specific processes is derived from the
OECD case studies and applied to U.S. industry sector data obtained from EPA
and other public sources. In some cases, more recent data is now available than
was used in assembling this report. Additional assumptions are included in the
footnotes We use examples drawn only from OECD case studies measuring
pollution reduction in a manner matching reasonably well with the data
available from EPA and other public sources. Our analysis is also limited
because environmental biotechnology does not have a discrete North American
Environmental Classification System (NAICS) code that would allow for the
collection of broad categories of data regarding its usage. It became apparent
during our investigation that the formulation and adoption of such a code for the
biotechnology sector in general and for discrete biotechnology sectors in
particular would contribute to more accurate assessments of costs and benefits.
More analysis is needed by federal agencies to draw out additional empirical
information about possible environmental benefits in this rapidly expanding
field. This report considers only a few of the many environmental
biotechnology process available today. It does not examine either upstream or
downstream benefits. Because environmental biotechnology presents such a
broad array of potential intersections with existing environmental activities one
could easily speculate that the potential benefits of significant environmental
biotechnology diffusion would be greater and more diverse than described in the
following analysis. Finally, our work leaves to future efforts detailed
examinations of barriers, life-cycle, and cost benefit considerations, and existing
protocols for storage, transportation, and use of environmental biotechnology
materials. Each of these considerations is outside the scope of this report.
Furthermore, that work would best be done by cooperative efforts between
private, government, and NGO entities. This report may stimulate new interest
in such cooperative research.

Page | 23

NEEDS OF BIO TECHNOLOGY

Biotechnology companies, national and international organizations, including

the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), and
numerous academics (e.g., Ruttan 1999) have continued to argue for the need
to increase agricultural productivity so that sufficient food supplies exist to
meet the demand forthcoming from a swelling world population. Despite
Altieri and Russet's (this issue) assertion, population density is hardly the
issue. In the absence of significant productivity gains, or expansion of
agriculture into marginal lands (e.g., forests), there will be not be sufficient
food quantities to feed the projected levels of population. This simple reality is
independent of income distribution or the location of the population. And
hardly anyone, including Altieri and Russet, will argue about the pragmatism
of population projections. So in the absence of a good alternativeand in the
face of a proven slow down in the productivity gains from the Green
Revolutionbiotechnology is by default our best, and maybe, only, way to
increase production to meet future food needs.
1. The argument that hunger is a complex socioeconomic phenomenon, tied
to lack of resources to grow or buy food, is correct. Equally correct is the
Page | 24

argument that existing food supplies could adequately feed the world
population. But how food and other resources (e.g., land, capital) are
distributed among individuals, regions, or the various nations is
determined by the complex interaction of market forces and institutions
around the world. Unless our civic societies can come up quickly with an
economic system that allocates resources more equitably and more
efficiently than the present one, 50 years from now we will be faced with
an even greater challenge. Calorie for calorie there will not be enough
food to feed the projected population of about 9 billion. With the
purchasing power and wealth concentrated in the developed countries,
and over 90 percent of the projected population growth likely to occur in
developing and emerging economies, it is not difficult to predict where
food shortages will occur. Unless we are ready to accept starvation, or
place parks and the Amazon Basin under the plough, there really is only
one good alternative: discover ways to increase food production from
existing resources. Bottom line, Altieri and Russet may want to argue
against Western-style capitalism and market institutions if they so choose
tobut their argument is hardly relevant to the issue of biotechnology.

2. The assertion that most innovations in biotechnology are not need driven
is incorrect. Here are a few well - documented examples of biotechnology
innovations targeting pressing needs:
Development of a rice strain that has the potential to prevent blindness in
millions of children whose diets are deficient in Vitamin A. Vitamin A is a
highly essential micronutrient and widespread dietary deficiency of this
vitamin in rice-eating Asian countries has tragic undertones: five million
children in South East Asia develop an eye disease called xerophthalmia
every year, and 250,000 of them eventually become blind. Improved
vitamin A nutrition would alleviate this serious health problem and,
according to United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), could also
prevent up to two million infant deaths because vitamin

The argument that the integration of chemical pesticides and seed-use has
led to lower returns for farmers is incorrect. To support their argument
Altieri and Russet reference an obscure manuscript while they ignore
several comprehensive studies that point to increased net returns and
reduced chemical loads (Rice, 1999; Klotz-Ingram et al., 1999; Falk-

Page | 25

Zepeda, Traxler, & Nelson, in press; Gianessi, 1999; Abelson & Hines,
1999; USDA/ERS, 1999a, 1999b).
Because of their improved production economics, the introductions of Btand herbicide resistant crops have forced tremendous competition in
herbicide and insecticide markets. Prices of many herbicides and
insecticides have been slashed by over 50% in these markets in order to
compete with the improved economics of biotechnology seed/chemical
solutions. Such price reductions have led to significant discounting of
weed and insect control programs and have benefited even farmers who
have not adopted biotechnology crops. Because of lower prices and
reduced volumes synthetic pesticides from the use of biotechnology
crops, the agrichemicals sector has experienced significant financial
losses over the last two-three years.

The assertion that "there are potential risks of eating (bioengineered)

foods" is alarmist. Citing unspecified "recent evidence" Altieri and Russet
fail to acknowledge the extensive scientific evidence that consistently
finds that the use of biotechnology methods and biotechnology products
pose risks no different from those of other genetic methods and products.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has evaluated technical evidence on
all proteins produced through biotechnology and which are currently in
commercial food products. All of the proteins that have been placed into foods
through the use of biotechnology and are currently in the market are non-toxic,
sensitive to heat, acid and enzymatic digestion, and hence rapidly digestible,
and have no structural similarities with proteins known to cause allergies
(Thompson, 2000). Under their oversight structure, the FDA does not routinely
subject foods from new plant varieties to pre-market review or to extensive
scientific safety tests, although there are exceptions. The agency has judged that
the usual safety and quality control practices used by plant breeders, such as
chemical and visual analyses and taste testing, are generally adequate for
ensuring food safety The argument that the new bioengineered varieties will
fail, as pests develop resistance to the natural Bt-toxins produced by these
varieties because they violate the basic principles of integrated pest
management (IPM), is misleading. Pests tend to overcome any control
mechanism, including those introduced through biotechnology, synthetic
pesticides, or even the broader integrated approaches suggested by Altieri and
Page | 26

Russet. In biology no solutions are permanent. Once selection pressure is

applied on a population, that population is effectively enriched for resistant
organisms. That is why it is imperative to develop a multi-pronged approach.
Integrating crop rotation and ecology with biotechnology is not only feasible
but also the logical way to progress. Indeed biotechnology companies like
Ecogen and Agra Quest use biotechnology to identify and enrich natural
predators of damaging pests.
However, biotechnology supplies yet one more mode of defence. For instance,
many variations and combinations of But genes are currently being produced to
minimize pest selection pressure. Indeed, Altieri and Russet are incorrect when
they drive a parallel with the "one pest-one pesticide" paradigm. Biotechnology
is striving for a "one pest-many genes" paradigm. Molecular biologists
recognize the need to study and apply multiple and diverse mechanisms for
controlling pests and pathogens to reduce selection pressure. Simultaneous or
sequential deployment of different resistance genes has the same rationale as
crop rotation. Pathogen evolution is less able to overcome a changing
environment or an environment made inhospitable by an array of resistance
genes.

Bio technological tools

sustainability

for environmental

Environmental Sustainability
Sustainability is the capacity to endure. The word sustainability is derived from
the Latin sustinere (tenere, to hold; sus, up). In ecology the word describes how
biological systems remain diverse and productive over times. For humans it is
the potential for long-term maintenance of well-being, which in turn depends on
the well-being of the natural world and the responsible use of natural resources
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Sustainability_Index).
Environmental sustainability is the process of making sure current processes of
interaction with the environment are pursued with the idea of keeping the
environment as pristine as naturally possible based on ideal-seeking behaviours.
An unsustainable situation occurs when natural capital (the sum total of
natures resources) is used up faster than it can be replenished. Sustainability
Page | 27

requires that human activity only uses natures resources at a rate at which they
can be replenished naturally. Theoretically, the long-term result of
environmental degradation is the inability to sustain human life. Such
degradation on a global scale could imply extinction for humanity.
A healthy environment is one that provides vital goods and services to humans
as well as other organisms within its ecosystem. This can be achieved in two
ways and include discovering ways of reducing negative human impact and
enhancing the well-being and vitality of all living organisms (plants and
animals) in the environment. Daly suggested three broad criteria for ecological
sustainability: renewable resources should provide a sustainable yield (the rate
of harvest should not exceed the rate of regeneration); for non-renewable
resources there should be equivalent development of renewable substitutes;
waste generation should not exceed the assimilative capacity of the
environment.
It is important to also clearly define what the environment is to the humans who
are the focus and are adversely affected positively or negatively according to
their activities within their surroundings. Thus, Bankole reported that
Environment refers to the physical surroundings of man, of which he is part
and on which he depends for his activities, like physiological functioning,
production, and consumption. His physical environment stretches from air,
water, and land to natural resources like metals, energy carriers, soil, and plants,
animals, and ecosystems. For urbanized man, a large part of his environment is
man-made. But even then, the artificial environments (buildings, roads) and
implements (clothes, automobiles) are the result of an input of both labour and
natural resources.

Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI)

This is a composite index tracking 21 elements of environment sustainability
covering natural resource endowments, past and present pollution levels,
environmental management efforts, contributions to protection of the global
commons, and a societys capacity to improve its environmental performance
over time.
The Environmental Sustainability Index was developed and published between
1999 and 2005 by Yale Universitys Centre for Environmental Law and Policy
in collaboration with Columbia Universitys Centre for International Earth
Science Information Network (CIESIN), and the World Economic Forum. The
ESI developed to evaluate environmental sustainability relative to the paths of
Page | 28

other countries. Due to a shift in focus by the terms developing the ESI, a new
index was developed, the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) that uses the
outcome-oriented indicators, then works as a benchmark index that can be more
easily used by policy makers, environmental scientists, advocates and the
general public.

Conclusions
This report attempts to take the next step in answering the question:
What if industrial biotechnology were more widely used?
The answer is that industrial biotechnology can revolutionize pollution
prevention, control, and innovation strategies and overall environmental
protection strategy. Furthermore, industrial biotechnology can revolutionize
how goods are manufactured.
Industrial biotechnology is revolutionary because it provides new tools for the
manufacturing sector that not only reduce pollution but reduce costs and
improve profitability all at the same time. During the past half century, advances
in biotechnology have launched a new wave of biotechnologyindustrial
biotechnology which offers new tools to safely reduce manufacturing costs
and consumption of energy and raw materials; it also promises the creation of
new markets for innovative products that are superior to existing ones. The
analysis articulated in this report canand shouldbe expanded in numerous
directions. For example, greater use of industrial biotechnology will have
multiple upstream and downstream consequences. We believe that further study
will show these to be overwhelmingly beneficial. Nevertheless, quantifying the
benefits and addressing trouble spots before they become problems necessitates
additional work.
Given the wide scope of industrial biotechnology in terms of business sectors it
would be futile for this report to attempt to address every question. This
document should encourage enough interest so that corporate, government, and
NGO entities will join our future efforts to frame questions and find answers.
What could this mean for our future?
As previously stated, the sectors examined in this report may account for up to
40% of energy use, 50% of industrial pollution, and are also a significant
contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. With accelerated diffusion of industrial
biotechnology into these sectors, rapid and dramatic environmental
improvements are possible. Because industrial biotechnology reducesand in
some cases eliminatesindustrial waste, businesses will spend less on cleanup,
Page | 29

disposal, and control of pollution. Bio processing primarily uses renewable

agricultural products, such as corn, corn Stover, wheat straw, rice straw, and
other materials, as raw feed stocks and it could provide new markets for these
agriculture crop residues.
Industrial biotechnology is on the leading edge of a green industrial revolution.
Admittedly, the analysis provides an overview at best; however, even this rough
overview reveals that the potential magnitude of benefits is startling. As
described in this report:
Biotechnology process changes in the production and bleaching of pulp for
paper reduce the amount of chlorine chemicals necessary for bleaching by 10
15%. If applied across the industry, these process changes could reduce chlorine
in water and air as well as chlorine dioxide by a combined 75 tons per year.
Biotechnology processes cut bleaching-related energy uses by 40%a savings
that has the potential to create additional pollution reductionsand lower
wastewater toxicity. Biotechnology process changes in the textile finishing
sector reduce water usage by about 1718%, cost associated with water usage
and air emissions by 5060%, and energy demand for bleaching by about 9
14%.
Biotechnology process changes in plastics production replace
petrochemical feed stocks with feed stocks made from organic material such as
corn or even corn Stover, thereby reducing demand for petro-by 2080%.
Because these bio plastics are biodegradable, their use could also reduce plastics
in the waste stream by up to 80%. Waste burdens are reduced partly because
disposable food service items such as plates, cups, and containers can be
composted along with the food waste, eliminating the need for separation. These
bio plastics can be used to make products ranging from clothing to car parts, all
of which can be composted instead of disposed in landfills or incinerators.
Biotechnology process changes allow for bio ethanol production not only from
corn but from cellulosic biomass such as crop residues; bio ethanol from
cellulose generates 8 to 10 times as much net energy as is required for its
production. It is estimated that one gallon of cellulosic ethanol can replace 30
gallons of imported oil equivalents. The closed-loop nature of using cellulosic
biomass to produce bio ethanol can contribute substantially to the mitigation of
greenhouse gas emissions and can help provide a partial solution to global
warming. Biotechnology process changes in the nutriceutical and
pharmaceutical sector in the production of riboflavin (vitamin B2) reduce
associated carbon dioxide emissions by 80% and water emissions by 67%.
Changes in the production of the antibiotic cephalexin reduce carbon dioxide
emissions by 50%, energy demand by 20%, and water usage by 75%. The
market share of the biotechnology method of vitamin B2 production increased
from 5% in 1990 to 75% in 2002.

Page | 30

References
Biomass Research and Development Board, Fostering the Bio-economic
Revolution in Bio- based Products and Bio energy (2001).
Healthtech Institute, Biotechnology & pharmaceutical applications overview
(2004)
available at
http://www.genomicglossaries.com/content/genomic_overview.
asp
Energetic, Incorporated, Report for the Department of Energy, Industrial Bio
products: Today and Tomorrow, India, MD (2003).
Bajpai, Pratima, Biotechnology for Environmental Protection, Executive
Summary (1998) available at http://wwwenvironmentalcenter.com/publications/springer/3540656774.html
Environmental Protection Agency, Pollution Prevention Act: 42 U.S.C. 13101
and 13102, s/s et seq. (1990) available at
http://www.epa.gov/region5/defs/html/ppa.html
Environmental Protection Agency, 2001 Alternative Solvents/Reaction
Conditions Award (2001) available at
www.epa.gov/greenchemistry/ascra01.html

Page | 31