M. M. Quinlan

Bayesian Networks to Compare Pest Control Interventions on Commodities Along Agricultural Production Chains.

The production of an agricultural commodity involves a sequence of processes: planting/growing, harvesting, sorting/grading, postharvest treatment, packing, and exporting. A Bayesian network has been developed to represent the level of potential infestation of an agricultural commodity by a specified pest along an agricultural production chain. It reflects the dependency of this infestation on the predicted level of pest challenge, the anticipated susceptibility of the commodity to the pest, the level of impact from pest control measures as designed, and any variation from that due to uncertainty in measure efficacy. The objective of this Bayesian network is to facilitate agreement between national governments of the exporters and importers on a set of phytosanitary measures to meet specific phytosanitary measure requirements to achieve target levels of protection against regulated pests. The model can be used to compare the performance of different combinations of measures under different scenarios of pest challenge, making use of available measure performance data. A case study is presented using a model developed for a fruit fly pest on dragon fruit in Vietnam; the model parameters and results are illustrative and do not imply a particular level of fruit fly infestation of these exports; rather, they provide the most likely, alternative, or worst-case scenarios of the impact of measures. As a means to facilitate agreement for trade, the model provides a framework to support communication between exporters and importers about any differences in perceptions of the risk reduction achieved by pest control measures deployed during the commodity production chain.

The Need for International Perspectives to Solve Global Biosecurity Challenges

Global biosecurity presents international challenges because the majority of instances of novel organism introductions are due to international movements of goods, food and people and the likelihood of introduced agents crossing political boundaries. The inherent vulnerability of environments to introductions of alien, or non-indigenous, biological agents is due to the greater ecological vulnerability to these exotic entrants in the receiving environment. Agencies and individuals responsible for approving intentional introductions of beneficial organisms recognize this relationship and consider potential impacts in risk assessments prior to release of the organisms. However, some of those responsible for detection and control of novel pathogens and pests, introduced either inadvertently or intentionally, lack extensive training in ecology, environmental biology, and pathology, and may therefore underestimate the risk from such events. The latter is a key factor in the case of food safety. Europe is particularly vulnerable to cross-border movement of introduced agents, and one response to this has been the recent revision of plant health regimes throughout the European Union. Other responses include project-based initiatives, such as PLANTFOODSEC.

Experiences in Engaging the Public on Biotechnology Advances and Regulation.

Public input is often sought as part of the biosafety decision-making process. Information and communication about the advances in biotechnology are part of the first step to engagement. This step often relies on the developers and introducers of the particular innovation, for example, an industry-funded website has hosted various authorities to respond to questions from the public. Alternative approaches to providing information have evolved, as demonstrated in sub-Saharan Africa where non-governmental organizations and associations play this role in some countries and subregions. Often times, those in the public who choose to participate in engagement opportunities have opinions about the overall biosafety decision process. Case-by-case decisions are made within defined regulatory frameworks, however, and in general, regulatory consultation does not provide the opportunity for input to the overall decision-making process. The various objectives on both sides of engagement can make the experience challenging; there are no clear metrics for success. The situation is challenging because public input occurs within the context of the local legislative framework, regulatory requirements, and the peculiarities of the fairly recent biosafety frameworks, as well as of public opinion and individual values. Public engagement may be conducted voluntarily, or may be driven by legislation. What can be taken into account by the decision makers, and therefore what will be gathered and the timing of consultation, also may be legally defined. Several practical experiences suggest practices for effective engagement within the confines of regulatory mandates: (1) utilizing a range of resources to facilitate public education and opportunities for understanding complex technologies; (2) defining in advance the goal of seeking input; (3) identifying and communicating with the critical public groups from which input is needed; (4) using a clearly defined approach to gathering and assessing what will be used in making the biosafety decision; and (5) communicating using clear and simple language. These practices create a foundation for systematic methods to gather, acknowledge, respond to, and even incorporate public input. Applying such best practices will increase transparency and optimize the value of input from the public.