NDSU Extension The Biotech Market and the Consumer Phil McClean Department of Plant Science North Dakota State University Biology 600 Biotechnology: Principles

NDSU

Extension

The Biotech Market and the Consumer

Phil McCleanDepartment of Plant Science

North Dakota State University

Biology 600Biotechnology: Principles and ProductsDelivered Live and via Videoconference

June 1-2, 2004

Response of Public to Biotechnology Products

NDSU

Extension

Precautionary PrincipleWhy Europe Regulates Biotech Products

Precautionary Principle States• Commercial activities can be restricted by governments

IF a scientific or environment risk is perceived EVEN IF conclusive data is NOT YET available

It is:• A key principle that underlies European Union approaches to regulating biotech products• Incorporated into the Maastricht Treaty that lead to the formation of the EU

NDSU

Extension

• The principle makes it difficult to: determine when risk avoidance should take precedence

over the general welfare

• At its most basic, the principleRegulates man’s excitement of the new and novelCan prevent the most unexpected damage from occurring

• As interpreted the principle requires that: Biotech products should be regulated until compelling evidence proves they are safe

Effects of Applying the Principle

Precautionary Principle

NDSU

Extension

European Consumer Attitudes TowardBiotech Crops

• Uncertainty about the issues (1994, 1997, 1998)• Caution is necessary when dealing with complex, technical issues (1998)• Labeling of foods is strongly desired (1994, 1998)• Biotech has less promise than other technologies (1997)• Medical uses of biotechnology preferred over food uses (1994)

Surveys1994: UK National Consensus Conference

1997: Eurobarometer1998: Iceland Frozen Food Survey

Themes Observed in Recent Surveys

NDSU

Extension

Other European ConcernsAbout Biotechnology

• Biotech crops will be introduced against the will of the public Precedence exists in Indonesia 1960s: Government required that “Green revolution” cereals be grown It is feared the same will occur with biotech crops

• Vegetarians fear animal genes will be added to plant foods• Producer, not consumer, innovations will be favored• Producer savings will not be passed on to the public• Foreign DNA will be absorbed by humans• Unknown allergens will be introduced• Long-term risk to human health not known

NDSU

Extension

How UK Organizations Responded ToRecent Public Controversies

• An effective method of protecting against food-borne pathogens

1980s Idea proposed Factories built

1990s Public objected Process never implemented

Irradiated Food

NDSU

Extension

How UK Organizations Responded ToPublic Objections

• Zeneca released a GM tomato product Processed at lower temperature Less carmelization “Fresher” tasting Rated highly in blind taste tests

• “Own Brand” puree sold with GM label• Outsold non-GM 60:40 in Safeway stores• Sales 30% less in Sainsbury stores• Sainsbury dropped the product because of consumer objections

Tomato Puree Example

NDSU

Extension

Buying Power of Large CompaniesControls Biotechnology Acceptance

• Largest purchaser of potatoes in the world• Originally purchased insect resistant GM potatoes• Changed policy over potential consumer objections• Monsanto discontinued production of insect resistant GM potatoes

McDonald’s Corporation

NDSU

Extension

Buying Power of Large CompaniesControls Biotechnology Acceptance

• Large producer of canned beans• Europe a major market for canned beans• Heinz declared they would not buy GM beans (even though they were not available)• Research to develop GM beans is essentially non-existent

Heinz

NDSU

Extension

Principles Objections to Biotech Crops

• Unknown health risks• Damage to the environment• The science is unnatural• Multinational corporations are controlling the technology• Benefits are profit not health relate

General Topics

NDSU

Extension

Perceived health risks


• Originated in Europe Related to the uncertainty over the Mad Cow disease crisis

• Public does not trust government statements regarding the safety of the technology

Safety of biotech foods not demonstrated to their satisfaction Why risk your health when the benefits from the crop

are not health related

NDSU

Extension

Environmental Risks


• Herbicide resistant crops encourage more chemical usage Resistance genes could migrate to related weeds

• Weed control would then not be possible• Non-target species could be damaged

Monarch butterfly controversy

NDSU

Extension

Multinational CorporationsControl the Technology


• Only a few companies control the technology• The corporations are forcing non-biotech crops to the market• Leads to further industrialization of agriculture

NDSU

Extension

Does Technical Knowledge IncreaseAcceptance Of Biotechnology???

Yes: 1997 Eurobarometer SurveyNo: 1998 Iceland Frozen Food Survey

Sometimes yes, sometimes no

NDSU

Extension

Environmental Issues Related toBiotech Crops

The Environment Has Many Historical Advocates• Rachel Carson – Effects of DDT• 1970s – Earth Day Movement• 1980s – EPA director becomes a cabinet level position• 1980s - 2000s – The Green movement becomes worldwide

Environmental advocacy is a now a worldwide movement

Recent History

NDSU

Extension

Environmental Concerns AboutBiotech Crops

Escape of Transgenes into Wild Species• Only an issue with crops that have weeds they can cross with

Wheat and Johnson Grass Dependence on Chemical Usage• Volunteer RR crops appear in following year

Control of these will require more harmful chemicals Insect Tolerant Crops• Provide an effective tool for corn and cotton• Target insects are clearly controlled

Non-target insects may be affected

NDSU

Extension

Environmental Benefits OfBiotech Crops

Scare environmental resources saved• Reduced herbicide and pesticide usage

which means• Reduced number of applications

which means• Reduced usage (and dependence) on oil Farming systems better maintained• Planting herbicide resistant crops in untilled fields

Reduces moisture loss Untilled soil helps prevent erosion

NDSU

Extension

Monarch Butterfly Controversy

Background• Monarch butterflies only feed on milkweed • Milkweed neighbors corn field in the Midwest US Corn Belt• Insect resistant GM corn produces Bt-pollen containing the Bt-protein• Bt-protein known to be toxic to non-target species such as Monarch butterfly• Corn pollen can be dispersed over 60 meters• Butterfly might be affected by consuming the milkweed sprinkled with Bt-pollen

There Is A Biological Concern

NDSU

Extension


The First Test:A Negative Response Observed

Lousey et al. 1999. Nature 399:214.• Bt-pollen applied at “field rates” to milkweed leaves• Monarach butterfly fed the leaves

44% mortality observed among butterflies feed Bt-pollen 0% mortality among butterlies fed non-pollen containing leaves

• Growth rate of butterflies fed Bt-pollen also lower

NDSU

Extension


• Report not sufficient to properly assess risk• Environmental exposure not considered a factor in original paper• Temporal and spatial factors leading to exposure not considered • The result???

Subsequent, more in-depth research called for

The Challenge of the Scientific Community

NDSU

Extension


How The Research Came About

• EPA called for research proposals to study the issue in detail Risk assessment approach used by EPA selected as the research approach A major report summarizing the findings released

NDSU

Extension


The Research Plan

Sears et al. 2001. PNAS 98:11937. (Summary of three papers)•Developed a risk assessment approach that considered:

How dense is Bt-pollen on neighboring milkweed plant? Does the pollen density exceed the toxicity level? What proportion of Monarch butterflies feed on milkweed in or near cornfields? Do the Monarch larval stage and corn pollen dispersal times coincide?

•Sites in MD, IA, WI, MN, and Ontario, Canada used•Used currently available Bt-corn lines

Event 176, Bt11 (Novartis), Mon810 (Monsanto)

NDSU

Extension


Results: Pollen Effects

• Different lines produced different amounts of protein Event 176 produced 2X the amount of other lines

• Bt-protein fed to Monarch butterfly Protein itself is toxic to the butterfly

• Larve added to milkweed plants in Bt-corn fields Monarch not affected in field trials with Bt11 or Mon810 Event 176 had slight adverse effects in one trial (Iowa)

NDSU

Extension

Results


Overlap of Larva Stage and Pollen Dispersal• 1st and 2nd instar larva are most susceptible stages

These stages overlapped with pollen dispersal at all sites

• Overlap occurred more frequently at Northern locations (MN, WI, Ontario) than southern

locations (IA, MD)

NDSU

Extension

Results


Spatial Relation of Milkweed and Corn• In general, milkweed mostly associated with non-agricultural lands

Where corn is intensely produced, the proportion of milkweed associated with non-agricultural lands decreases But, even here, milkweed is more often associated with non-agricultural lands

• When other factors are considered, in Iowa A maximum of 56% of monarch’s would originate in cornfields

NDSU

Extension

Results


Pollen Densities• Areas of highest density (within 5m of field edge) had Bt-pollen densities that were sublethal• Different events expressed Bt-protein at different levels

Bt11 and Mon810 impact would be negligible Event 176 pollen would impact growth

NDSU

Extension


Conclusions

“The impact of Bt-corn pollen from current commercialhybrids on monarch butterfly populations is negligible.” •Event 176 has measurable effects on monarch butterly

But it is grown on only <2% of corn acreage Line will be unavailable after 2003

•Mon180 and Bt11 have no effect on monarch populations

NDSU

Extension

Crop Biotechnology Has Supporters

“The agricultural scientists and farmers all over the world whoimprove our crops are the true heroes of our time.“ “We have not seen any evidence of these scenarios (“super weeds”and super bacteria”) even though we have been testing these GIcrops for 20 years and they have been eaten by millions of peopleon a daily basis since 1996.” “We believe that agriculture can be less ecologically damaging andmore sustainable, and that GI crops can play a positive role inthis development.” Martin Crispeels, Director, San Diego Center for Molecular Agriculture

Relevant Quotes

NDSU

Extension

Reasons to Adopt the Best Technologiesfor Crop Improvement

World population will double to 9 million by 2050 Feeding everyone will be important

Liberal societies, like the US, believe It is our moral obligation to alleviate hunger

Feeding People

NDSU

Extension

Hunger: A Major Health Issue

25-30 Million Children Are Underfed• Malnutrition is the cause of 54% of child mortality in developing African countries (WHO statistics)

Other Effects of Malnutrition:• Stunted growth• Reduced mental development• Susceptibility to diseases• Blindness

General Facts

NDSU

Extension

Hunger Is Also A Security Issue

Recent Example• Food was scare in early 1970s in the former Eastern Bloc countries• Food strikes occurred in Poland in early 1970s• Former Soviet Union forced to buy grain on the open market• Purchases seen as a failure of their economic system• These strikes created the first anti-Soviet dissident groups that lead to the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s.

Hungry people are angryAngry people seek change

NDSU

Extension

Organic Farming Is Not The AnswerTo World Hunger

Organic Farming Rejects• Pesticides• Synthetic fertilizers• Herbicides And Accepts• Biological control of insects• Manure as a fertilizer• Mechanical (with tractors) removal of weeds

Organic farming data from:“Foods from Genetically Improved Crops in Africa"

NDSU

Extension

How Much Can Organic Farming Produce?

Organic Farming• Can feed about 3 billion people• But not the 10 billion projected for the future Why?• Biological control is not complete and yields reduced• Land must be set aside for animal production to produce the manure• Nutrients are extracted from the soil at a greater rate than they are returned• Crop rotations do not completely replenish nutrients to the soil

NDSU

Extension

Biotech CropsProducer vs. Consumer Products

Harvested product is not altered• Producer’s cost reduced• Examples:

Herbicide resistance Insect resistanceVirus resistance

Producer-Friendly Biotech Crops

NDSU

Extension

Harvested product has added value to the consumer• Producer may receive a premium• Examples:

Reduced food allergens Increased micronutrient content Increased N content of cereal crops Edible vaccines

Consumer Products On The Horizon

Consumer-Friendly Biotech Crops

NDSU

Extension

Essential Principles Guiding Policy Evaluation

General WelfareInstitutions (public and private) work to protect citizen interests

People’s RightThe freedom to choose to use or not use biotech products

JusticeBurdens and benefits are shared by ALL involved

Adopted from:Genetically Modified Crops: The Ethical and Social Issues

Nuffeld Council on Bioethics

Principles Used for Public Decision Making

NDSU

Extension

How These Guiding Principles Apply toBiotechnology Products

General Welfare

• In a liberal society, our intuitions promote and protect the welfare of its citizens

Tools of technology can promote and protect citizen welfare

• But what are the costs (social and economic) associated with the adoption of technology products• What about biotechnology products?

Are the products (reduced chemical usage, improved nutrition) safe or hazardous?

NDSU

Extension

Society Tries to BalanceCompeting Concerns

•Healthy people are valued •Abundant food supplies reduce hunger

This promotes the general welfare of the society

•But a diverse environment is also valuedAre the biotech products endangering the diversity?Should reducing hunger or maintaining diversity be valued more?

NDSU

Extension

People’s Rights

Can the public choose NOT to come in contact with the products?

How does this conflict with commercial concerns?

What weight should each carry?


NDSU

Extension

Many European want to avoid biotech foods This is their personal right

• US producers and the government have resisted labeling• It is viewed as a restraint to free trade

BUT without labeling, it is difficult for European’s exercise their right to avoid biotech foods

Balancing Rights and Interests

European Citizens vs. US Commercial Interests

NDSU

Extension

Some choose to not eat biotech foods Labeling is necessary for those to exercise this choice

• Labeling adds a cost to the producer The cost is passed on to the consumer

• BUT consumers not concerned about biotech foods pay an additional cost

Therefore the choice of one group is a burden on another group

Exercising Personal Rights:The Cost Issue

The Cost of Choice

NDSU

Extension

In a biotech world, some may choose not to eat biotech products What is there is not an alternative? Is it their right to be able have the non-biotech alternative

• Should the producer community be obligated to produce a similar non-biotech product?

If demand is great enough, that product will be produced.

Exercising Personal RightsObligations

Choice and Obligation

NDSU

Extension

Justice


Justice Issues

• Do those that benefiting from the products have an obligation to those who object to the products?

• How can justice be achieved while balancing the various interests?

NDSU

Extension

Can Justice For All Competing InterestsBe Achieved?

Justice For Biotech Opponents• Should labeling be a requirement? Justice For New Biotech Companies• Is the market saturation of large biotech companies making it difficult for others to enter and succeed in the business?

Opponents and Proponents

NDSU

Extension

Justice For Countries With Food ShortagesShould biotech opponents have the ability to deny the opportunityof countries with severe food shortages to become self-sufficientor even exporters? Justice For Subsistence FarmersHow will subsistence farmers who cannot afford the new technology be compensated?

Other Biotech Justice Concerns

Countries and Farmers

Documents

NDSU Extension The Biotech Market and the Consumer Phil McClean Department of Plant Science North Dakota State University Biology 600 Biotechnology: Principles