Overarching issues in the GMO Debatespeople.forestry.oregonstate.edu/steve-strauss/sites... · Overarching issues in the GMO Debates • Why the controversy? • Myths and agendas

Steve StraussOregon State University

[email protected]

Overarching issues in the GMO Debates

mailto:[email protected]

• Why the controversy?• Myths and agendas• Public understanding / views• Does organic vs GMO make sense?• Problems with GMO management• Labeling the right thing to do?• GMOs and “feeding the world”• A view from the Vatican

Agenda: Selected issues not covered well in prior materials

Why the dispute? Diverse factors• Human need, new and rapid science

• Population and consumption growth, food cost, widespread malnutrition, environmental damage

• Gene science gives many options = technology push• Ethics

• Breaking of traditional boundaries in moving genes press concepts of rightness

• Risk perception adverse• Complex and invisible science and technology, often

without direct consumer benefits = high perception of risk• Context of breeding and extensive modification of food

crops and products unknown to most

• Ideology: Strong anti-GMO business and political forces• Green and organic and “natural” vs. GMO

• Appropriate regulations? • Extent of precaution? Regulation stringency? • Labeling? Allowances for trade?

• Strong corporate role: Control of seeds and agriculture, patents, industrial ag, the “Monsanto effect”• Communitarian vs. hierarchic ideologies (Kahan, Yale)

• Science uncertainties: Environment, food safety• Chemophobia: All pesticides bad, GMOs make worse• Gene flow: Ag is leaky, gene movement common

• Coexistence challenges with low biotech tolerances

Why the dispute, continued



There are numerous myths that are rampant and recycled in media

Farmer suicides in India and GMO cotton among the most infamous myths promoted by Shiva and others

Bonny, S. (2014), Taking stock of the genetically modified seed sector worldwide: market, stakeholders, and prices, Food Security, pp. 1-16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-014-0357-1 AND http://www.ask-force.org/web/Economics/Bonny-Taking-Stock-GM-Seed-Sector-2014.pdf

Monsanto and seed companies “control the food supply” another

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-014-0357-1

http://www.ask-force.org/web/Economics/Bonny-Taking-Stock-GM-Seed-Sector-2014.pdf

• Of 129 GE crops commercialized in the US 129 have had FDA consultation (2014)

• Global evaluations include: FDA, USDA, EPA, Health Canada, FSANZ, EFSA, Korea FDA, EFSA, Chinese Ministry of Agriculture, Japan Food Safety Commission

Myth: FDA review of biotech crops not required

“There is no evidence that unique hazards exist either in the use of rDNA techniques or in the movement of genes between unrelated organisms.”

Recent genomic studies have confirmed

Myth: GE method is inherently dangerous and disruptiveFDA, National Academy of Sciences says otherwise

Myth: Big Ag controls the media and public debate about GMOsNot any more, big money also flows to demonize GMOs and associated ag/food

Agbiotech Info Net

Agribusiness Examiner

ACGA

American Pasturage

APHA

Animal Protection Institute

Beyond Pesticides

NCRLC

Center for Food Safety

Center for Informed Food Choices

Center for Media & Democracy

CSPI

Chef’s Collaborative

Children’s Health Env Coalition

Common Dreams

Consumer Federation of America

Consumers Union

Crop Choice

David Suzuki Foundation

Dawn Watch

Deep Ecology

Eco-Trust

Economic Democracy

Earth Spirit

Earth First

Environmental Defense

Environmental Media Services

FAIR

Family Farm Defenders

Farm Animal Reform Movement

Farm Aid

Farm Sanctuary

Friends of the Earth

GRACE

Government Accountability Project

Green Guide Institute

Green Party USA

Greenpeace

Humane Farm Association

Humane Society US

IATP

Institute for Public Accuracy

Land Institute

Local Harvest

NFFC

Nishoren

No Spray coalition

NWARN

Organic Consumers Association

PANNA

PETA

PCRM

PIRG

Public Citizen

Purdey Fund

Sierra Club

SEAC

Water Keeper Alliance

More than 500 activist organizations in North America are spending in excess of $2 billion annually engaging in food-related campaigns targeting biotech and many other elements

Jay Byrne, 2012, V-fluence

Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015

Internet, social media, a main focus of activism

Science selected, distorted, mass communicated, amplified for ideology, and increasingly for financial gain

Pervasive online filters of information entrench

https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles

https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles

http://weknowmemes.com/2012/07/dont-believe-everything-you-read-on-the-internet

Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015

Abe Lincoln warned us, but….

Chipotle campaign a prominent example

And many others

And big ag very much with their own campaigns, simplified and emotive messages

FOIAs a new tool in GMO related wars, changing the relationship of academics who engage in outreach and industry for better or for worse?



Many people do not understand the basics – people gullible, polls dangerous to interpretRutgers survey data - USA (2005) – Prof Bill Hallman, Rutgers Universityhttp://www.foodpolicyinstitute.org/resultpub.phphttp://www.foodpolicyinstitute.org/docs/reports/NationalStudy2003.pdf

• Six in ten (60%) don't realize that ordinary tomatoes contain genes

• Fewer than half (45%) understand that eating a genetically modified fruit would not cause their own genes to become modified

http://www.foodpolicyinstitute.org/resultpub.php

http://www.foodpolicyinstitute.org/docs/reports/NationalStudy2003.pdf

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/

It is not surprising how much scientists and the public differ in views of GMOs

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/

http://www.foodinsight.org/sites/default/files/FINAL%20Full%20Report_IFIC%202014%20Food%20Tech%20Survey.pdf

Poll: A majority of Americans wish to purchase products of biotechnology



Why does organic and GMO seem at war?

Why does organic preclude all types of GMO?

Does ecological agriculture = organic certification?

Is organic certified food safer and better for environment?

Neither organic nor conventional is ideal: Cross-pollination and coexistence needed

• Less than optimal fungicides• High carbon footprint for compost• Barriers to implementing no-till farming• Difficulties optimizing fertilization• Lower land-use-efficiency• Lack of economic model to

move beyond niche status

Challenges to organic as a path to overall sustainability are considerable…

Source: Steve Savage, PhD: http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com/2013/04/six-reasons-organic-is-not-most.html?m=1

http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com/2013/04/six-reasons-organic-is-not-most.html?m=1



There are legitimate concerns that GMOs with weed management traits have not been managed well

Insect resistance has developed too, but expected and much better managed

Analogous to antibiotics, continued benefits require integrated management, and inputs of new genes/traits

Insect resistance to Bt crops: lessons from the first billion acresNature Biotechnology, 31, 510–521

(2013)

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n6/full/nbt.2597.html

Landscape impacts also of concern

Are declines in monarch butterflies –associated with reduced milkweed populations – due to improved weed control from herbicide-tolerant crops?

Additional impacts on other pollinators?

Part of larger discussion of intensification vs. extensification & ecological agriculture

We need to manage aglandscapes smarter

Organic vs. GMO war nothelpful

Coexistence and integration needed



Pros vs. cons of mandatory GMO labels

• Pro viewpoints• Right to know, period• Tool to track problems• Ethics (keep animal DNA out of food of vegetarians)• Many other countries are doing it• Reduce GMOs in food supply to protect against

chemical use, toxins from herbicide and insect resistant crops that are widespread

• Reduce power, prominence of large ag companies in food and farming?

Adapted from: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html

Pros vs. cons of mandatory GMO labels• Con viewpoints

• Method is what is regulated but safe as other breeding according to FDA, National Academy of Sciences

• GE already intensively regulated/scrutinized already by US government, far more than conventional crops

• We have a labeling law already in place (FDA) for changes that matter (“material” changes to nutrition, safety get a label, whether positive or negative)

• Organic already GMO-free and widely available to consumers who wish to choose non-GMO

• No health benefits from poor tracking, exemptionsAdapted from: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html


Pros vs. cons of mandatory GMO labels• Con viewpoints

• A prominent and mandatory label, as required in the Oregon ballot measure, has been shown in scientific studies to mislead/scare/stigmatize consumers (viewed as warning label)• Improved products also stigmatized, kept from market

• Labeling increases cost of food for all consumers (estimates vary, but some estimates are very high). This is unethical because it hits the poor hardest

• Reduces choice by loss of GMO products, as has been observed in Europe (food system cannot infrastructure cannot support GMO and non-GMO options for most foods), companies often avoid danger to their brand

Adapted from: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html


Motivations of those behind campaigns are clear

AAAS opposes labeling – serious issues include science, cost, choice, and overall ethics

“Legally mandating such a label can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers”

Voluntary vs. mandatory labeling

• Organic food is now common and cannot be made with GMO ingredients

• The GMO-free label is rapidly growing, and is more rigorous for those with concerns (e.g., meats from GMO-fed animals are excluded)

• The costs are not imposed on others, they are borne by those with strong concerns



Can GMOs “feed the world?”• A straw man – scientists rarely if ever think so• One powerful tool among many needed• But we have a BIG problem

• UN's Food and Agriculture Organization has estimated that food production will need to increase by 70% by 2050 to meet the demand imposed by growing population and living standards

• And people are already poor and malnourished by the billions

• And climate is getting worse• Can we afford to abandon, or further encumber

with regulations and labels, GMO tools?

Billions are malnourished now, crop land is degrading, and it’s a very scary future

Food price matters: Widespread riots as prices spike

http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/pdf/s40066-015-0031-7.pdf

2014 global “meta-analysis”

“147 original studies were included.”

“On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%.”

Things are changing fast – We have to think and regulate differentlyNo-analog thinking

“No-analog communities (communities that are compositionally unlike any found today) occurred frequently in the past and will develop in the greenhouse world of the future.”

http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/47/download/isaaa-brief-47-2014.pdf

Pesticide poisoning common in developing world – eggplant, cotton examples

BiotechNon-Biotech

Climate change & travel creating urgent pest problems

- Esophageal cancer- Neural tube defects, spina bifida- 155,000-172,000 cases per year

from alflatoxin alone

Child with liver cancer in Mozambiquedue to consumption of mycotoxins

Natural toxins, contaminants, allergens in food pose serious problems for millions

- Bt GMO corn above- Fungal contaminated,

mycotoxin-producing corn below

Billions suffer from micronutrient deficiencyWidespread, impacts severe, and decades of supplements unable to overcome

Vitamin A deficiency affects one-third of children under the age of five around the world

Image sources: Petaholmes based on WHO data;

Young women suffering blindness due to Vit A deficiency

http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/vitamin_a_pub/en/

But biotech tools are very difficult to use due to regulatory, intellectual property, market, and trade barriers

Jim Myers of OSU: Red tape, high costs, and market restrictions are immense

http://oregonstate.edu/terra/2014/10/arrested-development/

http://oregonstate.edu/terra/2014/10/arrested-development/



Encyclical letter from the Pope Thursday June 18, 2015

Encyclical quotes• “It is difficult to make a general

judgement about genetic modification (GM), whether vegetable or animal, medical or agricultural, since these vary greatly among themselves and call for specific considerations.”

Encyclical quotes• “Genetic mutations, in fact, have

often been, and continue to be, caused by nature itself. Nor are mutations caused by human intervention a modern phenomenon. The domestication of animals, the crossbreeding of species and other older and universally accepted practices can be mentioned as examples.”

Encyclical quotes

• “Although no conclusive proof exists that GM cereals may be harmful to human beings, and in some regions their use has brought about economic growth which has helped to resolve problems, there remain a number of significant difficulties which should not be underestimated.”

Encyclical quotes• “In many places, following the

introduction of these crops, productive land is concentrated in the hands of a few owners…In various countries, we see an expansion of oligopolies for the production of cereals and other products needed for their cultivation.”

Encyclical quotes• “It sometimes happens that

complete information is not put on the table; a selection is made on the basis of particular interests, be they politico-economic or ideological. This makes it difficult to reach a balanced and prudent judgement.”

Encyclical quotes• “A broad, responsible scientific and

social debate needs to take place, one capable of considering all the available information and of calling things by their name.”

An ethic of responsible communication

An ethic that we must actively and diligently communicate about this issue

due to the high stakes

An ethic for which many of our leaders, companies, universities, NGOs,

and other institutions have failed us

Documents

Overarching issues in the GMO Debatespeople.forestry.oregonstate.edu/steve-strauss/sites... · Overarching issues in the GMO Debates • Why the controversy? • Myths and agendas