Upload
arnold-chapman
View
218
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Principles Objections to Biotech Crops
• 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
Principles Objections to Biotech Crops
• 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
Principles Objections to Biotech Crops
• 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
Monarch Butterfly Controversy
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
Monarch Butterfly Controversy
• 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
Monarch Butterfly Controversy
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
Monarch Butterfly Controversy
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
Monarch Butterfly Controversy
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
Monarch Butterfly Controversy
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
Monarch Butterfly Controversy
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
Monarch Butterfly Controversy
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
Monarch Butterfly Controversy
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?
How These Guiding Principles Apply toBiotechnology Products
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
How These Guiding Principles Apply toBiotechnology Products
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