Domestic and International Perspectives of Biotechnology

1. Domestic and International Perspectives of Biotechnology Workshop for Adult Educators October 13, 2003 Phil McClean Department of Plant Sciences North Dakota State University

2. Precautionary Principle Why 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 • Key component of Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety • Requires products be proven safe before release

3. Precautionary Principle Effects of Applying the Principle • The principle makes it difficult to: • determine when risk avoidance should take precedence • over the general welfare • At its most basic, the principle • Regulates man’s excitement of the new and novel • Can 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

4. History Of US/EU Disagreement • 1990: EU approval process implemented • 1995: US approves first biotech crops • 1995-1998: EU approves nine biotech crops • 1997: Individual countries override EU approvals; • Austria, France, Germany, Greece, • Luxembourg; EU doesn’t react • 1998: Last biotech crop approved (carnation) • 1999: Moratorium on new approvals • implemented

5. US Calls This An Illegal Moratorium • US believe this is an illegal moratorium • US believe EU is not following WTO policy • This position is a trade barrier • Trade barriers violate WTO policy • Barriers are losing US producers money • Moratorium hurting those in need of the valuable commodities

6. US Forces The Issue The WTO Case • May 13, 2003 • US files WTO case against perceived EU moratorium • Case jointly filed by: • US, Canada, Argentina, and Egypt • Case supported by: • Australia, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, • Mexico, New Zealand, Peru and Uruguay

7. The Latest in the US/EU Biotech Confrontation • May 21, 2003 • Bush: Europe moratorium causing famine in Africa • Reference to refusal of some African countries to accept GMO food aid • May 22, 2003 • EU defends it policies; moratorium is based on • scientific evidence • May 29, 2003 • Egypt drops from the suit

8. The Latest in the US/EU Biotech Confrontation (cont.) • July 2, 2003 • New regulations approved by EU • Labeling Rationale • Allows consumers to make a choice • Level • Greater than 0.9% • Required label: • This product is produced from GMO • Traceability • Requires segregation of GMOs

9. The Latest in the US/EU Biotech Confrontation (cont.) • July 23, 2003 • EU release guidelines governing GMOs for Member States • Based on principle of co-existence • Principle should be adopted by individual Member States • Not a “one size fits all” solution • National solutions should follow the principles • Biotech adopters should be responsible for limiting mixtures • National liability rules will be followed

10. The Latest in the US/EU Biotech Confrontation (cont.) • Sept 4, 2003 • African nations respond to WTO case • Ethopian EPA director made announcement • Feel that if they choose to follow the Cartagena Protocol • US will sue them in WTO court • Feel it is their responsibility to consider the appropriateness • of GMOs • Threats to their sovereignty are not correct

11. Quotes from the Press Release “Developing world agriculture systems are adapted to their geography, economy and culture, and GM farming systems that require capital and chemicals threaten our agriculture and food security.” “And we resent the way that the stereotyped image of the hungry in developing countries has been used to force a style of agriculture that will only exacerbate problems of hunger and poverty.” “The arguments that the EU must give up its right to label, or even reject GM, because of the developing countries must stop. We have the right to implement the Biosafety Protocol, and we must do so without delay.”

12. The Latest in the US/EU Biotech Confrontation (cont.) • Sept 26, 2003 • Levels for seed purity in Europe debated • For organic and conventional seeds • 0.3 and 0.7 contamination level proposed

13. European Consumer Attitudes Toward Biotech Crops Themes Observed in Recent Surveys • 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) • In UK, 5 to 1 against GM crops; 37,000 responses (2003) Surveys 1994: UK National Consensus Conference 1997: Eurobarometer 1998: Iceland Frozen Food Survey 2003: http://www.thecampaign.org/News/sept03h.php#5

14. Other European Concerns About 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

15. How UK Organizations Responded To Recent Public Controversies Irradiated Food • An effective method of protecting against • food-borne pathogens • 1980s • Idea proposed • Factories built • 1990s • Public objected • Process never implemented

16. How UK Organizations Responded To Public Objections Tomato Puree Example • 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

17. Buying Power of Large Companies Controls Biotechnology Acceptance McDonald’s Corporation • 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

18. Buying Power of Large Companies Controls Biotechnology Acceptance Heinz • 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

19. Principles Objections to Biotech Crops General Topics • Unknown health risks • Damage to the environment • The science is unnatural • Multinational corporations are controlling the technology • Benefits are profit not health relate

20. Principles Objections to Biotech Crops 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

21. Principles Objections to Biotech Crops 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

22. Principles Objections to Biotech Crops Multinational Corporations Control 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

23. Environmental Issues Related to Biotech Crops Recent History • 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

24. Environmental Concerns About Biotech 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

25. Environmental Benefits Of Biotech 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

26. Crop Biotechnology Has Supporters Relevant Quotes “The agricultural scientists and farmers all over the world who improve 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 GI crops for 20 years and they have been eaten by millions of people on a daily basis since 1996.” “We believe that agriculture can be less ecologically damaging and more sustainable, and that GI crops can play a positive role in this development.” Martin Crispeels, Director, San Diego Center for Molecular Agriculture

27. Reasons to Adopt the Best Technologies for Crop Improvement Feeding People • 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

28. Hunger: A Major Health Issue General Facts • 25-30 Million ChildrenAre 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

29. Hunger Is Also A Security Issue Hungry people are angry Angry people seek change • 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.

30. Organic Farming Is Not The Answer To 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"

31. 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

32. Biotech Crops Producer vs. Consumer Products Producer-Friendly Biotech Crops • Harvested product is not altered • Producer’s cost reduced • Examples: • Herbicide resistance • Insect resistance • Virus resistance

33. Consumer Products On The Horizon Consumer-Friendly Biotech Crops • 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

34. Essential Principles Guiding Policy Evaluation Principles Used for Public Decision Making General Welfare Institutions (public and private) work to protect citizen interests People’s Right The freedom to choose to use or not use biotech products Justice Burdens and benefits are shared by ALL involved Adopted from: Genetically Modified Crops: The Ethical and Social Issues Nuffeld Council on Bioethics

35. How These Guiding Principles Apply to Biotechnology 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?

36. Society Tries to Balance Competing Concerns Hunger vs. Environment • Healthy people are valued • Abundant food supplies reduce hunger • This promotes the general welfare of the society • But a diverse environment is also valued • Are the biotech products endangering the diversity? • Should reducing hunger or maintaining diversity be valued more?

37. How Are These Guiding Principles Apply to Biotechnology Products People’s Rights • Can the public choose NOT to come in contact with biotech products? • How does this conflict with commercial concerns? • What weight should each carry?

38. Balancing Rights and Interests European Citizens vs. US Commercial Interests • 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 • BUTwithout labeling, it is difficult for European’s exercise their right to avoid biotech foods

39. Exercising Personal Rights: The Cost of Choice • Some may choose to not eat biotech foods • Labeling is necessary 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

40. Exercising Personal Rights Obligations Choice and Obligation • In a biotech world, some may choose not to eat biotech products • What if there is not an alternative? • Is it a right to have a 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.

41. How These Guiding Principles Apply to Biotechnology Products Justice • Justice Issues • Do those that benefit from the products have an obligation • to those who object to the products? • How is justice achieved while balancing the various interests?

42. Can Justice For All Competing Interests Be Achieved? Opponents and Proponents • 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?

43. Other Biotech Justice Concerns Countries and Farmers • Justice For Countries With Food Shortages • Should biotech opponents be able to deny countries with severe food shortages the opportunity to become self-sufficient or even exporters? • Justice For Subsistence Farmers • How will subsistence farmers who cannot afford the new technology be compensated?