The Biotech Market and the Consumer

1. The Biotech Market and the Consumer Response of Public to Biotechnology Products Biology 600 Biotechnology: Principles and Products Delivered Live and via Videoconference June 1-2, 2004 Phil McClean Department of Plant Science 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

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. 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) Surveys 1994: UK National Consensus Conference 1997: Eurobarometer 1998: Iceland Frozen Food Survey

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Does Technical Knowledge Increase Acceptance Of Biotechnology??? Sometimes yes, sometimes no Yes: 1997 Eurobarometer Survey No: 1998 Iceland Frozen Food Survey

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. Monarch Butterfly Controversy There Is A Biological Concern • 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

19. 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

20. Monarch Butterfly Controversy The Challenge of the Scientific Community • 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

21. 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

22. 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)

23. 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)

24. Monarch Butterfly Controversy 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)

25. Monarch Butterfly Controversy 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

26. Monarch Butterfly Controversy 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

27. Monarch Butterfly Controversy Conclusions • “The impact of Bt-corn pollen from current commercial • hybrids 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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.

32. 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"

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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?

38. Society Tries to Balance Competing Concerns • 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?

39. How These Guiding Principles Apply to Biotechnology Products 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?

40. 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

41. Exercising Personal Rights: The Cost Issue The Cost of Choice • 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

42. Exercising Personal Rights Obligations Choice and Obligation • 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.

43. How These Guiding Principles Apply to Biotechnology Products 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?

44. 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?

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