1. NDSU Extension The Biotech Market and the Consumer Phil McClean Department of Plant Science North Dakota State University Biology 600 Biotechnology: Principles and Products Delivered Live and via Videoconference June 1-2, 2005 Response of Public to Biotechnology Products

2. NDSU Extension 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. NDSU Extension 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 Effects of Applying the Principle Precautionary Principle

4. NDSU Extension European Consumer Attitudes Toward Biotech 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) Surveys 1994: UK National Consensus Conference 1997: Eurobarometer 1998: Iceland Frozen Food Survey Themes Observed in Recent Surveys

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

7. NDSU Extension How UK Organizations Responded To Public 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

8. NDSU Extension Buying Power of Large Companies Controls 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

9. NDSU Extension Buying Power of Large Companies Controls 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. NDSU Extension Multinational Corporations Control 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

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

15. NDSU Extension Environmental Issues Related to Biotech 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

16. NDSU Extension 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. NDSU Extension 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. NDSU Extension What Would Lead to Acceptance of GMO Products? Significantly Lower Prices Norway (2003 study) Consumers would buy the product over non-GMO bread If the cost of GMO bread 49.5% lower Japan (2004 study) Consumers would preferentially buy GMO-base product If the cost of GMO noodles was >50% lower England (2001 study) Men: would pay 26% extra to avoid GMO technology Woman: would pay 49% extra to avoid GMO technology Data quoted from: AgBioForum (2004) 7:70-75

19. NDSU Extension Other Attitudes Toward Biotechnology China Will pay 16% premium for GM oil 38% premium for GMO rice 35% premium for processed GMO potato products Colombia 66% would try GMO products GMO products most favorable to those with limited access to high quality food Data quoted from: AgBioForum (2004) 7:70-75 Developing Countries

20. NDSU Extension Data quoted from: AgBioForum (2004) 7:70-75 Why Are Attitudes Different?? In these countries, An urgent need for available, nutritious food of good quality exitsted Individuals trusted their government Science in general had a positive public opinion These attitudes are opposite of those expressed in European public opinion pools.

21. NDSU Extension Crop Biotechnology Has Supporters “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 Relevant Quotes

22. NDSU Extension Reasons to Adopt the Best Technologies for 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

23. 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

24. 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 angry Angry people seek change

25. NDSU Extension 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"

26. 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 manure fertilizer Nutrients are extracted from the soil at a greater rate than they are returned Crop rotations do not completely replenish nutrients to the soil

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

28. 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

29. NDSU Extension Essential Principles Guiding Policy Evaluation 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 Principles Used for Public Decision Making

30. NDSU Extension 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?

31. NDSU Extension 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?

32. 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 to Biotechnology Products

33. 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 The Balance Between European Citizens and Commercial Interests

34. 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 Financial Cost of Choice

35. NDSU Extension In a biotech world, some may choose not to eat biotech products What if there is not an alternative? Is it their right to be able 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. Exercising Personal Rights Obligations Choice and Obligation

36. NDSU Extension Justice How These Guiding Principles Apply to Biotechnology Products Justice Issues Do those benefiting from the products have an obligation to those who object to the products? How can justice be achieved while balancing various interests?

37. NDSU Extension Can Justice For All Competing Interests Be 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

38. NDSU Extension 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? Other Biotech Justice Concerns Countries and Farmers