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
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
NDSU
Extension
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
NDSU
• As interpreted the principle requires that:
 Biotech products should be regulated until
compelling evidence proves they are safe
Extension
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)
NDSU
Surveys
1994: UK National Consensus Conference
1997: Eurobarometer
1998: Iceland Frozen Food Survey
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
NDSU
• 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
Extension
How UK Organizations Responded To
Recent Public Controversies
Irradiated Food
• An effective method of protecting against
food-borne pathogens
NDSU
1980s
 Idea proposed
 Factories built
1990s
 Public objected
 Process never implemented
Extension
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
NDSU
• “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
Extension
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
NDSU
Extension
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
NDSU
Extension
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
NDSU
Extension
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
NDSU
Extension
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
NDSU
Extension
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
NDSU
Extension
Does Technical Knowledge Increase
Acceptance Of Biotechnology???
Sometimes yes, sometimes no
Yes:
No:
1997 Eurobarometer Survey
1998 Iceland Frozen Food Survey
NDSU
Extension
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
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
NDSU
Insect Tolerant Crops
• Provide an effective tool for corn and cotton
• Target insects are clearly controlled
 Non-target insects may be affected
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
NDSU
Farming systems better maintained
• Planting herbicide resistant crops in untilled fields
 Reduces moisture loss
 Untilled soil helps prevent erosion
Extension
Monarch Butterfly Controversy
There Is A Biological Concern
NDSU
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
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
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
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
NDSU
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)
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
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)
NDSU
Extension
Monarch Butterfly Controversy
Results
NDSU
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
Extension
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
NDSU
Extension
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
NDSU
Extension
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.”
NDSU
“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
Extension
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
NDSU
Extension
Hunger: A Major Health Issue
General Facts
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
NDSU
Extension
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.
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
NDSU
Organic farming data from:
“Foods from Genetically Improved Crops in Africa"
Extension
How Much Can Organic Farming Produce?
Organic Farming
• Can feed about 3 billion people
• But not the 10 billion projected for the future
NDSU
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
Extension
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
NDSU
Extension
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
NDSU
Extension
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
NDSU
Adopted from:
Genetically Modified Crops: The Ethical and Social Issues
Nuffeld Council on Bioethics
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
NDSU
• 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?
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?
NDSU
Extension
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?
NDSU
Extension
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
 BUT without labeling, it is difficult for European’s
exercise their right to avoid biotech foods
NDSU
Extension
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
NDSU
• BUT consumers not concerned about biotech foods pay
an additional cost
 Therefore the choice of one group is a burden
on another group
Extension
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.
NDSU
Extension
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?
NDSU
Extension
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?
NDSU
Extension
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?
NDSU
Extension