GMO Case Study - Alliance for Science
35
1 GMO Case Study Debate over the GMO Rainbow Papaya in Hawaii, by Amy Harmon Amy Harmon is a correspondent for the New York Times, covering the impact of science and technology on American life. She has won two Pulitzer Prizes, one in 2008 for her series, “The DNA Age” (www.bit.ly/thednaage) the other as part of a team in 2001. In 2013, she received a Guggenheim Fellowship in Science Writing. In 2014, her articles on the clash between scientific consensus and public perception on the value of genetically engineered crops were awarded a prize for in-depth reporting from the Society of Environmental Journalists and the Science in Society Award from the National Association of Science Writers. Harmon especially strives to engage readers in science’s social implications through the tools of narrative journalism: suspense, conflict, scenes and dialogue. Her current project involves neuroscience and longevity research. Harmon’s career began at The Michigan Daily, the student newspaper at the University of Michigan, where she earned a B.A. in American culture. She lives in New York City with her husband and 11-year-old daughter. The goal of this case study is to discuss the issues surrounding the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture. We will focus on the Rainbow papaya, a variety of this fruit that was engineered to resist a virus that has heavily impacted papaya crops across the globe. In 2013, the Hawaii County Council, the nine-member body that governs the “Big Island,” passed a bill that banned the introduction of new GMO crops to the island; however, it exempted the Rainbow papaya, which is already extensively grown on Hawaii. In this case study we will discuss a hypothetical new bill introduced in the Hawaii County Council to ban the Rainbow papaya. Case study participants will play the role of an assigned stakeholder with interests in the Rainbow papaya and other agricultural biotechnologies. Stakeholders are modeled on real people to focus the discussion through composite archetypes of actors. Roles include:
Transcript of GMO Case Study - Alliance for Science
1
GMOCaseStudy
DebateovertheGMORainbowPapayainHawaii,byAmyHarmon AmyHarmonisacorrespondentfortheNewYorkTimes,coveringtheimpactofscienceandtechnologyonAmericanlife.ShehaswontwoPulitzerPrizes,onein2008forherseries,“TheDNAAge”(www.bit.ly/thednaage)theotheraspartofateamin2001.In2013,shereceivedaGuggenheimFellowshipinScienceWriting.In2014,herarticlesontheclashbetweenscientificconsensusandpublicperceptiononthevalueofgeneticallyengineeredcropswereawardedaprizeforin-depthreportingfromtheSocietyofEnvironmentalJournalistsandtheScienceinSocietyAwardfromtheNationalAssociationofScienceWriters.Harmonespeciallystrivestoengagereadersinscience’ssocialimplicationsthroughthetoolsofnarrativejournalism:suspense,conflict,scenesanddialogue.Hercurrentprojectinvolvesneuroscienceandlongevityresearch.Harmon’scareerbeganatTheMichiganDaily,thestudentnewspaperattheUniversityofMichigan,wheresheearnedaB.A.inAmericanculture.ShelivesinNewYorkCitywithherhusbandand11-year-olddaughter.Thegoalofthiscasestudyistodiscusstheissuessurroundingtheuseofgeneticallymodifiedorganisms(GMOs)inagriculture.WewillfocusontheRainbowpapaya,avarietyofthisfruitthatwasengineeredtoresistavirusthathasheavilyimpactedpapayacropsacrosstheglobe.In2013,theHawaiiCountyCouncil,thenine-memberbodythatgovernsthe“BigIsland,”passedabillthatbannedtheintroductionofnewGMOcropstotheisland;however,itexemptedtheRainbowpapaya,whichisalreadyextensivelygrownonHawaii.InthiscasestudywewilldiscussahypotheticalnewbillintroducedintheHawaiiCountyCounciltobantheRainbowpapaya.CasestudyparticipantswillplaytheroleofanassignedstakeholderwithinterestsintheRainbowpapayaandotheragriculturalbiotechnologies.Stakeholdersaremodeledonrealpeopletofocusthediscussionthroughcompositearchetypesofactors.Rolesinclude:
2
1) AlocalactivistwhobelievesthatGMOsrepresentanattackonHawaiianculture
andindependencebyoutsidecorporateforcesandshouldthereforebebanned.2) Apapayafarmerwhosecropsweredevastatedbythevirusandwhoselivelihood
dependsontheRainbowpapaya.3) TheCornellscientistwhodevelopedtheRainbowpapayaandwhobelievesdeeply
inthepotentialforbiotechnologytohelpfarmers,consumersandtheenvironment.4) Anorganicfarmerwhobelievesthatpesticides,herbicidesandGMOsare
destroyingtheplanetandmakingpeoplesick.5) AmainlandenvironmentalactivistwhoseesbanningGMOsaspartofalarger
strategytoweakenmultinationalcorporations.6) AconventionalfarmerwholikestheconvenienceandeconomicbenefitsofGM
cropsbutnottherestrictionsthatcomewiththeiruse.7) AGMO-organicfarmerwhobelievesthatthebestfutureisoneinwhichweuse
biotechnologytoreducechemicalsinfarmingandtomakemoresustainableandecologicallyfriendlycrops.
8) AregulatorfromtheUSDepartmentofAgricultureinvolvedintheapprovalofGMOcropsforsaletoconsumers.
9) Acouncilmemberwhoactsasamoderatorforthediscussionanddebate.
Abriefbioofeachofthesecharactersisprovidedbelow,alongwithadescriptionoftheirstanceontheRainbowpapaya,aseriesoftalkingpoints,questionstheyarelikelytobeasked,andquestionstheycouldaskotherparticipants.Thereisalsosomecharacter-specificbackgroundreadingprovided.
3
Smallclasses(Fewerthan10students):Insmallclasses,onestudentwillplaythecitycouncilchair/debatemoderator.Remainingstudentswilladoptrolesoftheassignedstakeholderstestifyingbeforethecouncil.Stakeholderswilleachprepareastatementofnomorethanthreeminutesoutliningtheirprimaryreasonsforsupportingoropposingtheban.Attheendofthethreeminutes,theywillbeaskedquestionsbythecouncilchair.Aftereveryonehasspoken,speakerswillhaveanopportunitytoaskeachotherquestions—withthecouncilchairactingasmoderator.Attheendofthemoderateddebate,thecouncilchairwillannouncehisorherdecision.Mediumsizedclasses(10-20students):Inmedium-sizedclasses,studentswilladopttherolesofeachassignedstakeholder,thecouncilchair,andtheremainderwillplaycouncilmembers.Stakeholderswilleachprepareastatementofnomorethanthreeminutesoutliningtheirprimaryreasonsforsupportingoropposingtheban.Attheendofthethreeminutes,thecouncilwillaskthemquestions.Allparticipantsshouldreviewthe“possiblequestions”sectionsdetailedbelowforeachspeaker,inordertonotonlyseewhatquestionsmaybeaskedofthem,butalsotogetideasforquestionstoaskofotherstakeholders.Thecouncilchairwillmoderatethequestionstoensureappropriatenessandtokeeptime.Afterallstakeholdershavespoken,themembersofthecouncilwilldebatethebillunderthecouncilchair’smoderation.Atthechair’sdiscretion(andiftimeallows),memberscanre-callspeakerstoansweradditionalclarifyingquestions.Attheendofthedebate,thecouncilwillvoteonthemeasure;amajorityisrequiredforthemeasuretopass.Forlargeclasses(morethan20students):Forclassesofmorethan20students,followthesamebasicschemeasthatdescribedformediumsizedclasses,withmultiplestudentsassignedtoworkcollaborativelyforeachstakeholderrole.SpecialnoteoncouncilchairTheroleofthecouncilchairinthiscasestudyistoactasamoderatorforthediscussionanddebate,toensurethatquestionsaredirectedtotheappropriatepersonandthatthediscussionanddebatedonotgetsidetrackedorboggeddowninacrimony.
4
Thepersonassignedtothecouncilchairroleshouldtakeextracaretofamiliarizethemselveswiththebackgroundandargumentsfromallsidespriortothediscussion.Thecouncilchairshouldenterthediscussionanddebateasaneutralobserverinterestedingettingtothebottomoftheissue.Whensomeoneraisesanissue,thechairshouldselectthebeststakeholdertoanswerit.Whensomeonemakesapoint,thechairwillidentifythebestpersontocounterit.Thechairshouldviewhisorherselfasonthesideoftruth.Toprepareforthisrole,thecouncilchairshouldcarefullyread“OnHawaii,alonelyquestforfactsaboutGMOs”(www.bit.ly/questforfacts),andimaginethemselvesasthecitycouncilmemberatthecenterofthestory(GregorIlagan)—althoughoneshouldnotfeelobligatedtoreachthesameconclusionhedid.BackgroundonpapayaThepapayaisatropicalfruit,nativetoCentralandSouthAmericathatisnowwidelycultivatedinthetropics.Around11milliontonsofpapayasaresoldeveryyear,withthemajorproducersbeingIndia,BrazilandMexico.TheUnitedStatesis,byfar,thelargestimporterofpapayas.MostpapayasconsumedintheUSareimported,butthereisconcentratedproductioninHawaii,accountingfor15,000tonsperyear.TheSolopapaya,alsoknownasthe“Hawaiianpapaya”,wasintroducedtoHawaiiintheearly20thcentury,andquicklybecameasignatureexportoftheislands.Likeallplants,papayaisaffectedbyaseriesofpathogens,themostsignificantbeingthepapayaringspotvirus(PRSV).ThevirusbeganhavingasevereimpactontheHawaiipapayaindustryinthe1950s,leadingtoashiftofproductionfromOahutoitscurrentcenterontheBigIsland’sPunaregion.ThePunapapayacropremainedunaffectedbyPRSVforseveraldecades,butin1992theviruswasdetectedintheregion.Effortstoisolateinfectedtreesfailed,andwithinfiveyearsallareasofPunawereaffected,andthelocalpapayaindustrywasnearingcollapse.NaturalimmunitytoPRSVinpapayadoesnotexist,andeffortstoinduceimmunitybyaformofvaccination(knownas“crossprotection”inplants)didnotprovepracticaloreconomicallyviable.Inthe1980’sresearchersatCornellUniversityandtheUSDAlaunchedaresearchprogramtodeveloptransgenicpapayathatwouldberesistanttoPRSV.Theyusedastrategythathadshownsuccessinotherplantswherebytheinsertionofasinglegenefromthevirusintotheplantgenome,andproductionoftheencodedproteininplanttissue,protectedtheplantagainstthepathogen.ThefirstPRSV-resistantpapayacultivarsweregeneratedin1991andwereapprovedforcommercialusebytheUSDAin1998.Introductionoftheoriginaltransgenicvariety,knownasSunUp,andaderivativeknownastheRainbowpapaya(whichwasacrossbetweenSunUpandalocallypopularnon-transgenicpapayavariety)begansoonafter.
5
Therewassomeinitialreluctancefromfarmersaboutpatentsandcosts,butafterthescientistswhodevelopedSunUpandRainbowarrangedtohavethemdistributedinPunaforfree,theywererapidlyadoptedandledtothequickrecoveryofthePunapapayaindustry.Thesetwovarietiesnowaccountforover80%ofpapayaproductioninPuna.ThesepapayaswerethefirstGMOtreefruitstobeapprovedforsaleintheUS,andwererecentlyapprovedforimportbyJapan,amajormarketforpapaya.AlthoughGMcropsweremetwithpublicscrutinyandskepticismwhentheywerefirstunderdevelopmentinthe1980s,therewaslittlecontroversyoverGMpapayasuntilrecentyears,whenalooselyknitcoalitionofanti-GMOorganizations,naturalproductssuppliersandtheorganicfarmingindustrybegantopushlocalGMObansandGMOlabelingasanalternativetoincreasedfederalregulationoftheindustry.ThiseffortbegantogainmomentumthroughoutHawaiiin2010,withthe2013GMObanontheBigIslandbeingaprominentmanifestation.PlaceofpapayaintheHawaiianeconomyTheeconomyofHawaiiisdominatedbytourism,witharound20%oftheworkforceemployeddirectlyinthe“leisure”sector,withaknock-oneffectonconstructionandotherimportantareasofthestate’seconomy.ThisdependenceontourismmakesthestateparticularlysusceptibletoeconomicdownturnsontheUSmainlandandAsia,wheremostofitstourismoriginates.EffortstodiversifytheHawaiianeconomyhavefocusedonexports.ExportsfromHawaiiarehamperedbythehighcostoftransportation,andaccountforonlyapproximately1%ofthestate’soveralleconomicactivity.In2013,Hawaiiexported$598mingoods,$40mofwhichwasfood.At$9mthepapayaexportcropisthusaround25%percentofallfoodexportedfromHawaiiand1.5%ofallHawaiianexports.Approximately1%oftheHawaiianpopulationworksinagriculture.BecauseofHawaii’syear-longgrowingseason,theseedindustry(cropsgrownstrictlyforthedevelopment,testingandexportofseeds)wasestablishedinHawaiiin1966,accountingforapproximately$106millionineconomicactivityin2018-19.Theindustry’sfootprintintheIslandshasbeensteadilyshrinkinginrecentyears.AlargefractionoftheseedcropsinHawaiiareGMOs.
6
LocalactivistCharacterbackground
YougrewuponHawaiiandhavelivedhereyourwholelife.Youlovetheislandasanaturalparadiseandenclavefromtheproblemsoftherestoftheworld.YouseethefightoverGMOsasthelatestbattleinanefforttopreventcorporatetakeoveroftheisland.AlthoughyouworryaboutthesafetyofGMOs,youcaremoreaboutthelossofasimplelifeontheislandandseeGMcropsasafailedandunnecessaryintrusion.
StanceonbanningGMOpapayaYoustronglysupportbanningGMOpapayasasthefinalstepinfreeingHawaiiofGMcrops.RoleindebateTorepresentlocalswhoseeGMOsaspartofcorporatetakeoverofHawaiiandtoemphasizethattheRainbowpapayahasnotbeenassuccessfulasclaimed.Talkingpoints1.GMcropsandthemultinationalcompaniesbehindthemaredestroyingHawaii.Themultinationalcompanies(Monsanto,Syngenta)thatarepushingGMOsdonotcareaboutHawaii,ourpeople,andourwayoflife.Theywanttoturnourbeautifulislandsintoagiantoutdoorlaboratorytodevelopandtestproductsthattheywillusetotakeoveragricultureontheplanet.Theypatenttheirseeds,makingitimpossibleforfarmerstodowhatthey’vedoneformillennia(andnaturehasdoneformillionsofyears!):collectseedsfromlastyear’scroptoreplantnextyear.Andtheywanttomakesurethatalloftheprofitsinfarminggotothem,andnotfarmers.Dowereallywanttheseglobalcorporationstocontrolourfarmsandourfood?Don’tletHawaiibecomealaboratory!BanGMOsandsendMonsantobacktoMissouri.2.TheRainbowpapayaisaTrojanhorse.PeoplewilltellyouthattheRainbowpapayawasn’tmadebyMonsanto,thatitwasdevelopedbyacademicandgovernmentscientists,andthattheseedcompaniesletthemgiveitawaytousforfree.Andthisistechnicallytrue.Butdidyoueverstoptowonderwhytheseedcompaniesdidthis?Thesearepeoplewhosuefarmerswhenevertheygetthechance.DoyouthinktheysuddenlybecamegenerouswithHawaiianpapayafarmers?Nochance.TheysawtheRainbowpapayaasachancetoconvincepeoplethatGMOsaregood.Theywantustothinkthatthey’rethegoodguys–thattheyandtheirtechnologyareheretohelpfarmersfightoffdiseasesandkeeptheirlivelihoods.Theyknewthatifthey
7
succeededingettingtheRainbowpapayagrowinginHawaiithatitwouldbeeasierforthemtointroduceotherGMOstotheisland.Sodon’tbelievethehype!TheRainbowpapayawasaTrojanHorsesetuptogetGMOsontotheisland.AndjustlikethepeopleofTroyshouldhavetossedthehorseintothesea,weshouldtosstheRainbowpapayaintotheseaandtellittonevercomeback.3.TheRainbowpapayaisfailedbiotechnology.
EveryonewilltellyouthattheRainbowpapayasavedthePunapapayaindustry.AndI’msureithelpedwhenthingswerereallybadafewyearsback.Butifit’ssuchagreatthing,whyisHawaiitheonlyplacewhereitisgrown?Theyhavetheringspotviruseverywherepapayasaregrown–Thailand,Philippines,Brazil,Africa–butnoneoftheseotherplaceswillusetheRainbowpapaya.Governments,farmersandconsumersinallthesecountrieshaverejectedGMOpapayas.Theyhaveallsortsofreasons.Theyworryiftheyaresafe.TheyworryaboutGMOcontamination.Theyworryaboutthecost.Theyworryaboutwhatwillhappeniftheprotectionfails.Andmostofall,theyworryaboutmarkets.
Inmanycountrieswherepapayasaresold,consumersdon’twanttoeatGMOs–especiallyEuropeandJapan.Ourpapayafarmershavebeenhurtbythelossofmarketsmorethantheyhavebeenhelped.OrganicpapayafarmersonotherislandscanselltheirfruitatahighpricetoEuropeandJapan,andalsoonthemainlandinplaceslikeWholeFoods,whichdonotliketosellGMOs.MeanwhileourPunafarmersgetmuchlessmoneyforeachfruit–somesayit’slessthanthecostofgrowingthepapayas.What’sthepointofsavingacropifyoucan’tsellit?
4.OtherfarmershaverejectedGMOs.
In2003tarogrowersdecidedGMOswouldinterrupttheirculturalconnectiontotheislands.AfterthestatefailedtopassbillstopreventGMOtarofrombeingdeveloped,theypassedlawsinHawaiiandMauicountiespreventingGMOtarocommercialization.
In2004theHawaiiCoffeeIndustryexaminedthepapayacaseandagreedtoanindustry-wideban,shuttingdownthreeGMOcoffeeresearchprojects.TheyknewthatevenfaintassociationofHawaiiancoffeewithGMOwoulddohugedamagetotheirnaturalreputation.Again,afterthestatefailedtopassbillstoprotecttheindustry,HawaiiCountypassedlawsbanningGMOcoffeeontheisland.
Severalothergroupsthatdependonhigh-endmarkets,suchaspineapple,bananaandmacadamianut,decidednottopursueGMOresearchprojectsafterseeingthestrugglesfarmershavewithsellingtheirGMOpapayas.
5.Cooperatewithfarmers.
Weshouldn’tbefightingwithfarmers.OurrealenemiesarethebigcorporationsthatwanttoturnHawaiiintoapollutedlaboratory,andmakeourfarmersandourselvesslavestotheirpatentedproducts.IfyoudotherightthinganderadicateGMOcontaminationfrom
8
theisland,weshouldalsostartworkingwithourfarmerstopromoteorganicandsustainablepracticesacrossthewholeisland–helpthemwithsubsidiesandtrainingandhelpthemdevelopbettermarkets.Thisistheonlywaywecanprotectourislandoasis.
Questionsforothers1.Tothescientist:Whyhaven’tyoubeenabletogettheRainbowpapayaadoptedinotherplaces?Don’tlettheanswerbeonlyaboutscientific/technicalissues.TheRainbowpapayahasbeenrejectedinThailandandothercountriesforpoliticalreasonsandsafetyreasons.Theseneedtobediscussed.2.Tothescientist:Don’tyouhaveaconflictofinteresthere?Maybeyoudon’tmakemoneyonHawaiianRainbowpapaya,butwhataboutifyougetitsoldinotherplaces?Aretheyjustgoingtogiveitawaythere?ThescientistwilllikelyarguethattheyhavemadenomoneyoffoftheRainbowpapaya;however,thisisonlybecausetheGMpapayahasnotbeenwidelyadoptedelsewhere.ThefactthattheirstrategytomarketitoutsideofHawaiifaileddoesnotletthemoffofthehookfortryingtoprofitfromdisease-resistantpapaya.3.Topapayafarmers:Wehavenoproblemwithyou.Iknowyouarejusttryingtofeedyourfamiliesandgetby.ButdoyouthinktheRainbowpapayahasreallyhelpedyou?Isn’tithardforyoutosell?Anddon’tyougetalowerprice?Ifyouhadittodoalloveragain,wouldyouuseRainbowpapayaorwouldyoutrysomethingdifferent?ReallyhammerhomethattheRainbowpapayahasfailedtomakethepapayaindustryinPunathrive.ThisisamajorpartoftheargumentfortheRainbow,anditisbogus.4.ToeveryoneinfavoroftheRainbowpapaya:Iftheexperiencehasbeensogreatwithpapaya,whydothetaro,coffee,pineapple,macadamiaandbananafarmersallrejectthetechnology?Again,thisunderminestheargumentthattheRainbowpapayahasbeenthesalvationofthelocalpapayaindustry.5.Totheseedcompany:Isn’tyourcompanygivingawayseedsfortheGMOpapayareallyaboutgettingaccesstoHawaii?AnswerstocommonquestionsQ:IftheRainbowpapayaissobadforfarmers,whydomostofPuna’spapayafarmerschoosetouseit?Whydoyouwanttotakeawaytheirchoice?
9
A:Papayafarmersweredesperate.Theysawtheircropsbeingdestroyed,andthenascientistwhoseemedtobeoutfortheirbestinterestscameinandgavethemmagicseedsthatwouldfightoffthevirus–forfree!Ofcourse,theyweregoingtousethem.Andnowtheyarelockedin.TheyhaveinvestedtimeandmoneyintotheRainbowpapaya,anddon’thavetheresourcestoswitchtosomethingelse.Butifyouaskthem,Ibettheywilltellyouthat,iftheycouldgobackintime,theywoulddosomethingelse.Q:WouldyousupportGMOsunderanycircumstance?WhataboutifwheatorsomethingelsewedependedontofeedourselveswasunderthreatandtheonlywaytosaveitwasaGMO?WhatifthisGMOhadbeendevelopedbythegovernmentandhadnopatents?Andfarmerswerefreetoreplantthem.WouldthatbeOK?A:Thisisanimpossiblehypotheticalquestion.ThereasonweopposeGMOsisthattheyAREassociatedwithbigmultinationalcorporationsthataretryingtodestroytheislandandtakeallofourmoney.MaybeiftheperfectGMOhadbeenmade,wewouldbeinfavorofit–comebackandaskwhenyoumakeit–butrightnow,theseGMOsarebadforusandshouldbebanned.BackgroundreadingHawaiiSeed(www.hawaiiseed.org),anorganizationfoundedbylocalactivistslikeyoutofightGMOsinHawaii,hasalotofinformationandresourcesontheirwebsite.Inparticular,youshouldlookat:
• “HawaiianPapaya:GMOPapayaContaminatedReport2006”(www.bit.ly/gmocontaminated).
• “ExploringCoexistenceofDiverseFarmingPractices:AlternativeReport2007”(www.bit.ly/exploringcoexistence).
• “FacingHawaii'sFuture,p.47,‘PapayaandCoffee:GMOSolutionsspellMarketDisaster”(www.bit.ly/facingfuture).
• Patent“Papayaringspotvirusgenes”(www.bit.ly/prvgenes)(US7078586B2,DennisGonsalves).
10
ScientistCharacterbackgroundYouareascientistwhohasspentyourwholecareerworkingtoapplythetechniquesofmodernmolecularbiologytoimproveourfoodsupplybyhelpingfarmersgrowcropsreliablyandwithlessofanimpactontheenvironment.Butafterdecadesofworkyouseeyoursignatureachievement—theRainbowpapaya—underattackbyactivistswhodonotevenbothertryingtounderstandthetechnologiesyouworkwith,orthereasonstheyareapplied.Youarefrustratedandabitindignant,butmostlyyouareworriedaboutaworldwherepeoplemistrustscienceandrejectoutofhandwhatithastooffersociety.(CharactermodeledprimarilyonDennisGonsalves,wholedtheteamthatdevelopedtheRainbowpapaya).StanceonbanningGMOpapayaYouare,obviously,verystronglyopposedtotheproposedban,notonlybecauseyouseetheRainbowpapayaasanunambiguousgood,butbecauseyouseeitasthelaststandagainstcompletebanofGMOs.RoleindebateToexplainanddefendthesciencebehindtheRainbowpapaya.Talkingpoints1.TheRainbowpapayaisperfectlysafetoeat.Thechangewemadeisasimpleandnaturalwaytotakeadvantageofthepapaya’snaturalimmunesystem.WemadeatinymodificationtotheDNAoftheplant,insertingasinglegene,essentiallygivingitavaccineagainstthepapayaringspotvirus.Thiskindofthinghappensallthetimeinnature,andhashappenedrepeatedlyinalltheplantsweeattoday.Italmostcertainlywouldhappennaturallyinpapayasifwewaited–allwedidwasspeeduptheprocess.Thegeneweaddedtothepapayaisonlyasmallpartofthevirus–nottheentirevirus–andisalreadyfoundinfoods,includingorganicpapayas,whicharefrequentlyinfectedwithPRSV,andmanyotherfruitsthathavenaturallyacquiredimmunitytorelatedviruses.TheRainbowpapayahasnowbeenconsumedfornearly15yearswithnoadverseeffects.Furthermore,theJapanesegovernment,whichishighlyskeptical,evenparanoid,aboutGMOsandforyearsbannedtheimportoftheRainbowpapaya,recentlyapproveditforimport.Theapprovalprocessinvolvedaseriesofteststhatgobeyondwhatisrequiredin
11
theUS,includingsequencingtheentiregenomeoftheplant,eliminatinganyreasonablegroundsforconcernaboutthesafetyofthefruit.ManyofthefearsaboutthesafetyoftheRainbowpapayaarenotbasedonanythingspecificaboutthisplant,butaboutgeneralfearsaboutthesafetyofGMOs.Iwouldliketopointoutthat,timeandtimeagain,majorscienceorganizationsandregulatorybodiesintheUSandEurope,includingtheUSNationalAcademiesofScience,themostprestigiousscienceorganizationintheworld,havedeclaredthatthereisnothingintrinsicallydangerousaboutGMfoods,andthattheonesthathavebeenapprovedforsaletoconsumersareperfectlysafetoeat.2.TheRainbowpapayaissafetofarm.GrowingtheRainbowpapayaisjustlikegrowinganyotherpapaya.Youplanttheseedsandwhenthetreeismature,youharvestthefruit.Itdoesnotrequiretheuseofanypesticidetofighteitherthevirusortheinsectthatspreadsit–itdoesthejobitself.Indeed,priortotheintroductionoftheRainbowpapaya,farmerswhowerestilltryingtogrowpapayasinPunahadtospraytheirtreeswithlargeamountsofpesticidesinordertoprotecttheirtrees.Nowtheydon’thaveto.Sopeoplewhoareconcernedabouttheeffectsofchemicalsonthesoil,oronfarmers,oronthemwhentheyeattheproducts,shouldseetheRainbowpapayaasagoodthing,asithasreducedtheamountofchemicalsneededtogrowpapayas.AndthisistrueofmanyotherGMOcropsonthemarketorinproduction.3.TheRainbowpapayasavedthepapayaindustry.IfwehadnotdevelopedtheRainbowpapaya,theindustryinPunawouldhavedisappeared.Alltheothertrickswehad–spraying,cuttingdowninfectedtrees,andabandoninginfectedfarms–failed.Thevirusspreadrapidlyanddestroyedthecrop.Itwouldbeanironictragedyif,afterwehaddevelopedasafewaytosavethepapayaindustryinPuna,weletourirrationalfearsofbiotechnologydowhattheviruswasunabletodo.4.TheRainbowpapayaisnotMonsanto.TheRainbowpapayawasdevelopedbyacademicandgovernmentresearchersinNewYorkandHawaii.Weusedsometechnologypatentedbybigseedcompanies,butwewereabletoconvincethemtoletusgivetheseedsoutforfree.TheonlypeoplemakingmoneyoffoftheRainbowpapayaareourpapayafarmers,andthepeopleofHawaiithroughtaxes.5.Geneticmodificationisanaturalpartofagriculture.Humanshavebeengeneticallymodifyingthefoodsweeatforaslongaswehavebeenengaginginagriculture.Whenthefirstfarmerspickedwheatorcornorotherplantswiththebestseedstoeat,orwhichgrewbestintheirfields,orwhichresisteddiseases,theywerestartingaprocessofmodifyingtheDNAofplantsthathasgoneonfor15,000years.
12
Theonlydifferenceisthatnowwecandoitfasterandmoreprecisely.Ifyourejectgeneticmodificationoffoods,youarerejectingallagriculture.Questionsforothers1.ToopponentsofRainbowpapaya:What,specifically,doyouobjecttoabouttheRainbowpapaya?IthasnoneofthecharacteristicsthatpeoplealwayscomplainaboutGMOs.Itwasmadebyuniversityandgovernmentresearchers,notbyMonsanto.Theseedsaregivenawayforfree.Itwasn’tengineeredeithertomakeapesticideortoallowtheusehighlevelsofanherbicide.Allitdoesisharnesstheplant’snaturalimmunesystemtofightoffavirus.Whydoyouobjecttoit?Don’tletpeoplemakeageneralcaseagainstGMOsinanswering–forcethemtodiscussthepapaya–remindingthemthatthisisaboutthepapaya,notaboutGMOsingeneral.2.ToopponentsofRainbowpapaya:DoyouopposetheuseofGMunderanycircumstances?Whataboutdrought-resistantmaize,flood-tolerantrice,biofortifiedcropsthatprovidevitaminstopeoplewhodon’tgetthemintheirdiet,andotherdisease-resistantplants?HammerhomethepointthatnotallGMOsarethesame.Youmaynotthinkit’simportanttosavethepapayaindustryinHawaii,butareopponentswillingtoletpeoplestarvebecausetheyrejectGMOsthatletcropsbegrowninplacesorconditionswheretheycurrentlycan’tbe,orpreventblindnessbyprovidingvitamins,orfightofdiseasesthatcouldaffectstapleslikerice,corn,wheatorsoy?3.ToopponentsofRainbowpapaya:Whydoyouthinkmostscientists–includingthosewhohavenothingtodowithGMOs–areinfavorofthem?OpponentswilltrytoarguethatthescientistswhospeakoutinfavorofGMOsareallindustryshills.Askthemforevidence.AndpointoutthatmostofthemembersoftheNationalAcademyhavenothingtodowithGMOs.MakeitclearthatoppositiontoGMOsisrejectingscience–it’sthelogicalequivalenttorejectingclimatechange.4.ToopponentsofRainbowpapaya:TheRainbowpapayawasmadewithfirstgenerationplantgeneticengineeringtechnology.Newtechnologyallowsustopreciselyeditthepapayagenome.IfwecouldproduceapapayathatusedpiecesofitsownDNAtogiveitresistancetoPRSV,withnoextrabitsofDNAfromanotherspecies,wouldthisbeOKwithyou?Thisisanimportantquestionforeveryoneinthefield.AlotoftheobjectionsraisedtotheRainbowpapayaarebasedonthings–thepresenceofanantibioticresistancegene,extrainsertionsitesfortheplasmid–thatwouldnotbetherewiththenew“CRISPR”technology.
13
Scientistssaythat,inprinciple,theycouldcreatethePRSVgeneinsertedinRainbowentirelyoutofDNAfromthepapayaitself.AnswerstocommonquestionsQ:Scientistshavesaidallsortsofthingsweresafethatturnedoutnottobe.Howdoyouknowwewon’tfindout10or20yearsfromnowthatGMcropswerepoisoningus?Isn’titbettertobesafethansorry?Isapapayareallyworthdyingfor?A:Thereisalwaysatheoreticalriskanytimewedosomethingnew.Butweareintroducingnewvarietiesoffoodsweeatallthetime,mostbredconventionally.ThereisnoreasontothinkGMcropsareanyriskierthantheseothernewfoodvarieties.Indeed,GMcropsaremorecarefullytestedthananyotherfoods,andtheyhaverepeatedlybeenshowntobesafe.Q:Whynotdorealtestsforsafety?Provethey’resafebeforeintroducingthem.A:GMcropsaremoreheavilytestedthananyotherkindoffood.IfIfoundanewvarietyofpapayaintherainforestandstartedgrowingandsellingthem,therewouldbenosafetytests,noregulation,eventhoughweknowthatmanynaturallyoccurringfruitsarenotsafetoeat.GMcropsaretestedonanimals,whichconventionallybredcropsarenot.Whatdoyoupropose?Long-termfeedingtrialsonhumans?Thisisn’tpractical.Q:IftheRainbowpapayaissogreat,whyhasn’ttheRainbowpapayabeenadoptedinothercountries?A:TheRainbowpapayaitselfwasgeneratedtofightofftheHawaiianstrainofPRSVandwouldnotbeeffectiveinothercountriesthathavedifferentstrainsofthevirus.Theyalsogrowdifferentvarietiesofpapaya.However,wehaveworkedextensivelywithscientistsfromothercountriestodevelopPRSVresistantversionsoftheirpapayasthatareresistanttolocalstrainsofPRSV.Unfortunately,activists—primarilyfromtheWest—whohaveazero-tolerancepolicytowardsGMOshavedelayedthetestingandintroductionofthesestrainstimeandtimeagain.TheycampaignedaggressivelyagainstGMpapaya,employingalotofdisinformationtomakelocalfarmersandconsumersafraidofthetechnology.It’sarealshame,astheseverypoorpeoplearebeingdeniedachancetoimprovetheireconomicsituation,alltosatisfytheagendaofGreenpeace.YoucanreadSarahDavidson’saccountofthesituationinThailand(http://bit.ly/forbiddenfruitthailand)tounderstandwhathashappened.YoushouldlookatthisnotasaproblemoftheRainbowpapaya,butofactivistsmoreconcernedwithfundraisingintheUSandEuropethanwiththeplightoffarmersandconsumersindevelopingcountries.Q:Isn’ttheRainbowpapayaa“gatewaycrop”meanttoconvincepeopleindevelopingcountriesthatGMOsaregoodforthem,tobefollowedbytheintroductionofcropswhosegoalisseedcompanyprofits?
14
A:Thequestioncontainsitsownanswer.IftheRainbowpapayaisgoodforfarmersinthedevelopingworld,doesn’titstandtofollowthatotherGMOsmightbetoo?IamnotarguingthateveryGMOisgoodforeveryfarmerineverysituation.ButitistheworstkindofpatronizingWesternattitude–thekindwehavefeltoverandoverhereinHawaii–tosuggestthatweknowbetterthanfarmersinThailandoranyothercountrywhatisgoodforthem.
Q:IhaveheardthatsomestudieshaveshownthattheRainbowpapayacancausepeopletohaveallergicreactions.Isthattrue?
A:Youarelikelyreferringtoapaper(www.bit.ly/screeningproteins)byKleterandPeijnenburgpublishedin2002thatdidadatabasesearchandshowedsomeoverlapbetweentransgenicproteinsandknownallergens.Wehaveextensivelyevaluated(www.bit.ly/allergenicity)theallergenicityoftheRainbowpapaya,usingfarmoreextensivemethodsandhaveestablishedthesafetyofRainbowpapaya.
Q:WhatabouttheCMVpromotergenesegmentthat’sbeenimplicatedincancerandwasn’tknowntoregulatorswhentheRainbowpapayawasapproved?
A:Again,thereisnobasisforthisconcern.ThereisnocrediblebasisthattheCMVpromoterisinvolvedincancer.Also,the35Spromoterisnota“hiddengene”ashasbeensuggested.Thecauliflowermosaicvirus35SpromoterwasknowntobeasegmentofGeneVIofCauliflowerMosaicVirusbeforeitwasusedintransgenicplants.Theresearcherwhoisolatedandshowedtheeffectivenessofthe35SpromoteractuallyknewthatitwaspartoftheGeneVIofthevirus.Thiswaswellknownandresearchedbeforetheywereusedincommercialtransgenicplants.
Q:Doesthefactthatyouusedanantibioticresistancegeneincreasethechancesofdevelopingantibioticresistantbacteria?Whataboutpeoplewhoareallergictoantibiotics?
A:Antibioticsareusedinthegenerationofthetransgenicplantbutarenotusedinthegrowthoftheplants,sothereisnoriskforpeoplewhoareallergictotheantibiotics.Theseantibioticresistancegenesarealreadywidelyfoundinnature,anditishighlyunlikelythattheRainbowpapayawouldcontributeanynewantibioticresistancetobacteria.
Q:I’veheardthattransgenicfoodsarelessnutritiousthantheirconventionalororganiccounterparts?
A:Thismakesnosense:Whywouldtheinsertionofasinglegenethatfightsoffavirusmakethefruitlessnutritious?Indeed,thefactthatthesefruitsarehealthiersuggeststhattheywouldbemore–notless–nutritious.Inanycase,wehaveanalyzedthisaspartoftheregulatoryapprovalforexporttoJapanandfoundRainbowpapayatobenutritionallyequivalenttoconventionalpapaya.Thisworkwaspublishedinapeerreviewjournal:TripathiS,SuzukiJY,CarrJB,McQuateGT,FerreiraSA,etal.2011.“NutritionalCompositionofRainbowpapaya,thefirstcommercializedtransgenicfruitcrop”(www.bit.ly/nutritionalcomposition)JournalofFoodCompositionandAnalysis24:140-7.
15
Backgroundreading
PaulVoosen(2011),“CropSaviorBlazesBiotechTrail,butFewScientistsorCompaniesAreWillingtoFollow”(www.bit.ly/cropsavior).NewYorkTimes,9/21/2011.
JenniferMo(2012),“ThemanbehindtheRainbow”(www.bit.ly/manbehindrainbow),Biofortifiedblog,6/21/2012.
16
PapayafarmerCharacterbackgroundYoucomefromseveralgenerationsofpapayafarmersandrememberthedevastationofthecropsinthe1990s,andhowtheRainbowpapayarescuedtheindustry.Notonlydoyounotwanttolosetherighttogrowyourtrees,butyoualsofearthatthedebatearoundGMcropsingeneral,andthepapayainparticular,hasmadeitmoredifficultforyoutosellyourproducts,andhaskeptpriceslow.StanceonbanningGMOpapayaYouarestronglyopposedtotheban.RoleindebateTorepresentpapayafarmersandtodefendyourrighttogrowtheRainbowpapaya.Talkingpoints1.TheRainbowpapayasavedyourbusinessandfamily.IcametoHawaiiin1970fromthePhilippineswithmywifetomakeabetterlife.Myparentshadgrownpapayasinthebackyard,andsoIworkedhardforseveralyearstogetenoughmoneytobuyasmallplotoflandandIbegantoplantpapayas–mostlySolopapaya.Weworkedhard,andafterafewyears,Ihadagoodbusiness.Wewerenotrich,butIcouldfeedmyfamily,andweraisedtwokidswhoarenowhelpingusonthefarm.Manyofyoudon’trememberwhatitwaslikewhenPRSVcametoPuna.Iheardaboutitfromotherfriendsin1992.Theaffectedfarmswerefaraway,soIdidn’tworrymuch.Then,thenextyear,itcametomyfarm.Wedideverythingwecouldtostopit.Icutdowntheaffectedtrees.Isprayedlotsofinsecticidetokeeptheaphidsaway.Butnothingworked.Inoneyear,nearlyallofmytreeswereaffected,andIcouldbarelysellenoughpapayastocoverthecostofharvestingthem,letalonefeedmyfamily.Ihadtogetanotherjobworkinginastore.IwasabouttosellmylandandgiveupfarmingwhenIheardabouttheRainbowpapaya.Ididn’tknowanythingaboutGMOs.AllIknewwasthatthescientiststoldusthetreeswereresistanttothevirus.Iwasn’tsureIbelievedthem,buttheygaveustheseedsforfreeifwewouldpromisenottoselltheseedstoanyoneelse,andmywife,children,andIplantedthem.Andthatyear,wehadourbeautifulfarmback.Thetreeswereallhealthyandthefruitswerebeautiful.TheRainbowpapayasavedmyfarm.Itsavedmybusiness.Anditsavedmyfamily.
17
2.GivefarmersachoiceYoudon’thavetoeattheRainbowpapayaifyoudon’twantto.ButpeoplekeepsayingthisisaboutprotectingHawaiifromoutsiders.Frompoison.ButIamnotanoutsider.IamaHawaiianandIamapapayafarmer.Ihavelivedherefor45years.Iraisedmychildrenhere.SolongasIamnothurtingotherpeople,whycan’tIchoosewhatcropsIcanplantonmyfarm?YouhavealreadymadeitharderforfarmerstomakealivingbybanningotherGMOs,butpleasedon’tbanmyfarm,andmywayoflife.3.Anti-GMOactivismhasmadeitharderforyoutosellcrops.AlthoughtheRainbowpapayaisagreatplant,withgreatfruit,itishardtosell.Foryearsourbestmarket–Japan–wasclosedtousbecausetheydidnottrustGMOcrops.IcannotsellthemtoEurope,anotherbigmarket.Andthemarketsonthemainlandarebecomingharderandharder,drivingourpricesdownaswehavetocompetewithGMO-freevarietiesfromothercountries.YoumightsaythisisasignthattheGMOpapayaisbad.Butitisnot.ThisisaproblemcreatedbypeoplewhogoaroundscaringothersaboutGMOs.Thebillpassedlastyeartoldtheworldthateventhepeopleofmyownislandthinkmycropsarebad.Ifthingsdonotgetbetter,Imighthavetoconsidersellingmyfarmagain.Ifmychildrencannotsellthepapayaswegrow,whatpointisthereinpassingthefarmontothem?Itwouldbesadintheendif,aftersurvivingPRSV,activistswhodon’treallyunderstandfarmingaretheoneswhodestroymyfarm.4.Patentsandrestrictionsonseedsarebad,butthisisnotjustaGMOproblem.LikemanypeoplewhoareopposedtoGMOsliketheRainbowpapaya,Iamworriedaboutpatentsonseedsthatmakeitharderformetoworkmyfarm.ButsomeoneneedstopointoutthatthisisnotjustaproblemwithGMOs.Mysongrowswheatandcornonapieceoflandnexttoours.Hebuysthelatesthybridseeds.TheyarenotGMOsbutwealsohavetosignalicenseforthemsayingtheywillnotreplantseedsorgivethemtoanyoneelse.BanningGMOswon’tstoppatentsonseeds.5.HawaiishouldwelcomeGMOsonourownterms.IamafarmerandaparentandaHawaiian.IwanttokeepabeautifulHawaiithatkeepsourcultureandkeepsitsafeforeveryone.Butiffarmerscan’tmakealiving,thisisbadfortheisland.WewillhavetosellourlandtopeoplewhowillbuildvacationhousesforpeoplefromLA.Andwhatgoodisthat?TheRainbowpapayashowedmethatGMOscouldbegoodforfarmersandgoodforHawaii.Insteadofbanningthesecrops,weshouldembracethem,butmakesuretheycomehereonOURterms.TelltheseedcompaniesthatiftheywanttoselltheirGMOshere,theycan’tmakeussignawayourrightstoreplant.Theycan’tsuepeoplewhentheirfieldsget
18
contaminatedwithotherpeople’sGMOs.InsteadofbanningGMOsbecauseweareafraidofpesticidesandherbicides,bandangerouspesticidesandherbicidesandmakethecompaniescomeupwithcropsthataregoodforus.Wecan’trunawayfromthefuture,butwecanmakesurethatitservesus.Questionsforothers1.TopeoplewhowanttobanRainbowpapaya:IhaveheardalotabouthowterribletheRainbowpapayaisforpapayafarmers.Butdon’tyouthinkthat’ssomethingthatshouldbeleftuptopapayafarmerstodecide,notthecountycouncil?Whydoyoufeelit’sokayforyoutomakedecisionsabouthowIrunmyfarmwhenyouknowmuchlessaboutgrowingpapayasthanIdo?Thisisyourcentralissue.It’saboutchoice.Don’tletotherpeopletellyouwhatisorisn’tgoodforpapayafarmers.2.Toglobalenvironmentalactivist:YousaythereareotherwaysforpeopletogrowfoodthanGMOs,butwhatifItoldyouthattheRainbowpapayawastheonlywayformyfarmtosurvive?Wouldyouwantmetostopbeingafarmerjusttopromoteyouragenda?Thisistheirweakness.Theysaytheyareouttoprotectthelittlepeoplefromtheperilsofbigcorporations,butyouarealittlepersonandtheiractionsherearehurtingyouwithoutprotectinganyone.3.Tolocalactivist:DoyouknowwhochoppeddownthousandsofourtreesinJuly2011andSept.2013,whentheGMOdebateswereparticularlyheated?Theywillsaynoofcourse,butthepointistohighlighttheextremismoftheactivists.TheyarehostiletoGMOsandthepeoplewhogrowthem.AnswerstocommonquestionsQ:WhatdoyoudotopreventyourRainbowpapayafromcontaminatingotherpapayasacrosstheisland?A:Papayacomeinthreesexes:male,femaleandhermaphrodite.Malesdonotproducefruitandproducealotofpollenthatcanspreadoffthefarm,sowecutthemdownbeforetheycandoso.Weonlylethermaphroditetreesgrowandfruit.Theseplantsself-fertilizeandreleasefarlesspollenintotheair.ButIalsodonotthinkit’sarealproblemfororganicfarmers.Theyonlyneedtoplantnon-GMseed,whichtheycaneasybuyormakeforthemselves.Iftheyonlylethermaphroditesgrow,thentheywillself-pollinateandareessentiallyimmunetocross-pollination.Also,eveniftheydogetcross-pollinatedbyGMpollenthefruititselfwillnotbeGM.
19
Q:Haven’tyouhadtostartusinglotsoftoxicfungicidebecausetheRainbowpapayaismoresusceptibletofungaldisease?A:Wehavestartedtohavesomeproblemswithblackspot,andwespraytocontrolit.ButwehadproblemswithitbeforePRSVappearedandweweregrowingnon-GMOtrees.ItisnotnewtotheRainbowpapaya,althoughRainbowpapayaisabitmoresusceptiblethanthevarietieswegrewbefore.Q:Weren'tyoueconomicallybetteroffwhenpapayaswerenon-GMO?A:Insomeways,yes.Themainchallengeisthepricewecangetforourpapaya.ButthisisnotthefaultoftheRainbowpapaya,itisthefaultofpeoplewhohavescaredconsumersintothinkingthattheRainbowpapayaisdangerousforthem.Backgroundreading“TheRainbowpapayastory”(www.bit.ly/rainbowstory),fromtheHawaiiPapayaIndustryAssociation.SophieCocke,“Papayanightmares:AFarmerStrugglesAmidHawaii’sGMODebate”(www.bit.ly/papayanightmare)HonoluluCivilBeat,8/4/2013.
20
OrganicfarmerCharacterbackgroundYoubelieveinfoodthatisgrownnaturally,withtheprimaryadditivebeingyourlabor—notherbicidesandpesticides,whichyouthinkarekillingthesoil,andmakingpeoplesick.You’renotascientist,butthescarythingspeoplewriteaboutGMOsresonatewithyou.Youalsoseethedecksstackedagainstyou,asmultinationalcompaniesthatgethugegovernmentsubsidiescomeinandundercutyourbusiness.Youhaveafriendwhogreworganicpapayabutnowshecan’tbecauseofthecross-contamination.YoualsothinkhavingHawaiiknownasaGMO-freeoasiswillhelpyourexports.StanceonbanningGMOpapayaBanthemnow.Theymaywellbepoison.Inanycasewedon’tknow,andit’snotworththerisk.RoleindebateToraisesafetyconcernsaboutGMOsingeneralandtheRainbowpapayainparticular.Talkingpoints1.GMOsaredangerousforconsumers,farmersandtheplanet.Humansdidnotevolvetoeatpesticides,herbicidesandgeneticallymodifiedcrops.Doesn’titmakesensethatchemicalsthataremeanttokillplantsandotheranimalsmightbebadforus,too?Ifindithardtoreadthenewsthesedays,aseverytimeIdoIhearabouthowsomediseaseisincreasing-autism,cancer,asthma,allergies–thingsthatyoudidn’thearaboutwhenIwasakid.Andwhat’sthebiggestthingthat’schangedsincethen?Ourfood.Doesn’titmakesensethatwe’rehavingalltheseproblemsbecauseweareputtingpoisonsintoourbodiesthatwe’veneverseenbefore?Howcanweletscientistsandbigseedcompaniesputthesethingsonthemarketwithouttestingthem?We’veletourselvesbecomeagiantscienceexperimentforchemicalandseedcompanies.Andwealreadyknowtheresults!They’rebad!IreadaboutastudydonebyFrenchscientiststhatshowedthatratsfedGMOsgethugetumors.Ifthereweresomedrugpeopleweretakingthatgaveratstumors,they’dpullitoffthemarketimmediately.Butwhenit’saGMO,theseedcompaniesattackthescientist,andthestorygoesawaywithoutanychanges.Weneedtostopthisexperimentnowandgobacktotraditionalwaysofgrowingourfood.Organicfarmerslikemeproducebeautifulfoodthat’sbetterforyouandbetterfortheland,
21
withoutusingchemicalsorGMOs.Isithardwork?Yes.Butweshouldn’ttakedangerousshortcutswhenourhealthandoursurvivalasaspeciesareatrisk.Weusemoreherbicidesandpesticidesthaneverbefore–andweknowthattheyarebadforyou.Plus,weintroducedGMOsintothemarketandallthesethingsstartedtogoup.Therearescientificpapers–inpeer-reviewedjournals–thatshowthatratsthateatGMOsgethugetumors.Andinsteadofcallingformoreresearch,theseedcompaniesattackedthescientist.Thisisthewaytheywork.Theyknowtheirproductsaredangerousandtheydon’twantustolearnaboutthewaystheyarekillingus.2.TheRainbowpapayaisunhealthy.PeoplekeepsayingthattheRainbowpapayaisdifferent.Thatit’sagoodGMO.Butthisisn’ttrue.
• ThepieceofDNAinsertedintothepapayacontainsanantibioticresistancegene.Somescientiststhinkthatifthesegenesareinourfoodtheywillgetintothebacteriainourstomachsandmakethemresistanttoantibioticsaswell.Iftheymakeyousick,therewillbenothingtodoaboutit.
• In2002Dutchscientistsshowedthatthesupposedlysafe“coatprotein”usedinmakingtheRainbowpapayaisprobablyanallergen.Wedon’tknowifpeoplearehavingallergicreactionstotheRainbowpapayasincethefruitisnotlabeledinawaythatpeoplecouldtellifitiscausingthereactions.
• Rainbowpapayacontainsahiddengene“GeneVI”thathasbeenlinkedtocancer.• Punaschoolshaveaveryhighrateofasthma,usuallyanindicatorofenvironmental
cause.CouldbeduetopollenfromGMOpapayatrees?• Rainbowpapayaissusceptibletoblackspotfungus,thatcanonlybetreatedwith
toxicfungicidesthatarenotsupposedtobesprayedwhenwindisover3mph,butwindisalmostalwaysover3mphonPuna.
3.TheRainbowpapayacontaminatesnon-GMOcrops.Thepapayareproducesbyreleasingpollenintotheair.SincethepollenproducedbytheRainbowpapayacontainsthegeneticmodification,itcaneasilycontaminatenearbyconventionalandorganictrees.AstudycarriedoutbyHawaiiSEEDshowedthat50%oftreesonHawaiiarecontaminated,includingonorganicpapayafarms.ThishashadaseriousnegativeeffectonsalesofHawaiipapayastocountriesthatdonotallowtheimportofGMOsandintheUSmarketwhereGMOsareincreasinglyunpopular.What’smore,thiscontaminationcan’tbeundoneeasily.Evenifwecutdowneverycommercialpapayatreeontheisland,therewouldstillbealotofferalpapayasthatcontaintheGMOgenecassette.4.Nolong-termsafetystudieshavebeencarriedoutonGMOs.Ifyouwanttointroduceanewdrugontothemarketyouhavetoproveitissafebytestingitinanimalsandthenextensivelyinhumans.IfyouwanttointroduceanewGMOintothe
22
market,youdon’thavetodoanythinglikethis.Infact,noGMOshaveeverbeensubjectedtolong-termsafetystudieseveninlaboratoryanimals!Andthisisdespitethefactthatmanystudieshaveshownthemtobeharmfultoanimalsandpeople.Even15yearsaftertheintroductionoftheRainbowpapaya,westilldon’tknowitissafe.AttheveryleastweshouldstopproductionuntilthesafetyofGMOpapayashasbeenestablishedinlong-termstudies.5.Theprecautionaryprincipleshouldapplyhere.Theprecautionaryprincipleapproachtoriskmanagement,whichispartofEuropeanlaw,statesthatifanactionorpolicyhasasuspectedriskofcausingharmtothepublicortotheenvironment,theburdenofproofthatitisnotharmfulfallsonthosetakinganaction.Thisburdenhasclearlynotbeenmet.Sincethepotentialharmsaresogreat–thedestructionofourhealthandplanet–andthegainssosmall,shouldn’twebecautious?6.GMOsarebadforbusiness.Evenifyouarenotswayedbyanyofthesearguments,andallyoucareaboutisHawaiianfarmingbusiness,youshouldstillopposetheGMOpapaya.Rainbowpapayafruitisnotveryprofitable,noristhedevelopmentofotherGMOcropstothepeopleofHawaii.Organiccrops,ontheotherhand,are.ItwouldbeahugelifttoHawaii’sorganicfarmersiftheislandweredeclaredcompletelyGMO-free.Itwoulderaseconsumerfearsofcontaminationandwouldboostourreputationasasourceofsafe,naturalfoodsforconsumers.Questionsforothers1.Forthescientist:CanyoureallyassureusthattheRainbowpapayaissafetoeat?Howdoyouknowtheantibioticgenewon’ttransfertobacteriainourgutsandmakeitsowecan’tkillthem?Howdoyouknowthecoatproteindoesn’tcauseallergiesliketheDutchscientistsshowed?Whydidn’tyoudisclose“GeneVI”inyoursafetyapplicationandhowdoyouknowitwon’tcausecancer?Howdoyouknowpeopledon’tgetsickwhentheybreatheGMOcontaminatedpollen?MakethemsaythattheycanneverbesuretheRainbowpapayaissafe.Nomatternowconfidenttheyareorseem,theycan’tbe100%sure.Andifthey’renot100%sure,howcantheyproceed?2.Forthepapayafarmer:Haveyoutriedtogroworganicpapayasonyourland?Itismorework,butyoucanalsogrowmangoandotherfruitandgetmoremoney.Thepapayafarmerisnotyourenemy.Youwanttoconvincehimthatorganicfarmingisgoodforhisfarm.Answerstocommonquestions
23
Q:Alloftheseedsusedtodayresultedfromcrossbreeding,selection,and,insomecases,evenirradiationtogeneratenewtraits.Doyouthinkthesepractices,evenwhenusedinorganicagriculture,are“unnatural”?A:Thereisafundamentaldifferencebetweencrossingdifferentvarietiesofthesame(orclosely-related)speciesthroughnaturalbreedingprocesses,andinusinghuman-inventedtechniquestotransfertraitsbetweendistantlyrelatedspecies.Thelatterisunnatural.Q:YouuseBttocontrolinsectsonyourcrops–thesameinsecticidemadebycornandotherplantsthathavebeenengineeredtorepelinsects.WhyisitokayfororganicfarmersbutnotGMOs?A:There’sahugedifferencebetweensprayingBtONcropsandembeddingthetoxinINcrops.Theformercanbewashedoffbeforeyoueatit,thelattercannot.Q:IfGMOsareasdangerousasyoubelieve,whydothinksomanyscientistsandscientificorganizationsbelievethatGMOsaresafe?A:AlotofthosescientistsgetmoneyfromMonsantoandothercompanieslikethemtofundtheirresearch,andtherestofthemareseducedbythebeliefthatsciencecandonowrong.Butlookatallthemistakestheyhavemade–thingstheysaidweresafethatweren’t.Thesepeoplemaybegoodscientists,butitdoesn’tmeantheyknowwhat’sgoodforourbodiesortheplanet.Q:Youseemgenuinelyconcernedabouttheenvironment–don'tyouworrythatorganicagricultureislessefficientandthereforeconsumesmorepreciousresourcesthanconventionalfarming?A:Iwouldworryifitweretrue,butitisn’t.Sure,ifyoupumpchemicalsintocropsforafewyearsyoucangethigheryields,butifyoutakecareofthesoilandtheanimalsandplantsthatlivearoundit,yourgetbetteryieldsoverthelongrun.BackgroundreadingInstituteforResponsibleTechnology(http://www.responsibletechnology.org/),amajoranti-GMOorganizationledbyanti-GMOspokespersonJeffreySmith,whotestifiedontheoriginalGMObill.MichaelHansenandJeanHalloran,“WhyWeNeedLabelingofGeneticallyEngineeredFood”(www.bit.ly/whyweneedgmolabeling).
24
GlobalenvironmentalactivistCharacterbackgroundYouarefromtheUSmainland–thisisyourfirsttriptoHawaii.YouareherebecausefearofGMOsisatoolyouareusingtofightthemultinationalcorporationsandexcessglobalizationthatyouseeastheprimaryculpritbehindglobalwarmingandagenerallossofindividualautonomy.Youseeanti-GMOsentimentasanopportunitythatyoubothbelieveinandtrytoexploitasasourceofraisingfundsforyourorganization.StanceonbanningGMOpapayaYousupportacompleteglobalbanonallGMOs,includingtheRainbowpapaya.RoleindebateTheenvironmentalactivistservestohighlightthepositiveglobal,environmentalimpactoffightingtheRainbowpapayaonHawaiiandsupportingtheban.Talkingpoints1.Geneticengineeringinunnatural.Geneticengineeringisfundamentallyunnaturalinthatitallowsscientiststocreateplants,animalsandmicroorganismsbymanipulatinggenesinwaysthatdonotoccurnormally.GMOscientistsarguethatwhattheydoisnotthatdifferentthanwhathappenswithconventionalbreedingandgeneticexchangebetweenspecies,butifthisweretrue,thengeneticengineeringwouldnotbenecessary.2.GMOsaregeneticpollution.Wecannotperfectlycontrolhowplantsinnaturebreedwitheachother.GMOsinamanagedfieldcaninterbreedwithwildorganisms,therebycontaminatingenvironmentsandfuturegenerationsinanunforeseeableanduncontrollableway.Oncereleasedintotheenvironment,GMOscannotberecalled.Theyaregeneticpollution.Geneticengineeringoffoodisintrinsicallyriskyprocess.Scientistsdonotfullyunderstandtheconsequencesofputtingnewgenesintocomplexorganismsandecosystems.Biologicaldiversitymustbeprotectedandrespectedastheglobalheritageofhumankind,andoneofourworld'sfundamentalkeystosurvival.3.GMOsaretoolsofcorporatecontroloffood.GMOcropsaretreatedasintellectualpropertyworldwide,andthusthespreadofGMOcropsisaccompaniedbytheincreasingcontrolofourfoodsupplybymultinational
25
corporations.Foodisbothaproductofnatureandafundamentalhumanright.Itshouldbebeyondthecontrolofintellectualproperty,whichservesonlytheinterestsofthepeoplewhomakeandprofitfromthecreationofGMcrops.Itiscrazytoforcelifeformsandourworld'sfoodsupplytoconformtohumaneconomicmodelsratherthantheirnaturalones;wedosoatourownperil.4.GMOsaregatewaycrops.Seemingly“good”GMOsliketheRainbowpapayaand“golden”ricearebeingpushedbytheGMOlobbytoconvincethepublicthatGMOsaregood,andtopavethewayfortheintroductionofmorelucrativeandlessbeneficialcrops.WeopposeeventheseGMOsbecausewebelievethatthesamegoals–providinghealthandnutritiousfoodfortheplanet–isaproblemofpoliticsandwill,andthatthebiggestthreattotheglobalfoodsupplyisthecorporatetakeoverofthemeansoffoodproduction.Questionsforothers1.“Doyouhavefiveminutesfortheenvironment?”2.Forpapayafarmer:HowmuchhaveyouexploredecologicalfarmingmethodsasalternativestoGMOs?OneproblemwithargumentsinfavorofGMOsisthatpeoplesometimesclaimtheyaretheonlywaytosolveproblemsinagriculture,eventhoughalternativesmaynothaveconsidered.3.Forscientist:Doyoureallythinkyoucanstayaheadofthepathogensbycreatingnewvarietieseverytimeresistancearises?Isn’tthatwhatwetriedtodowithantibioticsandbacteria?Lookwherethatgotus.4.ForsupportersofRainbowpapaya:Whydon’tyouworryaboutthereleaseofGMpapayasintothewild?AnswerstocommonquestionsQ:YourcampaignisbasedontheideathatGMOsaredangerous,butsomanyscientistssaytheyaresafe.Doyoureallythinkthey’relying?A:Someofthemarelying–theyarebeingpaidbybigseedcompanies.Butmanyothersjustdon’tknow.Scientistsaregreatatdevelopingnewthings,buttheyarehistoricallybadatassessingtherisksoftheirinventions.MaryShellysawthistwocenturiesagowhenshewroteFrankenstein–thesamethingistruetodaywith“Frankenfoods”.Q:Doyoufindanti-GMOactivismtobehelpfulinfundraising?
26
A:Yes.BecausepeopleareafraidofGMOsanddon’twanttoseethebigmultinationalcorporationsthatpeddlethemgetcontrolofourfoodsupply.Thefactthatthey’rewillingtogiveusmoneytofightthisfightisnotabadthing–itshowsthatpeopleareafraidandrightfullyso.Q:HowcanyoubecategoricallyopposedtoGMOsunderanycircumstances?DoyounotseeasituationwheretheywouldbeOK?A:WedonotbelievethatGMOsareevernecessary—allofthe“solutions”offeredbytoday’sGMcropsarereallysolutionstoproblemsofindustrialagriculture.Ifyouchangefarmingpractices,GMOsbecomeunnecessary.Andgiventhat,theyareneverworththerisk.Q:You’renotfromHawaii.Aren’tyouandotherGreenpeace-typesbeingawfullypaternalisticcominghereandtellingourfarmerswhattheycanandcannotgrow?Isn’tactivist-imperialismjustasbadascorporate-imperialism?A:Iunderstandyourconcern.IgrewuponafarminupstateNewYorkandhateditwhenpeoplecameinandtolduswhattodo.Butit’simportanttounderstandthattheGinGMOstandsasmuchforglobalizationasitdoesgenetics.ThebigseedcompaniesthatmarketandsellGMOsdon’tcareaboutHawaiioranywhereelse.Theywantthewholeworldtobecomeonegiantfarmgrowingcropsthattheytaxataheavyrate.We’reherenottotellyouwhatyoucanandcannotgrow,buttohelpprotectyourrighttochoose.Itmayseemironicthattakingawayonechoiceactuallyhelpsprotectyourfreedom,butinthiscaseitdoes.IfGMOstakeover,youwillhavefewerchoices,notmore.Andoncetheycontroltheseedsupply,they’llmilkeverylastpennyoutoffarmers.So,weareheretohelp,andweareheretoofferresourcesofpeoplefromthemainlandthatwanttohelpprotectHawaiifromcompanieslikeMonsantothatareaproblemeverywhere.BackgroundreadingGreenpeaceonGeneticEngineering(www.bit.ly/greenpeacege).
27
ConventionalfarmerCharacterbackgroundYouliketheconvenienceandeconomicbenefitsofGMcropsbuthaven’tplantedthembecauseyoudon’tgrowcornorsoybeans.NowyoufearthataHawaiibanonGMcropswillmakeitevenharderforyoutocompeteagainstmainlandfarmerswhoalreadybenefitfromlowerfuelandfertilizercosts.Youalsoresentnon-farmerstellingyouhowtofarm.StanceonbanningGMOpapayaOpposedtotheban.Talkingpoints1.GMcropsaregoodforfarmersandtheenvironment.FarmersacrossAmericahaveembracedGMcrops.Forexample,in2013,93percentoftheUSsoybeancropwasmadeupofherbicidetolerantGMOs.Obviously,farmerswouldn’tbechoosingtousethisandotherpopularGMOvarietiesiftheywerebadfortheirbusiness.Arecentstudyprovidedcompellingsupportforthisclaim.Analyzingawiderangeofstudiesoftheyields,chemicaluseandcostsofGMcrops,theauthorsfoundthat:
Onaverage,GMtechnologyhasincreasedcropyieldsby21%.Theseyieldincreasesarenotduetohighergeneticyieldpotential,buttomoreeffectivepestcontrolandthuslowercropdamage.Atthesametime,GMcropshavereducedpesticidequantityby37%andpesticidecostby39%.Theeffectonthecostofproductionisnotsignificant.GMseedsaremoreexpensivethannon-GMseeds,buttheadditionalseedcostsarecompensatedthroughsavingsinchemicalandmechanicalpestcontrol.AverageprofitgainsforGM-adoptingfarmersare69%.(Klümper&Qaim,2014).
It’ssimplynolongerplausibletoargue,asmanyopponentsofGMOsdo,thatGMOsarebadforfarmers.Farmeractionsanddatatelladifferentstory.ItmakesnosensetodenyfarmersthechoicetouseGMcrops,especiallyastheyhaveledtoareductionintheuseofchemicalinputs–somethingallfarmersaspiretodo.2.Hawaii’sfarmersneedGMOs.Althoughmanynon-farmersviewHawaiiasafarmer’sparadise,withyear-roundwarmtemperaturesandamplerainfall,Hawaii’sfarmersfaceaseriesofuniquechallenges.Wearefarfromthemainland,andthushavehighshippingcostsevenfordomesticmarkets.Fuelandlaborcostsarealsohigherthantheyareonthemainlandandwehaveyear-roundproblemswithpestsansplantdiseases,manyofthemimportedfromelsewhere.Ifwe
28
continuetobedeniedaccesstoGMOsthatcanincreaseouryieldsandprofits,wewillsuffer,andHawaiiwillloseitsfarmingcommunity.Questionsforothers1.TothosewhowanttobanGMOpapaya:Ifyouareconcernedaboutpesticidesandherbicides,whydon’tyoubantheminsteadofGMOs?AnswerstocommonquestionsQ:Whydoyoupreferfarmingwithsyntheticpesticidesandherbicideswhenyoucouldbeusingorganicfarmingpracticesthatarebetterfortheplanetandconsumers?A:Peoplemakeahugemistakeinthinkingthatorganicfarmingisnecessarilybetterforthefarmorconsumers.Organicpracticesarejustthat–practices.Organicfarmersusechemicalstoo–theyjustuseonesthataresomewhatarbitrarilydeemed“natural”.Andmanyofthesearemoredangerousthanthe“synthetic”pesticidesIuseonmyfarm.ThebiggestdifferencebetweenanorganicfarmerandmeisthatIhavemoreoptions,andinmycase,Iusetheseoptionscarefully,choosingwaysofmanagingmycropsthatarehealthy.Afterall,Iliveandworkonmyfarm,andmychildrenandIeatthefoodwegrow.Iwantthemtoinheritmyfarm.IfIthoughtorganicfarmingwassaferandbetterI’ddoitinaheartbeat.ButIdon’t.It’samyth.Q:Solongasconventionalfarmersdon'tuseGMOs,youcanco-existprettyeasilywithorganicfarmers.WhyareyousidingwiththeGMOproducers?A:Idon’tcurrentlygrowGMcropsonmyfarm,butIdon’twanttolosetherighttousethistechnologyifIthinkit’sgoodformyfarm,familyandcustomers.Q:Asafarmer,don’tyouwantcontroloveryourownseeds?A:Yes.Idon’tlikewhensomeonetellsmewhatIcanandcannotgrow.ButIalsorealizethatseedcompaniesputalotofmoneyandeffortintogeneratingthesecrops,andsometimesIdon’tmindpayingextraoracceptingrestrictionsiftheseedsarerightforme.Idon’tseewhythisisaGMOquestionthough.Plentyofnon-GMseedsarecoveredbypatentsandcomewith30-pagelicensingcontracts.I’dliketoseethischange,butit’sadifferentquestion.BackgroundreadingKlümperW,QaimM(2014)“AMeta-AnalysisoftheImpactsofGeneticallyModifiedCrops”(www.bit.ly/metaanalysisgmo).PLoSONE9(11):e111629.JennieSchmidtin“Forum:TheTruthAboutGMOs”,BostonReview(www.bit.ly/truthgmos).
29
GMO/organicfarmerCharacterbackgroundYouareamainlandorganicfarmerwhosharesthebeliefwithmanyotherorganicfarmersthatmanyofthechemicalsusedinconventionalfarmingarebadforfarmworkers,thesoil,animalsintheenvironment,andconsumers.Butunlikemostorganicfarmers,youbelievethatthebestwaytoreducechemicalinputsisthroughbiotechnology.
StanceonbanningGMOpapayaTheGMO/organicfarmerseestheRainbowpapayaasaprimeexampleofwhereorganicfarmingcouldbenefitfromtheuseofbiotechnologyduetoitspromisetoreducepesticideuse.Therefore,youareopposedtotheban.RoleindebateTopromotetheideaofanalliancebetweenorganicfarmersandgeneticengineerstoreducetheuseofchemicals.Talkingpoints1.TheRainbowpapayaisanenvironmentalgood.TheRainbowpapayaisexactlythekindofproductthatpeoplewhocareabouttheenvironmentshouldwanttoseemoreof.Priortoitsintroduction,papayafarmerswereforcedtouselargeamountsofpesticidestokilltheaphidsthatspreadPRSV.Nowtheydon’thaveto.Anyonewhoisconcernedabouttheuseofpesticidesshouldseethisasavictory.2.Reducingchemicaluseinfarmingrequiresthebesttechnology.Farmersacrosstheworldrelyonchemicalherbicides,pesticidesandfertilizersbecausetheyarecheapandhighlyeffective.Ifwearegoingtoreduceoreliminatetheiruse,wecan’trelyontraditionalfarmingpractices–wearegoingtohavetousethebesttechnologyatourdisposal,andgeneticmodificationwillbecrucial.ThereisawidelyheldbeliefthatthemostwidelyusedGMOsleadtoincreasesintheuseofchemicals.Butthisisnottrue.Btcornandcottonhaveledtoamassivereductionintheuseofchemicalpesticides,andwhileRoundupReadycropshaveincreasedtheuseoftheherbicideglyphosate,towhichtheyareinsensitive,theyhavereducedtheuseofother,moredangerousherbicides.
30
Wecanwieldbiotechnologytoachievethegoalsoforganicfarming:toreducetheuseofherbicides,pesticidesandfertilizers,whileprotectingtheenvironment.Thebiggestchallengeindoingsoisnottechnological,butsocial.SolongastheorganicmovementremainsopposedtoGMOs,itisblockingoneofthemostimportantpathstowardsitssuccess.3.AllGMOsarenotthesame.It’simportantthatwestoptreatingallGMOsasiftheyarethesamething.EvenstaunchopponentsofGMOslikeMichaelPollenandMarkBittmannowagreethatGMOspersearenotdangerousorbad,butthattheonesthatareonthemarkethavebeenusedtodothingsthattheydon’tthinkarebeneficial.SothechallengenowistocreateGMOsthatareclearlybeneficialtoeveryone,andwhatcouldbebetterthanusingGMOstoenablerealorganicfarming(notwhattheUSDAcurrentlysaysorganicfarmingis)thatcombinestraditionalpracticeswithnewtechnologytomakefarmsandfoodsthataresafeandgoodfortheenvironment.QuestionsforothersToorganicfarmerandotheropponentsofGMcrops:IfsomeonemadeGMcropsthatradicallyreducedtheneedforpesticides,herbicidesorfertilizer,withoutharmingthesoil,wouldyouusethem?Areyousoafraidofnewtechnologythatyouwouldrejectitevenwhenitsbenefitsareclear?Thisisahardsellinsuchapolarizedenvironment,soyourmainjobistotrytonotjustconvincepeoplethatthisisagoodidea,buttotrytoalsoreframethedebate.Trytodothis–movebeyondGMOs.AnswerstocommonquestionsQ:Organicfarmingisaboutdoingthingsnaturally,andGMOsaren’tnatural,sohowcanyoupushthisidea?A:Sorry,butthere’snothingnaturalaboutorganicfarming.Theseedshavebeenbredbyhumansformillennia,andhavebeenimprovedbymodernbreedingtechniques,includingirradiationtoinducemutations,andmarkerassistedbreeding.Manyarehybridsofplantspeciesthatareneverfoundtogetherinnature.Plusthechemicalsusedinorganicfarming,whilenotsynthetic,areextractedfromplantsandtheEarth.Theonlythingthat’sdifferentaboutGMOsisthatthey’renew,andsomepeoplefindthemscary.Q:AreGMOsthebestwaytosolvetheproblemofexcessivechemicaluseonourfarms?A:Thereareotheroptions,ofcourse–includingpolycultureandecologicalfarmingpractices.ButmaybeGMOsarethebestwaytodoit,andiftheyare,weshouldn’tarbitrarilydecidenottotakethatpathjustbecausethetechnologyisunfamiliartopeople
31
andhasbeendemonizedinthemediaandontheInternet.Weshoulddecidewhatkindoffarmswewant–howwewantouragriculturesystemtowork–andweshouldusethebesttoolsinourarsenaltomakeithappen.Idon’tthinkwe’reasfarapartonthisasitseems.Weallhavethesamegoals–asafeandsecurefoodsupplyforeveryoneontheplanet,ahealthyenvironmentandproductive,economicallyviablefarmsthatpreservethelandtheyexiston.BackgroundreadingPamelaRonaldin“Forum:TheTruthaboutGMOs”(www.bit.ly/gmotruthspamronald)inBostonReview.“SolvingtheFoodCrisiswithanUnlikelyAlliance”(www.bit.ly/solvingfoodcrisis).
32
RegulatorCharacterbackgroundYouworkfortheUSFoodandDrugAdministration(FDA),oneofthreefederalagencieschargedwithregulatingthegrowthandsaleofGMOs.YouareheretoexplaintheregulatoryprocessthatGMOsgothrough,andwhytheFDAbelievestheyaresafetogrowandeat.
StanceonbanningGMOpapayaYouhavenoofficialstance.Youareheretoprovideinformation.RoleindebateToexplainregulationsonGMOsandtoanswerquestionsabouttestingthatwascarriedoutfortheRainbowpapayaandotherGMOs.Talkingpoints1.GMOsareheavilyregulatedandtested(notethatthistextisfromtheFDA) Usingascience-basedapproach,theFoodandDrugAdministration(FDA)regulatesfoodsandingredientsmadefromgeneticallyengineeredplantstohelpensurethattheyaresafetoeat.FoodandfoodingredientsderivedfromGEplantsmustadheretothesamesafetyrequirementsundertheFederalFood,Drug,andCosmetic(FD&C)Actthatapplytofoodandfoodingredientsderivedfromtraditionallybredplants.TheFDAencouragesdevelopersofGEplantstoconsultwiththeagencybeforemarketingtheirproducts.Althoughtheconsultationisvoluntary,developersfindithelpfulindeterminingthestepsnecessarytoensurethatfoodproductsmadefromtheirplantsaresafeandotherwiselawful.Thedeveloperproducesasafetyassessment,whichincludestheidentificationofdistinguishingattributesofnewgenetictraits,whetheranynewmaterialinfoodmadefromtheGEplantcouldbetoxicorallergenicwheneaten,andacomparisonofthelevelsofnutrientsintheGEplanttotraditionallybredplants.FDAscientistsevaluatethesafetyassessmentandalsoreviewrelevantdataandinformationthatarepubliclyavailableinpublishedscientificliteratureandtheagency'sownrecords.TheconsultationiscompleteonlywhentheFDA'steamofscientistsissatisfiedwiththedeveloper’ssafetyassessmentandhasnofurtherquestionsregardingsafetyorotherregulatoryissues.
33
AsofJanuary2015,theFDAhascompleted158consultationsongeneticallyengineeredcrops(acompletelistofallcompletedconsultationsandourresponsesareavailableatwww.bit.ly/fdabioconincludingtheRainbowpapaya(www.bit.ly/fdabioconpapaya).2.TheprocessfortheregulationofRainbowpapaya:Briefly,Dr.RichardManshardtoftheUniversityofHawaiiandDr.DennisGonsalvesofCornellUniversityinitiallyconsultedwiththeFDAregardingthisproductinDecember1994.OnJanuary3,1997,theysubmittedasafetyandnutritionalassessmentoftheirtransgenicvirusresistantpapayaline55-1,followedbyadditionalinformationregardingthesafetyandnutritionalassessmentoftheirpapayaline55-1onJuly25,1997.TheyusedstandardmolecularbiologytechniquestoshowthattheeventthatledtotheSunUpandRainbowpapayainvolvedthetransferofthePRSVcoatproteingene,thebeta-glucuronidasegene,andageneconferringresistancetotheantibiotickanamycin.Studieshaveraisedthepossibilitythatacompound-benzylisothiocyanate(BITC)–foundinpapayalatexmayhaveadversehealtheffectswhenconsumedbyhumansandmightberesponsibleforhighratesofcancerandspontaneousabortionsreportedinpapayaconsumers.However,submissionbytheapplicantsshowedthatBITClevelswerethesameinline55-1asinconventionalpapaya.ThepapayadevelopersconductedcompositionalanalysesonthefruitoftheirtransgenicpapayaandcontrolpapayaplantsfortotalsolublesolidsandvitaminsAandCfindingthetransgenicfruitwereequivalenttoconventionalvarieties.Thereportconcludedthat,“Thedevelopersofthetransgenicpapayahaveconcluded,inessence,thatthePRSVresistantpapayatheyhavedevelopedisnotmateriallydifferent,intermsoffoodsafetyandnutritionalprofile,fromred-pigmentedpapayavarietieswithahistoryofsafeuse.”ThereviewprocessfortheRainbowpapayawascompletedinSeptember1997,priortotheintroductionofthecropontothemarket.Here,youcanreadtheFDAletter(www.bit.ly/fdaletter)andamoredetailedsummaryofourassessment(www.bit.ly/fdaassessment).3.Additionalsafetystudies:SubsequenttoapprovalbytheUSFDA,theRainbowpapayahasbeenapprovedforhumanconsumptioninCanadaandJapan.ThereviewinJapanwasextensive,withsignificantindependentanalysisandpubliccomment(anaccountofthisreviewisavailablehere(http://bit.ly/1NZ8PBc)inJapanese–theportionofthesereviewfocusedonrisktobiodiversity,butcontaininginformationonotherrisksevaluated,isavailableinEnglishhere(http://bit.ly/1K2K1aM).
34
QuestionsforothersNone.Youareheretoanswerquestionsnotaskthem.AnswerstocommonquestionsQ:TheFDAreliesoninformationprovidedbythecompaniesthatmarketGMOs.Whyshouldwetrustthem?A:TheFDAreliesoninformationprovidedbythemanufacturersofmostoftheproductsweregulate.Ourscientistsworktoensurethattheinformationisaccurateandhonest,andweengageinconsiderablefeedbackwiththeapplicants.Wealsoincludeanyinformationavailableinthescientificliteraturethatwefeelisrelevant,andmonitorinformationasitbecomesavailableafterapprovaltoseeifourassessmentneedstobereconsidered.Q:HaveyoueverturneddownapotentialGMO?A:No.However,notallproposalshaveadvancedtothefinalstage.Forexample,asoybeanmodifiedtocontainaproteinfromtheBrazilnutwasshownduringstudiesconductedaspartoftheGRAS(“GenerallyRegardedAsSafe”)processtocontainaBrazilnutallergen,andtheproducervoluntarilywithdrewtheproduct.Q:WhatabouttherevolvingdoorbetweentheFDAandthecompaniesyouregulate?A:Itisnotunusualforexpertswhoworkinindustrytoengageinpublicservice.BackgroundreadingRegulationofGMOsinUnitedStates(www.bit.ly/usgmoregulation).
35
Councilchair
Specialnoteoncouncilchair
Theroleofthecouncilchairinthiscasestudyistoactasamoderatorforthediscussionanddebate,toensurethatquestionsaredirectedtotheappropriatepersonandthatthediscussionanddebatedonotgetsidetrackedorboggeddowninacrimony.
Thepersonassignedtothecouncilchairroleshouldtakeextracaretofamiliarizethemselveswiththebackgroundandargumentsfromallsidespriortothediscussion.Thecouncilchairshouldenterthediscussionanddebateasaneutralobserverinterestedingettingtothebottomoftheissue.Whensomeoneraisesanissue,thechairshouldselectthebestspeakertoanswerit.Whensomeonemakesapoint,thechairwillidentifythebestpersontocounterit.Thechairshouldviewhisorherselfasonthesideoftruth.
Toprepareforthisrole,thecouncilchairshouldcarefullyread“OnHawaii,alonelyquestforfactsaboutGMOs”(www.bit.ly/questforfacts),andimaginethemselvesasthecitycouncilmemberatthecenterofthestory(GregorIlagan)—althoughoneshouldnotfeelobligatedtoreachthesameconclusionhedid.
