Mandy Hagan - Advancing Technologies to Feed 9 Billion
37
www.gmaonline.org Advancing Technologies to Feed 9 Billion Mandy Hagan Vice President, State Affairs and Grassroots Grocery Manufacturers Association Animal Agriculture Alliance Stakeholders Summit May 6, 2015
Transcript of Mandy Hagan - Advancing Technologies to Feed 9 Billion
www.gmaonline.org
Advancing Technologies to Feed 9 Billion
Mandy HaganVice President, State Affairs and Grassroots
Grocery Manufacturers Association
Animal Agriculture Alliance Stakeholders SummitMay 6, 2015
www.gmaonline.org
Grocery Manufacturers Association
Voice of more than 300 leading food, beverage and consumer product companies
Founded in 1908
GMA and our member companies are committed to meeting the needs of consumers through product innovation, responsible business practices and effective public policy solutions developed through a genuine partnership with policymakers and other stakeholders
GMA helps members produce safe products through a strong and ongoing commitment to scientific research, testing, and evaluation; and to providing consumers with the products, tools and information they need to achieve a healthy diet and an active lifestyle
The food, beverage and consumer packaged goods industry in the United States generates sales of $2.1 trillion annually, employs 1.4 million workers and contributes $1 trillion in added value to the economy every year.
www.gmaonline.org
Q: Feeding 9 billion: Is there a problem here?
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food
www.gmaonline.org
A: Only if you want to eat
More people: By 2050, global population will grow to greater than nine billion, more than two billion additional people compared to today
Finite resources:
The UN estimates that by 2030 the world will need 30% more fresh water and 50% more energy; by 2050 we will need 70% more food
Higher costs: The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) projects a rise in food prices of most cereals and meats, reversing long-established downward trends.
Between 2005 and 2050:
Maize up 104%Rice up 79%Wheat up 88%
Beef up 32%Pork up 70%Poultry up 77%
www.gmaonline.org
Q: Can biotechnology help?
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food
www.gmaonline.org
A. It already has
“A new 2014 global meta-analysis of 147 studies confirmed significant benefits during the last 20 years.
On average, GM technology adoption has: Reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%,
Increased crop yields by 22%,
Increased farmer profits by 68%
In 2013 alone reduced CO2 emissions by 28 billion kg, equivalent to taking 12.4 million cars off the road for one year;
Helped alleviate poverty for >16.5 million small farmers and their families totaling >65 million people, who are some of the poorest people in the world.”
ISAAA Brief 49-2014
www.gmaonline.org
A. It already has
GM crops are allowing farmers to grow more without using additional land. If crop biotechnology had not been available to the 17.3 million farmers using the technology in 2012, maintaining global production levels at the 2012 levels would have required additional plantings of:
• 12 million acres of soybeans, • 17 million acres of corn, • 7.6 million acres of cotton and • 0.5 million acres of canola.
GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2012, Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot, PG Economics Ltd, UK May 2014
www.gmaonline.org
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food
www.gmaonline.org
Q: But is it safe?
www.gmaonline.org
A: YES!
The first major scientific study into the safety of GE was issued by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 1982), titled Biotechnology, International trends and perspectives. It set the stage for a subsequent major report in 1986 titled “Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations” and informally known as the OECD “Blue Book,” (OECD, 1986) this report became influential internationally in establishing safety regulations for GE activities.
The National Academy of Sciences conducted a similar study and issued their recommendations to the federal government for GE risk-assessment strategies in the United States (NRC, 1983).
Declaration of Dr. Alan McHughen
www.gmaonline.org
A: YES!
In the early 2000s, the U.S. National Academy of Science and the U.S. Institute of Medicine conducted a study into the safety of genetically engineered foods, including a comparison of risks associated with several traditional and genetic engineering methods of plant breeding.
The NAS panel found that all breeding methods can potentially result in unexpected effects (“There is no such thing as zero risk”), and more importantly, that there is no scientific basis for distinguishing the risks associated with “GE” methods from non-GE methods of breeding.
They are equally safe.
Declaration of Dr. Alan McHughen
www.gmaonline.org
A: YES!
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): “…contrary to popular misconceptions, GM [genetically modified] crops are the most extensively tested crops ever added to our food supply. There are occasional claims that feeding GM foods to animals causes aberrations ranging from digestive disorders, to sterility, tumors and premature death. Although such claims are often sensationalized and receive a great deal of media attention, none have stood up to rigorous scientific scrutiny.... the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” (2012)
www.gmaonline.org
American Medical Association: “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.” (2012)
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food
www.gmaonline.org
A: YES!
World Health Organization: “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.” (2013)
The European Commission: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” (2010)
www.gmaonline.org
American Society for Cell Biology: “Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.” 2014
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food
www.gmaonline.org
Where does concern come from?
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food
www.gmaonline.org
Where does concern come from?
“Those who oppose GE technology challenge this clear consensus based on contrary opinions from amateur newsletters and non-peer-reviewed, non-professional, non-credentialed groups.
For example, many opponents rely on the work of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER). However, ENSSER was established only a few years ago (2009), apparently for the purpose of opposing biotechnology.
It has none of the features associated with bona fide professional scientific societies: it does not publish a peer-reviewed academic journal, and has a tiny membership, composed of a eclectic group of people with varying credentials, few of which are directly related to genetics, agriculture or biosafety.
The one aspect they seem to share is opposition to biotechnology. This is not a foundation for objective, analytical science.” Declaration of Dr. Alan McHughen
www.gmaonline.org
Where does concern come from?
“In 2012, a French group published a peer-reviewed paper purporting to show adverse health effects on rats fed with GE grain (Seralini et al., 2012). This paper quickly became the banner for anti-GE crop and food groups worldwide to show previously undocumented hazards with GE crops and foods.
However, this study was retracted by the publisher after the worldwide scientific community complained the study was fraught with fatal flaws, including using a tumor-prone strain of rat, too few animals in each treatment, incorrect scientific protocol for the type of test conducted, incorrect statistical analysis, ethical violations of allowing animal suffering, and the authors’ refusal to release the full data set .” Declaration of Dr. Alan McHughen
www.gmaonline.org
Where does concern come from?
“More recently, the publisher of Environmental Sciences Europe (ESEU) decided to reprint, without peer review, the retracted Seralini paper in order to allow public access for debate.
The original criticisms remained outstanding, however, including the use of too few rats per treatment to yield meaningful results, the use of a strain of rat prone to developing tumors regardless of food or other treatment, using obscure statistical tests when standard statistics showed no significant differences between the treatments, and failure to provide full data.
Every scientific society worldwide that has investigated the paper’s claims rejected them, including the European Union’s own government sponsored EFSA (European Food Safety Agency).” Declaration of Dr. Alan McHughen
www.gmaonline.org
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food
www.gmaonline.org
They’re safe…so what ARE they?
“Genetic engineering” typically refers to the use of recombinant DNA (rDNA) techniques to transfer particular genes from one organism into the genome of another so that the second organism expresses a desired trait.
Over the past two decades, crop scientists have used genetic engineering to create hardier varieties of popular staple food crops.
These varieties are commercially popular:
In 2014, 93% of the corn, 94% of the soybeans, and 96% of the cotton
planted in the United States were from genetically engineered varieties.
Declaration of Dr. Alan McHughen
www.gmaonline.org
How are they regulated?
The federal government regulates agricultural crops in the United States through a web of statutory schemes, including:
Federal Plant Protection Act (PPA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 7701-7772Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C.§§ 136-136y
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 301, et seq.;
Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 601, et seq.
Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 451, et seq.
Food labeling is subject to detailed regulation and oversightunder the FFDCA, FMIA, PPIA, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), 21 U.S.C. § 343-1, and the Organic Foods Production Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6522.
www.gmaonline.org
How are they regulated?
Under these numerous statutes, four federal agencies share principal authority over food crops:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates to prevent the spread of plant pests and diseases under the PPA; The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversees regulates pesticides under FIFRA and sets levels of pesticide tolerance in foods under the FFDCA;
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates food safety and labeling under the FFDCA and NLEA;
The USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) regulates the safety and labeling of foods, including those with plant-based ingredients, that are produced at meat and poultry processing facilities, pursuant to the FMIA and PPIA.
www.gmaonline.org
How are they regulated?
FDA’s policy is well established:
From the beginning, the agency has emphasized that its regulations must be based on the rational and scientific evaluation of products, not on assumptions about certain processes or on generic concerns about biotechnology.
ON AVERAGE, FIRST SUBMISSION TO FINAL APPROVAL CAN TAKE 8-10 YEARS AND COST up to $100M
www.gmaonline.org
Little Known Facts:
The first GM product commercialized was insulin in 1982.
The first GM food product in the United States was chymosin, approved by the FDA in 1990, two years after it was approved in the United Kingdom.
Some strict vegetarians allow themselves cheese made with chymosin, as it replaces rennin from cattle, goats and other animals.
Currently, over 90% of US cheese is made with GM chymosin
Declaration of Dr. Alan McHughen
One of the earliest and most successful uses of GM in agriculture was the development of papaya with resistance to the papaya ringspot virus (PRSV).
www.gmaonline.org
Why not label anyway?
www.gmaonline.org
Why not label anyway?
A GMO label, other than a claim of absence, is meaningless.
It won’t tell you what ingredient is GM
It won’t tell you what trait was expressed
GMO sucrose Conventional sucrose Organic sucrose
www.gmaonline.org
Little Known Facts:
Processing to produce ingredients like refined oils, starches, and sugars ordinarily removes or degrades the DNA and proteins. In highly refined or purified ingredients, even the most sensitive analytical techniques available to detect DNA or protein cannot reliably or consistently detect the presence of a GE crop.
The sucrose produced by GE sugarbeets is chemically identical to the sucrose produced by non-GE sugarbeets and, for that matter, to sucrose from sugarcane. There is no DNA or protein present in sucrose, whether derived from GE or non-GE plants. Thus, there is no means to independently or reliably distinguish the product of the GE sugarbeet plant from the others, even using the most powerful and sensitive laboratory tests.
Declaration of Dr. Alan McHughen
www.gmaonline.org
Mandatory Labeling
Adds $500 per year per average family in grocery costs
Impossible for manufacturers to comply with a patchwork of labeling requirements
Riddled with exemptions: restaurants, alcohol, enzymes
Meat and dairy from animals fed GM feed
Starches, sugars, and oils that do not contain genetic material (no protein)
Insulin
Vaccines
www.gmaonline.org
Where would labeling begin and end?
“Naturally” GM sweet potatoes-Should they be labeled? “Sweet potatoes contain bacterial genes says a study, showing the plant as yet another species exhibiting natural genetic modification. Researchers from UGent and the International Potato Institute (CIP) discovered genes from the bacterium Agrobacterium in the sweet potato when they were sequencing the plant for viral diseases . . . Prof Lieve Gheysen, one of the researchers involved: "The natural presence of Agrobacterium T-DNA in sweet potato and its stable inheritance during evolution is a beautiful example of the possibility of DNA exchange across species barriers. It demonstrates that genetic modification also happens in nature. In comparison to "natural" GMOs, that are beyond our control, human-made GMOs have the advantage that we know exactly which characteristic we add to the plant.“
International Business Times, April 22, 2015
www.gmaonline.org
Where would labeling begin and end?
“Naturally” herbicide resistant sunflowers-Should they be labeled? Native sunflowers discovered In 1996 in a field of soybeans that were able to tolerate a class of weedkillers known as "ALS inhibitors." This line of soybeans had been created through "mutation breeding”-exposing thousands of seeds to chemicals that cause genetic mutations.
The farmer contacted a researcher who collected some of the surviving weeds, tested them, and confirmed that these sunflowers were indeed resistant to ALS inhibitor herbicides.
Researchers were able to get these wild sunflowers to exchange pollen and produce offspring with cultivated sunflowers. Today, commercial sunflowers all over the world contain this genetic trait, and many sunflower growers rely heavily on ALS inhibitors to control their weeds.
Dan Charles, NPR, March 12, 2012
www.gmaonline.org
Our Fear: Loss of the Technology
The Case of the GM Sugar Beet in Europe
In 2007, GM herbicide-tolerant sugar beet was commercialised in the USA and Canada. The speed of uptake by farmers was unprecedented, with an adoption rate of 95% within two years. Analysis suggests that adoption has been economically sound for farmers and has high potential to reduce the environmental impact of sugar beet production.
An application for cultivation of GM sugar beet was originally submitted in the EU in 2000. A decision is still pending.
EASAC policy report June 21 2013
www.gmaonline.org
Benefits that Would be Lost:
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food
www.gmaonline.org
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food
www.gmaonline.org
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food
www.gmaonline.org
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food
www.gmaonline.org
Questions?
Mandy N. Hagan, Esq.
Vice President
State Affairs and Grassroots
1350 I Street NW, Suite 300
Washington DC 20005
ph 202-295-3974
fx 202-637-8476
www.gmaonline.org
