a consumer perspective on biotech foods (gregory jaffe, j.d.)

8/7/2019 A Consumer Perspective on Biotech Foods (Gregory Jaffe, J.D.)

1/30

A Consumer Perspective on

Biotech Foods

Gregory Jaffe

Director, Biotechnology Project

Center for Science in the Public Interest

October 7, 2004


2/30

Center for Science in the Public

Interest (CSPI) Food and nutrition consumer organization.

Nutrition Action Healthletter.

No government or industry funding.


3/30

CSPIs Biotechnology Project

Purpose Identifying benefits and risks

Establishing strong regulatory systems in US and abroad

Educating and informing the public

Positions Current crops in US appear safe to eat and environmental risks

are manageable

Some benefits from current crops

Future products need to be assessed individually

Regulatory systems in US and abroad need strengthening toaddress next generation of products


4/30


5/30

Current GE Crops

Crops: primarily corn, cotton, canola, andsoybeans

Traits: built-in pesticide or resistance toan herbicide.

Countries grown: United States,Argentina, Canada and China

67 million hectares and 7 million farmers In Africa, South Africa grows 400,000

hectares of GE corn and cotton


6/30

Beneficial Products?

Environmental Benefits

Less insecticide use

Less harm to wildlife

Less soil erosion and water pollution

Less harmful chemicals

Comparison to organic agriculture

Farmer Benefits

Consumer Benefits?

NEED TO EXPLAIN BENEFITS TO PUBLIC


7/30

Potential Food-Safety Risks from

Biotech Foods Allergenicity

Toxicity

Unintended Effects Toxicants and anti-nutrients

Compositional Equivalence

Comparison of conventional and biotech food


8/30

Potential Environmental Risks

Gene Flow

Wild relatives

Native land races (center of origin,biodiversity)

Superweeds

Harm to non-targets

Insect resistance


9/30

Social, Economic and Ethical

Concerns International trade

Impact on small farmers

Reliance on multinational corporations Intellectual property concerns

Effect on other farmers (e.g. organic

growers)


10/30

Safe Biotech Food

New foods tested before marketed

Independent agency determination that

food is safe Mandatory regulatory system

Government oversight of companies

marketing the new food Equity in treatment of products


11/30

Government Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods

0

5

10

15

2025

30

35

Too much Too Little Right

Amount

Don't

Know/No

Opinion

Source: http://pewagbiotech.org/research/2003update/2003topline.pdf


12/30

FDA Biotech Food

Safety Policy -- Plants Food, not process

Not food additives

Voluntary consultation everyone has complied

substantial equivalence


13/30

Problems with Current

FDA Policy -- Plants Voluntary

Developer-driven scientific data

Not a comprehensive scientific review (See

CSPI Report Plugging Holes in the Biotech

Safety Net)

No further questions at this time response

Future biotech products will need additionalscrutiny

Proposed mandatory pre-market notice


14/30

Advantages of Mandatory Approval

System FDA checks industry and shares responsibility

for safety

Conforms process to EPA process for pesticidal

plants and FDAs process for GE animals

Treats Americans the same as Europeans,

Canadians, and South Americans

Not more burdensome than FDA proposedprocess


15/30

Com anies s ould be encouraged, but not required, to let t e F

revie data regarding t e safety of a GM food before t at roduct

goes on t e market

4

tronglygree

otstrongly

gree

ottrongly

isagree

tronglyisagree

on tno o

inion

ource: tt : e agbiotec .org researc u date to line. df


16/30

Com anies s ould be required to submit safety data to t e F

for revie , and no genetically modified food s ould be allo ed on

t e market until t e F determines it is safe

6

7

8

trongly

gree

trongly

isagree

on't

no

ource: tt : e agbiotec .org researc u date to line. df


17/30

Willingness to eat GM Foods if the Federal Government

made it mandatory for FDA to approve all GM Foods before

they enter the market place

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

More Willi ess Willi o i erence Don't

Know ot

Sure


18/30

CSPIs Proposal for

Approval at FDA Mandatory, transparent process

completed before marketing

Specific data requirements and testingguidance


19/30

FDA Approves Transgenic Animals

Behind Closed Doors Treated as animal drugs under Section

512 of the FFDCA.

Reviewed for human and animal safety Mandatory premarket approval

Process is NOTTransparent

Process is NOT Participatory Result: No public trust in decision


20/30


21/30

Regulatory System Lacks Adequate

Measures to Ensure Environmental Safety

FDA lacks authority to address environmental

concerns of transgenic animals

USDA does not conduct environmental

assessments prior to release for many crops

Environmental assessments conducted by

USDA are inadequate

USDA has no authority over commercialproducts that have obtained nonregulated

status


22/30

Oversight and Adherence to

Permits

StarLink

Violations of EPA permits by Pioneer and Dowfor Bt corn rootworm trials in 2002

Prodigene violations U. Of Illinois transgenic pig violations

Approximately 60 USDA permit violationsbetween 1995 and 2000

Bt corn insect resistance management (SeeCSPI Report Planting Trouble: Are FarmersSquandering Bt Corn Technology?


23/30

Enforcement

Do the agencies have the will and

resources to oversee the industry and

punish the bad actors?


24/30

The Re-emergence of Biopharming

CSPI Report: Sowing Secrecy: TheBiotech Industry, USDA, and AmericasSecret Pharm Belt.

16 applications for 2004 (6 in corn, 5 intobacco)

States covered: CA, TX, AZ, WA, IA, MO,

NE, KY, SC Both field trials and commercial

applications


25/30

What About Pharming Using

Food Crops? USDA regulations are inadquate Federal food law only covers products intended

for use as food or feed

Current federal biotech crops policy is voluntary

consultation

Recent federal policies dont adequately cover

those crops OSTP proposals

FDA/USDA guidance

Recent USDA permit conditions (March 10, 2003)


26/30


27/30

Transgenic Animals

Extremely controversial

Current confidential nature of regulation

will be viewed very negatively by public More than issues of safety ethical,

social, and religious issues

Potential to harm crop biotechnology


28/30

Education and Information

Need education on biotechnology

Need education on agriculture

Need education on the food we currentlyeat and how it is produced

Need information about the benefits of

biotech foods Need to know which specific foods are

biotech


29/30

Conclusions

Agricultural Biotechnology is one tool to moveagriculture forward

Need strong regulatory system to safeguardhuman health and the environment

Transparency and public participation areessential

Must have consumer trust in regulatory processto achieve consumer confidence in the marketed

products Risks to eating current biotech foods are

extremely small


30/30

Gregory Jaffe, Director

CSPI Biotechnology Project

Website:

www.cspinet.org/biotech/E-mail address:

[email protected]

a consumer perspective on biotech foods (gregory jaffe, j.d.)

Documents