Potential Concerns of Different Stakeholders to Genetically Engineered Specialty Crops

Transcription

1 Potential Concerns of Different Stakeholders to Genetically Engineered Specialty Crops Gregory Jaffe Director, Biotechnology Project Center for Science in the Public Interest June 4, 2013

2 Summary of my Presentation Concerns of different stakeholders to GE specialty crops Specific scientific concerns to individual crops General concerns to all GE varieties CSPI s view on moving GE specialty crops forward Conclusions

3 Different Stakeholder Concerns with GE Specialty Crops

4 Product-Specific Concerns Surprisingly, not many related to specialty crops Examples of scientific concerns to GE plum and GE apple

5 Virus-Resistant Plum Organic Consumers Association: concern about genetic stability of the inserted genes; potential effects on bees and other pollinators; no short-term or long-term safety testing or feeding trials for toxicity and other effects. Sierra Club: potential harm to local bee communities; potential for recombination of viruses to create new viral forms; safety of eating viral proteins

6 GE Apple -- Concerns from Center for Food Safety Changes in resistance to pests and pathogens caused by suppression of PPOs; Changes in susceptibility of cut and packaged apple slices to food-borne disease organisms; Nutritional changes in cut apple slices under various storage and packaging scenarios;

7 Generic Concerns

8 Center for Food Safety For food safety: What are the new unexpected effects and health risks posed by genetic engineering? Toxicity Allergic reactions Antibiotic resistance Immuno-suppression Cancer Loss of nutrition

9 Food and Water Watch Report: Genetically Engineered Foods: An Overview. Genetic contamination is a serious threat to the livelihoods of non-ge and organic farmers who bear the financial burden of these incidents The environmental effects of GE crops can include intensified agrochemical use and pollution, increased weed and insect resistance to herbicides and pesticides, and gene flow between GE and non-ge crops

10 Food and Water Watch (cont.) The Roundup Ready trait lowers the nutritional content of crops by inhibiting the absorption of nutrients, including calcium, iron, magnesium and zinc, making the plants more susceptible to disease.

11 Precedent (opening the floodgates) This is simply a Trojan horse, to get more GE foods and crops on the market. Organic Consumer Association: The approval of GE plums would be a precedent setting step by USDA, opening the floodgates for more GE trees including fruit, nut, ornamental, and paper-pulp species, as well as trees engineered for soil remediation, and other traits.

12 Contamination Sierra Club: The organic and conventional plum markets in the US will quickly be threatened by the first GE plum tree that will contaminate organic and conventional plum orchards once it is approved Friends of the Earth and Food and Water Watch: There could be significant economic impacts to conventional and organic orchards if their apples are contaminated by GE apples

13 Mandatory GE Labeling Vocal movement in numerous states around the country Right to know Food safety concerns If beneficial, why hide? Issue could be greater for specialty crops than corn or soybeans

14 Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act Introduced by Senator Boxer and Congressman DeFazio on April 24, 2013 Require labeling for whole foods and processed foods, including fish and seafood Senator Boxer: Americans have the right to know what is in the food they eat so they can make the best choices for their families. This legislation is supported by a broad coalition of consumer groups, businesses, farmers, fishermen and parents who all agree that consumers deserve more not less information about the food they buy.

15 Map of State-Level GE Food Labeling Bills State Key = GE Food Labeling Bill(s) proposed = GE Food Labeling Bill(s) proposed and approved

16 CSPI s View on Moving GE Specialty Crops Forward

17 Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) Food and nutrition consumer organization. Nutrition Action Healthletter 900,000 subscribers in US and Canada. No government or industry funding. Advocacy and education based on the best available scientific evidence

18 CSPI Biotechnology Project s Positions Current crops in the US are safe to eat Some benefits from some crops Products need to be assessed on a case by case basis Functional biosafety regulatory systems that ensure safety and allow safe products to be marketed are essential

19 Issue #1: Comprehensive Federal regulation and oversight that ensures consumers that GE crops are safe to eat and safe for the environment

20 Comprehensive Federal Oversight FDA statement that GE crop variety is safe Full review by USDA with necessary NEPA environmental analysis Ensure appropriate risk management ( stewardship )

21 FDA and Approval of New Foods Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act Approval of Food Additives unless Generally Recognized as Safe. Most new foods are GRAS FDA 1992 Policy on GE Plants Voluntary consultation substantial equivalence Everyone has complied

22 FDA regulation of GE plants Food safety is critical issues for consumers Current policy of a voluntary consultation is not sufficient Reviews are not comprehensive Response of no questions at this time is inadequate need FDA safety determination Not consistent with how other countries ensure food safety nor how environmental issues are addressed Needs to be updated to a mandatory pre-market approval process.

23 Legislative Solution to Enhance Regulatory System Genetically Engineered Foods Act (S. 2546) introduced by Senator Durbin (IL) in June, 2004 Sets up transparent, open approval process for biotech crops and animals Requires a premarket food-safety approval process for any engineered food crop (includes pharming ) Clarifies legal authority to approve transgenic animals and ensure environmental safety Does not change safety standard or data requirements Result: Comprehensive regulatory system that will ensure safety and give consumers confidence in the federal government s oversight.

24 USDA Decision on GE Kentucky Blue Grass Scotts request applicability determination of regulatory status of GE (glyphosate tolerant) blue grass (2010) The donor, recipient, and the vector are not plant pests USDA Decision in July 2011: not regulated under biotech regulations. USDA letter to company: ensure stewardship in testing and commercial development; talk to other stakeholders; address gene flow issues to non-ge blue grass

25 USDA Needs to Do its Job Well Glyphosate-tolerant alfalfa Glyphosate-tolerant sugar beets 2,4 D and Dicamba tolerant crops Make sure USDA does its job Assess environmental impacts; avoid litigation Smooth transition to market

26 Ensure Appropriate Risk Management ( Stewardship ) Evidence of resistant corn rootworms Evidence of glyphosate resistant weeds Poor stewardship by some farmers and some biotech companies As appropriate, commercial use of GE specialty crops needs to include: Insect resistance management Integrated weed management

27 Issue #2: Anticipate and Address Customer and Consumer Acceptance

28 Market Acceptance Educate, inform and listen to: Farmers and farmer organizations Food chain actors, including grocery stores Press, regulators, and politicians

29 Coexistence The concurrent cultivation of biotech, organic, and non-biotech varieties of the same crop Biology of the crop Agricultural production system Requires setting up appropriate processes in the food chain Could be a big issue depending on the crop Important to put in place procedures to have a segregated seed supply

30 Transparency Right to Know Not mandatory GE labeling BUT Consumer access to information about whether their product is genetically engineered Information about benefits Information about production process

31 To download Straight Talk visit: df/biotech-faq.pdf

32 To read the full article in The Atlantic, visit: hat-you-need-to-knowabout-geneticallyengineered-foodthe_atlantic-feb-2013.pdf

33 Conclusions Strong but not stifling regulation is necessary to assure consumers and food chain Beneficial product and education around those benefits Transparency but not necessarily mandatory labeling Address product-specific scientific concerns; be aware of general concerns related to all GE crops

34 Gregory Jaffe, Director CSPI Biotechnology Project Website: address: