Understanding the Food Fight Around
Genetically Modified Foods
Gregory Jaffe
Director, Biotechnology Project
Center for Science in the Public Interest
February 29, 2016
Summary of my presentation
• Background on CSPI and its Biotechnology Project
• Creating a Genetically Engineered Crop
• Facts about GE
• Issues Around GE in the U.S.– Federal oversight
– Resistant weeds and pests
– Coexistence
– labeling
• Marketing issues
• Conclusions
Center for Science in the Public
Interest -- Background
• Food and Nutrition consumer organization
– more than 40 years old
• Advocacy and education based on the
best available scientific evidence
• Called “Food Police”
CSPI (cont.)
• Nutrition Action Healthletter -- 800,000
subscribers in US and Canada
– Useful health and nutrition information to
consumers
– Ranking of products
– recipes
• No funding from industry or government
Sugar-Sweetened
Beverage
Reduction
Advocacy
Liquid Candy 2005
http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/liquid_candy_final_w_ne
w_supplement.pdf
Sodium Reduction
Advocacy
Salt Assault 2013
http://cspinet.org/salt/Salt-Assault-3rd-Edition.pdf
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
Background on GE Crops
Creating a Genetically Engineered
Organism
Genetic engineering allows scientists to move
beneficial traits from one organism to another in
a precise way.– Find a gene of interest
– Insert the gene into the DNA of a plant or animal cell
– Select for cell with insertion
– Bred the plant or animal normally
Terminology – Genetically Engineered Organism =
Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)= Living Modified
Organism (LMO)
1. Scientists find a bacterium in
soil that naturally contains a
protein that kills insect pests that
feeds on corn plants. They
extract from the bacteria’s DNA
the segment, or gene, that makes
the toxic protein.
2. They use a gene gun to shoot
copies of the segment into the
nucleus of corn cells. They grow
the cells into plants, harvest the
seeds from the plants, and grow
the seeds into new corn plants.
3. Every cell in the new corn
plants—and in their offspring—is
now programmed to make the
toxic protein, which kills the
insect pests when they try to eat
the plants.
Shea, Kelly. “The ABCs of GMOs.” The Seattle Times. 10 August 2013. http://seattletimes.com/flatpages/local/abcsofgmos.html
Creating the GMO in the laboratory
Laboratory experiments – growing the
crop in the laboratory or a greenhouse
Confined field trials
Unconfined field trials
Commercial release
GMOs – the Development Process
Creating Varieties of Agricultural Plants
and Animals
• Conventional breeding
– Crossing of two varieties with useful characteristics
– Hybrids
– Tissue culture
– cloning
– Chemical mutagenesis
– Irradiation
– In vitro fertilization
– Artificial insemination
Has Anyone Eaten These Fruits?
Rio Red Grapefruit
http://www.wasatchorganics.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/WO_RioRedImage1sm.jpg
Gold NijisseikiPear
http://media.growsonyou.com/photos/products/55112.jpg
Using Radiation to Create Mutant Varieties of Plants
Gamma Rays X Rays
Pluots• NOT “genetically
modified”
• Hybrid: generally 75%
plum, 25% apricot
• 46 genetic varieties
developed and bred by
Zaiger Genetics,
including Apriums,
Nectaplums, and Pluots
Hybridization Example: Plum x Pluot
“Father” Tree:
PlumWhen the blossoms are
just opening to reveal the
pistil, they are picked,
ground up, and dried. This
is the pollen that will be
used to manually pollinate
the “Mother” tree.
“Mother” Tree: PluotAll blossoms are emasculated: everything but the pistil is stripped from the flower by pinching the blossom at the base with tweezers.
Manual PollinationThe pollen from the “Father” tree is dusted
onto every emasculated blossom of the
“Mother” tree in a greenhouse using a
mascara brush. The resulting fruits’ pits have
the hybridized genetic code. When the fruit
matures, the pit is extracted and planted.
After the seedlings mature, their branches are
cut off and grafted onto full-grown disease-
resistant rootstock.
Harvesting
the FruitThe new trees are
monitored and
repeatedly
evaluated. They will
bear fruit 5–7 years
after the cross has
been made. The fruit
will be a new pluot
variety.
How your food
would look if it
hadn’t been
genetically
modified over
millennia
http://gawker.com/is-the-gmo-labeling-
movement-just-a-long-con-to-get-you-
1699015048
Foreign DNA
inserted with
agrobacterium
or gene gun
Transformation
with DNA from
the same type
of plant
Targeted gene
addition of
foreign DNA
ZFN-1 & ZFN-2
TALENs
CRISPR
“Traditional”
breeding
Chemicals, X-
Rays, Gamma
Rays
“Traditional”
breeding
Cross-
breeding
different
varieties of
crops• Breeding Method
• Trait
• Level of Knowledge
• “natural”
Facts About GE Crops
Current Status of Genetically Engineered
Crops
• Grown in 28 countries around the world by over 18 million farmers – 448 million acres in 2014
• Largest in acreage – US (181 million acres)
• Largest in terms of farmers – India and China – 14.8 million farmers
• Types of products – corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa, squash, papaya, sweet pepper (China), poplar (China), tomatoes (China), eggplant (Bangladesh)
http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/49/executivesummary/default.asp
Primary Traits
• Built-in pesticides -- Bt genes in corn,
cotton and eggplant (Bangladesh)
(soybeans in the future)
• Resistance to herbicide -- glyphosate,
glufonsinate,2,4, D (Dicamba in future)
• Resistance to virus -- papayas and
squash
Current Crops in the U.S.
• Corn
• Soybeans
• Cotton
• Sugar Beets
• Canola
• Alfalfa
• Papaya
• Squash (Zucchini)
• Apple (non-browning)
• Potato (non-bruising, low acrylamide)
Percentage of major crops that are genetically engineered in the
US*
*Sugarbeet data is from 2010. All other data is from 2015.
Sources: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. “Acreage”. June 2015;
Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook, ERS July 2010
Benefits of Current Genetically
Engineered Crops
• Product specific -- CASE BY CASE
• Depends on agricultural system
• Depends on receiving environment
Benefits of Current Genetically
Engineered Crops• Biotech companies do benefit
• Benefits to farmers; benefits to the environment
• No direct benefits to consumers
• Some of the benefits of some crops:
– Increased yields
– Reduced pesticide use
– Increased farm income
– No-till
– Reduced farmer poisonings
– Benefits to non-GE farmers
Example of Benefits -- Bt cotton
• United States -- reduction in pesticide use
• South Africa -- increase in yields
• China -- reduction in pesticides; reduction
in farm worker hospitalizations
Insecticide use in corn production, 1995-2010
http://thefoodiefarmer.blogspot.com/
GE Food Safety to Date
• No harms from foods made from current
crops that are genetically engineered
• Organizations that have reached same
conclusion:
– Food and Drug Administration
– European Food Safety Authority
– National Academy of Sciences
– The World Health Organization
What are Genetically Engineered
crops used for?• Animal feed (corn and soybeans)
• Industrial uses – e.g. corn for ethanol
• Processed ingredients – sugar, corn oil, soybean oil, cottonseed oil, high fructose corn syrup, canola oil, soy lecithin, etc.– No DNA or protein
– Issue of labeling
• Clothing – cotton
• A small amount are eaten as whole foods –corn, squash, papayas (potatoes and apples)
GE Crops and Developing
Countries
• Technology is in the seed
• Scale neutral – smallholder farmers
• Can address specific agricultural problems
• Safe and beneficial
• More research in developing country crops and traits
• Nutritional impact?
• Not a panacea
Issues Around GE Crops in U.S.
U.S. Coordinated Framework
Trait/Crop/transformation
method
Agency Review
Insect resistance in food
crop (e.g., Bt corn)
USDA
EPA
FDA
Agricultural and environmental safety
Environmental, food/feed safety of pesticide
Food/feed safety (voluntary)
Herbicide tolerance in food
crop (e.g., glyphosate
tolerant sugar beets)
USDA
FDA
Agricultural and environmental safety
Food/feed safety (voluntary)
Herbicide tolerance in
ornamental crop
USDA Agricultural and environmental safety
Modified oil in food crop
(e.g., high oleic acid
soybean)
USDA
FDA
Agricultural and environmental safety
Food/feed safety (voluntary)
Herbicide-tolerant
bentgrass using
agrobacterium
USDA Agricultural and environmental safety
Herbicide-tolerant
soybeans using gene gun
FDA Food/feed safety (voluntary)
Herbicide-tolerant
Bluegrass using gene gun
No regulation
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
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.
Reasons to Support Active FDA
Oversight Pre-Market• Ensures safety of GE crops
• Consumer confidences – alleviates
concerns and calls for mandatory labeling
• Addresses imported foods which may not
go through voluntary process
Glyphosate Tolerant Crops
• Glyphosate Herbicide– Kills a broad spectrum of weeds
– Easy to use
– Breaks down quickly so reduces environmental impact
– CHEAP – brand name and generic
– No till agriculture
– Charles Benbrook: “It is one of the safest herbicides ever marketed.”
• Monsanto’s glyphosate-tolerant seeds –soybeans, corn, cotton, sugar beets, alfalfa, canola -- more than 130 million acres
Glyphosate Resistant Weeds
• At least 14 species in 22 states
• Jeopardizes substantial benefits
“Resistance Fighter”. Syngenta.
http://www.resistancefighter.com/news.aspx
1998
“Resistance Fighter”. Syngenta.
http://www.resistancefighter.com/news.aspx
2004
“Resistance Fighter”. Syngenta.
http://www.resistancefighter.com/news.aspx
2008
2012
“Resistance Fighter”. Syngenta.
http://www.resistancefighter.com/news.aspx
Fraser, Kent. (2013). “Glyphosate Resistant Weeds - Intensifying.” Stratus Ag Research.
http://www.stratusresearch.com/blog/glyphosate-resistant-weeds-intensifying/
Addressing the Problem --
Chemical Industry Solutions
• Industry solutions for resistant weeds
– Herbicide cocktails
– Other HT crops – glufosonate, dicambia, 2, 4-
D
– Stacked HT crops
CSPI Recommendations
• Mandatory use restrictions
– Geographic
– E.g. restrict use of glyphosate in the same field two years in a row
• Mandatory MOA labeling
• Require weed management plans at the farm level
• Incentives for integrated weed management
GE and Sustainability is Possible
• Use herbicide-tolerant GE seeds with
herbicides in a judicious manner
• With integrated weed management
• With rotation of crops
• With rotation of modes of action
Bt corn and resistant corn
rootworm populations• Overuse of Bt corn with rootworm
protection
• Planting corn year after year in same field
• Lack of adequate refuge planted
• Moderate dose toxins
• Way forward: stacked products; rotation of
crops and of toxins; restrict use of soil
insecticides
Definition of Coexistence
• “…the concurrent cultivation of conventional, organic, IP, and genetically engineered (GE) crops consistent with underlying consumer preferences and farmer choices.” (from AC21 report)
• Can consumers get the products they want?
• Can different production methods get along?
• Called “unintended presence” by some; “contamination” by others
Coexistence Facts
• Coexistence is not something new
• Coexistence only involves legal products (not StarLink or LL Rice)
• Biology is crucial
• Not just biotech/organic
– Non-biotech and biotech (e.g. European market)
– Biotech and biotech (functional traits such as amalyse corn)
Way Forward
• Not yet such a big problem
– Different crops; most neighbors get along;
farmers use multiple production methods
• Case by case – biology is crucial
• Everyone needs to be involved – “co” in
coexistence
• USDA must make this a priority -- lead the
country on this issue
Marketing Issues
Do Consumers Want Mandatory
Labeling?
Kopicki, Allison. 27 July, 2013. “Strong Support for Labeling Modified Foods”. New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/science/strong-support-for-labeling-modified-foods.html
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-01-ap-poll-appetite-genetically-foods.html
http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/AP-GfK_Poll_December_2014_GMOs.pdf
AP GfK Poll
AP GfK Poll Continued: GMOs and Healthy Choices
http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/AP-GfK_Poll_December_2014_Menu_labeling.pdf
Rutgers University Poll
• October 23-27, 2013
• 1,148 respondents -- 3.1% margin of error
• Asked multiple questions to get at
consumers knowledge of GMOs, labeling
priorities, etc…
• A more neutral poll than others
• How you ask the question matters
25% have never
heard of
genetically
modified foods.
54% know very little or nothing at all about
genetically modified foods.
And yet…
73% believe that genetically modified food should be required
to be labeled.
Source: Hallman, W. K., Cuite, C. L., & Morin, X. K. (2013). Public perceptions of labeling genetically modified foods [working paper]. Rutgers University.
57.30%
7% 6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
No additional information isneeded
GM food labeling Information about where thefood product was grown or
processed
What information would you like to see on food labels that is not already on there?
Before introducing the idea of GM foods, survey participants were asked:
59%63% 62% 61% 59% 60%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Contains GMingredients
Was grownusing hormones
Was grownusing pesticides
Was grownusing antibiotics
Containsallergens
Was grown orraised in theUnited States
Contextualizing consumer opinions about GM food labeling
Source: Hallman, W. K., Cuite, C. L., & Morin, X. K. (2013). Public perceptions of labeling genetically modified foods [working paper]. Rutgers University.
Participants believed that it is very or extremely important to have information about
whether the product:
How Much Do You Know?
• How much do you know about genetically
modified foods?
• A great deal 2%
• A fair amount 11%
• Some 32%
• Very little 32%
• Nothing at all 21%• Refused 2%
Rutgers 2013 Survey
55%
N=1148
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
How much do American consumers know about genetically modified foods?
25% have never
heard of
genetically
modified foods.
54% know very little or nothing at all about
genetically modified foods.
And yet…
73% believe that genetically modified food should be required
to be labeled.
When surveyed about GM foods, American consumers responded as follows:
Source: Hallman, W. K., Cuite, C. L., & Morin, X. K. (2013). Public perceptions of labeling genetically modified foods [working paper]. Rutgers University.
FooDS: Food Demands SurveyOklahoma State University 2015
http://agecon.okstate.edu/faculty/publications/4975.pdf
Mandatory labels on foods containing DNA: 80%
Mandatory labels on foods produced with genetic engineering: 82%
Percentage of No Votes on State Mandatory GE-
Labeling Initiatives
51.465.47
50.3 51.09
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
California 2012 Colorado 2014 Oregon 2014 Washington2013
Is Non-GMO a Business Opportunity?
Non-GMO Project
• Over 24,000 products verified so far
• Truths according to their website:
– Studies show that GM foods can be toxic or
allergenic
– The few studies that have been conducted on
humans show problems
– GM Bt insecticidal crops pose hazards to
people and animals that eat them
http://blog.generalmills.com/2014/01/the-one-and-only-cheerios/
“Original Cheerios has always been made with whole grain oats, and there are no
GMO oats. We do use a small amount of corn starch in cooking, and just one gram
of sugar per serving for taste. And now that corn starch comes only from non-GM
corn, and our sugar is only non-GM pure cane sugar…the product is essentially
the same.”
“Why change anything at all? It’s simple. We did it because we think consumers
may embrace it.”
“But it’s not about safety. Biotech seeds, also known as genetically modified
seeds, have been approved by global food safety agencies and widely used by
farmers in global food crops for almost 20 years.”
Impact of Cheerios Decision
• No change in sales
• What about other Cheerio products?
• Nutritionally different?
GE sugar beetPure sugar
(no GE DNA
or protein; would
have to be labeled
“GMO”)
Bacteria fed on
sugar produce
vitamin C
Cereal would have
To be labeled “GMO”
Vitamin C would have
to be labeled “GMO”
“GMO” = Genetically modified organism
Chipotle
http://chipotle.com/gmo
http://chipotle.com/gmo
HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN
SYRUP FROM GE CORN
16 oz serving:
52 g sugar (12 tsp)
STILL
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED AT
CHIPOTLE
http://chipotle.com/gmo
“Healthy” BurritoFlour tortilla, sofritas,
brown rice, black
beans, fresh tomato
salsa, romaine
lettuce, and
guacamole
Out of Recommended Daily Limits:
51% calories (1025 cal)
30% saturated fat (6 g)
94% sodium (2255 mg)
22% sugar (11 g/3 tsp)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/17/upshot/what-do-people-actually-order-at-chipotle.html
Even if you try to be
healthy…
Barbacoa (beef), rice, pinto beans, fajita
vegetables, roasted chili corn salsa, cheese, sour
cream, lettuce
http://chipotle.com/gmo
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/burrito-bunkum/2015/04/29/a4cd8382-ed18-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html
Washington Post – April, 2015
• WP – “our point is that no one should
confuse any of these companies’ behavior
with real corporate responsibility. That
would require companies to push back
against the orchestrated fear of GMOs
instead of validating it.”
Chipotle Lawsuit
• Class action suit filed in end of August in
CA
• Non-GMO marketing and advertising
campaign is misleading and deceptive
• Animals eat GMOs; Dairy is made from
cows fed GMOs; soda has GMOs
Michael Gerson, Washington Post, “Corporate
Irresponsibility over GMOs” -- 5/14/2015
• “But Chipotle, Whole Foods and those who follow their examples are doing real social harm. They are polluting public discourse on scientific matters. They are legitimizing an approach to science that elevates internet medical diagnosis, social media technological consensus and discredited studies in obscure journals. They are contributing to a political atmosphere in which people pick their scientific views to fit their ideologies, predispositions, and obsessions. And they are undermining public trust in legitimate scientific authority, which undermines the possibility of rational public policy on a range of issues. Whatever the intention of those involved, embracing pseudoscience as the centerpiece of an advertising and branding effort is an act of corporate irresponsibility.”
Labeling – the Devil is in
the Details
Devils in the Details
• Accurate but not misleading
• Neutral
• Fit within other labeling priorities
Corn oil from GE and non-GE corn
Biologically and chemically identical
Minor ingredients
derived from GE
crops
One pizza contains:• 2,100 calories
• 180% daily saturated fat
• 234% daily sodium
• 36g (9 tsp) sugar
Take Home Messages
Biotechnology is not a silver bullet
• Not a panacea for world hunger or food insecurity
•Not the solution to every agricultural constraint faced by farmers in
developed and developing countries
BUT
•Can solve specific agricultural production issues for farmers
•Can provide some farmer benefits, some environmental benefits (and
hopefully consumer benefits)
•Can be applied safely
Conclusions
• There are some real impacts from overuse of GE crops
• Case-by-case
• Need more involvement of FDA
• Coexistence can occur but it requires actions by everyone
• Labeling is complex
To download
‘Straight Talk’
visit:http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/biotech-faq.pdf
Gregory Jaffe, Director
CSPI Biotechnology Project
Website: www.cspinet.org/biotech/
E-mail address:
