[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING TO CONSIDER THE SOCIETAL BENEFITS OF BIOTECHNOLOGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HORTICULTURE, RESEARCH, BIOTECHNOLOGY, AND FOREIGN
AGRICULTURE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 9, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-16
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-678 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
STEVE KING, Iowa MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JIM COSTA, California
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BOB GIBBS, Ohio MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GLORIA NEGRETE McLEOD, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee FILEMON VELA, Texas
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois
JEFF DENHAM, California JUAN VARGAS, California
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
DOUG LaMALFA, California SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois JOHN GARAMENDI, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
TED S. YOHO, Florida
VANCE M. McALLISTER, Louisiana
______
Nicole Scott, Staff Director
Kevin J. Kramp, Chief Counsel
Tamara Hinton, Communications Director
Robert L. Larew, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Horticulture, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign
Agriculture
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Chairman
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri KURT SCHRADER, Oregon, Ranking
JEFF DENHAM, California Minority Member
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington
DOUG LaMALFA, California JIM COSTA, California
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
CHRIS COLLINS, New York ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
TED S. YOHO, Florida JUAN VARGAS, California
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Davis, Hon. Rodney, a Representative in Congress from Illinois,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Schrader, Hon. Kurt, a Representative in Congress from Oregon,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Scott, Hon. Austin, a Representative in Congress from Georgia,
prepared statement............................................. 3
Submitted material........................................... 51
Submitted statement on behalf of Alvin Jones, Principal,
Jones Laffin Company, Inc.................................. 72
Witnesses
Just, Ph.D., David R., Professor, Co-Director, Cornell Center for
Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs, Charles H.
Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY......................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Juma, Ph.D., Calestous, Professor, Practice of International
Development, and Director, Science, Technology, and
Globalization Project, John F. Kennedy School of Government,
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA...................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Bolden-Tiller, Ph.D., Olga, Associate Professor, Tuskegee
University, Tuskegee, AL....................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Lidback, Joanna S., Owner, The Farm at Wheeler Mountain,
Westmore, VT; on behalf of Agri-Mark, Inc.; National Council of
Farmer Cooperatives............................................ 28
Prepared statement........................................... 29
HEARING TO CONSIDER THE SOCIETAL BENEFITS OF BIOTECHNOLOGY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Horticulture, Research, Biotechnology, and
Foreign Agriculture,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in
Room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rodney Davis
presiding.
Members present: Representatives Scott, Davis, LaMalfa,
Yoho, Schrader, DelBene, and Kuster.
Staff present: DaNita Murray, John Goldberg, Mary Nowak,
Nicole Scott, Skylar Sowder, Tamara Hinton, John Konya, Keith
Jones, Liz Friedlander, and Riley Pagett.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RODNEY DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM ILLINOIS
Mr. Davis. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Horticulture, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture
to consider the societal benefits of biotechnology, will come
to order.
I would like to first welcome everyone, good morning, and I
am going to give an opening statement on behalf of Chairman
Scott who has lost his voice. Being from Georgia, I always
thought we needed a translator anyway, so I didn't know what
the problem was, but Austin has lost his voice, and therefore,
has relinquished the gavel to me today, so on behalf of him, I
apologize.
I am pleased to offer the opening statement on behalf of
Chairman Scott. Thank you all for being here today to discuss
an issue that has become increasingly important over the last 2
decades. The purpose of today's hearing of the Subcommittee on
Horticulture, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture
is to consider the many benefits we as a society have realized
through technological advances.
In the field of agriculture, we cope with the challenge of
feeding an ever expanding world population while maintaining
the safety, quality, diversity, and affordability in our food
supply that we as Americans have come to expect. Biotechnology
has played a critical role in meeting a number of consumer and
societal needs. From the earliest experiments with agriculture
to present time, we have been growing, cross-breeding, and
fundamentally altering the crops and livestock we raise in
order to meet the societal needs. As our needs have evolved, so
has the use of technology. With each step in our technological
development, we are able to produce more with less while
simultaneously continuing to improve the safety, quality,
diversity, and affordability of the food that we consume.
Biotechnology is the application of biological science that
makes use of living organisms to provide new products for
agricultural, industrial, and medical uses. Consumers have long
benefitted from biotechnology. For example, biotech includes
the use of microorganisms in bread making, or the production of
drug products such as insulin. As our capabilities have
expanded, our potential for developing products that enhance
benefits to consumers and producers has grown.
Unfortunately, a combination of factors has intervened to
challenge consumer acceptance of biological technologies and
potentially threaten further enhancements in this field.
Secretary of State John Kerry recently stated, ``The challenge
is that by 2050, the world's population is going to grow to 9
billion people. That is going to demand at least a 60 percent
increase over our current agricultural production.'' He went on
to say: ``It is simply true that biotechnology has dramatically
increased crop yields. It has dramatically decreased loss due
to pests and disease, and it allows us to feed more people
without converting tropical forests or fragile lands in order
to do so. So we save money and we save the environment and we
save lives. It is a virtuous circle.''
It is particularly troubling that a small minority has so
confused the vocabulary of biotechnology as to threaten the
development of this science and its role in feeding and
nourishing our people, fighting disease, resolving the conflict
between production agriculture and conservation, and doing all
these things with fewer farmers on less land.
Today, we will hear from witnesses who will further outline
how society has benefitted from these scientific achievements
and the challenges that biotechnology faces in the future. We
will hear about many specific advances, but I would like to
highlight just a couple here.
One great example of the consumer benefit to biotechnology
is with the dietary Vitamin A. It is estimated that Vitamin A
deficiency kills 670,000 children under the age of 5 each year.
With the genetically engineered Golden Rice, which contains
beta-carotene, a precursor of Vitamin A, we can significantly
reduce the amount of Vitamin A deficiency and deficient-related
deaths in children around the world.
Another example is with Celiac Disorder. This disorder
affects 1 in every 133 individuals with symptoms ranging from
deterioration of the small intestines lining to osteoporosis.
With advances in biotech wheat, both adolescents and adults can
live a more fulfilling life with this genetically predisposed
autoimmune disorder. Additionally, \3/4\ of all Americans are
deficient in Vitamin D. Large deficiencies of Vitamin D have
been linked to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, soft bones in
children, and osteoporosis. Many Americans receive Vitamin D
from orange juice, yet the disease of citrus greening threatens
to leave a large portion of the orange industry unusable.
Without this vital industry, the number of Americans at risk of
a Vitamin D deficiency will rise indefinitely.
New biotechnology can help the citrus industry fight the
greening disease and potentially increase the amount of Vitamin
D in each glass of orange juice. Utilization of these
biotechnologies improves our environment as the crops we are
developing require a smaller carbon footprint by reducing the
acres, water, and other resources needed to grow them.
Biotechnology provides numerous benefits to not only the
American consumer but also to consumers worldwide. With the use
of this technology, we can fight diseases, increase available
food sources, and reduce overall environmental impact.
In addition to the witnesses before us today, we have
received submitted testimony and extraneous material that is
relevant to today's hearing, and without objection, these
materials will be included in the record.
[The documents referred to are located at p. 51.]
Mr. Davis. Before us today is a panel of five witnesses
that will speak to these benefits. We are joined by Dr. David
Just, Professor of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell
University; Dr. Olga Bolden-Tiller, Associate Professor at
Tuskegee University; Dr. Calestous Juma, Professor of the
Practice of International Development at Harvard University;
and Ms. Joanna Lidback, Owner and Operator of The Farm at
Wheeler Mountain, a small family dairy operation.
We appreciate the time each of you have given to prepare
for this hearing. Your testimony will be important to show the
effect new agricultural technology has on the consumer. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Austin Scott, a Representative in Congress
from Georgia
Good morning.
Thank you all for being here today to discuss an issue that has
become increasingly important over the last 2 decades.
The purpose of today's hearing of the Subcommittee on Horticulture,
Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture is to consider the
many benefits we as a society have realized through technological
achievements.
In the field of agriculture, we cope with the challenge of feeding
an ever expanding world population while maintaining the safety,
quality, diversity and affordability in our food supply that we have
come to expect. Biotechnology has played a critical role in meeting a
number of consumer and societal needs. From the earliest experiments
with agriculture to present time, we have been growing, cross-breeding,
and fundamentally altering the crops and livestock we raise in order to
meet the societal needs. As our needs have evolved, so has the use of
technology. With each step in our technological development, we are
able to produce more with less, while simultaneously continuing to
improve the safety, quality, diversity and affordability of the food we
consume.
Biotechnology is the application of biological science that makes
use of living organisms to provide new products for agricultural,
industrial, or medical uses. Consumers have long benefited from
biotechnology. For example, biotechnology includes the use of
microorganisms in bread making or production of drug products such as
insulin.
As our capabilities have expanded, our potential for developing
products that enhance benefits to consumers and producers has grown.
Unfortunately, a combination of factors has intervened to challenge
consumer acceptance of biological technologies and potentially threaten
further enhancements in this field.
Secretary Kerry recently stated ``the challenge is that by 2050,
the world's population is going to grow to 9 billion people. That is
going to demand at least a 60 percent increase over our current
agricultural production.''
He went on to say: ``It is simply true that biotechnology has
dramatically increased crop yields. It has dramatically decreased loss
due to pests and disease, and it allows us to feed more people without
converting tropical forests or fragile lands in order to do so. So we
save money and we save the environment and we save lives. It is a
virtuous circle.''
It is particularly troubling that a small minority has so confused
the vocabulary of biotechnology as to threaten the development of this
science and its role in feeding and nourishing our people; fighting
disease; resolving the conflict between production agriculture and
conservation; and doing all these things with fewer farmers on less
land.
Today we will hear from witnesses who will further outline how
society has benefitted from these scientific achievements and the
challenges biotechnology faces in its future.
We will hear about many specific advances but I would like to
highlight just a couple here. One great example of the consumer benefit
to biotechnology is with the dietary Vitamin A. It is estimated that
Vitamin A deficiency kills 670,000 children under the age of 5 each
year. With the genetically engineered Golden Rice, which contains beta-
carotene, a precursor of Vitamin A, we can significantly reduce the
amount of Vitamin A deficient related deaths in children around the
world.
Another example is with Celiac Disorder. This disorder affects 1 in
133 individuals, with symptoms ranging from deterioration of the small
intestines' lining to osteoporosis. With advances in biotech wheat,
both adolescents and adults can live a more fulfilling life with this
genetically predisposed autoimmune disorder.
Additionally, \3/4\ of all Americans are deficient in Vitamin D.
Large deficiencies of Vitamin D have been linked to cancer, heart
disease, diabetes, soft bones in children, and osteoporosis. Many
Americans receive Vitamin D from orange juice. Yet, the disease of
citrus greening threatens to leave a large portion of the orange
industry unusable. Without this vital industry, the number of Americans
at risk of a Vitamin D deficiency will rise, indefinitely. New
biotechnology can help the citrus industry fight the greening disease
and potentially increase the amount of Vitamin D in each glass of
orange juice.
Utilization of these biological technologies improves our
environment, as the crops we are developing require a smaller carbon
footprint by reducing the acres, water, and other resources needed to
grow.
Biotechnology provides numerous benefits to not only the American
consumer but also to consumers worldwide. With the use of this
technology, we can fight diseases, increase available food sources, and
reduce overall environmental impact.
In addition to the witnesses before us today, we have received
submitted testimony and extraneous material that is relevant to today's
hearing. Without objection these materials will be included in the
record.
Before us today is a panel of five witnesses that will speak to
these benefits. We are joined by Dr. David Just, Professor of Applied
Economics and Management at Cornell University; Dr. Olga Bolden-Tiller,
Assistant Professor at Tuskegee University; Dr. Calestous Juma,
Professor of the Practice of International Development at Harvard
University; and Ms. Joanna Lidback, Owner and Operator of The Farm at
Wheeler Mountain, a small, family dairy operation.
We appreciate the time each of you have given to prepare for this
hearing. Your testimony will be important to show the effect new
agricultural technology has on the consumer. Thank you. I would like to
recognize my colleague from Oregon, Ranking Member Schrader, for any
opening remarks he may have.
Mr. Davis. I would like to recognize now my colleague from
Oregon, Ranking Member Schrader for any opening remarks that he
may have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KURT SCHRADER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM OREGON
Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Frankly, I
think you covered it pretty darn well.
I really appreciate the opportunity to have this hearing
because I think it is time to put some good information out
there. There has been an attempt to demonize hybrid and genetic
engineering without fully understanding the benefits that we
have had for thousands of years, and more recently, with the
condensed timeframe, with the biotechnology advances we have,
to be able to do some of the things in a shorter timeframe,
which some would say is a bad thing or implies is a bad thing.
I am on organic farmer myself, I practiced organic farming
for 20 some years, and you can grow things organically. There
is no need to get into a whole other labeling conflict or
concern about something that for all accounts has been deemed
just as safe as any other hybrid technology we have used,
again, over the last century or 2.
So, this is an opportunity for us to clear the air a little
bit, no pun intended. I find it somewhat ironic that those very
people that seem to be most concerned about climate change seem
to be against one of the major tools we can use to actually
combat some of the deleterious effects of current farming
practices. There is less tillage needed with some of the
biotechnology crops we have going on here. There is pesticide
resistance that we can inculcate here. There are opportunities
to increase the nutritional value of these crops that you
alluded to, Mr. Chairman. These are all good things that those
very same people would be lauding in any other situation.
And to be honest, some of the panel will talk about this
today, what we have here is a failure to communicate. We have a
situation where a lot of folks from the social aspect of things
have not caught up, once again, with the technological advances
we have made. We see this in telecommunications all the time
where we are way behind the curve trying to figure out how to
regulate or not regulate the Internet and make sure that
communication is done in a way where we are not using Ma Bell
type of technologies to deal with modern advances. I think we
are seeing the same thing here. You know, there is nothing
that--and I am a scientist--that I have seen, that would
implicate food altered in laboratory or altered in the field
done with the testing we have with FDA, USDA is unhealthy or
unsafe.
And I am very, very worried. Here is my biggest worry, Mr.
Chairman. I would be interested in what the panel says. My
biggest worry is that under the guise of trying to inform the
consumer, we actually misinform the consumer, we imply there is
some problem where there is not a problem. Now, if we had a
better education system and consumers were more savvy, but we
run the risk at one point of making, frankly, labeling almost
irrelevant and a moot point, and that would be a shame because
people do need to be informed about health hazards,
environmental hazards that are--that they really would be
worried about that could affect themselves or their children.
So, anyway, I look forward to the hearing. I think it is
going to be a good one and hopefully help clear the air a
little bit.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Ranking Member Schrader.
Obviously we have already introduced the witness panel. I
would like to go ahead and begin with your testimony, and we
will start with Dr. Just. Please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF DAVID R. JUST, Ph.D., PROFESSOR,
CO-DIRECTOR, CORNELL CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL
ECONOMICS IN CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS, CHARLES H. DYSON SCHOOL
OF APPLIED ECONOMICS AND
MANAGEMENT, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY
Dr. Just. Thank you.
And I thank the Subcommittee for the invitation to testify
regarding consumer perceptions and benefits of biotechnology. I
commend you for giving the attention to this important topic.
I am David Just, a Professor of Applied Economics and
Management at Cornell University. For the past 16 years, I have
conducted research in the field of agricultural and food
economics. I published dozens of studies examining how
consumers respond to the presentation of food, including
several studies that directly examine issues regarding
genetically modified organisms or GMOs, both the attitudes of
consumers and also those of farmers responding to GMOs.
There is a large and growing number of consumers that now
stigmatize GMOs in the U.S. Consumers tend to lump foods that
are labeled as having been genetically engineered together with
foods that are highly processed, infused with chemical
preservatives, and in fact, reproduced foods. Consumers
associate GMOs primarily with some unquantifiable health risk
similar to that posed by untested or poorly tested medicines or
drugs.
Consumers consider GMOs as a single technology with a
single set of characteristics rather than the thousands of
differentiated modifications that now appear in the market.
This misperception allows the consumers to regard the GMOs in
caricature, each equally risky and none possessing any
particular benefits to them.
Generally, when consumers consider GMOs, they tend to
regard them in comparison to some hypothetical alternative food
that is pristine and presents no perceived health risk. In
reality, the alternatives generally present a greater health
risk and something that is quantifiable. More often, GMOs have
been introduced specifically to eliminate the use of pesticides
or other chemical preservatives or other treatments that do
present a health risk.
This is the case, for example, with Bt corn, a product that
consumers are most likely to encounter in the marketplace
today. The industry is partly if not wholly to blame for the
consumer misperception. Industry is focused understandably on
marketing the benefits to farmers to get them to adopt.
Consumers often have only a latent understanding of why genetic
modifications are introduced into the food supply in the first
place. Because consumers are not actively considering why these
modifications have been introduced, they tend to ignore the
health, nutrition, or other benefits that they have to offer.
When given the choice between conventional foods and GMOs,
consumers express a strong preference for conventional foods;
however, when the same choice is presented in a way that the
consumers can understand the reasons for the genetic
modification, they overwhelmingly choose the GMOs.
Thus, consumers would rather buy poultry that has been
genetically modified to resist diseases than buying chicken,
for example, that has been fed antibiotics in order to
accomplish the same purpose. In fact, almost 85 percent prefer
genetic modification in this case.
Supporting studies find that consumers are enthusiastic
about GMOs that have been introduced in order to enhance
nutrition, safety, or health, but a little more skeptical of
those introduced primarily to address agricultural
productivity. When consumers are presented with direct
explanations of the direct benefits to consumers, they are much
more willing to accept the technology. Consumers have also
failed to grasp the benefits to society as a whole. GMOs have
been instrumental in increasing agricultural productivity. This
technology has reduced the price of commodities by between four
and ten percent. Given our era of historically high crop
prices, this technology is essential to providing low cost
food, particularly to developing countries.
In developing countries, GMOs hold the promise to overcome
generations of relatively low yields and high levels of
disease. For example, genetically modified corn in Africa has
been used to reduce the incidents of esophogeal cancer and
birth defects. These developing countries have paid a very high
price for consumer rejection of biotechnology in the European
Union. These poor nations will face a further dwindling of
fortunes if we fail to convince U.S. consumers of the benefits.
Unfortunately, consumers often look on developing country
adoption of GMOs as evidence of large U.S. corporations
exploiting the poor. These corporations, despite wonderful
cooperative efforts in developing countries, have failed to use
their own good will efforts to connect with concerned
constituencies in the U.S. and also Europe.
If we are to turn the tide of irrational consumer fears
regarding biotechnology, these firms must make a concerted
effort to communicate the direct health benefits to consumers
from reduced use of chemicals in food production and the
indirect benefits to developing country consumers of more
abundant and lower cost food. It is easy to stigmatize genetic
modification as a benefit only to large agribusinesses. It is
much more difficult to stigmatize a variety of corn, for
example, that is reducing the incidents of blindness in sub-
Saharan Africa.
Again, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for inviting
me to testify, and I will be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Just follows:]
Prepared Statement of David R. Just, Ph.D., Professor, Co-Director,
Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs,
Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY
I thank the Subcommittee for the invitation to testify regarding
consumer perceptions and benefits of biotechnology, and commend you for
giving your attention to this topic. I am David Just, Professor of
Applied Economics and Management the Charles H. Dyson School of Applied
Economics and Management at Cornell University and Co-Director of the
Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition. For the
past 16 years I have conducted research in the field of agricultural
and food economics. I have published dozens of studies examining how
consumers respond to the presentation of food including health claims.
My work consists of direct studies of consumer responses to various
food choices and the impact of food and agricultural policy on
production and trade practices. I have conducted dozens of field
experiments examining consumer choice and response to product
descriptions. I have published a half dozen studies directly examining
issues related to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), looking at
both consumer attitudes toward GMOs and farmer responses to GMOs.
In general, we find a large and growing number of consumers who
stigmatize GMOs. This stigma has long been a factor in Europe, and we
see the same pattern emerging in the U.S. In consumer studies, we find
that people tend to lump food that is labeled as having been
genetically engineered together with categories of foods such as those
that contain chemical preservatives or other ingredients with long
names that sound overly technical, or foods that are highly processed
and factory produced.\1\ For example, one prominent study finds that
consumers are generally willing to pay about 14% less for GMOs than
similar products that are not GMOs.\2\ Consumers tend to associate GMOs
primarily with some unquantifiable health risk, similar to that posed
by untested or poorly tested drugs or medication, though they also
express some more minor concerns about environmental impacts. Moreover,
consumers tend to consider GMOs as a monolithic technology with a
single set of characteristics, rather than the thousands of
differentiated modifications that now appear in the market. This
misperception allows consumers to perceive GMOs in caricature, with
each being equally risky and none possessing any particular benefits.
Generally, when consumers consider GMOs, they tend to regard them in
comparison to some hypothetical alternative food that is pristine and
presents no perceived health risk. In essence, they consider it a
question of GMO versus an ideal food.\3\ In reality, the non-GMO
alternative generally presents a greater and quantifiable health risk.
GMOs are often introduced specifically to eliminate the use of
pesticides or other chemical treatments that can present a health risk.
This is the case with Bt corn, one of the products consumers are most
likely to encounter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Wansink, B.A. Tal and A. Brumberg. ``Ingredient Based Food
Fears and Avoidance: Antecedents and Antidotes.'' Food Quality and
Preference 38(2014):40-48.
\2\ Huffman, W.E., J.F. Shogren, M. Rousu and A. Tegene. ``Consumer
Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Food Labels in a Market
with Diverse Information: Evidence from Experimental Auctions.''
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 28(2003): 481-502.
\3\ Heiman, A., D.R. Just and D. Zilberman. ``The Role of
Socioeconomic Factors and Lifestyle Variables in Attitudes and the
Demand for Genetically Modified Foods.'' Journal of Agribusiness
18(2000): 249-260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers have developed misperceptions regarding the benefits of
biotechnology in part because the industry does not explain those
benefits to them. Industry has focused understandably on marketing the
benefits of growing these crops to farmers, leaving consumers with a
latent understanding of why genetic modifications are introduced into
the food supply to begin with. Because consumers do not actively
consider why these modifications have been introduced, they tend to
ignore the health, cost, nutrition or other benefits of these foods.
When given the choice between conventional foods and GMOs, consumers
express a strong preference for conventional foods.\4\ However, my
research has shown that when the same choice is presented in such a way
that consumers can understand the reasons for genetic modification,
they overwhelmingly choose GMOs. For example, consumers would rather
buy poultry that has been genetically modified to resist diseases than
chicken that has been fed antibiotics to accomplish the same purpose.
In fact, almost 85% prefer genetic modification in this case. This
preference is even stronger for those with a college education, in
which case more than 90% would select the genetic modification.\5\
Supporting studies by other researchers find that consumers are
enthusiastic about GMOs that have been introduced in order to enhance
nutrition, safety or health, but a little more skeptical of those
introduced primarily to address agricultural productivity.\6\ When
consumers are presented with direct explanations of the direct benefits
to consumers, they are much more willing to accept the technology.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Lusk, J.L., M. Jamal, L. Kurlander, M. Roucan and L. Taulman.
``A Meta-Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies.''
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 30(2005): 28-44.
\5\ Heiman, A., D.R. Just and D. Zilberman. ``The Role of
Socioeconomic Factors and Lifestyle Variables in Attitudes and the
Demand for Genetically Modified Foods.'' Journal of Agribusiness
18(2000): 249-260.
\6\ Hossain, F. and B. Onyango. ``Product Attributes and Consumer
Acceptance of Nutritionally Enhanced Genetically Modified Foods.''
International Journal of Consumer Studies 28(2004): 255-267.
\7\ Wansink, B.A. Tal and A. Brumberg. ``Ingredient Based Food
Fears and Avoidance: Antecedents and Antidotes.'' Food Quality and
Preference 38(2014): 40-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers have also failed to grasp the benefits of biotechnology
to society as a whole. GMOs have been instrumental in increasing
agricultural productivity. This technology has reduced the price of
commodities by 4% to 10%--a fact that is not understood by the typical
consumer.\8\ Due to the labor, transportation and regulatory costs of
food production in the U.S., the impact of this basic commodity price
effect is much smaller at the highly processed retail level of most
American food. However, this has had an important direct impact on
consumers in the developing world. Given our era of historically high
crop prices, this technology is essential to providing low cost food,
particularly in developing countries. Additionally, some of the most
successful introductions of GMOs have occurred in developing countries,
as these new technologies hold the promise to overcome generations of
relatively low agricultural yields and high levels of disease. For
example, genetically modified eggplant in India is helping to reduce
pesticide use and to increase the yields of relatively poor farmers.
Pesticide use has a known and measurable impact on the health and
longevity of farmers. Genetically modified corn in Africa has helped
reduce the prevalence of Mycotoxin Fumonisin in maize,\9\ which has
been linked to esophageal cancer and birth defects. This new technology
promises to make developing country agriculture competitive with the
west, and to help reduce poverty worldwide. Developing countries have
paid a very high price for consumer rejection of biotechnology in the
European Union, forcing them to choose between sustainable productivity
and access to markets.\10\ Poor nations will face a further dwindling
of fortunes if we fail to convince U.S. consumers of the benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Brookes, G., T-H. Yu, S. Tokgoz, A. Elobeid. ``The Production
and Price Impact of Biotech Crops.'' Center for Agricultural and Rural
Development Working Paper, Iowa State University, January 2010.
\9\ Pray, C., J. Rheeder, M. Gouse, Y. Volkwyn, L. v.d. Westhuizen
and G.S. Shephard. ``Can Bt Maize Reduce Exposure to the Mycotoxin
Fumonisin in South Africa?'' Presented at the International Association
of Agricultural Economists', Beijing China, 2009.
\10\ Evenson, R.E., ``Status of Agricultural Biotechnology: An
International Perspective.'' In Just, R.E., J.M. Alston and D.
Zilberman (eds.), Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology: Economics and
Policy. Springer: New York, 2006, pp. 103-123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the consumers in the U.S. who are most sensitive to GMO
consumption are also those who list concern for developing countries
among their highest priorities. Unfortunately, these consumers often
look on developing country adoption of GMOs as evidence of large U.S.
corporations exploiting the poor. These corporations--despite wonderful
cooperative efforts in developing countries--have failed to use their
own good-will efforts to connect with concerned constituencies in the
U.S. or Europe. If we are to turn the tide of irrational consumer fears
regarding biotechnology, firms that produce GMOs must make a concerted
effort to communicate both the direct health benefits to U.S. consumers
from reduced use of chemicals in food production, and the indirect
benefits to developing country consumers of more abundant and lower-
cost food. This effort will necessarily differentiate the various
reasons for modification and should focus on branding the individual
modifications rather than the entire technology. It is easy to
stigmatize genetic modification as a benefit only to large
agribusinesses, but it is difficult to stigmatize corn that is reducing
the incidence of blindness in sub-Saharan Africa.
Again, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for inviting me to
testify. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Dr. Just.
We will go in order where you are seated, Dr. Juma.
STATEMENT OF CALESTOUS JUMA, Ph.D., PROFESSOR,
PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, AND
DIRECTOR, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND GLOBALIZATION PROJECT, JOHN
F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT, BELFER CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND
INTERNATIONAL
AFFAIRS, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, CAMBRIDGE, MA
Dr. Juma. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very
grateful to the Committee for giving me the opportunity to come
and testify here this morning.
I had the opportunity in the past to serve as the Executive
Secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity that was
drafting laws that were intended specifically to govern and
regulate genetically modified products and at the time, it was
argued that these products were unlikely to have any benefits
to consumers, they are likely to harm the environment, and they
are only likely to benefit the industrialized countries.
I have spent the last 15 years or so since leaving that
job, basically building up a body of evidence of what has
happened since then, and the evidence does not support those
claims. Unfortunately, those are the claims that led to the
introduction of a wide range of laws and restrictions around
the world that have made it difficult, in fact, for consumers
to benefit from the dramatic advances of agricultural
biotechnology.
This country has been a champion in leading the creation of
the industry. It was because of a decision in this country to
allow the patenting of living organisms that the industry, the
biotechnology industry was actually born. The lifespan of a
patent is roughly 20 years. If it takes about 20 years to
approve a product and get it to the market, that is really a
major obstacle and a disincentive to anybody who wants to
invest in biotechnology.
A good example of that is the case of transgenic salmon in
this country which has taken 20 years of regulatory effort. A
patent lasts almost as long. So we do have really very
significant barriers to the ability of the global community to
benefit from biotechnology, but the evidence is very clear. We
have seen it in the case of India, for example, and parts of
Africa where biotechnology cotton has been adopted. Farm
incomes have gone up by 50 percent. These farmers have,
therefore, been able to have additional revenue with which they
have been able to afford food, so we see a direct impact of
increases in biotechnology, adoption in biotechnology,
increases in farm income and food security.
And so it is evidence that sovereign leadership is really
essential in ensuring that the global community can benefit
from these advances.
And there are really two areas that I think are very
important. The first is public awareness, education of the
public so the public is fully informed about the benefits of
biotechnology. At the moment, that space for public education,
as has already been mentioned, is already occupied by people
who spend most of their time denigrating biotechnology. I think
a lot more work needs to be done in that area.
Second, the area of making it possible for biotechnology
products to be approved in a timely manner is a very important
aspect of ensuring that consumers can benefit from the product,
so I would like to make a case that in fact sovereign
leadership in this country, particularly, which championed the
creation of the industry, is critical to enabling the global
community to benefit from biotechnology.
Thank you very much for giving me the time, and I will be
happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Juma follows:]
Prepared Statement of Calestous Juma, Ph.D., Professor, Practice of
International Development, and Director, Science, Technology, and
Globalization Project, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Belfer
Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University,
Cambridge, MA
Societal Benefits of Agricultural Biotechnology
Global Status and Outlook
Executive Summary \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The submission uses the term ``transgenic crops'' to refer only
to those crops that have been developed through the use of genes
derived from unrelated species. All crops that are in use today have in
one way or another been genetically modified through methods that do
not involve the transfer of genes across species. This paper is
therefore concerned only with transgenic crops and not all genetically
modified (GM) crops, which include plants derived from conventional
plant breeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rise of the U.S. biotechnology industry is largely a result of
reforms in intellectual property rights that allowed for the patenting
of living forms. However, global regulatory hurdles have made it
difficult for society to fully reap the benefits of biotechnology.
Society's innovative and entrepreneurial potentialities will be hobbled
if the regulatory process for new biotechnology products takes as long
as the duration of patent protection, which is at most 20 years. It has
taken as long for the United States to complete the approval process
for transgenic salmon. Worldwide, even more onerous and discriminatory
hurdles stand in the way of societal benefits of biotechnology.
Biotechnology product pipelines are being choked by discriminatory
regulations, labeling threats, and a rising tide of product
disparagement and misinformation.
This submission argues that although many transgenic crops are
still in their early states of adoption and even more are still being
tested and developed, emerging trends show significant societal
benefits through positive economic impact (especially by raising farm
incomes), fostering food security, and promoting environment
sustainability. The crops show the potential to increase agricultural
production on existing arable land; reduce losses related to pests,
disease, and drought; increase access to food through higher farm
incomes; raise nutrition levels; and promote sustainable agriculture.
The pipeline of crops with potential benefits include a wide range of
applications such as enhanced photosynthesis, stress tolerance,
aluminum tolerance, salinity tolerance, pest and disease resistance,
nitrogen use efficiency, phosphate use efficiency, and nitrogen
fixation. However, restrictive regulations are undermining the ability
of society to reap these benefits.
The largest benefits of transgenic crops are economic and derive
from increased income from higher yields and resistance to loss. The
best example of this is in India, where transgenic cotton production
per hectare is demonstrably higher than that of non-transgenic cotton.
Indian smallholder farmers who planted Bt cotton earned 50% more from
higher production due to reduced pest damage. With the extra income,
farmers' food consumption levels increased. Likewise, farmers from
countries as diverse as South Africa, the Philippines, and the United
States who planted Bt maize saw significantly higher yields. In the
United States, transgenic papaya helped save the industry in Hawaii,
and it is predicted that agricultural biotechnology is the most
promising option for combating the citrus greening that is severely
impacting those industries in Florida, Texas, and California. Finally,
crops are currently in the pipeline that address loss related to local
pests and disease in developing countries. Examples include transgenic
bananas that combat Xanthomonas wilt (Uganda, Kenya), pest-resistant
eggplant (Bangladesh, India, Philippines), and pest-resistant cowpea
(Nigeria).
Second, transgenic crops offer the ability to biofortify key crops,
which is especially helpful in numerous countries where Vitamin A
deficiency is a concern (e.g., Golden Bananas in Uganda and Golden Rice
in the Philippines). Furthermore, other developing countries are
seeking to promote increased agricultural production of key staple
crops that offer nutritional benefits such as transgenic cassava and
sorghum in Sub-Saharan Africa. Other crops in the pipeline with
nutritional benefits include high-oleic oil soybean, which aims to
eliminate trans fats, and the ``Arctic Apple,'' designed to resist
browning and therefore encourage healthier lunch choices among
schoolchildren.
Finally, transgenic crops offer environmental benefits by requiring
less spraying of pesticides, reducing the amount of arable land needed
for increased agricultural production, and combating the effects of
climate change through the development of drought-resistant crops such
as Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA). Reduced spraying of
insecticides results in improved human and ecological health (NAS
2010b).
To realize the potential of transgenic crops, it is important to
view them as one of the many sources of food security and to assess the
benefits and risks on a case-by-case basis. Given rising agricultural
challenges including the impact of climate change, it would be a
mistake to adopt agricultural policies that expressly exclude
transgenic crops as one of the options.
The early days of the introduction of transgenic crops were marked
by divergent views over the long-term benefits and risks. It has been
18 years since the large-scale commercial release of the products and
there is now sufficient evidence upon which to base historical
assessments. For example, many of the policies adopted by emerging
countries to regulate transgenic crops assumed that their risks were
likely to be catastrophic, thereby requiring a high degree of caution.
While careful monitoring of the crops continues to be warranted, the
evidence so far available does not support the adoption of restrictive
and costly regulatory policies.
Transgenic crops have recorded the fastest adoption rate of any
crop technology in the last century. This is mainly because of the
benefits that they confer to farmers, most of whom reside in developing
countries. Between 1996 and 2013, transgenic crops added US$116.9
billion to global agriculture, more than \1/2\ of which accrued to
farmers in developing countries. If the crops had not been introduced,
the world would have needed another 123 million hectares of land to
meet the same levels of production. These benefits are inconsistent
with earlier concerns that transgenic crops would not benefit small-
scale farmers.
Evidence from large-scale studies supports the view that the crops
on the market do not carry unique risks. For example, the European
Commission funded more than 50 research projects involving 400
researchers at the cost of =200 million to evaluate this issue. The
studies found that ``the use of biotechnology and of GE plants per se
does not imply higher risks than classical breeding methods or
production technologies'' (European Commission 2010, p. 16). The
journal Critical Reviews of Biotechnology recently published a
comprehensive literature review covering the last 10 years of
transgenic crop safety and effects on biodiversity and human health. It
concluded that ``the scientific research conducted thus far has not
detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM
crops'' (Nicolia, et al., 2013, p. 2).
Transgenic crops have been shown to carry the same risk profile as
their conventional counterparts. In the long-run, the risks of
excluding transgenic crops from global agricultural options would
outweigh the risks of including them. Moreover, preventing the
commercialization of transgenic crops undermines countries' abilities
to leverage the power of biotechnology whose benefits extend to other
fields such as health, environmental management, and informatics.
The way forward is clear. As mentioned, transgenic crops not only
offer increased incomes for farmers, biofortification, and
environmental benefits. But the impact of transgenic crops on the
overall price of food is just as important, especially in a world where
there is a need to feed a growing population of approximately nine
billion by 2050 and address a surge in consumption, including a 70%
increase in the demand for food. Transgenic technology leads to more
efficient production methods as well as a reduction in loss, which in
turn leads to lower food prices both in the United States and abroad.
The balance of evidence suggests that transgenic crops offer no
greater risks than their conventional counterparts, and their economic,
nutritional, and environmental benefits are extensive. Yet whether or
not the crops described above reach the farmers and consumers who need
them most depends on the regulatory agencies and the lengthy and costly
approval processes of each country, as well as on public resistance to
transgenic crops in general.
The United States has historically played a critical role as a
champion of biotechnology innovation worldwide. Its leadership is
urgently needed at a time when global agricultural challenges are
mounting. More specifically, there is a need to bring the regulatory
processes governing the approval of agricultural biotechnology in line
with the state of scientific knowledge pertaining to the crops and
scientific advances. There is no alternative to the evidence-based
regulatory processes that have enabled the United States to emerge as
the world's biotechnology innovation powerhouse. To cede this
responsibility to opponents of innovation will undermine U.S.
competitiveness, erode its scientific leadership, and put the global
community at risk from the rising economic and ecological challenges.
It will deprive global citizens of important societal benefits of
agricultural biotechnology. Put more directly, a national whose
regulatory processes take as long as the duration of a patent cannot
continue to be a champion of innovation. This has to change and there
is no better time than the present.
Contents
Executive summary
Introduction
1. Global societal challenges
Agriculture and the wider economy
Food security and nutrition
Sustainability and resilience
2. Societal benefits of agricultural biotechnology
Agricultural production
Agricultural and the economy
Food safety and nutrition
Sustainability and resilience
3. Policy implications and outlook
Conclusion
References
Acknowledgements
Biographical summary
Introduction
The rise of the U.S. biotechnology industry is largely a result of
reforms in intellectual property rights that allowed for patenting of
living forms. However, regulatory hurdles around the world have made it
difficult for society to fully reap the benefits of biotechnology.
Society's innovative and entrepreneurial potentialities will be hobbled
if the regulatory process for new biotechnology products takes as long
as the duration of patent protection, which is at most 20 years. It has
taken as long for the United States to complete the approval process
for transgenic salmon. Worldwide, even more onerous and discriminatory
hurdles stand in the way of societal benefits of biotechnology.
Biotechnology product pipelines are being choked by discriminatory
regulations, labeling threats, and a rising ride of product slander and
misinformation.
There is a need to feed a growing population of about nine billion
by 2050 and address a surge in consumption, including a 70% increase in
the demand for food. Climate change and rising food prices will
negatively impact African countries the most. The challenge of feeding
a growing population will include increasing production on existing
arable land. One of the ways to combat climate change and higher food
prices is to expand the agricultural innovation toolkit, which includes
transgenic crops. The aim of this submission is to review the societal
impacts of transgenic crops, which range from increased food security
to economic, nutritional, and environmental benefits. In addition to
these, both farmers and consumers benefit: the former from increased
income and the latter from lower prices stemming from more efficient
production, improved nutrition and environmental protection.
Furthermore, small farmers in developing countries are shown to benefit
just as much as their counterparts in industrialized countries.
Finally, ``adopters report improvements in health, education, debt
repayment, maternal care services and food security'' (Carpenter, 2013,
p. 249).
This submission argues that although many transgenic crops are
still in their early states of adoption and even more are still being
tested and developed, emerging trends show significant societal
benefits through positive economic impact (especially by raising farm
incomes), fostering food security, and promoting environmental
sustainability. The pipeline of crops with potential benefits include a
wide range of applications such as enhanced photosynthesis, stress
tolerance, aluminum tolerance, salinity tolerance, pest and disease
resistance, nitrogen use efficiency, phosphate use efficiency, and
nitrogen fixation (UK Council for Science and Technology, 2013).
The submission is divided into three sections. The first section
outlines trends in food security and biotechnology. This is followed by
a section that examines some of the examples of the role of transgenic
crops in the wider economy, especially in raising farm incomes. The
final section reviews some of the major regulatory challenges
associated with the adoption of transgenic crops and animals, as well
as outlining a way forward.
There are many claims that biotechnology cannot contribute to
solving food insecurity or benefit smallholder farmers. Critics argue
that biotechnology is a red herring--that food insecurity is simply the
result of poor infrastructure, distribution, and income level.
Transgenic crops are also criticized for being part of the agro-
industrial complex. Critics link transgenic crops with increased
pesticide use, monoculture, and industrialized farming at the expense
of smallholder farmers. They argue that large agricultural corporations
perpetuate food insecurity by selling expensive, unnecessary technology
to poor farmers; preventing farmers from saving seeds; destroying plant
diversity; and displacing millions of farmers. Critics claim that
transgenic crops were developed with industrialized countries in mind;
that they would hardly be adopted or accepted in developing countries;
and that the technology continues to ignore the plight of smallholders.
These claims are driven by a wide range of concerns that tend to
assert what has not been denied and deny what has not been asserted. In
fact, transgenic crops demonstrate numerous societal benefits. But
realizing the potential needs to be viewed in a wider food security
context.
1. Global Societal Challenges
Agricultural and the wider economy: There is a need to feed a
growing population of approximately nine billion by 2050; address a
surge in consumption and changing diets, including a 70% increase in
the demand for food; and compensate for increasing biofuels production.
Meanwhile, around 870 million people are undernourished (Searchinger,
et al., 2013, p. 1). This will require a doubling of current levels of
food production. A recent study analyzed the current production and
yield rates for four key crops (maize, rice, soybean, and wheat) and
determined that annual yields are increasing at an average rate of
1.2%, or \1/2\ the 2.4% rate that would double production and close the
gap. At current rates, global production of each crop will only
increase by approximately 67%, 42%, 38%, and 55%, respectively--well
below what is needed to meet the expected demand (Ray, et al., 2013).
This is especially problematic in many developing countries where one
or more of these crops are responsible for the majority of caloric
consumption.
Transgenic crops can benefit smallholder farmers in several major
ways. First, they help farmers avoid both production and income loss
due to pests, disease, and environmental factors such as drought or
flooding. This results in greater productivity. Insect-resistant (IR)
traits are found to have the greatest impact in warm, tropical places
where pests are more prevalent and where insecticides and inputs are
not widely used--namely in emerging countries.
Essentially, food security is about expanding ecologically
sustainable agricultural practices as well as increasing access to
nutritious food. The rest of this submission seeks to address how
biotechnology can play a role in increasing agricultural productivity,
income levels, nutrition, and stability and resilience of the food
system to various shocks, thereby helping to increase food security at
the global level but especially in emerging countries.
Boosting agricultural production contributes directly to poverty
alleviation by raising farm incomes, providing jobs, and reducing the
cost of food. Agriculture is responsible for the majority of employment
in many parts of the world. In fact, a World Bank report (2008) has
shown that the growth of the agricultural sector is more effective at
reducing poverty than is growth in any other sector. In Sub-Saharan
Africa for example, agriculture ``contributes to 34% of GDP and 64% of
employment'' across the continent (Juma, 2011a, p. 7). Because
agriculture will continue to be an important source of employment in
the future as well, increasing agricultural production will result in
increased farm income and consumption.
Furthermore, in areas where farmers face a variety of problems and
farm extension services are limited, biotechnology can be successful at
filling the void, as it can make farming less complex, which suggests
that ``farmers with less human capital may benefit the most'' (Sexton
and Zilberman, 2010, p. 13).
Food security and nutrition: Advancements in science have
demonstrated the important role that niche crops can play in improving
human health. Achieving food security depends not only on increasing
production but also on improving nutrition. Increasing the production
of niche crops--also known as ancient grains, orphan crops, lost crops,
famine crops, local crops, neglected crops, or wild foods--is one way
to achieve this. Technological advancements in agricultural
biotechnology and advances in fields such as plant genomics allow for
the enhancement of existing crops and the ability to breed new ones
that meet higher nutritional standards. Furthermore, many communities
rely on niche crops, so increasing their production would also improve
nutrition in food-insecure areas (Juma, 2014).
Sustainability and resilience: It is well established that the
effects of climate change--from weather-related phenomena to rising
food prices--will drastically affect agricultural productivity
worldwide and developing countries the most. Measures will need to be
taken to adapt crops to changing weather patterns. Changes in humidity
are already affecting the world's primary cocoa-growing regions, while
drought has affected maize crops in both the United States and sub-
Saharan Africa. In Southeast Asia, rice yields are affected by drought,
salinity, and rising sea levels (Redfern, et al., 2012).
Another dimension to the need for increased food production is
related to agriculture's historically large environmental footprint--
the industry ``accounted for approximately 24 percent of global
greenhouse gas emissions in 2010'' (Searchinger, et al., 2013, p. 2).
It is also responsible for around 70% of global freshwater use, as well
as contamination of water supplies and coastal areas from farm runoff.
One of the biggest challenges of feeding a growing population is
increasing production on existing arable land. Agricultural
biotechnology not only has the potential to adapt crops to climate
change, but it can also contribute to increasing yields on existing
land and reducing emissions by encouraging fewer applications of
pesticides and herbicides.
2. Societal Benefits of Agricultural Biotechnology
2.1 Agriculture and the wider economy
Technology played an important role in generating significant
increases in agricultural productivity during Green Revolution. The
combination of new, high-yielding crop varieties, agro-chemicals, and
better irrigation techniques helped ``raise food production to levels
that no one would have dared predict . . . farmers in the developing
and developed countries nearly doubled their per-hectare output of
cereal production, increasing yields during this time by 3.16%
annually'' (Huang, et al., 2002, p. 678). This led to a significant
decline in poverty and hunger throughout much of Asia, because food
levels rose, prices fell, as well as food trade and consumption
increased.
However, the favorable conditions that led to the success of the
Green Revolution have changed. Staple crops will be most affected by
the ``exhaustion of some past sources of growth [making] future yield
expansion as great a challenge as in the past'' (Ibid., p. 678).
Overuse of fertilizers and chemical pesticides has led to pest and weed
resistance. It has also contributed to environmental degradation.
Moreover, availability of arable land is declining, water resources are
scarce and climate change is causing significant changes in weather
patterns, making it necessary to find alternatives to current
production methods.
Transgenic crops offer one alternative to addressing these
challenges, as they are specifically designed to increase production
while decreasing the use of pesticides and herbicides. A key point is
that transgenic crops were not developed to increase yield directly but
instead ``to overcome barriers to efficient yield, that is, to control
diseases, or yield-robbing weeds or insect pests'' (McHughen, 2013, p.
7). Increased production is necessary to feed a growing population and
meet an ever-increasing demand for food. The genetically modified
soybean enabled double-cropping in Argentina, which specifically helped
to meet the huge increase in soy demand-driven primarily by an
increased desire for meat in Asia--with only a limited effect on prices
(Zilberman, et al., 2010).
Although studies that examine production increases of transgenic
crops have produced varying estimates, recent cotton studies in India
and China confirmed earlier results: transgenic cotton production per
hectare are demonstrably higher than those of non-transgenic cotton,
especially in India. Other benefits include decreased pesticide use
especially in China, and health benefits in both countries (Pray, et
al., 2011). Cotton was the most-adopted genetically engineered crop
globally and saw the highest production increase, and the global price
effects of planting Bt cotton are estimated at 10% (Zilberman, et al.,
2010).
India had one of the lowest rates of cotton production in 2001-02
(at 308kg/ha). Aggregate levels of cotton increased substantially after
the introduction of Bt cotton post-2002, reaching 560kg/ha (Pray, et
al., 2011, p. 98). Bt cotton was adopted at a rate of 90%, leading to
``a 24% increase in cotton yield per acre through reduced pest damage
and a 50% gain in cotton profit among smallholders. These benefits are
stable; there are even indications that they have increased over time''
(Kathage and Qaim, 2012). With the extra income, farmers' consumption
levels increased 18% from 2006 to 2008 (Juma, Conceicao, and Levine,
2014; Kathage and Qaim, 2012).
In China, where surveys were conducted from 1999 to 2007, mean
production of Bt cotton was higher than conventional cotton. One
concern is that Bt cotton production levels will decline over time due
to the development of bollworm resistance or as a result of being
``backcrossed into more varieties by public- and private-sector plant
breeders'' (Pray, et al., 2011, p. 93). Yet evidence does not support
these concerns as ``aggregate cotton yields continue to rise in China
suggesting that Bt cotton also continues to do well'' (Ibid.).
A global impact study confirms the significant income gains among
farmers in India and China who adopted transgenic IR cotton, transgenic
Bt soybeans in South America (including Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil,
Paraguay, and Uruguay), and a variety of transgenic crops in the United
States. South Africa, the Philippines, Mexico, and Colombia are also
seeing the income benefits of adopting transgenic crops. These gains
stem from greater productivity and efficiency. The largest income gains
derive from the maize sector. In fact, ``$6.7 billion additional income
generated by GM insect resistant (GM IR) maize in 2012 has been
equivalent to adding 6.6% to the value of the crop in the GM crop
growing countries, or adding the equivalent of 3% to the $226 billion
value of the global maize crop in 2012. Cumulatively since 1996, GM IR
technology has added $32.3 billion to the income of global maize
farmers'' (Brookes and Barfoot, 2014, p. 9).
In Africa, where smallholder farmers use significantly fewer inputs
than in developed countries, IR crops could have the greatest impact on
production. By adapting the technology to local conditions, developing
countries could also address the issue of yield drag, which occurs
because companies typically modify generic seeds that are unspecific to
a particular region. African countries could increase the production
potential of transgenic crops by applying the technology to high-
quality, local crop varieties.
Higher production is not the only positive impact of transgenic
crops. They also help reduce loss due to pests, weeds, and diseases.
The potential of this technology lies in how it is adapted to meet
specific, local needs in developing countries, which can range from
combating diseases to improving indigenous crops.
Researchers in Uganda, for example, are using biotechnology to
reverse the trend of Xanthomonas wilt, a bacterial disease that causes
discoloration and early ripening of bananas and costs the Great Lakes
region approximately $500 million annually. There is currently no
treatment for the disease, and given its status as a staple crop in
this region, solving this problem would directly increase food security
and income (Juma, Conceicao, and Levine, 2014; Juma, 2011b). The most
efficient method of containing the disease is by growing transgenic
bananas instead of relying on more labor-intensive methods of removing
and destroying affected bananas. By transferring two genes from green
peppers, scientists were able to grow highly resistant bananas. Results
from field trials in Uganda and Kenya are extremely promising, but the
regulatory regimes do not yet allow for commercialization.
In Nigeria the insect Maruca vitrata destroys nearly US$300 million
worth of blackeyed peas--a major staple crop--and forces farmers to
import pesticides worth US$500 million annually. To solve the problem,
scientists at the Institute for Agricultural Research at Nigeria's
Ahmadu Bello University have developed a pest-resistant, transgenic
blackeyed pea variety using insecticide genes from the Bacillus
thuringiensis bacterium. The crop is also undergoing field trials in
Burkina Faso and Ghana.
In Southeast Asian countries such as Bangladesh, India, and the
Philippines, Bt brinjal is the region's first transgenic food crop and
offers economic, nutritional, and environmental benefits. Researchers
and scientists at the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI)
developed Bt brinjal to resist the `fruit and shoot borer' (FSB), with
support from USAID and Cornell University. The result was significantly
fewer pesticide sprays during the growing period and fewer dips in
pesticide just before harvest. The transgenic eggplant has obvious
farmer health and environmental benefits from reduced pesticide use.
The crop was commercialized in Bangladesh, but its future remains in
jeopardy as the government and opponents of transgenic crops seek to
push or stall further crop sales. Furthermore, the Filipino government
prohibited field trials of Bt brinjal, citing health and environmental
concerns. As a result, commercialization of the crop remains stalled in
India and the Philippines, and its future remains uncertain in
Bangladesh (Hammadi, 2014).
Key industries in industrialized countries are also affected by
loss from disease and pests. The most dramatic example is that of
transgenic papaya, which helped save the industry in Hawaii. In the
early 1990s, the papaya ringspot virus (PRSV) was transmitted rapidly
by aphids and nearly decimated Hawaii's papaya industry, which saw
yields plummet from 53 million pounds in 1992 to 26 million pounds in
1998. After the introduction of the ``Rainbow'' papaya in 1998, yields
rose to 46 million pounds by 2001. At the time, farmers, producers, and
consumers alike embraced it. Today it accounts for 77% of the papaya
grown in Hawaii (Gonsalves, 2007). Other examples of transgenic food
crops ready for commercialization in the U.S. include Bt sweet corn,
virus-resistant summer squash, and pox-resistant plums. Finally,
agricultural biotechnology offers a similar promise for combating the
citrus greening disease (Huanglongbing) that is severely affecting
those industries in Florida, Texas, and California. Citrus greening is
caused by the bacterium Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas),
spread by the Asian citrus psyllid (ASP). Florida's citrus industry
brings in an estimated $9.3 billion annually. Farmers stand to lose
income, and a dramatic reduction in output would lead to higher prices
of citrus fruits and juices for consumers throughout the United States.
Currently, increased use of insecticides and removal of infected fruit
trees are the only known solutions. According to a recent report by the
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, genetic engineering represents the
best alternative to these costly and less-effective solutions (NAS,
2010a, p. 2).
It is also important to note what is not in the pipeline, namely
smaller crops that are a staple in certain regions of the world but are
unlikely to be developed in the foreseeable future because of
prohibitive regulatory costs and risks. Regardless, promising
transgenic vegetable crops such as insect-resistant bananas, blackeyed
pea, eggplant, papaya, sweet corn, summer squash, plums, citrus fruits,
and wheat must clear significant resistance and regulatory hurdles
before their societal benefits can be realized.
As demonstrated, these techniques have the potential to address a
wide range of agricultural, health, and environmental issues in
emerging countries, resulting in societal benefits such as increased
productivity and therefore contributing to increased food security.
Increasing production, reducing loss, and encouraging higher
agricultural productivity among smallholder farmers has a significant
effect on income and poverty. For one thing, growth in the agricultural
sector is more effective at reducing poverty and increasing access to
food than growth in any other sector. Since smallholder farmers
comprise the majority of the workforce in sub-Saharan Africa, boosting
their income levels through agricultural productivity would go a long
way toward increasing food security.
The evidence from several long-term studies suggests that
biotechnology is successful at helping smallholder farmers increase
their income through costs savings. The last section showed how
transgenic crops improve production and reduce loss. This translates
into higher incomes at the farm level. A recent study explains how
planting transgenic crops results in cost-savings up front,
specifically with IR crops, which ``require little capital and can
substitute for chemical applications altogether'' (Zilberman, et al.,
2010, p. 5). Not only were farmers able to reduce pesticide use, but
they were also able to limit the related health risks.
Similarly, both IR and herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops can reduce
input expenses associated with pesticide use, such as machinery costs,
fuel costs, and water use. Although seed prices for transgenic cotton
were higher than for conventional seeds in India, these costs were
``offset by reductions in expenditures on pesticides and labor, due in
large part to reductions in number of required sprays'' (Pray, et al.,
2011, p. 94). Overall production costs decreased, and net revenue
increased. In fact, revenue from Bt cotton exceeded that of
conventional cotton in every household surveyed in China (Ibid).
Results of Bt cotton studies in India also indicated that cost savings
related to pesticide use, as well as higher production, offset the
higher seed costs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Different studies used different methods for calculating income
gain from Bt cotton, but all indicated significantly higher profit
margins for Bt cotton farmers (Pray, et al., 2011, pp. 99-100).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When faced with fewer costs up-front, a reduction in crop loss, and
more time available to pursue other income-generating activities,
farmers have more income at their disposal, which also leads to greater
consumption. So far, Bt cotton--which is the most widely adopted
transgenic crop worldwide--has had the most significant impact on
income. Approximately 15 million smallholder farmers in Burkina Faso,
China, India, Pakistan, and a few other developing countries are
growing Bt cotton. Several studies in India demonstrate the positive
effects of Bt cotton on income, nutrition, and food security among poor
farmers. Specifically, ``Bt cotton adoption has raised consumption
expenditures, a common measure of household living standard, by 18%
during the 2006-2008 period'' (Kathage and Qaim, 2012). In Burkina
Faso, which grew 125,000 hectares of Bt cotton in 2009, rural
households saw production increases of approximately 18.2% over those
that grew conventional cotton; earning $39 per ha in profit. Although
the seeds were more expensive, farmers saved money on inputs and labor
(Vitale, 2010). The reduced insecticide spraying also contributed to
human and environmental health.
Although Bt cotton does not directly contribute to better
nutrition, it does indirectly contribute to food security by increasing
household income levels and improving access to more nutritious food.
This in turn increases the ``purchasing power of farmers (and thus
their exchange entitlements) and their access to food'' (Juma,
Conceicao, and Levine, 2014). A recent study analyzes the impact of Bt
cotton on caloric consumption and nutrition at the household level in
four cotton-producing Indian states from 2003-09. The authors find that
households growing Bt cotton leads them to consume significantly more
calories--specifically, ``each ha of Bt cotton has increased total
calorie consumption by 74 kcal per AE [adult equivalent] and day''
(Qaim and Kouser, 2013, p. 6).
Furthermore, a smaller proportion of households are food insecure
(7.93% of adopting Bt cotton households vs. 19.94% of non-adopting
households) (Ibid., table 2). The results also show that Bt adoption
has led to consumption of more nutritious foods such as fruits,
vegetables, and animal products. The authors estimate that if the
households that do not currently grow Bt cotton switched, ``the
proportion of food insecure households would drop by 15-20%'' (Ibid.,
p. 6).
These findings indicate that increased income among smallholder
farmer households that grow Bt cotton lead to greater food security and
consumption of more nutritious food. But the results also demonstrate
that farmers are the main beneficiaries of Bt cotton, rather than seed
companies or biotechnology companies. This reinforces how plant
biotechnology can be one important tool in addressing food insecurity.
Finally, farmers have seen their insurance costs decline as
production risks stabilize. As a result, they will also gain access to
better risk-management products. Given the increased production and
income associated with Bt cotton, it can be extrapolated that further
development of IR crops could ``serve as an engine of rural economic
growth that can contribute to the alleviation of poverty for the
world's small and resource-poor farmers'' (James, 2013).
2.2 Food safety and nutrition
The safety of transgenic foods has been a hotly debated issue. It
gained international prominence following the publication of a paper
that claimed that transgenic maize containing Bt genes caused cancer in
rats (Seralini, et al., 2012). The paper was used as a basis for
regulatory action against transgenic foods in a number of countries.
Upon closer scrutiny, however, several regulatory bodies including the
European Food Safety Agency condemned the study as being
methodologically defective (Arjo, et al., 2013). The paper was later
retracted by the journal that published it.
It is important to apply a case-by-case approach and focus on those
foods that are on the market. Detailed reviews of the evidence so far
available have come to the conclusion that the transgenic foods
currently on the market carry the same risk profile as their
conventional counterparts (Ricroch, Berge and Kuntz, 2011). A
comprehensive review of safety studies published over the last decade
has examined the available evidence on the ``safety of the inserted
transgenic DNA and the transcribed RNA, safety of the protein(s)
encoded by the transgene(s) and safety of the intended and unintended
change of crop composition'' (Nicolia, Manzo, Veronesi and Rosellini,
2013, p. 81). While acknowledging the need for further research, the
review confirmed the general understanding that transgenic foods on the
market today did not carry unique risks.
Interest in transgenic crops also includes their potential
contribution to nutritional enhancement in staple crops, specifically
targeting low-income families. There are several bio-fortified crops
that are currently available or being tested in developing countries.
These include ``Golden Rice,'' which contains more beta carotene or
Vitamin A, under evaluation in the Philippines and Bangladesh; and the
``Golden Banana,'' bio-fortified with Vitamin A and iron and developed
by Ugandan researchers (Wamboga, 2011). Nearly 15 million people either
rely on bananas for their income or consumption, making it one of the
most important crops in Uganda. It is estimated that the per capita
consumption of bananas in Uganda is 0.7 kg per day. Scientists applied
the pro-Vitamin A genes used in Golden Rice to a popular local crop to
help solve a regional health issue. Addressing Vitamin deficiencies
would lead to lower healthcare costs and higher economic performance.
In the UK, researchers at the John Innes Centre created a bio-
fortified ``purple tomato'' by expressing genes from the snapdragon in
the transgenic tomato. The dark color derives from the same antioxidant
that is found in blueberries and cranberries--anthocyanin--and offers
similar health benefits at a lower cost to consumers. By increasing the
antioxidant levels in a common food such as the tomato, researchers
hope to stimulate greater consumption of antioxidants. The purple
tomato contains the ``highest levels of anthocyanins yet reported in
tomato fruit,'' and an early study of cancer-prone rats suggests that
the tomato's high levels of anthocyanins increased the lifespan of
these rats when eaten regularly. The purple tomato also has a longer
shelf life than a nontransgenic tomato (Butelli, et al., 2008; Shukman,
2014).
Other examples include the ``Arctic apple'' and J.R. Simplot's
``Innate'' potato, under development in Canada and the United States
respectively. Both crops are designed to resist browning, making the
apple an especially appealing choice for healthier school lunches.
Browning is one of the most significant sources of food quality loss
worldwide. The techniques applied by such companies to address the
challenge have the potential to be extended to fruits and vegetables in
other regions of the world experiencing similar challenges. This would
extend the shelf life of fruits and vegetables, thereby addressing the
larger post-harvest loss problem.
Nutritional enhancements through genetic modification are still in
their infancy. Examples such as Golden Rice and purple tomatoes are
important because they represent proof of concept. When confirmed, they
will open a wide range of opportunities for related modifications in
other crops as well as the use of new techniques to improve human
nutrition.
2.3 Sustainability and resilience
It is well established that climate change will adversely affect
agricultural productivity primarily in developing countries. Many
regions are expected to suffer production loss due to ``drought, flood,
storms, rising sea levels, and warmer temperatures'' (Goering, 2012).
In the past, these events were rare, and it was possible for farmers
and regions to recover during the next growing season. Now it is
imperative to determine ways of increasing the resilience and stability
of food systems so that productivity is less affected by drought,
flood, or both in the same season. Challenges include increasing
productivity on existing land to conserve biodiversity and protect
vulnerable land, as well as reducing agriculture's traditionally large
environmental footprint.
Transgenic crops, for example, are one of the better land-saving
technologies available, as they are designed to increase production on
existing plots, avoiding slash and burn agriculture often practiced in
developing countries. Indeed, ``if the 377 million tons of additional
food, feed and fiber produced by biotech crops during the period 1996
to 2012 had been grown conventionally, it is estimated that an
additional 123 million hectares . . . of conventional crops would have
been required to produce the same tonnage'' (James, 2014a).
Transgenic crops have succeeded in reducing the environmental
impact of agriculture by reducing pesticide use (by an estimated 8.5%
in 2011 alone); and reducing fossil fuels and CO2 emissions
through less ploughing and less chemical spraying (saving approximately
1.9 billion kg of CO2--the equivalent of removing 11.8
million cars from the road). The adoption of HT crops allows farmer to
use a single broad-spectrum herbicide.
Limiting the practice of tilling, which is the use of mechanization
for planting, weed control, and harvesting, is an important trend in
sustainable agriculture. It refers to ``direct planting into previous
crop stubble without further soil disturbance'' (Dill, et al., 2008, p.
329). Farmers who practice conservation tillage aim to leave 30%
residue on the surface of the soil, which can help reduce soil erosion
by 70%.
Finally, several biotechnology tools, including tissue culture,
diagnostics, genomics, and marker-assisted selection can be used
collectively to isolate new traits such as drought or flood tolerance
that can help mitigate the effects of climate change.
In 2012, drought wreaked havoc on maize production in the United
States, highlighting what farmers in Africa already know: drought is,
``by far, the single most important constraint to increased
productivity for crops worldwide.'' The development of drought-tolerant
crops is arguably the most important transgenic trait that will occur
in the next decade of commercialization (Edmeades, 2013). The gene in
question was isolated from a common soil bacterium known as Bacillus
subtilis. It helps the plant cope better with stress caused by water
shortages, allowing the plant to focus on filling the grains. In 2013,
some 2,000 American farmers started to grow drought-tolerant maize.
Indonesia has approved field trials of drought-tolerant sugarcane.
Field trials of drought-tolerant maize, wheat, rice and sugarcane are
in field trials in Argentina, Brazil, India, Egypt, South Africa, Kenya
and Uganda (Marshall, 2014). It is hoped that the first drought-
tolerant maize will be commercially available in sub-Saharan Africa by
2017.
In March 2008, a public-private partnership called `Water Efficient
Maize for Africa' (WEMA) was formed between Monsanto, which developed
the drought-resistant technology; the African Agricultural Technology
Foundation, which directs the partnership; the International Maize and
Wheat Improvement Center; and five national agricultural research
systems in East and Southern Africa (including Kenya, Mozambique, South
Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda). WEMA is working to make the drought-
resistant technology available to smallholder farmers through local and
regional seed companies. The crop is being developed using conventional
breeding, marker-assisted selection, and genetic modification to find
the optimal crop for local conditions. Confined field trials thus far
show 20-30% higher production than conventional hybrids. Sites were
selected specifically for their dry conditions. The five national
research systems are coordinating the field trials. WEMA hopes to offer
at least five ``farmer-preferred'' IR maize hybrids with and without
the drought-tolerant gene by 2017, pending field trials and regulatory
approval. It is undergoing field trials in Kenya, South Africa, and
Uganda, but the regulatory regimes in Mozambique and Tanzania so far
prohibit field trials.
The 2008 food crisis demonstrated the effect of an increase in
demand and a tightening of supply on the price of rice. After severe
flooding in 2007 and 2008 decimated rice production in Southeast Asia,
twelve countries including India and China responded by initiating
export restrictions. Riots broke out in Haiti, Bangladesh, and Egypt.
Although the food crisis affected all grains, a shortage of rice would
prove disastrous. According to the International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI), in 2005, rice comprised 20% of global calories
consumed; in Asia, 30%. In addition, ``two-thirds of the world's poor .
. . subsist primarily on rice.'' With consumption and prices rising,
production declining, and climate change effects expected to grow
(e.g., Asia currently loses approximately $1 billion from flooding),
IRRI estimates that ``by 2015 the world must grow 50 million tons more
rice per year than the 631.5 million tons grown in 2005. This will
require boosting global average yields by more than 1.2% per year, or
about 12% over the decade'' (Normile, 2008).
Furthermore, 25% of the global rice supply comes from flood-prone
regions. One solution has been to isolate the gene present in a variety
of Indian rice that allows plants to survive after up to 3 weeks
underwater. In collaboration with IRRI, researchers at the University
of California at Davis used marker-assisted selection to breed this
gene into locally important varieties. The result is a variety of rice
that can tolerate flooding but which also retains the capability to
produce high production. IRRI partnered with PhilRice, a nonprofit
organization in the Philippines, to distribute the rice free of charge
to seed growers and certain farmers who can disseminate further to
other farmers. In 2011, over one million farmers in the Philippines,
Bangladesh, and India planted the rice (Clayton, 2009; Ronald n.d.) So
far, it has led to production increases of 1-3 tons after 10-15 days of
flooding. Other varieties are also being studied, including drought
tolerance, heat and cold tolerance, and salt tolerance. In Africa, IRRI
is partnering with the Africa Rice Center (AfriRice) to develop rice
that can tolerate poor soils.
Two other crops in the pipeline are being developed to resist cold
temperatures (eucalyptus) and drought (sugarcane). These examples prove
that agricultural biotechnology has the potential to increase the
resilience of crops to climate change.
3. Regulatory Implications and Outlook
The claim that transgenic crops have no societal benefits is
clearly false. As population growth, climate change, and rising food
prices become more important, it is imperative to consider all options
for increasing agricultural productivity. Transgenic crops offer one
option in the agricultural innovation toolbox, and must be considered
as such. To be sure, transgenic crops are not without criticism.
However, biotechnology is an important tool that society can use to
address food security. Risks should be taken into account and the
technology strengthened, but to deny farmers the right to grow
transgenic crops would be irresponsible.
Combating these production, economic, nutritional, and
environmental challenges necessitates the expansion of the agricultural
innovation toolkit, which includes agricultural biotechnology. It is
important to note, however, that agricultural biotechnology is one
option among many for increasing food security. To truly have an
impact, it must be viewed in a context of system-wide improvements in
agriculture (Juma and Gordon, 2014).
Agricultural biotechnology, which was commercialized on a large
scale in 1996, refers to the application of scientific information and
methods such as genetic modification of crops or animals to select
certain traits that are more productive or desirable. Plant breeders
have long sought to improve crops through traditional methods such as
cross-breeding and hybridization, a time-consuming process that results
in the presence of undesirable traits mixed in with desirable ones.
Genetic modification is a significantly faster, more precise technology
that is designed to achieve similar results as conventional plant
breeding techniques by allowing the transfer of one specific gene to
another plant.
The major types of transgenic crops commercially available are
herbicide-tolerant crops that are resistant to broad-spectrum
herbicides such as glyphosate and gluphosinates; insect-resistant crops
that include genes from a specific bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis
(Bt), which is poisonous to certain insects and not humans; and crops
with a combination of both (stacked trait). HT and IR traits help make
weed and pest control more efficient, as crops need fewer applications
of herbicides and/or eliminate the need for pesticides. HT crops are
the most common, comprising more than \1/2\ of the 175 million hectares
of transgenic crops grown globally in 2013, followed by stacked-trait
crops at 27%, and IR crops at around 16% (James, 2014a; James, 2014b).
Both first- and second-generation transgenic crops are produced
commercially; most consist of animal feed, fiber, and biofuels. First-
generation crops typically have a single trait introduced. Newcomers,
such as Burkina Faso, benefit most from adopting second-generation
transgenic seeds, which contain two or more genes to resist specific
pests or weeds. Monsanto's GenuityTM Bollgard II'
cotton, for example, ``work[s] against leaf-eating species such as
armyworms, budworms, bollworms, and loopers . . . [and] cotton leaf
perforators and saltmarsh caterpillars'' (Juma, 2011a, p. 37). Second-
generation cotton is a superior technology because it takes longer for
pests to develop resistance. First-generation transgenic technology is
still beneficial but will break down sooner in terms of pest
resistance. Researchers and scientists have come a long way since
developing these early-generation crops. Today there are also multi-HT
crops such as corn, cotton, and soybeans that provide farmers with even
more options for combating weeds. It is important to note, however,
that most transgenic crops grown today are either cash crops or are
used in animal feed, cooking oils, and biofuels (Rotman, 2013).
Opposition to transgenic food crops has been so strong that investment
in their development has been limited. There are, however, transgenic
crops in the pipeline have the potential to offer significant societal
benefits if they can overcome regulatory hurdles and reach the market.
These crops will be discussed in the following sections.
Developing countries have seen clearly the potential of transgenic
crops to increase agricultural productivity, income, and food security.
Since their commercial introduction in 1996, transgenic crops have been
one of the ``fastest adopted crop technologies in recent history''
(James, 2014a). In 2013, ``a record 175.2 million hectares of biotech
crops were grown globally . . . at an annual growth rate of 3%''
(James, 2014a). This is a 100-fold increase from 1996, when 1.7 million
hectares were planted. Of the 28 countries that plant transgenic crops,
20 are developing countries. Finally, 90% of those who grew biotech
crops--that is, more than 16 million--were resource-poor smallholder
farmers in developing countries (Ibid.). The impact of transgenic crops
at the farm level has been significant. In 2011 alone, net economic
benefits were $19.8 billion, and cumulative economic benefits amounted
to $98.6 billion since 1996. The key point is that the ``majority of
these gains (51.2%) went to farmers in developing countries'' (Brookes
and Barfoot, 2013, p. 74).
Yet countries worldwide could benefit even more from adapting
biotechnology to address local problems. The technology used to delay
the ripening of tomatoes, for example, could be applied to tropical
fruits, which ripen too quickly and end up going to waste due to lack
of proper storage or transportation infrastructure. Another problem
that is prevalent in tropical countries is soil acidity. ``Acidic soils
comprise about 3.95 billion ha . . . about 68% of tropical America, 38%
of tropical Asia, and 27% of tropical Africa. In spite of its global
importance . . . problems that affect acid soils are investigated by
only a handful of scientists in developed countries'' (Herrera-
Estrella, 2000, p. 924). This problem is not limited to soil acidity.
In fact, there is much scope for developing countries, especially in
Africa, to invest in their own science and technology research
institutes, which would allow local scientists to come up with
solutions specific to local contexts. This is also relevant for the
United States, which is spending millions of dollars combating citrus
greening in Florida, Texas, and California, where the simplest and most
cost-effective solution would be to employ agricultural biotechnology.
Despite the obvious benefits, however, transgenic crops and animals
for human consumption face some the most stringent regulatory processes
throughout the world. As an example, a Massachusetts-based firm,
AquaBounty Technologies, developed a transgenic salmon that could
mature in \1/2\ the time while retaining material equivalence with its
natural counterparts. In 1995, the firm applied to the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) for approval of AquAdvantage salmon. By the
end of 2013, the fish had passed all the human health, environmental
safety assessments required by FDA but still has not been granted
approval. Transgenic crops face identical regulatory hurdles.
Society must overcome strong regulatory barriers to adoption of
transgenic crops. One of the biggest barriers to adoption is the
controversy over the safety of transgenic crops, both in terms of human
consumption and their effect on the environment. However, recent
studies tend to support the safety of transgenic crops. For example,
the European Commission funded more than 50 research projects involving
400 researchers at the cost of =200 million to evaluate this issue and
found that ``the use of biotechnology and of GE plants per se does not
imply higher risks than classical breeding methods or production
technologies'' (European Commission, 2010, p. 16). A literature review
covering the last 10 years of transgenic crop safety and effects on
biodiversity and human health concludes that ``the scientific research
conducted thus far has not detected any significant hazard directly
connected with the use of GM crops'' (Nicolia, et al., 2013, p. 2).
Despite the growing body of scientific evidence, many countries
around the world still follow a strict interpretation of the European
regulatory model, which uses the precautionary principle to evaluate
transgenic crops (as opposed to the United States, which evaluates the
crop itself). Given the differences between U.S. and European
regulatory systems, there is a lack of harmonization that hinders the
adoption process. A final barrier to adoption is that farmers in
emerging countries have little political power and cannot make the case
for adoption, despite comprising such a large percentage of the
population. This is not always the case, however. South Africa, for
example, has produced transgenic crops for the past 18 years and has a
particularly effective biosafety regulatory framework and R&D
investment. South Africa also trained farmers and scientists and
embarked on a substantive public awareness campaign. In addition,
farmers groups (including both large-scale and smallholder farmers)
were supportive of the adoption of transgenic crops (Adenle, et al.,
2013).
Similar forward-looking strategies need to be adopted in emerging
countries. The focus should first be on developing strategies,
policies, and laws aimed at promoting biotechnology. Biosafety should
be part of a broader biotechnology development strategy, not the other
way around. Such an approach should seek to create a coordinated
biotechnology research strategy that involves government, national
research institutes, universities, the private sector and relevant
civil society organizations. A broad consultative process should be
launched that seeks to enable emerging countries to leapfrog in
biotechnology in the same way they did in mobile technology. Failure to
do so would be to mortgage emerging economies to the forces of
technological stagnation, agricultural decline, and economic decay.
Conclusion
The future of the role of transgenic crops in addressing global
challenges will be influenced greatly by advances in science and
technology. New developments in genomics, molecular biology, and other
allied fields will expand technological options in ways that will
address some of the current uncertainties. The growth in technological
abundance will also play an important role in democratizing
biotechnology and bringing more players into the field. This will go a
long way in helping to spread the societal benefits of biotechnology.
However, advances in biotechnology research can only be translated
into societal benefits with the help of enabling policy environments.
More important, regulatory processes need to be brought in line with
the state of knowledge on the benefits and risks of biotechnology. The
United States has historically played a critical role in the creation
of the biotechnology industry by crafting founding legislation. The
time has come for the United States to renew its leadership role by
ensuring that regulatory processes help to spread further the benefits
of biotechnology.
References
Adenle, A.A., Morris, E.J., and Parayil, G., 2013. Status of
development, regulation, and adoption of GM agriculture in Africa: View
and positions of stakeholder groups. Food Policy, 43, pp. 159-166.
Arjo, Gemma, et al. 2013. Plurality of Opinion, Scientific
Discourse and Pseudoscience: An In Depth Analysis of the Seralini, et
al. Study Claiming that RoundupTM Ready Corn or the
Herbicide RoundupTM Cause Cancer in Rats. Transgenic
Research, 22(2), pp. 255-67.
Belay, M. and Nyambura, R., 2013. GM Crops Won't Help African
Farmers. Guardian Poverty Matters blog, [blog], 24 June. Available at:
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/jun/
24/gm-crops-african-farmers [Accessed 1 November 2013].
Brookes, G., and Barfoot, P., 2014. GM crops: global socio-economic
and environmental impacts 1996-2012. PG Economics Ltd.
Brookes, G. and Barfoot, P., 2013. The global income and production
effects of genetically modified (GM) crops 1996-2011. GM Crops and
Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain 4(1), pp. 74-83.
Butelli, Eugenio, et al. 2008. Enrichment of tomato fruit with
health-promoting anthocyanins by expression of select transcription
factors. Nature Biotechnology 26(11), pp. 1301-08.
Carpenter, J.E. 2013. The socio-economic impacts of currently
commercialised genetically engineered crops. International Journal of
Biotechnology 12(4), pp. 249-268.
Clayton, S., 2009. Filipino farmers welcome new rice varieties.
IRRI. [media release] 4 June. Available at http://irri.org/
index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id
=8151&Itemid=100588&lang=en [Accessed 1 November 2013].
Dill, G.M., Cajacob, C.A., and Padgette, S.R., 2008. Glyphosate-
resistant crops: adoption, use and future considerations. Pest
Management Science, 64(4), pp. 326-331.
Edmeades, G.O., 2013. Progress in Achieving and Delivering Drought
Tolerance in Maize--An Update. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.
European Commission. 2010. A Decade of EU-funded GMO Research.
Brussels: European Commission. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/kbbe/
docs/a-decade-of-eu-funded-gmo-research_en.pdf.
Goering, L., 2012. FEATURE--'Green bullet' innovations aim to feed
world of 9 billion. Reuters, 2 May.
Gonsalves, D. 2004. Transgenic papaya in Hawaii and beyond.
AgBioForum 7(1-2), pp. 36-40.
Hammadi, Saad. 2014. Bangladeshi farmers caught in row over
$600,000 GM aubergine trial. Guardian. June 4. http://
www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/05/gm-crop-bangladesh-bt-
brinjal.
Herrera-Estrella, L.R., 2000. Genetically Modified Crops and
Developing Countries. Plant Physiology 124(3),pp. 923-926.
Huang, J., Pray, C. and Rozelle, S., 2002. Enhancing the Crops to
Feed the Poor. Nature, August 8.
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications (ISAAA), 2013. Global biotech/GM crop plantings increase
100-fold from 1996; developing countries, including new adopters Sudan
and Cuba, now dominate use of the technology. ISAAA Brief No. 44.
[press release] 20 February. Available at http://www.isaaa.org/
resources/publications/briefs/44/pressrelease/ [Accessed 1 November
2013].
International Rice Research Center (IRRI), n.d. Climate change-
ready rice. [Online briefing]. Available at http://irri.org/
index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=
9148&lang=en [Accessed 1 November 2013].
James, C. 2013. Executive summary. In Global Status of
Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012, ISAAA Brief No. 44. Ithaca,
N.Y.: ISAAA.
James, C. 2014a. Executive summary. In Global Status of
Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2013, ISAAA Brief No. 46. Ithaca,
N.Y.: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech
Applications.
James, C. 2014b. ISAAA brief 46-2013: Slides & tables. 2013 ISAAA
Report on Global Status of Biotech/GM Crops, February 2014, http://
www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/46/pptslides/default.asp.
Juma, C., and Gordon, K. 2014. Leap-frogging in African
agriculture: the case of genetically modified crops. In Foresight
Africa. Washington, D.C.: Brookings.
Juma, C., Conceicao, P., and Levine, S., 2014. Biotechnology and
food security. In S. Smyth, D. Castle and P.W.B. Phillips eds. 2014.
Handbook on Agriculture, Biotechnology and Development. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Juma, C. 2013. Growing the nutritional revolution: a plea for niche
crops. Nestle Foundation Report. Lausanne, Switz: Nestle Foundation,
pp. 34-36.
Juma, C., 2011a. The New Harvest: Agricultural Innovation in
Africa. New York: Oxford University Press.
Juma, C., 2011b. Preventing Hunger: Biotechnology Is Key. Nature,
No. 479 (November 2011).
Juma, C., Ismail Serageldin, et al. 2007. Freedom to Innovate:
Biotechnology in Africa's Development. Report of the High-Level African
Panel on Modern Biotechnology. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Pretoria,
South Africa: New Partnership for Africa's Development, African Union.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/17382/
freedom_to_innovate.html.
Kathage, J., and Qaim, M., 2012. Economic Impacts and Impact
Dynamics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton in India. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 109(29),pp. 11652-11656.
McHughen, Alan. 2013. GM crops and foods: what do consumers want to
know? GM Crops and Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food
Chain 4(3), pp. 1-11.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 2010a. Strategic Planning for
the Florida Citrus Industry: Addressing Citrus Greening. Washington,
D.C.: NAS.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 2010b. Impact of Genetically
Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States.
Washington, D.C.: NAS.
Nicolia, A., Manzo, A., Veronesi, F., and Rosellini, D., 2013. An
Overview of the Last 10 Years of Genetically Engineered Crop Safety
Research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 34(1), pp. 77-88.
Normile, D., 2008. Reinventing Rice to Feed the World. Science,
July 18, pp. 330-333.
Pray, C.E., Nagarajan, L., Huang, J., Hu, R., and Ramaswami, B.,
2011. The Impact off Bt Cotton and the Potential Impact of
Biotechnology on Other Crops in China and India. In C.A. Carter, G.
Moschini, and I. Sheldon, eds. 2011. Frontiers of Economics and
Globalization, Vol. 10. London: Emerald. Ch. 4.
Qaim, M., and Kouser, S., 2013. Genetically Modified Crops and Food
Security. PLOS One, 8(6), pp. 1-7.
Ray, D.K., Mueller, N.D., West, P.C., and Foley, J.A. 2013. Yield
trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS
One 8(6), pp. 1-8.
Ricroch A.E., Berge, J.B. and Kuntz M. 2011. Evaluation of
Genetically Engineered Crops Using Transcriptomic, Proteomic, and
Metabolomics Profiling Techniques. Plant Physiology, 155(4), pp. 1752-
1761.
Redfern, S.K., Azzul, N., and Binamira, J.S. 2012. Rice in
Southeast Asia: facing risks and vulnerabilities to respond to climate
change. In Building resilience for adaptation to climate change in the
agriculture sector. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Ronald, P., n.d. New flood-tolerant rice offers relief for world's
poorest farmers. Ronald Laboratory, University of California at Davis.
[press release]. Available at http://indica.ucdavis.edu/news/new-flood-
tolerant-rice-offers-relief-for-worlds [Accessed 1 November 2013].
Rotman, D. 2013. Why we will need genetically modified foods. MIT
Technology Review. December 13. http://www.technologyreview.com/
featuredstory/522596/why-we-will-need-genetically-modified-foods/.
Searchinger, T., et al. 2013. Creating a Sustainable Food Future.
Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute. Available at http://
www.worldresourcesreport.org.
Seralini, Gilles-Eric, et al., 2012. Long Term Toxicity of a
Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant Genetically Modified Maize.
Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50 (11), pp. 4221-31.
Sexton, S. and Zilberman, D., 2010. How Agricultural Biotechnology
Boosts Food Supply and Accommodates Biofuels. NBER Working Paper No.
16699. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Shukman, David. 2014. ``Genetically-modified purple tomatoes
heading for shops.'' BBC. January 14. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-
environment-25885756.
UK Council for Science and Technology. 2013. GM Science Update.
London: Council for Science and Technology. https://www.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/292174/cst-14-
634a-gm-science-update.pdf [Accessed 6 July 2013].
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2009.
Declaration of the World Summit on Food Security. Rome, Italy, 16-18
November, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/Meeting/018/k6050e.pdf.
Vitale, J.D., 2010. The Commercial Application of GMO Crops in
Africa: Burkina Faso's Decade of Experience with Bt Cotton. AgBioForum,
13(4), pp. 320-332.
Wamboga, P., 2011. Vitamin A and Iron-rich bananas under trial in
Uganda. Biovision, 16 (February) [newsletter]. Available at: http://
www.biovisioneast
africa.com/publications/Biovision-16.pdf [Accessed 1 November 2013].
World Bank. 2008. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for
Development. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Zilberman, D., Sexton, S.E., Marra, M., and Fernandez-Cornejo, J.,
2010. The Economic Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops. Choices,
25(2), pp. 1-25.
Acknowledgements
This submission is based on Juma, Calestous and Gordon, Katherine
(Forthcoming), Transgenic Crops and Food Security, in Ricroch, A.,
Chopra, S., and Fleischer, S. eds. Plant Biotechnology--Experience and
Future Prospects. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Additional
information was derived from the author forthcoming book, Innovation
and Its Enemies: Resistance to New Technology.
Biographical Summary
Professor Calestous Juma, a Kenyan national, is an internationally
recognized authority on the role of science, technology, engineering
and innovation in sustainable development. He is Professor of the
Practice of International Development and Director of the Science,
Technology, and Globalization Project at Harvard Kennedy School. He is
also Faculty Chair of the Mason Fellows Program and Faculty Chair of
the Innovation for Economic Development Executive Program.
Professor Juma directs the School's Agricultural Innovation Policy
in Africa Project funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He
teaches graduate courses on innovation for economic development and
resistance to new technology as well as an undergraduate seminar on
biotechnology and sustainability. Professor Juma has been selected as a
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Visiting Professor at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology over the 2014-2015 academic year.
He has conducted extensive policy research on biotechnology, having
written his first book on the subject, The Gene Hunters: Biotechnology
and the Scramble for Seeds (Princeton University Press and Zed Books)
in 1989. His previous positions include: founding Executive Director of
the African Centre for Technology Studies in Nairobi; Director of
International Diffusion of Biotechnology Programme of the International
Federation of Institutes of Advanced Study in Maastricht, The
Netherlands; Executive Secretary of the UN Convention on Biological
Diversity (where he oversaw the initiation of the negotiations that
resulted in the adopted of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety); and
Chancellor of the University of Guyana.
Professor Juma co-chaired the African Union's High-Level Panel on
Modern Biotechnology and the High-Level Panel on Science, Technology
and Innovation. He has also chaired or served on committees of the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences dealing with agricultural biotechnology.
He is currently on the judging panels of the Queen Elizabeth Prize for
Engineering and the Africa Prize for Engineering Innovation. He has
served on the boards of numerous international organizations and
universities including WWF International and is currently a trustee of
the Aga Khan University.
In recognition of his research, Professor Juma has been elected to
several scientific and engineering academies including the Royal
Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the World
Academy of Sciences (TWAS), the UK Royal Academy of Engineering, the
African Academy of Sciences. In 2006 he was honored by the Order of the
Elder of the Burning Spear (EBS) by the President of the Republic of
Kenya for being a respected international diplomat who has assisted
governments to solve diplomatic problems.
Professor Juma holds a D.Phil. in science and technology policy
studies from the University of Sussex (UK) and has received numerous
international awards and honorary degrees for his work on sustainable
development in general and biotechnology in particular. He is editor of
the peer-reviewed International Journal of Technology and Globalisation
and the International Journal of Biotechnology. His latest book, The
New Harvest: Agricultural Innovation in Africa, was published in 2011
by Oxford University Press. His forthcoming book, Innovation and Its
Enemies: Resistance to New Technology, covering case studies spanning
the period 1490-2014, is currently under consideration by a publisher.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Dr. Juma.
We will go next to Dr. Olga Bolden-Tiller, an assistant
professor at Tuskegee University. Dr. Bolden-Tiller.
STATEMENT OF OLGA BOLDEN-TILLER, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY, TUSKEGEE, AL
Dr. Bolden-Tiller. Thank you, and like the others, I would
like to thank you all for the invitation.
As an Associate Professor at Tuskegee University and the
chair for the department of agriculture, I would like to share
with you a little bit about why the utilization of technology
feeding the world is an old idea.
In his thesis entitled, Plants as Modified by Man, back in
the late 1800s, George Washington Carver wrote ``. . . the day
is not far distant when man . . . will be able to use the tools
nature has placed before him from a purely scientific basis,
free from all conjecture.'', which we are facing here today. At
the time, the tools that Carver referred to were not biological
tools, but the technology at his time were instead that of
breeding, selection of varieties, budding, and grafting.
Carver noted that: ``Ever since science overthrew the idea
of spontaneous generation and established beyond doubt that no
organism could have existence without a parent cell, the
scientific world received a thunderbolt which was to be the
means of its first great awakening.'' He also suggested in his
thesis, ``as the message was heralded from one to another it
aroused more careful investigation, stimulated advanced thought
and opened up a new line of possibilities respecting the whole
plant kingdom.'', and this has led to us where we are today
with biotechnology, and the development of these biological
tools.
Technological tools and advances have been adopted in many
fields. However, when posed for agricultural products, some
hesitate, and this is disturbing. Even Carver noted back in his
thesis that, ``the chemist takes original elements or
compounds, breaks up their combination or combines them into
various proportions to suit his purpose . . .''
Today, this would be new medications and the development of
other products, such as with material science engineering. This
is not said to attack those fields but to draw parallels as
these scientists are working within the laws of nature to
formulate these new derivatives.
Similarly, biotechnology allows those in life sciences who
work with plants and animals to do is same. As the laws of
nature themselves are not being violated, we are simply
utilizing the laws of nature with these new biological tools in
order to create and propagate new varieties of existing
products.
In his thesis, Carver suggested that: ``This was the dawn
of a new era. [and that] . . . man was not simply to assist
nature in producing endless varieties, but be the actual
progenitor of new creations.'' He went on to reference several
scientists' work that had resulted in the development of novel
and more robust crop varieties, similar to what we talk about
today with biotechnology, through the uses of these new
technological tools that have resulted in increases in yields.
When we consider the benefits of biotechnology to society,
we can focus on any single area of agriculture and identify the
positive impacts of technology. For instance, to address the
issue of poor nutrition in developing countries, a derivative
of the sweet potato produced at Tuskegee University was shown
to have increased protein content up to 500 percent. If
consumed by individuals in areas where protein sources are
scarce, these individuals will have at their fingertips a food
source that can mean the difference between malnutrition and
survival.
When we consider food production here in the U.S., a
developed nation, it is clear that food production requires
many resources and labor to manage crops. Utilizing technology
will allow us to do this in a very sustainable manner.
With every great awakening, scientific or otherwise,
questions will arise. Skeptics will ensue; however, it is
critical that we as a society look at the facts, and the facts
are these: The incorporation of GMO crops into operations in
developing countries result in increased farm incomes and
reduced labor associated with agricultural practices. This
allows for more time for education and other avenues of income.
It is predicted that food production must double within the
next 30 years to meet the demands of the predicted population,
and biotechnology provides scientists with answers to these
things in a very affordable and sustainable way.
The science is advancing. What is not advancing adequately
is the communication and conversations about biotechnology with
all components of our society. Creativity and resources must be
increased to bring all members of the U.S. family along, in
terms of sharing in the benefits of these new technologies in
order to improve our quality of life not only here in the
United States but around the world.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bolden-Tiller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Olga Bolden-Tiller, Ph.D., Associate Professor,
Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, AL
Technology Can Feed the World: An Old Idea
In his thesis ``Plants as Modified by Man,'' George Washington
Carver wrote over 100 years ago that, ``. . . the day is not far
distant when man . . . will be able to use the tools nature has placed
before him from a purely scientific basis, free from all conjecture.''
At the time, the tools to which Carver referred were not
biotechnological tools, but instead tools and techniques that we find
common today, including breeding and selection of varieties, budding
and grafting. Carver noted that: ``Ever since science overthrew the
idea of spontaneous generation and established beyond doubt that no
organism could have existence without a parent cell, the scientific
world received a thunderbolt which was to be the means of its first
great awakening.'' He also suggested in his thesis that, ``as the
message was heralded from one to another it aroused more careful
investigation, stimulated advanced thought and opened up a new line of
possibilities respecting the whole plant kingdom.'' Fast forward . . .
the evolution of biotechnological tools have yielded another Awakening;
one that has grown exponentially, resulting in an ever increasing
amount of data, which has led to the subsequent development of
additional biotechnological tools being used to understand and apply
this new knowledge.
Technological advances are used in many fields of science (e.g.,
medicine); however, when posed for agricultural products, some
hesitate. Even Carver noted in his thesis that, ``the chemist takes
original elements or compounds, breaks up their combination or combines
them into various proportions to suit his purpose . . .'' be that
purpose to design new medicines or other products, such as those that
result from material science engineering. This is said not to attack
those fields, but to draw on parallels, as these scientists are working
within laws of nature to formulate these new derivatives,; similarly
biotechnology allows those in the life sciences who work with plants
and animals to do the same, as the laws of nature themselves are not
being violated, thus the resultant products continue to propagate with
targeted outcomes. In his thesis, Carver suggested that: ``This was the
dawn of a new era. [and that] . . . man was not simply to assist nature
in producing endless varieties, but be the actual progenitor of new
creations.'' He went on to reference several scientists' works that had
resulted in the development of novel and more robust crop varieties
through the usage of the new technological tools of that time, such as
selection, cross fertilizing and cultivating, with resultant increasing
fruit and flower yields up to four-fold.
When we consider the benefits of biotechnology to society, we can
focus on any single area of agriculture and identify the positive
impact(s) of the technology. For instance, to address the issue of poor
nutrition in developing countries, a derivative of the sweetpotato,
produced at Tuskegee University, was shown to have increased protein
content, up to 500%. If consumed by individuals in areas where protein
sources are scarce, these individuals will have at their fingertips a
food source that can mean the difference between malnutrition and
survival. When we consider food production here in the U.S., a
developed nation, it is clear that food production requires many
natural resources and labor to manage crops. However, varieties of
crops that require less labor, less water and less land have resulted
in lower food costs, making food products more affordable domestically.
This also results in sustainable agricultural practices that are
necessary to reduce the human footprint on the environment. Further, as
we yield food surpluses, we also are able to export them to countries
that may not have the ability to produce adequate food for their needs
allowing the U.S. to play a significant role in feeding the world.
With every ``great awakening,'' scientific or otherwise, questions
will arise; skeptics will ensue; however, it is critical that we as a
society look at the facts. And the facts are these: (1) the
incorporation of GMO crops into operations in developing countries
result in increased farm incomes and reduced labor associated with
agricultural practices, allowing for more time for education and other
avenues of income; (2) it is predicted that food production must double
within the next 30 years to meet the demand of the projected
population; (3) biotechnology provides scientists with answers that can
result in the production of more affordable foods while sustaining the
environment. This is not to say that technology should be haphazardly
implored, as care must be taken and questions must be asked. Carver
suggested that ``man is simply nature's agent . . . to assist her in
her work, hence the more careful and scientific the man, the more
valuable he is as an aid to nature in carrying out her plans
methodically . . . .'' Irrespective of one's positions, it is sure that
society must be educated about current biotechnology and forthcoming
tools to come for the future.
The science is advancing; what is not advancing adequately is the
communication and conversations about biotechnology with all components
of our society. Creativity and resources must be increased to bring all
members of the U.S. family along in terms of sharing in the benefits of
the new technologies to improve in their quality of life.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Dr. Bolden-Tiller.
And last, I would like to go to Ms. Joanna Lidback.
STATEMENT OF JOANNA S. LIDBACK, OWNER, THE FARM AT WHEELER
MOUNTAIN, WESTMORE, VT; ON BEHALF OF AGRI-MARK, INC.; NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF FARMER
COOPERATIVES
Ms. Lidback. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and other
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here
today.
I am here on behalf of Agri-Mark Dairy Cooperative and the
National Council of Farmer Co-ops. My husband and I have a
small 45 cow dairy located in northeast Vermont. We also make
extra hay to sell. We raise Jersey steers to process and sell
beef locally and market a small amount of compost and manure.
We have two young boys ages almost 3 and 16 months.
My husband and I are both proud to be first generation
dairy farmers. We believe in the science and the capability of
biotechnology and its role in protecting the sustainability of
our farm. Biotech crops are essential to feeding our cows and
calves. We feed both GMO corn and soy products year round along
with pasturing and a grass-based silage.
GMOs are also key to our economic sustainability. For
instance, in speaking with our dairy nutritionist earlier this
week, he pointed out that the only non-GMO grain he could get
us right now was organic. Our grain costs would go from $344
per ton to $758. We use about 15 tons of grain per month. Over
the course of the year, our costs would increase by nearly
$75,000. I don't see how we could survive, let alone farm
profitably with those increased feed costs.
Beyond GMOs, we utilize other products derived from
biotechnology across our operation, from genomic testing of our
Jersey cattle to the medicines, vaccines, and tests we use to
keep our animals healthy.
In the future, we are also considering growing our own corn
and adding alfalfa to our mix. Given our location, we would
need a shorter-day corn variety. Without genetic engineering,
we would not have this opportunity, and economically, it would
not make sense.
I personally believe that there is room for many different
styles of farming. I also believe that biotechnology plays a
major role in our collective ability to not only feed a growing
global population but also to make individual improvements on
our own farms. As a mother and as a consumer, I do not purchase
organic or non-GMO food in the store. I generally do not
believe in paying a premium for foods that provide no added
nutritional, health, or environmental benefits. I feel secure
in the steps taken to ensure the safety of the food I give my
two growing boys.
So you must be aware that recently my State of Vermont
passed a mandatory GMO labeling law. However, it is important
to note that consumers do currently have choices in the grocery
store aisle, whether it is a certified organic label or a
voluntary non-GMO label. As my fellow panelists can and have
attested, the science shows that GMOs are safe and bring
tremendous benefits to farmers, consumers, and the environment,
but we in agriculture have failed to connect with the public,
and this has allowed misinformation to spread.
Related to that debate, I recently wrote to the editor of
my local paper and posted it on my blog, farmlifelove.com. It
was responding to an organic farmer's letter that berated
conventional farmers and their use of GMOs. I was more nervous
about the possible backlash from my local community than about
anything I had ever posted on my blog. It turned out I had no
reason to be. I found support, good questions, and many thank
you's for speaking up. I am happy to continue to speak up to
our right to farm in whatever we choose, which in our case
includes biotechnology and the use of GMOs.
It is important to share my knowledge about the
opportunities and challenges we face as modern day farmers and
as modern day parents. When I have one person or ten people
reach out to me for a question or appreciating my hands on and
practical perspective from the farm, then I have succeeded.
We know more now than we ever have about growing food and
caring for animals, and this helps us to achieve a level of
productivity and sustainability that previous generations of
farmers would envy. All of this leads to lower food costs for
the consumer. I am proud of how far the American farmer has
come just as I am proud of how far we have come on our own
farm. If my sons choose to continue in farming, I want to know
that my husband and I have provided them with a firm foundation
to build on.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today and to
share my experience with biotechnology. I look forward to
answering any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lidback follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joanna S. Lidback, Owner, The Farm at Wheeler
Mountain, Westmore, VT; on Behalf of Agri-Mark, Inc.; National Council
of Farmer Cooperatives
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Schrader, and other Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here to talk about the benefits
of agricultural biotechnology. Today I am here on behalf of Agri-Mark
Dairy Cooperative and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
My husband and I have a small 45 cow dairy located in northeast
Vermont. We also make extra hay to sell, raise Jersey steers to process
and sell beef locally, and market a small amount of composted manure.
We rent our farm from my husband's aunt and uncle, and it consists of
over 200 acres of tillable land, including roughly 50 acres of pasture
where we graze our herd in temperate months. We also raise all of our
own young stock or replacement heifers. We have two young boys, ages
almost 3 and 16 months.
Along with being an active partner on the farm, I have a full-time
job with a Farm Credit Association that allows me to work remotely from
our home, and serve as first vice president of our county Farm Bureau
and as a dairy cattle judge for various youth and 4-H dairy shows
across New England. I did not grow up on a farm but got involved in
agriculture through a 4-H dairy project as a young girl in 1989. Since
then, I have not let go of my Jersey cows. I boarded my animals on
neighboring farms and as fate would have it met a newly-minted dairy
farmer who I would eventually settle down with, bringing my Jerseys
along. I have a bachelor's degree from Cornell University where I
focused on agribusiness management and a master's in business
administration from the F.W. Olin School of Business at Babson College.
My husband and I are both proud to be first-generation dairy
farmers. We are excited to be raising our sons in a farming lifestyle--
one which we think is extremely challenging at times but ultimately
tremendously rewarding.
We are proud to farm in the Green Mountain State but sometimes that
fact comes with some preconceived notions. To approach our farm with
its rolling green hills and the cows grazing quietly in the pastures--
taking note of the humble nature of our small farm--many passers-by
have mistaken us for organic dairy farmers. However, we believe in the
science and capability of biotechnology and its role in protecting the
sustainability of our farm, which produces safe, affordable food for
our fellow citizens.
To us, sustainability means living and farming in a way that meets
today's needs while ensuring that future generations also can meet
their needs. Every time I look into my sons' eyes, I realize that they
are that next generation, which makes our responsibility that much more
tangible.
Biotechnology crops are essential to feeding our cows and calves.
When New England's harsh winters and late springs keep us from pasture
feeding our livestock, we feed both corn and soy products. This gives
us a unique perspective on the importance of GMOs. We believe that GMO
varieties improve the efficiency and productivity. I also believe that
GMOs lessen the environmental impact that growing can have because less
fertilizer and pesticides are used to grow an abundant crop.
The use of GMOs is also important to the economic sustainability of
our farm. In speaking with our animal nutritionist in preparing for
this testimony, he pointed out that the only non-GMO feed he could get
us right now was organic. An organic basic 20% protein complete feed
pellet would cost $758 per ton; the same non-organic feed is $344 per
ton. On our small farm, we purchase around 15 to16 tons of grain per
month. So, using 15 tons, that would more than double our grain bill,
or in hard numbers we would spend $5,160 per month for regular feed or
$11,370 per month on organic feed--a difference of $6,210 a month or
$74,520 per year. I do not see how we could profitably farm in the long
term with those increased feed costs.
The most recent example of biotechnology that we have utilized is
genomic testing on our cattle. This not only helps us more accurately
identify physical traits that impact our breeding decisions for future
offspring of the animal, but also captures any genetic issue of
concern. For example, the Jersey Haplotype 1, recently identified in
Jersey cattle, is associated with early embryonic loss thereby reducing
conception rate by an average of 3.7 percent. We choose to use sires
that have been identified as JH-1 free, particularly if we know we have
a cow that is a carrier. In doing so, we increase our chances for a
more efficient reproductive cycle and ultimately less stress on the
cow.
We also rely upon biotechnology for some of the medicines and
vaccines we use for our cattle. Tests using Polymerase Chain Reaction
(PCR), a DNA screening test, help us determine specific causes of
mastitis in cows. This advancement in mastitis testing increases the
speed and accuracy to a quantitative level in order to treat the
specific cause of the infection. The PCR process can reduce result
waiting time by as much as a week, providing the animal with more
immediate infection relief using the most precise and effective
treatment.
In the future, we also are considering growing our own corn and
adding alfalfa to our mix. Given our location, we will need a shorter-
day corn variety, meaning it would grow in less time than average.
Without genetic engineering, we would not have this opportunity.
Economically it would not make sense.
We face a challenge brought on by what many in agriculture see as
irrational consumer fears creating the potential for limiting our
ability to use biotechnology in order to best utilize the resources we
have in a sustainable way. In many cases, this has already happened as
we saw with the controversy over use of recombinant Bovine Somatotropin
(rBST), a technology that has no adverse effects on human health.
Consumers, not understanding the science and being driven by fear
stirred up by anti-agriculture activists, rejected this technology for
no sound reason. While many said that rBST was an example of the evils
of ``big agriculture,'' the truth is that many small dairy farms used
rBST as a way to improve and grow their businesses, better utilizing
existing resources and without needing more capital expenditures. Now,
driven by the marketplace, our cooperative generally must restrict its
members from using rBST.
I personally believe that there is room for many different styles
of farming. I also believe that biotechnology plays a major role in our
collective ability to not only feed a growing global population, but to
also make individual improvements on our own farms be it 45 cows or
4,500 cows; a cash crop operation or an apple orchard; a multiple-
generation farm or a beginning farmer. Even though less than two
percent of the U.S. population now lives on farms or is actively
involved in farming, agriculture comes in all different sizes and
shapes.
As a mother and a consumer, I do not purchase organic or non-GMO
food in the store. I will support my local community, however, and may
purchase organic or non-GMO food at a farmers' market or directly at a
farm stand. I generally do not believe in paying the higher premium for
these foods because they provide no added nutritional or other health
benefits. With a growing family and a growing farm business, we have
lots of other places to spend our hard-earned money. Furthermore, I
feel secure in the steps that have been taken to the food produced and
available for sale in the grocery store to ensure it is safe to feed my
family.
The fact is that American farmers offer consumers more food
choices, while providing the safest food supply than any time in our
nation's history. Of course, living and working on a farm and being
exposed to farm publications and reports, I may have a more intimate
knowledge about the way food is grown than the typical mom. That's not
to say that the typical consumer does not have a right to a better
understanding of how the food they purchase is grown. The information
is readily available. It's just a matter of getting it from reliable
sources.
Moreover, I feel even better knowing that food produced with GMOs
or GMO ingredients has been done so with some sort of advantage in
mind--whether it's environmental, health or otherwise. I certainly do
not believe a mandatory GMO label is necessary; in fact there are more
responsible ways to spend [my] taxpayer monies. Be that as it is, if
consumers are to drive some sort of label requirement I believe it
should be done in a cohesive way at the Federal level. Regardless, the
marketplace is already figuring this out without legislative mandates
with a non-GMO and certified organic labels.
You must be aware that recently my state, the State of Vermont,
passed a mandatory GMO-labeling law. As you can guess, there has been a
fair amount of coffee shop talk about it. I am frustrated with it. I
believe that there are better uses of the state's time, and taxpayer
resources, than imposing regulations on a technology that has been used
and proven safe for over 2 decades. I am also concerned about the
impact this law will have on the cost and availability of food in
Vermont's grocery stores.
I might also add that our farm is not too far from the border with
New Hampshire; we can get there in under an hour. Doubtless there will
be consumer confusion over having one label on food in Vermont, and
another on the exact same products in New Hampshire and the rest of the
country. This serves no one's interests--not consumers, not farmers,
not food producers.
I recently posted a letter that I wrote to the editor of my local
paper on my blog, farmlifelove.com. It was in response to an organic
farmer's letter who said that GMOs only perpetuate a wedge between
organic and conventional farmers. I actually agree with his sentiment.
However, in an attempt to defend organic farming, he went on to berate
conventional farmers, or those farmers whom I believe are open to new
technology--whether it's naturally derived or not. The funny thing is,
I was more nervous about sending this letter in to my local paper than
about anything I had ever posted on my blog. I was nervous that people
in my community, my local beef customers for example, would take issue
with my open stance on the use and labeling of GMOs. What I found was
completely the opposite. I found support, good questions and many thank
you's for speaking up.
I am happy to continue to speak up for our right to farm in the
best way we know possible; which in our case includes biotechnology and
the use of GMOs. I will continue to pursue an active presence on
Facebook, Twitter and Instagram as well as more traditional
communication routes via newspapers, church meetings or everyday
conversation, sharing articles and ideas along with my knowledge about
the opportunities and challenges we face as modern-day farmers as
parents. If I have one person or ten people reach out to me for a
question or appreciating my hands-on and practical perspective from the
farm, then I have succeeded. And I have.
We know more now than we have ever have about growing food, or
caring for animals, and this helps us to achieve a level of
productivity that previous generations of farmers would envy. I am
proud of how far the American farmer has come, just as I am proud of
how far we have come on our own farm.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today and to share
my experience with biotechnology.
About Agri-Mark
Agri-Mark, with $952 million in 2013 sales, markets more than 300
million gallons of farm fresh milk each year for more than 1,200 dairy
farm families in New England and New York. The cooperative is
headquartered in Methuen, Mass., has been marketing milk for dairy
farmers since 1913, and actively represents their legislative interests
in the Northeast and in Washington, D.C.
Agri-Mark owns three cheese and dairy product manufacturing
facilities in Vermont and New York State and has a butter/nonfat powder
plant in Massachusetts. Agri-Mark has also invested in operations to
manufacture and market valuable whey proteins globally while also
marketing fresh fluid milk from its local farm families to the region's
largest dairy processors.
About the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
Since 1929, NCFC has been the voice of America's farmer
cooperatives. NCFC values farmer ownership and control in the
production and distribution chain; the economic viability of farmers
and the businesses they own; and vibrant rural communities. We have an
extremely diverse membership, which we view as one of our sources of
strength--our members span the country, supply nearly every
agricultural input imaginable, provide credit and related financial
services (including export financing), and market a wide range of
commodities and value-added products.
American agriculture is a modern-day success story. America's
farmers produce the world's safest, most abundant food supply for
consumers at prices far lower than the world average. Farmer
cooperatives are an important part of the success of American
agriculture. Cooperatives differ from other businesses because they are
member-owned and are operated for the shared benefit of their members.
Farmer cooperatives enhance competition in the agricultural
marketplace by acting as bargaining agents for their member' products;
providing market intelligence and pricing information; providing
competitively priced farming supplies; and vertically integrating their
members' production and processing. There are over 3,000 farmer
cooperatives across the U.S., and earnings from their activities (known
as patronage) are returned to their farmer members, helping improve
their members' income from the marketplace.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Ms. Lidback. As a parent, I can
understand your emotion.
The chair is going to move to the question and answer
period now, and the chair would like to remind Members that
they will be recognized for questioning in order of seniority
for Members who were here at the start of the hearing. After
that, Members will be recognized in the order of arrival. I
appreciate the Members understanding.
I am going to start with a quick question for Dr. Just.
While this is not intended to be a hearing about regulatory
policy, it is important for us to understand the impact of
government regulation on our ability to innovate. Can you talk
about the cost of various regulatory interventions such as the
trend of states to impose labeling mandates?
Dr. Just. Sure. So, when we impose labeling mandates or
things along those lines, it creates a really complex issue for
the companies that are producing these innovations.
First off, because they have to respond to how consumers
are going to perceive those labels, but beyond those labels, it
also creates this level of uncertainty as to whether the
government will even be allowing the types of innovations they
are going to make to be marketed once they get to the other
end. For the risk-takers, just like everyone else, when they
have that uncertainty, it is going to lead them on the margin
to not invest in some of these innovations that they worry are
going to be regulated out of usefulness in one way or another.
So we definitely would see a dampening of innovation when
we have that policy of uncertainty and we already are seeing
that sort of dampening of innovation, not just big firms but
also within the universities.
Mr. Davis. Well, Dr. Just, do you think consumers perceive
that government-mandated labels as somewhat of warning labels?
Dr. Just. Absolutely. Well, it depends a little bit on what
these labels look like. If we are talking about a front of pack
label that says, contains genetically modified organisms, or
something that has a whole bunch of large words that are
difficult for them to understand, it is a warning label. It is
something that says this is dangerous and you want to stay away
from it. If it is in the list of ingredients right along with
water on the back of the pack, they won't ever notice it.
Mr. Davis. Well, I have one last question for you during
this round, and we understand the nature of scientific research
and appreciate the credibility that researchers bring to their
work. Activists tend to demonize research if the data doesn't
support their own agenda. Likewise, they attempt to discredit
the researcher, particularly if the funding comes from a source
that they find objectionable. Can you talk about the
professional code of ethics you adhere to within the academic
community?
Dr. Just. Sure. I can speak to this in general. Each
research university, we are forced by contract to disclose all
of our funding sources to our university each year where a
third party goes through and determines if there are conflicts
of interest and in addition, every time we publish a paper, we
have to talk about where that funding came from.
And if it were to come out that somebody had lied or hidden
that sort of the funding, it would be extremely embarrassing
and the study, most likely, would be withdrawn from
publication. I think it is clear that when we read these
journals, that we can trust at least where that source of
funding comes from.
That said, in every instance I am aware, when a faculty
member who is into research is signing a contract to do
consulting work for a major firm, they include in there that
they have to be able to publish everything, including those
things that that firm may disagree with, with the firm getting
informed about what that is ahead of time so they can have time
to react.
I think everybody who is an honest researcher would have to
put that into that contract; otherwise, they just wouldn't be
willing to sign, but in any case, published research is fairly
trustworthy, and we can at least look at where that funding
source came from and judge based on that funding source,
whether we believe it is in one way biased or not.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much for your responses, Dr.
Just.
I now recognize the gentleman from Oregon, the Ranking
Member, Mr. Schrader, who I want to let the panel know is a
graduate of the University of Illinois, Veterinary School of
Medicine which happens to sit in my district, so I like to tout
that.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am also
an undergraduate of Cornell University, so I traveled around
this great country well before my stint here in Congress.
I will start with Dr. Juma. You indicated in your opening
remarks that in your previous life with work you had done with
a group of folks in agency, there was some expectations that
genetically modified produce or crops or organisms would have
some real serious deleterious effects environmentally, health-
wise, et cetera.
And you have indicated, I guess, in the testimony, that
that has not been proven to be the case, and yet it would seem
that a lot of the rhetoric we are hearing that would be against
hybrid or genetically modified improvements to crops still
persist. Do you think the original prejudices still hold sway
or has there been some new evidence to indicate there is unsafe
or unhealthy problems with these genetically modified crops?
Dr. Juma. Thank you very much for that question. The
evidence does not support those claims. The balance of the
evidence, which are the studies that have been done that
summarize all the previous studies that exist have come to the
conclusion that the risks associated with the genetically
modified products are similar to those associated with
conventional products. That is the balance of evidence.
That is both in the United States with the studies of the
National Academy of Sciences. Similarly, the European Union has
conducted similar studies spending millions, up to =300 million
over a 10 year period reviewing the evidence and came to the
same conclusions.
Mr. Schrader. So, if I may interrupt, Dr. Juma, so why does
the EU still have their labeling? If they have come to the same
conclusions, why have they not, frankly, informed their
consumers that there is no difference?
Dr. Juma. The EU is not a homogenous body. You have the
commission with its scientific advice that has conducted these
studies. You have the legislative body that is influenced very
much by the consumer organizations that have not changed their
position, and then you have a third component, which is a
continuation of a report that basically misinforms the public,
that are never challenged.
In the case of scientific research, we disclose where our
funding comes from. The opponents of the technology normally
don't disclose where their funding comes from, so the standards
that are used to guard against misinformation in the scientific
community are not applied when it comes to those who oppose the
technology. It has been my view that in fact those who oppose
the technology need to be held to the same standards of ethics
being questioned publicly in the same way as scientists get
questioned publicly.
Mr. Schrader. There is this call we have in this country by
a group of folks that purport to be strong, environmentally
oriented, and health oriented for our consumers that we should
base our decisions on good science, and that is a concern I see
with this unfortunate agenda trying to demonize something not
based on the science but based on one's personal inclinations.
Listening to you, it is obvious that while the science in
the EU is incontrovertible about the health and safety benefits
of genetically modified hybrid crops, that because of politics,
people are afraid to lead and inform consumers about what is
really going on. Certainly, people should have all the
information they need, but hopefully it should be accurate
information, peer reviewed information, if I listen to you in
particular, that should be the dominant theme, not just
someone's theory taken off the Internet or from your next door
neighbor or some preconceived notions that have since been
proven false.
Next, a question to Dr. Bolden-Tiller: You indicated in
your testimony a little bit like my opening remarks that what
we have here is some problems with the society and
communication aspect of the genetic modification not keeping up
with the technology and the consumer is not really aware. Could
you elaborate on how we in Congress or the industry or grocery
stores or researchers, agriculturalists should get the word out
not in a threatening or overbearing manner but one based on
hopefully giving people good information and make good
decisions?
Dr. Bolden-Tiller. Indeed, it needs to be a holistic
approach, and it doesn't need to be something that is just put
here and there strategically, if you would. It should just be a
part of everyday life, as many things are.
Every day we hear about new medications and how they are
coming to fruition and things of that nature, but we don't hear
that development piece when related to agricultural products,
and I think that when we look at the best approach, we need to
look at it in that vein.
When we talk about medication and science in general, it
starts from kindergarten on up, and I think that we need to
incorporate and have an understanding from our youth on up how
it is food is produced, where does our food comes from. A lot
of questions that people have and a lot of hesitations that
they have really is from a lack of knowledge in regard to where
food actually comes from.
Mr. Schrader. Very good. Thank you.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davis. The chair would like to recognize the gentleman
from California, Mr. LaMalfa, for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the panelists traveling as they have had to
today to be here.
You know, I am, as you may know, I am a farmer myself in
California. We farmed rice on our farm for our 83rd year, so
Ms. Lidback, this is your first generation, my congratulations
to you getting started here. It was a common joke that how do
you make a small fortune farming, you start with a large one,
but it is a good life and we have done well, and I appreciate
it.
Dr. Bolden-Tiller, when we look at the different
technology, different things we have done over the years like,
for example, my family would grow seed rice for other farmers'
use the following year, and so we have improved in California
for many years, for maybe 4,000, 4,500 weight per acre as a
yield, so we are in the 2000s now, and we have done it without
GMO so far this point. No California rice is GMO.
But we have also used land leveling. We are using laser and
now GPS guided technology to level the land within \1/8\ of an
inch, so we are very frugal with water as we face drought and
more and more problems with our water supply as well that
enables us to use less materials to control weeds or other
pests like that.
So, we have done a lot of things outside of the GMO process
to maximize what we have. It seems like we are at the point
where maybe we are about tapped out on new technologies or what
have you to extract more grain from an acre or and other crops
as well. So, if we are going to move forward with the goals of
increasing food production, as the Chairman and others
mentioned, we are looking at a population of nine billion in
not that many years on this planet. Where are we going to find
the space to get more yield with available technologies?
And we could in several ways. You could increase acres,
California can be tough due to water supply and many other
things. There are certainly avenues to do so. Increase the use
of fertilizer, that may not be popular. What are we have going
to do to increase and meet the goals of the world's needs?
Dr. Bolden-Tiller. Well, I think that is what brings us
here today. The beauty about technology is that you can target
specifically what areas need to be adjusted, and you can do it
in a very refined way such that you are addressing the specific
needs. So if there is a drought issue, you can specifically
target genes that will resist drought, and so you don't need
more water, you don't need more land, you don't need any
additional resources, and you can utilize the technology that
we already have.
I think that is why we are here today, to discuss and help
people understand that in order for us to move forward, when we
are running out of land, I mean, you speak of rice. I was in
India a couple of years ago, and they are tapped out with
regard to land, and they have one of the largest increasing
population, and although they can go higher with buildings in
terms of housing people, there is no more land that they can
really tap into in order to grow more food. We have to look at
how can we more efficiently use the land that we have and the
other resources that we have, and biotechnology will definitely
allow us to do this by specifically targeting the issues at
hand.
And the beauty of it is, is that as we understand the
genomes of the different plants and what have you, we can
target them specifically for regions, so if you have a water
issue in California but you have a drought issue in Florida,
well, you can target varieties to be developed specifically for
those regions so that we can more efficiently utilize our
resources broadly.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
Dr. Just, for example, again, when we talk about food
supplies already being fairly tight, or about undernourishment,
especially in third world countries, et cetera, we have heard
with biotechnology that you can actually increase the nutrient
value per unit of grain or whatever it is. Would you talk about
that a little bit and what that can mean for children around
the world that are dealing with not enough to eat. We can even
look at our own border situation in this country right here,
what is happening right now, what are we doing with this
biotechnology to increase what we have per child per unit of
food they are getting?
Dr. Just. Sure. And actually the problem is addressed in
several different ways by this technology.
First, there is the ability to change the types of crops
that are being grown in third world countries to enrich them
with the particular proteins or other vitamins that they may be
specifically lacking, and that is going to reduce disease, that
is going to prevent starvation and malnutrition, and a lot of
the other sorts of diseases that go along with that.
But in addition, we can also broaden the types of land that
can be used agriculturally by allowing better tolerance for
drought or wet conditions, and even just having higher
production here in the United States lowers the prices so that
we end up having more freely available foods elsewhere. I can't
imagine exactly what things would have looked like during the
food riots from the price spikes over the last several years if
we hadn't had biotechnology that really did make something that
looked a lot like dust bowl in terms of climate almost
negligible in terms of yield.
Mr. LaMalfa. Let's not lower the prices too much, though
okay. We have to stay in the black. We have to get this farm
program behind us.
Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa.
The chair would like to recognize the gentlelady from
Washington, Ms. DelBene, for 5 minutes.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks to all of you for being here. You know in my
home State of Washington we had an initiative on the ballot in
2012 regarding GMO labeling, Initiative 522. It did not pass,
but it definitely started a big conversation in our state and
raised a lot of questions on this complicated issue. People are
confused and still looking for answers to questions, and this
will be an ongoing conversation in our state and I am sure
across our country and around the world.
I started my career in biotechnology on the life sciences
side, and I definitely agree with the comments that Mr.
Schrader made that we need to use the best science available as
we put together policy and put together policy that gives us
and our communities, consumers, and producers the best results.
And in that regard, Dr. Just, you were talking about some
of the confusion around biotechnology and that people kind of
lump everything together into one category as a GMO.
Do you have ideas of how this can be better explained and
maybe what different types of modifications there are out there
and how we talk about them?
Dr. Just. So, to begin with, just using long scientific
sounding words, makes it sound like it has been grown in a test
tube and people get scared of it, but talking about the
individual modifications, and not even talking about them in
terms of modifications, but, corn that allows you to reduce
pesticide use, right, or technology in terms of the actual
benefit. When you start talking about those benefits, people
change their minds. They recognize this is science used in
their interest, not for some nefarious purpose that they don't
quite understand.
Changing the debate to be about those specific technologies
and the specific modifications and the reasons for those
modifications really does change people's minds, and makes it
much harder to argue that this is something that we need to be
afraid of and need to make sure every consumer is aware of and
notified of.
Ms. DelBene. Given the breadth, how do you think you
practically go about doing that?
Dr. Just. I really think putting a human face on it is the
first best option, is picking out the few technologies that
have had some real significant health impacts such as Golden
Rice that has been mentioned, or some of these modifications
that are addressing diseases in Africa and other places where
they face malnutrition. Talking just about a very few specifics
can change the conversation.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you.
Dr. Juma, you were talking a little bit about the EU and
some of the challenges there. Are there both positive and
negatives we can learn from how other countries have addressed
this issue that could help advise us as we move forward here in
the United States?
Dr. Juma. Yes. Thank you very much for that question.
One place to watch closely is the United Kingdom, which
joined the European Union in following the same standards that
were hostile towards biotechnology, and as they have started to
develop their own biotech products, they realized that the laws
that they put in place were undermining their own industries,
and there has been a review in the UK Parliament not only to
change the laws but to call on the European Union to change the
way it regulates biotechnology.
This process of revisiting the rules in light of advances
in science and technology is something that needs to be done
fairly regularly, because the techniques that are in place
right now, which have very precise methods of editing the
genes, are making the process of genetic modification look very
much like conventional plant breeding and even safer than
conventional plant breeding because they are becoming more
precise about it, and therefore, the rules need to reflect that
reality.
And so this continuous review of the rules, including the
duration of FDA approval needs to be revisited in light of
advances in technology.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you.
Ms. Lidback, when you talk to your customers, how do you--
do you get questions? What types of questions do you get, and
how has that conversation gone in terms of helping folks
understand how you farm versus how others might farm?
Ms. Lidback. Thank you. Great question actually. I just
went through this with one of my Jersey beef customers who was
very skeptical of GMOs and Monsanto, in particular, and we had
a great conversation and I just shared with her that I didn't
think that she could believe everything she read on the
Internet. She said, ``Oh, no, no, no, I watched a movie about
it,'' and I said, ``Great, but let's watch more movies and
let's keep talking about it.''
And the tricky part is, every myth that has been put out
there about GMOs can be debunked or disproven that so far that
I have encountered, and when you start sharing information like
that, as long as the other person has an open mind and is
willing to hear you, then you are able to accomplish something.
But you are affecting what they believe. This is their
belief system. It is part of how they have operated or they
have started operating, if you will and I haven't heard from
her for a couple of weeks. I thought, oh, my gosh, maybe I lost
her as a customer, but then, sure enough, she just called this
past weekend, just great timing really and got another order of
Jersey beef, and so I didn't scare her away and we opened the
doors to discussion.
We are going somewhere with that, and I would like to think
that she is--she trusts me, certainly, and she trusts that I
would make good decisions for our farm and the way we do
things, so we just need to be better communicators about what
is going on and what we do and what we use every day.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Now, I would like to recognize another veterinarian, my
colleague from the great State of Florida, Mr. Yoho, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it, and I
do have a background in food animal production for the last 30
years and equine medicine, and on inclement days I would work
on dogs and cats in the clinic, as I am sure you did, Kurt.
I come from an area in north central Florida. I live in a
county called Alachua County and in a small town called the
Town of Alachua. We have the Sid Martin Biotech Center. It is
an incubator. It has been the Biotech Incubator of the Year in
2013 for the research they have done, cutting edge technology.
One of the companies, Pastoria, has taken a genetically
modified bacteria, placed it on soybeans, and it produces
anemicide, so it decreases the amount of herbicides or
anemicides that we have to spread in a field, and it is cutting
edge technology, it is going to be better for the environment,
will increase crop yield.
And when you look at Dr. Borlaug, back in the 1960s, which
the research that he has done and the motto that he has that
has been tagged with them, the man who saved a billion lives,
and that was in the 1960s and if we look today, how many lives
do you think have been saved by the genetically modified wheat
that he has produced? Anybody want to guess? It is in the
billions. But yet there is this attack on the GMOs, and the
other Members have brought up, we in the scientific community,
you in the ag community, and I commend you for, first,
starting, second, educating your clients, and you three
researchers, it is our duty to educate the public, the media in
particular.
Because they run with stories, and make sure that the
research is scientifically peer reviewed articles and that we
can prove what we are saying, we can back it up, because
billions of lives have been saved by genetically modified
wheat, corn, rice, other products, but yet nobody can come out
and give us a definitive diagnosis of how many people have died
from that. It is our duty as Members of Congress, people in ag
communities, and researchers to educate the people out there.
And so my question is, could anyone give their--one of the
other things that has come up, too, for example, in the 1990s,
it took the U.S. Government about 6 months on average to bring
a new ag biotech product to market. As of 2013, the average was
30 months with some products taking nearly 45 months.
And so these researchers, these companies are going through
just a mountain of regulations and more testing and more
testing, and I understand we want to be safe with the product
that we bring to market, but it is getting to the point where
it is crippling our market, it is crippling the innovation in
America, and companies are leaving here; whereas in Europe,
they can get these done a lot quicker, which is, you think they
would be more restrictive than we are. Can you give your
thoughts on why this is happening? We will start with you, Dr.
Just.
Dr. Just. So I can't speak to specifics about why it is
happening, but I do believe there is this growing worry about
biotechnology in general, and it is leading to this additional
scrutiny.
Mr. Yoho. Who is leading that charge? Is it the scientific
community, or is it the outside groups?
Dr. Just. No, it is outside groups. It is activists that
are outside of the academic community that are misinformed and
don't understand the science that is behind it.
Mr. Yoho. Dr. Juma, what is your opinion?
Dr. Juma. I think there is a certain degree of hesitation
on the part of political leadership not to do something, to
take decisions that they think their voters might not support.
And as the voices against biotech increases, leadership becomes
less and less willing to take tough decisions. The case of
transgenic salmon in this country is a very good example of
that.
Mr. Yoho. You hit on a very important part. Because if
politicians aren't going to back the research, that is why it
is so important on a Committee like this, the Agriculture
Committee, especially the biotech, that we have the information
and we go out and talk it with a authoritative voice and
educate our Members so that they can carry that back. And I
appreciate you bringing that up.
Another question I have, can the U.S. consumers, with all
the hunger and health problems we currently face, afford an
unpredictable regulatory system, driven by anti-modern ag
products in the public interest groups? I mean, we just can't
afford that, can we? I mean, would you agree? Anybody want to
comment on that?
Ms. Lidback. I would agree. I would definitely agree. I
think that what we are hearing today is that there are a lot of
great things out there. For example, peanuts. What if we had a
peanut that people could consume that had peanut allergy? I
mean, when you have a kid who has a peanut allergy, it affects
all the rest of the kids that they go to school with or they
are in daycare with. You can't bring any peanut products or
whatever the case may be.
Again, it comes to communicating what the benefits are
specifically and getting the message out there. So far, we have
done a poor job of that. And so that is why we are here today,
to get the word out, get the message out.
Mr. Yoho. I am out of time, but I want to thank you for
coming up here. That is what we are here for, to educate the
public. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Yoho.
We are going to do another round of questions. And I am
going to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Schrader, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Schrader. Interesting topic. And again, the gist of the
panel's remarks are we need more education.
So, in that spirit, I guess, Dr. Juma, what is the current
regulatory status of Golden Bananas and Golden Rice? How much
of this is getting into consumers' hands?
Dr. Juma. In the Philippines, with the Golden Rice, there
is a law in place that would allow the country to approve it,
but there is fierce opposition, which is not just domestic but
internationally, that is putting pressure on the Government of
the Philippines not to move on their approval.
In Uganda, where there is a serious problem with the
bananas--it is a staple for Uganda, a low content of Vitamin
A--Ugandan scientists have developed a variety that is rich in
Vitamin A, Golden Bananas. They have a different problem there.
The activists won't let the parliament approve a law that would
allow the government to determine whether to release the
product or not. So we have two situations where there is a law,
opponents won't allow the government to use that law. Then you
have another case where there is no law, and the government has
been trying for 10 years to put in place a law, and every time
it comes to parliament, opponents, both international and local
opponents, come and kill the law. So, in both cases, it is
basically opposition that is depriving the public of the
benefits of biotechnology.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you. Yes. So misinformation and we
politicians conspiring to misinform and, frankly, harm
consumers and people that really are in desperate need of
increased nutrition, at the end of the day. Dr. Just, what are
the ill effects of GMO-produced products? What health hazards
are we facing now because stuff has been GMO made?
Dr. Just. I am aware of no specific health harms from GMO
products. You know, it is certainly possible to produce
genetically modified foods that would be harmful, but it is
possible to produce any sort of thing that might be harmful.
You know, it is a bit like complaining about a tool, like a
wrench, rather than the actual--the actual food itself. It is a
just a tool to create that modification. We could obtain the
same modifications by using traditional means and crossing our
fingers and hoping it happens. It is just a much more efficient
means. But it doesn't present any specific health harm.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you.
Dr. Juma, would you agree with that?
Dr. Juma. I would agree with that. And I would go further
and say that, in many cases, not using biotechnology carries
more risks than using it. If you take the environmental area,
for example, if we didn't use biotechnology techniques, we
would need additional land, which is close to twice the size of
Texas, to grow the food that we grow today. So if we took away
biotechnology, it would have greater risks. So my claim would
be that not using it carries more risks than using it.
Mr. Schrader. Following up on that, I remember--you have a
little gray hair, sort of like me--that back in the 1960s,
1970s, there were a lot of predictions that we were going to
have world hunger because there is not enough arable land to
feed the world. Why didn't that come true? Is that just bad
science, or what happened between then and now that changed
that paradigm?
Dr. Juma. I think that most predictions underestimated two
things: first, is the potential advances in technology to
address those problems, and second, human creativity.
Mr. Schrader. Both of which are sort of on trial these days
it would appear. I appreciate that.
Dr. Bolden-Tiller, would you agree? What are the bad ill
effects that you have seen or studied when you read the
scientific journals with GMO crops?
Dr. Bolden-Tiller. Well, looking in the literature as well
as working with scientists, we have not seen any as a matter of
fact. And what we have found is that individuals who, once they
understand the science behind it, they are very receptive to
the use of GMO products.
Mr. Schrader. Dr. Just, for whatever reason, it doesn't
seem like there is a very valid reason, but people have their
own opinions, I get that, and this is a great country, if you
don't like GMO produce or a crop or seed, isn't it true you can
just buy--you can go organic, develop organic? Isn't organic a
different way to go if that is your concern?
Dr. Just. Certainly. Organics are available, and they are
GMO-free. So people can always choose to go a different
direction.
Mr. Schrader. So why do we need a whole other labeling deal
or whatever if we already have organic?
Dr. Just. I don't know specifically that we do. I really
worry that the labeling does more harm than good, that it leads
too many people away from it, and it diminishes the market for
GMOs that are the solution to a lot of the problems we face.
Mr. Schrader. I will just make a final comment, Mr.
Chairman. You have been very indulgent here. Besides the
misinformation that this whole discussion would lead to, I am
very worried about how it divides the agricultural community.
As a farmer, as a veterinarian; frankly, as people who live and
work the land provide the safest health, food, and fiber in the
world--Ms. Lidback is one of them--we are a small group. We are
less than three percent of the population in this great
country. But we feed not only ourselves but most of the world.
And there is a variety of ways to go about that. Organic is a
very valid way to go, and I am a proud organic farmer. I think
that is great. There are people that are sensitive to different
chemicals, not to gene changes but to other things that we see
out there, and it serves a legitimate purpose. People want to
know different things. Organic works great.
And as an organic producer back when it wasn't popular to
be organic, I remember being demonized by my friends in
conventional agriculture on occasion. And I just hope we sit
back and remember and say, ``Well, I am not going to do the
same thing now to my friends in conventional agriculture
because they serve a purpose.'' And the opportunity to feed
people in different countries, different parts of our great
country, where the weather is not so conducive to growth of
certain beneficial crops with high nutrition value, that we
don't start demonizing one another. We have one agriculture, in
my opinion, in this great country. And we ought to stick
together to provide an intelligent message about the benefits.
Dr. Bolden-Tiller is right on target when she says we need
to communicate more with the consumer all along the way about
the great advances, the positive advances. Frankly, if you get
that stuff out early, we can get our pushback earlier,
hopefully allay concerns or address real genuine concerns along
the production cycle. Frankly, as a man who made my living off
the land, I bear some responsibility for that. But I assure
you, Dr. Juma, I am not going to be one of those politicians
that sits back and is afraid to hopefully bring the message to
the folks in the Fifth Congressional District of Oregon that
are very interested in the GM debate. But I hope to have a more
informed debate. I guess we will find the outcome on November
2.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Let the record show that the GMO debate is not the General
Motors debate today.
I would like to recognize for another round of questions my
colleague from Florida, Mr. Yoho, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And again, the GMOs in my area, north central Florida, we
have a kind of sandy loam type of soil. And when I graduated
from vet school in 1983, we produced roughly 50 to 75 bushels
per acre of corn. Today, we are pushing 300 bushels to an acre.
And that is through the genetic modification of drought
resistance, pest resistance. And I don't think anybody can
argue with that. And of course, that drives down the feed price
to cattle, as you brought up. You know, if we didn't have that,
our price for our livestock feed would be way up. And then it
would just change the whole dynamics.
Dr. Just, I wanted to ask you, because you have done a lot
of research on marketing and consumer sentiment on this, what
has your research shown that would be the increased costs of
say a sack of wheat versus a variety--with an old variety of
wheat? Do you have any idea on that?
Dr. Just. So the increased cost?
Mr. Yoho. Yes, like if you had the GMO wheat that is
producing 70 percent more yield versus an old one, would it be
70 percent difference?
Dr. Just. So there are a lot of different ways this could
impact the market. But if we were to talk about just
eliminating GMOs altogether, the best estimates that are out
there--we have something along the lines of a ten percent
increase in commodity prices across the board. But that is
different depending upon which commodities. Where it has been
much more prevalent, it would be much larger than that.
Mr. Yoho. I agree. I think it would be huge. What has your
research shown consumers, what will they tolerate, or when it
comes to labeling GMO, what is the biggest drawback? Is it the
ignorance of what the product is just from a lack of education?
Dr. Just. So it is ignorance of the product, and it is a
general skepticism of anything they eat that is too processed
or treated in some way that they don't quite understand. You
get the same reactions that you do if you have them read the
ingredient list with all the words that they don't quite
understand. It is just a general stigma and a general pushback.
And frankly, it is because they don't understand the
alternatives that they are facing. They don't recognize that a
lot of those contain things that are much more dangerous but
aren't genetically modified.
Mr. Yoho. Yes. We need to remind them that yogurt is a
genetically engineered modified product. I think beer is, too,
right?
Did you say that there was an agreeable cost savings that
people would consume GMOs? What was that cost?
Dr. Just. So there have been several different studies done
along these lines. And for most consumers, it is something
around 25 percent of a discount that they start to switch and
be willing to take on GMOs when they have that label.
Mr. Yoho. I can just see them, I don't like this product,
it is bad for you, but man, if I can save 25 percent, we are
going to consume it. We had a veterinarian that taught us
animal health. And if a cow died, people would call him up. And
the farmer would always say, ``My cow died; can I feed it to my
wife and kids?'' And he said, ``Well, yes, you can, but they
are going to die.'' And he says, ``Okay.''
Anyway. I got off the subject. What trade barriers have you
seen with other countries with our GMOs?
Dr. Just. So GMOs are sort of a soft trade barrier, where
you have required labeling in places and other sorts of
barriers like that. And what it does is, it is cutting off
markets where it is not possible to grow traditional crops at
volume, right? So in places where we do have traditionally poor
agriculture and don't have high yields, they can't access
Europe unless they use the traditional crops that don't have
the high yields. It is a trade barrier, but it is put in place
in a way that is acceptable internationally.
Mr. Yoho. I appreciate your time.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for indulging me.
Mr. Davis. Thankfully, the gentleman's time has expired.
Thank you for not letting me come to your veterinary
practice.
But it is a privilege to have each and every one of you
here. And as today's temporary Chairman, I get the opportunity
to end this hearing. But before so, I wanted everybody to have
a chance to ask their questions before I got to a few more.
And I would tell you I appreciate you bringing up another
product that could be considered genetically modified. And you
mentioned beer. And my staff over there is going, what is he
going to say right now? But I did some research.
It wasn't peer reviewed, Dr. Just.
After three Fourth of July parades, I stopped by a store in
Decatur, Illinois, and I was getting a six pack of that adult
beverage product that Mr. Yoho mentioned. And the young man who
was helping me mentioned to me that he had read a story that
the product I was buying was bad for you because it was
carcinogenic because it included GMO corn in that beer. And I
ironically had read the same story that has been going around
the Internet about different types of beer that are
carcinogenic. And I wanted to remind the young man that he
actually had number one and number two mixed up. Number one was
carcinogenic because of a so-called caramel coloring product.
Number two was supposed to be carcinogenic because it could
include genetically modified corn.
And this goes back to the labeling issue we talked about
earlier, Dr. Just, that even without labeling, what is out
there, what is being placed out to the American consumer about
GMO products gives the warning to individuals like this young
man and others like me, who don't have an agricultural
background, who could take this information and make judgments
that are just not based on science and fact?
And that is the purpose of this hearing today. Even with
that limited research I was able to see--I was able to see it
in action. And that is what we are trying to address with this
hearing.
In Decatur, Illinois, I am proud that one of my
constituents is Howard Buffett. And I would urge each and every
one of you to read his book called, 40 Chances. It is one of
the last books that I have read. And I didn't read it just
because he was my constituent. But it is a great view of how
agriculture impacts the rest of the world and how global
agriculture is. I come from central Illinois. We have some of
the priciest but most fertile farm land in America. And I often
say that we feed the world, and it is underappreciated. In our
agricultural sectors, we have seen from each and every one and
heard from each and every one of you today, is being impacted
by this zealousness to go after genetically modified seeds and
genetically modified foods that include these products, when
they are perfectly safe and they are helping to feed the world.
Now, Howard, my friend, he believes that biotech is a part
of the solution to solving world hunger. I can remember sitting
in Decatur, Illinois, at Millikin University, 25, 26, 27 years
ago, I don't remember which years it was there, but I got to
listen to Dr. Paul Ehrlich tell us that in the next 20 years,
the world was going to have a starvation problem. I would like
to think Dr. Ehrlich was--the starvation problem still exists,
but not nearly to the extent because of what he considered the
population explosion, not nearly to the extent that he led us
to believe because of human interaction, development in
biotechnology. And I would urge you to continue to work in that
direction.
But let me get back to Mr. Buffett. He was in Winnipeg for
the World Congress on Conservation Agriculture just a few
months ago and even hinted that debating the merit of GMO crops
is actually a step in the wrong direction. I want to read you a
quote from the Manitoba Co-operator. Howard said, ``I think we
just have to be inclusive and understand that there is a place
for everything, and that if we can get those things in the
appropriate places at the appropriate use, then we are going to
have a lot of wins.'' He said that adding that he believes even
debating the merit of genetically modified crops is a step in
the wrong direction. ``If all we are going to do is spend our
time debating what is good and bad, and alienate everybody, and
pick sides, we are going to lose a lot more than we are going
to win.''
And I have a question. I want to start--each of you feel
free to answer this question, but I am going to start with Ms.
Lidback. In your view, how do you think we can achieve
consensus on this issue so that we can focus on results and
feeding hungry people? Or as my constituent Howard Buffett puts
it, how can we achieve more wins?
Ms. Lidback. Great question. I think you have heard it a
lot today. I think we need to do a better job of communicating
the specific benefits that we get from biotechnology. There are
a lot more benefits that we have from other types of
biotechnology on our farm that I didn't quite go into detail
today. About how it affects the animal welfare of the cows that
we have, and how we keep them healthy, and we are able to keep
them healthy or we are able to treat them right away when they
get sick. In so communicating those efforts that we have made
on my blog or in my social media outlets, I think that I get--
we get more believers, we get people who trust me, who trust
what we are doing on our farm and then, maybe when they are
looking at other products or other areas of biotech, aren't
quite so scared. Because a big issue is people are afraid of
what they don't know.
And so to get the information out there is key to achieving
more wins. I mean, people talk about they have a right to know,
and that is why they need a label, a mandatory label on GMO
products. Information is already out there. They don't need to
wait for a label. They can go and do their own research and
find it. That is what I would say. Because at the end of the
day, like Mr. Schrader said, we are all farmers, we are all
doing the best that we can in the best way that we know how do
it. And it is all about producing a quality product, nutritious
product for our consumers.
Mr. Davis. Dr. Bolden-Tiller.
Dr. Bolden-Tiller. Yes, I would just like to chime in,
actually, I indicated that it is communication. A very perfect
example, just about a week or so ago, we had some individuals
from our community. Tuskegee University is a big name, but it
is in a very small town. And because of that, the individuals
in the community are our neighbors. And by ``us,'' I mean the
people at the university are our neighbors, our friends,
members of our churches. And so they felt very comfortable
going to our dean and saying, Dr. Hill, who is accompanying me
today, we would like to have a frank conversation with you
about genetically modified organisms and what have you.
And so some of us got with them, and there was just a frank
conversation. And it was very clear to us after that
conversation that they were open to understanding, but they had
not had or utilized us as a resource previously. And lot of
their misconceptions had nothing to do with the technology
itself but some of the names of companies or what have you, as
you indicated for your consumer, associated with the science.
So it was not even the science itself that they had any issue
with. But once we were able to talk to them about the science
and even invite them onto our campus to take part in a workshop
so that they can actually do some hands-on work in
biotechnology, they are very open to it, very appreciative of
it. I think that is really what we need to do more of.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Dr. Bolden-Tiller.
Anybody else, you are welcome, or we can move on to another
one.
Dr. Juma. Yes. I think that a better understanding, a
better science-based understanding of the risks and benefits of
the products could help us to move towards a regime of
coexistence so that the two products could coexist. We have had
this story in this country with margarine, where it was 60
years of laws, state laws restricting, enforcing labeling on
margarine. I don't think this country wants to go the route
that it went with the war between butter and margarine. I think
today we have coexistence between the two products. I think
that the lessons from that case could inform how we approach
the GMO debate.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
I am going to go ahead and move onto the next question. And
I want to initially start with Dr. Bolden-Tiller. How in your
view does the U.S. compete with other countries when it comes
to biotech research and development of biotech products?
Dr. Bolden-Tiller. Can you repeat?
Mr. Davis. Yes. In your view, how does the U.S. compete
with other countries when it comes to our biotech research and
development of biotech products? And just in a global
competitiveness type of request?
Dr. Bolden-Tiller. I think that we compete very well. I
think that we can look at the United States as being at the
forefront just because of our government and our scientists and
our academic freedom, we have had the opportunity to move
forward on some things. When I look at our interaction with
other countries, we do quite a bit of work in West Africa, and
to work with scientists in those areas who don't have the
freedom just to explore some of these technologies, and we have
that. I think that that has put us in the forefront.
Mr. Davis. Anybody else?
Dr. Juma. There are 28 countries that grow genetically
modified foods. I think those countries provide a very
interesting basis for a trade arrangement in GM products. They
can trade among themselves. I think that is what is going to
generate pressure on countries that don't want to participate
in the GM revolution to actually become players. If they see
that it is 26 that are providing leadership, which is the
largest section of the global community anyway, I think there
is a basis there for new trade arrangements.
Mr. Davis. So 26 countries?
Dr. Juma. Twenty-eight countries.
Mr. Davis. Twenty-eight countries are using GMO products
that they are exporting?
Dr. Juma. On a commercial basis. And the numbers are going
up. And most of the new players that are coming along are from
developing countries. It puts the United States in a position
to really play a new role in a new field of international
trade.
Mr. Davis. Could be a job creator here in this country.
Dr. Juma. Absolutely.
Mr. Davis. That actually leads me to my next question.
Dr. Just. Do you mind if I make a comment on this?
Mr. Davis. Yes, because you just ruined my transition. No,
go ahead, Dr. Just. I am kidding.
Dr. Just. This is an important point I hope. We are well
placed to be the leader. And we do have a comparative
advantage, given our university research structure and the
freedoms that we enjoy.
At the same time, I had a conversation just 2 days ago with
a colleague who is a--someone who works in biotech and
developing new technologies. And they lament that a lot of the
research is disappearing at the universities because of the
public pushback. And it is pushing a lot of that research back
into the corporations, into the Monsantos. And that means we
are not making a lot of the innovations we should otherwise. So
this pushback is not just a problem in terms of production but
also the innovation.
Mr. Davis. That is a great point. And thank you for
interrupting me.
Actually, I do want to get back, because I had another
question. And this is my last question, unless you guys say
something that allows me to ask more.
But my good friend Mr. Buffett actually has done a great
deal of work in the African continent.
And you mentioned developing countries, Dr. Juma, and you
talk about 28 countries exporting GMO foods, GMO seed-produced
foods. What can we do to address the hunger in countries,
especially in the African continent that Howard is focused on,
what can we do in addressing those hunger needs with
genetically modified seeds for the new users of those products
in developing nations that could eventually become exporters of
agricultural products, rather than just consumers? So can you
tell me how biotech is going to be used as a valued tool to
help developing nations not only feed their own population but
also to possibly grow economically?
Dr. Juma. Yes. Thank you.
The main challenge, particularly for African countries, is
the weak capacity in universities to conduct biotech research.
And this creates a very unique opportunity for collaboration
between U.S. and African universities. That collaboration could
then lead to investment in research in additional products,
additional agricultural crops. There are hundreds of indigenous
African crops that are not currently consumed widely that could
become part of the global food basket. But conducting that
research, particularly with the use of biotechnology tools,
would require a closer collaboration between African and
American universities.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Dr. Just, I will go ahead and go to you next.
Dr. Just. So certainly we need to have that sort of
collaboration with the U.S. university system. As well,
developing varieties specifically for the production conditions
within Africa, within other developing countries is a huge boon
to these potential trading partners. The big problem they face
right now is that there are so many economies that are
relatively closed or closed to GMOs. And it makes it very
difficult for them to take advantage of these innovations in
the way that could alleviate poverty there. There is a
colleague of mine at Yale who essentially says Europe has blood
on its hands for the way they have treated GMOs and the impact
that it has had specifically on Africa.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Dr. Bolden-Tiller, Ms. Lidback, feel free to offer any
comments.
Dr. Bolden-Tiller. Yes, at Tuskegee University, we have a
number of our professors are who are from some of these African
countries, and so they do have inroads to working with some of
the scientists there. And one of the things that we are very
proud of is our collaborations with them and the scientists
there, as well as some of the legislatures, it is just to help
give them an opportunity to understand the sciences. And what
we have found, in particularly biotechnology, and what we have
found is that instead of us having to change their mind,
instead of them depending solely on the naysayers from Europe
and where have you, instead, they are making their own
decisions about their food choices.
And in Ghana, for instance, they were able to pass some of
the biosafety regulations allowing them to do field studies
with some genetically modified organisms.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Lidback?
Ms. Lidback. Mr. Chairman, I was just sitting here thinking
about your original question. I hope you don't mind if I add a
little bit more to it.
Mr. Davis. Go ahead.
Ms. Lidback. You asked how we could better communicate the
benefits and sort of get past debating about whether the
science is good or not, whatever the case may be. I was just
thinking, Dr. Just brought it up earlier, if we have a label
that specifically conveys what benefit of whatever GMO product
or tool was used in that food product, in the ingredient list,
convey the benefit of it, of a voluntary label, that would be a
way to convey the information.
I am worried about a piecemeal approach. I mentioned I am
from the State of Vermont. We just had a mandatory labeling law
passed in our state. And I am worried that it is going to
affect--consumers in Vermont won't be able to get as many
products available to them. Small businesses in Vermont, food-
related businesses in Vermont won't be able to have the freedom
that other companies have outside of the State of Vermont that
don't have to have tiers and labels. So if there is a voluntary
effort by a company to show the benefits of whatever the GM
product or the GM process was that was used in the making of
that food product, I think that might actually be a positive
way to approach and to get past the debate and to not be afraid
of what--and not to perpetuate fear of how the food was made
and processed.
Mr. Davis. Thank you. Thank you very much.
And Dr. Juma?
Dr. Juma. Can I say something that won't provoke you to ask
more questions?
Mr. Davis. Sure. I reserve the right to go ahead and ask.
So, yes, feel free.
Dr. Juma. I just wanted to add in terms of the U.S.
competitiveness----
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Dr. Juma.--that so far, we have been focused almost
entirely on crops. There is a real potential in expanding
biotechnology to livestock that would expand really the
capacity of this country to engage and compete internationally
a lot more than it is doing at the moment.
Mr. Davis. A very good point. And I will save you from
another question, too.
I do want to actually refer back to something you said
earlier, sir, a couple things. And you talked about the weak
research and development at institutions of higher learning in
the African continent as helping to hold back some of the
opportunity that those developing nations could have in
developing more products and developing their economy. I would
also argue that it is also due to some political instability
and weak governments in these countries to actually set up the
institutions that are necessary.
And you said something earlier that I know Ranking Member
Schrader mentioned. It was about political courage and
political will. Now, we are sitting here today at this hearing
to talk about the benefits of GMO products. And I would not be
surprised if Ranking Member Schrader and I have already been
vilified in social media for even having the audacity to talk
about the benefits of biotechnology to our agricultural sector.
So, hopefully, just by having this hearing, we can at least
demonstrate to each of you, who give us a very well-rounded,
scientific approach to biotechnology, hopefully, we
demonstrated in a small way that we do have the political
courage to stand up and ensure that we are putting the facts of
science over hysteria.
Now, the gentleman has waived his closing remarks. And I
will use those as my closing remarks, and thank each and every
one of you again for being here today and being a part of this
hearing. I learned a lot, I know, and I hope that the rest of
my colleagues and those in the room have done the same. And I
hope none of you minded our humor, because sometimes in
Washington, we have to have a little sense of humor. And thanks
for participating.
Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplementary written responses from
the witnesses to any question posed by a Member. This hearing
of the Subcommittee on Horticulture, Research, Biotechnology,
and Foreign Agriculture is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Material by Hon. Austin Scott, a Representative in Congress
from Georgia
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Submitted Statement by Hon. Austin Scott, a Representative in Congress
from Georgia; on Behalf of Alvin Jones, Principal, Jones Laffin
Company, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to submit for the record the following
statement regarding today's hearing, ``To consider the societal
benefits of biotechnology.''
As principal of the Jones Laffin Company, Inc., of Albany, Georgia,
I want to provide an overview of the public-private partnerships Jones
Laffin has had with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and, in particular, how we feel the
joint features present significant potential societal benefits of
biotechnology.
In 2012, Jones Laffin entered into a Cooperative Research and
Development Agreement (CRADA) with ARS in order to ultimately
commercialize technologies to effectively dispose of dangerous
environmental hazards such as acid whey. As you know, disposing of acid
whey is threatening to derail the growing Greek yogurt industry and its
benefits not only to our economy but our national health. As the Greek
yogurt market has skyrocketed to become one of the biggest success
stories in food over the past several years, we remain committed to
working with ARS to develop solutions designed to offer the dairy
industry an opportunity to turn a disposal expense into a new revenue
enhancement.
Greek yogurt production creates the byproduct acid whey, which is a
natural byproduct of not only Greek yogurt but cream cheese and cottage
cheese production as well. Five parts milk generally yields one part
cheese or yogurt and four parts acid whey. The byproduct can pollute
streams and is difficult to dispose of, even in landfills. Our ongoing
research and progress with ARS has led to a process using specialized
equipment that not only neutralizes acid whey but also captures
valuable protein and lactose remaining in the byproduct. The new
process is an all-natural method of separating the component
ingredients of raw acid whey (water, lactose and protein) and turning
them into valuable commodities which can be sold as ingredients in the
food industry. Test results strongly indicate the technology will have
a crucial environmental impact and contribute to economic benefits
resulting from costs saving and additional potential revenue streams
for the dairy industry.
In addition to the acid-whey technology, Jones Laffin and ARS have
been developing a revolutionary technology which continues to yield
positive results for food manufacturers seeking to appease consumers'
insatiable appetite for more nutritional and healthier protein
products. Scientists have taken whey protein and texturized it,
allowing formulators to increase nutrition and improve flavor and
overall eating quality. Again, early test results hold particular
promise in providing additional societal benefits.
Perhaps most encouraging are results showing the texturized whey
protein (TWP) performs extremely well in recipes and formulas at
significantly higher percentages than customary whey protein--without
altering the taste, texture or other natural characteristics in end
products such as pasta, cereal, soups, beverages and baked goods. The
hope is by utilizing TWP, manufacturers won't have to change product
designs and formulations simply to increase nutrition; they should be
able to more successfully create new uses for protein.
The TWP applications, interestingly enough, have also been used to
increase protein levels in yogurt without increasing sugar amounts. As
further testing ensues, the TWP technology is expected to enable the
conversion of regular yogurt into Greek-yogurt-like protein values
while incurring less expense. Based on preliminary reviews, the yogurt
example entails a more rapid production process that actually achieves
similar protein levels as those in Greek yogurt, absent increased sugar
intake.
In conclusion, I want to thank the Members of this Subcommittee for
supporting USDA's ongoing efforts to promote American agriculture by
conducing cutting-edge research designed to foster public-private
partnerships and develop solutions to the myriad of challenges facing
our country's agriculture and dairy industries. Via the cooperative
projects in which we've engaged with ARS, we believe the technologies
being developed should lead to increased production of environmentally
conscious, healthier commodities to address consumers' growing demand
for products containing more protein.
[all]