GEOs

							Genetically-Engineered Foods:
   Why They Can Be Scary

               Brent McCown
     Horticulture/Environmental Studies,
               Director, CIAS
                UW-Madison
         (bhmccown@facstaff.wisc.edu)
A Translation

Genetic  engineering is just one
 part of biotechnology
Most GMOs are not GEOs!
 –GEOs discussed here
Genetically-Engineered Foods:
Why They Can Be Scary

  What   is genetic engineering?
  How extensively is it being used for food
   crops?
  Currentpublic perceptions of genetic
   engineering?
  Why   all the fuss?
  Future?
Genetically-Engineered Food:
Public Perceptions
 What   is genetic engineering?
 Howextensively is it being used for food
 crops?
        public perceptions of genetic
 Current
 engineering?
 Why   all the fuss?
 Future   questions?
Genetic Engineering
(GEO not GMO)
 Multi-step   step process
  – Determine needed trait
  – Get gene (‘genomics’)
  – Modify gene (‘molecular biology’)
    Add other genes
  – Insert gene (‘transformation’)
  – Recover engineered organism (‘regeneration’)
  – Test and market
Target Tissue
Engineered DNA (Genes)
Gene ‘Gun’ (‘Bombardment’)
Bombarded Stem
Regeneration of Engineered Plant
Field Tests
Genetically-Engineered Food:
Public Perceptions
What   is genetic engineering?
How  extensively is it being used for
 food crops?
Currentpublic perceptions of genetic
 engineering?
Why   all the fuss?
Future?
Countries Growing G.E. Crops


                       •16% of field
                        crop area
                        worldwide
                       •30% of US
                        field crop
                        acreage
Total Area of G.E. Crops in the U.S.
Use of G.E. for Food Crops (2002)
 25%   of U.S. corn crop
 – Bt-based pest control
 75%   of U.S. soybean
 – Round-up herbicide tolerance
 70%   U.S. cotton crop (incl. oil)
 – Bt-based pest control
 60%   Canadian canola (herbicide tolerance)
 50%   of papaya
  Virus resistance
So GEOs Are a Highly Adopted
Technology. But……………….
British Medical Association called for
  a moratorium on G.E. foods
European countries have banned commodity
 G.E. crops
Gerber and Heinz stopped using G.E. corn
  and soybeans in baby foods
  – Gerber owned by Novartis
But………………………….

Iams no longer uses G.E. corn in pet
 foods
McCain Foods no longer accepts G.E.
  potatoes for processing
 – Stopped adoption of G.E. potatoes
U.S.definitions of ‘Organic foods’ ban all
  G.E. products
 – ‘Sustainable Agriculture’ proponents shun
   GEOs.
Genetically-Engineered Food:
Public Perceptions
What   is genetic engineering?
How  extensively is it being used for
 food crops?
Currentpublic perceptions of genetic
 engineering
Why   all the fuss?
Future   public attitudes?
The World Public and GEO Awareness
‘Have you ever read or heard anything about GM Foods’

      Overall
    Germany
         UK
      Japan
    Australia                                 % Yes
      France
     Canada
         US
       Brazil                                  -Kamaldeen/Powell, 2000;
                                               -Angus Reid World Poll
                0   20   40   60   80   100     (Angus Reid, 2000)
The World Public and GE Food Use
‘See the trend towards GM foods as negative’

         US

         UK

      Japan

    Germany
                                       % Negative
      France

     Canada

       Brazil

    Australia                                  -Kamaldeen/Powell, 2000;
                                               -Angus Reid World Poll
                0     50         100            (Angus Reid, 2000)
US Public and GEO Food




-PEW Initiative report
US Public and GEOs




-PEW Initiative report; numbers are rank, ’10’ most favorable.
Genetically-Engineered Food:
Public Perceptions
What   is genetic engineering?
How  extensively is it being used for
 food crops?
Currentpublic perceptions of genetic
 engineering?
Why   all the fuss?
Future   public attitudes?
Why GEOs can scare the public
  European public concerns about biotechnology (1999)
                 (Percentage who agree with concern)
Concerns          Supporters Opponents
Threatens the       54%        89%
 natural order………………………………………………...
Beneficial but
 fundamentally      57%        92%
 unnatural……………………………………………………..
The risks not
                    34%        80%
 acceptable…………………………………………………...


(Nature Biotech. 18:937)
Why does the public think
GEOs are scary?

            = 'unnatural'
But…not everything is scary!
European public attitudes toward biotechnology (1999)

Country      Genetic Medicine Bio-      GM     GM food Clone
             Testing          Clean-   crops          animals
                               up
Norway         +       +        +
                                        --      --      --
UK             ++      ++      ++
                                        -        -      -
Spain/Port     ++      ++      ++       ++              +
                                                +-
Avg. (16)      ++      ++      ++       +-       --     --
++ =Strong support ; -- = strong opposition
(Nature Biotech. 18:938)
Why Is Food G.E. Getting a
Negative Reputation?

1   Information at public level is awful!
2   The technology is revolutionary
3   Problems created by industry itself
4   Real problems exist
5   Distrust of government monitoring
    agencies
 Why Is Food G.E. Getting A
 Negative Reputation?

1 Information at public level is awful!
2 The technology is revolutionary
3 Mistakes by industry
  – Public has no ‘buy-in’
4 Real problems exist
5 Distrust of government monitoring
  agencies
A Case Study

Recent   issue:

 –Monarch butterflies and Bt corn
 The Beginning

                                from corn
                           Pollen
                          engineered to kill insects
                          (Bt)
                         Coated milkweed leaves
                         Monarch caterpillars
                         Fed on leaves in laboratory

News release and letter  50% died in 4 days
to the editor of Nature
Cornell Experiment
Final Interpretation !




                         “Killer Corn”
Case Study

What information do you really
 need?
 – What is dosage of pollen needed to
   affect caterpillars?
 – Is this a real threat in the field?
Newer Evidence
 135 to 700 pollen grains/cm2 needed to kill
  1/3 of caterpillars in 5 days
 Milkweed surrounded by corn has 50 to 75
  pollen grains/cm2 on leaves
 Milkweeds 30 ft from corn have 1 grain /cm2
  on leaves

 Conclusion:   Not a likely threat to Monarch
 butterflies
 Why Is Food G.E. Getting A
 Negative Reputation?

1 Information at public level is awful!
2 The technology is revolutionary
3 Mistakes by industry
  – Public has no ‘buy-in’
4 Real problems exist
5 Distrust of government monitoring
  agencies
The Technology Is Revolutionary
Source   of genes coding for traits
 – Can come from any living organism
 – For crop plants
   »Bacterial genes most common
Questions that arise
 – Is this ‘natural’?
 – What is a vegetarian meal?
 – Religious connotations
Why Is Food G.E. Getting a
Negative Reputation?

1   Information at public level is awful!
2   The technology is revolutionary
3   Problems created by industry itself
4   Real problems exist
5   Distrust of government monitoring
    agencies
Problems Created by Industry Itself

 Have  consumers asked for the
  most commonly engineered
  traits?
  –Herbicide tolerance
    »‘Pushed on consumers’
 Current     traits really not ‘consumer
  friendly’
Problems Created by Industry Itself
Monopolistic   character of industry
  –Few major players
  –Ownership of technology
   »Crop diversity issues
   »Who should own genetic resources?
 Why Is Food G.E. Getting A
 Negative Reputation?

1 Information at public level is awful!
2 The technology is revolutionary
3 Mistakes by industry
  – Public has no ‘buy-in’
4 Real problems exist
5 Distrust of government monitoring
  agencies
Problems With the Technology
Environmental       safety
 – Target pests developing resistance to
   genes
   –Overuse of a few genes = overuse of
    chemicals?
 – Spread of genes to natural (non-crop) areas
 – Contamination of non-engineered products
   –Especially ‘organic’ crops
But, the Technology Does Have
Incredible Virtues

More  efficient use of chemicals
Integrates well with low chemical
 input strategies
  – Less use of toxic chemicals
  – Less impact on beneficial organisms
Unique     traits
  –   Can target nutritional/health problems
 Why Is Food G.E. Getting a
 Negative Reputation?

1 Information at public level is awful!
2 The technology is revolutionary
3 Mistakes by industry
  – Public has no ‘buy-in’
4 Real problems exist
5 Distrust of monitoring agencies
US Public and Trust for Information
Sources on GEOs




                               -PEW Initiative report
Genetically-Engineered Food:
Public Perceptions
What  is genetic engineering?
How extensively is it being used for
 food crops?
Current public perceptions of genetic
 engineering?
Why all the fuss?
Future?
Public Trends?

 Medical    uses are supported more than
    agricultural uses
    – Will attitudes eventually merge?
   Many value-added, consumer-friendly traits are
    under development
    – Will these be more widely acceptable?
   Will GEOs ever be viewed as ‘sustainable’?
    – Merge with new trends toward sustainable food
      systems
QUESTIONS?




 bhmccown@facstaff.wisc.edu