The New Science of Food:Facing Up to Our Biotechnology Choices
Prepared by
Mark Edelman, Iowa State University
David Patton, Ohio State University
A Farm Foundation Project
www.farmfoundation.org
The Problem:
•Use of biotech tools such as genetic engineering inour food has increased dramatically duringthe1990s.
•The new tools of biotechnology transfer geneticmaterial from one plant or animal to another tocreate new characteristics.
•Many consumers have not been aware ofbiotechnology in the foods they eat.
The Biotech Food Opportunity
•Better food
•More nutritious
•Increased farm productivity
•Improved environment
•Helps solve malnutrition
The Potential Uncertainty
•Potential for human health impacts
•Potential for environmental impacts
•Potential contamination and costs for non-biotech foods & producers
•Long-term impacts difficult & costly toassess
The Issues
Involve:
•Ethics
•Individual to International Decisions
•Views about humanitarianism
•Economics
•Quality of Life
The Challenge
•To reconcile the promise & uncertainty
•To decide the incentives and approachesthat should be used to shape the choices for
–individuals buying food,
–national food policy, and
–the global food system.
# 1:Let Science & EnterpriseGuide Our Food System
•Encourage rapid development to
–Feed the world, prevent diseases, make foodshealthier, improve the environment, and protectour food crops from harmful pests.
•Greater incentives for innovation
•Regulatory approval based on science
–by agency experts & required tests andinformation supplied by biotech companies.
•Product liability laws help assure safety.
Approach 1: What Can Be Done?
•More research on biotech benefits forconsumers with findings available to public.
•Increase patent rights to reward innovation& have patents accepted by other nations.
•Adopt science-based food safety standardsinternationally.
•Shorten approval for biotech products if nocontent difference to other approved foods.
Approach 1: PotentialBenefits & Drawbacks
•Better foods &environment.
•Free enterpriseincentives &rewards.
•Unnecessarycosts avoided.
•No evidence ofharm to health.
•Long-term health& environmentimpacts?
•Inadequatedisclosure forsome people.
•Concentration ofcontrol.
•Product liabilitymay not stopcontamination.
Approach 1: A Key Tradeoff
•Increases opportunity to produce healthierfoods, reduce world hunger, and fighthuman, animal and plant diseases and pests.
•However, costs may increase for non-biotech foods and people may remainconcerned about the health andenvironmental risks.
# 2: Safety First: Protect OurHealth & Environment
•Mixing genes not mixed by nature.
•Precautionary principles, extra tests &independent review before approval.
•If concern, do not proceed until thebroader scientific community verifies.
•Agencies have broader authority tomonitor and take quick action toaddress any problems.
Approach 2: What can be done?
Require verification of public concerns and case-by-case testing before approval.
Require independent testing and review. Biotechfirms seeking approval currently do most tests.
Establish independent biotech centers &networks to improve monitoring and assesshealth, economic, and environmental impacts.
Alter patent laws for living matter to reducebarriers on sharing data, test verification,collaboration and future discovery.
Approach 2: PotentialBenefits & Drawbacks
•Avoid health &environ. impacts.
•Bettermonitoring mayprevent harm.
•Access to patentinfo helps verifytest & new prod.
•Wider access tobroader science.
•Unnecessary risein food prices.
•Delays benefits,discoveries &life may be lost.
•Adds politics &hurdles.
•Ethical issuesnot resolved.
Approach 2: A Key Tradeoff
•Extra precautions help ensure thatall consequences are identifiedbefore potential harm occurs.
•However, more regulation andmonitoring may increase foodcosts & reduce innovations.
# 3. Encourage Multiple FoodSources & Full Disclosure
•Alternative foods--organic, natural, biotech,and conventional non-biotech foods.
•Flexibility to keep future options open.
•Avoid more concentrated control.
•Biotech not likely to decline unless moreevidence of harm.
•Right to know what is in food & methods.
•Benefits and risks may vary by individual/right to protect self & apply preferences.
Approach 3: What can be done?
Incentives to encourage a wide variety offoods & production systems.
Organize community food systems,networks, & new ways of marketing food.
Disclosure & labeling provides clearerchoices. Identity preserved to strengthenmonitoring and long-term research.
Strengthen laws to assure competition &countervailing market power in food system.
Approach 3: PotentialBenefits & Drawbacks
•More options &flexibility forpeople & system.
•Disclosure helpstrack impacts.
•Potentially moreassurance.
•Potentially moreinformed choice.
•Flexibility onlyfor those withability to pay.
•May not result inhealthier, safer,less costly food.
•Too much info isconfusing.
•Wasted $ if nofood difference.
Approach 3: A Key Tradeoff
•Alternatives and disclosure provideopportunity for individuals & systemto make more informed choices.
•However, too much informationconfuses people & food costs mayincrease.
Let the Deliberation Begin.