AAAS Scientific Responsibility, Human Rights and Law Program

 

A Public Forum on
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Redesigning Food Products

Convened by
American Association for the Advancement of Science
British Embassy

May 8, 1998 | AAAS Auditorim
1200 New York Ave., NW | Washington, DC 20005

OVERVIEW | PROGRAM | REPORT

---

OVERVIEW

Advances in genetic engineering are making it possible to create truly novel organisms by combining the genetic material of unrelated organisms.  For example, genes from bacteria, viruses, and insects are being spliced into staples of our food chain, including potatoes, corn, rice, apples, and squash. While these novel food substances are not known to be dangerous, they may carry some ecological or health risks.  What safety standards, therefore, should be applied before they are publicly available?  What nutritional value should be expected?  What information about them should be made available to consumers?  Why have genetically modified food products been accepted in the US much more readily than in Europe?  These and other issues were discussed at the forum.

The morning session included an overview of current and imminent scientific capabilities for genetically manipulating microbes and crops as well as presentations on industrial and consumer perspectives on the promises and pitfalls of genetically modified food products.  The afternoon session featured a panel responding to questions on the science of genetically modifying natural food products, the consequences of doing so, public acceptance of this new technology, and the types of policies that should be in place.   Rather than a series of presentations, the panel was organized as a dialogue, with a moderator posing questions to panelists and encouraging participation by the audience.

---

 
 PROGRAM
 

9:00 am	Welcome and Introductions
	Lester Crawford, Director, Georgetown Center for Food & Nutrition Policy
	Opening Remarks
	Rita R. Colwell, President, Biotechnology Institute, University of Maryland
9:15	Scientific Overview
	Liebe F. Cavalieri, Prof. Environmental Science, State University of New York, Purchase
10:00	Break
10:30	Industrial Perspective
	Rob Horsch, Director of Science & Technology, Agracetus Campus, Monsanto
11:15	Consumer Perspective
	Margaret Mellon, Director of Agriculture & Biotechnology, Union of Concerned Scientists
12:00pm	Lunch (will be provided)
1:30	Panel Discussion
	Moderator:
	Lester Crawford, Director, Georgetown Center for Food & Nutrition Policy
	Participants:
	Liebe F. Cavalieri, Prof. Environmental Science, State University of New York, Purchase
	Rebecca Goldburg, Staff Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund
	Thomas J. Hoban, Professor of Sociology & Food Sciences, North Carolina State University
	Rob Horsch, Director of Science & Technology, Agracetus Campus, Monsanto
	Sally L. McCammon, Science Advisor to the Admin. of the Animal & Plant Insp. Service, USDA
	George Gaskell, Prof. Social Biology, London School of Economics
3:30	Closing Remarks
4.00	Tea

---

FORUM REPORT

prepared by Philippa Rogers and Christopher Whaley, British Embassy

Introduction

GMOs are a source of trade friction between the EU and the US. The forum looked upstream from the trade friction, and explored US perceptions on the potential benefits and risks of genetically modified organisms. It was divided into two parts: a series of presentations on GMOs from the scientific, industrial and consumer perspectives; and a discussion between a Panel of experts and the audience. Some 120 people, representing industry, academia, government, consumer groups, non-governmental organisations and the general public, attended the forum.

Presentations

a) Scientific Overview, Liebe Cavalieri, Professor of Environmental Science, State University of New York

Dr Cavalieri gave a brief overview of developments in molecular biology over the last thirty years, leading to the ability today to manipulate living organisms genetically. Dr Cavalieri then described a number of examples of the current applications of genetic engineering, including:

• use of recombinant DNA in pharmaceutical manufacturing;
• GMO plants with resistance to insects - eg BT corn;
• the next generation of GMO plants, for example plants with improved nitrogen fixing ability.

As well as benefits, Dr Cavalieri outlined what he believed were the major risks with the application of GMO technology in the agricultural sector:

• the considerable impact on the indigenous plant population and associated environment which the widespread introduction of GMO plants could have, similar to the damage caused by the introduction of exotic plant species to the natural environment.
• the build-up of resistance in insects and viruses by continuous exposure to GMO plants.

Dr Cavalieri believed therefore that more analysis of risk versus benefits was needed. Although scientists had been concerned with the potential hazards caused by genetic engineering, there had been little assessment of the morals, ethics and risks associated with its wide-scale adoption in the agricultural sector. For the future, Dr Cavalieri predicted the development of GMOs, which were aimed at producing products which were, for example, better tasting, healthier, easier to prepare; this would benefit the consumer as well as the producer. However, Dr Cavalieri believed that because of the lack of predictability of the impact of this new technology on health and the environment, the application of this technology in the agriculture sector should proceed with caution.

b) Industrial perspective, Rob Horsch, Director of Science & Technology, Agracetus Campus, Monsanto

Monsanto's main objective for its large investment in GMOs was to maintain the environment, while providing food for the future. Monsanto considered it had a moral obligation to proceed with GMO techniques, but with proper scrutiny and debate.

Monsanto believed using GMOs had a number of advantages over current agricultural practices. On environmental issues, Dr Horsch argued that developing GMOS with resistance to particular pests/diseases was more environmentally friendly than current techniques for controlling pests. For example, using the BT gene to control leaf roll virus had saved 250 million gallons of pesticide a year. Monsanto believed the threat to biodiversity was no greater from GMOs than with traditional agriculture: they were just an extension of traditional breeding techniques. Dr Horsch stressed that Monsanto was proceeding with caution and was investing heavily in assessments on the potential impact of the technology.

In response to questions about Monsanto's future strategy for developing GMO technology, Dr Horsch confirmed that Monsanto was researching the genetic modification of foods to improve nutrition. The next generation of GMO products would, therefore, not just alter the agricultural process, but the final product as well.

On labelling, Dr Horsch reiterated Monsanto's position that the labelling of foodstuffs containing GMOs was not an option, because of the difficulties in segregating GMOs from traditionally produced products. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) only required food to be labelled if the changes introduced through genetic engineering had an impact on the safety or nutrition of the food itself.

c) Consumer Prospective, Margaret Mellon, Director of Agriculture and Biotechnology, Union of Concerned Scientists

The Union of Concerned Scientists had no objection to genetic engineering per se, and was supportive of its use in medicine. However, it had concerns that the potential benefits of the application of genetic engineering in agriculture had been hyped out of proportion, while the potential risks of GMOs had been neglected.

Dr Mellon acknowledged that there were no generic risks in genetic engineering but she believed there were risks associated with the application of genetic engineering technology in the agrifood sector. These included:

• new allergens in food;
• new foods that pose risks that we do not know how to avoid;
• out-crossing of genes with indigenous plant populations.

Dr Mellon argued for a change in emphasis with more effort devoted to risk assessment.

There were other potentially long-term social and economic impacts. There was concern that large companies were developing a monopoly over GMO technology. The use of seed types which could only be used with certain pesticides/herbicides, e.g., Round-up Ready Corn, was reducing the choice of farmers. And the development of GMO technology was having broad implications for new products, e.g., companies were no longer investing in new chemicals.

Dr Mellon disagreed that consumers were only concerned with the final product and not concerned about how that product was produced. To support her argument, she cited the public reaction to the recent proposals for new organic food standards. These new standards had generated enormous public interest, with over 200,000 people responding to the survey on the content of these standards, the biggest recorded public response ever. Dr Mellon believed that there was strong public interest in how food was produced.

Dr Mellon also highlighted concern about the regulatory system. This concern had been strengthened by the problems farmers had experienced with Monsanto's GMO cotton. There was concern that, if Monsanto was not even testing properly for agronomic traits, then it was unlikely to be picking up other traits such as outcrossing.

Finally, Dr Mellon highlighted concern about resistance. She believed resistance would be a particular problem in the US, where the focus was on commodity crops grown in monoculture. She cited a number of scientific studies, which had highlighted the problems of resistance that were predicted to occur through overuse of GMO crops, such as BT corn. Unless resistance was controlled, the benefits of using products such as BT corn would be lost. In order to avoid resistance, scientists were recommending the use of pest refuges. This would require farmers giving over up to 50% of a crop to establish a refuge, to avoid the build up of resistance and ensure the long-term sustainability of a product.

In response to this last point Dr Horsch stressed that Monsanto had developed clear instructions to farmers in order to control and monitor the build up of resistance. Although some scientists had advocated a 50% refuge, others had recommended that a smaller refuge would suffice. Dr Horsch also pointed out that the introduction of GMOs into the environment was highly regulated. EPA has insisted on a mandated resistance management programme before any transgenic crop was approved.
 

United Kingdom Royal Society Report on Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use and Human Health