Biotechnology and It's Acceptance by Producers and Consumers from Different Countries and Cultures

by: Jim Nesseth, Extension Educator, University of Minnesota Extension Service, Jackson County

Biotechnology most likely holds the key for solutions in tomorrow's world in terms of hunger and public health. It has recently been the focal point of controversy for consumers, researchers, producers, and everyone involved in the food chain. Emotion and fear have driven this issue to new public awareness through meetings of the World Trade Organization in Seattle, Washington. It is my goal to provide factual information on this issue and address the sensitivity people from different countries and cultures have about biotechnology and it's implications.

For centuries, farmers and plant breeders used family resemblance to improve the productivity of plants and animals. For example, by selectively breeding plants that were the largest, strongest, and least susceptible to disease, farmers and plant breeders created better hybrid crops. About 150 years ago, a scientist named Gregor Mendel began studying inheritance in garden plants. Until then, the rules governing the transmission of genetic characteristics remained a mystery. Mendel used carefully planned experiments and mathematical calculations to support his theory that certain unseen particles carry hereditary traits and that these traits are passed from generation to generation.

Although the science community failed to recognize Mendel's accomplishments until long after his death, they now know it has served as a foundation for biotechnology. When scientists learned about DNA(deoxyribonucleic acid), they have come to understand how genetic information is stored in living cells, how this information is duplicated and how it is passed from generation to generation. This genetic information is called genes and since the 1980's, scientists have been able to move these genes from one organism such as plants or animals to another. This ability to transfer genetic information is known as genetic engineering, one process used in biotechnology. Biotechnology is still a young science, but from a science and producer point of view, it holds tremendous promise. It can enable researchers to develop improved crop plants, such as crops naturally protected from disease and insects. Biotechnology also provides new ways to treat human disease, to manufacture chemical products and to eliminate wastes.

To understand biotechnology, one must become aware of some basic genetic principles. DNA transmits the hereditary information from one generation to the next of a living organism which has proteins composed of amino acids. DNA contains the genetic code that governs the expression of traits in plants and animals. A segment of DNA that encodes enough information to make one protein is called a gene. Specific gene codes for specific proteins, and these proteins determine every trait or characteristic of an organism. In the 1980's, researches developed the tools to transfer specific genes from one organism to another, allowing the expression of desirable traits in the recipient organism. This process was accomplished when enzymes were discovered to have the ability to cut an opening in a ring of DNA and researchers could then paste or place a gene segment from the donor DNA. This is called the cut and paste technology, which can introduce a new gene or trait to an existing plant or animal where traditional crossbreeding of parents would introduce a large "pool" of genes that would contain both desirable and undesirable genes.

For centuries, farmers have made improvements to crop plants through selective breeding and hybridization - the controlled pollination of plants. Plant biotechnology is an extension of this traditional plant breeding with one very important difference - plant biotechnology allows for the transfer of a greater variety of genetic information in a more precise, controlled manner.

The biotech crops which have recently been developed and used for production by farmers are called Genetically Modified Organisms GMO's). Organism is just another word for plants and animals. These plants have reduced the need for pesticides. No insecticides are needed for corn or other crops, which have been genetically modified for insect protection. The same principle applies for herbicide resistant crops. Less herbicide is needed for weed control in crop production. All of these herbicides are applied to the crop above the ground, eliminated the need for soil applied herbicides which could potentially effect ground water. From an environmental perspective, GMO crops are quite friendly to the environment, reduce input costs and offer more yield potential, which means more profitability to the producer.

Because of the rapid and wide acceptance to GMO crops by United States farmers due to the obvious production benefits, a large percentage of the grains we market through exports have come under scrutiny. This has caused some serious concern by our traditional trading partners in Europe and Japan. Consumer resistance to GMO products is more widespread in Europe and Japan than the United States. They have deep-rooted cultural concerns on health issues. That may be partially because of lack of trust in their government's ability to ensure the safety of foods after the "mad cow" scare in England. Some opponents point to possible causing proteins or toxins found naturally in food. These are legitimate concerns and questions to ask our government agencies responsible for food regulation and safety. It also indicates that scientists need to be accountable and provide unbiased research-based information.

Current food safety policies of U.S., European, Japan, and other developed countries should assure consumers they have the standards and integrity to provide high quality foods. The acceptance of GMO products depends on factors that include each country's culture, values, history, economic conditions, and government response to the issue. Consumer acceptance of potential risks from GMO, or other new technology foods, is also dependent on whether direct benefits, individual control options, and involvement in the approval process are perceived.

Consumer advocates and groups have rallied around this issue. Some are more radical than others. They usually draw on people's emotions to emphasize their points. Green Peace for example has jumped on this issue and called all biotechnology foods "Frankenstein Foods". Biotech Industry supporters say Green Peace has been very aggressive on this issue because they have exhausted resources from global warming and whale extinction. The GMO issue brings a fresh and new audience and obvious new funding sources. They have become very radical and destructive. The have destroyed and sabotaged research buildings and plots. Other consumer groups have been more objective and are willing to participate in a more formal and structured process asking legitimate and sensible questions about the pros and cons of this technology.

In the United States, until July 1999, the media paid little attention to the GMO issue at least compared with Europe and Japan. Still, public acceptance of biotechnology or GMO crops seems to be quite favorable with 65% having a positive comfort label. Europe and Japan have a 30-50% comfort level according to surveys by Pillsbury and U.S. Feed Grain Council.

At the Crop Pest Short Course held at the University of Minnesota, St. Paul Campus, last November, Sue Harlander, Bio-Tech Department and Ag Research for Pillsbury, also claimed that very little concern from U.S. consumers based on her employer's surveys and customer service telephone inquiries. According to Harlander, this may change with the rapidly escalating debate on genetically modified organisms in the food supply and gain more attention of U.S. consumers.

GMO products in underdeveloped nations are not an issue. Most of these countries are more concerned about having enough food to feed their population. Certainly they prefer high quality safe food, but they usually import inspected food and agriculture products that have passed through higher standards then they have in their own country.

Wayne Schoper, a colleague and Extension Educator from Brown County, Minnesota, has taken short assignments in Russia, Poland, and several old eastern bloc countries formally in the Soviet Union the past several years. Wayne says there is no comparison between the developed countries and the underdeveloped in terms of food safety. Food is seldom refrigerated and is offered for sale in an open market. Water quality is dangerously low and concern for E-coli, Salmonella, or other bacteria causing diseases are understandably more important than the issue of GMO or non-GMO origin.

Last summer I visited with an English farmer, Bernie Veal, who I worked with 20 years ago and attended classes with at the University of Minnesota. He indicated that the two largest food companies in Europe were already promoting products with non-GMO ingredients. He felt this was a serious issue in world trade and would not go away soon. He believed the agribusiness companies did a poor job in educating the public about GMO's and stated that at present the consumer really can see no direct benefit in any GMO product. The irony to the European resistance to GMO products is that the majority of the agribusinesses who own the genetic material in GMO crops are European-based.

This view is consistent with Dr. Charles Muscoplat, new Dean of Agriculture, Food & Environmental Science, at the University of Minnesota. He believes biotechnology is a safe and sound technology, which will yield significant benefits to the world population. He too, believes widespread acceptance will occur only when a direct benefit to the consumer is achieved.

Michael Muston, Vice President of Advanta in Switzerland also spoke at the University of Minnesota Crop Pest Short Course. He believes biotechnology is the solution for meeting food and health needs for the world's future. He believes we can't afford to wait; especially when the research and academic community believe biotech is less risky, scientific sound risk management.

The central issue on biotechnology is not questioning the safety of science and its process, but it is an issue that affects hearts, minds, and emotions.

"We're looking at a doubling of the population in the next 40 years. We're looking at a need for food production increases of 250 percent. At the same time, we're looking at dwindling resources for that food production. So clearly, biotechnology with its ability to improve yield, quality and nutritional value will help us in feeding today's and tomorrow's population." - Terry Medley, J.D., Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Consumers need to know the food they eat is safe, regardless of how it's produced or developed. The United States boasts a long history of enjoying the world's safest food supply - thanks in part of U.S. government regulations. Foods developed through biotechnology are subject to regulations comparable to foods through traditional methods. Traditional methods just didn't happen, they were planned just like biotechnology is planned. Through this process, consumers and producers will be able to benefit by having products with nutritional or health advantages, cost savings, and other improved quality traits on a faster and more timely schedule.

Selected References

A Consideration of Conventional and Genetically Modified Varieties, University of Minnesota Extension Service Fact Sheet, by Dale Hicks, Seth Naeve, William Wilke, and David Schwartz.

Biotechnology and the American Agricultural Industry, Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 265, pages 1429-1436, 1991.

Biotechnology at Work, Protecting Our Environment, Washington, D.C.: Biotechnology Industry Organization, 1992.

Biotechnology: Solutions for Tommorrow's World, Monsanto Company, 1997.

Food Biotechnology: Present and Future, (Two Volumes), Rockville, MD.: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 1988.

Impact of Plant Genetic Engineering on Foods and Nutrition, Annual Review of Nutrition, Vol. 13, pages 191-215, 1993.

Sue Harlander, Bio-Tech Department and Ag Research, Pillsbury.

Dr. Charles Muscoplat, Dean of Agriculture, Food & Environmental Science, University of Minnesota.

Michael Muston, Vice President of Advanta, Switzerland.

Wayne Schoper, Extension Educator, University of Minnesota Extension Service, Brown County.

Bernard Veall, Bank Farm, Dudelay, Tonbridge, Kent TN 110PB-UK, harry_veal_ltd@farmline.com

Bob Zelenka, Executive Director, Minnesota Feed and Grain Association.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 1999