Advancing Technologies to Feed 9 Billion - Mandy Hagan, Vice President, State Affairs and Grassroots, Grocery Manufacturers Association, from the 2015 Animal Agriculture Alliance Stakeholders Summit, The Journey to Extraordinary, May 6 - 7, 2015, Kansas City, MO, USA. More presentations at http://www.trufflemedia.com/agmedia/conference/2015-the-journey-to-extraordinary

1. www.gmaonline.org
Advancing Technologies to Feed 9 Billion
Mandy Hagan
Vice President, State Affairs and Grassroots
Grocery Manufacturers Association
Animal Agriculture Alliance
Stakeholders Summit
May 6, 2015

2. www.gmaonline.org
Voice of more than 300 leading food, beverage and consumer product
companies
Founded in 1908
GMA and our member companies are committed to meeting the needs of
consumers through product innovation, responsible business practices and
effective public policy solutions developed through a genuine partnership
with policymakers and other stakeholders
GMA helps members produce safe products through a strong and ongoing
commitment to scientific research, testing, and evaluation; and to providing
consumers with the products, tools and information they need to achieve a
healthy diet and an active lifestyle
The food, beverage and consumer packaged goods industry in the United
States generates sales of $2.1 trillion annually, employs 1.4 million workers
and contributes $1 trillion in added value to the economy every year.

3. www.gmaonline.org
Q: Feeding 9 billion: Is there a problem here?
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food

4. www.gmaonline.org
A: Only if you want to eat
More people: By 2050, global population will grow to greater than nine billion,
more than two billion additional people compared to today
Finite
resources:
The UN estimates that by 2030 the world will need 30% more
fresh water and 50% more energy; by 2050 we will need 70%
more food
Higher costs: The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
projects a rise in food prices of most cereals and meats,
reversing long-established downward trends.
Between 2005
and 2050:
Maize up 104%
Rice up 79%
Wheat up 88%
Beef up 32%
Pork up 70%
Poultry up 77%

5. www.gmaonline.org
Q: Can biotechnology help?
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food

6. www.gmaonline.org
A. It already has
“A new 2014 global meta-analysis of 147 studies confirmed significant benefits
during the last 20 years.
On average, GM technology adoption has:
Reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%,
Increased crop yields by 22%,
Increased farmer profits by 68%
In 2013 alone reduced CO2 emissions by 28 billion kg, equivalent to taking
12.4 million cars off the road for one year;
Helped alleviate poverty for >16.5 million small farmers and their families
totaling >65 million people, who are some of the poorest people in the world.”
ISAAA Brief 49-2014

7. www.gmaonline.org
A. It already has
GM crops are allowing farmers to grow more without using additional land. If
crop biotechnology had not been available to the 17.3 million farmers using
the technology in 2012, maintaining global production levels at the 2012 levels
would have required additional plantings of:
• 12 million acres of soybeans,
•17 million acres of corn,
•7.6 million acres of cotton and
•0.5 million acres of canola.
GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2012,
Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot, PG Economics Ltd, UK May 2014

8. www.gmaonline.org
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food

9. www.gmaonline.org
Q: But is it safe?

10. www.gmaonline.org
A: YES!
The first major scientific study into the safety of GE was issued by the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 1982), titled
Biotechnology, International trends and perspectives. It set the stage for a
subsequent major report in 1986 titled “Recombinant DNA Safety
Considerations” and informally known as the OECD “Blue Book,” (OECD, 1986)
this report became influential internationally in establishing safety regulations
for GE activities.
The National Academy of Sciences conducted a similar study and issued
their recommendations to the federal government for GE risk-
assessment strategies in the United States (NRC, 1983).
Declaration of Dr. Alan McHughen

11. www.gmaonline.org
A: YES!
In the early 2000s, the U.S. National Academy of Science and the U.S. Institute
of Medicine conducted a study into the safety of genetically engineered foods,
including a comparison of risks associated with several traditional and genetic
engineering methods of plant breeding.
The NAS panel found that all breeding methods can potentially result in
unexpected effects (“There is no such thing as zero risk”), and more
importantly, that there is no scientific basis for distinguishing the risks
associated with “GE” methods from non-GE methods of breeding.
They are equally safe.
Declaration of Dr. Alan McHughen

12. www.gmaonline.org
A: YES!
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): “…contrary to
popular misconceptions, GM [genetically modified] crops are the most
extensively tested crops ever added to our food supply. There are occasional
claims that feeding GM foods to animals causes aberrations ranging from
digestive disorders, to sterility, tumors and premature death. Although such
claims are often sensationalized and receive a great deal of media attention,
none have stood up to rigorous scientific scrutiny.... the science is quite clear:
crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is
safe.” (2012)

13. www.gmaonline.org
American Medical Association: “There is no scientific justification for
special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have
been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt
consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated
in the peer-reviewed literature.” (2012)
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food

14. www.gmaonline.org
A: YES!
World Health Organization: “No effects on human health have been shown
as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the
countries where they have been approved.” (2013)
The European Commission: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts
of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years
of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that
biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g.
conventional plant breeding technologies.” (2010)

15. www.gmaonline.org
American Society for Cell Biology: “Far from presenting a threat to the public
health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports
research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms,
including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.” 2014
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food

16. www.gmaonline.org
Where does concern come from?
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food

17. www.gmaonline.org
Where does concern come from?
“Those who oppose GE technology challenge this clear consensus based on
contrary opinions from amateur newsletters and non-peer-reviewed, non-
professional, non-credentialed groups.
For example, many opponents rely on the work of the European Network of
Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER). However,
ENSSER was established only a few years ago (2009), apparently for the purpose
of opposing biotechnology.
It has none of the features associated with bona fide professional scientific
societies: it does not publish a peer-reviewed academic journal, and has a tiny
membership, composed of a eclectic group of people with varying credentials,
few of which are directly related to genetics, agriculture or biosafety.
The one aspect they seem to share is opposition to biotechnology. This is not a
foundation for objective, analytical science.” Declaration of Dr. Alan McHughen

18. www.gmaonline.org
Where does concern come from?
“In 2012, a French group published a peer-reviewed paper purporting to show
adverse health effects on rats fed with GE grain (Seralini et al., 2012). This paper
quickly became the banner for anti-GE crop and food groups worldwide to show
previously undocumented hazards with GE crops and foods.
However, this study was retracted by the publisher after the worldwide
scientific community complained the study was fraught with fatal flaws,
including using a tumor-prone strain of rat, too few animals in each treatment,
incorrect scientific protocol for the type of test conducted, incorrect statistical
analysis, ethical violations of allowing animal suffering, and the authors’ refusal
to release the full data set .” Declaration of Dr. Alan McHughen

19. www.gmaonline.org
Where does concern come from?
“More recently, the publisher of Environmental Sciences Europe (ESEU) decided
to reprint, without peer review, the retracted Seralini paper in order to allow
public access for debate.
The original criticisms remained outstanding, however, including the use of too
few rats per treatment to yield meaningful results, the use of a strain of rat
prone to developing tumors regardless of food or other treatment, using
obscure statistical tests when standard statistics showed no significant
differences between the treatments, and failure to provide full data.
Every scientific society worldwide that has investigated the paper’s claims
rejected them, including the European Union’s own government sponsored
EFSA (European Food Safety Agency).” Declaration of Dr. Alan McHughen

20. www.gmaonline.org
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food

21. www.gmaonline.org
They’re safe…so what ARE they?
“Genetic engineering” typically refers to the use of recombinant DNA (rDNA)
techniques to transfer particular genes from one organism into the genome
of another so that the second organism expresses a desired trait.
Over the past two decades, crop scientists have used genetic engineering to
create hardier varieties of popular staple food crops.
These varieties are commercially popular:
In 2014, 93% of the corn,
94% of the soybeans,
and 96% of the cotton
planted in the United States were from
genetically engineered varieties.
Declaration of Dr. Alan McHughen

22. www.gmaonline.org
How are they regulated?
The federal government regulates agricultural crops in the United States
through a web of statutory schemes, including:
Federal Plant Protection Act (PPA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 7701-7772
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C.
§§ 136-136y
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 301, et seq.;
Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 601, et seq.
Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 451, et seq.
Food labeling is subject to detailed regulation and oversight
under the FFDCA, FMIA, PPIA, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act
(NLEA), 21 U.S.C. § 343-1, and the Organic Foods Production Act, 7 U.S.C.
§§ 6501-6522.

23. www.gmaonline.org
How are they regulated?
Under these numerous statutes, four federal agencies share principal authority
over food crops:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal Plant and Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) regulates to prevent the spread of plant pests and diseases
under the PPA;
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversees regulates pesticides
under FIFRA and sets levels of pesticide tolerance in foods under the FFDCA;
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates food safety and
labeling under the FFDCA and NLEA;
The USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) regulates the safety and
labeling of foods, including those with plant-based ingredients, that are
produced at meat and poultry processing facilities, pursuant to the FMIA and
PPIA.

24. www.gmaonline.org
How are they regulated?
FDA’s policy is well established:
From the beginning, the agency has emphasized that its regulations must be
based on the rational and scientific evaluation of products, not on assumptions
about certain processes or on generic concerns about biotechnology.
ON AVERAGE, FIRST SUBMISSION TO FINAL APPROVAL
CAN TAKE 8-10 YEARS AND COST up to $100M

25. www.gmaonline.org
Little Known Facts:
The first GM product commercialized was insulin in 1982.
The first GM food product in the United States was chymosin, approved by the
FDA in 1990, two years after it was approved in the United Kingdom.
Some strict vegetarians allow themselves cheese made with chymosin, as it
replaces rennin from cattle, goats and other animals.
Currently, over 90% of US cheese is made with GM chymosin
Declaration of Dr. Alan McHughen
One of the earliest and most successful uses of GM in agriculture was
the development of papaya with resistance to the papaya ringspot virus
(PRSV).

26. www.gmaonline.org
Why not label anyway?

27. www.gmaonline.org
Why not label anyway?
A GMO label, other than a claim of absence, is meaningless.
It won’t tell you what ingredient is GM
It won’t tell you what trait was expressed
GMO sucrose Conventional sucrose Organic sucrose

28. www.gmaonline.org
Little Known Facts:
Processing to produce ingredients like refined oils, starches, and sugars
ordinarily removes or degrades the DNA and proteins. In highly refined or
purified ingredients, even the most sensitive analytical techniques available to
detect DNA or protein cannot reliably or consistently detect the presence of a
GE crop.
The sucrose produced by GE sugarbeets is chemically identical to the sucrose
produced by non-GE sugarbeets and, for that matter, to sucrose from sugarcane.
There is no DNA or protein present in sucrose, whether derived from GE or non-
GE plants. Thus, there is no means to independently or reliably distinguish the
product of the GE sugarbeet plant from the others, even using the most
powerful and sensitive laboratory tests.
Declaration of Dr. Alan McHughen

29. www.gmaonline.org
Mandatory Labeling
Adds $500 per year per average family in grocery costs
Impossible for manufacturers to comply with a patchwork of labeling
requirements
Riddled with exemptions: restaurants, alcohol, enzymes
Meat and dairy from animals fed GM feed
Starches, sugars, and oils that do not contain genetic material (no protein)
Insulin
Vaccines

30. www.gmaonline.org
Where would labeling begin and end?
“Naturally” GM sweet potatoes-Should they be labeled?
“Sweet potatoes contain bacterial genes says a study, showing the plant as yet
another species exhibiting natural genetic modification. Researchers from
UGent and the International Potato Institute (CIP) discovered genes from the
bacterium Agrobacterium in the sweet potato when they were sequencing the
plant for viral diseases . . . Prof Lieve Gheysen, one of the researchers involved:
"The natural presence of Agrobacterium T-DNA in sweet potato and its stable
inheritance during evolution is a beautiful example of the possibility of DNA
exchange across species barriers. It demonstrates that genetic modification
also happens in nature. In comparison to "natural" GMOs, that are beyond our
control, human-made GMOs have the advantage that we know exactly which
characteristic we add to the plant.“
International Business Times, April 22, 2015

31. www.gmaonline.org
Where would labeling begin and end?
“Naturally” herbicide resistant sunflowers-Should they be labeled?
Native sunflowers discovered In 1996 in a field of soybeans that were able to
tolerate a class of weedkillers known as "ALS inhibitors." This line of soybeans
had been created through "mutation breeding”-exposing thousands of seeds to
chemicals that cause genetic mutations.
The farmer contacted a researcher who collected some of the surviving weeds,
tested them, and confirmed that these sunflowers were indeed resistant to ALS
inhibitor herbicides.
Researchers were able to get these wild sunflowers to exchange pollen and
produce offspring with cultivated sunflowers. Today, commercial sunflowers all
over the world contain this genetic trait, and many sunflower growers rely
heavily on ALS inhibitors to control their weeds.
Dan Charles, NPR, March 12, 2012

32. www.gmaonline.org
Our Fear: Loss of the Technology
The Case of the GM Sugar Beet in Europe
In 2007, GM herbicide-tolerant sugar beet was commercialised in the
USA and Canada. The speed of uptake by farmers was unprecedented,
with an adoption rate of 95% within two years. Analysis suggests that
adoption has been economically sound for farmers and has high
potential to reduce the environmental impact of sugar beet
production.
An application for cultivation of GM sugar beet was originally
submitted in the EU in 2000. A decision is still pending.
EASAC policy report June 21 2013

33. www.gmaonline.org
Benefits that Would be Lost:
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food

34. www.gmaonline.org
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food

35. www.gmaonline.org
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food

36. www.gmaonline.org
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food

37. www.gmaonline.org
Questions?
Mandy N. Hagan, Esq.
Vice President
State Affairs and Grassroots
1350 I Street NW, Suite 300
Washington DC 20005
ph 202-295-3974
fx 202-637-8476
ahagan@gmaonline.org
www.gmaonline.org