Industry Actions to Enhance Consumer Confidence in Biotechnology

1. Industry Actions to Enhance Consumer Confidence in Biotechnology Gregory Jaffe Director, Biotechnology Project Center for Science in the Public Interest December 6, 2002

2. Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) • Food and nutrition consumer organization • Nutrition Action Healthletter • No industry funding • No government funding

3. CSPI’s Biotechnology Project “Accurate identification of the risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology, ensuring that the U.S. regulatory system is up to the task of preventing significant risk, and keeping the public informed are some of the goals of CSPI's Biotechnology Project.”

4. CSPI’s Biotechnology Project (Cont.) -- Support safe uses of the technology in the future. -- Strengthen regulatory system in US to address new biotech products. -- Address new products on a case-by-case basis.

5. Current Biotechnology Products • Current biotech foods appear to be safe to ear and the environmental risks are manageable • There are some benefits to farmers and the environment from current crops

6. Recent Events Involving Agricultural Biotechnology • “Prodigene-Modified Corn Plant Nearly Gets Into U.S. Food Supply.” (WSJ, 11/13/02) • “Biotech Industry Adopts Precaution; Altered Plants Banned Near Major Food Crops.” (Washington Post, 10/22/02). • “EPA May Fine 2 Companies Over Test of Engineered Corn.” (NY Times, 8/14/02) • “Industry Battles Label for Genetically Modified Food.” (Oregonian, 10/10/02)

7. Recent Events Involving Agricultural Biotechnology (Cont.) • “Gene Altered Animal Risks Detailed; Panel Notes Benefits but Urges Better Federal Oversight.” (Washington Post, 8/21/02) • “Genetically Modified Animals May Pose Environmental Risks.” (Wall Street Journal). • “Superweed Study Falters as Seed Firm Deny Access to Transgene.” (Nature, 10/17/02) • “EPA Notes Deficiences in Proposed Bt Compliance Program.” (Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News, 8/12/02).

8. Agricultural Biotechnology Industry’s Worst Enemy? • Do Consumers Currently Trust the Biotech Industry?

9. Industry Measures to Enhance Consumer Confidence • Increasing Transparency • Increasing Accountability • Embracing Reasonable Government Oversight • Respecting Others • Sharing Knowledge • Supporting Independent Risk Assessment Research • Communicating Benefits and Risks

10. Increasing Transparency – Access to Regulatory Information • Biotech companies should make all information in their possession about safety of different products available to the public when it is submitted to government regulators. • Examples that contradict this principle: • Bt Crop Re-registration at EPA in 2001; • Secret nature of transgenic animal regulation • Implementation of Bt crop registrations • USDA submissions

11. USDA Submissions and Confidential Business Information • Recent NAS report on USDA (2002): • “The committee finds that the extent of confidential business information in registrant documents sent to APHIS hampers external review and transparency of decision-making process.” • “Regulatory agencies of other countries receive documents with less CBI than does APHIS.”

12. Increasing Transparency – Right to Know What You Eat • The Biotech companies should work with food industry to ensure that consumers who inquire can find out whether specific products were produced with genetically engineered ingredients. • Currently, this information is hidden from consumers. • Voluntary labeling does not work

13. Increasing Accountability • Biotech companies should meet all conditions imposed to safeguard human health and the environment. • Independent third party auditing • Documentation of compliance (and release to public of that documentation). • Certification of growers • Inspection and enforcement against non-compliant farmers

14. Embracing Reasonable Government Oversight • Biotech companies should support mandatory government oversight of their products that is open and transparent. • Voluntary systems are not sufficient. • Provide consumers confidence that someone is looking out for their interests. • Senator Durbin’s Genetically Engineered Foods Act (S. 3095).

15. Respecting Others • Biotech companies should respect that many people may not want their products and establish mechanisms to allow those people to avoid biotech products. • Biological boundaries so vegetarians, Moslems, Jews, and others can eat unlabeled foods. • Mechanisms to allow organic farmers to grow foods without fear of contamination from GE crops.

16. Sharing Knowledge • Biotech companies should make their technology available to developing countries and university researchers. • Biotech companies should provide support so that developing countries can use the technology made available.

17. Supporting Independent Risk Assessment Research • Biotech companies should provide financial and technical support for independent risk assessment research. • Provide raw materials to test products. • Provide money for independent researchers. • Support government research in this area.

18. Communicating Benefits and Risks • Educate public on the benefits of agricultural biotechnology products. • Educate public on risks and how they are being managed. • To date, benefits to farmers and environment have not be publicized by biotech companies. • Industry ran ads on “golden rice” but ignored benefits from reduced use of pesticides in growing cotton.

19. Gregory Jaffe, DirectorCSPI Biotechnology Project Website: www.cspinet.org/biotech/index.html E-mail address: gjaffe@cspinet.org