1 / 14

Genetically modified foods and their impact on stakeholders in Virginia

Genetically modified foods and their impact on stakeholders in Virginia. University of Richmond Environmental Studies Senior Seminar Spring 2005 Jessica Kitchin, Adam Renick, Amy Terepka Dr. David Kitchen. Trends in Biotechnology.

reece-horton
Download Presentation

Genetically modified foods and their impact on stakeholders in Virginia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Genetically modified foods and their impact on stakeholders in Virginia University of Richmond Environmental Studies Senior Seminar Spring 2005 Jessica Kitchin, Adam Renick, Amy Terepka Dr. David Kitchen

  2. Trends in Biotechnology • About ¾ of processed foods in the average supermarket have GM ingredients • GM crop production has increased by double-digits for the past nine years • Majority of GM acreage in U.S. corn, soybeans, and cotton

  3. Virginia and Biotechnology • Crop value in 2003 represents $718 million • Estimated $5.6 million of that came from GM crops • Relatively small proportion compared to major agricultural states • Multiple universities and research institutions

  4. GM Applications • Input based • Bt crops contain bacterium that acts as a pesticide • HT crops are modified to resist certain herbicides • Output based • Product enhancement • Biopharmaceutical

  5. Proposed Benefits • Economic • Farmers • Jobs • Environmental • Lower pesticide use • Health • Nutritional benefits • “Golden Rice”

  6. Economic Corporate control Cross contamination Environmental Increased herbicide use “Superweeds” and “Superpests” Health Allergy Antibiotics Ethical Concerns Proposed Risks

  7. US vs. Europe • Difference in consumer reaction • Trust in agriculture • Trust in regulatory bodies • Media differences

  8. Virginia StakeholdersUkrop’s Consumer Survey • 53 percent knew nothing or very little about subject of GM foods • 80 percent believed they had consumed a GM food product • Those with opinion on GM foods generally had negative reaction • Consumers were contradictory in their perception of GM foods and in their prioritization of factors (environmental, health, economic) • “Conscious non-issue”

  9. Virginia Stakeholders • Research Institutions/ Universities • Biotechnology Industry/ Seed Companies • Farmers • Retailers • Consumers • Advocacy Groups • Government

  10. Virginia Stakeholders • Research Institutions/ Universities • Biotechnology Industry/ Seed Companies • Farmers • Retailers • Consumers • Advocacy Groups • Government

  11. Virginia Stakeholders • Research Institutions/ Universities • Biotechnology Industry/ Seed Companies • Farmers • Retailers • Consumers • Advocacy Groups • Government

  12. Future of Biotech in Virginia • Virginia’s best investment in the biotechnology industry is with research and development of further technologies • Output based technology is the best prospect for agriculture • GM opposition can create niche market for farmers and retailers

  13. Questions • GM labeling – Is it necessary? If so, what will it take? • When will consumers get involved? • At what point does the precautionary principle need to override immediate or temporary benefits? • Is this the right technology and the right time for the state of Virginia?

More Related