AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 8285b-MzgzM



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY

Description:

The continuing growth of human population creates or exacerbates a host of ... 'The greatest challenge of the 21st century: ... Nuffield Council on Bioethics ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:4163
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 65
Provided by: rhei
Learn more at: http://www.biotec.or.th
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY


1
AGRICULTURALBIOTECHNOLOGY
  • Conflicting Regulatory Paradigms
  • A Global Reality Check
  • Heritage Club
  • Bangkok, Thailand
  • 28 August, 2003

2
L. Val Giddings, Ph.D.
  • Vice President for Food and Agriculture
  • Biotechnology Industry Organization
  • Washington, DC USA

3
The continuing growth of human population creates
or exacerbates a host of challenges to the
responsible stewardship of the environmental
health and biodiversity of planet Earth.
4
The greatest challenge of the 21st century
feeding 9 billion people with a sustainable
agricultural production system.
  • --Chrispeels, 2000

5
To meet these challenges in the 21st Century and
beyond, humanity will need ever tool it can find.
6
What has been the global experience thus far in
terms of regulatory oversight for the products of
agricultural biotechnology and how are these
products scrutinized by regulatory authorities?
7
PROBLEM
  • Our high degree of technical understanding has
    not been translated into either harmonization or
    equivalence among the approval systems in the
    major trading nations.

8
Two Models for Biotechnology Regulation
  • An earned trust in the competency and
    independence of scientifically based risk
    assessments
  • United States, Australia New Zealand, Japan
  • Political reliance on the validity of current
    public opinion
  • European Union

9
Scientifically, both systems rely on risk
assessment using the same types of data
concerning
the identity molecular characterization food
safety environmental impact of new crop varieties.
10
U.S. Style System
  • The recommendations of technical reviewers are
    presented to administrative agencies for
    acceptance or rejection
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • Environmental Protection Agency
  • Food and Drug Administration

11
U.S. Style System
  • Policy officials are regularly selected for their
    familiarity with the subject matter
  • Applications are made to central authorities and
    all evaluations and interaction with the
    applicant is conducted through that agency

12
E.U. Style System
  • The recommendations of technical reviewers are
    subject to several layers of political review by
    authorities who are not versed in the scientific
    or technical aspects of the application.

13
E.U. Style System
  • There are 6 distinct steps of evaluation
    involving agencies in individual member states,
    several levels of the European Commission and the
    European Council of Ministers.
  • Each stage offers an opportunity for individual
    member states or the Commission to delay or
    prevent action or an application.

14
Results
E.U. Style System
  • Since October 1998, the EU has not approved any
    applications to grow or import transgenic crops.
  • 13 applications for new products have been stalled

15
Results
U.S. Style System
  • Since 1986, the 11 transgenic crops most commonly
    field tested have been planted under more than
    6,504 permits on more than 30,000 test plots.

16
Results
U.S. Style System
  • USDA found crops pose risks no different then
    their conventional counterpart
  • FDA found crops to be safe for human consumption
  • EPA evaluated licensed crops improved to resist
    insect pests

17
  • This effective and functioning regulatory regime
    is the best explanation for the global
    preponderance of biotech crop land in the U.S.

18
Current regulatory scrutiny, plus the excellent
track record of GM food safety, gives us
confidence that GM foods are rigorously
scrutinized and that the technology is safe.
  • American Council on Science and Health,
  • Biotechnology and Food, 2002

19
Universal Principles for Sound Regulation
  • Regulatory review must be grounded in sound
    science

20
Universal Principles for Sound Regulation
  • Regulatory review must be grounded in sound
    science
  • Appropriate standards of risk avoidance must be
    applied

21
Universal Principles for Sound Regulation
  • Regulatory review must be grounded in sound
    science
  • Appropriate standards of risk avoidance must be
    applied
  • Regulators must distinguish between what they
    need to know vs. what would be nice to know

22
What is the ground truth reality of our
experience with crops improved through
biotechnology to date?
23
Global Area of Transgenic Crops, 1996 to 2001
Increase of 19, 8.4 million hectares (20.8
million acres) between 2000 and 2001. Source
Clive James, 2001
24
Global Area of Transgenic Crops, 1996 to 2001
Source Clive James, 2001
25
A cumulative total of over 175 million hectares
(almost 440 million acres) of transgenic crops
were planted globally in 16 countries.
- Clive James, 2001
26
The majority of the land devoted to transgenic
crops
  • United States (68)
  • Argentina (22)
  • Canada (6)
  • China (3)

27
Crops improved through biotechnology that are
grown most frequently
  • Soybeans
  • Corn
  • Cotton
  • Canola

28
Global Area of Transgenic Crops, 1996 to 2000
By Crop(million hectares)
Source Clive James, 2000
29
U.S. Biotech Crops Acres Planted 1996-2002
Planting Estimate based on USDA/NASS report
3/28/02 Overall cotton plantings decreased but
of acres increased. Corn acreage fluctuates
based on presence of European corn borer.
30
U.S. Biotech Crops in 2002 of Acres Planted
1999 figures are based on a survey of BIO member
seed sales. 2000-2001 figures are based on
USDA/NASS 2002 figures are estimates of USDA,
NASS 3/28/02 Corn acreage fluctuates based on
presence of European corn borer.
31
Improvements most often delivered through
biotechnology
  • Herbicide tolerance
  • Enable improved weed control measures
  • Insect resistance
  • Enable improved pest management

32
(No Transcript)
33
Global Area of Transgenic Crops, 1996 to 2000
By Trait(million hectares)
Source Clive James, 2000
34
Global Area of Transgenic Crops, 1996 to 2000
Industrial and Developing Countries(million
hectares)
Source Clive James, 2000
35
Global Area Adoption Rates () for Principal
Transgenic Crops (million hectares)
Source Clive James, 2000
36
Most Frequent Categories
Source U.S. Department of Agriculture
37
Most Frequent Crops
Source U.S. Department of Agriculture
38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)
40
Summary of US Experience to date
  • 9,284 permits notifications
  • 38,899 test plots fields
  • 45 crops approved for wide scale planting
  • 0 unexpected, unpleasant surprises

41
Mobilization of these substantial resources to
address developing world needs is fundamental to
the future well being of the world, its natural
resources, and its people.
-Taylor and Fauquet, 2000
42
Human Health Impacts
  • There has not been a single claim of a negative
    health impact that has survived scrutiny
  • Real potential for eliminating from known
    allergens the genes encoding for the proteins
    that evoke the allergenic response
  • Biotechnology produces safer corn harvests than
    conventional corn by decreasing risks posed by
    carcinogenic mycotoxin contamination

43
It seems perverse, even criminal, to walk away
from an increased source of food when we need it
desperately.
  • Provessor Derek Burke
  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics

44
Crops and foods improved through biotechnology
are subjected to more extensive and detailed
prior scrutiny than any others in history.
45
The American Society for Cell Biology vigorously
supports research and development in the area of
genetically engineered organisms, including the
development of genetically modified crop
plantsNew products from genetically modified
crops promise significant improvement in human
health and the environment.
American Society for Cell Biology, Statement in
Support of Research on Genetically Modified
Organisms
46
Instead of rejecting the solutions offered by
science, we should change policies to assure that
the solutions benefit the poorCondemning
biotechnology for its potential risks without
considering the alternative risks of prolonging
the human misery caused by hunger, malnutrition
and child death is unwise and unethical.
- Per. Pinstrup-Anderson Director General,
International Food Policy Research Institute
47
Environmental Impacts
  • The fundamental threat to biodiversity comes from
    the destruction of native habitat

48
The primary cause of the decay of organic
diversity is not direct human exploitation or
malevolence, but the habitat destruction that
inevitably results from the expansion of human
populations and human activities.
- Paul Ehrlich, 1988
49
It is this broad-scale clearing and degradation
of forest habitats that is far and away the main
cause of species extinctions.
- Norman Myers, 1988
50
Biotechnology promises to reduce threats to
biodiversity by
  • Improving crop production on existing lands
  • Decreasing the environmental impacts of
    agricultural practices
  • Reducing the pressure to convert more of the
    remaining wilderness to agriculture

51
The traditional and supposedly sustainable
methods of farming many consumers think they
should encourage are often terribly wasteful of
nature and natural resources.
  • Stephen Budiansky
  • Washington Post
  • April 15, 2001

52
Economic Impact
With crops improved through biotechnology, the
key commodity is information, and this is carried
in the seed itself. Further, its delivery is
scale neutral and not capital intensive for the
farmer.
53
Through the 8 crop varieties widely planted in
the U.S. to date, biotechnology has
  • Increased yields by 4 billion pounds
  • Saved growers 1.2 billion annually
  • Reduced pesticide use by 46 million pounds
    annually
  • Leonard Gianessi
  • National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy

54
If an additional 32 crop varieties were adopted
  • Crop yields would increase by an estimated 10
    billion pounds
  • Costs to growers would be reduced by an
    additional 400 million annually
  • Further reduce pesticides by 117 million pounds
  • Leonard Gianessi
  • National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy

55
Nearly three quarters (71) of U.S. population
said they would be likely to buy produce that had
been enhanced through biotechnology to be
protected from insect damage and require fewer
pesticide applications.
  • International Food Information Council
  • U.S. Consumer Attitudes Toward Food
    Biotechnology,
  • August 2002

56
The membership of the Society for In Vitro
Biology believes that the commercialization of
genetically engineered crops will have a dramatic
and positive impact on people the world over.
  • Society for In Vitro Biology
  • Position Statement on Crop Genetic Engineering
    (2000)

57
Sample of Scientific Community in Favor of
Biotechnology
  • American Council on Science and Health
  • American Dietetic Association
  • American Institute of Biological Science
  • American Medical Assoc. Council on Scientific
    Affairs
  • American Psychopathological Society
  • American Society of Agronomy
  • American Society for Cell Biology
  • American Society for Horticulture science
  • American Society for Microbiology
  • American Society of Plant Biologists
  • American Society of Plant Physiologists
  • Brazilian Academy of Sciences
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Committee on Science Subcommittee on Basis
    Research, U.S. House of Representatives
  • Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
  • Crop Science Society of America
  • Entomological Society of America
  • Federation of Animal Scientific Societies
  • Food and Agriculture Organization
  • Genetics Society of America
  • Indian National Science Academy
  • Institute of Food Science and Technology
  • Institute of Food Technologists
  • International Society of African Scientists
  • Mexican Academy of Sciences
  • National Academy of Science and Technology of
    the
  • Republic of the Philippines
  • National Academy of Sciences of the USA
  • New Zealand Royal Commission
  • Society of Nematologists
  • Pontifical Academy of Sciences
  • The Royal Society of London
  • Third World Academy of Sciences
  • Weed Society of America

58
Agricultural Biotechnology Regulation
  • There has been a long-standing agreement among
    scientists and regulators on the best way to
    carry out risk assessment for crops and foods
    improved through biotechnology.

59
Conclusion
  • Crops and foods improved through biotechnology
    are subjected to more extensive and detailed
    prior scrutiny than any others in history

60
Conclusion
  • Crops and foods improved through biotechnology
    are subjected to more extensive and detailed
    scrutiny than any others in history
  • Crops and foods are at least as safe as, if not
    safer than their conventional counterparts

61
Conclusion
  • Crops and foods improved through biotechnology
    are subjected to more extensive and detailed
    scrutiny than any others in history
  • Crops and foods are at least as safe as, if not
    safer than their conventional counterparts
  • Substantial benefits accrue to those who grow
    them, the environment, and those who eat them

62
Conclusion
  • Crops and foods improved through biotechnology
    are subjected to more extensive and detailed
    scrutiny than any others in history
  • Crops and foods are at least as safe as, if not
    safer than their conventional counterparts
  • Substantial benefits accrue to those who grow
    them, the environment, and those who eat them
  • Significant potential to improve our stewardship
    of the planet, and the lives of people in
    industrial and developing nations alike

63
Genetic modification can reduce the chemical
load in the environment, reduce the impact on
non-target species, and reduce the amount of land
required for food crops. There are so many real
benefits from genetic modification compared to
the largely hypothetical and contrived risks that
it would be foolish to ban genetic modification.
  • Patrick Moore, Ph.D.
  • Ecologist Greenpeace Co-Founder

64
Additional Resources
  • www.bio.org
  • www.ncfap.org (data on economic and agricultural
    impacts of crops improved through biotech)
  • www.isaaa.org (data on global acreage adoption
    rates FAQs on ag biotech)
  • www.icsu.org (summary of global scientific
    consensus)
About PowerShow.com