“the use of gmos in the dairy industry, and implications ... · “the use of gmos in the dairy...

Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education

“The use of GMOs in the dairy industry, and implications for mandatory GE

process-based labeling”

Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D.Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D.Cooperative Extension SpecialistCooperative Extension SpecialistAnimal Biotechnology and Genomics Animal Biotechnology and Genomics Department of Animal Science Department of Animal Science University of California, Davis, USAUniversity of California, Davis, USA(530) 752(530) 752--7942 Twitter: @Biobeef7942 Twitter: @[email protected]@ucdavis.edu

http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/animalbiotechhttp://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/animalbiotech

mailto:[email protected]

http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/animalbiotech

Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015 Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education

http://weknowmemes.com/2012/07/dont-believe-everything-you-read-on-the-internetAnimal Genomics and Biotechnology Education Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015

OutlineOutline

1.1. ““What is a GMO (Genetically modified Organism)?What is a GMO (Genetically modified Organism)?””2.2. How widely are GE crops grown globally and in US?How widely are GE crops grown globally and in US?3.3. Where is GE used in livestock production?Where is GE used in livestock production?4.4. Performance trends of US livestock populationsPerformance trends of US livestock populations5.5. Extent of GE animal feed in global trading marketsExtent of GE animal feed in global trading markets6.6. Push for the labeling of animals that have not eaten GE Push for the labeling of animals that have not eaten GE

feedstuffsfeedstuffs7.7. Sources of livestock fed nonSources of livestock fed non--GE feedGE feed8.8. Implications of pushing for livestock fed on Implications of pushing for livestock fed on ““GMOGMO--freefree””

diets, and sources of this feed for US animals that are diets, and sources of this feed for US animals that are being raised to satisfy that marketbeing raised to satisfy that market

Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015

I do not like the term genetically I do not like the term genetically modified or GMO modified or GMO –– because it is because it is ambiguous as to what ambiguous as to what ““modifiedmodified”” meansmeans

Animal Biotechnology and Genomics Education Animal Biotechnology and Genomics Education Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015

I prefer the term genetic engineering I prefer the term genetic engineering (GE) as it means something specific (GE) as it means something specific

•• The The USDAUSDA’’ss current definition of genetic engineering is current definition of genetic engineering is ““manipulation of an organismmanipulation of an organism’’s genes by introducing, s genes by introducing, eliminating or rearranging specific genes using the eliminating or rearranging specific genes using the methods of modern molecular biology, particularly those methods of modern molecular biology, particularly those techniques referred to as techniques referred to as recombinant DNA (rDNA) recombinant DNA (rDNA) techniques.techniques.””

•• Also known as genetically modified, GM, GMO, Also known as genetically modified, GM, GMO, transgenic, bioengineered, biotech, made with modern transgenic, bioengineered, biotech, made with modern biotechnology, frankenfood biotechnology, frankenfood


http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=BiotechnologyGlosary.xml&navid=AGRICULTURE



rDNA vaccines rBST

GMO feed

GE rennet, and other food processing aids

GMO food & ingredients

Currently no GM animals in market

Where is GE used in the dairy industry?GE products are used in animal feed, vaccines (chickens, pigs, horses, dogs, cats), pharmaceuticals, food processing aids, and food

Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015

Global Area of Genetically Engineered (GE) crops Global Area of Genetically Engineered (GE) crops Million hectares (1996Million hectares (1996--2013)2013)

Source: Clive James, 2012 ISAAA Brief 44-2012 http://www.isaaa.orgSource: Clive James, 2013 ISAAA Brief 46-2013

Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015

http://www.isaaa.org/


What crops are GE in US?What crops are GE in US?

90% of all corn planted in U.S. was GE in 201390% of all cotton planted in U.S. was GE in 201393% of all soybeans planted in U.S. was GE in 201395% of all sugar beet planted in U.S. was GE in 2013 Also canola, papaya, some squash, melons and sweetcornand an increasing acerage of GE alfalfa

NON-GE FEEDSTUFFS CURRENTLY INCLUDE • Wheat• Sorghum • Oats

• Rice• Millett• Barley


Only rDNA-derived seed varieties have to go through regulatory approval

Prado et al. 2014. Genetically engineered crops: from idea to product. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 65:769-90

Summary statements of leading science organizations regarding safety of genetic engineering

•“No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”(World Health Organization)

•“No adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.” (National Academy of Sciences)

•“The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” (American Association for the Advancement of Science)

•“There is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered 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.” (American Medical Association)

•“No scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.” (European Commission)


Professional Scientific and/or Medical bodies with an opinion on safety of GE

Generally Positive

The U.S. National Research Council (NRC)

U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

The American Medical Association, (AMA)

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

European Food Safety authority (EFSA)

American Society for Plant Biology (ASPB)

Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS)

World Health Organization (WHO)

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

Royal Society (London)

Brazil National Academy of Science,

Chinese National Academy of Science

Indian National Academy of Science

Mexican Academy of Science

Third World Academy of SciencesAnimal Genomics and Biotechnology Education

Generally Negative

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)*

The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility

*Not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties

Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015

70-90% of harvested GE biomass is fed to food producing animals

Flachowsky G, Schafft H, Meyer U: 2012 Animal feeding studies for nutritional and safety assessments of feeds from genetically modified plants: a review. (Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety) :179–194.

Global livestock populations have been eating predominately GE feed for well over a decade


There have been hundreds of animal feeding studies using GE crops

. Flachowsky G, Schafft H, Meyer U: Animal feeding studies for nutritional and safety assessments of feeds from genetically modified plants: a review. Journal fur Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (Journal

of Consumer Protection and Food Safety) 2012, 7:179–194.Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015

FASS maintains a list of animal feeding FASS maintains a list of animal feeding studies with GE crops; and transgenic studies with GE crops; and transgenic DNA and protein in livestock productsDNA and protein in livestock products

http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=43Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399

Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015

Meta-analysis of long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials

Snell C, Bernheim A, Berge JB, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A, Ricroch AE. 2012. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food Chem Toxicol 50:1134–1148.

• Published long-term feeding studies using a GE-based diet ranged from 110-728 days

• The longest multigenerational study involved 10 generations.

• The authors concluded that none of the long-term or multigenerational studies they evaluated revealed any new effect that had not been found in the 90-d rodent toxicology study

“The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non- GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.”


Van Eenennaam, A. L. and A. E. Young. 2014 . Journal of Animal Science. 92:4255-4278

Industrya U.S.b

Broiler 105,426,000,000

Beef cattle 410,000,000

Dairy Cows 35,000,000

Hogs 105,000,000

Total 105,976,000,000

a Numbers for broilers, hogs (barrows and gilts) and beef cattle (steers) are for slaughtered animals during calendar year. Dairy animals are number of dairy cows in a calendar year divided by three to account for three lactations per animal.b USDA: The USDA Economics, Statistics and Market Information System (ESMIS). 2013 http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/homepage.do.

The majority of the more than 100 billion food animals raised in the US between 2000-2011 consumed varying levels of GE feed.


http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/homepage.do

slope = 139.9

slope = 148.6

slope = 2.1

slope = 2.73

slope = 0.458

slope = 0.558

slope = 0.202

slope = 0.322

Average broiler

slau

ghter w

eigh

t (kg/broiler)

Average be

ef cattle

slau

ghter w

eigh

t (kg/steer)

Average milk yield

(kg/cow)

Average hog slaughter w

eight (kg/pig)

Milk, beef, swine, and broiler production trends in US prior to and subsequent to the introduction of GE crops in 1996

Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015 Van Eenennaam, A. L. and A. E. Young. 2014 . Journal of Animal Science. 92:4255-4278

Milk production statistics and somatic cell counts in US prior to and subsequent to the introduction of GE crops in 1996

Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015 Van Eenennaam, A. L. and A. E. Young. 2014 . Journal of Animal Science. 92:4255-4278

US broiler statistics prior to and subsequent to the introduction of GE crops in 1996. Slope differs between time periods 1983-1994 and

2000-2011 (*P < 0.05)

Van Eenennaam, A.L. and Young, A.E. 2014. Invited review: Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations. Journal of Animal Science 92:4255-4278.

Sources: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2013; National Chicken Council, 2011.

Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education

Does it affect livestock (milk, meat, Does it affect livestock (milk, meat, eggs) from animals eating GE feed?eggs) from animals eating GE feed?

• No GE rDNA or the newly expressed proteins encoded have ever been found to be present in the milk, meat, or eggs from animals that have eaten GE feed

• It is not possible to distinguish any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products following consumption of GE feed

• Labeling of such animal products is not currently mandatory in either US or Europe.


It is estimated that, with a normal diet, humans consume between 0.1-1 gram DNA/day

Safety of Meat, Milk, and Eggs from Animals Fed Crops Derived from Modern Biotechnologyhttp://www.cast-science.org/download.cfm?PublicationID=2910&File=1e30ecea828a9b1ea77c6773b63647251564TR

Freely available publication from Council Freely available publication from Council for Agricultural Science and Technology for Agricultural Science and Technology (http://www.cast(http://www.cast--science.org)science.org)


http://www.cast-science.org/download.cfm?PublicationID=2910&File=1e30ecea828a9b1ea77c6773b63647251564TR

Mandatory labeling of GE Mandatory labeling of GE foodfood

Consumers who want nonConsumers who want non--GE food have a GE food have a choice already choice already –– voluntary labelingvoluntary labeling


Voluntary labeling is allowed Voluntary labeling is allowed if it is not false or misleadingif it is not false or misleading

NonNon--misleadingmisleading““CholesterolCholesterol--free oilfree oil””––Such claims are forbiden Such claims are forbiden in the USA because they in the USA because they imply other vegetable oils imply other vegetable oils have cholesterol, when in have cholesterol, when in fact, none do.fact, none do.


Although some labels do exist that Although some labels do exist that are both false and misleading!!are both false and misleading!!

CAFFEINE!!!



http://www.americangrassfed.org/

Mandatory processMandatory process--based labeling singles out based labeling singles out GE process in absence of difference in GE process in absence of difference in product product –– there are many production methods there are many production methods used in animal production used in animal production

CROSSBRED (ANGUS X HEREFORD) STEER PRODUCT CONCEIVED IN A PETRI DISH AFTER MULIPLE OVULATION OF DAM, ARTIFICIALLY INSEMINATED BY THE OFFSPRING OF A CLONE, FOLLOWED BY EMBRYO TRANSFER, GESTATED IN A SURROGATE CROSSBRED COW, CASTRATED HUMANELY, IMMUNIZED WITH A RECOMBINANT DNA VACCINE, TREATED FOR PINK EYE WITH AN ANTIBIOTIC, FINISHED ON A DIET CONTAINING GENETICALLY-ENGINEERED CORN FOR 120 DAYS, HUMANELY KILLED, NOT- IRRADIATED. DON’T EAT RAW.

What would be the cost of

mandatory consumer

“right to know” process‐based

labeling about all aspects of

the animal production process?


"Our objective is to eliminate GMOs [from the US food supply] bu"Our objective is to eliminate GMOs [from the US food supply] but we t we also see GMO labeling as a useful tool in the meantime because walso see GMO labeling as a useful tool in the meantime because we e know that transitioning to a nonknow that transitioning to a non--GMO supply chain will take timeGMO supply chain will take time””. . Elizabeth O'Connell, campaigns director for GMO Inside/Green AmeElizabeth O'Connell, campaigns director for GMO Inside/Green America, 2014rica, 2014http://www.foodnavigatorhttp://www.foodnavigator--usa.com/Markets/GMOusa.com/Markets/GMO--InsideInside--callscalls--onon--StarbucksStarbucks--toto--sourcesource--organicorganic--milkmilk--fromfrom--cowscows--notnot--fedfed--GMGM--feedfeed

““How How –– and how quickly and how quickly –– can we move healthy, organic products from can we move healthy, organic products from a 4.2% market niche, to the dominant force in American food and a 4.2% market niche, to the dominant force in American food and farming? farming? ……The first step is to change our labeling lawsThe first step is to change our labeling laws..””Ronnie Cummings, Organic Consumers, 2012Ronnie Cummings, Organic Consumers, 2012https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/02https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/02--0 0

““Personally I believe GM foods must be banned entirely, but labelPersonally I believe GM foods must be banned entirely, but labeling ing is the most efficient way to achieve this.is the most efficient way to achieve this.””

Dr. Joseph Mercola Dr. Joseph Mercola –– 2012 2012 http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/29/nehttp://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/29/neww--vermontvermont--gmogmo--labelinglabeling--policypolicy--officiallyofficially--introduced.aspx introduced.aspx

““We are going to force them to label this food. If we have it labWe are going to force them to label this food. If we have it labeled we eled we can organize people not to buy it.can organize people not to buy it.””Andrew Kimbrell Andrew Kimbrell –– Center for Food Safety, 2013Center for Food Safety, 2013http://www.examiner.com/article/washingtonhttp://www.examiner.com/article/washington--statestate--ss--votersvoters--areare--stillstill--confusedconfused--asas--ii--522522--votevote--approaches approaches

Mandatory GE labeling in other Mandatory GE labeling in other countries has actually removed GE countries has actually removed GE choice from the marketplacechoice from the marketplace


USDA ERS organic price data is based on Agricultural USDA ERS organic price data is based on Agricultural Marketing Service Market News and other data sources, and Marketing Service Market News and other data sources, and shows monthly and annual prices for major commodities shows monthly and annual prices for major commodities –– not all comparisons are available for all years.not all comparisons are available for all years.

Organic milk 4.38% of total fluid milk market in 2013Organic milk 4.38% of total fluid milk market in 2013Between 2004Between 2004--20072007

Retail price for organic milk ~ 3X conventionalRetail price for organic milk ~ 3X conventional

Retail price for organic eggs and poultry meat ~ 2X Retail price for organic eggs and poultry meat ~ 2X conventionalconventional

Retail price for organic salad mix ~ 7X conventional Retail price for organic salad mix ~ 7X conventional Between 2010Between 2010--20132013

Retail price for organic vegetables ~ 2X conventionalRetail price for organic vegetables ~ 2X conventional

Retail price for organic fruits ~ 1.5X conventionalRetail price for organic fruits ~ 1.5X conventionalhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/organic-prices.aspx#44268


•• Only about twoOnly about two--thirds of thirds of organic beef is grainorganic beef is grain--fed because of the fed because of the high costs of organic feeds compared with conventionally grownhigh costs of organic feeds compared with conventionally grown

•• Premiums for organic feeds were 57 percent above conventional Premiums for organic feeds were 57 percent above conventional feeds. In some years, organic grains may only carry premiums of feeds. In some years, organic grains may only carry premiums of 25 25 percent or so, although premiums are generally much higher, percent or so, although premiums are generally much higher, sometimes more thansometimes more than100 percent higher.100 percent higher.

•• Assuming enough demand producers would respond by growing Assuming enough demand producers would respond by growing more nonmore non--GE feed GE feed –– which would be more expensivewhich would be more expensive

Alternative Beef Production Systems: Issues and Implications by Kenneth Mathews and Rachel JohnsonOutlook No. (LDPM-21801) 34 pp, April 2013 http://www.ers.usda.gov/ersDownloadHandler.ashx?file=/media/1071057/ldpm-218-01.pdf

Van Eenennaam IDFA 2014Van Eenennaam IDFA 2014

Background in costs of Background in costs of organic (nonorganic (non--GE) feed GE) feed

http://www.ers.usda.gov/ersDownloadHandler.ashx?file=/media/1071057/ldpm-218-01.pdf

http://www.ers.usda.gov/ersDownloadHandler.ashx?file=/media/1071057/ldpm-218-01.pdf

Prices received for conventional and organic corn and soybean ($/bushel) 2011- 2013 (USDA–NASS 2013; USDA–LPS 2013).


Recent study from Cornell Recent study from Cornell –– 2014 ~ $500/year per year2014 ~ $500/year per year

Labeling has real costs attributable to more expensive ingredients and the process of maintaining product identity and the labeling process itself, among others. Those costs are not insignificant – the median estimates annually for a family of 4 are $ 348 - 401 in California$ 360 - 490 in Washington State $ 500 in New York ~ 2.5% food budget paid for largely by food consumers in the mandatory labeling states.

Consumer surveys and experiences in Europe suggest the products most likely to be dropped are the labeled ones resulting in a system, compared to present, with higher costs (due to more costly non-GE ingredients) and different but no real increase in consumer choice”

http://dyson.cornell.edu/people/profiles/docs/LabelingNY.pdf


Global Area of Genetically Engineered (GE) Crops 1996 –

2012

By Crop

Million

Acres

Million

Hectares

222

198

176

148

124

99

74

49

25

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

01996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Soybean

Maize/Corn

Cotton

Canola

178 million acres

121 million acres

54 million acres

20 million acres

Source: Clive James, 2012 ISAAA Brief 44‐2012 http://www.isaaa.orgVan Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015


GE and conventional corn and soy produced (MMT) GE and conventional corn and soy produced (MMT) by selected countries 2012 by selected countries 2012 –– hatch marked slices hatch marked slices

represent GE, solid are conventionalrepresent GE, solid are conventional

81% (178 million acres) of the 220 million acres of the soybean

planted globally were GE

35% (121 million acres) of the 350 million acres of the corn

planted globally were GE

CORN SOYBEANS

Van Eenennaam and Young. 2014. J. Anim. Sci. 92:4255-4278Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015

Share of global crop trade accounted for by GE crops 2012/13

(million tonnes)

Brookes, G., and P. Barfoot. 2014. GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2012, PG Economics Ltd, UK, http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/2014globalimpactstudyfinalreport.pdf.


http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/2014globalimpactstudyfinalreport.pdf

Corn Production Corn Production Production, Imports, Export, Feed by Country 2013Production, Imports, Export, Feed by Country 2013


Soybean ProductionSoybean ProductionImports, Exports and Crush by Country 2013Imports, Exports and Crush by Country 2013


• For climatic and agronomic reasons, the European Union (EU) is unable to produce most of the oilseed meal and other protein-rich feedstuffs required to feed its livestock

• 80% of all livestock feed in the European Union (EU) is imported

• 98% of EU soybean meal is imported from Brazil, the USA, and Argentina; ~ 80% of this imported soybean meal animal feed is GE

• If the EU were not able to import soybean protein from outside the EU it would only be able to replace 10-20% of imports by high protein substitutes, resulting in a substantial reduction in animal protein production, exports and consumption, and a very significant increase in animal protein imports and cost in the EU*

* Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. 2007. Economic impact of unapproved GMOs on EU feed imports and livestock production. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/gmo/economic_impactGMOs_en.pdf

The EU imports a lot of GE feed to support its animal agriculture


http://www.producer.com/daily/german-poultry-sector-ends-avoidance-of-gmo-soy-in-feed/Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015 Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education

Value of imports of organic Value of imports of organic soybeans into US 2011soybeans into US 2011--20132013


Partial list of publiclyPartial list of publicly--funded applicationsfunded applications Genetic engineering technology often gets identified Genetic engineering technology often gets identified

with Monsanto/Big Ag policy. It is a breeding method with Monsanto/Big Ag policy. It is a breeding method –– not a company, specific application or production systemnot a company, specific application or production system

•• University of Hawaii/Cornell University of Hawaii/Cornell Rainbow Papaya Rainbow Papaya –– highly resistant to ringspot virus highly resistant to ringspot virus •• SUNYSUNY--ESF ESF American Chestnut tree American Chestnut tree –– resistant to blight (wheat gene)resistant to blight (wheat gene)•• Texas A&M Texas A&M OrangeOrange -- resistant to citrus greening (spinach gene)resistant to citrus greening (spinach gene)•• USDAUSDA--ARS Appalachian Fruit Research Station ARS Appalachian Fruit Research Station Honeysweet Honeysweet PlumPlum -- highly resistant to highly resistant to

plum pox potyvirus (PPV)plum pox potyvirus (PPV)•• INRAINRA’’s viruss virus--resistant resistant Grape rootstock Grape rootstock –– resistantresistant to the grapevine fanleaf virusto the grapevine fanleaf virus•• CSIROCSIRO’’s low G.I. s low G.I. WheatWheat -- altering wheat carbohydrate content to reduce glycaemic altering wheat carbohydrate content to reduce glycaemic

response and improve metabolic healthresponse and improve metabolic health•• RothamstedRothamsted’’s aphids aphid--repelling repelling WheatWheat -- produces high levels of aphid repelling odorproduces high levels of aphid repelling odor•• Bangladeshi B.t. Bangladeshi B.t. EggplantEggplant -- pestpest--resistant Bt brinjal (eggplant)resistant Bt brinjal (eggplant)•• BiocassavaBiocassava (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Root Crop Resear(Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Root Crop Research Institute ch Institute

of Nigeria and the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center) of Nigeria and the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center) -- cassava with increased nutrient cassava with increased nutrient (zinc, iron, protein, and vitamin A) levels, increased shelf lif(zinc, iron, protein, and vitamin A) levels, increased shelf life, reductions in toxic e, reductions in toxic cyanogenic glycosides, and resistance to viral disease for Africcyanogenic glycosides, and resistance to viral disease for Africaa

•• Golden Rice Golden Rice (USAID, the Syngenta Foundation, HarvestPlus, and the Bill & Mel(USAID, the Syngenta Foundation, HarvestPlus, and the Bill & Melinda Gates inda Gates Foundation)Foundation) rice enriched with betarice enriched with beta--carotene carotene -- the delayed application of Golden Rice in the delayed application of Golden Rice in India alone has cost 1,424,000 life years since 2002India alone has cost 1,424,000 life years since 2002


Globally there have been substantial benefits from first generation

(input trait) GE crops

“On average, GE technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.”

Klümper W, Qaim M (2014) A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops. PLoS ONE 9(11): e111629.


In the US there have been substantial benefits from GE crops

Since GE seeds were introduced in the mid-1990s, farmers have opted for these products. A report from the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, "The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States," offers an insight as to why. The report concludes that U.S. farmers growing biotech crops "..are realizing substantial economic and environmental benefits — such as lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields — compared with conventional crops."

National Research Council. Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010. See also

Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, Seth Wechsler, Mike Livingston, and Lorraine Mitchell. Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States, ERR-162 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, February 2014.


There has been a 10There has been a 10--fold reduction in US fold reduction in US insecticide use on Bt corn cropsinsecticide use on Bt corn crops FernandezFernandez--Cornejo, Jorge, Seth Wechsler, Mike Livingston, and Lorraine MitCornejo, Jorge, Seth Wechsler, Mike Livingston, and Lorraine Mitchell. chell. Genetically Engineered Crops in the Genetically Engineered Crops in the United StatesUnited States, ERR, ERR--162 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, F162 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, February 2014. ebruary 2014.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/08/bt-corn.png


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/08/bt-corn.png


http://drleonardcoldwell.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/1150911_431142040332575_1846747044_n.jpg

SummarySummary

Overwhelming consensus of data shows safety of GE feed Overwhelming consensus of data shows safety of GE feed

Field data sets representing BILLIONS of observations do not revField data sets representing BILLIONS of observations do not reveal eal disturbing trends in US livestock health and productivity data disturbing trends in US livestock health and productivity data

These data are in agreement with the many peerThese data are in agreement with the many peer--reviewed, reviewed, controlled animal feeding studies that have reported no controlled animal feeding studies that have reported no biologicallybiologically--relevant difference between the nutritional attributes relevant difference between the nutritional attributes and safety of feed from GM plants as compared to feed derived and safety of feed from GM plants as compared to feed derived from conventional from conventional crop varietiescrop varieties

Labeling of products from animals that have (or have not) eaten Labeling of products from animals that have (or have not) eaten GE feed GE feed –– how much, how often, never ever how much, how often, never ever -- will be very will be very complicated and prone to cheaters as no way to verify accuracycomplicated and prone to cheaters as no way to verify accuracy

NonNon--GE feed for animals will be more expensive, and supply will GE feed for animals will be more expensive, and supply will likely come increasingly from other countries (e.g. likely come increasingly from other countries (e.g. China and IndiaChina and India) )


Questions

Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D.Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D.Cooperative Extension SpecialistCooperative Extension SpecialistAnimal Biotechnology and Genomics Animal Biotechnology and Genomics Department of Animal Science Department of Animal Science University of California, Davis, USAUniversity of California, Davis, [email protected]@ucdavis.eduTwitter: @BiobeefTwitter: @Biobeef

http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/animalbiotechhttp://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/animalbiotech

mailto:[email protected]

http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/animalbiotech

“the use of gmos in the dairy industry, and implications ... · “the use of gmos in the dairy...

Documents