|
Plant Biotechnology Myths & Facts
Myth: There are no biotech food products currently on the market.
Fact: Today, it is estimated that at least 70 percent of processed foods on grocery store shelves contain ingredients and oils from biotech crops. The first biotech crop, a tomato improved through biotechnology, was sold in 1994. The first biotech commodity crops - an insect resistant variety of corn - were grown and sold in 1996. Today, the most popular biotech crops are corn, soybean, cotton and canola.
Myth: Biotech foods are unsafe to eat.
Fact: Fact: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that biotech foods and crops are as safe as their non-biotech counterparts. The American Medical Association, the American Dietetic Association, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences have also declared biotech foods safe for human and animal consumption. In addition, since being introduced to U.S. markets in 1996, not a single person or animal has become sick from eating biotech foods. Other international groups that have concluded biotech foods and crops are safe are The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization, the International Council for Science, the French Food Agency, and the British Medical Association. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has also found several biotech varieties to be safe for human and animal consumption.
Related links
American Dietetic Association
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0002-8223/PIIS0002822305021097.pdf
World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/biotech_en.pdf
British Medical Association
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/GMFoods/$file/GM.pdf
United Nations
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004/41714/index.html
French Food Agency
http://www.fas.usda.gov/scripts/gd.asp?ID=146107029
National Academy of Sciences
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10977.html?onpi_newsdoc07272004
International Council for Science
http://www.icsu.org/1_icsuinscience/INIT_GMOrep_1.html
American Medical Association
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-4030.html
Myth: Biotech foods are not regulated or tested.
Fact: Biotech crops undergo intense regulatory scrutiny covering their growth in the fields to their delivery in the marketplace to ensure that they are safe for consumption and do not pose any environmental hazards. Biotech crops and their food products are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Testing of biotech crops before they are introduced to market generally takes about 6-12 years at a cost of $6-12 million.
Myth: Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry fed biotech feed products are not as safe as similar products from livestock and poultry fed conventionally produced feed.
Fact: Animal feed is often made from biotech crops, and the livestock and poultry that eat these feeds are nourished and healthy from eating biotech foods. The meat, milk and egg products from these farm animals are exactly the same as those from animals eating conventional feed products.
In fact, livestock and poultry can actually benefit from feeds made from biotech crops. Some biotech feeds are nutritionally enhanced with added nutrients that improve animal size, productivity and growth. Other biotech feeds can increase digestibility. Biotech feeds also have a positive impact on the environment. Livestock producers are challenged with identifying how to dispose of more than 160 million metric tons of manure annually. Animal manure, especially that of swine and poultry, is high in nitrogen and phosphorus, which can contribute to surface and groundwater pollution. Several biotech feeds decrease phosphorus and nitrogen excretion, total manure excretion and offensive odors.
Myth: Organic or conventional crops are more nutritious or safer than biotech crops.
Fact: Organic and conventionally grown foods are nutritionally comparable to biotech crops. In the future, biotech crops may be even more nutritious. Scientists are working to develop biotech crops that may actually be more nutritious and healthy than conventional and organic crops. For instance, rice has been developed with higher levels of Vitamin A, and future biotech soybeans may produce lower levels of saturated fats and trans fats in oils. Researchers are working to develop allergy-free peanuts and soybeans which will benefit up to seven million Americans who suffer from food allergies.
Myth: Biotech foods taste different than foods made from conventional crops.
Fact: Biotech foods taste exactly the same as regular foods and organic foods. Studies have shown that they do not taste any different, appear any different, nor affect the human body differently. They are also nutritionally equivalent to organic and conventionally grown crops.
Myth: The United States does not require labeling of biotech foods.
Fact: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a labeling policy that requires biotech foods to be labeled if the product is significantly changed nutritionally or uses material from a potential allergen. In other words, if a biotech product is nutritionally the same as a non-biotech product, there is no requirement for labels. However, if a biotech product uses a gene from a peanut, which is a known potential allergen, then it must be labeled. Today, the majority of biotech products in the marketplace are not labeled as such since they are nutritionally equivalent and are not derived from known allergens.
Myth: Biotech foods and crops have been rejected by consumers.
Fact: Biotech crops and their food products are accepted virtually worldwide. In fact, in 2005, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, biotech crops were grown on 222 million acres in 21 countries by 8.5 million farmers. In 1996, when the first biotech commodity crops were commercially grown, 7 million acres of biotech crops were grown worldwide. In May 2005, the one billionth acre of biotech crops was planted somewhere in the northern hemisphere. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in the United States in 2006, 89 percent of soybeans grown were biotech; 83 percent of cotton is biotech and 61 percent of corn is biotech. The top five countries growing biotech crops in 2005 were the United States (123 million acres), Argentina (42 million acres), Brazil (23 million acres), Canada (14 million acres), and China (8 million acres).
Myth: The United States is the only country growing and consuming biotech crops.
Fact: In 2005, 21 countries planted biotech crops, and many more consumed them worldwide. The most recent suvye of the global impact of biotech crops for the nine-year period 1996-2004 estimates that the global net economic benefits to biotech crop farmers in 2004 was $6.5 billion. Sixty-three countries in all parts of the world have been involved in some phase of biotech plant research and development, from laboratory/greenhouse experiments, to field trials, to regulatory approval and commercial production.
Myth: The reasons why other countries ban biotech crops and foods is because they are unsafe.
Fact: There is widespread agreement among scientists on the safety of biotech crops and foods. Over 3,200 renowned scientists worldwide have signed a declaration in support of agricultural biotechnology http://www.agbioworld.org and its safety to humans, animals and the environment. Those countries that refuse biotech foods and crops do so because of political, cultural and socioeconomic reasons that are not based on any scientific evidence of the safety of agricultural biotechnology.
Myth: Biotechnology is only being applied to a few crop varieties.
Fact: While corn, soybean, cotton and canola are the most popular and widely grown biotech crops worldwide, at least 57 different plants have been the focus of biotech research over the last two decades. Of this number, eight different plants are in commercial production, and 13 different plants have received regulatory approval.
Myth: The "pipeline" of biotech plants products is dried up ? there are no new products being developed and released.
Fact: Researchers worldwide are continually working to develop new biotech varieties of plants and crops that benefit farmers, consumers and the environment. In 2003, EPA approved the first biotech rootworm-resistant corn, which has the potential to save farmers $1 billion annually in crop losses and pesticide costs. In the near future, we can expect to see plants improved through biotechnology to express multiple traits, such as virus-tolerance and pest-tolerance. Studies are also being done with biotech plants that can tolerate or resist certain environmental stresses, such as drought. Consumers will soon see biotech crops that are nutrient-enhanced and even allergen-free, and oils from biotech crops that are healthier and contain fewer saturated fats and no trans fats after processing.
Myth: Biotech crops harm the environment.
Fact: The environment actually significantly benefits from biotech crops. Pest-resistant and herbicide-resistant biotech varieties reduce the need for pesticides and enable farmers to use low toxicity herbicides. Studies by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) (http://www.ncfap.org/whatwedo/biotech-us.php) found that in 2004, the eleven biotech crop varieties adopted by U.S. growers reduced pesticide applications by 62.0 million pounds per year. Crops improved through biotechnology can actually help the environment by improving habitats for birds and other wildlife, and by enabling farmers to reduce the consumption of fuel and greenhouse gas emissions. Farmers have found that the use of biotech crops can reduce the need for plowing to control weeds, which leads to better conservation of soil and water and a decrease in soil erosion and compaction.
Myth: Biotech crops are harmful to monarch butterflies.
Fact: In 1999, biotech opponents publicized the results of a preliminary Cornell University laboratory study that found monarch larvae could be harmed if they ate large amounts of pollen from one biotech corn variety. In subsequent comprehensive field studies, it has been found that biotech corn does not threaten the health and well-being of monarch butterflies.
Two major reports published in 2001 demonstrated that the research presented by John Losey and colleagues on monarch butterflies is irrelevant to conditions faced by butterflies in the real world. Both the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (http://www.bio.org/foodag/background/monarchbutterfly.asp) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (http://www.bio.org/foodag/background/monarchbutterfly.asp) found that biotech corn does not harm monarch butterfly populations in the field. They also found that monarch butterflies can actually benefit from biotech corn; planting biotech varieties can reduce the use of broad spectrum pesticides which would otherwise harm exposed butterflies and other insects.
Myth: Biotech crops increase food allergies.
Fact: There is no evidence that biotech crops increase food allergies; in fact, researchers are working to develop biotech foods that are free of known allergens, such as peanuts. In fact, according to the FDA's labeling policy, biotech foods are required to be labeled if the product is significantly changed nutritionally or uses material from a potential allergen. Today, the majority of biotech products in the marketplace are not labeled since they are not derived from known allergens.
Myth: Using biotechnology to improve plants is not natural.
Fact: Since the Stone Age, farmers have been using breeding techniques to genetically modify crops to improve quality and yield. Modern biotechnology is the most recent in a long list of tools, including selective breeding, hybridization and crossbreeding. In fact, biotechnology is the most efficient and cost effective method available for plant breeders. The use of biotechnology in plants is simply another step in the evolution of plant breeding techniques. The techniques of modern biotechnology are adapted from genetic phenomenon scientists have found widely in natural populations.
Myth: Growing drugs in plants is dangerous - pretty soon there will be drugs in our cereal.
Fact: Today, consumers can easily purchase nutrient-enhanced foods, such as vitamin-fortified juices or cereals. Currently, there is research going into the development of nutrient-enhanced biotech crops and foods, but none are on the market yet.
Consumers may have also heard of the idea of foods that have vaccines in them - such as oranges that deliver flu shots. These "edible vaccines" are still in the research phase and not on the commercial market yet. Research is also taking place that turns biotech plants into "factories" so they develop therapeutic proteins that can be used in the production of biotech drugs. Known as "plant-made pharmaceuticals," or PMPs, these biotech plants can efficiently and cost-effectively produce the proteins needed for biotech treatments, thereby increasing patient access to important medicines. Growth of plant-made pharmaceuticals is carefully monitored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and takes place under very strict confinement requirements that ensure that they do not commingle with crops that are used for food or feed. Additionally, farm equipment that is used for these types of plants cannot be used for any food or feed crops. Federal regulations are designed to prevent pharmaceutical-producing plants from crossing paths with crops used for food and feed production making it highly unlikely for "drugs" to appear in cereal.
Myth: Biotech foods can't feed the world.
Fact: In actuality, biotech foods alone can't feed the world - poverty and starvation are issues rooted in socio-political problems. However when combined with other modern farming techniques, agricultural biotechnology can be an essential tool in increasing fiscal yields and helpful in combating hunger.
Myth: Biotech crops will cause "superweeds" to develop.
Fact: Biotech opponents have promoted the concept of "superweeds" which could supposedly form by taking on herbicide-resistant characteristics of biotech crops growing in the same field. These "superweeds" will supposedly grow out of control and be resistant to weed killers. In cases where gene flow can and does take place, the resulting weeds resistant to the herbicide used with the biotech crop remain controllable with many other herbicides and a variety of intercropping and cultivation techniques. Far from being unique, or even particularly problematic with crops improved through biotechnology, this is a well known phenomenon that farmers have a long history of managing successfully.
Myth: The only people who benefit from biotech plants are the agricultural companies who develop and sell the seeds. There's no real benefit to consumers and farmers.
Fact: Pest-resistant and herbicide-resistant biotech varieties reduce the need for pesticides and enable farmers to use low toxicity herbicides. Studies by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) (http://www.ncfap.org/whatwedo/biotech-us.php) found that in 2004, the eleven biotech crop varieties adopted by U.S. growers increased crop yields by 6.6 billion pounds, provided $2.3 billion in additional net returns for U.S. growers, and reduced pesticide applications by 62.0 million pounds.
Both consumers and farmers have benefited from biotechnology -- the papaya industry was nearly wiped out in Hawaii in the early 1990s due to the papaya ring spot virus (PRV). Papayas are the second largest fruit crop in Hawaii; according to USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service, papaya sales were valued at $11.2 million in 2005. Biotechnology was used to develop papayas that are resistant to the devastating effects of this virus, which is spread by aphids and also via human contact. Infestation by the virus has destroyed the papaya crops in Brazil and Taiwan, and without biotechnology, Hawaii's papaya industry could have been wiped out, having a crippling effect on the local economy, and agriculture industry as a whole. In fact, control of PRV by biotech papayas in Hawaii has preserved the potential for organic growers to produce papaya with non-biotech varieties.
Myth: Biotech companies won't disclose where field trials of biotech crops are being grown because they are trying to hide things from the public.
Fact: The reality is, the location of fields that grow biotech plants have been threatened by vandalism, a sad fact recognized by USDA who protects this information as "confidential business information," a practice which is not unique to biotechnology, but practiced by any economic sector that involves new product development.
Since 1986, at least 36 states have adopted laws specifically addressing crimes committed by "eco," or plant terrorists. While state laws vary widely, crimes such as theft of data, vandalism, and breaking and entering by these groups are recognized. Additionally, after Sept. 11, 2004, states have increasingly sought to strengthen or enact additional and stricter laws against plant activists engaging in terrorist activities. Currently, a bill has been introduced to the U.S. Senate (S.430) that would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to enhance agricultural biosecurity in the United States through increased prevention, preparation and response planning.
Animal Biotechnology Myths & Facts
Myth: Only humans can benefit from medical biotechnology.
Fact: According to USDA, there are 105 licensed biotech products for animals. These products include veterinary vaccines, biologics and diagnostic kits. The animal health industry invests more than $400 million a year in research and development. Current sales of biotech-based products for use in animal health generate $2.8 billion (out of a total market for animal health products of $18 billion).
Myth: Biotech and cloned animals are still years away - improving animals through biotechnology, or cloning them is science fiction.
Fact: The first biotech animal to be sold to the public reached the market in January 2004; GloFish are biotech ornamental fish that contain a gene from a sea anemone. Under black light, the GloFish fluoresce in a brilliant red color. The first cloned-to-order pet, a cat, was delivered to its owner in December 2004. Both biotech GloFish and cloned cats are currently available for purchase by the public. Additionally, there are currently several hundred cloned dairy and beef cattle, though their food products have not been sold to the public. Sheep, cattle, goats, pigs, mice, rabbits, horses, rats, cats and mules have all been successfully cloned in laboratory settings.
Myth: Pets do not benefit from biotechnology at all.
Fact: Companion animals, better known as pets, benefit greatly from vaccines and diagnostic tests based on biotechnology. Biotech-based products to treat heartworm, arthritis, parasites, allergies and heart disease, as well as vaccines for rabies and feline HIV are used daily by veterinarians. Gene therapy has been used to help restore sight to blind dogs, as well as for melanoma, canine lymphoma and bone cancer. Also, some biotechnology companies offer DNA sequencing of purebred animals, such as dogs, for identification purposes.
Myth: Biotech and cloned animals are different from normal animals.
Fact: Studies and experience have shown that biotech animals are animals that eat, drink and behave in ways we are familiar with in their conventional counterparts.
Myth: Animals cannot benefit from biotechnology.
Fact: Biotechnology provides new tools for improving animal health and increasing livestock and poultry productivity. These improvements come from the enhanced ability to detect, treat and prevent diseases and other problems. Additionally, feed from biotech crops are better designed to meet the dietary needs of different farm animals, improve feed efficiency and reduce waste. Just like other assisted reproduction techniques such as artificial insemination, embryo transfer and in vitro fertilization, cloning can also significantly improve animal breeding programs and decrease the occurrence of hereditary diseases and improve the health of animals.
Myth: Wild animals cannot benefit from cloning technology.
Fact: Worldwide, researchers have used cloning technologies to conserve endangered species. In the last four years, scientists have successfully cloned at least three endangered animals: the European mouflon, the guar, and the banteng, the latter of which is viewable to the public at the San Diego Zoo. Several zoos and animal conservation organizations, including the San Diego Zoo, the Zoological Society of London and the Cincinnati Zoo have created "Frozen Zoos" or genetic databases to cryogenically stores samples of DNA, gametes and cell tissues from endangered or threatened mammals, birds and reptiles.
Myth: Biotech will cause disease outbreaks such as avian flu, mad cow disease and West Nile virus in animals and insects, which will be transferred to humans.
Fact: Diseases such as avian flu, mad cow disease and West Nile virus are not related to, nor caused by biotechnology. In fact, researchers are working to find ways to apply biotechnology to eliminate some of these diseases. Scientists in Korea have created biotech cows that may be resistant to mad cow disease, and some research has been done to develop biotech mosquitoes that will no longer infect humans with malaria and other blood-borne diseases.
Myth: Organ transplants from animals are an unreal fantasy.
Fact: Xenotransplantation, or organ transplants from one species to another, is not a new concept, and could be perfected in our lifetime. The idea of xenotransplantation goes back several decades; in fact, in 1984, a U.S. pediatric patient received a baboon heart which worked for 20 days. Today, doctors regularly use valves from pigs' hearts for human heart valve transplants and pigs' skins for skin grafts for human burn victims. Although organ transplants are much more complicated, extensive research has been done on the potential for using biotech animals as blood or organ donors for humans. Biotechnology has been used to address rejection of donor tissues and organs, and biotech pigs have been developed with organs that might resist rapid rejection by the human immune system.
Myth: We are just exploiting animals by applying biotechnology to them.
Fact: The health and well-being of all animals can benefit from biotechnology. The health of companion animals can be significantly improved through the use of biotech vaccines, such as the rabies vaccine, and new diagnostic tests that can identify things such as feline HIV. Domesticated farm animals can greatly benefit from biotechnology through vaccines and diagnostic tests. Improved breeding programs enhanced by biotechnology can drastically improve herd health by eliminating hereditary diseases. Reproduction and breeding techniques influenced by biotechnology, such as in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination can even save endangered species by restoring shrinking populations.
Myth: Meat, milk and egg products from biotech animals are unsafe to eat.
Fact: Biotech animals do not suffer more pain or distress than conventional animals, and, in fact, farmers and scientists who use biotech animals place animal care as their top priority. Biotech animals often receive the ultimate in animal care because they are special animals for livestock producers and companies, and veterinarians and animal nutritionists carefully oversee their birth, care and management. The care and handling of these animals must be approved by an institutional animal care and use committee, as required by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USDA or the National Institutes of Health (NIH) inspect research institutions to verify the well being and care of biotech animals.
Some biotech opponents claim that cloned animals have higher birth weights, which make labor and delivery more difficult and can cause pain and distress to both mother and newborn. The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has determined that cloned animals and their mothers do not experience any unusual or higher levels of pain or distress than animals bred through other reproductive technologies, such as in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination.
Myth: Biotech animals suffer more pain or distress than conventional animals.
Fact: Critics of animal biotechnology sometimes argue that biotech animals experience more pain or distress than conventional animals, and are often deformed or lead a poor quality of life. Many of these beliefs stem from the days when animal biotechnology research was first emerging. Some of the first biotech animals, depending on the genes being expressed, did experience some developmental abnormalities.
Today's biotechnology techniques have advanced to the point where biotech animals do not suffer more pain or distress than conventional animals. In fact, farmers and scientists who use biotech animals place animal care as their top priority. Biotech animals often receive the ultimate in animal care because they are special animals for livestock producers and companies, and veterinarians and animal nutritionists carefully oversee their birth, care and management. The care and handling of these animals must be approved by an institutional animal care and use committee, as required by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USDA or the National Institutes of Health (NIH) inspect research institutions to verify the well being and care of biotech animals.
Myth: Cloned animals have higher death rates than conventionally-bred animals.
Fact: The neonatal death rate of cloned animals is the same as that for animals bred by in vitro fertilization or embryo transfer. Some biotech opponents claim that cloned animals have higher birth weights, which make labor and delivery more difficult and can cause pain and distress to both mother and newborn. The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has determined that cloned animals and their mothers do not experience any unusual or higher levels of pain or distress than animals bred through other reproductive technologies, such as in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination.
Myth: Cloned animals are not as healthy as non-cloned animals.
Fact: Decades of research, including studies done by the National Academy of Sciences, has proven that cloned animals are just as healthy as non-cloned animals.
Myth: Animal cloning is not safe.
Fact: Animal cloning has been rigorously studied for decades, since the earliest research was conducted in the late 1970s. The Food and Drug Administration has analyzed more than 40 scientific studies on the subject, conducted over 30 years and encompassing several generations and large families of livestock. The National Academy of Sciences has also scrutinized this topic, publishing reviews in 2002 and 2004.
Myth: If biotech animals or fish escape into the wild, they will endanger wild animals and the environment.
Fact: There is a very low probability that biotech animals or fish will "escape into the wild." However, if they were to, in the majority of cases, biotech animals and fish are actually significantly less likely to survive in the wild than their non-biotech relatives. While they are well-suited for captive environments, like other domesticated animals, they generally have lower levels of stress tolerance and energy reserves, and are not as good at avoiding natural predators. In essence, biotech animals have relatively low environmental "street smarts" and pose little to no danger to wild animals and the environment. In addition, all biotech animals are carefully reviewed by the FDA, as well as the EPA and USDA, to ensure that they do not pose any risks.
Myth: Animals are misused in research.
Fact: The reality is, animals used in transgenic and cloning research receive high quality care that is monitored by veterinarians, animal nutritionists and federal agencies. Unfortunately, animal activist groups often erroneously believe these animals are abused or that computer models can substitute for live research models. Studies show that computer models are an important component of medical research, but that all research invariably requires live models. The care and handling of these biotech animals must be approved by an institutional animal care and use committee, as required by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USDA or the National Institutes of Health (NIH) inspect research institutions to verify the well being and care of biotech animals. In recent years, animal activist groups have resorted to terrorist activities such as vandalism, theft, physical assault to individuals and property, death threats and warnings to researchers and their family members.
Given the increasingly violent nature of the activist activities, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are now considering many of these groups as domestic terrorist threats. In response to the more violent activist activities, the United States has passed, and continues to review, several pieces of legislation to protect biomedical research. In 1992, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act was passed by Congress that provides penalties for crimes against "animal enterprises" resulting in monetary damages of $10,000 or more. Since 1988, at least 36 states have adopted laws specifically addressing crimes committed by animal terrorists. While state laws vary widely, crimes such as unauthorized release of animals, theft of data, vandalism, and breaking and entering by these groups are recognized. Additionally, some states allow institutions to sue perpetrators for damage. Additionally, after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, states have increasingly sought to strengthen or enact additional and stricter laws against animal activists engaging in terrorist activities.
Myth: The famous cloned sheep Dolly did not lead a full and healthy life - and she died prematurely because she was cloned.
Fact: In fact, Dolly grew and aged normally, and ultimately lived longer than most sheep until she died of old age. While she did develop arthritis, primarily due to her old age, this was unrelated to the fact that she was a clone. Some data suggests Dolly had shortened telomeres (structures at the end of chromosomes) and they were due to the cloning process. Only one early study indicated Dolly had shortened telomeres, and this finding was never repeated in Dolly or any other cloned animals. Additional research indicates that cloned cattle possess normal telomeres.
|
Printer Friendly