cc
>> Good afternoon, everyone.
I'm so pleased to see a good
crowd here for our topic this
afternoon.
I'm Kate Vandenbosch.
I'm the dean of the College of
Agricultural and Life Sciences
here at UW Madison.
>> And I'm Paul Robbins,
and I'm the director of
the Nelson Institute for
Environmental Studies here at
the University of Wisconsin.
We're here to talk about
agriculture.
Agriculture is facing enormous
challenges.
By the middle of the century
when population, globally,
levels off, we're going to be
maybe nine, 10, or 11 billion
people.
That's a lot of folks to feed,
and in addition to that, we've
got scarce natural resources,
problems with the availability
of water, the availability of
inputs into agriculture, and
that is without saying anything
about climate change, which we
will not be discussing.
[LAUGHTER]
Even so, in the absence of
an immediate solution,
we're wondering whether GMOs,
as they evolve, can be not only
part of feeding people in the
future but thinking a lot about
stewarding our natural resources
and moving forward to lighten
our footprint on the land,
whether or not that's possible.
>> It's a really tall order,
Paul, and we're also wondering
how would eaters everywhere
react to new GMO foods and would
farmers embrace the expansion of
available technologies.
So we invited four panelists
with varied expertise to address
these and other questions.
And they are Dominique Brossard,
who is chair and professor of
UW Life Sciences Communication
Department.
Dominique is internally known
expert in public opinion
dynamics, especially those
related to controversial
scientific issues.
Her research emphasizes the role
of values in shaping public
attitudes.
Professor Brossard is currently
serving on a National Academy of
Sciences committee to assess the
concerns, claims, and promises
of genetically engineered crops
based on current evidence.
Another panelist is
Andy Diercks, who is a '93 UW
grad with a BS from biological
systems engineering, and he
today runs a large sustainable
farm in partnership with his dad
and fellow alum Steve in
Wisconsin Central Sands.
They are third and fourth
generation growers in a family
that has partnered with UW
potato researchers over the
years in many ways, including
leading to the development of
the healthy grown certification
of environmentally friendly
growing conditions.
In addition to potatoes,
Coloma Farms produces corn,
soybeans, and vegetable crops.
Andy has been active in industry
leadership in the state and
beyond and currently chairs the
citizen board for the state
Department of Agriculture,
Trade, and Consumer Protection,
which is also known as DATCP.
>> Travis Frey is with us here
as well.
He's another UW alum.
He's currently the site lead for
Monsanto's biotechnology campus
in Middleton, Wisconsin, just
outside of town, and the lead of
soybean and cotton
transformation applications.
Dr. Frey received his masters
from UW's plant breeding and
plant genetics program in 2002
and went on to complete his PhD
at the University of Delaware.
He's been with Monsanto since
2006.
So he's been around the block on
this question.
Erin Silva is here as well.
She joined the UW faculty as
assistant professor of plant
pathology, though she's been a
UW researcher for quite some
time as an associate scientist
in agronomy and the Center of
Integrated Agricultural Systems,
which is a great center on
campus.
Here research expertise is in
organic and sustainable
production systems for
vegetable, row crops, and
pasture based systems, and in
her extension work, which is so
fundamental to the UW outreach,
Dr. Silva focuses on food safety
practices on vegetable farms as
well as tools for modeling costs
on diversified farms.
So Erin's teaching activities
have included engaging students
in community food production
through urban farming in and
around the city.
>> So we've asked each of our
four panelists to present their
thoughts, and then we will open
things up for discussion.
But first, I wanted to get all
of us on the same page with some
definitions, and we decided to
go to some language from the
National Academy of Sciences
Natural Research Council on
these topics.
So, what are genetically
engineered crops?
Well, they would be those crops
whose genetic makeup has been
altered using biotechnology
techniques that precisely cut
and insert DNA to make a
specific and well characterized
change in the genome of that
crop.
And these alterations may
enhance or otherwise alter an
existing trait that's present in
the plant or they may introduce
genes that confer a trait from
another plant or other organism.
So we could also ask, GE crops,
GMOs, are they the same or
different?
Well, genetic modification is
the broader concept, and even
though they are used fairly
synonymously oftentimes,
especially in the popular press,
more broadly speaking, genetic
modification includes genetic
engineering but also other
techniques such as induced
mutations, selection, and
hybridization, and these latter
techniques are frequently used
in conventional plant breeding.
So, in the US today, what
genetically engineered crops are
available?
Well, that includes some
varieties of corn, both field
and sweetcorn, soybeans, cotton,
canola, alfalfa, sugar beets,
papaya, and squash.
And many of these would be grown
in Wisconsin, not so much the
cotton and papaya, but the
others would be here.
Today, just to keep things
simple, we're going to use the
terms genetic engineering and
genetic modification
synonymously so we don't have to
confuse ourselves with that.
So that's enough background.
And with that, I'd like to
welcome Travis Frey to come up
to the microphone and to tell us
about his perspective.
>> Good afternoon, everyone.
Thank you for inviting me, and I
look forward to the Q&A coming
out of the group a little bit
later.
I did want to start off just
very quickly, I've got some
pamphlets in the back if folks
are interested.
If we don't get to your
question, there's a great
resource online that you can
post a question, you can look
for questions.
It's called GMOanswers.com.
Is it working?
Can you hear me?
So if you do have questions, you
can get a pamphlet in the back,
and that GMOanswers.com can
hopefully help you find answers
to questions you may have
currently.
If there's no answers there, you
can always post a question as
well, and you'll get an answer
back.
What I wanted to really talk
today about was in pertaining in
GMOs and genetically modified
crops, really the safety of the
crop and the way it's been
defined over the last 15 to 20
years that have been out on the
market.
There's about four billion acres
of farmland that's been used for
GMO production since about 1996
when the first GMOs came out.
Of that, there's probably also
been about a thousand or more,
it's probably close to 1,100,
studies that have been published
on the safety of those
particular products, and really
what they've found is they are
no different than conventionally
bred materials.
And honestly, the only way they
can be approved for growth in
the market and growth on
farmer's fields is if they do
not pose any significant
difference.
So there's been about 30 years
of research and information out
there of GMOs in its entirety.
So, although they've only been
on the market since 1996,
they've been studied for over
30 years.
There's 63 different countries,
and this is actually growing,
I think it's actually closer to
70 now, that GMs have been
approved and found safe for
growth and/or import.
And then, on average, it takes
about 13 years to go from start
to finish.
So that's from the laboratory,
our laboratories out in
Middleton to the farmer's field.
So that 13 years comprises not
just the development of the crop
but all the safety testing,
efficacy testing that goes on to
ensure those crops are as safe
as they possibly can be
for the public.
So there's been a number, I
could probably go on for two
hours of the studies that have
been done, and I just put three
up here in particular over the
last couple of years.
And you can read through what
they say, but, essentially, a
lot of organizations have come
out actually in support of GM
crops and their value to the
world as a whole to help
feed it.
And time and time again, whether
it's here in the US or it's
overseas in Europe or anywhere
else, you can see organizations
that are standing behind the
safety.
And so you can pretty much scan
through any Google search, and
you'll get a lot of information.
Some of that information is
really solid information; some
of that information is biased
and may not be completely true.
I just encourage you to continue
to look at both sides and make a
choice based on the information
that you can pull together.
So look at some of these
organizations as some of your
sources of information.
So one of the most interesting
things, when you think about
crop production and what's been
attributed or can be attributed
to GM crops themselves, between
1996 and 2011, crop
biotechnology has been
responsible for almost
16 million metric tons of
cotton lint, additional,
195 million metric tons of corn,
and 110 metric tons of soybeans.
So it's been a big, big jump.
And most of the GM crops that
are out there, it's not
necessarily providing more
yield, it's protecting the yield
that's been bred into those
crops.
So most of the traits that we
see on the market today are
traits that actually protect
that yield from being either
destroyed from insects or
herbicide or a lack of water.
Sorry, when I said herbicide,
I meant that the weeds
themselves.
So they're protected from the
herbicide so we can actually
eliminate the weeds that
actually steal nutrients and
water from the crops.
So when you start thinking,
then, about, okay, if you're not
having to apply herbicides and
you're not having to apply
different pesticides, the
environmental impacts of that
can be huge.
So between 1996 and 2012,
there's been about 503 million
kilograms less pesticide sprayed
into the environment.
And if you take that into
consideration of environmental
impact, the University of
Cornell has come out with what
they call an environmental
impact quotient, and it takes
into consideration not only the
farmer that's actually applying
it, the bees, the secondary
insects that it may be
effecting, the soil, as well as
the crops and the environment.
When you put all that together,
the environmental impact
reduction by using GM crops has
been almost 20%.
18.7% to be exact.
In 2012 alone, the biotech
traits such as BT and herbicide
resistance have really accounted
for about 27 billion kilograms
of CO2.
So a reduction in that because
we don't actually have to go out
into the field and spray as
often.
So tractors aren't going out,
spraying pesticides, they're not
going out spraying herbicides,
and more importantly, because
they can use burned down
herbicides like Roundup only
once, they don't actually have
to till the soil.
So they actually improve the
soil quality quite a bit and
keep a lot of the moisture and a
lot of valuable nutrition and
microflora in the soil intact
and undisturbed.
So just a lot fewer moves in and
out of the field, which really
translates to, you put it into
simple terms, almost 12 million
cars that we've been able to
pull off the road because of
that.
And when you think about
biotech, what it has created
thus far, we would have had to
probably plant an additional
123 million hectares of land.
And that's a lot of land to keep
the food production where we're
at today.
So without these crops, we would
have had to add that many more
acres and that many more
hectares of field space.
And if you've driven around the
Madison, Middleton, Dane County
area, if you notice how many
fields have gone away because of
construction.
I just went on a bike ride this
afternoon and saw a number of
new lots available for
construction.
That's farmland that's gone
under building.
We can't get that back.
So for every house that gets
built and a farmland that goes
down, we have to be that much
more productive with the
farmland that's left.
So as population grows,
farmlands decrease.
We need to be more and more
productive.
And so the last thing I wanted
to put up here was just a place
to go if you want information.
We're very transparent with GM
crops.
Where they're at, who's making
them, who's testing them, where
they're being tested.
You can go to this particular
site.
It's called an International
Service for the Acquisition of
Agri-biotech Applications.
Essentially, it basically takes
every GM trait that's out there
that's registered to be tested,
it lists it by trait, it lists
it by company, university,
whoever is wanting to trial it.
It tells you exactly what it is
and what it does.
Very transparent.
And this is just an example of
some of the traits that are
coming in the future.
So it's not just what I've
discussed today around BT and
herbicide, but there's also
things, enhancing yield and
modifying --, drought stress
tolerance, even anti-allergy and
delayed ripening.
So these are things that will
all be potentially on the market
in the future.
So check it out.
Last slide.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
>> So, next up we have
Erin Silva, and we're
particularly interested in her
thoughts on how and if GMOs fit
into sustainability more
generally in integrated
agricultural systems.
So I'll welcome her to the
floor.
Remember to speak into the mic.
I've been warned.
>> Thank you.
I'm thrilled to be here today,
and I'm thrilled to see such a
great audience out there on a
Sunday afternoon.
Like Paul mentioned, I was asked
to give my viewpoint on
agricultural sustainability.
So in my eyes, agricultural
sustainability really requires
the achievement of particularly
three integrated goals:
environmental health, economic
profitability, and social and
economic equity.
And truly, as we look at
agriculture globally, and as
Paul mentioned in the
introduction, feeding a growing
population worldwide, really
agriculture faces a grand
challenge of maintaining an
increasing system resiliency
under changing conditions.
We need to continue if not
increase the agricultural
production that we're currently
seeing.
And we know that we're seeing
changing conditions, we're
seeing changes in weather
patterns, more extreme weather,
and there's also changing
social, economic, and political
conditions across the globe.
And, really, one of the keys to
resiliency is maintaining
diversity.
And that means not only
maintaining diversity of crops
and livestock across the
landscape, but also maintaining
diversity in production
approaches.
So I really don't want to
necessarily get into GMOs and
their positive and negative
impacts on our cultural
sustainability, but instead
emphasize the need for a
continued diversity of
production approaches to
maintain the resiliency that's
going to be required to continue
to maintain our crop production
globally.
And that includes organic
agriculture, that includes
agriculture that is non-GMO, as
well as potentially GMO based
agriculture as well.
And alongside that is also
maintaining diversity in variety
choices.
So the germplasm that's
available to farmers, again both
non-GMO and GMO varieties that
are available on the marketplace
and that will in part increase
resiliency to cropping systems,
again not only in the US but
across the globe.
So as Kate talked about a couple
of definitions just to get
everybody on the same playing
field, I just wanted to get a
couple benchmarks, I guess, out
there with respect to GMOs and
the organic regulation.
As was mentioned, my expertise
is really in organic
agriculture.
I work extensively with organic
farmers, not only in Wisconsin
but also across the country.
And GMOs and organic agriculture
have, there has been a
recognition of how GMOs, I
guess, relate to organic
agriculture since the national
organic programs inception.
Really, the federal regulatory
landscape with respect to
organic started in 1990, and at
that time the Organic Food
Production Act did not mention
biotechnology, engineering, or
genetically modified organisms.
At that point, they weren't out
on the landscape, and there
wasn't any way that it was
addressed within that act.
In 1997, that's where, really,
the first national organic
program proposed rule was
released out to the public and
was released out to the public
for comments, as typically is
done, and that first iteration
of the rule did not prohibit GE
substances or GMOs.
However, once that rule was
released and public comment came
in, there was a huge negative
outcry from the public.
And because of that negative
outcry, immense response,
200,000 or so responses against
GMOs being included in the
organic regulation, the proposed
rule was amended.
And in 2000 when the second
national organic program
proposed rule came out, it
excluded the use of GMOs in
organic production.
So our current national organic
program regulation does exclude
the use of GMOs, and also other
genetic engineering techniques.
So that includes recombinant DNA
techniques that alter gene
position or copy number, that
introduce foreign genes, and
also self-fusion and micro and
macro encapsulation.
But there are permitted methods,
such as traditional breeding,
in vitro fertilization,
conjugation, fermentation,
and tissue culture.
And I do have to say as a
researcher that's involved in
organic agriculture, organic
agriculture also does recognize
the value of various techniques
with understanding more broadly
agricultural systems and how
organic agriculture can be
optimized.
And I'm happy in the Q&A section
to address more broadly how the
organic community, how organic
farmers view GMOs.
Organic farmers and the organic
farming community is definitely
not a monolithic group.
And there's a variety of
opinions and a variety of voices
that talk about the role of GMOs
more broadly in agriculture as
well as in organic production.
But the one thing that I will
address, which, again, I can
address more extensively within
the Q&A section, is pretty
broadly the organic community
is, however, concerned with the
issue of coexistence.
Coexistence being the current
cultivation of conventional,
organic, identity preserved, and
genetically engineered crops
consistent with underlying
consumer preferences and farmer
choices.
So how do all these diverse
agricultural production methods,
how can they coexist on the
landscape and preserve the
identity of the organic product
and the organic farmers'
preferences to have their
product free of GMOs alongside a
conventional farmer?
How do we potentially minimize
and prevent pollen drift?
Where does that burden lie?
Who bears that burden, whether
it's organic farmer or the
conventional farmer.
And recognizing the economic
losses that the organic farmer
does impart by having to bear
that burden, whether it be
through delayed planting,
altering maturity dates, or
putting buffers on their field.
So again, I'd be happy to expand
upon that in the Q&A section,
but for there I just want to
give my introduction to organic
agriculture and GMOs.
[APPLAUSE]
>> Thank you, Erin.
I want to invite
Dominique Brossard to come up
now.
And Dominique, these are some
really very complex issues.
And so, how are they perceived
by consumers?
How are these viewpoints
influencing the marketplace, and
what is research saying about
that now?
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Kate.
It's my pleasure to be here and
to talk about the complex issue
that I know is of interest to a
lot of us.
Basically, what my department
does here at UW Madison is
exploring the mechanisms that
explain why people adopt some
technologies and what might
explain why some people get
fearful about them.
People like us, you, I, have
some potential concern about
some technology and have also
potential views that actually
sustain our framework.
So the first thing that I'd like
to talk about very briefly, and
I'll be able to elaborate,
obviously, during the Q&A, is
the broad context of the
understanding that we have about
what explains how the public
feels about technologies in
general.
What we know is that anything
that's new tends to generate
concerns at the societal level,
and that's not just with genetic
engineering.
We see this with anything that's
been introduced.
Starting with the car,
the train, the roller pen,
the electric bulb, etc.
We all, rightfully so, pose
questions as far as how that
might impact society as a whole.
And this is something that we've
seen again and again and
obviously we should take into
account as we ponder the
different technology.
The concerns as far as a
societal level can be negative
but also potentially raise
questions about this can help us
as society.
So the first thing to keep in
mind.
At the individual level, what we
know, and that's what's
interesting, is that although in
nature taking risk usually is
related to actually having
benefits, in our mind, in all of
our minds, taking risks is
actually usually not related to
benefit.
To translate that in lay
language, it means that the
risks that kill people and the
risks that people are most upset
about are most of the time
unrelated.
And that's been coined, the term
that's been coined to explain
that is the idea that hazard is
very different from outrage.
And, actually, what makes a risk
a risk is a combination of the
technological risk that you
can measure and the amount of
concerns and anger that it
generates in people.
And this is the thing that all
of us in this room, from the
dean of the College Agricultural
and Life Sciences to myself, we,
as human beings, we'll be
concerned about that.
I'm not sure what I've done
here.
I was trying to do the laser
thing.
Risk is a hazard versus outrage
is something that's important
to us.
So that's why, for example, we
are very scared sometimes of
flying a plane because a plane,
one plane crash will kill a
lot of people.
We're not very afraid of driving
our car because it's a familiar
risk that we see every day.
Although, if you actually add
the number of deaths that are
related to car driving, they're
far higher than the number of
deaths related to planes.
Does it mean that we're idiots?
No.
We're just human beings, and
that's the way it is.
So that outrage, what makes us
angry, most of the time when the
things that we don't know about,
that are invisible to our eyes,
that have high magnitude, this
is the things that actually will
produce more outrage.
So going back to the GE crops
and the type of concerns that
are being raised again and again
in different focus group
research that we have undertaken
around, actually, the world in
different cultural contexts.
Obviously, food safety related
issues have been a concern again
from the proponent point of view
that we can actually create
crops that may be more
nutritious.
From the opponent point of view,
the idea that he may raise
related health issues.
Obviously, science can answer
this kind of concerns.
From an environmental point of
view, we heard that potentially
and obviously can reduce the use
of pesticide.
However, others have raised the
issue that it may create
superweeds.
Again, science can answer those
questions, and that's why the
National Research Council is
always making sure that the more
detailed and the up to date
science is used to produce their
reports.
Regulatory issues also are
something people have been
concerned about.
What are, actually, the context
in which this type of crops are
used, and do we have, actually,
safety mechanisms that ensure
that all of us are safe?
And, again, this may be an issue
that's important to some of us,
that will create outrage,
but not to others.
So in the broad picture though,
this is something that was
discussed.
Finally, international trade
related issue.
Why if, for example, you are in
Zambia and you create some, you
have some crops that are created
with this technology, you may
not be able to actually export
your crops to Europe because
Europe doesn't accept them.
This is a concern that actually
impacts trade as a whole and has
to be related to this public
opinion mechanism.
All those questions can be
answered by science.
We have a lot of data to
actually answer them.
But let's remember, though, that
all technology also raise
concern and dimensions for which
science itself cannot answer and
cannot really bring answers.
It's a societal choice.
For example, things that have
been raised is the idea of
consumer choice.
Labeling, science cannot answer
this issue.
It's you and I, informed
citizens and the policymakers
with public deliberation that
include people of all of us in
this room at different levels
that can answer those questions.
Distribution of benefits at the
societal level.
Who do we think should reap the
benefit of this?
Those big corporations that will
make all the benefits or the
farmers?
Are the consumers the ones that
will actually get some benefits
out of it?
What does the impact on the role
of developing communities?
Will this change the livelihood
of different farming
communities?
This is something that can be
pondered too and has been
pondered in different settings.
What are the ownership issues
that are linked to this
technology?
And this is, again, a lot of
discussions in different
communities.
Finally, another discussion
that's been going on, what's the
right of human beings to tamper
with nature?
What's the ethical dimension
related to this?
Again, these are not questions
that should be ignored because
they exist.
These are questions as a society
are discussed right now in a
number of contexts and should be
integrated when we think in
terms of public dynamics and GE.
And I'm going to finish very
briefly by explaining how we
know what people feel and how
they actually form attitudes
toward genetic engineering.
I mentioned the sociopolitical
context.
The idea that in Europe, for
example, the concerns that are
raised are different from the
ones that are raised as a
culture, as a society, here.
East Africa, West Africa, very
different concern.
Food concern, putting food on
the table is something that's
extremely important.
So at the societal level, the
concerns are going to be
different.
At the information climate
level, you're going to hear
different groups telling you
different things, and this is
what we call the information
climate, and this information
climate can be actually impacted
by different things such as
media coverage, the type of
marketing messages we all see,
science fiction films that talk
about genetic engineering.
You all know about, let's say,
Jurassic Park for example.
This is the film that people
always bring to mind whenever we
ask them a question about this.
Educational messages being
another one.
So all these have to be taken
into account when you think
about these things.
And the last thing that actually
I would like leave you with when
we think in terms of
communication information
climate is the idea that media
frames that are put out there
and for the public to digest,
but those frames that may be
positive or negative, here just
for the sake of this argument I
put negative ones but it can be
positive ones, it can mean
different things to different
people because as human beings
what we do is we use filters to
actually understand the messages
out there.
So the same message, the same
frame will mean different things
to different people.
If we are actually very
concerned because we outrage,
we actually are going to amplify
our views when we see different
frames that are negative and
resonant with what we think.
And I've been a big proponent in
increasing media literacy among
my students and our citizens for
them to understand these kind of
issues.
And finally, let's not forget
that we're all individuals and
we're not irrational.
So we perceive risk and benefits
in a way that make sense to us
related to our concern as a
whole.
We have different attitudes with
technology.
We may prefer, actually, to
leave it out of our life.
We have more consideration.
We know some things about the
issue, and we talk about it with
others.
We trust or we don't trust our
information sources, and we may
actually have different views of
what the culture authority of
science can tell us about all
of this.
My talk seemed a little bit
grandiose, but what you need to
know is all those things that
I've shared with you are based
on actual research in social
psychology and communication
that explain those models, and
I'll be happy to give you more
information about this in the
Q&A.
[APPLAUSE]
>> Andy Diercks is going to say
a few words, but I'd like to
bring the whole panel up here
because Andy doesn't have
slides, so we can get some down
and some Q&A as soon as possible
right after Andy speaks.
And I just would like to say
word about, we thought it was
very important to have a grower
here.
None of this makes any sense or
any difference if a farmer's
life gets harder instead of
easier as a result of a
technology or he is less
competitive in the market as a
result of a technology.
So we really want to hear
Andy's experience.
>> Thanks, Paul.
Thanks for the invitation.
As Kate mentioned, we farm about
70 miles north of here.
We farm about 2,700 acres.
We farm eight to 10 different
crops.
Typically eight to 10 different
types of potatoes for different
markets.
And, really, my message is
pretty simple.
We kind of fit in the middle of
the discussion you had here.
Agriculture is not like running
a factory.
It's much more complicated.
We're dealing with climate
change and weather and all sorts
of things to do with the Earth
and nature, and so it's not as
simple as just a simple question
of what are we going to plant
this year.
That's an incredibly complicated
thing, and that's really the
first step.
So we have to take into account
all the things that were brought
up earlier from is a crop going
to use less water, can we use
less pesticides, is it going to
have some consumer benefit, is
it going to do something better
for our employees because
they're not spraying as often.
All those things weigh into
those decisions, and that, I
said, I just the initial
decision on our process, and
then we have to continue to make
those decisions all season long.
And so whether it's soil type,
water use, customer acceptance,
obviously that was brought up
again as well.
Whether you're shipping
domestically or sending
something internationally, that
may make a big difference.
We have customers that are
making French fries that allow
certain varieties and don't
allow other varieties.
Those are not GM related, but
that's a huge part of the
question of what we're going to
grow.
In some cases we don't know
necessarily who the customer is
going to be when we sell them.
So that has to play into it as
well.
So my message is just that they
got everything covered.
[LAUGHTER]
And they're going to answer all
of our question.
I can give you one example.
Potatoes, there was a
commercially available GMO
potato back, I think it was the
late '90s.
It was called New Leaf from
Syngenta, and it basically
reduced our need to spray for
Colorado potato beetles, which
is one of our biggest pests here
in Wisconsin.
So it took probably two or three
sprays out of our program.
It was incredibly effective from
all scientific bases.
It was exactly the same as the
varieties that it was replacing
and was grown commercially for a
couple of years, and then the
winds changed and Gerber and
McDonald's and a couple of those
companies decided they didn't
want to have that so, boom, it
was off the market.
It didn't make much difference
to us.
Again, the economic question
that Erin brought up, that's a
huge part of sustainability.
If you can't do this profitably,
you can't make the right choices
to do the right things for the
environment or for your
neighbors or for your employees.
So that's a huge part of it, and
I can guarantee you that nobody
is growing GMO crops because
it's necessarily more
profitable.
Travis' company knows how much
it costs to replace those sprays
and generally they're priced
comparable to if you're going to
do something else.
So it's not a, the economics
usually isn't what drives us one
way or the other in that
question because they're
generally relatively balanced.
They figure that out pricing
wise.
I didn't mean to rip you at all,
Travis.
[LAUGHTER]
I know that's not your
department.
It's a complicated choice.
So I think we're all looking
forward to the Q&A,
so let's go there.
>> Thank you, Andy.
>> Thanks.
[APPLAUSE]
>> So, with that, we're going to
open things up for questions
from the audience.
We have a couple of runners
with microphones.
So if you have a question,
raise your hand.
I'm not seeing any right this
minute.
There's one.
>> Thank you.
I don't know from where the
information is coming that the
amount of herbicides, some
pesticides, are reduced because
just a simple search on the
internet shows the amount of
herbicides has been increased
since 1980 and continue
increasing the use of
herbicides.
What is more concerning is that
the use of these GMO crops are
actually developing the
resistant, right now there are
18 varieties of weeds that are
resistant to the herbicides and
any scientific knows that the
things happening with the BT
pesticides you need to leave the
part of the crops without BT
because if one insect survived,
that insect is going to develop
a population that is resistant.
So we're just playing with time.
That's what we are doing.
>> So there are two questions
here, I think.
One is about insects building
resistance to BT, and then the
weed control issue.
And, Travis, I think this one is
for you.
>> I guess that was targeted
at me.
>> Yeah.
>> I think your first question
around the herbicides, I think
that those numbers are real in
terms of how many herbicides,
like the amount of herbicide
that was reduced.
So you're right, there are
different herbicides being used,
which is actually a good thing
because when we talk about
herbicides as well as
insecticides, we talk about
modes of action.
And I don't know if everyone
knows what a mode of action is,
but, essentially, the chemistry
interacts differently with
whatever it's trying to kill in
this case, whether it be an
insect or a plant.
And so the more diversity, just
like the more diversity you can
plant in the field, the more
diversity you can use and the
chemistry you use helps prevent
that resistance from building
up.
And so regardless of whether
it's a GM crop or it's a
chemical or even if it's an
organically certified chemical
like BT, organic groups could
use a BT pesticide.
Instead of it being engineered
into the plant, they just
sprinkle the protein on the
plant.
So you can also create
resistance there, and it has
created resistance as well.
So it just depends on how you
manage it.
So I think it all goes back to
what Andy mentioned as well.
It's a system.
And if you abuse any one point
in that system or you're not
careful of how you use it, you
certainly can risk losing it
because you will build up
resistance.
And that's sort of a challenge
that we deal with whether it's a
GM crop or just conventional
systems.
>> I would echo that comment.
The resistance management, that
wasn't brought up previously.
But that's an issue if you're
using pesticides or you're using
biological practices or if
you're using GMOs.
That's a huge part of the
diversity that we have on our
farm and that the university
here pushes us to maintain.
Most of us that are using GM
crops are also using non-GMO
crops.
So you're trying to continue
mixing up what you're using to
deal with the pest pressures and
the weed pressures.
And I think everybody in the
room understands that a strip
monoculture of one variety of
one pesticide program or one
herbicide program is not a good
way to go.
And certainly the university and
the companies understand that.
That's a battle that we fight
constantly to try to maintain as
many tools in the toolbox as we
can.
>> So maybe for both of you too,
what resources are available to
producers, either from
universities or companies or
third party entities, to support
the farmer in deciding what are
good management practices?
>> So I can certainly say what
we've started doing with growers
is offering packages.
So in the case of herbicides,
obviously the main GM that's out
there is Roundup resistance.
But we also realize that are
weeds that are resistant to
Roundup, so we offer assistance
with other chemicals that the
farmer can use and other
cultural methods that they can
use to control the weeds.
So we'll actually partner with
them to help either provide
information or even, in some
cases, provide funding or
rebates to actually get to those
other modes of action of
chemistry to help support what
they're doing and help enable
them to actually do a broader
resistance program if they're
not already doing it.
And that's just kind of one
avenue.
I think the other big piece is
what's been put in place with
most insect resistant crops is
what we call refuge, and it's a
mandatory federally regulated
refuge that needs to be put into
place.
In the past, it was really
difficult for a grower, and Andy
you can probably speak to this,
they had to actually manage that
themselves.
So they had to buy both types of
seed, the BT seed and the non-BT
seed, and they actually had to
plant, depending on the product,
up to a 20% refuge with the
non-BT product.
They actually had to physically
go in their field and mix it.
And that was challenging because
a farmer had to manage these
different things and did they
have the right amount of refuge
to prevent the resistance.
What we've done since then is
we've created a thing called
refuge in the bag.
What we've done is we've decided
to actually mix the seed ahead
of time so the farmer doesn't
have to deal with that anymore.
And this has all come as a
partnership with the growers
because they've said they're
challenged with managing this
resistance in the field because
they have to manage two
different types of seed, so
we've kind of helped them manage
that so they can buy one bag of
seed, plant it, and it gets
mixed and they're abiding by the
right rules to mitigate the
resistance from building up.
So, something we've done.
>> A couple other things
I would say.
Certainly the university
research, we fund a fair bit of
that, but it's ongoing research
that's done every year that
tests efficacy of different
products, different combinations
of products on different pests,
different weeds.
And then probably the last thing
is the group that I know Travis'
company is involved with as
well.
All the manufacturers of
pesticides along with the EPA
have, educationally now they've
gone through and grouped
everything by mode of action as
an educational tool for the
growers to understand that you
need to use different modes of
action.
It's especially effective on
certain pests and things, but
that's now a very standardize
process so that when I'm going
to go make an application for a
certain weed, I can look and see
what my choices are.
Some diseases and pests only
have one or two modes of action
but some have several, and so if
you have to make multiple
applications during the year,
you can change those during
the year.
And they've done a good job of
letting us understand which
products fall in which mode of
action.
>> Okay, Dominique is going to
respond, then we'll go back to
the audience.
>> Yeah, I just wanted to follow
up on what you said because it's
one of the challenges when you
try to measure risk to a new
technology.
And the one that you just
addressed is a legitimate one.
How can you actually identify
the risk related to the specific
technology versus something
that's related to agricultural
practices?
So are we talking about a
problem with American
agricultural systems, or are we
talking about the problem
related just to genetic
engineering?
And that's, I think, something
that we forget very often, to
try to dissociate or try to have
a broader picture and put it
back in the picture that Andy
and Travis have very well
explained.
>> Yes, we have a question back
here.
>> Hi.
I'm interested in kind of the
farmer's perspective.
I know there's a big mixed
public opinion on GMOs and big
debate, but is there more of a
consensus or less of a consensus
among farmers what they want to
use?
And also, you mentioned that
economics isn't really the
driving factor in the choice, so
what are some of the factors
that play in?
>> I can respond from the
scientific research perspective
as the data we have, and I think
you wouldn't say that there is a
consensus about farmers.
It depends what type of farmers
you're talking about, and what's
important to the type of farmers
we're talking about.
As far as the data that's
available, we actually see that
the economic related information
are important to farmers.
At the end of the day, you know
farmers are businessmen like all
of us.
So they need to make a living
and they're trying to find the
best way to satisfy consumers,
to actually make sure that their
workers have a decent pay, and
so on.
So we have found that the
economic considerations are very
important.
As far as adaption levels, it
depends on the type of farming
community, and it depends on
what part of the world you're
talking about too.
So that's the crucial point.
>> Yeah, I would agree.
I think Erin brought it up on
the organic side.
She said that is a pretty
diverse opinion within the
organic community, and that
resonates through all of
agriculture.
We're all consumers.
We're all subjected to the same
information that you guys are.
I think most of us believe in
the science, especially those of
us that work real closely with
the university.
But there are a lot of factors,
as I mentioned.
Whether it's environmental.
Some of the things that GMOs
have allowed is us to use much
softer pesticides.
We maybe aren't using less,
which is what some of the
challenge is in looking at just
amounts or even amount of active
ingredient over the last 20 or
30 years.
The pesticides we use now are
incredibly safer, both for our
employees and for the
environment, than they were
20 years ago.
And that's something that isn't,
you don't see because it's not
necessarily less active
ingredient but it's a much safer
product.
It has much smaller impacts on
beneficials, much easier to
handle of the employees.
My dad used to come home and
had followed all the rules, but
his toes would be yellow.
And it's from the products we
used to use, and that just
doesn't happen anymore.
And that's one of the things.
If you can get to the things
that they're trying to do in the
future, in potatoes if they
could get late blight
resistance, late blight is what
caused the Irish potato famine.
It is responsible for well over
half of our sprays here in
Wisconsin because it's such a
devastating disease.
And we have a perfect climate
for it here in Wisconsin with
the high humidity we have.
So if they could get that, and
we have university genomics
researchers here that are pretty
close to doing that.
They're just trying to get it
into a more conventional
variety.
That would have huge
implications for both our
employees and the environment.
>> I think we have another one
at the panel here.
>> Yeah.
I just have one that maybe Erin
and Dominique could speak to.
I just got back from Oregon, and
if you turn on the TV, what
you're going to see are a bunch
of ads for and against a
labeling referendum.
And Colorado is looking to vote
on this as well.
In this election cycle, there
are several referenda, I
believe, at least two but there
may be more, for labeling GMOs,
and they're somewhat Byzantine
and I find the advertising very
confusing.
And you see weird arguments on
both sides.
You have organic growers that
are pro-labeling and
anti-labeling.
So I wonder what you think about
the communication issues,
Dominique, but also, Erin,
what's up with labeling?
>> I guess in terms of the
diversity of viewpoints you may
be seeing from an organic
farmer, I think the organic
community with respect to the
farming and processing community
prides itself on the fact that
organic is a place where the
consumer can go and be assured
that the product that they're
purchasing is non-GMO.
So there may be a bit of
contention between having
another label out there against
the organic label.
I could potentially see that
being a concern of some organic
farmers that it's creating
confusion in the marketplace
with various labels that may or
may not be regulated in the same
way.
There's another label that you
guys may see in Whole Foods or
some other markets that's
non-GMO product verified.
So there are multiple labels out
there in the marketplace that
can cause consumer confusion.
So that would be probably my
thoughts in terms of why you're
seeing those varied viewpoints
in terms of organic farmers, but
it's more the multi-label issue.
>> That's a very good point,
actually, and that's very
representative of the state of
the debate right now in the
United States.
And going back to Erin, I think
this doesn't actually contribute
to individuals being clear about
what to think about the issue.
But if you remember what I was
telling you about, how people
perceive risk and how ultimately
they make decisions, rationality
in all of us, myself included,
may not be actually as important
as we may think.
And when we think in terms of
public opinion in the
United States, genetically
engineered crops, roughly,
we have the same proportion of
people that think it is causing
serious health concern,
the ones who don't think it's
causing a health concern, and
the ones who don't have any
opinion about it.
So the ones that already think
it causes serious health
concerns may want labeling for
very specific reasons.
The ones that don't have a clear
idea, they're going to use what
we call motivated reasoning.
So they're going to actually
anchor the judgment of whatever
somebody they trust is telling
them.
So the advertising for that part
of the spectrum of opinion, that
actually reinforces whatever
they think.
And the ones that are against,
the same way.
So to some extent, the ones that
are most vocal as far as giving
an idea that resonates with what
we think already will win the
game.
>> Okay, let's go back to the
audience.
We've got someone back there,
and I see some other hands, one
other hand up here.
>> Yeah, thank you very much.
I have two questions and some
others ones, but I'll just ask
these two.
The first one is, how much is
the UW investing in organic
research like crop breeding
compared to the amount of
investing in GMO crops or
research?
And the second question, you
mentioned labeling, and I'm just
going to go back to that.
My question is, why are they
opposing labeling?
What difference does it make to
the GMO companies or anybody
else whether it's labeled or
not?
It would seem to me and the
person regarding the opinions of
people and so forth, it seems to
me then the people have a choice
There seems to be the question
here a lot of times of choice
and that you don't want to give
the people choice.
You just say we'll throw it all
in because it's all the same.
But people make choices whether
they're going to buy a red car,
blue car, this type, that type
and so forth.
So thank you.
>> Let's take the labeling
question first.
>> I can address a little bit of
the cost side of it.
But I think our industry is in
favor of voluntary labeling on
a national level so we don't
have 50 different labeling
rules, which is going to be
really complicated.
But I think the challenge comes,
in potatoes it's not a
challenge.
We grow potatoes.
We grow specific varieties.
They're all handled differently.
They're going directly to
market, very directly, maybe
through distribution centers.
So that's quite easy.
But when you get into some of
the commodity crops, corn and
soybeans, where you're
commingling millions of bushels
at hundreds of facilities across
the country, you'd have to
double, triple, quadruple
probably, the amount of storage
for those crops to handle them
all separately at all stages.
And I don't think anybody is
equipped to make that sort of
investment at this point.
I think the preference is that
you might label the premium
products that you would assume
would be GMO free, and so that's
being done already.
That's the preserved products.
But labeling the full commodity
crops that are currently
commingled is a infrastructure
nightmare, really.
>> Yeah, and to follow up on
what Andy has said is it's more
complicated than we actually
think it is because most of, 60%
of the food on the grocery store
shelves right now contain some
kind of GM because of corn syrup
for example.
So if you think of processed
food and think that you would
have to actually make sure that
you can accurately or because
just labeling is great but
actually labeling is a question
of accuracy and really represent
what's out there.
It gets way more complicated.
>> Right.
Maybe I should have been more
accurate.
If you're looking in the produce
section where you're getting
direct produce from the farm or
through whatever channels,
that's fairly easy, but when you
start using ingredients,
especially on large scales, that
are going into Betty Crocker or
something like that, it gets
much more complicated and much
more expensive.
>> Anything else from the panel
on this?
The question before the labeling
question was about how much is
the UW invested in one part or
the other, correct?
>> Yeah, that's correct.
>> Yeah.
So I think I'll invite Erin to
comment, but I'll just first
say, as dean, we have a very
strong plant breeding and plant
genetics program here for
graduate student training.
And it's a very interesting mix.
A number of folks go through
that program and end up at
Monsanto or another biotech
company.
Others go in other directions.
We have a number of students
that have been very interested
in breeding things for an
organic market, looking at, and
I'll let you maybe comment about
that, Erin.
>> Sure.
>> Yeah, why don't you talk
about that.
>> I feel very lucky to be an
organic specialist at UW.
I think we are currently, and
maybe my colleagues in other
states would disagree, but a
leader in organic breeding.
We're lucky to have several
vital public breeding programs
here on campus.
So there's active activities
with breeding sweetcorn
specifically for organic
production, breeding carrots
specifically for organic
production, working with
partners across the country,
looking at breeding tomatoes and
squash and snap beans
specifically for organic
production.
Again, that reflects upon CALS's
commitment to public breeding
programs in general
And those public breeders are
really interested in working
with organic farmers and are,
and a lot of great students that
have been funded by fellowships.
Next summer many of our students
are going to be planning,
I think it's the third or fourth
annual student organic seed
symposium.
Bringing students involved in
organic breeding from across the
country here to Madison and
visiting sites around the state.
So there is a lot of investment
and commitment, I would say,
from CALS and the broader
UW campus.
>> As far as public breeding
programs are concerned, there
are many crops that are not the
big commodity crops where most
of the breeding is still done in
universities.
But, Travis, perhaps you might
want to mention beyond soybeans
and corn the kinds of plant
genetic programs that are at
Monsanto.
>> Sure.
We've got most of our programs,
for lack of a better term, they
kind of are organic.
Our corn breeding program is
completely GM free.
Most of our vegetable, actually,
yeah, most of our vegetable
breeding is entirely GM free
until they actually go to the
market.
So the breeding and the research
is done on the crops before they
go out to the grower, the
farmer.
We have an integration process
that brings the GM traits
together with the germplasm sort
of at the end of the process
before it goes out.
So there is the ability if
individuals are willing to or
wanting that material, they can
grow that type of material.
It's a little tougher with the
larger row crops like corn,
cotton, and soybeans just
because of the size of the
market that actually wants
conventionally bred material
versus conventionally bred with
GM added is very small,
typically.
But in the vegetable side,
it's much, much larger.
So we've gone the route that we
still breed all our vegetables
GM free, and then, actually,
most of them right now still are
GM free with a couple of
products coming in the future.
So the germplasm is available
It's kind of a little unknown
fact.
Most of the germplasm is
available without GM in it, and
we work very hard to keep it
that way.
That way we can do with it what
we need.
If we need to go to an organic
market where you want to grow
corn or vegetables that don't
have GM in it, you'll have seed.
>> Okay, let's go back to, I
think there's at least one mic
out here.
>> My question also relates to
the organic section, and my
observation is that it's a
growing market and it also has
customers that are very well
informed and educated and often
come from higher economic
strata, but it has been
consistently resistant to the
idea of GMO in the face of
evidence both pro and con.
I'm a member of the Willy Street
Co-Op, and I read their magazine
every other month or so and it's
consistently negative on GMO.
And I wonder what your thoughts
are about this.
Is this going to be something
that eventually gets into the
organic section?
>> I don't see it getting in
anytime soon.
I think, again, the organic
farming community's opinions are
diverse.
So I think there are definitely,
across the spectrum,
organic farmers that are opposed
to GMOs because of the broader
safety concerns with the
technology.
But there's also another
spectrum of concerns.
There's definitely the market.
Organic is a marketing label.
So they definitely want to
continue to be able to attract a
certain segment of organic
consumer.
But as you just reflected, the
organic consumers aren't a
monolithic group either.
But there's also, I think, a
concern about, and Travis and I
have served on several panels
together so I don't want to
debate him too much, but there
is a concern about, as he
mentioned in slides, a lot of
the yield increases that we do
observe in many of the row crops
is due to general breeding
efforts, traditional breeding
efforts, and organic farmers are
concerned that a lot of those
elite genetic lines are tied up
with GMO traits and that they
don't have access.
And the fact that a lot of the
GMO in breeding efforts are tied
up to large corporations does
narrow the germplasm base and
narrow the germplasm choices to
organic producers.
So there are those economic and
socioeconomic drivers.
There's also concerns that we
don't necessarily understand all
the impacts of this new
technology on the environment.
And as someone that works more
broadly in organic systems and
looking at managing soils
organically, although science
can answer a lot of questions,
there's still the stuff that we
don't understand which is makes
it exciting to be a scientist as
we learn more and more about
natural systems and the
complexity of natural systems.
Just like we're understanding
from the human health
perspective the microbiome that
impacts health and the
complexity of the interactions
between microbiology and
microorganisms and the natural
environment.
There's a perception amongst
organic growers that we could be
doing things to the agricultural
system that we don't understand
and that risk reduction and the
mitigation of risk and the
precautionary principle really
plays into decisions and
approaches.
So definitely a variety of
opinions, but, long story short,
I don't see it changing any time
soon.
>> Is there any followup from
the panel?
>> I can just ask a followup
question.
We talked about maybe not
bringing this up, but the
intergenic versus transgenic, is
there any potential on the
organic side that maybe it's
within species or just
manipulation there because from
my perspective, scientifically
that makes a big difference.
And agronomically, to me, the
production system that has the
most to gain from GMOs is
organic because of some of the
challenges, both on the cost
side and the pesticides
products.
You could take potatoes, for
example.
There isn't anything that
controls late blight that fits
under organic.
So for an organic potato grower
to have something that would
late blight resistant
would be a huge boom.
>> I think...
>> And that's...
Sorry, go ahead, Erin.
>> The way that the national
organic standards work and goes
into play is that there's the
national organics standards
board as new technology or new
products come into play and come
online that there is a panel of
people that represent the
consumer viewpoint, the farmer
viewpoint, the market viewpoint,
and they evaluate the pros and
cons and the various risks.
So, as new technology emerges,
there's definitely a potential
of that being integrated into
the organic regulation, but I
think it really would take a
broader view of how that impacts
not only the consumer confidence
and consumer preferences, but
the benefits and risks with the
agricultural practices as well.
>> Okay, let's get back to the
audience.
We have someone on the aisle
with a question.
>> Yeah, I have a question.
You started with a list of eight
crops that are approved for GMO.
Two questions, one is what do
you think will be coming soon,
additional crops?
And then I just find it
interesting that papaya and
squash are on the list.
They don't seem like they're
large cash crops.
How did those end up in this?
Thank you.
>> There's a couple new crops
coming.
Wheat is going to be one of the
newest ones that will be coming
on sooner than later.
There's quite a bit.
With papaya, the interesting
story about papaya, papaya was
actually one of the first.
And the reason why it was being
decimated by a disease, a viral
disease that almost destroyed
papaya as a crop.
And so the GM is actually a
resistance to that disease.
So there's a lot of different
crops that when we talk about, I
think when Andy was talking
about disease resistance, we
have the technology to make some
of those diseases controllable.
And some of those diseases
aren't controllable even with
chemistry.
So we have the tool kits to be
able to potentially do it.
It's just whether or not they'll
be accepted.
There were other, more recently
eggplant in India.
If you've heard the story of the
-- eggplant, we were talking
about this earlier.
This is another great disease
kind of story or, really, a
great story about solving a big
problem in eggplant.
But it was met with a ton of
resistance, and, actually, I
don't know if it's completely
come off the market yet but it's
been halted quite a bit because
of the outrage.
And so, yeah, the biggest
hurdle, honestly, is acceptance.
It's both acceptance and a
little bit economics.
It costs a lot of money.
I think the estimates out there
on average is between
$120-$130 million to bring a
product, a GM product to market.
Most of that cost is wrapped up
in the 13 years of regulatory
process that needs to go through
and safety testing and all the
good things that we do to make
sure they're safe.
It's part of that.
And so that's one of the biggest
challenges.
That's actually getting harder
in the US.
So you think it'd actually be
going the other way.
It's actually getting easier
outside of the US and actually
more difficult in the US to get
through those regulatory
processes because of some of the
concerns that people are
bringing up that are, whether or
not you believe the science or
not, whether they're founded or
not, but there's quite a bit of
concern and that's kind of
slowing things down quite a bit.
We'd love to see more, I think,
if the technology, if we could
get it into more, I think you'd
see more universities, more
public sector groups actually
using it because the cost would
be driven down quite a bit.
Right now it's a very expensive
thing to bring to market.
>> Paul, I know you have a lot
of interest in the international
story.
Is there any followup that you'd
like to contribute there?
>> Yeah, the international
markets are really complicated.
In the end, as important and as
big Andy's farm is, really what
matters is what people in China
decide to do.
So having seen BT cotton in
India take off, it's very, very
successful, whereas the eggplant
was a total disaster, probably
because you eat it, I think
there's some perception issues
there, but in terms of the
international market, what is
China doing and if you can't
export to the EU, where are the
markets for these
internationally and how does
that affect the grower and the
company?
>> Sorry, if I can interject
here.
Something that gets very
complicated when we think of
this technology in relationship
to sustainability and food
security, basically, is that the
technology is really not
available to the countries that
actually would need it the most.
If you look at the map of
adoption of crops in
relationship to where you have
the most people that starve,
which is mainly Africa, they
don't have, apart from South
Africa actually, you don't have
much access because most of the
research and development really
has been done in western
cultures for their staple crops.
So if you think of India, there
was a lot of hope with BT
eggplant because eggplant is
actually one of the staple
crops, and that crop was chosen
by a consortium of public and
private institutions in
relationship with Cornell
University and 20 other
institutions from the public
side to try to help the country
develop capacity to make their
own decisions related to the
technology.
But then it got, as Paul as
rightfully pointed out, got very
complicated because a lot of
money was put into activities
unrelated to the issue from both
sides.
So unfortunately I would say,
internationally, this is a very
complex issue that puts on the
table the agenda and the
potential benefits for a lot of
stakeholders.
And the people that ultimately
would benefit or not from the
technology are very often left
out of the discussion to which
crops should be developed, how
much it will cost, how the
farmers can benefit or not, how
do we integrate with organic.
So, very complicated.
>> We have a question down here
near the front.
>> Yeah, I was wondering what
the implications are of GMOs for
kind of more communal ownership
of lines of crops and the
freedom to replant and the
freedom to share seeds freely.
And maybe if someone could
explain, too, how patents work
with GMOs versus other crops.
I'm not entirely clear on that.
>> I guess that comes to me.
>> That'd be you, Travis.
>> Yeah, it's all me, right?
So, we're actually in a very
interesting time.
I'll start off by saying that
for the first time in history we
actually have a GM crop or a GM
trait which is going to be free.
Which is the first version of
Roundup in soybeans.
And so farmers will be able to
save their seed.
The whole seed saving thing
that's come up, and you probably
heard a lot of the debate about
big mean companies suing
farmers, we don't sue farmers
that get contaminated by
uncontrollable reasons.
We typical sue farmers who are
actually stealing the technology
and actually selling it and
growing it and knowingly grow it
and select for it.
So, really, what it is, is it's
the patents provide us the
ability to regain some of the
investments.
As I said, it costs a lot of
money to develop those crops and
to get the yields and really
sustain the yields that the
growers want and the growers pay
for.
The growers pay a premium for
those crops that they buy with
those traits in it.
And so if someone takes that and
what they call brown-bag or
saves a seed and resells that or
doesn't resell it necessarily,
grows it themselves and doesn't
pay that premium, they're
basically cheating their
neighbors who are actually
paying for that because their
neighbors have to pay for it.
So it's kind of in the industry
of we've all been there with
music.
Certainly, you can copy a CD,
but when you copy a CD and then
you start distributing it and
selling it, you're actually
stealing from the intellectual
property of a singer or a
songwriter.
So it's kind of the same thing.
We would love to be able to have
kind of a very open world where
you could freely pass around
seed and share our technologies,
but, unfortunately, it takes so
much money to develop these
things, it's very difficult.
And in order for us to get 1% to
2% to 3% extra yield every year,
it costs a lot of money.
And so part of the patent
process is to give us some,
essentially, limited monopoly to
allow a return on that
investment.
And then at the end of that
time, it's free to the public to
use.
So that's the case we're at
right now with Roundup Ready 1.
That's actually going to be made
available, I think it's this
year.
I have to know the exact numbers
I think it's sometime this year
where it's actually going to be
freely available.
So our competitors can use it.
Any farmer out there that's
growing soy seed that has it in
their seed, they can certainly
reuse that seed and it's not a
problem in terms of paying the
price of that GM trait.
So kind of for the first time in
history.
And we've taken a proactive
approach to actually make sure
that trait, that trait still has
to keep its regulatory approval,
it still has to keep all the
regulatory stewardship around it
to make sure that it falls under
the federal guidelines of being
managed correctly.
And that's up to us as a company
to make sure that stays in
place, and we're doing that so
that people can use it.
So I think you're going to see
more and more of that happening
as these traits now come off
patent, and they're going to be
able to be used more freely.
And that just opens up, that's
the whole point of IP is it
takes a lot of money to get a
certain thing but then you get
things like generic drugs and
things that are cheaper in the
long run but it drives the
innovation, that money and
integration drives the
innovation for the next
generation products that
hopefully gets us more yield.
>> If I could followup, the
question coming out of the
question about patents, that
historical circulation of seeds
in communities and between
communities is one of the things
that's maintained genetic
diversity.
So in what sense, how are we
moving forward in the presence
of GMOs for the maintenance of
that kind of diversity over time
in the absence of a much freer
exchange network?
>> I can tell you that was like
one of our number one priorities
as a breeding organization is to
maintain diversity, and we have
a very large supply of different
types of germplasm that we're
actually using and creating
different combinations with so
that we can keep that diversity
in the market.
It's challenging, just like for
the university who has limited
funds, to keep a vast amount of
germplasm in rotation.
And so anybody can take the
germplasm that we've patented,
and when it comes off patent in
20 years, it's all deposited in
the seed repository.
You can request that.
You can request seed from
Monsanto, from Pioneer, from
Syngenta, from whoever and
actually use it.
It's a little older, obviously.
If you go by patents, it's about
10 to 20 years behind the
current germplasm, but you
certainly could use it and start
breeding with it, and if you
wanted to continue, in theory,
the material from 20 years ago
that's now available was parents
of the material we have today.
So it is possible, but obviously
it takes a huge amount of
investment.
So the challenge, I think, is
whether or not you want the most
modern, innovative, elite
germplasm that the companies are
investing millions and millions
of dollars in developing.
If you say yes, I want that, I
want it for free, that's going
to be tough.
But if you say I'll take the
material that's a couple years
behind and I'll work it forward
and I'll try to get the best
material out of that, that's
certainly very easy to do in the
way that the patent system
works.
It's all available to anybody.
Any one of you can call them up
and say, hey, I'd like, I don't
know how many seeds you get,
honestly, from the seeds banks,
somebody will have to let me
know.
But you can get a couple hundred
seed from the seed bank and
plant it in your backyard and
start a breeding program.
I recommend it.
It's a lot of fun.
I'm a breeder so I love
breeding.
If you've never done
it, it could be a lot of fun.
>> I'm going to go back to the
audience at this point.
>> Accepting the science of the
safety of GMO products, there's
a lot of people, including me,
that think that many of the
government organizations that
approve these things are wholly
owned subsidiaries of American
corporate life.
So the question arises, why, if
the science is the same, do the
European nations have such a
high degree of resistance to GMO
versus the United States?
>> I can answer that to the best
of my knowledge.
It's an excellent question.
And when I was, remember when I
tried to explain why we would
react differently to different
technology, I put first the
socioeconomic political context
and then the individual level
was much more remote.
Well, Europe, as a whole, as far
as they manage risk is based on
the precautionary principle.
And this means that unless
you're sure that something is
totally safe, you're not going
to use it.
Versus here we have a -- of
equivalence which is very
different.
So as a society, the way risk is
managed is very different.
However, there is also different
scientific advisory panels and
even the National Academy of
Science, European Academy of
Science, that actually also have
made statements as far as the
safety of this kind of
technology, which doesn't mean
that when the world believes it,
it's based on let's do it until
you have evidence that shows
it's not safe.
So it's really the idea that
culturally speaking the way they
deal with risk is very different
from the way we deal with it
here.
>> And that's where I was
stating with the organic
farmers, many of them tend to
operate more on the
precautionary principle.
>> Yeah, it's a cultural value
as far as who you access risk,
really, at the cultural level.
>> Followup question.
The implication to the question
beyond the cultural side is that
there are very different
regulatory environments, and the
suspicion here is a particular
form of regulatory management
has relationships in industry
that's different than Europe.
Do you think that's an unfair
charge?
>> I do.
I've got a good friend of mine,
Peter Jensen, who, he's got a
young son, probably 18 months
old now.
The last thing he would ever do
or allow would be something to
get out that isn't safe.
That's his whole job is to make
sure that the crops that we
produce and the GM traits that
we produce are safe.
It's my job as an owner, part
owner of Monsanto and really of
society is to make sure that the
products that I'm producing or
helping to produce actually are
safe.
It's the last thing I would want
to do is to put something out on
the market that isn't safe.
So we do our best to do every
bit of science we possibly can,
and we go above and beyond.
If you look at Monsanto's track
record in terms of what we do to
make sure that we have tested
everything thoroughly and what
we don't actually even touch.
So there's a lot of traits out
there that companies and
universities are working with,
and we won't touch because the
implications that it may
actually cause an allergen or it
may have a larger safety concern
or it may have a similarity to
something in our immune system
or whatever.
We just don't even play with it.
So that's our promise to society
that we're going to do our best
to make sure we don't put a
product out there that isn't
unsafe, or that isn't safe.
So that's always the toughest
challenge, is to say that we go
through, honestly, about, and
I'm going to get this number
wrong, but it's a plethora of
regulatory agencies all over the
world.
And I'll be honest with you,
some of the hardest agencies to
please, it's not the US, it's
Japan, it's China.
Those are some of the toughest
regulatory bodies to actually
convince that it's safe.
So when they say it's safe,
there's a lot of data behind
that.
And we won't put anything on the
market until we get those
approvals.
So it's not just US approval.
It has to be global approval.
>> Okay, we have several
questions on this side.
I'm going to take this one first
and then the third row and then
the second row.
>> As someone who has been
involved in agricultural
research for the last 25 years,
it seems we went through this
about 25 years ago with RBST.
Have any lessons been learned in
terms of communicating GMO to
the public from that, and do you
think in maybe 10 years this
won't even be an issue anymore?
>> I'll be the first one to
admit, and I think the CEO and
the CTO will be the first one to
admit, we did GMO wrong.
The way we communicated about
what GMOs were, the safety of
them.
We kind of drove behind the idea
that science would pave the way.
If we did the right science and
we showed the right data, that
everyone would believe it, it'd
be the right thing.
And what we didn't do is we
didn't ask people, what do you
think?
How do you feel?
What are you concerned about?
And in all honesty, I think if
you talk to anybody at Monsanto
today, they'll be the first ones
to stand up and say, yeah, we
did it completely wrong.
BST was the same era.
I think, in general, we have
taken a much different approach.
It's one of the reasons why I'm
here.
It's one of the reasons why we
promote the GMOanswers.com
because it's an area where you
can actually ask those questions
and get those answers.
So we want to know how you feel.
We're going to do our best.
We can't convince you, I know
we're talking a lot about GM and
I think everyone on the panel
here will be the first one, GMOs
are not the only tool in the
toolbox.
Agriculture is a massive system.
>> That's the thing.
>> And we can't necessarily
close our eyes to any one tool.
We have to be able to use all of
them because we don't know which
one is going to work.
But we also don't want to put
all our eggs in one basket.
GMOs are not going to be the
answer to everything.
I work for a GMO company, I'll
be the first one to tell you if
we put all of our eggs in the
GMO basket, we'd be out of
business.
We have a lot of different
things.
We're looking at this as a total
package.
So we look at the environment.
We look at the soils.
We look at how we plant that
seed, where we plant that seed,
what we plant the seed with,
what the growers challenges are
from diseases and pests.
It is a very big system, and GM
is one portion of that.
And it's actually a...
>> I think that's an excellent
question, and interestingly
enough though, I think, indeed,
Monsanto didn't do a very good
job with this.
The idea that, as we say, human
beings have concerns that are
legitimate and most of the time
by actually addressing them, you
help society as a whole.
And that's, I would say,
communication 101 for anything.
And as a professor here, if I
don't listen to the concern of
my students, most likely I'm
going to be a terrible
professor.
But going back to genetic
engineering, we need to remember
also that it's not only using
agriculture and consumers and
individuals as a whole have very
different types of reactions
depending on how you use the
technology.
For example, there's been an
overwhelming support of the
technology as used in medicine,
for example, to actually be able
to create some medicinal
products that could be used for
the welfare of society.
Whenever you talk about food
though, and I think Paul
mentioned that, whenever you
talk about ingesting something,
then all of us, we have a gut
reaction to be concerned.
And I think legitimately so and
there are potentially other
concerns.
So Monsanto, maybe because of
historically being a chemical
company, I would say, and not
really a company that was
involved in agriculture as other
companies were, such as Pioneer,
Syngenta, and such, may have
misunderstood that that's a
legitimate concern that may be
raised and been able to actually
listen to those in a very
productive way.
>> Let's try to get these two
questions, and if we can keep
the answers crisp, we can get
them both.
Yes, go ahead.
>> All right, so when I look at
agriculture and sustainability
today, the thing that concerns
me most is looking at water
availability.
And I know you said you farmed
in the Central Sands, so
normally you don't think of
Wisconsin as a water-stressed
area, but I suppose that would
probably be the most
water-stressed part of the
state, is it not?
>> No it's not.
>> As far as the soil retention
or the water retention in the
soil?
>> Yeah.
I'll let you finish your
question, sorry.
>> This isn't necessarily have
to be limited to GM products,
but how would drought
resistance, as in are GM traits,
how soon would that potentially
be on the market, and what are
other practices that are
potentially being used now or
being developed to help reduce
water consumption?
>> So the first GM drought trait
went out last year.
Actually, it was in tests even
the year before that.
There's been non-GM drought
breeding for a very, very long
time.
And if you look at last year's
yields, in particular, that same
drought in the 1980s, I think,
produced on average somewhere
around, I don't know, 50 to 80
bushels an acre.
I think our average last year
was closer to 120 to 140.
so the drought breeding itself,
not just the GM, but the drought
breeding itself conventionally
has helped out immensely with
that stress, and it will
continue to do that.
>> Yeah, and that's certainly,
we don't consider drought
resistance, but water and
nutrient efficiency.
Potatoes are a perfect example
of a crop that's really pretty
terrible at both of those.
And there are a lot of crops
that way, and we think there's a
lot of opportunities because
there certainly are varieties of
many of those crops.
Potatoes, for example, there are
something like 2,000 or 3,000
varieties of potatoes of which
we might grow 50 in the US.
So there are lots of
opportunities through both
traditional and GM breeding
processes that might bring some
potential there.
But again, the GM processes you
said was about 13 years.
The traditional breeding process
to do that same thing is
probably 20, 30, 40 years.
So it's a slow process.
But it's a huge concern for all
of us.
>> And then on top of that there
are precision agricultural
approaches.
So ways to image crops and make
targeted inputs rather than just
giving an average input to a
field.
And we're going to see a lot of
advancements in that area really
rapidly now, I believe.
Last question.
>> I kind of have, like, three.
[LAUGHTER]
>> Pick the most pressing.
>> Okay.
Do we actually need GMOs?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
>> Wow.
>> It depends of the outcome you
try to achieve.
So people from international
perspective, if you want to
insure food security, for
example, by the means we have
now, people might actually
conclude that we do because as
far as the toolbox that we have,
for example, to have simple
crops in Africa in which we feed
people, then we do.
If the goal is something else,
it's to move towards a more
organic type of farming in the
United States, then no.
So, really, there's not a no or
yes answer to your question.
It's really depending what's the
outcome.
As a society, what are the cost
benefits of whatever path we
choose.
>> I would go back to my first
slide about, really, diversity
as it relates to resilience.
I would argue that GMO traits
may not be best suited for
Africa because you're looking at
the requirement of overlaying
additional inputs that within
the instability in the region
you may actually be compromising
resilience or yield because of
the reliance on the pesticides
and the herbicides on that crop.
But to not, as Travis said, we
were looking at multiple, or
maybe it was Andy, toolbox.
I think it's dangerous to say
definitively yes or no we don't
need it versus to overall look
at diversifying agricultural
approaches and supporting
diversity, whether it be through
regulatory or economic or other
means, but, really, supporting
diversity is key.
>> If you look on our farm right
now, no.
We could produce the same amount
of product we produce given our
inputs with non-GMO products,
certainly.
If you want me to go back to the
previous question and try to do
that 10 years from now with half
as much water, then yes.
If it's going to be that soon,
yeah, I probably do need some
GMO help to do that.
There are ways to do that over
the longer term, and there are
things we can do short term.
We can deficit irrigate certain
crops, but some crops, like
potatoes, you can't do that.
We can deficit irrigate corn and
soybeans, if we're careful
about it.
We're learning through our UW
work.
But, again, it's no yes or no
answer there.
>> Yeah, it's a depends.
The papaya example was a great
example that, yes, GM is
necessary.
If you want to find a resistance
in the native papaya for the
disease, it doesn't exist.
So the only way to do it is with
GM.
So, yeah, it really just
depends.
I think what we've done so far
is we've tried to use it where
it's beneficial.
And the areas where it's not, it
hasn't really been used.
>> Paul, last thoughts from you?
>> Oh, I don't have any last
thoughts except having watched
this debate unfold both in the
United States and
internationally over the last 30
years, it is strange how much it
reminds me of the climate change
debate but in a kind of strange
fun house mirror about trust in
science and lack of trust in
science.
Many people who trust climate
science don't trust the GMO
science, and there's question
about the relationship between
these systems and regulation and
corporate power.
And I think it's a very
interesting thing to watch
unfold in the larger
environmental context and see
what happens.
>> Well, that was a great last
question, actually And I can see
there's a lot of interest in
this topic, so I wanted to just
let you know about some
additional resources.
The GMO answers has a website,
and, Travis, we moved those
brochures to the table just
outside of the room.
Erin made reference to the
USDA's national organic program
and what's permitted and what's
not, and that information is
there.
And Dominique, just briefly, can
you tell us what's the idea for
this National Academy effort to
look at genetically engineered
crops.
>> Yeah, so, basically, the
National Academy of Sciences
have charged 18 of us, an
interdisciplinary committee to
look at the available science
that could basically tell us in
2014 what can we conclude about
genetic engineering.
They have asked us particularly
to look at not only the
environment and health and the
types of concerns we talked
about today but also put that in
a broader perspective including
international focus.
So exciting but daunting.
It's going to be a two-year
process with a lot of public
input.
We already had public meetings
in DC.
This is going to go on for two
years.
I strongly suggest for all of
you to look at that website.
Put your comments, you want to
participate in the debate,
that's what we want to have as
many perspectives as possible.
At this point, we are at the
information gathering stage by
gathering all the scientific
studies that we may have found
on all the topics that are
important to take into account.
So hopefully a lot of people
will be involved in the
discussion.
>> So there's already a lot of
information at the site.
Although, it won't conclude
until 2016.
So I want to thank you for being
a great audience.
These are terrific questions,
and I appreciate the engagement
and your interest in the topic.
I also want to thank my
co-moderator, Paul Robbins, and
all of our panelists for
bringing a lot to the
discussion.
Thank you very much.
[APPLAUSE]