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]