As readers of Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology appreciate, I have written a great deal about the looming World population growth, and the challenges we will confront in feeding the World’s population over the next 40 years.

Recently, the scientific journal, Nature, published an excellent series of articles about this topic (July 29 issue).  This is noteworthy because Nature is the preeminent scientific journal in the World.  It is telling that the leading life science journal in the World focused much of the July 29 issue on this topic.

In the Editorial in this issue, How to Feed a Hungry World, several important issues are presented that must be overcome if we are to produce and distribute sufficient food to feed the projected population of the World in 2050, about 10 billion people (the current World population is approximately 6.9 billion).

The challenges that lie ahead include:

1.  The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has gone on record as saying that the task of feeding the World’s population in 2050 is “easily possible”.  I find this hard to agree with unless there is large-scale transition of tropical forests and “wildlands”, largely in South America and Africa, to production agriculture.  Doing this comes with a cost that I don’t think many support, not the least of which is the availability of water for animal and crop production, and the destruction of wildlife habitat.  Now what?  The only feasible approach is to increase food production efficiency (for additional information please see my earlier blog Feeding the World and Defending Agricultural Science).

2.  The Editorial champions the idea that that a second Green Revolution is needed. At the core of this recommendation is the urgent need to increase the investment in agricultural science research, which in most countries, including the United States, has been falling since the late 1970s.  There is a pressing need for new crop varieties that produce higher yields per acre, use less water, fertilizer and other inputs.  On the animal “side”, developing and adopting biotechnologies that improve productive efficiency are needed.  The new crop varieties will largely arise from advances made in the application of biotechnology to produce subsequent generations of genetically modified (GM) crops…and these will need to be approved and adopted for use in a timely manner by society.  To date, that has been a daunting challenge.

3.  Science and technology will be important to solve the problem of feeding the World’s population; however, they are not the sole solution.  There are countless contemporary biotechnologies and technologies “on the shelf” that could enhance food productivity and productive efficiency, if implemented, in developing countries, and help reduce the incidence of hunger in the World.  However, this requires money, and raises the question of who is going to pay (see:  The Food System and Feeding the World)?

The Editorial in Nature points out that the FAO has estimated that funding invested in the food system in the developing World must double to about $83 billion a year to meet the  “2050 challenge”.  And, most of this needs to go to improving infrastructure of the food system from production to transportation, as well as storage and processing.

4.  The Editorial also presents the provocative point that countries that pay their farmers subsidies make it difficult for farmers in developing countries to gain a foothold in World markets.  One example that illustrates the magnitude of this problem is that countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development pay subsidies to their farmers that total about $1 billion a day! Solving this will be challenging especially since politicians in many countries are strong advocates for supporting subsidies to farmers (it seems to help them in re-election campaigns).

Back to the “now what” question.  There is a pressing need to launch the second green revolution.  Science will be a core piece of this; however, to position the global village to successfully feed the World’s population by 2050 it will be necessary to develop a strategy that integrates not only scientists and farmers, but also ecologists, economists, food systems experts, social scientists as well as policy makers.  And, over-turning some arcane policy decisions (i.e., farmer subsidies in developed countries) that need to be junked.

This morning, at home over breakfast, I opened the Wall Street Journal.  And, page A15 “popped” open.  What caught my attention was the article EU Extends ‘Frankenfood’ Fight, Nears Ban on Farm-Animal Clones.  The purpose of the story was to convey that the European Union (EU) had moved a big step closer toward a ban on cloning farm animals and a prohibition of imports of cloned livestock and their meat and milk.

The EU decision is silly, and is not based on a shred of scientific evidence.  I have written previously about the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conclusion that “….the available data has not identified any food consumption risks or subtle hazards in healthy clones of cattle, swine, or goats.”  The “key” take-home message is that cloning is safe.

What elevated my blood pressure was the use of the word ‘Frankenfood’.  I continue to be mystified why a reputable journalist elected to use this word.  It slanders the scientific evidence base in support of animal cloning, and clearly sets a biased tone for the story.  This serves no one well, and is just a continuation of inappropriate “word play” that attacks some remarkable scientific accomplishments.  It is, simply, unfair!

I am hoping that when I open the paper in the near future that I see an apology from the journalist.  However, I wouldn’t bet on that happening.

Notice anything different between the two salmon in the image above?  The salmon are the same age–the difference is the larger fish is transgenic, and has a much faster growth rate, which is due to the presence the Chinook growth hormone gene (more about this later)!

For 15 years, the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) at FDA has been evaluating reams of data about the safety and efficacy of transgenic salmon produced by AquaBounty Technologies, Incorporated, located in Waltham, MA.  You might wonder why so long?  Especially when, in my opinion, it is clear there are no significant questions of human food safety surrounding the food from fish grown with AquAdvantage salmon eggs, nor are there any question of material difference between fish grown from genetically enhanced salmon eggs and conventionally bred and born salmon, or between farm-raised salmon and those sold as “wild-caught” fish.

In my 35+ years as a scientist, I cannot remember a CVM application that has pended as long as that of AquaBounty.  This product has been before the Center for more than 15 years. Nor can I recall a CVM review that has been as comprehensive and rigorous as that given to AquAdvantage salmon eggs.  However, this review has gone much, much longer than needed.  Much of this delay relates to the quagmire arising from politics, activist groups doing their best to misrepresent the science (and scare consumers and politicians – you have heard this “one” before), and the inherent risk adverse nature of the FDA scientific review process.

The Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee (VMAC) is an FDA/Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) advisory panel which has as its sole purpose to review the science underlying and the center’s review of an application under the New Animal Drug approval (NADA) approval process.  Their most recent meeting to review Aquabounty salmon was held on September 19 and 20, 2010.  My sense is that the fish will be approved in the near future, which will be an important milestone for animal biotechnology.

The recent FDA/VMAC review again prompted the usual response from activist groups that oppose the approval of transgenic salmon, and all other food biotechnologies.  My blog will present the facts about transgenic salmon, based on science, to provide a factually-based context for my opinion, and that of many other scientists, that Aquabounty salmon should be approved by FDA.

Background

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering approval of AquAdvantage® Atlantic salmon eggs. These eggs include a gene from the Chinook salmon (my “beloved” growth hormone or somatotropin gene) that provides the fish with the potential to grow to market size in half the time of conventional salmon. This fish would be the first food from a transgenic animal application approved by the FDA.

The FDA must provide premarket approval and examine the environmental impact of any genetically engineered (GE) food animal before it can be made available commercially. Extensive study is required before approval. The FDA will only approve food from GE animals that are safe to eat. The agency’s food safety evaluation looks at the same information recommended by the Codex Alimentarius.

GE animals are regulated under the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The elements of this approval process include:

• Product definition;
• Molecular characterization of both the recombinant DNA (rDNA) aspect of the animal and its lineage;
• Comprehensive data on the characteristics of the animal and its health;
• Safety for human consumption;
• Demonstration of effectiveness (label claim); and
• Environmental impact.

Aquaculture Facts
Aquaculture, or fish farming, has increasingly stepped in to fill the gap where capture fishing fails to meet consumer demand. Largely dominated by Asia, the aquaculture industry grew dramatically for decades but recently has begun recently to moderate.

• Capture fishery production stopped growing in the mid 1980s. Even as consumer demand continues to rise, fisheries worldwide are on the verge of collapse, largely due to overfishing. Overall, 80 percent of world fish stocks are already fully exploited or over-exploited.
• Aquaculture currently provides 47 percent of fish consumed worldwide.
• Over the past 50 years, world aquaculture grew dramatically, from 1 million tons in the early 1950s to 51.7 million tons in 2006 – making it a $78.8 billion industry.
• Aquaculture has maintained an annual growth rate of 8.7 percent worldwide (excluding China) since 1970.

Benefits of Land-Based Aquaculture Systems
Consumer Benefits

Is there a need for a faster-growing fish?
By 2020, the global demand for animal protein is projected to be 20 million tons per year. AquAdvantage® eggs will help address the need for healthy protein by producing more fish in less time compared to current salmon farming techniques. AquAdvantage® Salmon can be grown in contained facilities, which offer environmental advantages compared to historical cultivation methods.

Don’t consumers already have enough salmon?
Salmon is a popular seafood choice, not only for taste, but for the well-documented health benefits. This has increased demand for farmed and wild salmon products that the industry and capture fisheries will not be able to meet.

Are farmed salmon a healthy alternative to wild salmon?
Atlantic salmon is a great source of heart healthy Omega-3 fatty acids. AquAdvantage® eggs are designed for growth in land-based salmon hatcheries that will provide high-quality facility management and control. There is a lower likelihood for the introduction and spread of disease, and a corresponding reduction in the need for disease treatment. In addition, contrary to unsubstantiated claims disseminated by opponents of this Atlantic salmon is a great source of heart healthy Omega-3 fatty acids. AquAdvantage® eggs are designed for growth in land-based salmon hatcheries that will provide high-quality facility management and control.

Environmental Benefits

Can fast-growing salmon help reduce pressures on dwindling wild fisheries?
Many of the world’s fisheries are in distress or in danger of collapse. A 2006 study published in Science predicted the loss of all commercially captured species of fish by 2048 if current fishing practices are maintained. Yet overfishing continues as the demand for seafood increases. The vast majority of Atlantic salmon sold in the U.S. is farmed. Many American wild salmon populations are in steep decline, so much so that commercial fishing runs in West Coast have been closed several times. With closures in early 2009, salmon fishermen lost their livelihood for the second season in a row and the price of wild salmon soared as a result of shortened supply. By providing a ready source of faster-growing fish, salmon grown from AquAdvantage® eggs can help reduce pressure on wild fish stocks.

Won’t the demand for salmon food offset any protection of wild fish stocks?
Accelerated growth means shorter production cycles and more efficient use of feed. The feed conversion rate (i.e. feed efficiency) for AquAdvantage® Salmon is approximately 10% better than other farmed salmon. In addition, there are emerging technologies in the salmon feed industry that use more sustainable foodstuffs for salmon feeds thereby reducing the amount of fishmeal and fish oil used.

Does this fish have any impact on carbon emissions?
Because fresh and frozen fish are flown to markets all over the world, seafood has a large carbon footprint. AquAdvantage® Salmon are designed for on-shore facilities that can be built closer to consumers to reduce the need for energy-intensive shipping and transportation.

Isn’t fish farming bad for the environment?
The contained, land-based systems used by customers of AquAdvantage® eggs are endorsed by most environmental groups as a more environmentally friendly and responsible alternative to traditional sea-cage farming of salmon.

Won’t the fish escape and breed with native populations?
Fish grown from AquAdvantage® eggs are all female and sterile, making it impossible for them to breed amongst themselves. In addition, FDA approval requires them to be grown in physically contained systems, further reducing any potential impact on wild populations.

Business Benefits

How do aquaculture producers benefit?
Faster growth and greater efficiency mean a more efficient use of capital, reduced feed costs and less time to market. Better economics makes interest in land-based culture feasible, which leads to better biosecurity, reduced disease risk and the opportunity to grow salmon closer to markets.

How do restaurants benefit?
The majority of seafood consumed in the U.S. is in restaurants. The AquAdvantage® Salmon developed by AquaBounty will help increase supply to satisfy growing demand with a dependable, high quality product.

American Economic Growth
Aquaculture provides opportunities for U.S. jobs. Today the U.S. imports over 97% of the Atlantic salmon sold to consumers. The introduction of land-based salmon farms in the U.S. would spur investment into this industry in the United States.

Increasing agriculture productivity to meet growing global demand for food must be accompanied by an intense, innovative effort to enhance the environmental imprint of farming to be sustainable.

“We face the daunting challenge of nearly doubling agriculture production to meet the demands of the estimated 9 billion people expected by 2050,” said DuPont Executive Vice President James C.Borel. “Success in this endeavor will require new and sustained levels of innovation, such as improvements in drought tolerance, to increase productivity of the global food supply without increasing the stress upon our natural resources or the environment.

“Drought tolerance technologies are part of the next great wave of agricultural innovation that will improve agronomic characteristics of plants so they more efficiently use available resources,” said Borel. “They will further empower farmers with better product choices to meet growing demand while reducing their environmental footprint.”

Many environmental factors can reduce agriculture productivity, but drought is by far the most damaging. In 2009 alone, drought cost farmers $14 billion worldwide. Eighty-five percent of the U.S. corn crop is affected by drought stress at some time during the growing season each year, and just four days of severe drought stress during the peak of summer can cut yields in half.

Giorgio Fidenato has made a habit of carrying a raw ear of yellow corn and taking a hearty bite whenever a camera is in sight.

It’s a provocation. The Italian farmer’s corn is genetically modified, grown surreptitiously in fields in the northeast not far from the Austrian and Slovene borders.

“Our biggest goal is to show consumers that it is safe to eat,” said the 49-year-old advocate of what’s known as genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

More activist than farmer, Fidenato’s cultivation of nearly 5 hectares, or 12 acres, of genetically modified corn is a rogue act aimed at forcing the legalization of genetically engineered crops in Italy. He waxes on about their benefits: They require fewer chemicals and produce higher yields and greater profits.

Fidenato faces formidable opposition in Italy. His opponents are angry, organized and, in some cases, equally prepared to take the law into their own hands. Unlike Americans, the vast majority of Europeans are staunchly against the marketing of genetically modified foods.

Arrayed against Fidenato are agriculture officials, who put a moratorium on genetically modified seeds in March, the country’s main farm lobby, consumer groups, environmentalists and anti-globalization protesters.

“Violating the law to get the debate going is a very dangerous precedent,” said Roberto Burdese, president of Slow Food Italy, one of 20 organizations that have banded together to keep genetically modified food out of the country.

The European Commission announced in July a proposal that would allow the 27 member states to have the final word on whether to allow cultivation of genetically altered food within their own borders. That would likely lead to more bans because countries would no longer be required to back up their rulings with new scientific data.

The announcement was bad news for Fidenato, though by then his corn was knee-high.

The genetically modified corn, produced by St. Louis-based Monsanto, was the only genetically modified seed authorized for commercial cultivation in Europe until March, when a potato seed sold by the German company BASF was approved. Besides the moratorium in Italy, the seed has been banned in at least six countries, including France, Germany and Austria.

Tired of legal battles, Fidenato planted the corn on April 25, Italy’s national Liberation day. He posted a video on YouTube showing him planting six seeds, but he didn’t disclose that he had in fact planted two fields. That only came out when anonymous letters containing pieces of the plants reached prosecutors in July, raising opponents’ suspicions that there could still be others. He won’t say where he got the seeds.

Word spread about the crop, and on Aug. 9 about 70 anti-GMO activists wearing chemical protection suits trampled nearly an acre of corn to the ground.

“The pity is they should have waited 10 days, and it would have been ready to make polenta,” Fidenato said, referring to the corn meal that is a dietary mainstay in northern Italy.

The leader of the corn bandits, astrophysicist Luca Tornatore, argued there is enough uncertainty surrounding the health and environmental risks posed by GMOs to make them undesirable.

Tornatore said his group grew frustrated that prosecutors, who have sequestered the fields, had not destroyed the crops despite a 2001 Italian law that forbids their cultivation.

The protesters also would like to destroy the 4 1/2 hectares Fidenato has planted in another town, but “we don’t know where it is,” Tornatore acknowledged.

Fidenato responded that genetically modified corn has been legal in Italy since it was added to the European Union’s catalog of authorized crops 12 years ago. And he pointed to a decision by an administrative court in Rome, which ruled that the agriculture ministry cannot decline to authorize the seeds out of caution.

The ruling resulted from a three-year court battle waged by Silvano Dalla Libera, a neighboring farmer in the northeastern region of Friuli, where Fidenato’s fields are located.

The former agriculture minister, Luca Zaia, along with the health and environment ministers, responded to the administrative decision by putting a moratorium on GMOs in March. There was a risk nearby fields could be contaminated, they said.

“To stop me, one poor farmer, three ministries mobilized,” Dalla Libera said with a hint of pride.

Fidenato began farming when he was 12 and now has about 70 acres. He became persuaded of the merits of genetically altered crops during a trip to the United States in the 1990s and helped found Futuragra, a group of farmers fighting for GMOs.

By planting the corn, he risks up to three years in jail and a fine of euro50,000.

Fidenato said he’s not bothered by the threat of prosecution. Futuragra has been in touch with farmers in Spain, which has the highest concentration of genetically modified corn in Europe, and France, where it has been banned, to press the battle.

“If they don’t understand it is an EU right, that we don’t need authorization, then I have farmers in the entire Po River valley, from Piedmont to Veneto, who will plant GMO corn,” Fidenato said.

_____

Original release can be found at:  http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HLUEBO0.htm

News media has a tendency to portray certain aspects of agricultural production either positively or negatively. Doug Powell, an associate professor of food safety at Kansas State University co-authored a paper on “Coverage of organic agriculture in North American newspapers: Media – linking food safety, the environment, human health and organic agriculture,” just published in the British Food Journal.

Powell examined how organic food production is portrayed in the media. The paper is based on a study Powell conducted from 1999-2004 with two colleagues at the University of Guelph in Canada, Stacey Cahill and Katija Morley. Cahill was one of Powell’s students at the time. The team explored how topics of organic food and agriculture were discussed in five North American newspapers. Using the content analysis technique, the 618 articles collected were analyzed for topic, tone and theme regarding food safety, environmental concerns and human health.

The authors concluded that articles about organic production in the selected time period were seldom negative. Organic agriculture was often portrayed in the media as an alternative to allegedly unsafe and environmentally damaging modern agriculture practices. That means organic was being defined by what it isn’t, rather than what it is, noted the authors.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has repeatedly stated that the organic standard is a verification of production methods and not a food safety claim, says Powell. “Food safety was the least important in the media discussion of organic agriculture,” he says.”  The paper reported that 50% of food safety-themed statements in news articles were positive with respect to organic.

People have many choices on the type of foods they want to purchase based on many diverse production systems. USDA has measures in place to ensure that food produced from these various systems is safe to eat. There are challenges and benefits with any production system, and the media should be presenting a balanced view about this topic to readers.

I never cease to be amazed at the political process in Europe that keeps hindering adoption of safe and effective ag biotechnologies.  The latest folly occurred on July 7, 2010 when Members of the European Parliament (MEP) renewed their appeal for a ban on food from cloned animals when they voted on novel foods legislation.  At this time, there are no European Union (EU) rules to specifically allow or ban dairy products and meat from cloned animals.  While the Commission and Council wanted to have cloned meat covered by novel food rules that are already in place, MEPs instead called for new legislation to expressly prohibit the sale of meat from cloned animals and their descendants.

This decision is astonishing given that in July 2008 the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) announced its final scientific opinion that food from cloned cattle and pigs is safe, and there are no implications of animal cloning on the environment!

As I have written in previous blogs, this is another EU decision that is based on politics not science – more of the Luddites at the Gate phenomena that I have written about previously!

The decision the EU has reached is contrary to that reached by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  Based on a risk assessment “Animal Cloning:  A Risk Assessment“, a report written by FDA scientists and issued in January 2008, FDA concluded that meat and milk from cow, pig, and goat clones and the offspring of any animal clones are as safe as food we eat every day.

The FDA Risk Assessment was based on an extensive evaluation of the available data that did not identify any evidence of any subtle hazards that might indicate food consumption risks in healthy clones of cattle, swine, or goats.

The idea that a trade dispute could ensue arises from the reality that the EU and the U.S. have reached opposite decisions about the safety of food from cloned animals.

The regulatory (and political) problem the EU is confronted with is that there is no way to identify a cloned animal or meat from a cloned animal by any laboratory assay!  Thus, it is not possible to verify whether meat of semen imported into the EU from the U.S. is from cloned animals!  The only way the Europeans can “verify” is to simply ban imports of all meat animal foods and semen from the United States.  If this decision is made by the EU, then the likelihood of a trade dispute escalates dramatically, and the trade war is launched!

“Effectively what that means is we’ve voted for a complete ban,” said Stevenson. “You can imagine this could trigger a trade war. I remember the banana war and the problems that caused, this could be 100 times bigger.”

The EU currently imports nearly £2 billion ($3.1 billion) of bovine meat and £30 million of semen from the U.S. every year.

An interesting news release from Europe came across my desk.  A group of farmers from Spain, Portugal and Romania traveled to Brussels, Belgium to convey to the European Commission that they are upset that they can not us genetically modified (GM) crops.  They urged that laws be passed to enable them to plant GM crops!

The press release follows with a link to the full report in Spanish.

Brussels, Belgium, July 13, 2010 — Farmers from Spain, Romania and Portugal presented to the members of the parliament (MPs) and representatives of the European Commission (EC) in Brussels a manifesto stating that “Biotechnology, a Tool for Agro-Food cannot be Ignored”. The manifesto points out that the rejection (by the EC) of positions and decisions about GM crops are not based in science. The report goes on to underscore that the safety of GM crops is guaranteed by the strictest and independent scientific assessment.

The  farmers pointed out that previous decisions made to not approve GM in Europe is unfair with respect to agricultural production.  The group called for scientifically-based decisions so as not to discriminate against farmers who want to grow GM crops. Spanish farmers also have attested their experiences in planting GM crops saying that the cultivation of transgenic corn yields more in a cost-effective way with higher quality and using less resource. These technologies which are available in other parts of the world should be enjoyed by other farmers in the European Union.

See the full report in Spanish at:

http://fundacion-antama.org/consumidores-cientificos-agricultores-y-empresas-espanolas-piden-en-bruselas-un-acceso-mas-justo-a-los-cultivos-transgenicos-y-tecnologicos/.

Proponents of organic foods have touted many health, nutrition and safety benefits associated with the consumption of these foods.  However, credible science does not support the health, nutrition or safety claims made by the organic food industry (see Science Behind Reported Benefits of Organic Milk).  As might be expected, this has been vigorously disputed by advocates of organic food.  This is not a surprise given that deceptive use of marketing and health claims has been a core component of some campaigns to grow market share in the organic food sector.  Thus, some consumers are purchasing organic food on the belief that they are healthier than conventionally produced food.

An important reality is that the organic food system is one food production practice. If consumers elect to purchase this food, which is typically more expensive, so be it.  However, the marketing campaigns commonly used to market organic foods are to malign science and raise questions about nutrient content, health benefits and safety of conventionally produced food.  To date, these campaigns have not been based on sound science demonstrating that there are nutrition and health benefits associated with the consumption of organic foods that extend beyond those found in conventionally produced food.  In essence, there has been an element of “smoke and mirrors” used in these marketing efforts.

A recently published systematic review provides further evidence that there is no basis for the claims that consuming organic food is associated with any health benefits.  An extensive review of the scientific literature published in the July 2010 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concludes that “evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects that result from consumption of organically produced foodstuffs”; see: Nutrition-Related Health Effects of Organic Foods – A Systematic Review.

As some context, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN) is viewed by many nutritional scientists as the foremost clinical nutrition journal in the World.  My point?  It is a highly reputable journal that publishes the very best science.

The authors of the AJCN paper reviewed a total of 98,727 papers that were published in the scientific literature, world-wide, to identify quality papers that were appropriate for analysis.  Only 12 papers met the “quality standards” for inclusion in the analysis.  Some could argue that this is a not a lot of data, however, rigorous standards were used to assess publication quality.  The paucity of data is surprising given the interest from the public about the question of whether there are health benefits associated with the consumption of organic food.  This also reaffirms the reality that the health claims made by some in the organic food sector are being made in a manner that is not based on sound science.

Reader of my blog appreciate that I have been engaged in an effort to increase public understanding about science in society, and the need for biotechnology to be a key part of future solutions to feed the world.  An integral part of this communication effort has been to provide sound, science-based information to counter the misinformation that is on the web about the safety and efficacy of ag biotechnology.

One valuable source of unbiased information about consumer perceptions of ag (both plant and animal) biotechnology is the International Food Information Council.  The 2010 survey results have just been released.  When the last IFIC survey was released in 2008, I summarized the findings (see:  Survey Shows Continued Strong Support for Agricultural Biotechnology).  The 2010 IFIC Consumer Perceptions of Food Biotechnology survey presents interesting and postive evidence that consumer’s continue to support food biotechnology.

(WASHINGTON, DC) The International Food Information Council (IFIC) 2010 “Consumer Perceptions of Food Technology” survey found that consumers support the use of food biotechnology when they consider its potential benefits for reducing the impact of food and food production on the environment, and for improving sustainability.

The 14^th IFIC Food Technology Consumer Survey (formerly the IFIC Survey of Consumer Attitudinal Trends toward Food Biotechnology) explored U.S. consumers’ perceptions of various aspects of plant and animal biotechnology, as well as sustainability and new and emerging technologies such as nanotechnology. This year, consumers responded most positively to benefits of biotechnology for the environment and sustainability. For example, more than three-quarters (77%) of consumers would be likely to purchase foods produced through biotechnology for their ability to reduce pesticide use (consistent from 2008), and 80% of consumers said they would be likely to purchase bread, crackers, cookies, cereal, or pasta products containing wheat that was grown using plant biotechnology if they were produced using sustainable practices to feed more people using fewer resources such as land and pesticides (new question in 2010). While products containing wheat grown using biotechnology are still up to a decade away from being commercially available, these data indicate a receptive audience to such products if they are produced through sustainable practices.

“These results suggest that the importance of the impact of food production on the environment is here to stay for consumers,” said Marianne Smith Edge, MS, RD, LD, FADA, IFIC’s Interim Vice President, Nutrition and Food Safety.  “Over the last several years we’ve seen the overall awareness of sustainability and environmental issues continue to grow.”

Awareness & Perceptions of Sustainability in Food Production

Half of consumers (50%) have heard or read at least “a little” about the concept of sustainability in food production. This is a significant increase from 2008, when only four in ten (41%) had read or heard anything about sustainability in food production, and 2007, when only three in ten (30%) had heard or read anything about sustainability in food production.

With the increased focus by Americans on reducing environmental impact, we see that those aspects of sustainable crop production benefiting the environment resonate most with consumers.  When asked to rank aspects of sustainable crop production (from a list of options) in order of importance, consumers’ top three are:

• “Growing more food on less land so valuable land like rain forests is not destroyed/used as growing space for increased food production.” (69%)
• “Reducing the amount of pesticides needed to produce food.” (65 %)
• “Plants that use water more efficiently, thereby conserving fresh water to help cope with predicted droughts and water shortages.” (62%)

Other Survey Findings

Confidence in the Food Supply: Seven in ten consumers (69%) are somewhat or very confident in the safety of the U.S. food supply.

Labeling: The majority of consumers (82%) cannot think of additional information they would like to see on food labels. More than sixty percent of consumers (63%) agree with the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) food labeling policy, which requires food products to be labeled when use of biotechnology substantially changes the food’s nutritional content (such as vitamins or fat) or its composition, or when a potential food safety issue is identified. Only 12 percent oppose, and 24% neither support nor oppose the policy.

Perceptions of Food Biotechnology: About seven in ten Americans (69%) say they have heard or read at least “a little” about biotechnology, steady from previous years. Significantly more consumers believe there are foods produced through biotechnology in the supermarket now (28%) compared with 2008 (23%), although these consumers are still the minority.

The majority of consumers are somewhat or very likely to purchase a variety of produce, such as tomatoes or potatoes, modified by biotechnology to provide more healthful fats like omega-3 fatty acids (76%); to avoid trans fat (74%); or to make them taste better/fresher (67%).

Impressions of Plant Biotechnology: About one-third (32%) are somewhat or very favorable toward plant biotechnology, with about two in ten (19%) somewhat or very unfavorable and about three in ten (29%) neither favorable nor unfavorable.

Impressions of Animal Biotechnology: About three in ten (29%) Americans are somewhat or very favorable toward animal biotechnology, while slightly more than one-quarter (27%) are somewhat or very unfavorable, and about one-quarter (24%) are neither favorable nor unfavorable.

Interestingly, the majority of consumers who are either unfavorable or neutral in their views toward animal biotechnology cited “I don’t have enough information” about animal biotechnology (55%) and/or “I don’t understand the benefits of using biotechnology with animals” (39%) as their reason(s) for being unfavorable or neutral.

To view previous Survey findings, visit the International Food Information Council Foundation Web site: http://www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=Consumer_Insights_Regarding_Food_Biotechnology