1. No category

“The use of GMOs in the dairy industry,
and implications for mandatory GE
process-based labeling”
Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D.
Cooperative Extension Specialist
Animal Biotechnology and Genomics
Department of Animal Science
University of California, Davis, USA
(530) 752-7942
Twitter: @Biobeef
[email protected]
http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/animalbiotech Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
http://weknowmemes.com/2012/07/dont-believe-everything-you-read-on-the-internet
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
Outline
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
“What is a GMO (Genetically modified Organism)?”
How widely are GE crops grown globally and in US?
Where is GE used in livestock production?
Performance trends of US livestock populations
Extent of GE animal feed in global trading markets
Push for the labeling of animals that have not eaten GE
feedstuffs
Sources of livestock fed non-GE feed
Implications of pushing for livestock fed on “GMO-free”
diets, and sources of this feed for US animals that are
being raised to satisfy that market
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
I do not like the term genetically
modified or GMO – because it is
ambiguous as to what “modified” means
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Biotechnology and Genomics Education
I prefer the term genetic engineering
(GE) as it means something specific
•
The USDA’s current definition of genetic engineering is
“manipulation of an organism’s genes by introducing,
eliminating or rearranging specific genes using the
methods of modern molecular biology, particularly those
techniques referred to as recombinant DNA (rDNA)
techniques.”
•
Also known as genetically modified, GM, GMO,
transgenic, bioengineered, biotech, made with modern
biotechnology, frankenfood
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Biotechnology and Genomics Education
Where is GE used in the dairy industry?
GE products are used in animal feed, vaccines (chickens, pigs,
horses, dogs, cats), pharmaceuticals, food processing aids, and food
GMO feed
rDNA vaccines
rBST
Currently
no GM
animals
in market
GMO food &
ingredients
GE rennet, and
other food
processing aids
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
Global Area of Genetically Engineered (GE) crops
Million hectares (1996-2013)
Source: Clive James, 2013 ISAAA Brief 46-2013
Source: Clive James, 2012 ISAAA Brief 44-2012
http://www.isaaa.org
Animal Genomics
and Biotechnology Education
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
What crops are GE in US?
 90% of all corn planted in U.S. was GE in 2013
 90% of all cotton planted in U.S. was GE in 2013
 93% of all soybeans planted in U.S. was GE in 2013
 95% of all sugar beet planted in U.S. was GE in 2013
Also canola, papaya, some squash, melons and sweetcorn
and an increasing acerage of GE alfalfa
NON-GE FEEDSTUFFS CURRENTLY INCLUDE
• Wheat
• Sorghum
• Oats
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
• Rice
• Millett
• Barley
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
Only rDNA-derived
seed varieties have
to go through
regulatory approval
Prado et al. 2014. Genetically engineered crops:
from idea to product. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 65:769-90
Summary statements of leading
science organizations regarding
safety of genetic engineering
•“No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such
foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”(World
Health Organization)
•“No adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in
the human population.” (National Academy of Sciences)
•“The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of
biotechnology is safe.” (American Association for the Advancement of Science)
•“There is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.
Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no
overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the
peer-reviewed literature.” (American Medical Association)
•“No scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for
food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.” (European Commission)
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Biotechnology and Genomics Education
Professional Scientific and/or Medical
bodies with an opinion on safety of GE
Generally Positive

















The U.S. National Research Council (NRC)
U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
The American Medical Association, (AMA)
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
European Food Safety authority (EFSA)
American Society for Plant Biology (ASPB)
Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS)
World Health Organization (WHO)
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
Royal Society (London)
Brazil National Academy of Science,
Chinese National Academy of Science
Indian National Academy of Science
Mexican Academy of Science
Third World Academy of Sciences
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Generally Negative


The American Academy of
Environmental Medicine (AAEM)*
The European Network of
Scientists for Social and
Environmental Responsibility
*Not recognized by the American
Board of Medical Specialties
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
Global livestock populations
have been eating predominately
GE feed for well over a decade
70-90% of harvested GE biomass is fed to
food producing animals
Flachowsky G, Schafft H, Meyer U: 2012 Animal feeding studies for nutritional and safety assessments of
feeds from genetically modified plants: a review. (Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety) :179–194.
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
There have been hundreds of animal
feeding studies using GE crops
. Flachowsky G, Schafft H, Meyer U: Animal feeding studies for nutritional and safety assessments of feeds
from genetically modified plants: a review. Journal fur Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (Journal
of Consumer Protection and Food Safety) 2012, 7:179–194.
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
FASS maintains a list of animal feeding
studies with GE crops; and transgenic
DNA and protein in livestock products
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=43
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Meta-analysis of long-term and
multigenerational animal feeding trials
•
•
Published long-term feeding studies using a GE-based diet ranged
from 110-728 days
The longest multigenerational study involved 10 generations.
• The authors concluded that none of the long-term or
multigenerational studies they evaluated revealed any new effect
that had not been found in the 90-d rodent toxicology study
“The studies reviewed present evidence to show that
GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their nonGM counterparts and can be safely used in food and
feed.”
Snell C, Bernheim A, Berge JB, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A, Ricroch AE. 2012. Assessment of the health impact
of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food Chem
Toxicol 50:1134–1148.
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
The majority of the more than 100 billion food
animals raised in the US between 2000-2011
consumed varying levels of GE feed.
Industrya
Broiler
U.S.b
105,426,000,000
Beef cattle
410,000,000
Dairy Cows
35,000,000
Hogs
105,000,000
Total
105,976,000,000
a
Numbers for broilers, hogs (barrows and gilts) and beef cattle (steers) are for slaughtered animals during calendar
year. Dairy animals are number of dairy cows in a calendar year divided by three to account for three lactations per
animal.
b
USDA: The USDA Economics, Statistics and Market Information System (ESMIS). 2013
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/homepage.do.
Van Eenennaam, A. L. and A. E. Young. 2014 . Journal of Animal Science. 92:4255-4278
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
Milk, beef, swine, and broiler production trends in US prior to and
subsequent to the introduction of GE crops in 1996
slope = 139.9 Average milk yield (kg/cow)
Average beef cattle slaughter weight (kg/steer)
slope = 148.6 slope = 2.1
slope = 2.73 Average broiler slaughter weight (kg/broiler)
slope = 0.558 slope = 0.322
Average hog slaughter weight (kg/pig)
slope = 0.458 slope = 0.202 Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Van Eenennaam, A. L. and A. E. Young. 2014 . Journal of Animal Science. 92:4255-4278
Milk production statistics and somatic cell counts in US prior to and
subsequent to the introduction of GE crops in 1996
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Van Eenennaam, A. L. and A. E. Young. 2014 . Journal of Animal Science. 92:4255-4278
US broiler statistics prior to and subsequent to the introduction of GE
crops in 1996. Slope differs between time periods 1983-1994 and
2000-2011 (*P < 0.05)
Sources: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2013;
National Chicken Council, 2011.
Van Eenennaam, A.L. and Young, A.E. 2014. Invited review: Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
feedstuffs on livestock populations. Journal of Animal Science 92:4255-4278.
Does it affect livestock (milk, meat,
eggs) from animals eating GE feed?
•
•
•
No GE rDNA or the newly expressed proteins encoded
have ever been found to be present in the milk, meat,
or eggs from animals that have eaten GE feed
It is not possible to distinguish any differences in the
nutritional profile of animal products following
consumption of GE feed
Labeling of such animal products is not currently
mandatory in either US or Europe.
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
It is estimated
that, with a normal
diet, humans
consume between
0.1-1 gram
DNA/day
Freely available publication from Council
for Agricultural Science and Technology
(http://www.cast-science.org)
Safety of Meat, Milk, and Eggs from Animals Fed Crops Derived from Modern Biotechnology
http://www.cast-science.org/download.cfm?PublicationID=2910&File=1e30ecea828a9b1ea77c6773b63647251564TR
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
Mandatory labeling of GE
food
Consumers who want non-GE food have a
choice already – voluntary labeling
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
Voluntary labeling is allowed
if it is not false or misleading
Non-misleading
“Cholesterol-free oil”
–Such claims are forbiden
in the USA because they
imply other vegetable oils
have cholesterol, when in
fact, none do.
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Although some labels do exist that
are both false and misleading!!
CAFFEINE!!!
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Mandatory process-based labeling singles out
GE process in absence of difference in
product – there are many production methods
used in animal production
What would be the cost of mandatory consumer “right to know”
process‐based labeling about all aspects of the animal production process? Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
CROSSBRED (ANGUS X HEREFORD) STEER
PRODUCT CONCEIVED IN A PETRI DISH
AFTER MULIPLE OVULATION OF DAM,
ARTIFICIALLY INSEMINATED BY THE
OFFSPRING OF A CLONE, FOLLOWED BY
EMBRYO TRANSFER, GESTATED IN A
SURROGATE CROSSBRED COW,
CASTRATED HUMANELY, IMMUNIZED WITH
A RECOMBINANT DNA VACCINE, TREATED
FOR PINK EYE WITH AN ANTIBIOTIC,
FINISHED ON A DIET CONTAINING
GENETICALLY-ENGINEERED CORN FOR 120
DAYS, HUMANELY KILLED, NOTIRRADIATED. DON’T EAT RAW.
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
Mandatory GE labeling in other
countries has actually removed GE
choice from the marketplace
"Our objective is to eliminate GMOs [from the US food supply] but we
also see GMO labeling as a useful tool in the meantime because we
know that transitioning to a non-GMO supply chain will take time”.
Elizabeth O'Connell, campaigns director for GMO Inside/Green America,
America, 2014
http://www.foodnavigatoron-StarbucksStarbucks-toto-sourcesource-organicorganic-milkmilk-fromfrom-cowscows-notnot-fedfed-GMGM-feed
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Markets/GMOusa.com/Markets/GMO-InsideInside-callscalls-on-
“How – and how quickly – can we move healthy, organic products from
a 4.2% market niche, to the dominant force in American food and
farming? …The first step is to change our labeling laws.”
Ronnie Cummings, Organic Consumers, 2012
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/02https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/02-0
“Personally I believe GM foods must be banned entirely, but labeling
is the most efficient way to achieve this.”
Dr. Joseph Mercola – 2012
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/29/new
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/29/new-vermontvermont-gmogmo-labelinglabeling-policypolicy-officiallyofficially-introduced.aspx
“We are going to force them to label this food. If we have it labeled we
can organize people not to buy it.”
Andrew Kimbrell – Center for Food Safety, 2013
http://www.examiner.com/article/washingtonhttp://www.examiner.com/article/washington-statestate-s-votersvoters-areare-stillstill-confusedconfused-asas-i-522522-votevote-approaches
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
USDA ERS organic price data is based on Agricultural
Marketing Service Market News and other data sources, and
shows monthly and annual prices for major commodities –
not all comparisons are available for all years.






Organic milk 4.38% of total fluid milk market in 2013
Between 2004-2007
Retail price for organic milk ~ 3X conventional
Retail price for organic eggs and poultry meat ~ 2X
conventional
Retail price for organic salad mix ~ 7X conventional
Between 2010-2013
Retail price for organic vegetables ~ 2X conventional
Retail price for organic fruits ~ 1.5X conventional
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/organic-prices.aspx#44268
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
Background in costs of
organic (non-GE) feed
•
•
•
Only about two-thirds of organic beef is grain-fed because of the
high costs of organic feeds compared with conventionally grown
Premiums for organic feeds were 57 percent above conventional
feeds. In some years, organic grains may only carry premiums of 25
percent or so, although premiums are generally much higher,
sometimes more than100 percent higher.
Assuming enough demand producers would respond by growing
more non-GE feed – which would be more expensive
Alternative Beef Production Systems: Issues and Implications by Kenneth Mathews and Rachel JohnsonOutlook
No. (LDPM-21801) 34 pp, April 2013
http://www.ers.usda.gov/ersDownloadHandler.ashx?file=/media/1071057/ldpm-218-01.pdf
Van Eenennaam IDFA 2014
Prices received for conventional and organic
corn and soybean ($/bushel) 2011- 2013
(USDA–NASS 2013; USDA–LPS 2013).
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
Recent study from Cornell –
2014 ~ $500/year per year
Labeling has real costs attributable to more expensive ingredients and
the process of maintaining product identity and the labeling process
itself, among others. Those costs are not insignificant – the median
estimates annually for a family of 4 are
$ 348 - 401 in California
$ 360 - 490 in Washington State
$ 500 in New York ~ 2.5% food budget paid for largely by food
consumers in the mandatory labeling states.
Consumer surveys and experiences in Europe suggest the products most
likely to be dropped are the labeled ones resulting in a system,
compared to present, with higher costs (due to more costly non-GE
ingredients) and different but no real increase in consumer choice”
http://dyson.cornell.edu/people/profiles/docs/LabelingNY.pdf
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
222
Global Area of Genetically Engineered (GE) Crops 1996 – 2012
By Crop
90
178
million acres
198
80
Soybean
176
70
Maize/Corn
148
121
million acres
Cotton
60
Canola
99
40
74
30
49
20
25
10
0
0
Million
Hectares
50
Million
Acres
124
54
million acres
20
million acres
1996
1997 1998 1999
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
2000 2001 2002 2003
2004 2005 2006
2007 2008 2009 2010
2011 2012
Source: Clive James, 2012 ISAAA Brief 44‐2012 http://www.isaaa.org
GE and conventional corn and soy produced (MMT)
by selected countries 2012 – hatch marked slices
represent GE, solid are conventional
CORN
35% (121 million acres) of the
350 million acres of the corn
planted globally were GE
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
SOYBEANS
81% (178 million acres) of the 220
million acres of the soybean
planted globally were GE
Van Eenennaam and Young. 2014. J. Anim. Sci. 92:4255-4278
Share of global crop trade
accounted for by GE crops 2012/13
(million tonnes)
Brookes, G., and P. Barfoot. 2014. GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2012, PG
Economics Ltd, UK, http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/2014globalimpactstudyfinalreport.pdf.
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
Corn Production
Production, Imports, Export, Feed by Country 2013
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Van Eenennaam and Young. 2014. J. Anim. Sci. 92:4255-4278
Soybean Production
Imports, Exports and Crush by Country 2013
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Van Eenennaam and Young. 2014. J. Anim. Sci. 92:4255-4278
The EU imports a lot of GE feed
to support its animal agriculture
•
For climatic and agronomic reasons, the European Union (EU) is
unable to produce most of the oilseed meal and other protein-rich
feedstuffs required to feed its livestock
•
80% of all livestock feed in the European Union (EU) is imported
•
98% of EU soybean meal is imported from Brazil, the USA, and
Argentina; ~ 80% of this imported soybean meal animal feed is GE
•
If the EU were not able to import soybean protein from outside the
EU it would only be able to replace 10-20% of imports by high
protein substitutes, resulting in a substantial reduction in animal
protein production, exports and consumption, and a very
significant increase in animal protein imports and cost in the EU*
* Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. 2007. Economic impact of unapproved GMOs on EU
feed imports and livestock production. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/gmo/economic_impactGMOs_en.pdf
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
http://www.producer.com/daily/german-poultry-sector-ends-avoidance-of-gmo-soy-in-feed/
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Van Eenennaam and Young. 2014. J. Anim. Sci. 92:4255-4278
Value of imports of organic
soybeans into US 2011-2013
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Van Eenennaam and Young. 2014. J. Anim. Sci. 92:4255-4278
Partial list of publicly-funded applications
Genetic engineering technology often gets identified
with Monsanto/Big Ag policy. It is a breeding method –
not a company, specific application or production system
•
University of Hawaii/Cornell Rainbow Papaya – highly resistant to ringspot virus
•
SUNY-ESF American Chestnut tree – resistant to blight (wheat gene)
•
Texas A&M Orange - resistant to citrus greening (spinach gene)
•
USDA-ARS Appalachian Fruit Research Station Honeysweet Plum - highly resistant to
plum pox potyvirus (PPV)
•
INRA’s virus-resistant Grape rootstock – resistant to the grapevine fanleaf virus
•
CSIRO’s low G.I. Wheat - altering wheat carbohydrate content to reduce glycaemic
response and improve metabolic health
•
Rothamsted’s aphid-repelling Wheat - produces high levels of aphid repelling odor
•
Bangladeshi B.t. Eggplant - pest-resistant Bt brinjal (eggplant)
•
Biocassava (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Root Crop Research Institute
of Nigeria and the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center) - cassava with increased nutrient
(zinc, iron, protein, and vitamin A) levels, increased shelf life, reductions in toxic
cyanogenic glycosides, and resistance to viral disease for Africa
•
Golden Rice (USAID, the Syngenta Foundation, HarvestPlus, and the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation) rice enriched with beta-carotene - the delayed application of Golden Rice in
India alone has cost 1,424,000 life years since 2002
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
Globally there have been substantial
benefits from first generation
(input trait) GE crops
“On average, GE technology adoption has
reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%,
increased crop yields by 22%, and increased
farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide
reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops
than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and
profit gains are higher in developing countries
than in developed countries.”
Klümper W, Qaim M (2014) A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops. PLoS
ONE 9(11): e111629.
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
In the US there have been
substantial benefits from GE crops
Since GE seeds were introduced in the mid-1990s, farmers
have opted for these products. A report from the National
Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences, "The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on
Farm Sustainability in the United States," offers an insight
as to why. The report concludes that U.S. farmers growing
biotech crops "..are realizing substantial economic and
environmental benefits — such as lower production
costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides,
and better yields — compared with conventional crops."
National Research Council. Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States .
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010. See also
Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, Seth Wechsler, Mike Livingston, and Lorraine Mitchell. Genetically Engineered Crops in
the United States, ERR-162 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, February 2014.
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
There has been a 10-fold reduction in US
insecticide use on Bt corn crops
FernandezFernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, Seth Wechsler, Mike Livingston, and Lorraine Mitchell.
Mitchell. Genetically Engineered Crops in the
United States,
States, ERRERR-162 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, February
February 2014.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/08/bt-corn.png
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
Summary





Overwhelming consensus of data shows safety of GE feed
Field data sets representing BILLIONS of observations do not reveal
disturbing trends in US livestock health and productivity data
These data are in agreement with the many peer-reviewed,
controlled animal feeding studies that have reported no
biologically-relevant difference between the nutritional attributes
and safety of feed from GM plants as compared to feed derived
from conventional crop varieties
Labeling of products from animals that have (or have not) eaten
GE feed – how much, how often, never ever - will be very
complicated and prone to cheaters as no way to verify accuracy
Non-GE feed for animals will be more expensive, and supply will
likely come increasingly from other countries (e.g. China and India)
Van Eenennaam ODI 4/14/2015
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education
Questions
Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D.
Cooperative Extension Specialist
Animal Biotechnology and Genomics
Department of Animal Science
University of California, Davis, USA
[email protected]
Twitter: @Biobeef
http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/animalbiotech