FDA's Tough New Task: Explain Biotech's Safety, Benefits

May 31, 2017 Volume 13, Number 22 FDA’s tough new task: Explain biotech’s safety, benefits The Food and Drug Administration has a tough job ahead of it, a job that the food and agriculture sectors have struggled to accomplish: Convince the public that biotech crops are safe to eat and can offer a variety of benefits to the public and the environment. The fiscal 2017 spending bill enacted at the end of April includes $3 million earmarked for FDA to coordinate with the Agriculture Department on a consumer outreach and education effort. The stated goal under the legislation is to educate consumers “on the environmental, nutritional, food safety, economic, and humanitarian impacts of such biotechnology, food products, and feed.” The provision first surfaced in 2016 as Congress was debating legislation to block state GMO labeling laws. “There was an obvious need for Senate Ag Committee Chair Pat Roberts, R-Kan. more consumer-facing information and science facts to be available. You can’t get everything you need on a food label,” said Karen Batra, a spokeswoman for the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, or BIO. The Grocery Manufacturers Association said in a statement that the FDA program would be an “invaluable tool” in countering misinformation about GMOs. BIO and GMA were among nearly 70 food and agriculture groups, universities and professional societies that sent a letter to lawmakers last year in support of the FDA program. The GMO law enacted in July 2016 will require companies to disclose the presence of biotech ingredients through a digital code that can be read by smartphones. But consumers still won’t have enough knowledge about biotechnology itself, and that is where the FDA program will come in, said Brian Rell, a spokesman for House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Robert Aderholt, an Alabama Republican who originally put the provision in the House version of the FY17 bill. 1 “Up until now, consumer activists, biotech seed companies, and organic companies have tried to fill the void in trying to educate the public. However, each of these segments has an ulterior motive. FDA is a neutral source and the public generally accepts FDA’s word on most scientific issues,” Rell said. Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts, who got the GMO bill through the Senate over intense opposition from most Democrats, is skeptical that the government can have much impact on public attitudes toward biotechnology. “Anybody within the food industry knows that right now the rage is all about organic. All we were trying to say (with the labeling preemption law) is don’t put a label on other products that we produce and that people use in the grocery store and say that’s bad.” But some experts believe the right kind of messages from federal regulators could have an impact on public attitudes toward biotechnology. It’s not clear that past communications by federal agencies have had much effect on the public, said Jayson Lusk, an economist at Oklahoma State University who studies what foods people eat and why. But most consumers are uninformed or misinformed about genetic engineered crops, so “subtle changes in working, descriptions of benefits of the technology etc. can be persuasive,” he said. He notes that voter support for state ballot initiatives on GMO labeling dropped considerably after the industry began campaigning against them. Lusk said it will be important for the FDA to maintain its credibility by being honest about possible downsides of the technology, acknowledging the tradeoffs involved in using it, and not overselling its benefits. The agency also needs to ensure that the information is scientifically accurate and addresses the perspectives of consumers and farmers. Charlie Arnot, who is founder of Look East, a public relations consulting firm that specializes in food and agriculture, also believes an FDA education effort could be effective, based on digital ethnography research that allows the communicator to reach the targeted groups with information that they need. The $3 million budgeted for the program could pay for the research and provide a roadmap for engaging the targeted audience, he said. “That should be enough funding to achieve a measurable improvement in the attitudes, beliefs and feelings of your targeted audience, but only if you can concentrate the $3 million in a well-orchestrated effort (not allowing it to be diluted) and your goal is opinion evolution, not opinion transformation,” he said. An FDA spokesperson told Agri-Pulse that "the FDA is currently working to get the funds obligated, so it would be premature to speculate how and when the agency will allocate these funds." NAFTA renegotiation – the sooner the better? Farm groups and farm-state lawmakers are increasingly looking at the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement as if you were removing a big bandage. If it has to be done – and the Trump administration has made clear that it does – then it’s far better to accept the pain and get it done quickly. Mexico, which spends about $19 billion per year to buy U.S. corn, soybeans, beef, pork, rice, milk, sorghum and other commodities, is becoming increasingly jittery about the viability of 2 U.S. exports. The sooner the countries can close the books on a new NAFTA, the better it will be for the markets, say lawmakers, including House Agriculture Chairman Mike Conaway. “Even the idea of renegotiating NAFTA is unsettling because no one likes change,” Conaway told reporters last week after an hour-long, closed-door meeting between committee members and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue. “Under the best of circumstances, it would make folks nervous or unsettled until we get it done. Time is of the essence and the quicker we get it done, the better all of our exports will be.” But circumstances are not the best. President Donald Trump’s insistence that a new border wall be built, his demands that Mexico pay for it, and the recent increase of rhetoric and actions to deport undocumented residents has created tensions between the U.S. and Mexico. That “sooner, the better” sentiment is one that is shared by both U.S. and Mexican ag sectors, Conaway said in an interview with Agri-Pulse after he met last week with Gerónimo Gutiérrez, the recently appointed Mexican ambassador to the U.S. U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Lighthizer, House Ag Committee Chair Mike Conaway, and Ag Secretary Sonny Perdue address reporters. “He’s concerned about the unsettling nature of renegotiation – everyone not knowing,” Conaway said about Gutiérrez. “The quicker we can get this done, the better. … All the uncertainty associated with any kind of renegotiation – I think he sees that as a big deal. I do as well.” As to how quick NAFTA can be renegotiated, that’s still unclear. It takes years for major trade pacts to be completed, but in this case, much of the work has already been done, Conaway said. There is already a base deal in place and some new provisions were previously worked out under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The U.S., Mexico and Canada were all members of the 12-country TPP agreement. Trump pulled the U.S. out of the treaty in January, but Lighthizer, Conaway and others have said that some of the work involving the U.S., Canada and Mexico will likely transfer into the new NAFTA. The biggest potential problem with renegotiating NAFTA, Conaway said, is that there is a huge push by the Trump administration to increase the exports of non-agriculture products to Mexico, and the farm sectors in both countries fear that there could be collateral damage to agricultural trade. “The concern that U.S. (agricultural) producers have is that there is a manufacturing trade deficit of staggering proportions,” Conaway said. “As they try to find solutions to that, they do something with ag. And ag folks are going to be at the table to try to make sure that doesn’t happen.” At present, thanks to NAFTA, there are virtually no Mexican tariffs on U.S. farm commodities, which has boosted U.S. agricultural exports to record highs over its 23-year lifespan. 3 Lighthizer continues to say he will protect that status when negotiations begin. “That’s got to be our objective,” Lighthizer said after the meeting with House Agriculture Committee members. “There are a number people who are winners. … Ag’s a big winner with NAFTA … and we have to maintain that position.” One farm group dedicated to keeping the gains already achieved under NAFTA is the U.S. Grains Council (USGC). “Our top priority in the modernization of NAFTA is to maintain this market access and keep in place what we and our customers have built,” said USGC Chairman Chip Councell. “For instance, all corn products currently go into Mexico and Canada duty-free, with sales last marketing year of $2.7 billion in commodity corn alone. That demand is an essential part of ensuring farmers can continue to farm in this economy.” But there’s a long list of agreements the U.S. wants in a new NAFTA that deal with digital trade, services, intellectual property rights, labor laws, environment, customs procedures and more. And that means more opportunities for the agricultural trade relationship to be altered. That’s one reason why groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation say they support the Trade Priorities and Accountability Act that was passed by Congress in 2015. The TPA, among other things, requires the White House to give Congress and the public notice that it intends to negotiate trade pacts. It also gives the public the opportunity to weigh in on priorities.

Load more