Presentations and Talks by the Director

Recent Presentations

Agricultural Biotechnology:
Creating Space to Move Forward

By

Steve Sonka

Over the last few days, we've been presented with a fascinating array of topics and issues here at the Global Soy Forum. We've had numerous excellent presentations that have described the challenges and opportunities associated with simultaneously accomplishing three paramount societal goals.

Feeding a growing world population,
Satisfying a market-driven demand for a higher quality diet, and
Minimizing environmental impacts of agricultural production.

There is, however, a fourth component of our challenge. If the global soybean industry is to achieve those three societal goals, it must be a profitable industry. Profitability is essential to attract resources to the sector and to fund investment in infrastructure and Research and Development. And profitability must exist at all levels of the industry; from genetics to producers to processors and food manufacturers.

To allow the industry to earn that profitability, we need to have marketing systems that are efficient in terms of short run price signals; such as many of us experienced at the Chicago Board of Trade last night. But we also need a marketing system that allows new technologies to be fairly evaluated in the marketplace. That evaluation will determine if adoption occurs or not; and the adoption decision will send signals that drive future investment in R&D.

This evening I want to take just a few minutes to focus our attention on an issue that affects all of us in the soybean industry. That topic is the societal evaluation of biotechnology. In particular, I will share some of my concerns regarding the urgent to need to craft a market environment, which allows the world's many segments of consumers to evaluate and adopt or not adopt genetically enhanced crops. At the same time, that marketing system must provide assurance to producers that they will not be penalized for growing genetically-enhanced crops.

You might have noticed that the title for these remarks is "Creating Space to Move Forward". Let me explain what I mean by the term creating space. I grew up on an Iowa farm; a farm that's actually just about 250 KM straight west of the Sheraton Hotel. I spent most of my boyhood assisting in the many chores and activities that go with running a farm. One those activities involved maintaining our equipment.

And I particularly remember adjusting what were called the rollers on our corn pickers and combines. Think of these rollers as very long gears setting next to each other. In adjusting these rollers, it was essential that the right amount of spacing existed between the rollers. If there was too much space, we got inefficient performance—part of the crop would fall on the ground. However, if there was not enough space, the rollers could grind against each other; stopping or greatly limiting performance.

Today it seems that the positions of proponents and opponents of biotechnology are somewhat like sets of rollers that are set too close together. And they may become so tightly interlocked that our entire food system is in danger of being trapped from making the progress needed to fulfill society's expectations for us.

Generally, conversations about consumer acceptance focus on specific instances and concerns. Tonight, however, I want to examine consumer acceptance at a more fundamental level. In the biotechnology controversy, we're seeing the collision of two very different evaluation approaches.

Proponents

Philosophy: Adhere to the benefit/risk, approach where the benefits of a technology are weighed relative to the risks associated with use of that innovation.

Rationale: Allows society to gain benefits of an innovation with assurance that known risks have been assessed. The potential benefits of biotechnology in crop production include less use of environmentally unfriendly pesticides, products with targeted attributes of value to society, and expanded production.

Weakness: Assessments can be conducted relative only to types of risks that are known today. Unknown calamities that might emerge at some time in the future can't be measured prior to their occurrence.

Opponents

Philosophy: Adhere to the precautionary principle, which argues that if the potential for adverse consequences exists, then actions should be taken to insure against those potentials even if the causal mechanisms are not known.

Rationale: Society should resist innovations where there is the potential for calamity if the innovation is adopted. Concerns regarding biotechnology in agriculture include introduction of "foreign", potentially uncontrollable organisms into the natural environment and unforeseen damage to animals and humans from consumption of food products that come from genetically-enhanced crops.

Weakness: Just because intelligent people have concerns about a technology that is unfamiliar doesn't mean those concerns are necessarily valid. If taken to the extreme, imposition of the precautionary principle would effectively put a moratorium on all future innovation. The only way we can be certain that an innovation will never produce adverse consequences is to not allow any innovation in the future.

So how can we move forward given the inherent conflicts of these two approaches to technology evaluation? I certainly don't have a complete answer. But maybe we can gain insights by examining the conflict within the two fundamental evaluation approaches. Remember with the benefit/ risk approach, once an innovation is approved it is regarded to be as least as safe as the processes and products that it would replace. In contrast with the precautionary principle approach, no amount of testing can guarantee that a future calamity could not occur once the technology is used widely in the marketplace.

A middle ground, therefore, might be to encourage additional monitoring and labeling procedures even after genetically enhanced crops have gone through the extensive testing needed to be approved by regulatory systems.

Let me make suggest four concepts regarding the nature of such procedures:

Even after being approved as not being harmful to the natural environment, scientifically-based monitoring could be conducted to identify adverse consequences if they were to occur in the environment.

Similarly, scientifically-based monitoring of the effects of consumption (by animals or humans) of food products produced with genetically-enhanced crops could be conducted to identify adverse consequences if they were to occur.

In the food marketplace, the availability of alternatives is a way to create space in the minds of consumers. Access to food products, that contain no or minimal amounts of genetically -enhanced crops, can provide psychological assurance to consumers whether they choose to purchase those products or not. In this way consumers in the market, rather than politically imposed regulations, can assess consumer attitudes and behaviors.

It is important to emphasize that not all monitoring and labeling approaches are equal in their orientation and effect. Monitoring and labeling procedures should not be allowed to become defacto bans on the economic use of genetically-enhanced crops. Excessive regulations, that require absolute zero amounts of genetically-enhanced crops for alternative products or that impose the burden of tracking all genetically-enhanced crops to their end use, should be resisted. In fact these can become deceptive means to ban the use of genetically-enhanced crops without allowing for their evaluation in the marketplace.

Let me conclude my remarks by reemphasizing the notion that the soybean industry will not be able to achieve the demands society has for us without it being a profitable industry. To achieve long run profitability, market systems are needed that can provide us the space to allow for the effective and timely evaluation of technology. No one component of the sector; whether it be

Government
Life Sciences companies
Producers
And/or
Consumers

can most effectively and rapidly resolve this dilemma by themselves. It is only through concerted effort and attention across the soybean value chain and among the regions of the world that will allow us to make progress in achieving the daunting expectations that tomorrow's population has for us.

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
170 National Soybean Research Center
1101 W. Peabody Drive, Urbana, IL 61801
telephone - (217) 244-1706
fax - (217) 244-1707
email - nsrl@uiuc.edu

	Recent Presentations Agricultural Biotechnology: Creating Space to Move Forward By Steve Sonka Over the last few days, we've been presented with a fascinating array of topics and issues here at the Global Soy Forum. We've had numerous excellent presentations that have described the challenges and opportunities associated with simultaneously accomplishing three paramount societal goals. Feeding a growing world population, Satisfying a market-driven demand for a higher quality diet, and Minimizing environmental impacts of agricultural production. There is, however, a fourth component of our challenge. If the global soybean industry is to achieve those three societal goals, it must be a profitable industry. Profitability is essential to attract resources to the sector and to fund investment in infrastructure and Research and Development. And profitability must exist at all levels of the industry; from genetics to producers to processors and food manufacturers. To allow the industry to earn that profitability, we need to have marketing systems that are efficient in terms of short run price signals; such as many of us experienced at the Chicago Board of Trade last night. But we also need a marketing system that allows new technologies to be fairly evaluated in the marketplace. That evaluation will determine if adoption occurs or not; and the adoption decision will send signals that drive future investment in R&D. This evening I want to take just a few minutes to focus our attention on an issue that affects all of us in the soybean industry. That topic is the societal evaluation of biotechnology. In particular, I will share some of my concerns regarding the urgent to need to craft a market environment, which allows the world's many segments of consumers to evaluate and adopt or not adopt genetically enhanced crops. At the same time, that marketing system must provide assurance to producers that they will not be penalized for growing genetically-enhanced crops. You might have noticed that the title for these remarks is "Creating Space to Move Forward". Let me explain what I mean by the term creating space. I grew up on an Iowa farm; a farm that's actually just about 250 KM straight west of the Sheraton Hotel. I spent most of my boyhood assisting in the many chores and activities that go with running a farm. One those activities involved maintaining our equipment. And I particularly remember adjusting what were called the rollers on our corn pickers and combines. Think of these rollers as very long gears setting next to each other. In adjusting these rollers, it was essential that the right amount of spacing existed between the rollers. If there was too much space, we got inefficient performance—part of the crop would fall on the ground. However, if there was not enough space, the rollers could grind against each other; stopping or greatly limiting performance. Today it seems that the positions of proponents and opponents of biotechnology are somewhat like sets of rollers that are set too close together. And they may become so tightly interlocked that our entire food system is in danger of being trapped from making the progress needed to fulfill society's expectations for us. Generally, conversations about consumer acceptance focus on specific instances and concerns. Tonight, however, I want to examine consumer acceptance at a more fundamental level. In the biotechnology controversy, we're seeing the collision of two very different evaluation approaches. Proponents Philosophy: Adhere to the benefit/risk, approach where the benefits of a technology are weighed relative to the risks associated with use of that innovation. Rationale: Allows society to gain benefits of an innovation with assurance that known risks have been assessed. The potential benefits of biotechnology in crop production include less use of environmentally unfriendly pesticides, products with targeted attributes of value to society, and expanded production. Weakness: Assessments can be conducted relative only to types of risks that are known today. Unknown calamities that might emerge at some time in the future can't be measured prior to their occurrence. Opponents Philosophy: Adhere to the precautionary principle, which argues that if the potential for adverse consequences exists, then actions should be taken to insure against those potentials even if the causal mechanisms are not known. Rationale: Society should resist innovations where there is the potential for calamity if the innovation is adopted. Concerns regarding biotechnology in agriculture include introduction of "foreign", potentially uncontrollable organisms into the natural environment and unforeseen damage to animals and humans from consumption of food products that come from genetically-enhanced crops. Weakness: Just because intelligent people have concerns about a technology that is unfamiliar doesn't mean those concerns are necessarily valid. If taken to the extreme, imposition of the precautionary principle would effectively put a moratorium on all future innovation. The only way we can be certain that an innovation will never produce adverse consequences is to not allow any innovation in the future. So how can we move forward given the inherent conflicts of these two approaches to technology evaluation? I certainly don't have a complete answer. But maybe we can gain insights by examining the conflict within the two fundamental evaluation approaches. Remember with the benefit/ risk approach, once an innovation is approved it is regarded to be as least as safe as the processes and products that it would replace. In contrast with the precautionary principle approach, no amount of testing can guarantee that a future calamity could not occur once the technology is used widely in the marketplace. A middle ground, therefore, might be to encourage additional monitoring and labeling procedures even after genetically enhanced crops have gone through the extensive testing needed to be approved by regulatory systems. Let me make suggest four concepts regarding the nature of such procedures: Even after being approved as not being harmful to the natural environment, scientifically-based monitoring could be conducted to identify adverse consequences if they were to occur in the environment. Similarly, scientifically-based monitoring of the effects of consumption (by animals or humans) of food products produced with genetically-enhanced crops could be conducted to identify adverse consequences if they were to occur. In the food marketplace, the availability of alternatives is a way to create space in the minds of consumers. Access to food products, that contain no or minimal amounts of genetically -enhanced crops, can provide psychological assurance to consumers whether they choose to purchase those products or not. In this way consumers in the market, rather than politically imposed regulations, can assess consumer attitudes and behaviors. It is important to emphasize that not all monitoring and labeling approaches are equal in their orientation and effect. Monitoring and labeling procedures should not be allowed to become defacto bans on the economic use of genetically-enhanced crops. Excessive regulations, that require absolute zero amounts of genetically-enhanced crops for alternative products or that impose the burden of tracking all genetically-enhanced crops to their end use, should be resisted. In fact these can become deceptive means to ban the use of genetically-enhanced crops without allowing for their evaluation in the marketplace. Let me conclude my remarks by reemphasizing the notion that the soybean industry will not be able to achieve the demands society has for us without it being a profitable industry. To achieve long run profitability, market systems are needed that can provide us the space to allow for the effective and timely evaluation of technology. No one component of the sector; whether it be Government Life Sciences companies Producers And/or Consumers can most effectively and rapidly resolve this dilemma by themselves. It is only through concerted effort and attention across the soybean value chain and among the regions of the world that will allow us to make progress in achieving the daunting expectations that tomorrow's population has for us.




	University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 170 National Soybean Research Center 1101 W. Peabody Drive, Urbana, IL 61801 telephone - (217) 244-1706 fax - (217) 244-1707 email - nsrl@uiuc.edu

Agricultural Biotechnology: Creating Space to Move Forward

Agricultural Biotechnology:
Creating Space to Move Forward