Biotechnology

In

Food and
Agriculture

1
 An Overview of
Biotechnology Derived Food
FOR THE
Association of Food Journalists
October 7, 2004

Teresa A. Gruber, Ph.D., J.D.

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
www.cast-science.org

2
CAST Mission Statement

CAST assembles, interprets, and

communicates science-based information
regionally, nationally, and internationally
on food, fiber, agricultural, natural
resource, and related societal and
environmental issues to our stakeholders--
legislators, regulators, policy makers, the
media, the private sector, and the public.
3
What Is Biotechnology?

The use of biology to produce products

that are of use to society

"New" Biotechnology – the use of

the cellular and molecular processes
to solve problems or make products.

4
Crop Evolution and Human Civilization

• Humans Have Always Guided the

Evolution of Crops!
• A small sample of wild plants
were chosen and domesticated
• 10,000 years of Selection.
• All crops we grow today were
once wild plants. But no crop
would survive in the wild any
more.
• Crops, strains and genes have
moved around the globe. Teosinte
Teosinte
Hybrids
Hybrids
Modern Corn
Modern Corn

5
Improving Our Crop Plants

• Developing Modern Varieties of Crops

– Hybridization
• Crosses with Wild Relatives
• Hybrids
– Mutation
• Irradiation
• Chemicals
– Cell Culture
• Embryo Rescue
• Somaclonal variation

6
Modern Genetic Modification
Inserting one or few genes to achieve
desired traits.
Transfer of Genes into Crop Plants
– Relatively Precise and Predictable
– Changes are Subtle
– Allows Flexibility
– Expeditious

7
 Traditional Breeding vs. Biotech

Traditional plant breeding

Traditional donor Commercial variety New variety
DNA is a strand of genes, (many genes are transferred)
much like a strand of pearls.
Traditional plant breeding
combines many genes at
once. X =
Desired Gene (crosses)
Desired gene

Plant biotechnology
Desired gene Commercial variety New variety
Using plant biotechnology, a (only desired gene is transferred)
single gene may be added to
the strand.
=
(transfers)

Desired gene

8
“The newer rDNA biotechnology
techniques offer the potential to
rapidly and precisely improve the
quantity and quality of food.”
Institute of Food Technologists Expert
Report on Biotechnology and Foods

9
Why Biotech Foods?

• Better Quality Foods

• Better Testing Foods
• Healthier Foods with Improved
Nutritional Characteristics
• Greater Processing Yields

10
 Benefits of Biotech on Human Health
• Less Mycotoxin in Bt Maize
• Hypoallergenic Wheat and
Peanut
• Low Cyanide in Cassava
• Healthier Oil, Sugar and Starch
• Increased food supply to
support growing population and
shrinking land

11
More Benefits of Biotechnology
• Post Harvest Quality - Prolong Shelf
Life of Fruits, Vegetables and
Flowers
• Extend Crop Area and Season
• Stress Tolerance - Drought, Acidity,
Salinity, Heat. Flooding

12
But Consumers Want to Know…

• Are Biotech Foods Safe?

• Are Biotech Foods Regulated?
• What are the Benefits & Risks of Biotech Foods?

Basic Consumer Preferences

Vary Little Around the World

13
 Challenges to Evaluating Biotechnology

• Concerns about environmental and human health risks

are already prominent in society.
• Most people have limited understanding of science and
agriculture.
• Food is emotional and very personal.
• Sensationalized media coverage raises fears and sets the
public agenda.
• Activists are successful in generating fear and funds.
• Data to support safety of the technology and products
are often generated by those who stand to profit.
• Biotechnology raises complex ethical and social issues.
14
 Public Understanding of Science

% Correct
What is DNA? 29
What is the Internet? 13
What is a molecule? 13
Does smoking cause cancer? 93
Is the center of the earth very hot? 81

National Science Foundation, 2000

15
Public Policy Paradigms Perpetuate Polarization

• Public Perception vs. Reality

• Precautionary Principle vs. Risk Assessment
• Certainty vs. Uncertainty
• Public vs. Private Funding
– Who benefits vs. who pays
– Who owns the profits vs. who pays for mistakes
– Trust & transparency vs. timely and trustworthy

16
 A Glance Back – Biotechnology
Benchmarks
• 1974: The NIH forms a Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee
• 1980: The U.S. Supreme Court approves principle of patenting life
• 1984 : Federal government establishes the “Coordinated Framework”
• 1986 USDA approves the first field tests of genetically engineered
plants
• 1987: USDA – Federal Plant Pest Act
• 1992: FDA declares that GM foods are not inherently different and
do not need special regulation or labeling
• 1994: EPA - FIFRA

17
Public Acceptance of New Technologies

Risk Paradigm
1. Risk Assessment (Scientists)
2. Risk Management (Government)
3. Risk Communications (Everyone)

All Three are Critical for Public Acceptance of New

Technologies, be they Pasteurization, Microwave
Ovens, Cell phones, PCs, or Biotechnology

18
1999 Key Commodity Crop
Approvals in select markets
USA CANADA EU JAPAN
Corn 16 11 4 13
Soy 11 4 1 2
Canola 6 18 3 12
Potato 17 17 0 2
Cotton 5 3 0 1
Beet 2 0 0 1

19
 Biotech Crops in the U.S. Food Supply
➘ 25% of 2000 U.S. corn acreage planted
➘ 54% of 2000 U.S. soybean acreage planted
➘ 61% of 2000 U.S. cotton acreage planted
➘ 70% of 2000 Canadian canola acreage planted
➘ Multiple international markets planting biotech
seed products:

90% of soybeans in Argentina; 10-30% in Brazil

Adoption in China, former Soviet Union, India
20

 Risk Assessment

• Standard - “Reasonable certainty that no

harm will result from intended uses under
the anticipated conditions of consumption.”
• Food is not inherently safe.
• Considered to be safe based on experience.
• Not absolute but relative safety:
.. .. .. “as
“as safe
safe as”
as” .. .. ..

21
 Comprehensive safety assessments
Integrated (coordinated) framework involves three
federal agencies in reviewing biotech product safety.

FDA: Feed and food safety.

USDA: Environmental safety.

EPA: Environmental, food and feed safety for pest-

protected product registration and sales.
Public participation is solicited by these agencies at several steps in
the process, from small-scale testing to commercialization.
22
 Public Input in Regulatory Process
Nine Chances for Go/No Go Decisions
• 1. Biosafety Committee - NIH Biosafety Guidelines*
2. USDA greenhouse approval
3. USDA field trial authorization
4. USDA authorization transport for field trials
• 5. USDA permission to commercialize*
• 6. EPA experimental use permit approval*
• 7. EPA determination of food tolerance or tolerance
exemption*
• 8. EPA product registration *
9. FDA review process
 opportunity for public input
23
Determining Safety of Biotech Crops
• Food/Feed Safety
–Molecular characterization
–Protein safety assessment
including history of safe use,
marker gene safety, allergenicity
and safety to non-target
organisms
–Nutritional equivalence
–Toxicological assessment
including identification of key
anti-nutrients and toxicants
• Environmental Risk
Assessment
– Potential for out-crossing
– Impact on non-target
organisms
– Resistance management
– Agronomic Performance
– Ability to compete and
survive in the environment
– Crop carry over issues
24
Risk assessment of biotech plants

• Potential for toxicity

• Potential for allergenicity
• Safety of antibiotic resistance markers
• Retention of nutritional value
• Equivalence of composition
• Absence of unintended effects

25
Safety of Biotech Products is Reviewed
at Multiple Levels

• Gene(s)
– Source(s)
– Molecular characterization
– Insert / copy number / gene integrity

• Protein(s)
– History of safe use and consumption
– Function / specificity / mode of action
– Levels
– Toxicology / allergenicity testing

26
Compositional Equivalence is
Examined for:

» Fatty acids
» Amino acids
» Vitamins
» Minerals
» Anti-nutrients
27
 Compositional Equivalence: Proximate Analyses
90
P
H
80
70
60
50
40
30
20 P
10 H P P
H P
H H
0
Protein Fat Ash Carbohydrate Crude Fiber

6 U.S. Field sites in 1994

Control MO N 810 H Reported low P Reported high
Range of experim entally determined values

These results have been generated on Event MON810. Data showing similar
proximate analyses have been generated on the other corn events.
28
 Safety of the Genes
 Detailed map of vector

 Identity of all genetic components of vector

 Portion and size of inserted sequences

 The function of the genetic component in the plant

 The source of the genetic component

 Inheritance and stability of trait

29
Safety of the Proteins
 Indicate if there are changes in the amino
acid sequence from the native protein.
 Submit data indicating if the protein is
expressed as expected.
 Compare novel protein sequence to known
toxins and allergens.
 Acute/Chronic testing, mouse.
 In vitro digestibility assay.

30
Comparison to toxins or allergens
• The protein is compared to proteins in
large global databases
– More than 100,000 different proteins are
searched
• A “Macro” comparison looks at the whole
protein
• A “Micro” comparison looks at small
stretches of the protein
– As few as 8 amino acids are compared
– For the Cry proteins more than 600 searches
are performed across the entire protein length

31
Allergenicity Evaluations

True Food Allergies affect 1-2% of

the adult population worldwide
“Big Eight” Major Food Allergens

•Peanut •Shellfish
•Milk •Fish
•Soy •Eggs
•Wheat •Tree Nuts

32
Allergenicity Screen
Homology Search None w/known oral
allergens

Prevalence (1 – 10%) < 0.3%

In food

Disulfide bonds None

Heat stability Heat stable

Digestible Not readily digested

33
Toxicity Assessment:

• Once protein safety established, EPA tests

for all other secondary metabolic activities
that result from protein expression
• e.g.: changing oil composition of canola
from changing a protein
• These kinds of products would be labeled

34
Mouse Oral Acute
Toxicity
Protein Crop Dose
(mg/kg)
Cry1Ac Cotton, Tomato
4200
NPTII Cotton, Potato, Tomato
5000
Cry3A Potato
5200
Cry1Ab Corn
4000
CP4 EPSPS Soybean, Cotton, Canola, Sugarbeet
572
35
GUS Soybean, Sugarbeet
Agronomic properties of biotech crops
are thoroughly characterized:
• Evaluated in thousands of field trials in the
United States, Europe, Canada and South
America.
• Evaluated for a broad range of agronomic traits
during the entire life cycle of the plant.
• Identical to their conventional counterpart
except for the introduced trait(s).

36
 Livestock and Feed Questions

• Is biotech grain safe for livestock feed?

• Is the feed performance the same between
biotech crops and conventional crops?
• Are the proteins/DNA present in milk, meat
and eggs?
• What studies have been conducted?

37
The composition of these biotech crop products
is similar to their conventional counterparts

Grain Forage
- Protein - Protein
- Fat - Fat
- Fiber - Fiber
- Starch
- Amino acid composition The composition of biotech crops
- Fatty acid composition is compared to the equivalent
conventional variety
- Ash and to the range of conventional
- Sugars varieties
- Calcium
- Phosphorous
38
 DNA and Protein Digestion
 DNA and proteins are natural and abundant
components of our diet
 All DNA and proteins – including those from plants
improved through biotechnology
are made up of the same building blocks

subject to the same digestion conditions

 The normal digestion conditions rapidly break down
DNA and proteins into smaller pieces that serve as
important nutrients
 Simulated gastric digestibility of introduced proteins is
a part of the product safety assessment
39
 Results to Date (35 Feeding Studies):

Animals perform in a comparable manner

when fed biotech crops as compared to
conventional counterparts.

40
 Biotech product studies conducted
Studies
Trait Crop Animal Completed In Progress
H.T. Corn Chicken- broilers 2 -
H.T. Corn Beef cattle 1 -
H.T. Corn Swine - 1
H.T. SBM Chicken-broilers 2 -
H.T. SBM Dairy Cows 1 -
H.T. SBM Catfish 1 -
H.T. Canola Chickens - broilers 4 -
H.T. Sugar beets Sheep 2 1
B.t. Corn Chicken - broilers 4 -
B.t. Corn Chicken - layers 2 -
B.t. Corn Catfish 1 -
B.t. Corn Swine - 1
B.t. Forage Sheep 1 -
B.t. Forage/Corn Dairy cows 1 4
B.t. Forage/Corn Beef cattle 1 5
41
B.t.: Insect protection H.T.: Herbicide tolerance
 Considerations for detecting transgenic
DNA/proteins in animal products

 Not deemed a safety issue by regulatory agencies

(US, Canada, Japan, EU, other countries worldwide)
 Characterization of livestock products may have
implications for trade and/or labeling
 Testing methods such as ELISA and PCR are
extremely complex and sensitive - critical to
safeguard against contamination and false positives

42
 Livestock and Feed Conclusions

Animal performance - no differences when fed biotech

crops
Transgenic proteins – none detected in animal products --
milk, meat, eggs
In contrast, endogenous plant chloroplast DNA fragments
may be detected in mammalian systems
Cattle, Poultry
Seem to be primarily associated with immune system
Transgenic DNA -- none detected in animal products --
milk, meat, eggs
43
 Determining Safety of Biotech Crops
• Food/Feed Safety
– Molecular characterization
– Protein safety assessment
including history of safe
use, marker gene safety,
allergenicity and safety to
non-target organisms
– Nutritional equivalence
– Toxicological assessment
including identification of
key anti-nutrients and
toxicants
• Environmental Risk
Assessment
– Potential for out-crossing
– Impact on non-target
organisms
– Resistance management
– Agronomic Performance
– Ability to compete and
survive in the environment
– Crop carry over issues
44
 Ecological Impact Assessment Process

• throughout the life cycle of a product

C = coordinated screening and testing of product concepts
R = regulatory review of prescribed tests and field trial data
O = other scientists’ experiments and field trials (universities, etc.)
P = performance feedback from farmers
S = stewardship and monitoring to ensure the product is used in a
responsible manner.

• Process description –
http://www.cast-
science.org/biotechnology/index.html 45
Ecological Analysis for Plants-Tier I

• Experimental Data (Laboratory and

Field)
– compositional analysis
– germination / dormancy
– seed bank longevity
– volunteer assessment
– growth/reproduction data (fitness potential)
– assessment of competition
– allelopathic potential
– susceptibility to management (risk management)
– field observations and surveys 46
Ecological Analysis for Plants - Tier II
• Experimental Data (Laboratory and Field)
– Outcrossing or gene flow
» prepare hybrids from compatible species and perform
Tier I assessment
» field evaluation of gene flow
– Allele persistence
» field trials to assess selective advantage
– Secondary Effects
» morphological character analysis
» multiple crossing experiments
– Higher level field experiments 47
Ecological Impact Assessment
• Stewardship and monitoring to ensure the products
are used in a responsible manner
– Insect Resistance Management – performance
oriented
– Non-target Populations
– Programs target high-risk areas where insects
have developed resistance to chemical
insecticides in the past
– Monitoring to ensure use according to
registration requirements
48
49
Identification of a potential hazard:

Transgenic
pollen harms
monarch
larvae.
Nature 399:214. Losey, J.
E., L. S. Raynor and M. E.
Carter. 1999

50
 Financial Support:

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)

• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

• Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

• Environment Canada

• Industry
51
Risk Assessment Process:
Bt Corn Monarch
Production and Distribution Occurrence & Distribution
Pollen Characterization Region
Bt expression Landscape
Pollen Shed Habitat
Timing, Duration, Intensity Behavior
Environmental Dispersal Oviposition
Feeding

Environmental Exposure

Risk
Milkweed
Monarch
Occurrence and Distribution
Region Effect
Landscape Lethal
Habitat Sub lethal

52
Research conclusions: Bt/ Monarch Butterfly

• Bt corn pollen shedding overlaps with emergence of

monarch caterpillars in a few areas of the north west
and Canada
• Amount of pollen on milkweed leaves in the fields is
below the level harmful to monarch caterpillars
– True for Mon 810 and Bt 11
– Event 176 being phased out
• Original Risk Assessment for Bt corn was protective
and a model for the future
(Hellmich, Sears, Dively et al, submitted for publication 2001)

53
Response to Wolfenbarger and Phifer, 2000

• Benefits and risks do “vary spatially,

temporally and according to trait and
cultivar modified.”
• Need options to to have solutions to
changing conditions.

» SCIENCE December 2000

54
Response to Wolfenbarger and Phifer, 2000

• When a higher standard of care is not

enough…
– Ignores large volume of data submitted to
regulatory agencies, which does not appear in
the academic peer-review literature
– Ignores the peer review by agencies and their
advisors
– Regulatory vs. Absolute Certainty

» SCIENCE 27 April 2001

55
 Precautionary Approach
 Look before you leap
Caution when unknowns exist

 Three approaches to the Precautionary Principle

• Shield
• Sword
• Incorporated into risk assessment approach

• www.cast-science.org

56
Precautionary Approach
• Confusing use of terms
– Rio Declaration
– Cartagena Protocol
• Five tenants of the Precautionary Approach
– Taking precautionary measures in the absence of
scientific certainty of cause and effect
– Goal setting
– Considering alternative approaches
– Shifting the burden of proof for financial responsibility
& the duty to monitor
– Implementing democratic decision-making
57
Incorporating Precautionary
Approach into Risk Assessments
• Evolving concept
• 2 applications
– Product evaluation
– International environmental agreements

58
Biotech Testing: What’s needed
• Standardized and validated sampling and
testing methods
• Quantitative assays for setting tolerances
• Accurate and reliable tests (low false positives
and false negatives)
• Simple, multi-trait testing format
• Agreement on when to use DNA vs. protein
detection methods
• Reasonable cost per test

59
Risk Assessment: Biotech Foods

• Consensus that biotech foods are as safe as their conventional

counterparts
– World Health Organization
– U.N. Food & Agriculture Organization
– Org. for Economic Cooperation & Development
– National academies of science
• Australia, Canada, India, Mexico, U.K., U.S. ….
– 3,000+ scientists from throughout the world

60
Risk Assessment: Biotech Foods
• Consensus that biotech foods are as safe as their
conventional counterparts
– National Governments
Argentina, Canada, China, So. Africa, United States
– European Commission
– U.S. Scientific Institutions & Societies
• National Academy of Science
• American Medical Association
• American Nutrition Association
• Council for Agricultural Science & Technology
• Institute of Food Technologists

61
Risk Assessment: Biotech Foods
World Health Organization (WHO) and
U.N. Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO)

“The newer biotechnology techniques open up very

great possibilities of rapidly improving the quantity and
quality of food available. The use of these techniques
does not result in food which is inherently less safe
than that produced by conventional ones.”
Joint Report (1991)

62
Risk Assessment: Biotech Foods

British Food Standards Agency

“[There is] no evidence currently available [that] GM foods have any adverse
effect on human health.”
Sir John Krebs, Chairman

French Pasteur Institute

“We’ve never had the least incidence with GMOs – not a single incident in 25 years
of research and use. So, if [policies are] followed, I conclude it’s safe.”
Maurice Hofnung, Director

63
Risk Assessment: Biotech Foods

European Commission

“Right around the world, the scientific

evidence is that there is no problem with
GMOs over and above any other food.”
David Byrne
Commissioner for Health
and Consumer Protection
64
Risk Assessment: Biotech Foods

U.S. National Academy of Science

“Crops modified by molecular and cellular

methods should pose risks no different from
those modified by classic genetic methods for
similar traits.”
Academy Report, 1992

65
Risk Assessment: Biotech Foods

Australian/New Zealand Food Authority

“To date, [the Australian/New Zealand Food

Authority] has found no evidence that GM foods
are less safe than their conventionally produced
counterparts – a finding supported by food
agencies around the world.”
Public Statement, 2000

66
Risk Assessment: Biotech Foods

FORMERLY

“I’m quite confident that, when the public is properly

informed about biotech, they will realize that the
positive benefits are far away any potential negative
benefits. In fact, we don’t really know of any negative
aspects for GMOs but we do know of many positive
ones, both socially and environmentally.”

Dr. Patrick Moore

Founder & Former President
Greenpeace International
New Scientist, December 25, 1999

67
 "Biotechnology's been
around almost since the beginning of time. It's
cavemen saving seeds of a high-yielding plant. It's
Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, cross-
pollinating his garden peas. It's a diabetic's insulin,
and the enzymes in your yogurt.... Without exception,
the biotech products on our shelves have proven
safe."

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman

March 13, 1997
68
Risk Management: Biotechnology
• International Frameworks
– International Plant Protection Convention (Seed)
– Codex Alimentarius (Food Safety)
– Biosafety Protocol (Environment Impacts)
– World Trade Organization (Trade)

• National Governments
– United States
• USDA/Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
• EPA/Office of Pesticides
• FDA/Center for Food Safety & Nutrition
69
 Risk Management: Biotech Food Labeling

• FDA Labeling Policy

– Compositional Change
– Nutritional Change
– Health Issue (Allergenicity)

– Mandatory
– Applies to All Foods, including Biotech Foods
– Truthful, Non-misleading

70
Risk Management: Biotech Food Labeling

• Recognizes that Consumers Get Information

From a Variety of Sources

• Preserves the Label for the Most Important

Information: Safety & Nutrition Data

• Recognizes Potential to Mislead Consumers by

Suggesting that Biotech Foods are Somehow
Different

71
 Risk Management: Biotech Food Labeling

FDA Guidance* for Voluntary Biotech Claims

Provide for Consumer Choice in Truthful, nonmisleading
manner
– “Genetically Modified”
– “GMO”
– “GM-Free”
– US Gov’t Organic Label
– Industry Allergy Guidelines (Draft, Jan 2001)

72
Risk Communication:

• No Food Safety Threat

– Biotech foods substantially equivalent to
conventional foods – “as safe as”
• No Need to Label
– FDA labeling policy reserves label for safety
and nutritional information
• FDA Draft Voluntary Labeling Guidelines
– Provides for consumer choice

73
Avoid Fear based on Misinformation & Theatre

“ad” campaigns
targeting brands

74
Risk Communication: Biotechnology

• Is There a Role for More Information?

• Absent readily available information about

the safety and regulation of biotechnology,
consumers will doubt its safety, demand
labeling and reject innovation in order to
minimize perceived risk

75
Biotech Food Realities

• Consumers want to know more about the

foods they eat, including (but not limited to)
those derived from biotechnology

• Consumers are willing to receive that

information in whatever form, and there is
evidence that many prefer “off-label”

76
 Consumers Want Information …

80
70
PERCENT

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Biotech Pesticides Imported Farming Cross-
Methods breeding

Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2001

77
… but are unwilling to pay for information?

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Pay Nothing Pay $10/Year Pay $50/Year Pay $250/Year

Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2001

78
If Not a Label, Then What?

81% of American consumers agree “it would be

better for food manufacturers, the government, health
professionals and others to provide more details
through toll-free phone numbers, brochures and web
sites”

International Food Information

Council

79
 Consumer choices

• Identity preservation and segregation will increase the

cost of food
• Most consumers will be unwilling to pay added cost for
labeling without a tangible benefit
• Voluntary labeling for consumers wishing to avoid
biotech and willing to pay price premiums
• Truthful and non-misleading labeling language
• Alternatives to labeling for consumer education

80
 Evaluating Risks and Benefits

• Risks and Benefits differ by crop, region, pest

pressure
• Assessing risks and benefits is an on-going process
• Benefits, risks, and risk mitigation strategies need to
be assessed on a case by case basis
• We don’t have all the answers BUT we must have
enough answers (certainty) to regulate appropriately

81
 We can reap the greatest benefits:
• Through the integration or selection of various cropping
systems - conventional, organic and biotech farming
– Examples:
• Enhanced crop productivity, quality and nutrition from genetic gains
• Double crop production on the same area of land
– Save forests and biodiversity
• Reduce external inputs
– Pesticides, fertilizers, and water
• Increase the stability of yield through better control of environmental
and social stressors
– the cause of past famines
• Through the integration of historical and new diagnostic
tools
– Example: reduce time to identify crop disease 82
The future of agricultural and food
biotechnology depends on …

• Continued grower support

• Food industry and retailer unanimity
• Government consistency
• Illustration of compelling benefits
• Consumer education and acceptance
• International harmonization

83
Prospects for the Future Depend on:

Public perceptions/public acceptance

Our understanding of the risks, benefits, safety, and
utility of the various technologies available to us
A recognition that food and agricultural
biotechnology is not a silver bullet; it just provides
another useful set of options
A case by case determination whether biotech
options are the best options or not

84
Prospects for the Future Depend on:

Us…scientists and journalists, clearly

and responsibly communicating the
risks, the benefits, and the potential for
this powerful tool
85
Need More Information?
• www.agbios.com
• www.agbioworld.org
• www.bio-scope.org
• www.cast-science.org
• http://cspinet.org/biotech
• www.ific.org
• www.isaaa.org
• www.lifesciencesnetwork.com
• www.whybiotech.com

86
Thank you…

For listening, for sharing your passion for

food with others, and for thinking now and
then all the way down the line to those
farmers and ranchers who produced it.

87