Terry D. Etherton
INTRODUCTION
Scientists have made impressive strides in developing new biotechnologies for agriculture since the onset of the modern era of biotechnology in 1973 (reviewed in Metabolic Modifiers, 1994; Etherton et al., 2003, American Dietetic Association, 2006). Biotechnologies that enhance productivity and productive efficiency (feed consumed/unit of output) have been developed and approved for commercial use. Development and adoption of novel biotechnologies will be crucial in meeting the challenge of producing enough food for a growing world population while minimizing and reducing impacts on the environment (reviewed in Metabolic Modifiers, 1994)
Technologies that improve productive efficiency will benefit both producers and consumers because feed provision constitutes a major component (about 70%) of farm expenditures. Advances in biotechnology research have allowed impressive improvements to be made in diagnostic approaches, increasing microbial safety of food and improving animal health (reviewed in Etherton et al., 2003). The application of genomics, the study of how genes (DNA) are organized and expressed, and bioinformatics in animal agriculture will provide new genetic markers for improved selection of all livestock species. Biotechnology also offers considerable potential to animal agriculture as a means to reduce nutrients and odors from manure as well as the volume of manure produced. Development and adoption of these biotechnologies will contribute to a more sustainable environment.
Advances in plant biotechnology also have had a huge positive impact on society. An impressive number of genetically modified (GM) plant varieties have been developed with improved qualities including enhanced tolerance of herbicides, and protection against viruses and insect pests, and beneficial modifications in nutrient profile. Presently, 74 different biotech crops have been approved for use in the United States (AGBIOS, 2007). The discovery and development of new animal and plant biotechnologies are part of a continuum leading to the commercialization of agricultural biotechnology products. In order to enter the marketplace, new animal biotechnologies are rigorously evaluated by the appropriate federal regulatory agencies to ensure efficacy, consumer safety, and animal health and well being (FDA, 2006).
The modern era of biotechnology research represents some of the most remarkable scientific achievements in the history of life science research. Nonetheless, some in the public continue a discussion/attack about the need for and safety of “biotechnology in the barnyard” (see articles posted at http://blogs.das.psu.edu/tetherton/ ). A recent focal point these campaigns of misinformation has been the attack on recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in the dairy industry, and the deceptive marketing efforts driven by some in the dairy industry to promote rbST-free milk. Their intent is clear – to differentiate milk and dairy products into three niches: conventional, rbST-free and organic, and sell the latter two products for appreciably more. Moreover, this is being done without paying a fair premium to producers who are forced to abandon use of the rbST. For additional information on this debate, the interested reader is directed to the Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology where this topic is discussed in great detail.
The purpose of this blog is to review the multiple aspects of the battle over rbST use, and the deceptive marketing campaigns that promote the sales of rbST-free milk, and what might occur to animal agriculture and science if the technology is “lost”.
RECOMBINANT BOVINE SOMATOTROPIN (rbST) – A CASE STUDY
In order for products of biotechnology to benefit agriculture and society they must be perceived as “acceptable” (i.e., safe) by consumers, and provide a benefit that compels consumers to purchase them. With respect to rbST, a key aspect of consumer demand (here, the dairy producer) for the product was that rbST supplementation increased milk production, productive efficiency (milk/feed), decreased animal waste, and enhanced profitability (reviewed by Etherton and Bauman, 1998; Bauman, 1999). rbST has been commercially used in the U.S. since 1994, and typically milk production is increased by 10-15% (approximately 4 to 6 kg/d), although even greater increases occur when the management and care of the animals are excellent (Bauman et al., 1999; Chilliard, 1989; Metabolic Modifiers, 1994).
Another “consumer” that influences demand for rbST are those who purchase dairy and milk products. A challenge from the early days of the commercial launch of rbST has been that many consumers do not have a good understanding of science, the food system, production practices used in animal agriculture and the risk/benefit evaluation used in evaluating new safety of new food biotechnologies. This predisposes some to be easily swayed by marketing campaigns that are based on selling fear.
Some might argue that we should educate consumers about biotechnology and agriculture. Yes, this is an important objective. Unfortunately, developing effective science education programs for the public is a daunting challenge, and they are expensive to conduct. For example, the United States government will spend more than a $1 billion this year on nutrition education, and the trend has been for increased expenditures over the past decade. Yet, the incidence of obesity and overweight in the United States is increasing at a staggering rate; many in the field view it as an epidemic. In the United States, over 66% adults are either overweight or obese (National Center for Health Statistics, 2007).
Another, unfortunate reality is that higher education has done less than an adequate job of developing agricultural biotechnology education programs for the public. There is a large cohort of scientists working at institutions of higher education who are more interested in writing papers for a science journal, and getting the next grant funded than they are in explaining the importance of their research, and its benefits to the public (Senger and Etherton, 2007).
An important driving force in creating the rbST-free milk market niche has been the marketing campaigns waged that seek to differentiate milk and dairy products on the basis of technologies and production practices used on the farm. These marketing strategies are based on deceptive “absence claims” (e.g., milk labeled as not containing hormones, antibiotics or dangerous pesticides, etc.) that confuse and misinform consumers. It’s a simple strategy: use “fear marketing” to make consumers buy more expensive milk that bears labels hinting it might be safer than other milk even though it is the same. The intent, of course, is to convey to consumers that conventional milk must contain these, and “encourage” consumers to purchase the more expensive milk, rbST-free or organic, which must be better. This is not the case; all milk within a fat category is the same compositionally. And, all milk sold at retail (and pasteurized) is equally safe, nutritious and wholesome.
A good example of “fear marketing” is the label on Horizon Organic Milk. It proclaims that their milk is “Produced WITHOUT the use of antibiotics, artificial hormones or dangerous pesticides”! These “absence claims” confuse and scare some consumers. Further evidence of this is in a story published in the October 1, 2006 issue of the St. Louis Post Dispatch, which quotes a mother shopping at a Trader Joe’s for her family as she “picked up a package of string cheese in the dairy section, and noted that it doesn’t contain bST, a bovine hormone.” “I’m not sure what it is, but I think it’s something bad,” she said. “I’m pretty certain it’s a hormone, and I try to buy milk that also doesn’t have hormones in it. I’m not one of those people where everything has to be organic. But with my child, I feel like I should get her off on the right food; you know, without pesticides and hormones.”
The intent of the “good milk versus bad milk” marketing campaigns is clearly to “encourage” consumers to pay more for rbST-free and organic milk. Consumer survey data indicate that “hormone absence claims” infer to some consumers that the milk labeled this way is free of hormones. There is no such thing as hormone-free milk.
It is essential to look at unbiased surveys of consumer attitudes to accurately assess what milk purchase decisions are actually based on. My perspective, and that of many other scientists, is that surveys can be conducted in a way to get to a pre-determined outcome. I have yet to obtain a copy of any survey instrument used by the retailers who claim that consumer demand is driving their decision to put rbST-free milk in the dairy case. Moreover, there is little evidence in the public domain from well conducted surveys indicating that consumers are interested in rbST-free milk. In two recent survey studies, over 600 consumers were asked what their primary milk purchase decision was based on. Over 70% of respondents indicated that their decision was based on price, fat content category or price. Only one respondent indicated that their milk purchase decision was based on rbST content of the milk.
Some of the press releases from retailers have claimed that consumer concern about food safety is an important basis for their offering rbST-free milk. This is an exaggeration. The International Food Information Council (IFIC) has conducted robust and well-done surveys for a number of years probing consumer concerns about food safety. In their most recent survey, only 3% of the respondents (out of 497; open ended survey) indicated they were concerned about biotechnology and food safety (http://blogs.das.psu.edu/tetherton/2006/12/21/consumer-acceptance-of-rbst-the-facts/). Their leading concerns were disease/contamination (36%) and food handling/preparation (35%). In this survey, it is important to appreciate that biotechnology spans animal and plant biotechnology; the survey was not designed to resolve specific concerns about rbST. Nonetheless, the data in the public domain from well-conducted and non-biased consumer surveys does not indicate that many consumers have an interest in rbST-free milk. However, the differences in the price between conventional and rbST-free milk (about 90 cents/gallon) is obviously sufficient to drive the marketing campaign we are witnessing, even if the market share is 3 to 5% (note, there is no information in the public domain for rbST-free milk market share; in addition, in some regions the market has converged – that is, conventional milk is not being sold in the dairy case).
LUDDITES AT THE GATE
As a scientist, I am stunned by the factors that are driving policy-making at every level today – from Capitol Hill, to the boardroom, to the kitchen, decision-makers are increasingly influenced by a constituency whose credibility should at best be questioned and at worst be dismissed absolutely. Evidence and reasoning are in short supply in the debate over rbST. Activist advocacy groups are using fear-based and emotional arguments that are having an impact on our society. Organizations such as Dairy Management Incorporated, International Dairy Foods Association, National Milk Producers Federation, and the American Dairy Science Association have not represented dairy producer interests in the rbST-free milk public discussion. Consequently, there has been no national organization defending dairy producer’s choice to use a safe, profitable, and effective technology.
As discussed herein, the public discussion about rbST has been fueled by misinformation campaigns conducted and funded by a number of anti-ag and anti-biotech activist groups. As animal agriculture moves forward, there is a pressing need to be more proactive in developing and delivering biotechnology and agriculture education campaigns for the public and policy makers that clearly articulate the need for and merits of current production practices that are used in animal agriculture. If we fail to do this, we face the possibility that scientific innovation in biotechnology and coupling scientific discoveries to development of new products for animal agriculture will fade away. Some might argue that this is not likely. However, my perspective is that if the current attack on rbST results in the product disappearing from the marketplace, there will NOT be other private sector companies in the U.S. undertake efforts to develop and sell new products of biotechnology for animal agriculture outside the animal health market. In addition, it is possible that the animal health market will shrink both from an innovation of new science perspective as well as market size/opportunities (i.e., the attack on antibiotic use is one illustration of the latter).
A LOOK TO THE FUTURE – WHAT IS COMING?
Before we in the animal agricultural community get carried away anticipating scientific advances in biotechnology over the next 40 years, there are several key points that must be considered and addressed. There is the ever present issue of sufficient funding being available for discovery and applied research in agriculture. As discussed, scientific discoveries made require a viable private sector to commercialize new products of biotechnology. This is becoming more challenging for the reasons discussed herein. The process of moving a product through the regulatory approval process is becoming more complex, costly and lengthy. This growing burden makes it challenging for private sector to recover their investment costs from product sales. This is particularly important for agricultural biotechnologies where the margins on products sold are lower than biomedical biotechnology products (using comparable scientific methods for production).
For those who believe that the activist (and processor and retailer) attacks on rbST use in the dairy industry will be the end of the battle, let me assure you that this is only the beginning. A key question is what other technologies/biotechnologies will be attacked next? Will it be antibiotic use? The use of synchronization programs for reproductive management? The use of rumensin? The use of artificial insemination programs? The use of genetically modified feedstuffs? Some activist groups have as a strategic goal to move consumers to a plant-based diet. Given this, the last “technology” to go could well be the cows! Should food production move off-shore in a substantial way, there will be the looming question in the future of whether we can have national security in the absence of food security. The answer to that is simple – NO. My hope is that a large proportion of the American population understands this reality.
A debate that has not taken place to any extent relates to the future of basic science research in animal agriculture. If there is no outlet to commercialize novel scientific discoveries then the possibility emerges that federal funding for basic, discovery research could wane – why fund it if it can’t be commercialized? Should research funding be reduced/eliminated, then we will have witnessed science and the scientific method “getting tossed under the bus”. My encouragement is that we in the animal agricultural community champion the benefits of investing in discovery research that benefits animal agriculture and consumers. At the present time, there are few visible science activists who effectively represent our interests in defending the right to develop and use agricultural biotechnologies in production agriculture.
The silence by many in the science and dairy producer communities in this advocacy battle has been deafening…what a legacy!
REFERENCES
American Dietetic Association. 2006. Position of the American Dietetic Association: Agricultural and Food Biotechnology. 106:285-293.
Bauman, D. E. 1999. Bovine somatotropin and lactation: From basic science to commercial application. Domest. Anim. Endocrinol. 17:101–116.
Bauman, D.E., R.W. Everett, W.H. Weiland and R.J. Collier. 1999. Production responses to bovine somatotropin in northeast dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 82:2564-2573.
Chilliard, Y. 1989. Long-term effects of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) on dairy cow performances: a review. In: K. Sejrsen, M. Vestergaard and A. Neimann-Sorensen (eds.). Use of Somatotropin in Livestock Production. Elsevier Applied Science, NY, p. 61-87
Etherton, T.D. and D.E. Bauman. 1998. The biology of somatotropin in growth and lactation of domestic animals. Physiol. Rev. 78:745–761.
Etherton, T.D., D.E. Bauman, C.W. Beattie, R.D. Bremel, G.L. Cromwell, V. Kapur, G. Varner, M.B. Wheeler and M. Wiedmann. 2003. Biotechnology in Animal Agriculture: An Overview. CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology) Issue Paper, No. 23.
FDA. 2006. A Risk-Based Approach to Evaluate Animal Clones and Their Progeny – DRAFT. http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CloneRiskAssessment.htm
Metabolic Modifiers: Effects on Nutrient Requirements of Food-Producing Animals. 1994. T.D. Etherton (Ed.). Board on Agriculture, National Research Council, National Academy of Science Press, Washington, D.C.
National Center for Health Statistics. Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity Among Adults: United States, 2003-2004.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/overweight/overwght_adult_03.htm. Accessed August 24, 2007.
Senger, P.L. and T.D. Etherton. 2007. Podcast: Jumping at the tiger stripes and petting the tiger: A roundtable discussion with Terry Etherton and Phil Senger.
http://blogs.das.psu.edu/tetherton/2007/04/16/podcast-jumping-at-the-tiger-stripes-and-petting-the-tiger-a-roundtable-discussion-with-terry-etherton-and-phil-senger/