Survey assesses Mexican consumers’ opinions on GMO corn import ban

By John Lovett
University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture
Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — A fully implemented ban on genetically modified corn in Mexico could disproportionately affect the nation’s lower-income consumers, according to a recently published study by agricultural economists with the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture.

It would also have a negative impact on American farmers. Over 90 percent of corn grown in the United States is genetically modified, and Mexico is the second-largest importer of U.S. corn after China. Eggs and poultry meat account for about half of protein intake, and tortillas provide 13 to 20 percent of caloric intake for Mexicans, according to articles and studies cited in the Division of Agriculture study titled “Potential response of Mexican consumers to a ban on genetically modified maize imports.”

CORN SURVEY — Agricultural economists with the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station conducted a survey of Mexican consumers on their nation's ban of genetically modified corn. (U of A System Division of Agriculture)

“More than half of the people we surveyed in Mexico were not even aware of the ban, and of those who did know about it and supported it, many of them changed their opinion when they saw how much prices could go up and how many jobs could be lost,” said Brandon McFadden, a lead author of the study and a professor of agricultural economics and agribusiness for the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, the research arm of the Division of Agriculture.

The study, published in the journal Food Security, was co-authored by Lawton Lanier Nalley, Alvaro Durand-Morat, Katie Loethen, and Wei Yang. Nalley is head of the agricultural economics and agribusiness department. Durand-Morat is an associate professor and the L.C. Carter Endowed Chair in the department. Loethen is an agricultural economics graduate student at the University of Arkansas, and Yang is an agricultural economics graduate student at Texas A&M University.

“While this study primarily focused on the impacts to Mexican maize consumers, there are tangible impacts to the U.S. maize industry from the ban,” Nalley said. “Mexico relies heavily on U.S. maize imports, mainly yellow maize, for livestock production. Since over 90 percent of U.S. maize is genetically modified, the decree would drastically impact bilateral trade should the GM ban be implemented.”

Maize is the Spanish word for what is called corn in the U.S. The industry uses “GM” and “GMO” interchangeably for genetically modified, or genetically modified organism.

McFadden said the study was conducted to fill gaps in understanding what Mexican consumers would be willing to pay for the impacts of Mexican bans on genetically modified corn and the herbicide glyphosate. The research also helps estimate the burden on low-income consumers who could likely not afford the premiums for products made from non-genetically modified corn, he added.

Presidential decrees

On Dec. 31, 2020, President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador’s administration published a decree calling for the nation to phase out the herbicide glyphosate and genetically modified maize, or corn, for animal and human consumption by Jan. 31, 2024. In a follow-up decree on Feb. 13, 2023, the Mexican government exempted genetically modified corn for animal feed.

President Claudia Sheinbaum, who took office Oct. 1, has indicated her administration will continue enforcing the decree.

The consumer perception study, led by McFadden as the Tyson Endowed Chair in Food Policy Economics, was conducted in April 2023 and surveyed 1,301 Mexicans who were age 18 or over. About 5 percent of the sample did not consume all the food products, so 1,238 respondents completed the survey. Durand-Morat, whose native language is Spanish, translated the questions and the results.

What is GM corn?

Most genetically modified corn is created to resist insect pests or tolerate herbicides. Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, corn is a genetically modified corn that produces proteins that are toxic to certain insects but not to humans, pets, livestock, or other animals, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“These are the same types of proteins that organic farmers use to control insect pests, and they do not harm beneficial insects, such as ladybugs,” the FDA noted. “GMO Bt corn reduces the need for spraying insecticides while still preventing insect damage. While a lot of GMO corn goes into processed foods and drinks, most of it is used to feed livestock, like cows, and poultry, like chickens.”

Most crops fed to animals are genetically modified, but not those directly eaten by humans, according to Michael Kidd, professor of poultry nutrition in the Center of Excellence for Poultry Science for the Division of Agriculture.

Willing to pay?

On average, those surveyed were willing to pay a premium of 73 percent for chicken, 50 percent for eggs, and 50 percent for tortillas produced with non-genetically modified corn. These premium estimates are more significant than the potential price increases of 67 percent for chicken and 30 percent for tortillas, as estimated by a 2022 World Perspectives study that provided estimates on price increases.

Breaking the results down by groups, however, is more of a mixed bag, McFadden said. Out of the entire group of respondents, less than half — 46 percent — were aware of the decrees. The people who were aware of and supported the ban were willing to pay higher than average for non-genetically modified products and animal products that had eaten GM feed. Respondents who supported it were willing to pay 91 percent more for chicken, 71 percent more for eggs, and 66 percent more for tortillas.

In the lowest-income category with an annual income of less than 7,000 pesos — or about $350 — those unaware of the ban were only willing to pay premiums of 46 percent for chicken, 21 percent for eggs, and 25 percent for tortillas.

Human health was the largest reason given by respondents supportive of the GMO ban, representing 85 percent of that group. Other less significant reasons included protecting Mexican heritage, environmental concern and protecting cultural heritage.

Public opinion at odds with FDA

The weighted average of responses indicated that consumers did not feel that genetically modified products of corn were safe to eat in tortillas. However, they felt it was safer than consuming poultry fed genetically modified corn feed. Those surveyed also considered genetically modified corn grown in Mexico as safer than that grown in the U.S.

The consumer perception results clash with the FDA’s position on genetically modified corn for chicken feed and the Mexican government’s exemption on genetically modified corn for animal feed.

The safety perception rankings from survey respondents for tortillas and tamale husks were significantly higher than eggs or chicken. And consumers felt it was safer for eggs than chicken meat. The results for the safety rankings of products align with research in the U.S., McFadden noted, concluding that consumers are generally more averse to fresh products like meat from animals fed with genetically modified corn than processed products using genetically modified corn.

The FDA, basing its statement on independent studies, says there is “no difference in how GMO and non-GMO foods affect the health and safety of animals.” More than 95 percent of animals used for meat and dairy in the United States eat genetically modified crops.

“The DNA in the GMO food does not transfer to the animal that eats it,” the FDA states. “This means that animals that eat GMO food do not turn into GMOs. Similarly, the DNA from GMO animal food does not make it into the meat, eggs, or milk from the animal. Research shows that foods like eggs, dairy products, and meat that come from animals that eat GMO food are equal in nutritional value, safety, and quality to foods made from animals that eat only non-GMO food.”

The FDA also notes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “continues to find that there are no risks to public health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label.” The International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that glyphosate may be a carcinogen, while several others, including the European Food Safety Authority and the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Meeting on Pesticide Residues, have determined that it is unlikely to be a carcinogen, the FDA added.

Food security and jobs

About 45 percent of Mexicans live in poverty, and 23 percent are food insecure, the consumer perception study noted. If the estimated price changes reported by World Perspectives in 2022 are correct, the ban will likely exacerbate food insecurity, McFadden said, because lower-income Mexican consumers spend a larger proportion of their relative and absolute income on tortillas than the wealthiest people.

In addition to the increases in corn prices, the World Perspectives study estimated the original decree would result in 56,958 jobs lost in Mexico. Supporters of the ban were asked if they would still support the decree given a potential loss of jobs for 55,000 Mexicans.

The proportion of respondents who were aware and supported the decree decreased from 77 to 46 percent when provided information about the potential jobs lost due to the decree. The decree support dropped to 56 percent when provided information about increases in corn prices.

McFadden said employment reductions could come from a cascading effect of increased food prices, which decreases spending on other goods and in turn a decreased gross domestic product, the measure of a country's economic health.

Previous bans in other countries

Food security risks associated with genetically modified food bans have taken place in other countries, the consumer perception study noted. In 2020, Zimbabwe lifted an import ban on genetically modified foods that had been in place for 12 years after the worst drought in decades resulted in more than half of the population needing food aid. Kenya had also banned genetically modified crops in 2012, then lifted the ban in 2022 after soaring food prices amid the African nation’s worst drought in four decades.

To learn more about the Division of Agriculture research, visit the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station website. Follow us on X at @ArkAgResearch, subscribe to the Food, Farms and Forests podcast and sign up for our monthly newsletter, the Arkansas Agricultural Research Report. To learn more about the Division of Agriculture, visit uada.edu. Follow us on X at @AgInArk. To learn about extension programs in Arkansas, contact your local Cooperative Extension Service agent or visit uaex.uada.edu.

Study shows the more you know about GMOs, the more you accept them as safe

By John Lovett
University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture
Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — The more that people know about gene editing, the more likely they are to feel it is safe to use in agriculture and medicine, according to a survey of more than 4,500 people across the United States.

While there is a technical difference between “gene editing” and “genetic modification,” also known as transgenics, people often lump the two biotechnologies together as genetic engineering. Gene editing does not introduce new biology to a genotype like gene modification.

PERCEPTIONS — Brandon McFadden, professor of agricultural economics and agribusiness for the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, researched consumer perceptions of the use of gene editing in agriculture and medicine for a study that was published this year. (U of A System Division of Agriculture photo)

Brandon McFadden, Tyson Endowed Chair in Food Policy Economics for the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, was the lead author of a peer-reviewed study to find out more about the opinions of consumers in the United States on the safety of gene editing in agricultural and medical fields. The research, which analyzed surveys taken in 2021 and 2022, was published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology this year.

“People who have heard or read a lot about gene editing generally have a favorable opinion about using it for agricultural or medical purposes,” McFadden said. “So, people who are less familiar with gene editing are likelier to think it is unsafe.”

The study, McFadden noted, showed that people who are not as familiar with gene editing are more likely to think it is unsafe, and they require more evidence to change their minds. That evidence could come from either more studies or time without a negative outcome. The surveys showed that, on average, people with a negative opinion of gene editing’s safety need around 100 studies, or 20 years, to improve their opinion about the safety of gene editing.

However, McFadden noted that many people may never change their minds about the safety of gene editing. More than 10 percent of respondents stated that no amount of research or time without an adverse outcome would improve their opinion about the safety of gene editing for agriculture and medical products.

McFadden and his co-authors began the study at the University of Florida, and it was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture through its Biotechnology Risk Assessment Research Grants program.

Co-authors included Kathryn A. Stofer and Kevin M. Folta with the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, and Joy N. Rumble, now with The Ohio State University.

Stofer, research associate professor in the agricultural education and communication department for UF/IFAS, said the results were enlightening on multiple levels and opens more avenues of research.

“The study sets us up to test explicit messages about the number of studies or years of research on this technology that might help alleviate concerns about safety and support the benefits,” Stofer said.

Folta, UF/IFAS professor in the horticultural sciences department, said better perceptions of gene editing are associated with awareness of biotechnology.

“That means scientists need to be engaging in conversations about the successes, like how sickle cell disease may be curable in the next few years,” Folta said. “We used to think that providing more evidence didn’t change opinions, but this work shows maybe we can change public perception if we effectively share the good things we can do with gene editing.”

Difference in gene editing and genetic modification

Gene editing is “the process of precisely changing or deleting a few ‘letters’ of DNA,” the researchers explained in the study. This is different from genetic modification, also known as transgenics, which introduces new biology to a genome.

Both gene editing and gene modification are used in agriculture to develop plant varieties that are more drought tolerant and disease resistant in less time than traditional breeding techniques. The study notes that a lack of proactive public dialogue surrounding the primary introduction of genetically modified organisms “did irreparable damage to the emerging scientific field of genetic engineering,” and that the continued expansion of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields has led many to call for “broad public dialogue” about the technology.

Gene editing in the medical field is also known as “gene therapy” and aims to treat and cure disease or make the body better able to fight disease. According to the Mayo Clinic, gene therapy “holds promise as a treatment for a wide range of diseases, such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, diabetes, hemophilia and AIDS.” Research cited in the McFadden study showed that public opinion on gene editing in the medical field was more supportive for therapeutic uses than aversion for non-disease uses that are cosmetic.

Public opinion varies

Data were collected during two time periods using surveys distributed online by Qualtrics to samples of U.S. adults. The Institutional Review Board at the University of Delaware approved both surveys. Collecting data from two samples allowed researchers to examine the stability of results across groups of respondents and time.

Recent research on public opinion toward the use of biotechnology in agriculture has focused on differences in opinions between the use of gene editing and genetic modification. McFadden noted that studies published in 2019 and 2020 concluded that the public generally supports gene editing in agriculture more than genetic modification. However, the objective of the new study was to explore U.S. public opinion about gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields. Another goal of the study was to provide more insight into the relationship between opinions about the safety of gene editing and the potential impact to improve opinions about safety.

Public acceptance seems to be associated with whether the gene editing is done for medical or agricultural purposes. The study noted that when participants in U.S. focus groups were asked what they thought about when hearing the words “gene editing,” the medical field was discussed more frequently and extensively than agriculture.

Researchers pointed out that in 2018 there was an announcement of gene-edited twins in China that increased public awareness of medical applications. Public aversion to the use of related biotechnology in agriculture has also been well-documented, McFadden added, despite support from the scientific community. For example, he pointed to a 2014 Pew Research survey of U.S. adults and researchers affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science estimating that 88 percent of its members agreed that genetically modified foods were safe to consume compared to only 37 percent of adults.

Results from the study indicate that people in the U.S. who are familiar with gene editing, or do not hold a negative opinion about safety, required less evidence to improve opinions about the safety of gene editing. On average, respondents in both samples were more familiar with gene editing in agriculture and more likely to have a positive opinion about its use in agriculture than for medical purposes.

“When we have a negative opinion about something, we should maybe ask ourselves what would cause us to change our minds,” McFadden said.

To learn more about Division of Agriculture research, visit the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station website: https://aaes.uada.edu. Follow on Twitter at @ArkAgResearch. To learn more about the Division of Agriculture, visit https://uada.edu/. Follow us on Twitter at @AgInArk. To learn about extension programs in Arkansas, contact your local Cooperative Extension Service agent or visit www.uaex.uada.edu.

Panelists say changes needed to harness bio-, ag-tech innovations

By Mary Hightower
U of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — Arkansas is poised to harness the latest technological innovations to solve problems like food insecurity, but that won’t happen without funding and policy changes, panelists said at the Agri-Food Innovation Summit.

The two-day summit on Nov. 2-3 featured panel discussions and presentations on all aspects of taking research discoveries and developing practical solutions for problems in agriculture and food production.

INNOVATION — The panel on agricultural and food innovation for the 22nd century included Khoa Luu, left, assistant professor of computer science and computer engineering; Brandon McFadden, professor of agricultural economics and agribusiness; Marty Matlock, professor of biological and agricultural engineering; Parker Cole, associate director of technology commercialization for the Division of Agriculture; Walter Burgess, co-CEO of Power Technology, Inc.; and Sylvia Wulf, CEO of Aquabounty Technologies. (U of A System Division of Agriculture photo)

More than 200 registered over the two-day summit, which was co-hosted by the Arkansas Small Business and Technology Development Center, the University of Arkansas Division of Economic Development, the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, and Catalyst/Research and Technology Transfer at Arkansas State University.

Food security

Sylvia Wulf, CEO of Aquabounty Technologies, said she believed in the potential for the Natural State to be a leader in ag and food innovation. Her company produces genetically modified salmon that are tank-farmed on land.

“We are a poster child for how challenging innovation and entrepreneurialism is,” Wulf said. “It took us 25 years to get regulatory approval for our salmon. There was no pathway. We are the first genetically modified animal that was ever approved for use in this country.

“Then we ran into political challenges. It took us several years to overcome what they put in place to allow us to farm” her company’s salmon, she said.

She said her company’s salmon can help reduce carbon footprint compared to the shipping needed to supply Atlantic salmon.

“If you look at Atlantic salmon, it has more frequent flier miles than anybody else in this room,” she said. “We can solve that carbon footprint by creating an industry here in the U.S.”

Wulf also said that “food security is national security. I think we see that because of what happened with COVID.”

“We import 97 percent of the seafood that we eat in this country. It’s a healthy, healthy protein,” she said. “Yet, we are completely dependent on imports. So, we need to be able to develop an aquaculture segment for our economy.”

The challenge ahead is “how do we optimize the technology to where public-private partnerships and some of the funding opportunities that we are talking about today can come into play,” Wulf said.

‘Mud on their boots’

Marty Matlock, professor of ecological engineering in the biological and agricultural engineering department for the Division of Agriculture and University of Arkansas, talked about his time working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He was among the panelists discussing Agricultural Innovation for the 22nd Century.

“We have a $23.3 trillion economy in this country. It’s the largest economy of any nation in the history of this planet,” he said. “We know that venture capital is key to innovation for any sort of technology systems because typically there's just no funding source available other than someone who's willing to take a chance on it. 

“If you have the equity, you go to the bank and you just borrow it — you double mortgage your house,” Matlock said. “But the problem with most innovative companies, especially small businesses, is there is no equity there, so venture capital is your mechanism.

Matlock said that in 2022, the U.S. had $246 billion in venture capital expenditures across every sector.

“That’s about 1.5 percent of our total GPD going to venture capital,” he said. “Of that 1.5 percent, about $12.6 billion of that goes to agriculture. Of that $12.6 billion, $5 billion goes to California. Forty percent of it goes to California. It’s not coming to where the people have mud on their boots and that’s one of our big challenges.”

“How do we innovate when there's no money? Arkansas can do it but it's going to take a lot of innovations in policy to make that happen,” Matlock said. “It's going to take everything from what we're doing here — these conversations, to governmental tax code to incentive programs, to core funding sources — to start this process going. And it's going to take years of investment to make that happen. It could happen here, but it's going take will, the force of will, to push this rock up the hill.”

Wulf agreed.

“I’m passionate about two things,” she said. “I'm passionate about ag tech and biotech and I’m passionate about making sure that Arkansas is an area of focus for investment in ag tech and biotech, because I believe that this state can lead the country in making that a reality. “

To learn about extension programs in Arkansas, contact your local Cooperative Extension Service agent or visit www.uaex.uada.edu. Follow us on X and Instagram at @AR_Extension. To learn more about Division of Agriculture research, visit the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station website: https://aaes.uada.edu. Follow on X at @ArkAgResearch. To learn more about the Division of Agriculture, visit https://uada.edu/. Follow us on X at @AgInArk.

Arkansas ag econ professor Jada Thompson wins SAEA Emerging Scholar Award

By John Lovett
University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture
Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — Jada Thompson, assistant professor in the department of agricultural economics and agribusiness in the University of Arkansas System, was recently recognized with the Southern Agricultural Economics Association’s 2023 Emerging Scholar Award for research.

EMERGING SCHOLAR — Jada Thompson is a 2023 Emerging Scholar Award recipient from the Southern Agricultural Economics Association. The agricultural economist has focused much of her work on HPAI bird flu. (U of A System Division of Ag photo by Fred Miller)

Thompson, an economist with the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, the research arm of the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, has spent much of her academic career researching bird flu’s economic impact.

She said the new strain of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 poses a longer-running risk on the supply chain and may lead to structural changes in poultry production. The 2022 bird flu epidemic has raised questions about how the poultry industry proceeds.

The agricultural economics and agribusiness department now has three SAEA Emerging Scholar Award-winning faculty. Brandon McFadden, professor and the Tyson Endowed Chair in Food Policy Economics, and Trey Malone, assistant professor, were recognized with the award in 2019 and 2022, respectively.

“Dr. Thompson has established an outstanding record of research, with nearly 40 peer-reviewed publications including not only high-impact journal articles but also Extension publications summarizing stakeholder-relevant work,” John Anderson, head of the agricultural economics and agribusiness department, stated in his nomination letter for the award.

Anderson, who is also director of the Fryar Price Risk Management Center of Excellence, stated that Thompson’s record shows that she is a versatile researcher who is able to apply her skill set to a variety of relevant problems. A common thread that is evident in her work is the link between farm-level production issues and market impacts, he said.

“This is an increasingly important line of inquiry, as her work on both domestic and international market impacts of animal disease outbreaks demonstrates,” Anderson wrote. “This kind of integrated research requires not only a solid economics toolkit but also a thorough understanding of both production systems and agricultural markets. Any one of these facets of the work is difficult to master. Dr. Thompson ably integrates her mastery of all three.”

Anderson noted Thompson’s work is highly collaborative with economists from a wide range of institutions and experts from other relevant disciplines. Her proficiency extends to the extension and teaching mission areas, where she engaged directly with stakeholders, Anderson added.

“She is an excellent instructor, having already taught a variety of courses at three different land-grant institutions,” Anderson said. “Dr. Thompson has also actively engaged in service activities, both in our department and within the profession. Across all aspects of her faculty work, Dr. Thompson is productive, hard-working, and unfailingly collegial. She is rapidly emerging as a leader within our profession.”

Malone said the SAEA Emerging Scholar award is national in scope and a “premier designation” for early career faculty members in agricultural economics.

“Jada’s applied research program as a poultry economist is top-notch, so it’s fantastic to see such a hypercompetitive award acknowledge her hard work,” Malone said.

Thompson, a northwest Arkansas native, is among a small group of agricultural economists who specialize in poultry, Anderson said. She has a long history with the University of Arkansas, earning her bachelor’s and master’s degrees in agricultural economics there. For her bachelor’s degree, Thompson double-majored in poultry science and agricultural economics. In June, she returned as an assistant professor following five years as an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville.

She earned her doctorate in 2016 at Colorado State University.

“When you come into agriculture as a woman, there is a smaller subset of us, and to get this award is validating and exciting,” Thompson said. “To be nominated was humbling and to win was very nice.”

2022 HPAI potential impacts

As part of the award, Thompson will give a presentation on her investigations into the economic ramifications of this highly pathogenic avian influenza — HPAI — at the SAEA annual symposium in February in Oklahoma City. Her talk will provide a comprehensive overview of HPAI, the differences between the 2015 and 2022 outbreaks, market impacts and her analysis of how the event may change the poultry sector.

“In animal health economics it is important to push the boundaries of information gathering, analysis and multidisciplinary work because of this concept of ‘One Health,’ that plants, animals and humans are interconnected on local, regional, national and global levels,” Thompson said.

Some of the discussion around HPAI include continued research on a cost-beneficial aerosol vaccine that would be the most practical option for inoculating tens of thousands of birds at once. H5N1 has had a bigger impact on turkeys and laying hens, however, because older birds are more susceptible to the virus, Thompson noted. Broilers, the largest sector of Arkansas’ poultry industry, are harvested after about two months of growth.

Questions remain on what the producer response should be if the H5N1 strain continues into 2023, Thompson said. How much to increase production to compensate for potential losses and changes in placements are at the top of the list because of issues with increased food prices and potential fear in the marketplace of continued disruptions.

To learn more about Division of Agriculture research, visit the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station website: https://aaes.uada.edu. Follow on Twitter at @ArkAgResearch. To learn more about the Division of Agriculture, visit https://uada.edu/. Follow us on Twitter at @AgInArk. To learn about extension programs in Arkansas, contact your local Cooperative Extension Service agent or visit www.uaex.uada.edu.