FDA

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.

Attorney General Rutledge and Bipartisan Coalition reach $438.5 million agreement with JUUL Labs

LITTLE ROCK—Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge announced today a $438.5 million agreement in principle between JUUL Labs and 34 states and territories resolving a two-year bipartisan investigation into the e-cigarette manufacturer’s marketing and sales practices. In addition to the financial terms, the settlement would force JUUL to comply with a series of strict injunctive terms severely limiting their marketing and sales practices. Arkansas will receive $13,553,391.88 over five years.

“It is the fault of companies like JUUL who spread misinformation and incentivized youth to buy vaping products that created this epidemic that continue to be a prevalent problem in our schools and neighborhoods,” said Attorney General Rutledge. “After a two year investigation, I am holding JUUL accountable for their actions with the assurance that they will comply with the law in the future because Arkansans deserve to be protective from deceptive business practices.”

JUUL was, until recently, the dominant player in the vaping market. The multistate investigation revealed that JUUL rose to this position by willfully engaging in an advertising campaign that appealed to youth, even though its e-cigarettes are both illegal for them to purchase and are unhealthy for youth to use. The investigation found that JUUL relentlessly marketed to underage users with launch parties, advertisements using young and trendy-looking models, social media posts and free samples. It marketed a technology-focused, sleek design that could be easily concealed and sold its product in flavors known to be attractive to underage users. JUUL also manipulated the chemical composition of its product to make the vapor less harsh on the throats of the young and inexperienced users. To preserve its young customer base, JUUL relied on age verification techniques that it knew were ineffective.

The investigation further revealed that JUUL’s original packaging was misleading in that it did not clearly disclose that it contained nicotine and implied that it contained a lower concentration of nicotine than it actually did.  Consumers were also misled to believe that consuming one JUUL pod was the equivalent of smoking one pack of combustible cigarettes. The company also misrepresented that its product was a smoking cessation device without FDA approval to make such claims.

The states are in the process of finalizing and executing the settlement documents, a process that takes approximately 3-4 weeks. The $438.5 million would be paid out over a period of six to ten years, with the amounts paid increasing the longer the company takes to make the payments. If JUUL chooses to extend the payment period up to ten years, the final settlement would reach $476.6 million. Both the financial and injunctive terms exceed any prior agreement JUUL has reached with states to date.

As part of the settlement, JUUL has agreed to refrain from:

  1. Youth marketing

  2. Funding education programs

  3. Depicting persons under age 35 in any marketing

  4. Use of cartoons

  5. Paid product placement

  6. Sale of brand name merchandise

  7. Sale of flavors not approved by FDA

  8. Allowing access to websites without age verification on landing page

  9. Representations about nicotine not approved by FDA

  10. Misleading representations about nicotine content

  11. Sponsorships/naming rights

  12. Advertising in outlets unless 85 percent audience is adult

  13. Advertising on billboards

  14. Public transportation advertising

  15. Social media advertising (other than testimonials by individuals over the age of 35, with no health claims)

  16. Use of paid influencers

  17. Direct-to-consumer ads unless age-verified, and

  18. Free samples.

The agreement also includes sales and distribution restrictions, including where the product may be displayed/accessed in stores, online sales limits, retail sales limits, age verification on all sales, and a retail compliance check protocol.

The investigation was led by Connecticut, Texas, and Oregon. Attorneys General in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Maine, Mississippi,  Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming have signed on to the agreement. 

UAMS Receives $3.4 Million to Study Radiation Injuries Caused by Nuclear Accidents and Bioterrorism

By Marty Trieschmann

Aug. 24, 2022 | The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) has received $3.4 million in funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health, to study acute and delayed injuries caused by full-body radiation exposure from a nuclear accident or bioterrorism.

The five-year study entitled, “Platelets in Radiation-induced Immune Dysregulation,” is led by Rupak Pathak, Ph.D., assistant professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Division of Radiation Health in the UAMS College of Pharmacy; Martin Cannon, Ph.D., professor of Microbiology and Immunology in the UAMS College of Medicine; and Jerry Ware, Ph.D., professor of Physiology and Cell Biology in the UAMS College of Medicine.

While the FDA has approved some drugs to alleviate bone marrow injuries in people exposed to radiation, no drugs are available to treat the adverse effects in other organ systems. The study hopes to encourage drug development for therapies that will reduce radiation side effects.

https://news.uams.edu/2022/08/24/uams-receives-3-4-million-to-study-radiation-injuries-caused-by-nuclear-accidents-and-bioterrorism/

Attorney General Leslie Rutledge files suit against Family Dollar following rodent infestation

LITTLE ROCK – Attorney General Leslie Rutledge today filed a lawsuit against Family Dollar Stores, Inc. for selling potentially harmful or contaminated products following a massive rodent infestation at its West Memphis, Arkansas distribution center. The complaint alleges that Family Dollar, under the parent company Dollar Tree Inc., knew about the rodent infestation for years but allowed unsafe products to be sold at hundreds of stores in Arkansas and five other states throughout the region. Their total disregard for public safety endangered Arkansas consumers and forced hundreds of employees to work in unsafe conditions at the West Memphis Distribution Center. Attorney General Rutledge seeks punitive damages, restitution, and civil penalties through the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA) to protect the health, safety and economic well-being of tens of thousands of Arkansas consumers who purchased or used the affected products sold by Family Dollar.

“In many rural communities in Arkansas, families rely on discount stores like Family Dollar for essential products such as food, medicine or pet food,” said Attorney General Rutledge. “Family Dollar has had knowledge of this dangerous and massive rodent infestation for over two years, yet they continued to sell and profit from potentially contaminated goods. Consumers lost money and could have lost their lives.”

Reports from state and federal health inspectors show that Family Dollar had knowledge of its rodent infestation since at least January 2020. In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health inspected the West Memphis Distribution Center where inspectors reported seeing “significant rodent activity where human food and pet food were stored” and management stated that they were aware of the rodent issues. In April 2021, state health inspectors reported that effective measures were not being taken to stop the rodent infestation. Following notices from the Arkansas Department of Health and consumer complaints, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began an investigation in January 2022 of the West Memphis Distribution Center.

In March 2022 the FDA issued a safety alert regarding the Distribution center, which stated in part:

“Conditions observed during the inspection included live rodents, dead rodents in various states of decay, rodent feces and urine, evidence of gnawing, nesting and rodent odors throughout the facility, dead birds and bird droppings, and products stored in conditions that did not protect against contamination.  More than 1,100 dead rodents were recovered from the facility following a fumigation at the facility in January 2022. Additionally, a review of the company’s internal records also indicated the collection of more than 2,300 rodents between Mar. 29 [2021] and Sep. 17, 2021, demonstrating a history of infestation.”

These contaminated products included human foods, animal foods, cosmetics, medical devices, and over-the-counter medications for both adults and children. Following the FDA’s investigation announcement, Family Dollar issued a “voluntary recall” and was forced to temporarily close 404 stores, including 85 Arkansas stores, so that hazardous and contaminated products could be removed from its shelves. Family Dollar’s control intentionally allowed and resulted in the long-lasting and massive rodent infestation at the West Memphis Distribution Center, and the selling of tens of millions of dollars of hazardous and contaminated products to Arkansas citizens.

Rutledge filed the lawsuit in the Pulaski County Circuit Court.  Each ADTPA violation is subject to a fine of up to $10,000. To report online retailers in violation of ADTPA, visit ArkansasAG.gov.

NIH Awards $13.8 Million to Test UAMS-Discovered Drug for Methamphetamine Use Disorder Treatment

By David Robinson

LITTLE ROCK — A drug discovered at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) to counter the effects of methamphetamine will be tested in a phase 2 clinical trial as the only potential treatment of its kind for methamphetamine use disorder.

The study is led by UAMS startup biopharmaceutical company InterveXion Therapeutics LLC and is funded by a three-year, $13.8 million grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

The drug, IXT-m200, could be the first monoclonal antibody treatment for methamphetamine use disorder and overdose. It received the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Fast Track Designation in 2016 for treatment of methamphetamine use disorder. FDA Fast Track Designation facilitates the development and speeds the review of drugs to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need.

Gov. Hutchinson Rules Out Vaccine Mandates For Arkansas School Kids

By MICHAEL TILLEY/ TALK BUSINESS & POLITICS

Arkansas will not mandate COVID-19 vaccines for school children when a vaccine becomes available for those under the age of 12, Gov. Asa Hutchinson said Tuesday. The governor said state law bans a public mandate vaccine for any purpose and demographic.

It’s possible the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could approve an emergency authorization to Pfizer for vaccines among those between the ages of 5 and 11 by Halloween. Pfizer has provided vaccine trial data to the FDA for proposed vaccine, which would be 10 micrograms compared with the 30 microgram dose used for those 12 and older. The Pfizer vaccine for ages 5 to 11 would also be a two-dose regimen.

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the former commissioner of the FDA and a board member at Pfizer, recently said during a CNBC Squawk Box interview that Pfizer could submit to the FDA “very quickly.”

https://www.ualrpublicradio.org/post/gov-hutchinson-rules-out-vaccine-mandates-arkansas-school-kids

Gov. Asa Hutchinson speaking with reporter's during Tuesday's press conference on the COVID-19 pandemic.CREDIT GOVERNOR'S OFFICE

Gov. Asa Hutchinson speaking with reporter's during Tuesday's press conference on the COVID-19 pandemic.

CREDIT GOVERNOR'S OFFICE

FDA-Approved COVID-19 Vaccines, Boosters for Arkansans Explained

By JACQUELINE FROELICH

This week FDA gave full approval to the Pfizer and BioNtech’s COVID-19 vaccine, previously authorized only for emergency use. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has also announced plans to provide COVID-19 booster shots to maintain immunity. Dr. Jennifer Dillaha, chief medical office and medical director for immunizations and outbreak response at the Arkansas Department of Health explains.

https://www.kuaf.com/post/fda-approved-covid-19-vaccines-boosters-arkansans-explained

Jennifer Dillaha, MD, is Medical Director for Immunization/Outbreak Response at the Arkansas Department of Health.COURTESY / ADH

Jennifer Dillaha, MD, is Medical Director for Immunization/Outbreak Response at the Arkansas Department of Health.

COURTESY / ADH