Food Biotechnology: Benefits and Concerns

When will agricultural biotechnologies, such as genetically modified (GM) crops, reach Europe? This was the main question at the Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference (ABIC)—the largest of its kind—that took place in September this year in Cologne, Germany. Given that the ABIC was accompanied by a parallel conference organized by critics of GM crops and foods, this is an appropriate question. Most of the European Union (EU) member states have not yet approved the GM crops that are used widely and safely elsewhere in the world. Moreover, although the EU has finally lifted its moratorium on GM crops, and has passed new regulations for growing and marketing GM foods, national politics, legislation and ideological views about consumer and environmental protection have further hampered their use. European consumers remain wary of agricultural biotechnology and its products, as they do not see any direct benefits from GM crops and are, therefore, understandably reluctant to accept them. But it is only a matter of time before GM foods arrive on supermarket shelves across Europe, predicts Ashley O'Sullivan, President and CEO of Ag‐West Bio Inc. (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada). “The reality for legislation to regulate agricultural biotechnology is that the train has left the station and there is no way of going back,” he added. > …to convince the cautious European public, agricultural biotechnology still has to […] offer products that directly benefit consumers But to convince the cautious European public, agricultural biotechnology still has to show that it can do more than increase the returns to farmers, and offer products that directly benefit consumers. The next wave of GM plants, which are currently being developed and tested in academic and industry laboratories around the world, including Europe, may soon do this. A range of new GM crops in the research pipeline will offer direct benefits to …

Essays on the political economy of trade and regulation: biotechnology and conservation

Genetically modified (GM) crops are now being grown extensively in North and South America and China, although not in Europe. Food produced from these crops has become a part of the normal diet in North and South America and in China, but not in Europe, where contention continues despite the fact that millions of US citizens eat GM soya without any ill effects in a very litigious society, and many Europeans have eaten GM soya while in the US without any adverse consequences. > Why has the British public, who normally so pragmatically welcome scientific advances, resisted the introduction of genetically modified crops? European consumers' continuous and ardent opposition to GM crops and foods has had serious repercussions for plant research, for the commercial development of new crops and, most importantly, for developing countries that could benefit most from GM crops. Several countries in Africa and elsewhere have resisted growing such crops, mainly for fear of being unable to export them to the European market ( The Economist , 2002). It is therefore worthwhile to investigate what actually went wrong in the debate about GM food and crops in Europe and how these foods have earned such a bad name. Such an analysis could not only help to overcome public fears of this technology, but also help scientists and policy makers to address similar concerns in the future, such as the growing debate over nanotechnology. The concerns of European consumers about the potential health and environmental threats of GM crops have resulted in an unprecedented effort to investigate those anxieties and communicate with the wider public, particularly in the UK, where the use of public consultation has been extensively developed. The first of these initiatives was the extensive Farm Scale Evaluations of three GM crops (herbicide‐resistant beet, oil seed rape and maize), whose …

We live longer and healthier lives because advances in science create easier and better ways to sustain and survive. Society has an intricate relationship with biotechnology. Vaccines save lives. Fluoridated water decreases dental issues. Antibiotics treat bacterial infections. Nuclear power is a form of clean energy. With any emerging technology, the benefits do not exist in a vacuum, thus, negative consequences result as well. Our widespread uses of antibiotics are creating antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. Our research into nuclear energy also facilitated the creation of nuclear bombs. Perhaps it is human nature to use scientific advances for good and for bad. Acknowledging the reality that advances in science lead to both positive and negative consequences, we have to analyze the trade-offs in order to implement sound policy.Food from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) food (collectively “GE”) provides a prime example where advances in biotechnology are available to address a variety of issues in our food supply. GE food is in a major cross-hair in the public debate—although much of the public debate fails to fully acknowledge the contours of issues facing our food supply and the environment, and so it is in a sense a misguided public debate. Disconnect between the public debate and scientific knowledge is not new; unfortunately, many examples exist to highlight the scientific community’s failure to fully educate the public. The GE debate appears to have an added layer of complexity: mass marketing to consumers suggesting that GE food is unsafe, harmful and bad for the planet. These marketing campaigns engage emotion, for example, that consumption of GE food will harm children. These anti-GE marketing campaigns prey on the emotions of the consumers, as many marketing campaigns do. This swelling of the emotional response to GE foods is very difficult to overcome. This Article attempts to provide context and scientific support for discussing the challenges to our food supply. Addressing the issues in our food supply is critical, but the discussion has to be based on facts—and these facts must inform our regulatory policies. To do this, this Article provides an overview of the scientific literature on conventional and GE food, attempts to understand the emotional response to GE food, and provides a frame of focus for regulatory policies.

The needs of food in Morotai Island Regency always increase over time, along with the increase in population. On the other hand, the available food potential is still low in productivity to meet the needs. Crop development in Morotai Island Regency, as an effort to fulfill local food needs, can still be done because the land resources potential is available and not optimally utilized. Agricultural land is the main resource for rural community development and food supply. The objectives of this research are: (1) To find out the potential of land resources and availability for crop development in Morotai Island Regency; (2) Identifying the advantages and prospects of crop development in Morotai Island Regency and (3) Preparing the recommendations for the development and management of land for crops in Morotai Island Regency. Data analysis consists of the needs and advantages of crops, farming feasibility, income, revenue, and land suitability. The results show that the suitable (S) land potential for the development of crops reaches 55,624.7 ha. Potentially suitable land for lowland rice, which classified as sufficiently suitable (S2), reaches 34,290.5 ha and marginally suitable (S3) land reaches 7,282.5 ha. Sufficiently suitable (S2) and marginally suitable (S3) lands for upland rice reach 25,040.3 ha and 28,932.8 ha respectively. As for corn cultivation, sufficiently suitable (S2) land reaches 25,040.3 ha and marginally suitable (S3) lands reaches 28,932.8 ha. Development of food crops as a result of analysis of harvested LQ shows that base food crops in South Morotai District are wetland rice (1.06), corn (1.02). East Morotai sub-district is based on the development of wetland rice (1.14) and upland rice (1.02). Morotai Selatan Barat Subdistrict is the base for the development of lowland rice (1.42). North Morotai District is the base for the development of upland rice (1,15). While Morotai Jaya is the base for developing upland rice (1.49), corn (1.53). Leading crop/s in South Morotai District are lowland rice and corn; Southwest Morotai is lowland rice; East Morotai are lowland rice and upland rice; North Morotai is upland rice; and Morotai Jaya are upland rice and corn.

Chapter 16 - Crops With Improved Nutritional Content Though Agricultural Biotechnology

A challenge of our generation is the creation of an efficient system providing sustainable food and fuel from the land whilst also preserving biodiversity and ecosystems. We must feed a human population that is expected to grow to more than nine billion by mid-century. Agricultural biotechnology is one tool that holds potential promise to alleviate hunger and poverty. However, there are complex and interrelated scientific, social, political and ethical questions regarding the widespread use of biotechnology in the food supply. This edited volume discusses diverse perspectives on sustainable food production systems in terms of challenges, opportunities, success stories, barriers and risks associated with agricultural and food biotechnology. The effects of biotechnology on the environment, ethical and moral issues, potential changes to government policies and economics, and social implications are summarised. This book will interest students, professionals and researchers from the areas of bioengineering, agriculture and ecosystem science to economics and political science.

This study explores the Chinese public's perceptions of, and attitudes to, agriculture and food applications of biotechnology; and investigates the effect of socio-demographic factors on attitudes. A questionnaire survey and interviews were used in an attempt to combine quantitative analysis with qualitative review. The main finding of this study is that the Chinese population has a superficial, optimistic attitude to agricultural biotechnology; and that, in accordance with public attitudes, a cautious policy, with obligatory labelling, should be adopted. The study reveals that education is the factor among socio-demographic variables with the strongest impact on public attitudes. Higher education leads to a more positive evaluation of GM (genetically modified) foods and applications of biotechnology with respect to usefulness, moral acceptability, and suitability for encouragement. In addition, public attitudinal differences depend significantly on area of residence. Compared with their more urban compatriots, members of the public in less developed areas of China have more optimistic attitudes, perceive more benefits, and are more risk tolerant in relation to GM foods and agricultural biotechnology. Finally we obtained a very high rate of "don't know" answers to our survey questions. This suggests that many people do not have settled attitudes, and correspondingly, that the overall public attitude to agricultural biotechnology and GM foods in China is at present somewhat unstable.

After more than 25 years of research and development on the genetic modification of a wide range of crops for food and fodder, China has reached a decision point as to whether it should accept, reject, or go slow with the use of genetically modified (GM) technology to produce the food and feed needed to sustain its population growth and economic renaissance. Here, we report a consumer survey on GM food that includes input from all provinces in China. Chinese consumers were surveyed for their awareness, knowledge, and opinion on GM food. The survey resulted in 11.9, 41.4, and 46.7% of respondents having a positive, neutral, or negative view on GM food, respectively. A minority of respondents (11.7%) claimed they understood the basic principles of GM technology, while most were either “neutral” or “unfamiliar with GM technology”. Most respondents (69.3%) obtained their information on GM food through the Internet and 64.3% of respondents thought that media coverage was predominately negative on GM food. The reasons given by consumers in favor of, or against, the use of GM food, were complex, as seen by the response of 13.8% of respondents who felt GM technology was a form of bioterrorism targeted at China. China’s Ministry of Agriculture and the science community generally expressed a positive attitude toward GM food, but the percentage of respondents that trusted the government and scientists was only 11.7 and 23.2%, respectively. Post-survey comments of respondents made suggestions on how the industrialization of GM technology might impact the future of China’s food supply and value chains. Finally, the impact of emerging technologies like genome editing and genome-edited organisms (GEOs) on the GM food debate is discussed.

Ageratina adenophora is one of the major invasive weeds that causes instability of the ecosystem. Research has reported that A. adenophora produces allelochemicals that inhibit the growth and development of food crops, and also contain some toxic compounds that cause toxicity to animals that consume it. Over the past decades, studies on the identification of major toxic compounds of A. adenophora and their toxic molecular mechanisms have been reported. In addition, weed control interventions, such as herbicides application, was employed to reduce the spread of A. adenophora. However, the development of therapeutic and prophylactic measures to treat the various A. adenophora—induced toxicities, such as hepatotoxicity, splenotoxicity and other related disorders, have not been established to date. The main toxic pathogenesis of A. adenophora is oxidative stress and inflammation. However, numerous studies have verified that some extracts and secondary metabolites isolated from A. adenophora possess anti-oxidation and anti-inflammation activities, which implies that these extracts can relieve toxicity and aid in the development of drug or feed supplements to treat poisoning-related disorders caused by A. adenophora. Furthermore, beneficial bacteria isolated from rumen microbes and A. adenophora can degrade major toxic compounds in A. adenophora so as to be developed into microbial feed additives to help ameliorate toxicity mediated by A. adenophora. This review presents an overview of the toxic mechanisms of A. adenophora, provides possible therapeutic strategies that are available to mitigate the toxicity of A. adenophora and introduces relevant information on identifying novel prophylactic and therapeutic measures against A. adenophora—induced toxicity.

The very term 'Biotechnology' elicits a range of emotions, from wonder and awe to downright fear and hostility. This is especially true among non-scientists, particularly in respect of agricultural and food biotechnology. These emotions indicate just how poorly understood agricultural biotechnology is and the need for accurate, dispassionate information in the public sphere to allow a rational public debate on the actual, as opposed to the perceived, risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology. This review considers first the current state of public knowledge on agricultural biotechnology, and then explores some of the popular misperceptions and logical inconsistencies in both Europe and North America. I then consider the problem of widespread scientific illiteracy, and the role of the popular media in instilling and perpetuating misperceptions. The impact of inappropriate efforts to provide 'balance' in a news story, and of belief systems and faith also impinges on public scientific illiteracy. Getting away from the abstract, we explore a more concrete example of the contrasting approach to agricultural biotechnology adoption between Europe and North America, in considering divergent approaches to enabling coexistence in farming practices. I then question who benefits from agricultural biotechnology. Is it only the big companies, or is it society at large--and the environment--also deriving some benefit? Finally, a crucial aspect in such a technologically complex issue, ordinary and intelligent non-scientifically trained consumers cannot be expected to learn the intricacies of the technology to enable a personal choice to support or reject biotechnology products. The only reasonable and pragmatic alternative is to place trust in someone to provide honest advice. But who, working in the public interest, is best suited to provide informed and accessible, but objective, advice to wary consumers?

An inclusive and socially legitimate governance structure is absent to address concerns over new agricultural biotechnologies. Establishing an agricultural bioethics commission devoted to inclusive deliberation on ethics and governance in agricultural and food biotechnology is urgent. Highlighting the social and ethical dimensions of current agricultural bioengineering disputes in the food system, we discuss how a nationally recognized policy forum could improve decision-making and increase public understanding of the issues. We clarify ways the concepts that are used to categorize food and frame governance of food affect consumer choices, and how dissemination of information and the mode of dissemination can contribute to social inequities. We cite the record of medically-oriented bioethic commissions and the history of international bioethic commissions in support of our argument, and end by discussing what such a commission dedicated to agriculture and food issues could reasonably be expected to achieve.

Marion Nestle, author of a recently acclaimed book on food politics, has written a new book devoted to food safety. It is addressed to general readers as well as scientists who wish to know more about the issues underlying disputes about the safety of our food supply but who lack prior knowledge about the food industry, its lobbying and marketing strategies, or the political regulation of food supply and public health. Nestle’s decision to write this book appears to have been partly inspired by the extensive media coverage in recent years given to food scandals, food-borne human diseases, fears with regard to genetically modified foods, and, recently, consideration of the vulnerability of food and water supplies to terrorist activity. This new book presents the thesis that food safety is a political issue. Sections on pathogens in the food supply and food biotechnology are followed by a concluding section that summarizes the main arguments, reviews the reasons why the food supply might serve as a medium of terrorist activity, and makes a number of grounded recommendations regarding the future of food safety. A safe food, according to Nestle, is “one that does not exceed an acceptable level of risk” (p. 16). Decisions about acceptability, it is argued, involve opinions and values, as well as science. For this reason, a “science-based” approach to food safety, which balances risk against benefits and costs and contributes to the estimation of risk, is distinguished from a “value-based” approach focused on the acceptability of risk, which tends to balance risk against dreaded outcomes or feelings of outrage. This point is not presented here in the familiar form of a distinction between expert and lay perceptions of risk. The author recognizes the fact that scientific questions do not arise in value-free contexts and that value-based approaches often consider scientific arguments. The argument is rather that when commercial interests are at stake in decisions about the acceptability of risks, these decisions unavoidably become political issues. Nestle points out that it is often difficult to distinguish science-based from value-based aspects of conflicting policies. Most of the book is accordingly devoted to examining actual disputes about food safety in a manner that distinguishes these aspects. Nestle has sought to write a balanced book rather than a political manifesto. Her perspective is that of a trained scientist and professional nutritionist with considerable experience in consultancy and other dealings with both the food industry and public authorities engaged in the tasks of regulating the safety of food supplies. Nestle is critical of players in both of these fields. She claims and seeks to demonstrate that food companies tend to accord priority to commercial interests rather than consumer protection, even to the point of strongly resisting public policies designed to control pathogens in the food supply, while government agencies often tend to support business interests at the expense of public health. These views are controversial and are unlikely to convince all stakeholders in food safety issues. Nevertheless, they are presented in a series of carefully documented cases, likely to prove useful to readers who approach the text with a view to making up their minds and irritating to those who feel themselves criticized. It is balanced in the sense that one cannot claim that Nestle disregards science-based arguments regarding the safety of food biotechnology, merely that she respects the legitimacy of value-based concerns about genetically modified foods. These include concerns with regard to the environment, health, and the rights of consumers to choose, which in turn impose demands regarding such issues as contamination, traceability, and labeling. Given the interests at stake in these issues, some readers may wish to interpret this stance as support for the anti-biotechnology lobby. This book should be read and discussed in university departments that prepare students for work in food-related fields. It introduces a range of safety concerns that should become salient issues of discussion in the classroom. Its weaker points include a somewhat narrow focus upon national issues. There is a tendency to equate government agencies with existing U.S. institutions, while suggesting in passing that control systems in some European countries are more effective; equally, there is a tendency to equate science with the natural as opposed to the social sciences, neglecting much relevant social research with regard to globalization, distribution networks, and consumption, as well as such issues as trust and accountability. No book, however, can reasonably be expected to cover the entire field. This one raises many important issues and does it well.

Transgenic Bt cotton has been planted in China since 1997 and, in 2009, biosafety certificates for the commercial production of Bt rice and phytase corn were issued by the Chinese government. The public attitude in China toward agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified (GM) crops and foods has received considerable attention worldwide. We investigated the attitudes of consumers, Bt cotton farmers and scientists in China regarding GM crops and foods and the factors influencing their attitudes. Data were collected using interview surveys of consumer households, farmer households and scientists. A discrete choice approach was used to elicit the purchase intentions of the respondents. Two separate probit models were developed to examine the effect of various factors on the choices of the respondents. Bt cotton farmers had a very positive attitude because Bt cotton provided them with significant economic benefits. Chinese consumers from developed regions had a higher acceptance and willingness to pay for GM foods than consumers in other regions. The positive attitude toward GM foods by the scientific community will help to promote biotechnology in China in the future. Our survey emphasized that educational efforts made by government officials, the media and scientists can facilitate the acceptance of GM technology in China. Further educational efforts will be critical for influencing consumer attitudes and decisions of government agencies in the future. More effective educational efforts by government agencies and public media concerning the scientific facts and safety of GM foods would enhance the acceptance of GM crops in China.

This report presents the results from the second phase of a longitudinal study of Americans' knowledge and feelings about agricultural biotechnology and how those perceptions and attitudes have changed over time. Two independent national probability samples of 1,200 adults were interviewed by phone in the spring of 2001 and 2003. While this report focuses on the findings from 2003, longitudinal comparisons are presented where appropriate. The report begins with an investigation of Americans' awareness of the presence of genetically modified (GM) ingredients in the foods they encounter everyday. Next, the report describes Americans' actual and perceived knowledge of science, biotechnology and food production. It then examines American opinions about GM foods in general, along with their opinions on a variety of existing and potential GM food products with direct or indirect consumer benefits. The report discusses the relationship between opinions of GM food and a variety of factors, including demographics, knowledge of biotechnology, purchasing behaviors and styles of food selection. Finally, it describes Americans' thoughts on GM food labeling. Highlights of the findings are below. Americans pay little attention to agricultural biotechnology. - Only half of Americans are aware that foods containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients are currently sold in stores. - Despite the prevalence of such foods, only one-quarter of Americans believe they have eaten them. - Little more than a third of Americans have ever discussed biotechnology. - Awareness, although still low, has increased slightly from 2001. Americans do not have much knowledge about agricultural biotechnology. - Self-reported knowledge of biotechnology is low. - Quizzes on biotechnology and food production reveal that Americans are generally uninformed about both, and this has not changed since 2001. Opinion on the acceptability of GM foods is split. - When asked directly, about half of Americans report that they approve of plant-based GM foods, (down from 2001) and about a quarter approve of animal-based GM foods (unchanged from 2001). - Approximately 10% of Americans report being unsure of their opinion of GM foods. Opinions of GM food are easily influenced. - Approval increases when specific benefits of GM food are mentioned. - Reactions to the technology depends on what it is called. The term biotechnology evokes the most positive responses, while genetic modification is perceived most negatively and genetic engineering is most often associated with cloning. Demographics and styles of choosing food are related to acceptance of GM foods. - Women, people over 64, and people with low levels of education are less likely to approve of GM foods. - People who value naturalness and healthfulness in their foods are slightly less likely to approve of GM foods. - People who have purchased organic foods in the past are less likely to approve of GM foods.