Food Biotechnology's Challenge to Cultural Integrity and Individual Consent

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 …

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 …

Public opposition to genetically modified (GM) food and crops is widely interpreted as the result of the public's misperception of the risks. With scientific assessment pointing to no unique risks from GM crops and foods, a strategy of accurate risk communication from trusted sources has been advocated. This is based on the assumption that the benefits of GM crops and foods are self-evident. Informed by the interpretation of some qualitative interviews with lay people, we use data from the Eurobarometer survey on biotechnology to explore the hypothesis that it is not so much the perception of risks as the absence of benefits that is the basis of the widespread rejection of GM foods and crops by the European public. Some respondents perceive both risks and benefits, and may be trading off these attributes along the lines of a rational choice model. However, for others, one attribute-benefit-appears to dominate their judgments: the lexicographic heuristic. For these respondents, their perception of risk is of limited importance in the formation of attitudes toward GM food and crops. The implication is that the absence of perceived benefits from GM foods and crops calls into question the relevance of risk communication strategies for bringing about change in public opinion.

Public opposition to genetically modified (GM) food and crops is widely interpreted as the result of the public's misperception of the risks. With scientific assessment pointing to no unique risks from GM crops and foods, a strategy of accurate risk communication from trusted sources has been advocated. This is based on the assumption that the benefits of GM crops and foods are self-evident. Informed by the interpretation of some qualitative interviews with lay people, we use data from the Eurobarometer survey on biotechnology to explore the hypothesis that it is not so much the perception of risks as the absence of benefits that is the basis of the widespread rejection of GM foods and crops by the European public. Some respondents perceive both risks and benefits, and may be trading off these attributes along the lines of a rational choice model. However, for others, one attribute—benefit—appears to dominate their judgments: the lexicographic heuristic. For these respondents, their perception of risk is of limited importance in the formation of attitudes toward GM food and crops. The implication is that the absence of perceived benefits from GM foods and crops calls into question the relevance of risk communication strategies for bringing about change in public opinion.

The debate about the potential risks of genetically modified organisms has lasted for almost three decades without any final conclusion in sight. Why is it that the public remains critical of this technology even though science has so far not demonstrated any tangible risks to human health and the environment?

The Regulation of Genetically Modified Food in China

The impact of genetic modification of human foods in the 21st century: A review

The regulatory structures underlying United States and European Union policies regarding genetically modified (GM) food and crops are fundamentally different. The US regulates GM foods and crops as end products, applying roughly the same regulatory framework that it does to non GM foods or crops. The EU, on the other hand, regulates products of agricultural biotechnology as the result of a specific production process. Accordingly, it has developed a network of rules that regulate GM foods and crops specifically. As a result, US regulation of GM foods and crops is relatively permissive, whereas EU regulation is relatively restrictive. Why are genetically modified food policies in the United States and the European Union so strikingly different? In the light of the recent World Trade Organization dispute on agricultural biotechnology, it may seem that economic interests are the driving force behind policies. While they are certainly part of the picture, the issue is far more complex. This paper argues that three different elements help explain differences between US and EU GM food policies. First, an investigation of US and European policies of the 1970s and 1980s on recombinant DNA research and of events leading up to early GM food and crop regulation allows a deeper understanding of current policy. Second, scrutinizing underlying values and norms can uncover the beliefs that condition current GM food and crop policy. Third, an analysis of involved actors' views and levels of success in influencing policy is essential to understanding US and EU policies.

Introduction The safety of GM crops and foods is an issue that causes great public concern and stringent regulation in European nations and several other countries. In stark contrast, it receives little public attention in the United States, where GM crops and foods rapidly advance through permissive regulatory reviews into the marketplace. This chapter discusses the American approach to governing GM crop and food safety, and the cultural and political factors that shape this governance system. It then describes and evaluates the major federal regulatory programs and common law liability doctrines as they apply to safety issues and uncertainties in the development and marketing of GM crop seed; the growing of GM crops and their harvest, distribution, and sale to the manufacturers of processed food products; and the subsequent production and marketing of GM food products. Throughout the chapter, the fourfold concept of GM safety that was identified earlier in this book is addressed, namely whether the GM enterprise poses unacceptable risks to public health, natural resources, and conventional crops, and whether it reduces the consumer's ability to choose and acquire non-GM food products. The U.S. Context for GM Crops and Foods Among developed nations, the United States is the leading proponent and most permissive regulator of GM crops and foods. Congress has generously supported scientific research on crop genetics and applications of genetic engineering to agriculture, but refrained from legislating new requirements to deal with adverse consequences.

The application of biotechnology in the genetic modification of plants in food production has ledto the appearance of genetically modified foods (GMFs) in the marketplace. From inception, thesubject of GMFs food has been controversial. The use of biotechnology to enhance nutritionalvalue has raised a number of fundamental questions about genetically modified foods or plants allover the world. In spite of these controversies, GMF has been presented as the ultimate weaponagainst hunger in Africa, and other developing countries. While the world debates on whether ornot to endorse genetically modified food in most of Western Europe and give it the acceptance italready enjoys in the United States, we are totally oblivious of the fact that genetically modifiedfood has crept into Nigeria. Nigeria has been a recipient of food aid from countries like theUnited States, that are renowned for producing genetically modified foods. In 2004, Nigeria signeda Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the United States government agreeing to supportGM crops. Are GMFs really a good substitute for the natural and traditional foods? Are thebenefits of GM crops as strong as claimed by pro-biotech interests? If GM crops are safe,economically profitable, and environmentally friendly, why then has there been so much opposition,concern and controversy in recent years? If the scenario is so good, if so many millions of farmersand consumers are benefiting, if the increase in GM crops is so impressive, and if poverty,malnutrition and hunger have been alleviated in developing countries, why then have somegovernments imposed bans and why are consumers opposing those products in many places aroundthe world? Is there any substance in these arguments against GMFs? This paper discusses theseissues using Nigeria as a case study. We concluded that GMFs may not be the ultimate solution tohunger and poverty in a developing country like Nigeria.

The genetic modification of crop plants from the methodology involved in their production through to the current debate on their use in agriculture are reviewed. Techniques for plant transformation by Agrobacterium tumefaciens and particle bombardment, and for the selection of transgenic plants using marker genes are described. The benefits of currently available genetically modified (GM) crops in reducing waste and agrochemical use in agriculture, and the potential of the technology for further crop improvement in the future are discussed. The legal requirements for containment of novel GM crops and the roles of relevant regulatory bodies in ensuring that GM crops and food are safe are summarized. Some of the major concerns of the general public regarding GM crops and food: segregation of GM and non-GM crops and cross-pollination between GM crops and wild species, the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes, the prevention of new allergens being introduced in to the food chain and the relative safety of GM and non-GM foods are considered. Finally, the current debate on the use of GM crops in agriculture and the need for the government, scientists and industry to persevere with the technology in the face of widespread hostility is studied.

GM crops under new US scrutiny.

In the relatively short time since their commercial introduction in 1996, genetically modified (GM) crops have been rapidly adopted in the United States GM crops are regulated through a coordinated framework developed in 1992 and administered by three agencies-the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) that ensures the products are safe to grow, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that ensures the products are safe for the environment, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that ensures the products are safe to eat. Rigorous food and environmental safety assessments must be completed before GM crops can be commercialized. Fifty-one products have been reviewed by the FDA, including several varieties of corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, rice, sugar beets, potatoes, tomatoes, squash, papaya, and flax. Because FDA considers these crops "substantially equivalent" to their conventional counterparts, no special labeling is required for GM crops in the United States and they are managed as commodities with no segregation or identity preservation. GM crops have thus made their way through commodity distribution channels into thousands of ingredients used in processed foods. It has been estimated that 70% to 85% of processed foods on supermarket shelves in the United States today contain one or more ingredients potentially derived from GM crops. The food industry and retail industry have been monitoring the opinions of their consumers on the GM issue for the past several years. Numerous independent groups have also surveyed consumer concerns about GM foods. The results of these surveys are shared and discussed here.

Advances in the field of biotechnology have resulted in the emergence of genetic engineering methods whereby the genetic material of an organism can be manipulated or redesigned to yield desired products. Recently, there has been an increasing trend to elevate the existence of specific nutrients in edible genetically modified (GM) crops to be utilized as therapeutic agents. In this case, GM crops serve as a cell factory to generate such nutrients or necessary biomolecules and can be delivered to patients as a novel oral delivery approach for drugs and vaccines. On the other hand, GM foods are fraught with significant challenges with regard to human and animal health and disruption of the ecosystem. This chapter aims to provide an overview of GM foods, methods to produce therapeutic proteins in GM foods and various types of therapeutic proteins produced via GM crops or foods. The limitations, potential allergenicity and future of GM foods are also discussed.

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.