Food Biotechnology: Sculpting Genes with Genetic Engineering

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 …

The Regulation of Genetically Modified Food in China

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

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 …

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.

This article documents the early warning signs of health and environmental dangers of DDT, vinyl chloride, and leaded gasoline. In each case, industry scientists and/or public health officials warned of potential hazards but their advice was ignored at great cost to human health and the environment. Now, genetically engineered (GE) foods have been introduced to our food supply and exhibit many of the same early warning signs. Leaded gasoline was sold in the United States from 1923 through 1986. The additive was introduced without safety testing even though it was known that lead was neurotoxic. Industry efforts kept the federal government from studying or banning leaded gasoline for decades. Leaded gasoline released millions of tons of lead into the air. Lead can cause brain damage and even death. Vinyl chloride, used to make PVC plastic, has a similar history. When scientific studies confirmed that vinyl chloride was a carcinogen, industry representatives signed a secrecy agreement to keep the information from becoming public. DDT was used all over the United States to kill unwanted pests. Evidence of DDT's environmental and health impacts began to emerge in the 1950s. DDT is now deemed a probable human carcinogen, suspected of causing liver damage, and blamed for triggering premature births. GE foods have been introduced into our food supply with no required safety testing. Initial independent studies indicate that GE foods can trigger unexpected or unknown allergic reactions, may damage organs and immune system, can contaminate neighboring crops, and may cause ecological damage. Yet, industry studies about GE food products are considered proprietary and are not available for peer review or public scrutiny. In reaction to the rejection of GE foods by many European countries and companies, the biotechnology industry is waging a massive propaganda effort in the United States. But when it comes to our food supply, we should not take any health or safety risks. We make these recommendations: *Hold biotechnology companies liable for any harm that comes from the use of GE foods. This will give them a financial incentive to ensure that GE foods are safe and provide compensation to any future victims. *Place a moratorium on GE foods until they are proven safe through independent, long-term testing for health and environmental impacts. *Require labeling of all GE foods that are proven safe to give consumers the right to know and choose.

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.

Recent advancements in food science and technology, from genetic engineering to nanotechnology, have raised considerable controversies and anxiety-arousing topics from social groups and the general public. The concept of social representations is “a system of values, ideas, and practices,” which has great contribution to the analysis of the public understanding of various technological risks or objects. Food technology neophobia, a new psychometric tool developed by Cox and Evans (2008), can be used to explain a person’s willingness to use foods produced using novel technologies. There is no basis in science for regulation specific to crops and foods improved through biotech or genetically modified organisms. Genetically modified (GM) foods have received substantial attention because they are associated with unnaturalness, moral considerations, uncertainty, and risks. This research aims to apply the concept of social representations to explain public willingness to use GM foods in Taiwan. The moderating impact of food technology neophobia was also considered. A national self-reported questionnaire survey was conducted in Taiwan in 2015. A total of 487 valid data was analyzed by moderated regression analysis. The results revealed that in terms of social representations, if the respondents adhere to technology and consider food a necessity, then they are more likely to use GM foods. However, if they demonstrate resistance to and suspicion of novelties, then they are less likely to use GM foods. When food technology neophobia was taken into account as a moderator, the negative relationship between the respondents’ resistance to and suspicion of GM foods and their willingness to use GM foods was enhanced. But the relationship between the respondents treat food as a necessity and their willingness to use GM foods was changed from positive to negative. The findings can facilitate developing a clearer understanding of people’s acceptance and usage of technology innovation in the food industry.

Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: The role of animal feeding trials

ABSTRACTYou are what you eat. Genetically modified (GM) foods are transforming modern agriculture by enhancing nutrition, sustainability, and resilience to environmental challenges. This review highlights the benefits of GM crops, including pest resistance, nutrient enrichment, and roles in mycotoxin reduction, biofuel production, and pharmaceuticals. Although GM foods offer solutions for global food security, concerns persist regarding allergenicity, cancer risk, reproductive health, and gut microbiota disruption. Advanced detection methods, such as PCR‐based assays, immunoassays, and next‐generation sequencing (NGS), are pivotal for accurate GM foods identification and regulation, ensuring unauthorized modifications are excluded from the food supply. Emerging technologies, including CRISPR‐based diagnostics, promise greater specificity and affordability for molecular‐level GM foods detection. The review advocates a multidisciplinary approach—integrating genetics, immunology, and toxicology—to address safety concerns and refine detection technologies. International regulatory frameworks must balance innovation with health and environmental safeguards. Consumer education is vital for fostering trust and acceptance of GM foods. Future developments may include crops fortified against malnutrition, resilient to climate change, and engineered for medicinal properties. Collaboration among researchers, regulators, and the public is critical to maximize the benefits of GM foods while ensuring their safety and sustainability in addressing global challenges.

PurposePrevious studies have mainly focused on public opinions regarding genetically modified (GM) technology and GM food. The purpose of this paper is to assess scientists’ attitudes on whether China needs to develop its national agricultural GM technology and their willingness to buy GM food.Design/methodology/approachA stratified sampling method was used to select and interview 806 scientists from six major agricultural universities and 20 research institutes under two national academies in China in 2013. Based on these data, the authors use both descriptive statistics and multivariate regression analysis to examine scientists’ attitudes toward agricultural GM technology and food, using GM soybean oil as an example of GM foods.FindingsThe survey results show that nearly three-quarters of scientists agree that China needs to develop its agricultural GM technology, but their attitudes differ largely. Only 29 percent of scientists are willing to buy GM soybean oil, similar to urban consumers (25 percent) in China. The knowledge of biology is extensive for some scientists but varies significant among scientists and correlates positively with their attitudes toward agricultural GM technology and GM soybean oil. Younger and male scientists with higher professional titles, and those involved in GM research are more in favor of China’s GM technology compared to other scientists. Female scientists, scientists with lower professional titles, those that have never engaged in GM research or are from non-agricultural scientific disciplines are less willing to buy GM soybean oil. Interestingly, their low willingness to buy GM soybean oil is inconsistent with the fact that it is the most common edible oil in China.Originality/valueThis study is the first to examine scientists’ attitudes toward GM technology and food in China. The results of this study contribute to understanding the current debates on GM technology and the relevance of research, based on the willingness to buy GM food, for decision making regarding the commercialization of GM technology.

With highly negative publicity, GM food marketing in South Korea has become a major challenge for potential marketers who are interested in entering the South Korean market. Several consumer groups and non-government organizations (NGOs) in South Korea initiated anti-GM food campaigns. South Korean consumers are reported to be more concerned about potential risk associated with GM food compared to counterpart consumers in the U.S and Europe (KFDA, 2009). Many South Korean food processors and marketers are responding to this consumer concern by ignoring the labeling requirement of GM contents in their products. There is apparent lack of coordination in the South Korean food supply chain regarding GM food management with South Korean consumers' negative attitude toward GM foods and South Korean food suppliers' avoidance of GM food labeling. Despite the apparent benefits of GM food, GM food may not have sufficient market value in the market if consumers have distrust and insecurity toward such product. This paper develops a quantitative model which identifies major determinants of South Korean consumers' choice behavior for GM foods. The proposed model elicit constructs which form South Korean consumers' attitude which in turn affect their willingness to purchase GM foods. Our study developed a socio-cognitive model of South Korean consumers' behavior, using Fishbein's framework, which has two attitudinal constructs (Perceived Benefits and Perceived Risk) and one construct that capture effect of individual respondent's socioeconomic variance (Socio-Economic Status (SES). Consumers' beliefs and attitudes regarding the risks and benefits of GM foods and their individual socio-demographic status are hypothesized to be linked to consumers' choice behavior of GM foods. A sample of 360 consumers was drawn from a survey study in the capital city, Seoul. Results reveal that consumers' Socio-Economic Status (SES) and their Perceived Benefits associated GM food were found to be strong indicators of consumers' GM food purchase intention. This implies that consumer's background and diversity in South Korean demographic may have significant effect on their purchase intention for GM food. This suggests that further extensive study on South Korean consumer market need to be conducted in order to fully understand the difference among various South Korean consumer market segments in terms of how they respond to GM food issues. Comprehensive market segmentation on South Korean consumer market should be done in terms of their GM risk appetite, GM food knowledge, information search behavior and food consumption pattern. Our results show that favorable attributes of GM food such as medical benefits and nutritional enhancement were found to have significant influence on consumers' attitude toward GM food positively. Results show potentials for second generation GM food in South Korea, if specific of consumer benefits can be effectively developed and promoted to South Korean consumers. Regarding Perceived Risk of GM food, uncertainty/ lack of understanding on GM food and potential environmental hazard of GM food were found to affect consumers' attitude toward GM food negatively. Educating consumers about GM food may be a viable strategy to mitigate their concerns about unknown health risks and adverse environmental effects and the communication of scientific uncertainty is critical to improving consumers' negative attitude toward GM foods.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.23.2.1548

Global warming and climate change are some of the greatest socio-scientific issues in recent decades. Many factors contribute to these issues, the footprint of human activities as well as natural phenomena. Human energy consumption in many sectors i.e food supply, livestock, industry, and transportation significantly increasing earth surface temperature average level and climate change. Various studies were carry out about global warming and climate change interdisciplinary. Integration of these socio-scientific issues into science learning as an effort to educate and enhance student environmental awareness and scientific literacy is necessary to do. Rational of this article is to studies global warming and climate change topics from integrative science context; biology (microbial activities, ruminants, and environmental impacts), chemistry (the various chemical reaction that causes greenhouse gases and global warming), and physics (temperature, heat, and global climate). This study is urgent because microbial activities that contribute into greenhouse gases releasing in ruminant enteric fermentation process haven’t included and connected yet in Indonesia’s science learning. Ruminant should be highlighted in these issues because Indonesia is an agricultural country which has enormous farmhouse area. In addition, students are expected to be able to solve problems and make the right decisions related to these issues. This article will discuss suggestion global warming and climate change topics in terms of microbial activities, ruminant and mitigation strategies to reduce GHG from livestock sector. This suggestion is expected to meet the Sustainable development goals.

The gender gap on public opinion towards genetically modified foods

Sales of organic foods are increasing due to public demand, while genetically modified (GM) and irradiated foods are often viewed with suspicion. The aim of this research was to examine consumer attitudes toward organic, GM and irradiated foods to direct educational efforts regarding their consumption Methods: A telephone survey of 1838 residents in Tennessee, USA was conducted regarding organic, GM, and irradiated foods. Approximately half of respondents (50.4%) purchased organic food during the previous 6 months ('consumers'). The most common beliefs about organic foods by consumers were higher cost (92%), and fewer pesticides (89%). Consumers were more likely than non-consumers to believe organic food tasted better (prevalence ratio 3.6; 95% confidence interval 3.02-4.23). A minority of respondents were familiar with GM foods (33%) and irradiated foods (22%). Organic food consumption is common in Tennessee, but knowledge about GM and irradiated foods is less common. Consumer health education should emphasize the benefits of these food options, and the safety of GM and irradiated foods.