GM plants for your health

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 aim of this study was to provide an ex ante assessment of the sustainability of genetically modified (GM) crops under the agricultural conditions prevailing in Switzerland. The study addressed the gaps in our knowledge relating to (1) the agronomic risks/benefits in production systems under Swiss conditions (at field and rotation/orchard level), (2) the economic and socio-economic impacts associated with altered farming systems, and (3) the agro-ecological risks/benefits of GM crops (at field and rotation/orchard level). The study was based on an inventory of GM crops and traits which may be available in the next decade, and on realistic scenarios of novel agricultural practices associated with the use of GM crops in conventional, integrated, and organic farming systems in Switzerland. The technology impact assessment was conducted using an adapted version of the matrix for “comparative assessment of risks and benefits for novel agricultural systems” developed for the UK. Parameter settings were based on information from literature sources and expert workshops. In a tiered approach, sustainability criteria were defined, an inventory of potentially available, suitable GM crops was drawn up, and scenarios of baseline and novel farming systems with GM crops were developed and subsequently submitted to economic, socio-economic, and agro-ecological assessments. The project had several system boundaries, which influenced the outcomes. It was limited to the main agricultural crops used for food and feed production and focused on traits that are relevant at the field level and are likely to be commercially available within a decade from the start of the project. The study assumed that there would be no statutory restrictions on growing GM crops in all farming systems and that they would be eligible for direct payments in the same way as non-GM crops. Costs for co-existence measures were explicitly excluded and it was assumed that GM foods could be marketed in the same way as non-GM foods at equal farm gate prices. The following model GM crops were selected for this study: (1) GM maize varieties with herbicide tolerance (HT), and with resistance to the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis) and the corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera); (2) HT wheat; (3) GM potato varieties with resistance to late blight (Phytophthora infestans), to the nematode Globodera spp., and to the Colorado beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata); (4) HT sugar beet with resistance to “rhizomania” (beet necrotic yellow vein virus; BNYVV); (5) apples with traditionally bred or GM resistance to scab (Venturia inaequalis), and GM apples with stacked resistance to scab and fire blight (Erwinia amylovora). Scenarios for arable rotations and apple orchards were developed on the basis of the model crops selected. The impact assessments were conducted for the entire model rotations/orchards in order to explore cumulative effects as well as effects that depend on the farming systems (organic, integrated, and conventional). In arable cropping systems, herbicide tolerance had the most significant impact on agronomic practices in integrated and conventional farming systems. HT crops enable altered soil and weed management strategies. While no-till soil management benefited soil conservation, the highly efficient weed control reduced biodiversity. These effects accumulated over time due to the high proportion of HT crops in the integrated and conventional model rotations. In organic production systems, the effects were less pronounced, mainly due to non-use of herbicides. Traits affecting resistance to pests and diseases had a minor impact on the overall performance of the systems, mainly due to the availability of alternative crop protection tools or traditionally bred varieties. The use of GM crops had only a minor effect on the overall profitability of the arable crop rotations. In apple production systems, scab and fire blight resistance had a positive impact on natural resources as well as on local ecology due to the reduced need for spray passages and pesticide use. In integrated apple production, disease resistance increased profitability slightly, whereas in the organic scenario, both scab and fire blight resistance increased the profitability of the systems substantially. In conclusion, the ecological and socio-economic impacts identified in this study were highly context sensitive and were associated mainly with altered production systems rather than with the GM crops per se.

The Regulation of Genetically Modified Food in China

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.

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

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.

The success of agricultural biotechnology depends as much on consumer acceptance of Genetically Modified (GM) products as it does on the ability to create them. To explore public perceptions of GM food products, we surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1148 American adults during October 23–27, 2013. The data was collected by GFK Knowledge Networks from an internet panel recruited using proportional random sampling. The data was weighted to project to the U.S. population, and has a margin of error of ± 3%. The results show that despite the ongoing controversy over GM foods, 50% of Americans report having heard or read little or nothing about them, 55% report that they know very little or nothing at all about them, and two-thirds (66%) say they have never discussed the issue of GM foods with anyone. Estimates are that 75% of processed foods in the U.S. contain ingredients derived from GM crops. However, only 43% of Americans say that they believe that there are foods containing GM ingredients in supermarkets right now, while 4% say there are no such foods in U.S. supermarkets, and 51% say they don't know. Many of those who believe that there are GM foods in the supermarket are confused about which products are available. For example, while 75% correctly believe that there are products in U.S. supermarkets containing GM corn, and 59% correctly believe that there are products containing GM soy, nearly as many (56%) believe that GM tomatoes, GM Wheat (55%), and GM Chicken (50%) products are available and 35% believe that GM salmon are currently for sale. Moreover, even though GM food products have been on the market in the U.S. for more than two decades, only 26% of Americans believe that they have ever eaten a food containing GM ingredients. Yet, while most Americans say they have heard and read little about GM foods, know little about them, have never had a conversation about them, don't believe they are currently in the supermarket, and don't believe they have ever eaten them, most are willing to express an opinion about the acceptability of GM food products. When asked directly, only 10% of consumers say they approve of GM animal-sourced food products, 44% say they disapprove of them, and 43% neither approve nor disapprove of them, or are unsure. However, there is much greater public acceptance expressed when specific product benefits are described.

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?

PROPOSITIONS 1. Strict biotechnology regulations decrease the level of global food security, especially in developing countries. (this thesis) 2. Second-best conservation policies can still protect the environment in an open economy.

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.

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

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.

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.

This study investigates the effects of risk/benefit beliefs on consumer purchase intentions for genetically modified (GM) foods. A random, national, mail survey is conducted. Three main problems are addressed in the study. The first problem addressed is to analyze the relationship between consumers risk/ benefit beliefs regarding GM foods, and their willingness to buy GM crop and meat products. The second problem deals with linkages between a consumer’s risk/benefit beliefs about GM foods and willingness to pay (WTP) for GM foods with a benefit disclosure. The third problem addressed is to test a causal relationship between knowledge and trust toward GM institutions, and consumer’s purchase behavior toward GM foods. The cognitive factors associated with risk/benefit tradeoffs turn out to have significant impacts on consumer acceptance of GM foods. Results indicate that when consumers decide whether to buy GM crops and meat, the most crucial factor is food safety. Other important factors affecting consumer purchase intentions are ethical issues and concerns regarding the environment and wildlife. Depending upon product types, consumers show different levels of risk perceptions for GM foods. Results indicate that consumers have higher risk sensitivity for GM meats than GM crops, as expected. Consumers living in the Northeast region of the U.S. show a negative attitude about willingness to buy GM meat products. Benefits of GM foods on health and the environment have positive, significant impacts on the premium levels for GM potatoes. Similarly, benefits of GM foods, a positive evaluation of GM foods, and trust in GM institutions such as, government, food companies, consumer environmental groups, and scientists, are significant factors that affect consumers’ participation in the market for GM beef. Unexpectedly, however, health and environmental risk perceptions of GM foods and morality concerns stemming from unnatural way to produce them do not significantly affect either the decision to participate in the market or the premium level. The study found that consumer risk/benefit beliefs depend on their level of knowledge and credibility in GM institutions. Results also indicate that consumers perceive more risks than benefits for GM foods.