The real and perceived risks of genetically modified organisms.

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.

Reluctance within the European Union to accept genetically modified crops may hinder the benefits of this technology reaching the developing world

The Regulation of Genetically Modified Food in China

The European Commission's Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy, under the European Green Deal, acknowledges that innovative techniques, including biotechnology, may play a role in increasing sustainability. At the same time, organic farming will be promoted, and at least 25% of the EU's agricultural land shall be under organic farming by 2030. How can both biotechnology and organic farming be developed and promoted simultaneously to contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? We illustrate that achieving the SDGs benefits from the inclusion of recent innovations in biotechnology in organic farming. This requires a change in the law. Otherwise, the planned increase of organic production in the F2F strategy may result in less sustainable, not more sustainable, food systems.

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

Israel’s policy on GMOs during the past decades focused primarily on managing its agricultural research and development to promote national economics. Similar to the European Union’s policy on the same issue, one of the critical and most important activities for Israel are GM crops, over which the government has asserted formal authority. Israeli law permits the development and growth of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for research purposes in accordance with requirements established by subsidiary legislation. This chapter explores Israel's environmental and safety policy on GM food and crops and places it in an explanatory perspective. First, this chapter briefly outlines the Israeli GMO policy, and the differences in the development of GM regulations for different sectors. Second, the chapter continues to analyze the governmental, legal and regulatory frameworks for sectoral activity on GMOs. Third, the chapter follows with an examination of the roles of economic interests, institutional structure and cultural factors in explaining Israel's GMO policy. Fourth, the discussion points to contemporary developments and their implications for sustainability. Finally, the chapter concludes by emphasizing the importance of sustainability in providing a basis for the development of future policy.

The worldwide acreage of genetically modified (GM) plants is growing year by year and amounted to 90 million hectares in 2005(CLIVE 2005). In contrast to the growing use of GM plants in agriculture, the acceptance of GM food is still low in the European Union (EU) as well as in Germany (FRANK, 2004).Therefore the European Union implemented a series of legal requirements and regulations which are related to R&D, commercial use and labelling of genetically modified organisms (GMO). The food and feed industry is mainly affected from Regulations (EC) No 1829/2003 and 1830/2003. Thus this study analyses the effects of those regulations on the German food and feed industry with special emphasis on GMO-testing regimes. The empirical basis was a comprehensive written survey in 2005 with a total of 1,700 mailed questionnaires. The responding rate was about 20%, thus resulting in 333 filled in questionnaires. The main target of regulations (EC) No 1829/2003 and 1830/2003 is to ensure consumers' freedom of choice between GM and non-GM food. Therefore those regulations require mandatory labelling if food and feed contains, consists or is produced from GMOs in a proportion higher than 0.9% of the food/feed ingredients considered individually. According to our survey the German food and feed industry is already affected by the worldwide increasing use of GMOs and the European GMO legislation. In figure 1 the main strategies of the German food and feed industry are illustrated to fulfil legal requirements of Regulations (EC) No 1829/2003 and 1830/2003. Figure 1: Strategies of German food and feed producers to fulfil legal requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and 1830/2003

Agrochemical multinationals hail them as a panacea for everything from world hunger to pesticide pollution. Environmental organizations dismiss them as "Frankenfoods" which poison consumers and destroy the world's ecosystems. The Nairobi-based United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is attempting to help developing countries weigh up the pros and cons for themselves. The argument is about genetically modified (GM) crops. In mid-January, UNEP kicked off a three-year project that will support up to 100 developing countries to prepare for the entry into force of the UN Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (see Box 1. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety). It will also help these countries put into practice the principles of risk assessment for GM foods announced in March by a task force of the Codex Alimentarius, a world reference body for food safety (see Box 2. UN agrees principles for GM food risk analysis). Box 1. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety Adopted in January 2000 the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is the first international, legally binding environmental treaty. The Protocol seeks to protect biological diversity from the potential risks from genetically modified organisms (GMO) by regulating all transboundary movements of GMOs. The Protocol also establishes a so-called advance informed agreement procedure, which requires GMO-exporting countries to provide all pertinent information about the GMOs in question so that the importing countries can make an informed decision as to whether to accept the shipment or not. As one of its key elements the Protocol is to set up a biosafety clearing house, an Internet database containing all necessary-information about any given GMO such as movements and transports of GMOs, release documents and risk assessments. So far more than 100 countries have signed the Protocol but only 11 have ratified it. As soon as 50 countries have ratified it, the Cartagena Protocol will enter into force worldwide. MH Box 2. UN agrees principles for GM food risk analysis After two years of deliberations, a UN task force on GM foods reached its final conclusions this March: a set of principles proposing that such foods be subjected to extensive pre-market safety assessments, combined with methods to overcome uncertainties in risk assessment, for example by monitoring potential effects after a product has been marketed. Investigations should identify new or altered hazards relevant to human health, especially in relation to key nutrients and potential allergies, said the Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology in early March in Yokohama, Japan. This Task Force of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission--a world reference body for food safety--says that their principles should be seen as providing an overall framework for evaluating the safety and nutritional aspects of GM foods in any country. The principles also provide guidance on analytical methods and other tools to be used in risk management. FAO and WHO say that the task force "reached a very important new agreement concerning the tracing of GM products for the purpose of facilitating withdrawal from the market when a risk to human health has been identified." The task force also adopted detailed requirements for assessing the safety of GM plants, including tests for allergenicity, and recommended that efforts be made to improve the capability of regulatory authorities--particularly in developing countries--to assess and manage GM foods. This is where the UNEP biosafety project will be helpful (see feature). RW The environment "is different everywhere, and that's why GM crops have to be tested locally" says Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, the lead author of last year's Human Development Report, issued annually by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which advocated a cautious application of biotechnology as a means to reduce world poverty. …

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a subject of on-going scientific, political and social discussions in Member States of the European Union (EU) concerning their use, benefits, risks, safety and limitations. EU societies have every right to substantive information and education in biotechnology, yet they appear to be misinformed by contradictory views and sensationalism. The present study investigated the level of knowledge and the attitude of citizens of Poland (n = 1021) towards the various uses of GMOs. As found, the use of GMOs in medicine and pharmacy received slight approval from the surveyed group, and was generally perceived as the greatest benefit of GMOs. In contrast, most respondents were against the production and distribution of GM food products on the Polish market or at least favoured the labelling of any product that contains a GM component. The majority of individuals who were willing to accept GM foods also demanded their labelling. The studied group revealed various concerns related to the safety of GM foods, particularly their potential effect on health and the environment. Generally, the greatest scepticism towards GMOs and GM foods was expressed by farmers, medical workers and school teachers while the greatest enthusiasm was shown by students of medical and life sciences, and researchers/academicians. Importantly, most of those taking part in the survey admitted that their knowledge of GMOs was insufficient, expressed a willingness to improve it, and expected school teachers, academicians and researchers to be actively involved in this process. In conclusion, the present study underlines the urgent need to implement evidence-based educational programmes so as to raise the public understanding of the current possibilities and limitations of GMO-based technology in Poland.

Comment peut-on expliquer le fait que les OGM (Organismes génétiquement modifiés) soient fortement discutés en France et en Europe alors qu’ils sont peu utilisés, et considérés comme acceptables aux États-Unis où leur utilisation est courante ? L’interprétation de ces différences en termes d’acceptabilité et de lien à des attitudes relatives au risque, à l’alimentation et la nature a été fortement discutée notamment par la prise en compte des dynamiques institutionnelles propres au débat public de chaque pays. Notre travail se veut une extension de ces précédentes recherches bien que nous critiquions explicitement l’hypothèse de biais d’assimilation et de polarisation émise habituellement pour caractériser une opinion publique qui serait divisée sur le sujet. A l’aide des microdonnées de l’ISSP (International Social Survey Program) 2000-2010 sur l’environnement, nous mobilisons un modèle de choix hétérogènes pour mesurer l’évolution au cours du temps de l’acceptabilité et l’importance des effets propres à chaque pays. Pour certains pays, nous mettons en évidence une augmentation légère du sentiment de dangerosité des semences génétiquement modifiées (mesurée sur une échelle de Likert) mais une réduction de la variance des positions, suggérant ainsi une modération des attitudes.

Disharmonization in the Regulation of Transgenic Plants in Europe

Genetically modified crops (GM crops) have gained wide attention over the years some GM crops have been undergoing field trials in Nigeria, but they have not proceeded to commercial cultivation due to the absence of regulatory law. The biosafety act was passed into law in 2015 and the presence of this law, can see to the progression of the GM crops from field trials to commercialization. This study investigated the readiness of potential consumers for the possible introduction of these GM crops into the food market. The survey was designed to investigate among other factors their willingness to consume GM crops and to identify their concerns, if any. The results obtained indicated that most of the respondents have medium level knowledge about GMO\GM crops. The desire to consume GM crops among respondents varied and many respondents indicated that they have concerns about GM crops. Their concern was primarily related to potential health risks. Participants also indicated the need for further information about GMOs and stated the factors that influence their attitude towards GM crops. The internet and the media (newspapers, TV etc.) were stated as the means of previous knowledge about GMOs and the internet was again requested as a means of further information about GMOs. Based on this study, regulatory authorities and relevant stakeholders can understand the position and concerns of the consumers prior to the commercialization of GM crops in Nigeria.   Key words: Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), crops, food, biotechnology, biosafety, risk perception, policy.