1-s2.0-S0041008X05002875-main

www.elsevier.com/locate/ytaap

Toxicology and Applied Pharma

Review

What determines the acceptability of genetically modified food that can

improve human nutrition?B

Iain F.H. Purchase*

University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK

Received 15 July 2004; accepted 20 December 2004

Available online 27 June 2005

Abstract

It has been predicted that by 2025 there will be an annual shortfall of cereals for feeding the human population of 68.5 million tonnes. One

possible solution is the use of genetically modified (GM) crops, which are already grown extensively (59 million ha of GM crops were

planted in 2002) in the USA, South America, Africa and China. Nevertheless, there is considerable disagreement about the advisability of

using such crops, particularly in Europe.

Obviously, the safety of the food derived from the GM crops is a primary consideration. Safety assessment relies on establishing that the

food is substantially equivalent to its non-GM counterpart and specific testing for allergenicity of proteins and toxicity of metabolites and the

whole food. There appears to be international agreement on the principles of safety assessment. Safety to the environment is equally

important, but will not be covered in this presentation. The public’s perception of the risk of new technology is critical to its acceptance.

Perception of risk, in turn, depends on the credibility of the source of the information and trust in the regulatory process. In many countries,

the public appears to have lost its trust in the scientists and government dealing with GM food, making the acceptability of GM crops

uncertain. Of equal importance are the socio-economic factors that impinge on the viability of GM produce. These include intellectual

property protection, trade liberalisation (through subsidy and tariff barriers in developed countries) and the intensity of bio safety regulations.

The socio-economic interests of developed and developing countries may diverge and may even be contradictory in any one country.

Acceptance of GM crops will thus depend on detailed issues surrounding particular crops and economies.

D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Genetically modified food; Safety; Public perception of risk; Socio-economic issues

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S20

Genetically modified foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S21

Is GM food safe? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S21

Assessment of substantial equivalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S21

Novel proteins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S21

Other constituents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S22

How do socio-economic factors influence the development, use and control of GM food? (Otsuka, 2003) . . . . . . . . . . S22

0041-008X/$ - s

doi:10.1016/j.taa

i The Internat

human health a

technically by th

Pure and Applie

Committee on S

extensively on p

* 79 Knutsford

E-mail addr

cology 207 (2005) S19 – S27

ee front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

p.2004.12.025

ional Union of Toxicology and the International Union of Nutritional Sciences initiated a project entitled FGenetically modified foods for

nd nutrition: the scientific basis for benefit/risk assessment_. It was supported financially by the International Council for Science and

e International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, International Union of Food Science and Technology, International Union of

d Chemistry, International Union of Soil Science and the ICSU Advisory Committee on Genetic Experimentation and Biotechnology and the

ciences for Food Security. The final report was published in Trends in Food Science and Technology 14 (2003) 169–338. This article draws

art of the report as is acknowledged in the references.

Road, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 6JH, UK. Fax: +44 1625 520325.

ess: [email protected].

I.F.H. Purchase / Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 207 (2005) S19–S27S20

Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S22

Development, use and control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S23

Development of GMOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S23

Trade liberalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S23

Biosafety and labelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S23

Public attitudes towards genetically modified foods (Frewer, 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S24

Public attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S24

Ethical concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S25

Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S26

Communicating uncertainty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S26

Emerging issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S26

Final thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S26

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S27

Introduction

Population growth is likely to increase the world’s

population from 6 billion at the start of this century to 7.9

to 19.9 billion by 2025. The majority of this increase will

occur in less economically developed countries (Garza and

Stover, 2003). In spite of increases in crop production of

about 3% per annum (The Pew Initiative, 2004), resulting

from changes to agricultural practice—including plant

breeding—over the last few decades, food insecurity and

the number of people suffering from undernutrition have

increased. The situation is likely to become worse, with

predictions that, by 2025, there will be a shortfall in

worldwide cereal production of 68.5 million tonnes. This

is made up from a shortfall of 307 million tonnes from

Africa, Middle East, Asia and Latin America and a surplus

of 461 million tonnes in Europe, North America and

Oceania.

Undernutrition is not limited to gross malnutrition.

Micronutrient malnutrition has a considerable impact on

the health and productivity of people in developing

countries. For example, iron deficiency affects some 3

billion people, particularly women and children—50% of

pregnant women and 40% of non-pregnant women and

children in poor countries are anaemic. This impairs

physical growth and mental development in childhood and

reduces the capacity for physical labour. Another example is

vitamin A, where about 3 million children of pre-school age

have visible eye damage resulting from its deficiency. An

estimated 250,000 to 500,000 children go blind as a result of

vitamin A deficiency and about two thirds of these children

die within months of going blind (Bouis et al., 2003).

One of the principal aims of producing GM crops for

poorer countries is to address these issues of micronutrient

malnutrition. In parallel, there is a need to reduce poverty

and improve health, which in turn will assist long-term

economic growth.

In wealthy developed countries, consumers may spend,

perhaps 10% of their income on food. They have good

health care and access to a wide range of safe and healthy

food; nutrient deficiencies are infrequent. Thus, the impact

of GM food on the cost of food is relatively unimportant. In

contrast, in poor countries, malnutrition, nutrient deficien-

cies and ill health are more common. Poor consumers

typically spend 70% of their income on food, and their diets

consist primarily of staple foods, which lack the vitamins,

minerals and possibly other nutrients necessary for good

health. There exists, therefore, the opportunity to reduce

costs and improve the nutritional quality of their food

(Bouis et al., 2003).

Implicit in the consideration of the role of GM foods in

this arena is that science has a role to play in helping to tackle

these issues. Specifically, transgenic modification has the

potential to increase the speed and versatility of modification

of crops and animals in comparison to traditional breeding

methods. This is not to say that transgenic technology has all

the answers, but that it has the potential to contribute to some

of the solutions (Garza and Stover, 2003). GM technology

has the potential to increase crop productivity, including the

opportunity to grow crops in unfavourable growing environ-

ments, to reduce pesticide applications and to improve

micronutrient content and availability in commonly con-

sumed foods (Bouis et al., 2003).

The traditional plant breeding methods of hybridization

and cross breeding, resulting in enhancing desirable traits

through genetic modification of plants, have resulted in

documented improvements in productivity. The increases

in food availability have had significant health benefits.

However, there are no specific examples where intentional

modification of plants has led to clear improvements in

the health of human populations (Garza and Stover,

2003).

The introduction of transgenic crops can be predicted to

give rise to benefits and risks to health and the environment.

The benefits to health include enhancement of food and

nutritional security, more specific health benefits (such as

immunization through food) and reduction in chronic

diseases by manipulation of dietary composition. Health

risks include toxicity, allergic reaction, nutrient imbalances

and decreasing diversity of the diet. The specific risks and

I.F.H. Purchase / Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 207 (2005) S19–S27 S21

benefits to the environment are not considered here (Garza

and Stover, 2003).

Genetically modified foods

The most widespread application of GM technology in

food production arises from its application to crops. The

first generation of transgenic crops provided agronomic

benefits, such as insect or virus resistance, herbicide

tolerance, delayed ripening and altered oil content. The

total area planted to GM crops was 2 million ha in 1996,

rising to 68 million ha in 2003. The main crop was soya,

followed by maize, cotton and canola. It is estimated that 55

million farmers planted GM cotton in 2003. By far the

largest producer of GM crops was the USA (66%) followed

by Argentina (23%), Canada (6%), China (5.2%) and other

countries producing 1% (South Africa, Australia, Mexico,

Romania, Bulgaria, Spain, Germany, France, Uruguay,

Indonesia, India, Colombia and Honduras) (The Pew

Initiative, 2004).

The application of genetic modification to farm animals

(Sang, 2003) and fish for food production (Maclean, 2003)

is currently at the research and development stage. The

methods available in animals are too expensive currently for

widespread use, although developments in fin fish are

nearest to commercial exploitation. Microorganisms are

used in various fermentation processes in food production

and for the production of enzymes used as processing aids,

food additives, flavours and amino acids (von Wright and

Bruce, 2003). The use of GM microorganisms in food

production has been slow to develop, because the final

flavour and texture of food produced by fermentation

depends on many genes; the modification of a single or a

few genes will rarely have a predictable effect on the taste

and texture of food. However, production of enzymes, food

additives, flavours and amino acids by these techniques is

easier. Some products are purified and have no residual

genetic material from the producing microorganism, while

others are more complex.

In addressing the question of what makes GM food

acceptable, there are three areas for review: Is the food safe?

Does the public find it acceptable? and What socio-

economic impact will it have?

Is GM food safe?

Traditional breeding methods of altering the genetic

make-up of plants have led to improvements in yield and

other desirable characteristics. However, there are also

examples of increased risks. Celery bred to be insect

resistant was found to have increased levels of psoralens,

and selective breeding of potatoes resulted in higher levels

of solanines. In both cases, traditional methods of breeding

resulted in potential toxicity of the new varieties (Garza and

Stover, 2003). Similar unintended and unexpected hazards

may follow GM methods of developing new varieties.

Genetic modification provides major advantages over

traditional methods. First, the development of new varieties

can be accelerated. Modification of genes can be more

specific and controlled than is the case with conventional

mutation and breeding methods, and genes from other

varieties or species can be inserted to produce particular

advantages (Kuiper and Kleter, 2003).

Approaches for the hazard assessment of GM foods

(derived from biotechnology) have been in preparation for

many years through international collaboration of the FAO/

WHO and the OECD (Kuiper and Kleter, 2003). The

toxicological methods developed for the hazard assessment

of chemical entities, which rely on administration to animals

of doses much higher than experienced in the environment,

will not work for GM foods, where the whole food makes

up much of the mass of the diet. Alternative methods have

been developed, based on the premise that the use of DNA

recombinant technology does not present any inherent risks

because the structure of DNA is the same in all species and

the transfer of genetic material between species has been a

driving force in evolution (Konig et al., 2004). Hence, the

methods are based on assessment of any changes of the

functional and chemical characteristics that result from

genetic modification. Foods generally accepted as safe, on

the basis of their history of safe use (Kuiper and Kleter,

2003), are used for comparison.

Assessment of substantial equivalence

This describes the process where novel foods are

compared with foods accepted as safe. Included in the

comparison are the agronomic and morphological characte-

ristics and the chemical composition of key nutrients and

toxins or anti-nutrients present in the crop. There are several

steps in this process: the characterisation of the organism

(and the donor organism for transferred genes); description

of the genetic modification (inserted gene, method of

insertion and stability and expression of the resulting

inserted gene); and the effects of the modification on the

composition and morphology of the crop. On the basis of

the assessment of substantial equivalence, the further

toxicological assessment of the hazard from the novel food

can be determined (Kuiper and Kleter, 2003).

Novel proteins

Following their identification, novel proteins should be

characterised in terms of their structure and function.

Included in this should be their similarity with other

proteins and their fate after ingestion, processing and

storage. Toxicological assessment will depend on the

outcome of this characterisation. Usually, novel proteins

will be tested in animal studies for at least 28 days. Where

extraction of sufficient protein from the crop is difficult, the

protein may be harvested from cell cultures. Toxicological

assessment will normally include an assessment of allerge-

nicity, based on sequence homology with known allergens,

testing of stability in simulated gastric fluid and specific in


vitro and in vivo testing for allergic potential (Kuiper and

Kleter, 2003).

Other constituents

Any non-protein constituents will need to be assessed

using traditional toxicological methods. The whole food will

also need to be tested in in vivo studies, usually for at least

90 days.

Recent guidance on the safety assessment of GM crops

(Konig et al., 2004) builds on these concepts. A four-step

process is proposed, beginning with the characterisation of

the parent crop. The characterisation of the phenotype and

chemical composition of the crop forms the first step. The

OECD is compiling information considered to be of most

relevance to the characterisation of the parent crop for this

purpose. The second step is the provision of information on

the transformation process, including the source of the

transferred genes, the DNA sequence and the consequences

of the DNA insertion. The third step is the safety assessment

of the gene product to identify any toxic or allergenic

potential. Finally, the safety of the GM crop is assessed by

considering all the information about the identity, agro-

nomic performance, compositional analysis, nutritional

analysis and safety studies (including animal studies). This

safety assessment provides information on the hazard,

which together with an assessment of the exposure of the

population, provides the basis of risk assessment.

How do socio-economic factors influence the development,

use and control of GM food? (Otsuka, 2003)

It is likely that introduction of GM crops will have an

impact on Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development

(SARD—which aims to ensure the ecological, economic

and social strength of future generations equally with those

of the current generation). The concerns about the intro-

duction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) focus

on effects on the environment, economic viability and of

social networks. Although the introduction of GMOs may

improve the living standards of rural communities, it may

worsen disparities between and within communities and

strengthen corporate control over agriculture.

There may be different impacts on agriculture between

developed and developing countries. In developed coun-

tries, consumers may favour quality and variety over

quantity of food. Nevertheless, farmers are confronted with

increasing competition because of trade liberalisation, and

efficiency may play an important role in sustainability. One

reason for the controversy about the use of GMOs is the

discrepancy of interests between overseas consumers of the

final food and the producers. In contrast, in developing

countries, where the quantity of food is more important,

yield increase may be more important than cost efficiency.

Many in the population obtain their food from local markets

and thus the conflict between the interests of the producers

and consumers may be smaller.

Sustainability

Assessment of the sustainability of GMOs in agriculture

can be made using the three indicators of SARD, namely,

capital stocks, efficiency and equity. Awide variety of genes

and parent organisms can be used in genetic manipulation,

but in practice developments have concentrated on a few

core crops (soybean, maize, canola, rice, wheat, cotton,

tobacco and potato). Equally, the traits introduced are also

concentrated (herbicide tolerance, insect and disease resist-

ance, tolerance to stresses, quality improvement and

productivity enhancement).

There are two aspects to consideration of capital stocks,

namely, natural resources and man-made capital. Beneficial

effects of GM crops on natural resources can be expected,

through reduction of ecological damage by reduction of the

use of pesticides, avoidance of soil erosion and reduction of

land use through productivity gains. Some of these benefits

have been achieved, with reduction in pesticide use in

cotton, soybeans and maize and the reduction of yield loss.

Negative effects of GM crops on natural or environmental

capital are more speculative. Nevertheless, reductions in

biodiversity, selection of resistant pests and weeds and gene

flow by cross-pollination may occur. As far as man-made

capital (which includes financial and physical capital—such

as machines, roads, energy and communications—and

human resources) is concerned, the current GMOs are

focussed on achieving low farming costs in industrialised

countries, as food security has already been achieved. There

is very limited commercial appeal for the development of

tropical Forphan_ crops, which are grown mainly for family

consumption. Public sector research will have to be

augmented in order to provide improved varieties through

genetic manipulation for those who have insufficient food.

Efficiency is the second indicator of SARD. Efficient

transformation of capital stocks into human welfare can be

evaluated by measuring productivity. The primary measure

of economic productivity of GM crops is profitability, not

only for the users but also for the rest of society. In the USA,

there is evidence that farmers using GM crops tend to have

higher profits, but this depends on region, crop and year.

However, the resulting increase in production is likely to

reduce the market price. For example, it is projected that

complete adoption of Herbicide Tolerant (HT) soybean

would result by 2010 in a 0.5% increase in production and

a 0.6% decrease in price. The figures for HT corn are a 0.6%

increase in production and a 1.7% reduction in price.

Adoption of GM crops is expected to enhance the

competitiveness of the agricultural and food sector in world

markets. This is occurring in the USA because of a large

domestic market and no segregation of GM and non-GM

crops and food. However, the lack of agreement on the

acceptability of GM products in importing countries, leading

to market segmentation, may lead to uncertain conditions.

Equity is the third factor. While the effects of GMOs on

natural resources may be equally distributed among all


stakeholders (agribiotech companies, farmers, food manu-

facturers and retailers, and consumers), the effects on man-

made capital and efficiency may be distributed differently

among the stakeholders. This can be assessed in at least

three levels: between developed and developing countries,

between various social sectors and between farms of

different sizes and income structures. The current GMOs

have been developed by the private sector and aimed

primarily at farms and markets in the industrialised

countries. Thus, small-scale farmers in developing countries

may be Forphan_ groups left behind by these technical

advances, accentuating the disparity between development

levels. There are also disparities between the different

stakeholders; the largest share of the profits from, for

example, HT soybeans has been distributed to the agribio-

tech/seed companies due to the strong Intellectual Property

Rights (IPR; e.g., patents and Plant Breeder’s Rights).

Consumers in the rest of the world, followed by US farmers

and consumers, received the next largest share. Farmers in

the rest of the world who have not adopted GM crops may

lose income. The third area, disparities among producers, is

of concern because the patented technologies developed by

the private sector are too expensive for poor farmers in

developing countries. There is some evidence to suggest

that, in the USA, the adoption rate is higher in larger farms.

Studies in developing country conditions suggest that

introduction of GM crops may lead to greater discrepancies

between large-scale and small-scale producers. Subsidies,

public research and local distribution and storage will be

required to overcome such discrepancies.

Development, use and control

The use of GMOs in agriculture can have both positive

and negative effects on sustainability, as has been mentioned

in the previous section. Governments can choose options in

various policy areas relevant to socio-economic conditions

that can influence the impact of GMOs and that may help to

achieve sustainable development. These are IPR, Trade

Liberalisation and Biosafety and Labelling.

Development of GMOs

Private firms have been the major innovators in the

development of commercial GMOs, unlike the previous

situation in the green revolution, where public research was

the driving force. One reason for this has been the reduction

in research expenditure in the public sector. IPR derives

from patents or from Plant Breeders Rights, with or without

farmers’ privilege. It seemed that stronger IPR would

provide greater incentives for private firms to invest in the

R&D necessary for producing improved varieties. However,

empirical studies have failed to confirm this linkage. Other

factors may also play an important role. R&D activities

promoted by IPR are inherently market orientated and have

focussed on temperate crops and cost-saving traits. In

contrast, tropical orphan crops grown on small farms by

poor farmers have difficulty in attracting R&D investment,

and this is unlikely to be changed by stronger IPR.

Nevertheless, as the development of a single GMO requires

acquisition of 30 to 40 licences from patent holders, strong

IPR protection can help non-profit research institutes

owning patents to create Fbargaining chips_ that would

allow access to these technologies. In addition to the need

for significant investment in public sector research, there are

several problems to be solved: the cost of access to the

technology necessary for developing GMOs; risks associ-

ated with uncertainty in the technology; and the possibility

that strong IPR provides an incentive for private companies

to collect and preserve genetic resources.

Trade liberalisation

The major issues in international negotiations on trade

liberalisation include market access, export subsidies and

domestic support. Duties on imported agricultural products

remain high and export subsidies and export credit are

widely used by exporting developed countries. The majority

(90%) of such domestic support is concentrated in the USA,

the EU and Japan. The least developed countries and those

that are net importers of food are sceptical about whether

trade liberalisation, which aims to reduce domestic support,

will have beneficial effects. Nevertheless economists

believe that removal of trade distortions will boost economic

welfare and in many cases improve the environment.

The current GMOs have emerged in the global com-

modity market where large-scale farms with government

support grow commodity crops that are substantially

equivalent to non-GMO crops. Trade liberalisation is likely

to create more differentiated opportunities for competition,

creating a segmented market with opportunities for value-

added products. This may result in crop specialisation and

loss of biodiversity.

It is unlikely that complete market access will be

achieved in the short term and thus commodity markets

and segmented markets will co-exist. Developing countries

may have options to pursue strategies other than those for

the commodity or segmented value-added markets. If

technology transfer and conditions for innovation were to

be established and investment in public research were to

increase, social institutions and market conditions specific

for developing countries could lead to the development of

GMOs suitable for local conditions.

Biosafety and labelling

The government of a developing country is confronted by

issues of biosafety (both for domestic adoption of GMOs and

imported GM products) in terms of both the environment and

human health. Policy options range from a product-specific,

equivalence principle to a process-specific, precautionary


principle for risk assessment, approval and labelling. The

former favours no labelling or negative labelling, which

indicates that a product is GM free, while the latter favours

mandatory positive labelling. Many developing countries

have a cautious approach to controlling GMOs but many

have not yet established effective legislation. Most govern-

ments that have already approved GMOs have required some

level of mandatory labelling, except for the USA, Canada,

Argentina and some countries in Southeast Asia.

In general, risks to human health and the environment are

of less concern than are economic and agrarian problems to

developing countries. Even though the logic for regulation

differs from that in developed countries, which have based

their regulation in terms of the precautionary principle, the

consequences in terms of biosafety and labelling are similar.

The outcome of similar regulation may differ depending on

the self-sufficiency of the basic food supply, purchasing

power and market conditions. Thus, in net food importing

developed countries, biosafety and labelling may offer

consumers choice and provide competitive opportunities

for domestic farmers and retailers in value-added segmented

markets. In contrast, in net food importing developing

countries that have neither purchasing power nor a com-

petitive food industry, these policies may undermine food

security and the viability of the food manufacturing and

retailing industry. In developing countries that are self-

sufficient in basic food production, policies in food

importing countries may present risks through uncertain

market conditions and opportunities for entry into the newly

segmented market for non-GM products.

The impact of policy selection in the control of develop-

ment, use and safety of GMOs appears very intricate. The

options for policies in IPR protection, trade liberalisation

and biosafety and labelling do not always produce

consequences that coincide with each other. Strong IPR

protection may lead to a monopolistic innovator and, as a

consequence, restriction of competition. In the reverse

direction, low supply elasticity in prices (where prices do

not respond to changes in production volume, owing to, for

example, subsidies) may allow farmers to expand produc-

tion, which may increase demand for improved varieties

with IPR protection, such as GMO varieties. Thus, the

impacts of IPR protection and trade liberalisation may be in

opposite directions. In general, in developed countries, the

major inconsistency is between innovative incentive (IPR

protection) and competitive efficiency (partly through trade

liberalisation). In contrast, in developing countries, trade

protectionism worsens agricultural productivity even with

poor domestic R&D and weak IPR protection.

A second contradiction is between trade liberalisation

and strict biosafety regulations with mandatory labelling.

Specialisation of niche agricultural products in deregulated

market conditions entails differentiation from other products

by labelling with identity-preserved distribution. On the

other hand, commodity markets for mass-produced grains,

which may be supported by protectionist farm support

policies, regard products derived from different regions and

conditions as equivalent, not requiring labelling.

Strict biosafety and labelling regulations may weaken the

incentive for R&D firms to invest in that country. Strong

IPR may result in collection of genetic resources outside the

country, conflicting with preservation in situ of region-

specific crops. Thus, in some cases, biosafety and labelling

regulations may conflict with IPR protection.

The first generation of GMOs with input traits resulted

from strong IPR protection and low supply elasticity in

prices of farm products as a result of subsidised commodity

agriculture. The commodity market for GM products may

be inherently unstable because of the conflict between

protectionist production policies and emerging biosafety

policies that restrict commercialisation. Trade liberalisation

may jeopardise the commodity market by cutting subsidies,

which may reduce the profitability of farming with GMOs.

These influences may pose greater uncertainty in the

efficiency and equity of adopting GMOs.

The second generation of GMOs, with value-added traits,

will emerge under conditions of strong IPR protection, high

supply elasticity in prices and strict biosafety regulation.

The high supply elasticity and smaller markets for high

value-added varieties may make innovating firms vulnerable

to uncertain market and regulatory conditions. Thus, the

segmented niche markets for GM and non-GM products

seem unstable.

Socio-economic conditions that shape the future of

GMOs are in reality much more complicated than described

above. It is not easy to forecast the impact of these

influences on the future of GMOs, nor their effects on

SARD. There is no single package of policy options that can

establish appropriate development use and control of

GMOs. It is likely that the trends of greater IPR protection,

more trade liberalisation and greater biosafety regulation are

inevitable, but the consequences on SARD and the success

of GMOs remain uncertain.

Public attitudes towards genetically modified foods

(Frewer, 2003)

Public attitudes

Public perceptions and attitudes about emerging bio-

sciences and other new technologies are among the most

important factors determining the likelihood of successful

development and implementation of technology. An under-

standing of the determinants of perceptions and attitudes,

and of trust in institutions must be considered to support

successful exploitation of genetic technology. It is clearly

important to develop the best method of communicating the

risks and benefits of GM food. However, new ways of

involving the public explicitly in the debate about new

technology, in this case genetic modification of food, are

also important.


People’s attitudes to particular activities help to explain

why they support (or do not support) particular social

policies, ideologies or technological advances. Attitudes are

usually measured along a bipolar continuum that ranges

from extremely positive to extremely negative and includes

a neutral reference point. In general, people who have a

positive attitude towards, say, GMF, are likely to associate it

with positive attributes and are unlikely to associate it with

negative attitudes (and vice versa). A change in attitude may

occur when an individual receives some additional infor-

mation about the issue. This may be, for example, through

direct exposure to the GM food, where the experience may

result in a more positive or a more negative attitude.

Attitude changes following direct exposure may be difficult

to detect, because other contextual factors mask the event.

For example, with GM foods, such contextual factors may

include the individual’s interpretation of the information

provided about the GM food or their beliefs about the

motives of the source of the information (industry,

regulators, etc.).

The way a person perceives the risks associated with a

particular hazard will have direct impact on their attitudes

towards that hazard. Factors such as whether the risk is

perceived as involuntary, potentially catastrophic or uncon-

trollable are more important determinants of public response

to risks than are the more technical estimates of the risks.

Some argue that the ways that technical experts and lay

people think about risks are very different.

There is some evidence that people will tolerate risk in

the area of technology innovation if they perceive some

direct benefit to themselves. There is some evidence that

this occurs with GM foods and it has been argued that

consumer rejection of the first generation of GM foods is

because they have little direct benefit for the consumer. The

two major areas of benefit, sustainability claims and health

claims, are thought to have the greatest potential to improve

consumer acceptance. However, neither type of benefit is

persuasive when consumers are presented with particular

examples of GM foods.

Opinion polls provide information about peoples’ per-

ceptions and attitudes to GM foods, but it is difficult to

predict what their actual behaviour might be on the basis of

the results of the polls. It is also difficult to compare the

results of different opinion polls applied to different

populations. The Eurobarometer survey has been applied

to many countries and provides good comparative informa-

tion. It has been implemented since 1973 in different

European states and overseas. In general, Europeans have a

positive view of science and technology, but their attitudes

to GM foods are more negative. Of those sampled, 95%

were concerned about the consumer’s lack of choice about

consuming GM foods and 60% expressed the view that GM

organisms had the potential to have negative effects on the

environment. For some respondents, an increased scientific

knowledge of genetic modification was linked with prefe-

rence for greater regulatory control. Women perceived

greater risks than men and older people greater than younger

respondents. In general, consumers in northern Europe tend

to express more concern about the risk of genetic

modification of food than those in southern Europe.

Responses to the same survey indicated that New Zea-

landers were more positive about the use of agricultural

applications of genetic modification in the context of

specific applications than some European countries or

Japanese populations. There is a view that people in the

USA are less concerned about GM foods than in other

countries, but this is not backed by empirical evidence.

Survey data indicate that North American public opinion is

equivocal about the acceptability of GM foods, with 53%

believing that genetic engineering would improve their

quality of life over the next 20 years and 30% believing it

would make things worse. Many respondents did not appear

to have confidence in US regulators concerning the safety of

GM foods, although confidence in consumer groups and

industry was generally high. It is important to emphasise

that public opinion about technology implementation is

dynamic and likely to change, as more information is made

available about benefits, risks, societal impacts and other

factors of relevance to the acceptance of GM foods.

The results of surveys using structured questionnaires

have been criticised because the questions may not reflect

peoples’ actual concerns, and such methods do not provide

information about the reasons underlying responses. Results

from semi-structured qualitative methodology avoid these

problems. Such research has shown that minor modifica-

tions to food products were associated with moderate

concern. Risk and high levels of ethical concern were

associated with modification involving humans or animals.

Medical applications were perceived to be most important

and necessary. A separate study revealed that peoples’

beliefs about GMFs fell into three groups. The largest group

of concerns was linked to health. A second group of beliefs

related to perceptions that genetic modification of food was

not under the control of the consumer; in particular, that

consumers had no choice about whether or not they ate

GMFs. Finally, the third group related to perceived benefits,

including reduced costs and wastage and increased shelf

life.

Knowledge of attitudes and concerns about GMFs,

reviewed briefly here, has to be considered when providing

information to the public. When introducing any new,

potentially controversial technology, it is extremely impor-

tant to provide information that addresses the concerns of

the public directly, rather than information that focuses on

technical risk estimates alone.

Ethical concerns

The publics’ concerns about the ethics of genetic

modification are as important as their views on risk in the

strategic development of the technology. Understanding

how the public thinks about ethics helps to foster consensus


building about the long-term application of GMOs. Differ-

ences in ethical views between cultures, religious groups

and other interest groups are also important, particularly in

the light of the global economy. What is considered ethically

acceptable in one culture may be unacceptable in another.

Public views on ethical matters might usefully be included

in the regulatory framework surrounding biotechnology and

thereby public trust in regulation and in biotechnology is

likely to be increased.

Trust

Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of (new)

technology have an important impact on the political

decision making process. Trust in the companies and

scientists conducting research into gene technologies has

an important bearing on the perception of risks and benefits

from the products derived from that research. The more the

company and scientists are trusted to have the interests of

society at the forefront of their activity, the less their work is

perceived to be associated with risk and the more it is

perceived to be associated with benefits.

Social trust is defined as people’s willingness to rely on

experts and institutions in the management of risks and

technologies. Public trust of this sort in the particular

scientific activity and in the regulators and regulatory

institutions is likely to be crucial to technology acceptance.

Unfortunately, public trust in scientific authority has lost

much of its credibility, at least in the UK. There is evidence

that differences exist between different countries in this area,

with the Scandinavian public being more likely to trust

government than is the case in southern Europe or the UK.

Without public trust, long-term development of biotechnol-

ogy, including GMFs, will be problematical.

Source credibility refers to people’s perceptions of the

motivations of institutions or individuals providing infor-

mation to the public. It is usually assumed to be dependent

on both the information source and the subject under

consideration. FCompetence_ (the expertise and the extent to

which the communicator are able to pass on information)

and Fhonesty_ (the extent to which a communicator will be

truthful) are two major factors that are important in

determining trust. Expertise without honesty is unlikely to

result in long-term changes in attitude.

Trust in information sources has been examined in the

context of GM foods. The results suggest that the extent to

which people trusted information sources appeared to be

driven by people’s attitudes to GM foods. Trust in

information sources did not drive people’s reaction to the

information. Thus, providing information about risks and

benefits of GM foods is not sufficient to promote attitudinal

change within the public.

In the past, communication has often been technology

driven or Ftop-down_. The communication has been driven

by technical risk assessments rather than by issues salient to

the wider public. This approach has failed to convince con-

sumers of the merits of such products. Information from a

trusted source, which reassures people of safety, will reduce

perceived risk. The same information from a distrusted

source may increase perceived risk. Trust and perceived risk

have independently influenced people’s attitudes to gene

technology. Prior attitudes towards the hazard may also

influence people’s interpretation of risk communication

information. These processes create a positive feedback

cycle that helps to explain the stability and resistance to

change of people’s attitudes to particular hazards where these

attitudes are strong and well established.

Communicating uncertainty

Scientific experts and the general public have different

views about reaction to uncertainty. Scientific experts have

believed that the public is unable to handle information about

uncertainty and that providing such information would

increase distrust in science and cause panic and confusion

about the impact of a particular hazard. Interviews with

members of the public showed that they are familiar with

uncertainty, and their distrust in scientific and regulatory

institutions increased with any tendency to deny that

uncertainties exist when in fact uncertainty had been

identified. Communication about GM foods should include

discussion of uncertainty associated with risk management.

Increased transparency in risk management and regulatory

decision making will mean that information dissemination

activities will focus as much on uncertainties as on what is

known.

Emerging issues

The regulatory environment is changing its relationship

with society. The Ftop-down_ risk communication model,

where information is developed by experts who expect the

public to attend to what they have communicated, is being

replaced by more inclusive and transparent institutional

processes. These changes reflect a decline in trust in science.

Societal values are likely to contribute to consumer accept-

ance or otherwise of GM foods and need to be included in

the debate about regulation and the associated communica-

tion strategies. In is now recognised that making decisions

without public support is liable to lead to confrontation,

dispute, disruption, boycott, unrest, distrust and public

dissatisfaction in science and technology.

Final thoughts

The factors that determine the acceptability of Genetically

Modified Food are clearly very complex. Here, I have tried

to summarise those issues that impact directly on human

health, although many of them are intertwined with the

issues that also affect the environment. The part of the

process involving toxicologists, namely, safety evaluation


and risk assessment, is only a part (albeit an important part)

of the whole picture. GMFs must be safe for human

consumption. But to be successful, GMFs must meet other

criteria as well. They should not have a negative impact on

Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development. The impact

of GMOs on economics and social structures is so complex

as to defy simplification. Nevertheless, it is clear that their

impact will vary, depending on the state of development of

the country and its agriculture and the policies, adopted in

intellectual property rights, international trade liberalisation

and biosafety regulation. Equally, to be successful in the long

term, they must be sustainable in this generation and for

future generations.

Ultimately, the acceptance of GM foods will depend on

consumer attitudes. These in turn are influenced by technical

assessments of risks and benefits and their communication

to the consumer. Ethical considerations, uncertainties about

the information provided, and trust in the regulatory system

and information sources are also important determinants of

consumer acceptance. Thus, the scientific, economic and

other technical factors are insufficient to ensure acceptance

of GM foods; social issues, such as trust and people’s values

and attitudes, are equally important.

References

Bouis, H.E., et al., 2003. Genetically modified food crops and their

contribution to human nutrition and food quality in: Genetically

modified foods for human health and nutrition: the scientific basis for

benefit/risk assessment. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 14, 119–209.

Frewer, L., 2003. Societal issues and public attitudes towards genetically

modified foods in: Genetically modified foods for human health and

nutrition: the scientific basis for benefit/risk assessment. Trends Food

Sci. Technol. 14, 319–332.

Garza, C., Stover, P., 2003. General introduction: the role of science in

identifying common ground in the debate on genetic modification of

foods in: Genetically modified foods for human health and nutrition: the

scientific basis for benefit/risk assessment. Trends Food Sci. Technol.

14, 182–190.

Konig, A., et al., 2004. Food Chem. Toxicol. 42, 1047–1088.

Kuiper, H.A., Kleter, G.A., 2003. The scientific basis for risk assessment

and regulation of genetically modified foods in: Genetically modified

foods for human health and nutrition: the scientific basis for benefit/risk

assessment. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 14, 277–294.

Maclean, N., 2003. Genetically modified fish and their effects on food

quality and human health in: Genetically modified foods for human

health and nutrition: the scientific basis for benefit/risk assessment.

Trends Food Sci. Technol. 14, 242–252.

Otsuka, Y., 2003. Socio-economic considerations relevant to the sustainable

development, use and control of genetically modified foods in: Genetically



Sang, H., 2003. Genetically modified livestock and poultry and their

potential effects on human health and nutrition in: Genetically modified

foods for human health and nutrition: the scientific basis for benefit/risk

assessment. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 14, 253–263.

The Pew Initiative. Feeding the world. March 2004. www.pewinitiative.org

accessed on 6 July 2004.

von Wright, A., Bruce, A., 2003. Genetically modified microorganisms and

their potential effect on human health and nutrition in: Genetically



http:\\www.pewinitiative.org

Documents

1-s2.0-S0041008X05002875-main