Genetically Modified Crops

(1)

Genetically Modified Crops

How do

How do the preconceived notionsthe preconceived notions

associated with transgenic foods in

the United States and

the United States and Europe differEurope differ

from its actual risks and

from its actual risks and effects?effects?

By Amy Braun, Päivö Kinnunen, and Adam Kapla

(2)

O

_{ur Hypothesis}

 We predict that, in general, public

opinion concerning GM foods is

extremely negative, blown out of proportion from the actual effects. Further, we will explore how public

opinion towards GM foods differs across geographical and cultural boundaries, e.g. from America to Western Europe, and why these differences may arise.

(3)

R

_{eview: GM}

O·

_s

 The science behind genetically modified

foods is vast and varying depending on the company and farmer¶s needs

 Many different types of GMO¶s, for different

climates, crops, and soils

 A common goal is to reduce competition

with weeds within the fields, allowing

the crop to have higher yields as well as less time dedicated to tending to the

(4)

R

_{eview: GM}

O·

_s



Costs decrease:

 The seed is less expensive from seed

distributors due to mass production rather than smaller suppliers

 The increased yields with decreased initial

cost provides potential increased profits for farmers

 Subsidized imports keep cost low in other

(5)

R

_{eview: GM}

O·

_s



Costs increase:

 Cannot reuse seeds from crops the year

before like in traditional farming

 More herbicides and fertilizers are needed

to aid GMO _{crops, especially after the first}

years of use on the same field.

 Need to ensure security so there is limited

(6)

Environmental Concerns

 As Andow explains in Risk Assessment For

Genetically Modified Crops, that there are many possible problems for non-target

organisms, or plants that do not include the targeted genetically modified organisms

 This causes a decrease in biodiversity as well

as increased vulnerability to disease or

(7)

Case Study: Environment



MEXIC

O·

S C

OR

N C

ROP

S

 This area was once filled with a high

variety of corn crops, each suited for soil types, altitudes, rainfall and temperature have now nearly abandoned the

indigenous varieties and instead buy the less expensive American brands, including GMO_{s, even though they are not preferred}

(8)

Health Concerns

 In the U.S.

 the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration

do not run any additional testing on the foods

because they are thought to be something that is equivalent to a product on the market

 Depending on the study, 75% to 92% of Americans

want to have labelling on the products that

include GM foods. Considering that almost 60% of Americans say that if GM foods were clearly

labelled they would avoid purchasing them, it is understandable that there is a lot of lobbying against labelling of GM foods.

(9)

Case Study: GM

O

_{s in the U.S.}

 A study done in January of 2001 by the Mellman

Group and P_ublic O_{pinion Strategies}

 It shows that consumers know little about GM foods

and are unconcerned about their safety.

 One in five changed their mind about GMO use after

they learned how wide spread they are.

 US consumers are concerned about food freshness

and food poisoning, rather than genetically modified foods which comes after salmonella and chemicals & fertilizers.

 Many say they want more research and labelling so

(10)

Health Concerns



Worldwide

 antibiotic resistance: the genes that are

added to the crops to resist insects can cause resistance to common antibiotics, including penicillin and ampicillin

 increased pesticide, fertilizer and

herbicide usage: build up of poisons

 Allergies: the splicing of different types of

plants could cause allergies (ex: peanut) to spread among many food types

(11)

Worldwide

R

_esponse

According to Gaskell, about 50% of United States citizens were in favor of GMO_{s, while 30% of Europeans were opposed}

(12)

L

abeling for GM

O

_{s abroad}

55 60 65 70 75 80 85 P e r c e n t a g e p r o l a b e l l i n g D e n _m a r k C a n a d _a F _i n l a n d U _KG r e e c _e S _w e d e n N e t h e r l _a n d _s F r a n c _e B e l _{g i u} m A u s _t r i _a G e r _m a n _y U _SS p a _i n I _t_a l y L u x e

m b u _r g P o r t _u g a _l I _r e l _a n d

GE product labelling by country

Figure 1: Percentage of customers that want to have labelling in products that include GE foods in different countrie (Data from: Center for Food Safety, 2000 and Eurobarometer, 1997)

(13)

European

O

_{pposition and Testing}

F_{igure 2: Levels of opposition to GM food and genetic testing in Europe in 1999 (Data from: Gaskell}

et al. 2000) 0 5 10 15 20 25 P e r c e n t a g e A u s _t r i _a L u x e _m b u _r g B e l _{g i u} m G e r _m a n D e n m a r k F i _{n l a} n d G r e e c _e S w e d e n F r a n c _e S p a _i n I _r e l _a n d I _t_a

l U K N e t _h e r l _a n

d _s P

o r t _u g a _l

Levels of opposition to GM food and genetic testing in Europe in 1999

(14)

Europe versus United States

 From Eurobarometer survey in November 1999

 Europeans seem to be more concerned about the long

term effects of GM crops than American customers including concerns that they are a threat to natural order, that GM food is fundamentally unnatural and that it poses a risk to future generations

 The supporters of GM technology are more likely to be

younger, male and better educated than opponents.

 Opponents are also more likely to agree with

statements like: ¶ordinary tomatoes do not contain

genes, and GM tomatoes do· _{and ¶by eating GM foods}

persons genes could be affected.· _{Agreeing with such}

statements shows a lack of scientific knowledge and shows also that much of the opposition to GM foods is more sentimental than rational.

(15)

Fears versus Impact

Consumer f ear s: Real impact:

Ch_{emical interaction it}h_{living t}h_ings _{Very small, ut targeting a pest it}h _{any met}h_{od, iological}

or ch_{emical, it}h_{out side effect is possi le cause of}

pro lem. (Dale et al. 2002)

Ch_{ange in persistence or invasiveness of t}h_e_crop _{mall it}h_{current case- y-case assessment of GM crops,}

ith_{relevant underpinning researc}h_{. (Dale et al. 2002)}

Gene flo y pollination to eeds and feral plants ome possi le future modifications in GM crops, such_as

salt tolerance or cold tolerance, could potentially produce novel crop types h_{ose impact on t}h_{e environment ill}

need to e assessed ith_{particular care. (Dale et al.}

2002)

Reduced efficiency of pest, disease, and eed control maller risk th_{an it}h_th_{e use c}h_{emical control. (Dale et al.}

2002)

Effect on ildlife iodiversity Risk noth_igh_{er t}h_{an it}h_{conventional agriculture. (Dale et}

al. 2002)

Effect on soil and ater y th_{e increased use of}h_{er icides}

due to GMh_{er icide tolerant crops}

Decrease in h_{er icide use in t}h_e _{after t}h_{e introduction}

of GM soy ean. (Dale et al. 2002)

(16)

(17)

(18)

Conclusion

 Consumer fears are all potential risks, some

more than others, and use of GM crops

should only be continued with extreme care and intense long term research on the topic should be continued. With most of the cases the use of GM crops can only be justified

when the conventional methods are worse and pose even higher risks to the

environment.

 Also, the labeling that is enforced in much of

the world should also be mandatory here in the United States.

(19)

W

ork

C

_ited

 Ando , D.A. et.Al. ³ on-target andBiodiversity RiskAssessment For Genetically Modified

C_{rops.´ 9t}h A_{nnual ymposium on t}h_eB_{iosaftey of GMOs. (24-29 ep 2006).}

 Dale,Phillip J., Belinda Clarke, and ElianaFontes. "Potential for the Environmental mpact

of TransgenicC_{rops." ature} B_iotech_{nology 20 (2002): 67- 74.}

 Evenson, R, E., and D. Gollin. "Assessing the mpact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to

2000." cience 300 (2003): 7 8-762.

 Gaskell, George, Martin W.B_{auer, Jo}h_{n Durant, and ic}h_olas C_. A_{llum. "}_W_orldsA_{part? t}h_e

Reception of Genetically Modified F_{oods in Europe and t}h_{e . ." cience 28 (1999):}

384-387.

 D'agnolo, G. "GMO: Human HealthRiskAssessment." Veteinary Research

C_{ommunications 29 (200 ): 7-11.}

 "GMOFree Regions." European Conference on GMO-Free Regions. 6 Mar. 2007

< .GMO-free-regions.org>.

 Levido , Les, andKarin Boschert. "Coe istance or Contradiction? GM Crops Versus

A_lternativeA_{griculture in Europe." Geoforum (2007): 1-26.}

 Z ahlen, Claudia, and D.a. Ando . "Assessing Environmental Risks of TransgenicPlants."