better than what is artificial, either in the sense of being better for the environment (as in example (10)), or in the sense of being safer for humans (as in example (13)). That is, the proponents of these arguments might allow that not everything that is natural is good, and not everything that is unnatural is bad, but might insist that the former has certain comparative advantages relative to the latter. But why would one believe without specific evidence that, for a particu- lar case such as food crops, the more natural alternative (of inter- breeding and selection) is preferable to the more artificial one (GE technology)? The explanation seems to be that, at least in some cases, arguers have an idealized conception of nature as intrinsically balanced and wise (as it seems to be the case of the arguer in example (10)). This might motivate the view that traditional techniques of obtaining new crops are preferable to novel technologies, because the former ones are thought to rely on nature’s own ways of behav- ing, and so, to be stable, safe and predictable. In other cases this be- lief might be based on a complex religious and mystical conception of nature, which is thought to be kind and benignant to humans if they respect her and do not use aggressive technology, as GE tech- nology is thought to be. Bioethicist Paul B. Thompson (2000) says this is “not exactly a religious view, because it’s not something they would have learned in church. It’s quasi-religious, because it's a par- ticular way of thinking about nature that’s not in the direction that science has gone.” 5 However, traditional religions might also pro- mote this idealized view of nature. Sagoff (2001 p. 5) thinks that this, in fact, corresponds to a different meaning that the word “nature” receives, as “Creation in the sense of what God has made.”
29 Read more
The ALDE group shows a heterogenous picture. What stands out is the fact that six out of ten parties examined here did not include anything about GMOs in their manifestoes and that in four cases no information at all could be found. It seems that genetic modification is not a salient topic to many liberal parties. Four out of the six parties that stated their opinions are against the agricultural use of GMOs without giving any reasons, while the fifth, the VVD from the Netherlands, is in favour for economic reasons, and the sixth, the Spanish UPyD, is neutral. There is no clear national trend. One Spanish party is neutral, one is against. One Dutch party is in favour, one is against. One Belgian party is against, for one there is no information available. Among the non-positioning, neutrality and weak opposition, the Dutch VVD stands out in its elaborated support for GMOs. The figures for worries of negative consequences of GM crops for the economy, health and environment in the Netherlands are 44 %, 37 % and 63 % (European Commission, 2010 a, pp. 19, 29-30). In Spain they are 29 %, 47 % and 33 %, so largely lower than in the Netherlands, and yet, there was no Spanish ALDE party being in favour of GMOs. Overall, the ALDE group shows neither strong salience on the issue nor strong cohesion, but there are also no clear national trends.
37 Read more
Of prime importance and long overdue is an inclusive discussion on the appropriate testable, scientific hypoth- eses and methodologies that are supportive of the provi- sions and tasks formulated by the EU legal framework on risk assessment of GM organisms. The EU law is based on the axiom that risks, which may be caused by GM organisms, cannot be a priori-deducted from ex- perience with existing organisms. Due to their genomic and evolutionary novelty, specific laws regulate the test- ing in the open environment and the market approval process of GM organisms since 1990. Therefore, the EU Directive 2001/18 on the deliberate release into the en- vironment of genetically modified organisms clearly states as a ‘General Principle’ for environmental risk as- sessment that ‘identified characteristics of the GMO and its use which have the potential to cause adverse effects should be compared to those presented by the non- modified organism from which it is derived and its use under corresponding situations’. Nowhere does this Directive or the Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on gen- etically modified food and feed suggest that GM organ- isms also need to be compared to unrelated control organisms in the context of risk assessment (see Regulation
11 Read more
Although this argument may seem senseless to some, the overarching point is this: clearly labeling all genetically modified organisms would allow individuals to make an informed choice that aligns with their personal views and beliefs. Whether those personal beliefs stem from health concerns, environmental concerns, religious concerns, or ethical concerns is irrelevant. What is relevant is the consumer’s moral and legal right to make educated decisions about the products they consume. Article IV(3)(b) of the proposed legislation found in section III(A) of this Note, addresses religious and vegetarian concerns by requiring labeling to note when manufacturers use animal cells in non-animal products.
31 Read more
For example, currently, close to 800,000 ha out of the total corn area of 3 million ha in the Philippines are planted with GM corn. As a result of the move towards growing GM corn, Philippines, which was previously a corn-importing country, has become self-sufficient in the crop, and in 2013 started exporting corn to Korea (Manalo 2014b). Most of the cotton crop (98%) in Australia comprises GM varieties with insect and herbicide tolerance genes. Furthermore, the switch to GM cotton has resulted in more than 80% reduction in chemical pesticide use; this translates into savings amounting to AUD400-700/ha in pesticide cost as well as significantly reducing the drastic harm caused by the previous practice of spraying pesticide as much as 8-10 times per cotton crop (Tate & Richardson 2014).
An additional study conducted on animals with GMO consumption has demonstrated decreased fertility, birth defects, neurologic problems, cancer, and alterations in liver and kidney function . From that University of Caen study, rats that were fed a GMO diet developed mammary tumors and organ failure, resulting in prema- ture death as compared to controls . In view of these reports of toxicity in animal studies, long-term studies should now be performed on humans before universally embracing GMO products. Since these investigations will take many years to complete and GMO seeds have already flooded the market, at the very least, there should be mandatory labeling of GMO use.
Handling with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is regulated namely in EC. Laboratories often use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based screening methods to monitor the presence of GM particles in food commodities as a cost effective approach. The reliability was tested of such screening using 35S CaMV promoter as the target sequences. Soya grown from non-GM cultivar as declared by a seed company was investigated after the harvest, transport to the silo, and before processing. The results based on PCR and real-time PCR analysis clearly showed that, the contami- nation with debris of other species, dust during transport, storage, and other kind of handling led to contamination with detectable amounts of Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV). Impurities are allowed by EC regulations but may, as we have shown, interfere with the analytical procedures based on PCR. The identification of 35S CaMV promoter and NOS terminator in food with uncertain history and no approved specific events may indicate unknown GMOs and perhaps emergency situation.
Corn with its extensive use for food, feed, and industrial products, especially biofuel ethanol, has resulted in the crop having the greatest volume of production of any cereal in the world . Nowadays, there are over 4000 different products which have corn in its production whether directly or indirectly. The main areas of use for corn can be listed as; fresh (boiling and roasting ), canned, corn flour, starch, chips, oil, sweeteners, candy, gum, chocolate products, baby foods, salad dressings, alcohol, high fructose corn syrup, feed, toothpaste, ethanol (as gasoline additive) production, automotive industry, cleaning materials, textiles and cosmetics industries. It is es- timated that of the world total production, 60% is used as animal feed, 20% as human food (direct consumption), 10% as processed food and 10% as seeds and other consumption. While the corn is mainly used for human con- sumption in developing countries, it is generally used for animal feed and as industry input in the developed countries. It is also a very important input for the Turkish animal husbandry sector.
11 Read more
Regulators initially appear to have treated GM crops as ‘merely novel’. The first application to the European Union for the commercial production of GM crops was acknowledged in February 1994 (Carr and Levidow, 2000: 30). In the USA, UK and many other countries they were initially regulated in the same way as new crops that had been bred without using recombinant DNA. That is, licences were to be granted where research had produced no evidence that the products had adverse effects on human health (AEBC, 2001: 9). A few years later, environmental pressure groups in the UK began presenting the opposing view that these technologies represented a radical departure from previous techniques, and that a moratorium on their commercial use should be declared pending proper evaluation (FOE, 1997). The mass media have generally followed the pressure groups’ line, basing their coverage of GM foods on the premise that they represent a potentially dangerous new departure (Toke, 2002: 70). Studies of public opinion have also tended to find that genetic modification is generally perceived as ‘radically new’. Indeed, the opposition between this conception and the approach initially taken by regulators and retailers underlies debates regarding how risks and uncertainty are conceptualised. Opponents of GM crops ground their objections in the ‘radically new’ character of the techniques, and on the issues of safety, uncertainty and morality arising from this perception.
38 Read more
1 ZALF, Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Institute of Land Use Systems, Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany 2 ECT Oekotoxikologie GmbH; Böttgerstr. 2-14; 65439 Flörsheim a.M., Germany 3 Center for Agro-food Economy and Development-CREDA-UPC-IRTA; Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia- ESAB Building; C/ Esteve Terrades 8; 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona), Spain 4 GenØk; Centre for Biosafety, Science Park, 9294 Tromsø; Norway 5 ETH; Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Institute of Integrative Biology, Universitaetstr. 16; 8092 Zürich; Switzerland 6 University of Vechta; Chair of Landscape Ecology; Driverstr. 22; 49377 Vechta; Germany 7 Aarhus University; Department of Agroecology; Blichers Allé 20; 8830 Tjele; Denmark 8 Plant Protection Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Department of Ecotoxicology and Environmental Analysis; Herman Otto ut 15; 1022 Budapest; Hungary 9 TUD; Technische Universität Dresden; Faculty of Geo-, Forest- and Hydroscience; Helmholtzstr. 10; 01069 Dresden; Germany 10 FiBL; Forschungsinstitut für Biologischen Landbau; Ackerstr. 1; 5070 Frick; Switzerland 11 ENSSER, Postfach 1102, 15832 Rangsdorf, Germany 12 UFZ; Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; De- partment of Conservation Biology; Permoserstr. 15; 04318 Leipzig; Germany 13 ESRC Cesagen, Lancaster University; Sociology; Bailrigg; LA1 4YD Lancaster; UK 14 The University of Edinburgh; School of GeoScien- ces; Drummond Street; Edinburgh EH8 9XP; UK 15 EAS; Eurofins Agroscience Services GmbH; Eutinger Strasse 24; 75223 Niefern-Öschelbronn; Germany 16 UFZ; Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; Department of Community Ecology; Theodor-Lieser-Str. 4; 06120 Halle; Germany 17 DIN; Deutsches In- stitut für Normung; Burggrafenstr. 6; 10787 Berlin; Germany 18 Donal Murphy-Bokern; Lindenweg 12; 49393 Kroge-Ehrendorf; Germany 19 UDP; University of Pisa; Department of Crop Plant Biology; Via del Borghetto 80, 56124 Pisa; Italy 20 JSI; Josef Stefan Institute; Department of Knowledge Technologies; Jamova 39; 1000 Ljubljana; Slovenia 21 University of Copenhagen; Faculty of Life Sciences; Rolighedsvej 23; 1958 Frederiksberg C; Denmark 22 BfN; Federal Agency for Nature Conservation; Division GMO-Regulation, Bio-
25 Read more
Consistent with this “clean green” identity, many are proud to label New Zealand as “GE Free” . Neverthe- less, genetic engineering (GE) techniques are commonly used in New Zealand-based biotechnology research. The use of these techniques to develop genetically modified organisms (GMOs), particularly in agriculture, is espe- cially contentious 1 . The importance of primary industries to the New Zealand economy means that there are not only significant benefits that could result from GMO research , but also significant costs . As a result, there is controversy and debate that extends across the political, social, economic and scientific communities over the place of GMO research in New Zealand.
4.3 Farming beyond glyphosate: A future where chemical and pesticide companies rule agriculture is a dystopia that only a multinational without conscience could love. Designing a crop that is glyphosate-dependent, such as Monsanto’s RR canola needs to be called out as the perverse enterprise that it is. “Spray this food crop with our whizz herbicide and everything will die except that food crop - then harvest it out of that chemical desert, and eat it”. Who can imagine that is good idea? Who can imagine that there is a social licence for that? In the USA, farmers of GM soy use 28% more glyphosate than non GM soy farmers (Perry, Ciliberto, Hennessy, & Moschini, 2016). The herbicide glyphosate is pervasive in the food chain (Cook, 2019) and it is carcinogenic (OEHHA, 2019). In what is described as “the world’s first Roundup cancer trial” Monsanto was ordered to pay US$289 million (Bender, 2018). There are more glyphosate lawsuits coming with 9,300 plaintiffs reported (Bellon, 2018).
16 Read more
conceptual) to gather information from the individual’s knowledge and viewpoints (Masue, Swai, & Anasel, 2013). This gives a descriptive picture of a particular question, such as order, structure and broad patterns and gives re- searchers a deeper understanding of historical, social, po- litical and cultural influences affects society and their de- cision making that takes place. Qualitative researchers are starting to realize the usefulness of web archiving when analyzing social media and consumer behavior (Lomborg, 2012). Web archives allow researchers to collect data and discover information about places, objects, or groups of behavior over a period of time. They can make connections related to interactions between groups and individuals, and track behavior through Internet use, adopting methods that are not disruptive to users while data are collected. By incorporating social media research with web archives, communication patterns and social ac- tivity, researchers may answer questions related to how networks are formed.
28 Read more
Methodology: This study has been carried out with survey method within the descriptive research method. The survey method has been preferred as a tool to collect data. The survey was composed of 18 questions; seven of them have been structured on ten–point Likert scale. Likert scale is widely used since it allows the consumers to express their attitudes in a regular and meaningful way and it is easy to use for those who conduct market researches (Koç, 2008). The survey used in this study has been prepared so as to measure consumers’ risk perception and attitude towards GMO and objective and subjective knowledge of genetic modification and GMO. Additionally, based on the literature on consumer perception of risks and benefits and a review of the various empirical ap plications mentioned above, a series of questions were developed to measure risk and benefit per ception. In line with the purpose of this research, dimensions regarding measurement of attitudes and perceptions consist of the perceived environmental risk, the perceived benefit, its long–term effects on human and animal health, benefits for developing countries, attitudes towards recogniz able labels and nutritional value, attitudes in terms of ethical and moral values and importance of price. General sociodemographic variables consist of gender, age, income, education, marital sta tus, occupation, religious affiliation and residence. Respondents’ subjective knowledge about bio technology was assessed using Likert scale, where 1 – no knowledge at all and 10 – have excellent knowledge. Objective knowledge of consumers was assessed by eight true and false questions. The obtained data were analyzed through SPSS programme.
12 Read more
This paper tempts to present the situation of transgenic foods in the soudano-sahelian zone of Cameroon. Poten- tial transgenic foods found on the market and on the fields in farming zone are described and listed. Theirs sources are discussed. Failures in the legislation and their applications are also highlighted. The necessity to achieve more deepened studies on transgenic foods and GMO in North Cameroon is obvious. The incriminated products, the national, regional and international movements, the form of commercialisation and the use of these foods remain unknown at present. This probably explains few attentions brought to this topic. Several ways of intervention must be proposed for the updating of the existing regulation backing the assessment and the man- agement of risks, as well as the decision making concerning the management of genetically modified crops in the field in soudano-sahelian zone of Cameroon. We hope that these results could contribute to developing the further mix operation of the research and the investigation concerning genetically modified organisms in the su- dano-sahelian zone of Cameroon.
This paper frames genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as invasive species. This offers a way of considering the reception, diffusion and management of GMOs in the foodscape. “An invasive non-native species is any non-native animal or plant that has the ability to spread causing damage to the environment, the economy, our health and the way we live” (NNSS, 2017). Without any social licence, pesticide companies have thrust GMOs into the foodscape. The release of GMOs has generally been unwelcome, there has been no ‘pull’ factor from consumers and there has been vocal resistance from many. The apologists for GMOs have argued the self-contradictory conceit that GMOs are ‘same but different’. Under this logically untenable stance, GMOs are to be excluded from specific regulation because they are the ‘same’ as existing organisms, while simultaneously they are ‘different’ and so open to patenting. GMOs are patented and this demonstrates that, prima facie, these are novel organisms which are non-native to the foodscape. GMO apologists have campaigned intensively, and successfully in USA, to ensure that consumers are kept in the dark and that GMOs remain unlabelled - as a consequence GMOs are ubiquitous in US consumer foods. In contrast, in Australia GMOs are required to be labelled if present in consumer products and, in consequence, Australian food manufacturers do not use them. The release of a GMO calls for biosecurity measures. After trial plots of Monsanto GM canola in Tasmania in the 1990s, the sites continue to be biosecurity monitored for GMO escape, and volunteer canola plants continue to appear two decades later. In Western Australia the escape of GMO canola into a neighbouring organic farm resulted in the loss of organic certification and the monetary loss of the organic premium for produce. GMO produce sells for a 10% discount because of market forces and the consumer aversion to GMOs. Where non- GM product is accidentally contaminated with some GM grain, the whole batch is discounted and is sold as GMO. There is a lack of evidence that GMOs can be contained and many jurisdictions have banned the introduction of GMOs. GMOs have the potential and the propensity to contaminate non-GMO crops and thereby devalue them. The evidence is that GMOs are invasive species, they are unwelcome by consumers, peaceful coexistence with non-GM varieties is a fiction, and GMOs are appropriately managed as a biosecurity issue.
In the framework of realization of Complex program of biotechnologies development Resolution of Russian Federation Government No 839 from 23.09.2013 “On the state registration of genetically-engineered-modified organisms intended for release into the environment as well as products derived from the use of such organisms or containing such organisms” was passed. The Resolution determines federal authorities of executive power, which shell conduct state registration depending on target use of modified organism, and the order of GMO state registration, including the list of compulsory assessments, which must be carried out in the framework of pre- registration investigations.
The concept of precaution has been discussed broadly in the academic discourse on risk governance in light of uncertainty. It can however already be stated that scholars such as Van Asselt and Vos 8 9 , Wiener 10 and Linnerooth-Bayer, Löfstedt and Sjöstedt 11 have extensively discussed the notion of precaution in response to uncertain risks, sometimes on a cross-boundary level. In line with the idea of globalisation of risk, this paper emphasises the importance of conducting research that can shed light on cross-boundary risk governance. This is especially essential in the context of globalisation and increasingly expanding economic ties between countries. Products associated with uncertain risks - such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), food treated in a certain procedure, toys made of material that include possibly irritating or harmful chemical components - may spread across political and legal systems through international trade. 12 This issue thus constitutes an inherent part of the ongoing TTIP negotiations. How can two different regulatory systems coordinate risk governance and control global and cross-boundary risks while at the same time establishing free trade with as few barriers as possible? And should they work towards regulatory coherence? Some scholarly literature already exists on the comparison of risk management between countries or institutions, like studies by Vogel and Lynch 13 or Alemanno 14 amongst others.
69 Read more
Assumed that the designation of GMO-free regions would nevertheless be considered as an impediment to the placing on the market of the seed, a member state could make use of its right under Art. 114 (5) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This provision allows member states to introduce legislation which goes further than the EU legal act in protecting human health and the environment, but only if new scientific findings on risks and a new problem specific to the member state advise accordingly. The European Courts ruled on this question in the case of GMOs in the Land Upper Austria (Oberösterreich) . The Land had drafted a regulation prohibiting any cultivation of GMO plants in its entire territory. The Republic of Austria asked the commission for approval according to Art. 95 (5) TEU (now Art. 114 (5) TFEU) arguing that the regu- lation was destined to protect small-scale farming and the unique nature in Oberösterreich. The commission decided that the prerequisites - new scientific findings on risks and a specific problem of the member state - were not given. The Republic of Austria appealed against this decision at the European Court of First Instance.
There has been a push from the farm lobby for growing genetically modified GM crops and, opposing that, resistance from consumers. Some outcomes of this tension and contestation in Australia are that: (a) GMO ingredients in food must be labelled; (b) there is a federal government entity (the Gene Technology Regulator) that approves the release of GMOs; (c) each Australian state deals somewhat differently with the growing of GMOs in their own state. Currently, only GM varieties of cotton and canola are approved for commercial-release (OGTR, 2014). The The Gene Technology Regulator must be “satisfied that any risks can be managed to protect the health and safety of people and the environment” (DAFF, 2008).