Genetically Modified Crops

How do the preconceived notions

associated with transgenic foods in

the United States and Europe differ

from its actual risks and effects?

By Amy Braun, Päivö Kinnunen, and Adam Kaplan

Our 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.

Review: GMO’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 crops

Review: GMO’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

countries, as well

Review: GMO’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

spread of seed to neighboring farms

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

natural disaster once there is a monoculture

Case Study: Environment

MEXICO’S CORN CROPS

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

GMOs, even though they are not preferred

by locals.

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.

Case Study: GMOs in the U.S.

A study done in January of 2001 by the Mellman Group and Public Opinion 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 that they know when they are eating GM foods.

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

Worldwide ResponseAccording to Gaskell, about 50% of United States citizens were

in favor of GMOs, while 30% of Europeans were opposed

www.GMO-free-regions.org

Labeling for GMOs abroad

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Perc

enta

ge p

ro la

bellin

g

Denm

ark

Canada

Finland

UK

Greece

Sweden

Netherlands

France

Belgium

Austria

Germ

any

US

Spain

ItalyLuxem

burg

Portugal

Ireland

GE product labelling by country

Figure 1: Percentage of customers that want to have labelling in products that include GE foods in different countries

(Data from: Center for Food Safety, 2000 and Eurobarometer, 1997)

European Opposition and Testing

Figure 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

Perc

enta

ge

Austria

Luxemburg

Belgium

Germ

any

Denm

ark

Finland

Greece

Sweden

France

Spain

Ireland

ItalyUK

Netherlands

Portugal

Levels of opposition to GM food and genetic testing

in Europe in 1999

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.

Fears versus ImpactConsumer fears: Real impact:

Chemical interaction with living things Very small, but targeting a pest with any method, biological

or chemical, without side effect is possible cause of

problem. (Dale et al. 2002)

Change in persistence or invasiveness of the crop Small with current case-by-case assessment of GM crops,

with relevant underpinning research. (Dale et al. 2002)

Gene flow by pollination to weeds and feral plants Some possible future modifications in GM crops, such as

salt tolerance or cold tolerance, could potentially produce

novel crop types whose impact on the environment will

need to be assessed with particular care. (Dale et al.

2002)

Reduced efficiency of pest, disease, and weed control Smaller risk than with the use chemical control. (Dale et al.

2002)

Effect on wildlife biodiversity Risk not higher than with conventional agriculture. (Dale et

al. 2002)

Effect on soil and water by the increased use of herbicides

due to GM herbicide tolerant crops

Decrease in herbicide use in the US after the introduction

of GM soybean. (Dale et al. 2002)

Introduction of allergenes Negligible with current methods

Systems Diagram

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.

Work Cited Andow, D.A. et. Al. “Non-target and Biodiversity Risk Assessment For Genetically Modified

Crops.” 9th Annual Symposium on the Biosaftey of GMOs. (24-29 Sep 2006).

Dale, Phillip J., Belinda Clarke, and Eliana Fontes. "Potential for the Environmental Impact of Transgenic Crops." Nature Biotechnology 20 (2002): 567-574.

Evenson, R, E., and D. Gollin. "Assessing the Impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000." Science 300 (2003): 758-762.

Gaskell, George, Martin W. Bauer, John Durant, and Nicholas C. Allum. "Worlds Apart? the Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S." Science 285 (1999): 384-387.

D'agnolo, G. "GMO: Human Health Risk Assessment." Veteinary Research Communications29 (2005): 7-11.

"GMO Free Regions." European Conference on GMO-Free Regions. 6 Mar. 2007 <www.GMO-free-regions.org>.

Levidow, Les, and Karin Boschert. "Coexistance or Contradiction? GM Crops Versus Alternative Agriculture in Europe." Geoforum (2007): 1-26.

Zwahlen, Claudia, and D.a. Andow. "Assessing Environmental Risks of Transgenic Plants." Ecology Letters 9 (2006): 196-214.