genetically modified crops: consumer attitudes and trends in plant research in japan

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2002 Food Service Technology, 2, pp. 183–189 183

Genetically modified crops: consumer attitudes and trends in plantresearch in Japan

ficial agronomic and quality traits on the new plantvarieties, means that consumers will be exposed to pro-teins that have not previously been part of the humandiet. Nordlee et al. (1996) found allergenicity in a transgenic soybean into which a gene coding for themethionine-rich 2S albumen had been introduced toraise the levels of sulphur-containing amino acids toimprove quality. Another study found that monarchbutterfly caterpillars that were forced under laboratoryconditions to eat large quantities of pollen from btmaize (‘bt’ indicates that it contains a gene from the bac-terium, ‘Bacillus thringiensis’) suffered higher mortalitylevels than caterpillars that were not fed such pollen(Losey et al. 1999). However, some researchers pointedout that it should be remembered that spraying cater-pillars and other insects with pesticide, which equateswith the regimens used in the field for almost all non-GM maize, kills them all outright. Although there havebeen some other studies on the health risks of GMfoods, few studies have been accepted in the sciencecommunity (Domingo 2000). Also, food science has notyet provided clear answers to the questions raised aboutlong-term use of GM foods. The way of making long-term safety assessments is not well established.

For now, genetically modified organisms have a badreputation in many countries, especially in Europe

Peer review

Correspondence:Hiroshi Nishiura, 5200Kihara, Kiyotake, MiyazakiPrefecture 889–1692, Japan.Tel: + 81-985-85-0874;Fax: + 81-985-85-6258 (all authors). E-mail:[email protected]

Keywords:consumer, geneticallymodified, health risks, publicacceptance, Japan

Abstract

Although Japanese consumers had relatively relaxed attitudes about genetically mod-ified (GM) food five years ago, we now find that Japanese consumer acceptance haschanged dramatically. Our survey utilized a postal questionnaire to a random sampleof 200 Japanese consumers living in Miyazaki Prefecture and 150 Japanese plantbreeding researchers. Results showed that Japanese consumers had become uneasyabout the potential health risks of genetically modified foods. This issue is likely tobe ethically motivated rather than scientific. Of the 106 responding Japanese plantbreeding researchers, 77 (72.6%) said it was necessary to develop GM crops. Themajor reason being to overcome future food security problems. Most researchersthought the way to improve consumer acceptance was ‘To broadcast correct infor-mation through the mass media’ (73.6%).

Introduction

It has become theoretically possible to isolate genesfrom any class of living organism, and to introducethem into most crop plants. This innovation in geneticengineering has made it relatively easy to produce manynew agricultural products. Indeed, about 40-millionhectares of transgenic crops were grown worldwide in1999 (Dale 1999) and the size of the area is growingfast. Approximately 80–90% of the world’s soybean oilproduction originates from genetically modified (GM)crops that require reduced amounts of herbicide (Oda& Soares 2000). The world’s population is expected toalmost double by the year 2050, making food securityperhaps the most important social issue for the next30 years. In spite of different outlooks by some plantresearchers, most agree that feeding a world of 10billion inhabitants cannot be accomplished withoutmaking significant changes, particularly in the devel-oping world (Siedow 2001). Herrera-Estrella (2000)argues that transgenic plant varieties hold the mostpromise for augmenting agricultural production andproductivity when properly integrated into traditionalfarming methods.

On the other hand, the introduction of nonplantgenes, and their expression in the plant to confer bene-

Hiroshi Nishiura, Hirohisa Imai, Hiroyuki Nakao, Hiromasa Tsukino, Yoshiki Kuroda and

Takahiko KatohDepartment of Public Health, School of Medicine, Miyazaki Medical College, Japan

(Marris 2001). According to the last EurobarometerSurvey of more than 16 000 people from 16 nations(Marchant 2001), the perception of risk was greater forbiotechnology in food production than for many otherareas of biotechnology. Although Japanese consumershad relatively relaxed attitudes about the safety issueof genetically modified food five years ago (Hoban1996), it is now speculated that Japanese consumeracceptance has changed dramatically. Opposition toGM foods initially began in Europe, particularly in theUK (Beringer 1999). Because of various environmentaland consumer health scare stories in the media, thereis now a growing disquiet among Japanese consumers.Recent past food scandals in Japan, most notably E.coli O157:H7 in meat and the dioxin conflict overspinach, are known to have triggered strong reactionsabout the safety assessments of foods (Hino 2000).These negative attitudes are expected to increase. InApril 2001, after opposition to GM foods by consumergroups, Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry andFisheries enforced regulations stipulating the manda-tory labeling of 28 food products containing detectablegenetically modified ingredients, including soybeans,maize and potatoes (Saegusa 1999).

Other surveys have pointed out that it is importantto look at food production and processing from aninternational perspective (Handy 1996). As Americanfarmers produce many genetically engineered com-modities that are exported to Japan, it is essential thatthese crops are acceptable to Japanese consumers,industries, and to government leaders (Macer et al.1997). Public perception and attitudes to modernbiotechnology have long been recognized as a keyfactor if biotechnology is to garner consumer supportand investment funds (Hoban 1997). To be successful,biotechnology must establish an accepted position inthe sociopolitical landscape. The Japanese Governmenthas recommended that a Biotechnology Institute createexperimental ‘evidence of safety assessment’ of geneti-cally modified food (Isshiki 2001). The governmentalso has indicated that it wants people better informed,with a deeper understanding and acceptance of geneti-cally modified food. The aims of this study were to helpprovide that up-to-date understanding and consumeracceptance along with trends in plant research in Japan.Another aim was to consider future directions of foodhygiene education, safety assessment, and new strate-gies for gaining public acceptance of genetically modi-fied crops.

Materials and methods

Postal questionnaires were sent to a random sample of200 consumers living in Miyazaki Prefecture, in the

184 GM crops in Japan H. Nishiura et al.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2002 Food Service Technology, 2, pp. 183–189

south-west of Japan, and to 150 Japanese plant breed-ing researchers. Consumers were selected at randomfrom the ‘Directory of Residents in Miyazaki (May 15,2001).’ The sample was designed by dividing the pop-ulation (1168 370 people) into 20 blocks. The samplesize (number of respondents) of consumers selectedfrom each block was proportional to the population.The nation-wide plant researcher sample was drawnfrom members of the biggest academic society on plantbreeding in Japan who studied in fields related to genetically modified organisms. They were randomlysampled from the 2250 registered members in the‘Directory of Japanese Society of Breeding (May 1,2000).’ Both sets of responses could be returned byprepaid mail. The survey was conducted between July23 and August 27, 2001.

Thirteen multiple-choice questions (with an addi-tional five questions for researchers) were designedusing previous studies performed in the UK, Brazil(Oda & Soares 2000) and Japan (Hoban 1996; Macer& Ng 2000) as references. Several questions on thehealth risks and various regulatory issues regardinggenetically modified food were developed, with specialreference being made to socioeconomic factors and thedegree of knowledge of the participants. We remodeledthe contents by repeating small-scale pilot surveysbefore conducting the main survey. Key questions inour questionnaire are reviewed in Table 1. Respondentswere asked if they ‘Would like to eat food labeled“genetically modified”’. Questions included the reason,attitude toward prices, agreements for labeling, ethicalconcerns, information sources and so on. Additionalquestions for plant researchers sought attitudes on thenecessity of GM food, the reasons, merits and benefits,and their feeling about current consumer attitudes.Comparisons between groups were made using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests. The level of statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.

Results and assessments

Of the 200 consumers and 150 researchers, 148(74.0%) and 106 (70.7%), respectively, returned ques-tionnaires. Opinion in Miyazaki was regarded as rep-resentative of Japan for two reasons. First, subjectswere randomly sampled based on equalized or adjustednumbers of gender, age, income and educational level.Second, Miyazaki has socio-cultural factors such as theproportion of each occupation and dietary life, almostequal to those of the wider Japanese society. The con-fidence interval for the sample size in the consumergroup was approximately ± 5.8%. Along with the highresponse rate, respondents in this study were represen-tative of Japanese consumers and of plant researchers.

The high response rate showed that many consumersand researchers had an interest in this issue.

Consumers’ attitudes and cognition of safety issuesconcerning genetically modified foodWith regard to the question about eating geneticallymodified food, the proportion of consumers who saidthey ‘wouldn’t like to eat genetically modified food’and ‘do not feel like eating genetically modified food’was 85.8% (Fig. 1). It was significant that consumers,more than researchers (53.8%), wouldn’t like to eatgenetically modified food (P < 0.01, 95%; ConfidenceInterval [CI] for rate difference, 21.0–43.1%). Themain reasons for the consumers’ poor acceptabilitywere: ‘Because I’m afraid of the health risks.’ (68.9%),‘Because I’m afraid of the environmental effects.’(39.2%), and ‘I don’t know why, but I’m uneasy at thewords “genetically modified”.’ (35.8%). Among con-sumers, the proportion of housewives who said they‘wouldn’t like to eat’ and ‘don’t feel like eating’ wasgreater, although not statistically significant (P = 0.42).The response of consumers did not relate to sex, age,or intelligence, which have been major influences inseveral surveys (Hoban 1996; Oda & Soares 2000).Although it is difficult to precisely compare one surveywith another, Japanese consumers aren’t willing toaccept genetically modified food, compared with thesurvey conducted by Hoban (1996). We concluded thatmore people have become fearful of the risks they per-ceive as being derived from GM foods. The reasonresponses didn’t relate with those factors is that fewerpeople are supporting presently available GM foods.The change supposedly fueled by the increasingnumbers of food scandals within past five years, andthe attendant increased media coverage. There is evi-

dence that increased levels of awareness are not directreflections of increased levels of knowledge, from a sci-entific perspective, about biotechnology (Macer 1994).

Consumers were asked, question No. 3 in Table 1: ifcheaper genetically modified food would be a factor forits acceptability. Only 4.7% answered ‘I will buy GMfood if they are 50% discounted against unmodifiedfood.’ Only five respondents (3.4%) said ‘I will buyGM food if it is discounted 20%.’ Most respondentssaid ‘Whatever occurs, I will buy non-GM food’(89.2%). The response did not relate with income level(P = 0.35) and educational background (P = 0.41),factors that could have been thought to have had someeffect on the answers. Under present conditions, mostJapanese consumers do not perceive any benefit in justcheaper genetically modified food.

To learn how consumers received information aboutgenetically modified food, respondents were askedquestion No. 6 in Table 1 regarding informationsources. Most Japanese consumers in our survey

GM crops in Japan H. Nishiura et al. 185


Survey on Genetically Modified Crops

Questions used on all questionnaires:1. Would you like to eat foods labeled as ‘genetically modified’?2. What are you afraid of when eating genetically modified foods?3. If GM foods and non-GM foods were displayed with the discounted cost

below, which would you buy?4. Do you support the labelling of GM-foods, and if so why?5. What kind of health risks do you think are induced by eating GM foods?6. How and where have you received information regarding GM foods?7. If GM foods had the same safety level compared to traditional foods, would

you eat them, and if so why?

Questions specifically used on Researcher questionnaires:8. What kind of merit do you think there is in utilizing genetic engineered

foods?9. Is it necessary to develop GM crops, and if so why?

10. Is it possible to ease consumer acceptance in relation to food safety issues?11. How do you feel about current consumer attitudes?

Table 1 A review of key questions inour survey

I'd like to eat.4% I don’t feel like

eating.22%

I wouldn’t like to eat65%

I don't know.9%

Figure 1 This figure shows the answer of the question:‘Would you like to eat the foods labeled as “geneticallymodified”?’ from consumers.

learned about genetically modified food watching television (85.8%) and reading newspapers (75.7%).About one third of the respondents reported that theyread about GM food in general magazines (32.4%).Less than one fifth of the respondents said they talkedabout it with their friends (15.5%) or family (10.8%).Media coverage often leads to the formation of publicopinion by establishing political and scientific prior-ities, with the media framing the public discussion ofrisk issues (Kane & Mullet 1994). Shepherd (1999)demonstrated that moral considerations, attitudestoward food affected by others and social concerns,might play significant roles in the choice of whether ornot to consume genetically modified food. From theresults of the survey and theories developed by behav-ioral scientists, it was assumed that Japanese consumerswere indeed greatly influenced by media coverage.

To ascertain cognition of possible health risks amongconsumers, the survey asked question No. 5 in Table 1about the health risks they assume. Most answers(about 60% of both consumers and researchers) wereconcerned with ‘food allergy’ (Fig. 2). Interestingly,many consumers answered, ‘unknown new disease’(60.1%) while only 17.0% of researchers said thesame. This results supported the fact that consumers inthe US expected an unknown disease (Brown 2001).About one third of the researchers said, ‘nothingoccurs’ (34.9%). This was statistically significant com-pared with the consumers’ answers (P < 0.01, 95% CI,22.8–41.6%). Though it was a minor proportion, someconsumers answered ‘AIDS’ (2.0%), ‘heart disease’



(6.1%), and ‘dementia’ (1.4%). However, these dis-eases are seen as being very unlikely to be induced byGM foods.

We established the hypothetical question, ‘if GMfoods had the same safety as traditional ones, wouldyou eat them?’, and posited it as No. 7. However,about two thirds of the consumers responded that they‘wouldn’t like to eat genetically modified food.’(32.4%) or ‘don’t feel like eating genetically modifiedfood’ (32.4%). The reasons for these responses were‘I’m afraid of the health risks’ however, some said suchfood was ‘as safe as traditional ones’ (37.2%): ‘BecauseI can’t agree with practical use of genetic modification’(31.1%), or: ‘I’m uneasy at the words; “geneticallymodified”’ (29.7%). Other answers included ‘BecauseI don’t trust the bureaucracy or regulatory bodies.’From these results, the response to this issue seems tobe no longer scientific. Unfortunately, in Japan it hasbecome an emotional and ethical issue. This may berelated to the finding that interest in biotechnologyamong the Japanese is lower than it is in American consumers (Hoban 1996).

For or against the current labeling system.As regarded the current GM food labeling, in questionNo. 4, more than 90% of both consumers andresearchers responded that they ‘supported’ labeling(91.2% of consumers, 91.5% of researchers). Thereasons were that it was ‘necessary to relieve anxietyabout food safety’ (68.2%) and ‘Because I think it isthe consumer’s right to detect genetically modified

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

Heart Disease Cancer DrugTorelance

AIDS Dementia Food Allergy Unknown NewDiseases

NothingOccurs

Consumers

Plant Researchers

Figure 2 Comparison regarding the cognition of possible health risks between consumers and plant researchers.

organisms (GMOs) in food ingredients’ (50%).However, the main reason among the respondents whodid not support labeling was that ‘Labeling productswith similar ingredients would only confuse the public.’Although labeling gave consumers food selectionchoices (and most consumers support this system astheir right to know), foods selected by consumers willbe non-GM foods because they hold a strong fear thatappears not to be based on fact. Now many food com-panies discriminate between non-GM food and GMfood by labeling their own products with the text, ‘Thisfood doesn’t contain GMOs’.

Researchers’ cognition and trendsOf the 106 Japanese plant breeding researchers, 77 saidit was necessary to develop GM crops (72.6%). Themain reasons chosen were the necessity ‘To feed peopleall over the world in the future.’ (79.3%); ‘To improvefood production’ (55.7%) and ‘To utilize for medicalpurposes’ (prevention and treatment of human dis-eases) (45.3%). Some (25.5%) wanted ‘To makeprogress in science’ and 10.4% said ‘For our desire tolearn and/or scientific desire.’ From these results, it isbelieved that researchers will continue to develop newGM crops. Major answers for the necessity wererelated with the aim to overcome the future food secu-rity problems by introducing GM food varieties. Theyseemed to be keeping their eyes more on the so-calledsecond generation of GM plants, which include newquality attributes such as nutritional, medical and phar-maceutical values as well as color and flavor, than justresistance to pest or herbicide tolerances. Many scien-tists believe that genetic engineering will improve thequality of life (Macer & Ng 2000).

Researchers were asked question No. 11 about con-sumers’ attitude. Half of the researchers said they feltan ‘over-anxiety’ among consumers (50.0%). A quarterof the researchers said consumer anxiety was ‘appro-priate’ (26.4%). Only 9.4% thought, ‘Consumersshould feel a sense of crisis and anxiety concerning thisissue.’ Some (12.3%) ‘did not know.’ Responses ofresearchers for this question did not relate with sex orage, with each researcher seeming to have a differentview about the attitudes of consumers. As more thanhalf of the researchers have optimistic views on their attitude, it is suggested many Japanese plantresearchers seem to be calm in the face of the generalunacceptability of GM foods. Most plant researcherswould not like consumers to have any stronger fearsfor safety.

To question No. 10, in Table 1, most researchersthought the way to improve consumer acceptance was‘To broadcast correct information through the massmedia’ (73.6%). Other responses were ‘development

and collection of experimental evidence concerningsafety assessment’ (67%), ‘Diverse and direct benefitsfor consumers’ (47.2%), and ‘The time to adapt them-selves to genetically modified food’ (42.5%). Fromthese findings, it can be assumed that researchers thinkof safety assessment as a current problem. Researchersthinking, or intuition, being that media has the great-est effect on public acceptance, and that safety assess-ment is the most crucial part to overcoming publicmistrust. It would seem then that researchers take thematter of ‘safety and peace of mind’ more seriouslythan development of second generation, functional GMcrops. However more than two fifths of researchersaccept that time is needed. Researchers understand verywell that people recognize a novel food as safe accord-ing to their experiences (Senti 1983).

Discussion

Results of the survey show that Japanese consumers are uneasy about the potential health risks of geneti-cally modified food. While most experts dismiss thepossibility of serious risks arising from its application,consumers seem to associate considerable risk withgenetic modification (Bredahl 1999). Their concernsare likely to be ethically motivated rather than scien-tific. In this climate of decreased support, the tradi-tional major influences of intelligence, age, and sex didnot correlate with the public’s acceptance due to thedramatically worsened support. Japanese consumershave vague ideas of the health risks, and they appearto be making decisions just by rejecting GM foodbecause they think it has a possible health risk. At timesthis behavior might be thought to give them some dis-advantage in their food selection. Although Japaneseconsumers are relatively well informed about scientificdevelopments, they discriminate between biotechnol-ogy and genetic engineering (Macer & Ng 2000).Although food science has yet to provided clearanswers about the long-term use of GM foods, thepublic acceptance of biotechnology and its support forgenetically modified crops has worsened with the ‘emo-tional’ (having too much fear) Japanese media cover-age of the issue.

Since 1995, Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestryand Fisheries has formulated a budget for public accep-tance as its ‘PA Plan’ (Tabei 1999). They have held seminars, panel discussions, and lecture meetings incooperation with the Society for Techno-innovation ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (STAFF). However,because the mass media influence on the nation, thegovernment message did not reach the public and theyhave found it very hard to control grass roots publicopinion. There are often claims that public acceptabil-



ity will improve as soon as consumers see direct bene-fits. As our results of the survey showed, cheaper GMfood will not improve public acceptance, new GM foodwill need to show additional benefits, for example lessdiseases and more production.

Japanese companies involved in the development ofGM crops and similar kinds of food have becomeincreasingly pessimistic about commercializing theirproducts. Many food manufacturers plan to switch tosuppliers that provide GM-free crops, but this will notbe easy as Japan imports almost 60% of its agriculturalproducts, mainly from the United States. Althoughsome suppliers now separate GM and GM-free prod-ucts, and United States is beginning to change its attitudes as well (Macilwain 2000), there isn’t anymandatory requirement for the labeling of GM foods.According to industry analysts, switching to entirelydomestically produced GM-free ingredients coulddouble the cost of such products (Saegusa 1999). Whilesome companies have acceptably commercialized GMflowers, including blue carnations, none is exploitingthe food market, probably because of the negativeimage.

Plant researchers and companies will never stop theirdevelopment of genetically modified organisms, andindeed are now shifting their strategies to add nutri-tional or medical value to genetically modified crops.It is predicted that in the near future there will be atrend toward the development of genetically modifiedfood enriched with nutrients, better functionality, andmedicinal ingredients that will benefit the consumer.One line of development will be aimed at the preven-tion of life-style-related diseases, for example high-oleicsoybean oil and oil seeds enriched with n-3-type fattyacids. Another aim will be to overcome malnutrition indeveloping countries by producing rice high in beta-carotene, iron and protein (Kubo & Saito 2000). Onthe other hand, the developed products may be withouta substantial equivalence concept, an important com-ponent in safety assessment. This concept embodies a science-based approach in which a GM food is compared to its existing, appropriate counterpart(FAO/WHO 2000). The approach is not intended toestablish absolute safety, which is an unattainable goalfor any food. Rather, the goal of this approach is toensure that the food, and any substances that have beenintroduced into the food as a result of genetic modifi-cation, is as safe as its traditional counterpart. As thesurvey demonstrated, safety assessments of geneticallymodified food are important to consumers, so thesekinds of products may need to be assessed both medically and pharmaceutically.

Japanese consumers have little real knowledge aboutgenetically modified food. Therefore, they are selecting



GM-free foods just by rejecting GM foods. As theythink there is a possible risk in GM varieties, they rejectthem in favor of a food with less perceived risk. Thereis an urgent need to solve the problems that our surveyhighlights.

References

Beringer J (1999). Keeping watch over genetically modifiedcrops and foods. Lancet 353:605–606.

Bredahl L (1999). Consumers’ cognitions with regard togenetically modified foods. Results of a qualitative study infour countries. Appetite. 33:343–60.

Brown K (2001). Seeds of concern. Scientific American.284:52–7.

Dale PJ (1999). Public concerns over transgenic crops.Genome Research. 9:1159–62.

Domingo JL (2000). Health risks of GM foods: many opin-ions but few data. Science. 288:1748–9.

FAO/WHO (2000). Safety aspects of genetically modifiedfoods of plant origin. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO ExpertConsultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology. WHO:Geneva.

Handy CR (1996). Global developments affecting the US foodmarketing sector. Journal of Food Distribution Research.27:11–21.

Herrera-Estrella LR (2000). Genetically modified crops anddeveloping countries. Plant Physiology. 124:923–5.

Hino A (2000). Biotechnology wo meguru genjoh to kadai.Nogyou to Engei (Japanese). 75:743–52.

Hoban TJ (1996). How Japanese consumers view biotechnol-ogy. Food Technology. 50:85–8.

Hoban TJ (1997). Consumer acceptance of biotechnology: an international perspective. Nature Biotechnology. 15:232–4.

Isshiki K (2001). Food safety for genetically modified food.Nippon Shokuhin Kagaku Kogaku Kaishi (Japanese).48:221–9.

Kane D, Mullet E (1994). Societal risk perception and mediacoverage. Risk Analysis. 14:21–4.

Kubo K, Saito M (2000). Current developmental situation andfuture trends in genetically-modified foods with varyingfunctionality and nutrient content, and their safety assess-ment. Journal of Japanese Society of Nutrition and FoodScience (Japanese). 53:169–74.

Losey JEet al. (1999). Transgenic pollen harms monarchlarvae. Nature. 399:214.

Macer DR (1994). Perception of risks and benefits of in vitrofertilization, genetic engineering and biotechnology. SocialScience and Medicine. 38:23–33.

Macer DR et al. Attitudes to biotechnology in Japan and NewZealand in (1997). with international comparisons. EubiosJournal of Asian International Bioethics. 7:137–51.

Macer DR, Ng MA (2000). Changing attitudes to biotech-nology in Japan. Nature Biotechnology. 18:945–7.

Macilwain C (2000). US reforms rules for telling public aboutGM food. Nature. 405:108.

Marchant R (2001). From the test tube to the table. Publicperception of GM crops and how to overcome the publicmistrust of biotechnology in food production. EMBOReports. 2:354–7.

Marris C (2001). Public views on GMOs: deconstructing themyths. Stakeholders in the GMO debate often describe

public opinion as irrational. But do they really understandthe public? EMBO Reports. 2:545–8.

Nordlee JAet al. (1996). Identification of a Brazil-nut allergenin transgenic soybeans. New England Journal of Medicine.334:688–92.

Oda LM, Soares BE (2000). Genetically modified foods: eco-nomic aspects and public acceptance in Brazil. Trends inBiotechnology. 18:188–90.

Saegusa A (1999). Japan plans to label ‘detectable’ GM food.Nature. 400:605.

Senti FR (1983). Insights on food safety evaluation: a synop-sis. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 3:133–8.

Shepherd R (1999). Social determinants of food choice. Pro-ceedings of the Nutrition Society. 58:807–12.

Siedow JN (2001). Feeding ten billion people. Three Views.Plant Physiology. 126:20–2.

Tabei Y (1999). Safety evaluation and public acceptance ofgenetically modified plants: building public acceptance of gen-etically modified crops by Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry andFisheries. Ikushugaku Saikin No Shinpo (Japanese). 41:33–4.



genetically modified crops: consumer attitudes and trends in plant research in japan

Documents