Genetically Modified CropsGenetically 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’sCosts 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’sCosts 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 ConcernsWorldwide

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

Percentage pro labelling

Denmark

Canada

Finland

UK Greece

Sweden

Netherlands

France

Belgium

Austria

Germany

USSpain

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

Percentage

Austria

Luxemburg

Belgium

Germany

Denmark

Finland

Greece

Sweden

France

SpainIreland

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 Communications 29 (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.