genetically modified crops
DESCRIPTION
pptcomTRANSCRIPT
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.