Search results

Seeks to answer the question “whose interests are being served by the laws of purporting to regulate genetically modified organisms?“ Considers the interests of the seed/chemical multinational companies, trade and investment for the countries in which these companies operate and the innovation of science and technology. Covers the European interests with regards to the single internal market and the conflict this can cause between economic and environmental/health interests. Looks at the issues from the US perspective and world trade. Continues by covering nature and the environment followed by health and safety and the rights of consumers. Assesses the regulations of the European community in order to find what protection is available.

This study aimed to investigate the impact of information about traceability and new detection methods for identifying genetically‐modified organisms in food, on consumer attitudes towards genetically‐modified food and consumer trust in regulators in Italy, Norway and England. It further aimed to investigate public preferences for labelling of genetically‐modified foods in these three countries.

A questionnaire was designed to investigate public attitudes toward genetically‐modified food and trust in different information sources. Participants were recruited in Italy, Norway and England for this study. A between subjects design was used, where each participant was randomly allocated to either the experimental “information condition”, or the control “no information condition”.

Receiving information about new detection methods and traceability did not directly influence consumer attitudes towards genetically‐modified foods or trust in regulators. However, response to the development of an effective system of traceability for genetically‐modified food and ingredients throughout the food chain was positive. People's preferences for labelling of genetically‐modified food were “process‐based”, in that there was a desire for all food produced using genetic modification or containing genetically‐modified ingredients to be labelled.

An open and transparent system of labelling regarding genetically‐modified foods and ingredients, coupled with effective traceability mechanisms, is likely to provide the best basis for consumer choice regarding the consumption of genetically‐modified foods. This information will be useful for both national and international regulators, and the various sectors of the food industry. The study provides useful information about likely public reaction to new EU labelling and traceability regulations.

The controversy over genetically modified organisms in the UK came to a head with the publication of three official reports in May 1999. A review of the three reports leads to the suggestion that the controversy is exacerbated in part by the conflation of three sets of issues: the underlying uncertainty of the physical processes involved, the nature of scientific investigation and the social context surrounding scientific research. This has implications for the nature of scientific research, and the relationship between research and policy.

European regulations for labelling the genetically modified commodity crops Round‐up Ready Soya and Bt Maize have been agreed and came into force on 1 September 1998. The regulation requires labelling of ingredients that contain genetically modified DNA or modified protein. Labelling is not required where processing has resulted in modified DNA or protein being destroyed. With the aim of providing consumer information and ensuring consumer choice, UK industry had phased in labelling of genetically modified soya and maize protein since January 1998, ahead of the EU regulation being agreed. This voluntary labelling was on the basis of guidelines drawn up by an IGD Working Group. The voluntary guidelines are very similar to the EU labelling regulation. Under the terms of the labelling regulation, further discussions are necessary in Europe to agree a list of ingredients that will not require labelling on the basis that no modified DNA or protein is present, with the aim that these ingredients do not need to be tested each time they are used. Where efforts have been taken to source the non‐genetically modified varieties, the concept of a threshold has been put forward to allow for adventitious mixing with the genetically modified crop. Further discussions are necessary to agree where the threshold should be set. It is expected that the regulation will be the basis for labelling future genetically modified products.

Explores the scope for using genetically modified organisms by undertaking a survey which considered awareness (knowledge) of and policy implications for both the UK food retailer and manufacturer. Uses interviews and a postal questionnaire. Finds that the UK food retailing industry is generally well‐informed, while in contrast to the retailers, food manufacturers are, in general, poorly informed and show a lack of awareness of possible products and the implications their usage may have for their companies. Few are abreast of research and development in this area. Both retailers and food manufacturers believe that biotechnology could be applied beneficially to many aspects of food production, and are aware of the many consumer concerns and issues which need to be addressed.

This paper aims to explore similarities and differences between robots, invasive biological species, and genetically modified organisms. These comparisons are designed to better understand the potential effects of robots on human society.

This paper applies established ideas in one discipline – biology – to issues that are less well understood, but actively being studied in another discipline – science and technology studies.

Robots entering human society in large numbers share many of the characteristics of an invasive species entering a new ecosystem. The authors also find that robots have several characteristics that are similar to a genetically modified organism. Taken together, these similarities suggest that society should be cautious about the introduction of large numbers of robots in a short period of time.

The approach taken here to assess robots in society by these analogies to ecological processes is, to the authors' knowledge, novel. Applying ideas from a better-known area to a less well-known area is routine in philosophy, but these particular analogies have not yet been carefully articulated in the literature.

Genetic modification techniques have transformed the scope of biotechnology. Describes the new technology and its potential uses in the food industry. Safety is an important consideration and there are European Community and British legislative safeguards for human and environmental safety. Proposed EC legislation on novel foods, as drafted, contains equivalent provisions. There are wider questions about use of genetic modification in food and these have been addressed by a Government Committee on the Ethics of Genetic Modification and Food Use. Consideration has also been given by the Food Advisory Committee to the question of labelling.

Genetic modification (GM) has been called “the new biotechnology” and has been hailed as a leading enabling technology, facilitating major innovation in health care, as well as in the chemical, agricultural and food sectors. GM techniques facilitate the combination of DNA which would not occur naturally and, although there are no records of disease or accidents associated with GM work, potential risks do exist. Legislation designed to ensure that workers are adequately protected against hazards also limits the risk of environmental damage. Human error plays an important role in accident causation; therefore appropriate instruction, supervision and training for personnel working with GM/GMOs (genetically modified organisms) is essential. This article reviews the regulatory controls for GM work and discusses the findings of a preliminary study undertaken to identify the level, content, format and extent of biosafety training currently provided at sites undertaking GM work. While high levels of biosafety training were reported, the content, organisation and management varied between the establishments undertaking GM work. Recommendations are made regarding the management of biosafety training including the need to establish competency levels for all those working with, and supervising and managing work with, GMOs.

Given the rapid rates of technological improvements possible, using modern biotechnology, the product life cycle of new genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is likely to be short and, hence, those investing in their development will desire access to the widest international market possible. There is, however, considerable consumer scepticism regarding GMOs, which is being translated into both government policy responses and actions by firms who are near the consumer end of the supply chain. As the licensing of GMOs is likely to vary from country to country and regulatory regimes will differ, firms involved in international supply chains for food products will be affected by the interplay of trade policy and consumer scepticism. All firms, even those not handling GMO products, will be affected because costly new monitoring procedures will be required. These additional monitoring costs suggest that competitive advantage is likely to be conferred on those supply chains which exhibit superior vertical co‐ordination.