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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine consumer attitudes toward genetically modified (GM) and organic foods with a broader list of control variables that includes green attitudes, impulsive purchasing, concerns about privacy, religiosity, birth order, and political preferences.

US internet panelists were asked about their preferences for purchasing non-GM produce, non-GM cereal, and organic products even if they cost a little more. They were also asked if genetically engineered foods are safe to consume. Responses to these four questions were dependent variables in binary logistic regressions. The sample size was 725 adults.

Attitudes toward non-GM produce and non-GM cereal were linked with different variables. Green attitudes were positively linked with non-GM and organic food attitudes. Impulsive purchases, a religiosity factor, and a privacy concern factor were linked with non-GM but not organic food attitudes. Social desirability bias was also significant. The genetically engineered food model identified some unique linkages with the control variables, suggesting that these terms may not improve consumer confidence with food.

New measures and several variables that researchers independently found to be significant were tested together in models and found to be linked with organic and non-GM food attitudes. Some expected relationships were not found. The results provide better profiles of consumers who have strong attitudes toward GM and organic foods.

This paper aims to examine consumers’ opinions and behavioral intentions toward foods labeled as containing genetically modified (GM) (transgenic) ingredients across plant and animal-based categories. In light of marketplace changes (i.e. labeling requirements), we explore behavioral measures based on labeling options.

Three studies, one online projective survey using a convenience sample of consumers and two experiments conducted with Amazon mTurk adult US participants, are included.

Consumers have negative associations with GM products vs non-GM and are more likely to purchase unlabeled GM products. GM products may offer positive economic, societal and environmental benefits. However, the need for labeling overshadows these benefits and presence of GM labeling increased avoidance. Furthermore, changes in product opinion mediate consumers’ purchase intention and willingness to pay.

GM labeling negatively influences consumers’ opinions and behavioral intentions. This is important for legislators and marketers concerned with counter-labeling effects (e.g. Non-GMO Project Verified).

Debates on efficacy of labeling, inclusion disclosure of ingredients, short-term risks and long-term implications are ongoing globally. Consumer reception and purchase intention can only be changed through governmental and corporate transparency.

Widespread misinformation about GM foods, presence in our food supply, impact on health, economy, environment and the marketplace still exists. The findings reflect consumers’ responses to changes proposed by the 2016 National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard legislation.

With the paucity of research on consumer response to the release of a GM animal product into the food supply, this work breaks new ground as the first to examine the impact of disclosure of GM animal-based food type.

The chapter analyses the re-emergence of gene editing as an object of policy attention at the European Union (EU) level. Editing the genome of plants and/or animals has been a rather controversial component of all EU policies on agricultural biotechnology since the late 1980s. The chapter examines in detail the various initiatives that have been assumed for the regulation of gene editing at the EU level. Since the first political and legislative attempts, the field has been revolutionized with the development of the CRISPR-Cas9 system, which is comparatively much easier to design, produce, and use. Beyond the pure, safety-driven scientific questions, gene editing, in its contemporary form, raises a series of ethical and regulatory questions that are discussed in the context of the legal options and competences of the EU legislators. Special attention is paid to questions about the legal status of gene editing in Europe and the adequacy of the current GMO framework to deal with all the challenges associated with the latest scientific developments in the field of gene editing with a special focus on gene drive. Given the ongoing discussions regarding the ethical tenets of gene editing, the chapter investigates the question on whether there is a need to shape an EU-wide “intervention” that will address the complex and dynamic socio-ethical challenges of gene editing and puts forward a series of proposals for the framing of an inclusive framework that will be based on the need to re-enforce public trust in the EU governance of emerging technologies.

Describes the work of the Advisory Working Group in Biotechnology established by the Institute of Grocery Distribution. This brought together representatives from a range of interests in the food chain to identify problems in relation to public acceptability of foods which involve the use of biotechnology and how they may be overcome.

The purpose of this paper is to measure Mexicans’ perceptions and attitudes about the production and consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

A questionnaire with 63 questions that encompassed 11 latent factors was used to obtain information. The questionnaire was administered to 14,720 people in Mexico’s urban areas.

The results revealed important similarities and differences with studies in other countries, showing mainly that the respondents did not have sufficient information about GMOs, they have low level of knowledge about GMOs (31.28 percent), are highly distrustful of GMOs, perceive high risk regarding GMOs (59.13 percent), want transgenic products to be labeled (93.59 percent) and do not perceive GMOs’ social values and positive health effects beyond increasing agricultural productivity. Also, it was observed that the higher the educational level of individuals, the lower the acceptance of GMOs.

The authors conclude that it is necessary to generate and provide scientifically accurate information on GMOs, so that people are better informed and can give a critical opinion on the use of GMOs.

The major practical contribution of this research is that it provides empirical knowledge about the perceptions and attitudes toward the production and consumption of GMOs among the Mexican’s urban society, which can be of great help for the Mexican government to rethink if it is an appropriate moment to completely open the doors to international companies to cultivate crops like maize and others that have been postponed due to pressure from the environmental groups, farmers and other sectors of the society.

This is especially important in the context of maize as it is part of the cultural heritage of Mexico since ancient times. However, it is not clear what the overall perception is in the Mexican society on the use of GMOs for cultivation.

Southern regions of Mexico are the center of origin of several cultivated plants such as maize and legumes. The introduction of GMOs, called transgenics, in agriculture and food continues to cause enormous controversy in the perceptions and attitudes mainly among environmental groups and farmers in Mexico.

Modern new biotechnology has the potential to provide major economic and other benefits, but at the same time it poses potential hazards for human health, the environment, the “natural” biological order, and can have adverse socio‐economic consequences. The application of such technology frequently violates traditional ethical, moral and religious values. This paper, after outlining possible benefits of modern new biotechnologies, discusses the type of biosafety risks which they pose, their possible adverse consequences for the sustainability of biodiversity and agriculture and their potential impacts on socioeconomic welfare and traditional cultures. Particular concern is expressed about the possible consequences of such technologies for developing countries and the practice in some developed countries of issuing patents conferring very broad rights over the use of genetically engineered material. Because these rights are so broad, in some cases they have the potential to establish powerful multinational monopolies in the hands of private companies. Global debate about these issues suggests that more emphasis should be given globally to the socio‐economic consequences of such technology than in the past. The need for this is highlighted by the North‐South divide. Developing countries lag considerably in this new technological field, are placed in a dependent position and have weak institutional structures to control the application of such technology.