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.

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.

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.

In recent times, science and technology has taken a front seat in revolutionizing agricultural production and food processing globally with noticeable impact on food, nutrition and family health. This study was carried out to have a critical review of genetically modified (GM) foods and the use of GM and biofortified crops for food security in developing countries where foods are not adequately available and people are not food secured.

A critical review of GM foods was undertaken and the use of GM and biofortified crops for food security in developing countries where foods are not adequately available and people are not food secured was carried out.

Currently, there are no recent patents on GM and biofortified crops and this shows that there are more works to be done by policymakers, regulatory agencies, consumers and right organizations on environmental, health and biosafety of GM and biofortified crops. Advances in science and technology have changed our relationship with nature which enables crops to be modified and improved through selective breeding to obtain more stronger and productive crops. However, despite the benefits and improvements from GM and biofortified crops, controversy and arguments have continued to trail the consumption of GM and biofortified crops because of the perceived safety issues. Although genetic engineering has helped in developing fast-growing and pest-resistant crops, as well as reduction in use of pesticides, however, its impact on the environment and the consumers cannot be overemphasized. In conclusion, this study showed that the role of GM and biofortified crops for food security is the subject of public controversy; however, genetic engineering has the potential to improve world food production, increase food availability and influence farmers’ income and thus their economic access to food but the attendance potential risks related to food safety and avoidable environmental hazards should not be overlooked. There is need for comprehensive information on the impact of GM and biofortified crops on environment, human health and biosafety of the crops.

Few available literatures on the subject matter were critically reviewed.

The paper helps in creating awareness for more in-depth research on GM and biofortified crops and their impacts on food security in developing countries where foods are not adequately available and people are not food secured.

This research is of value to the researchers, policymakers and regulatory agencies in developing countries on food safety.

This chapter analyzes the economic implications of genetic engineering for food security. We discuss the asynchronous nature of genetically modified (GM) crop regulation and labeling requirements among countries, associated politics, and consumer perceptions of GM crops.

We perform an ex-ante analysis of the introduction of a GM rice variety in major rice exporting and importing countries (including potential producer and consumer impacts) within the framework of a partial equilibrium trade model.

Although the introduction of a GM rice variety that increases global yield by 5% could result in a consumer gain of US$23.4 billion to US$74.8 billion, it could also result in a producer loss of US$9.7 billion to US$63.7 billion. The estimated net gain to society could be US$11.1 billion to US$13.7 billion. Overall, we find a positive economic surplus for major exporters and importers of rice based on a 5% supply increase with a GM rice variety.

The adoption of transgenic (GM) rice varieties would have a far greater impact on rice prices for poorer counties than for richer countries. Therefore, GM rice may help ensure that more people throughout the world would have food security.

World agriculture faces enormous challenges in the coming decades. To feed the world adequately in 2050, agricultural production in developing economies will need to nearly double. Incremental production will mainly come from increases in yields or cropping intensities. This chapter focuses on the potential of genetically modified (GM) crops to contribute to agricultural productivity growth and poverty reduction in developing economies. On the basis of a comprehensive literature review of the most recent literature, we aim to shed light on (a) whether GM crops benefit farmers in developing economies and (b) whether GM crops that are currently in the research pipeline address future challenges for agriculture. The first part of the chapter reviews farm-level impacts of GM crops in developing economies. The second part discusses the GM crop research pipeline. GM crop markets are expected to grow in the future but not to change dramatically. We conclude that GM crops benefited farmers, including resource-poor farmers, in developing economies, but benefits are location- and individual-specific. Addressing such complexities will be required to unlock technology potentials.

The widespread introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops may change the effect of agriculture on the environment. The magnitude and direction of expected effects are still being hotly debated, and the interests served in this discussion arena are often far from those of science and social welfare maximization. This chapter proposes that GM crops have net positive environmental effects, while regulatory responses focus mainly on environmental concerns, giving an unbalanced picture of the regulatory context. This unbalance supports the hypothesis that environmental concerns about GM crops have been politically instrumentalized and that more attention should be paid to regulatory responses considering the environmental benefits of this technology. It is also argued that a number of environmental effects have not yet been quantified and more research is needed in this direction.

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.

Many countries have held back from planting genetically modified (GM) food crops due to perceived negative reaction in export and domestic markets. Three lines of research have tested the reality of this fear.

In‐depth interviews were conducted in European countries with key companies and organisations in the European food sector. Supermarket intercepts were used to ascertain purchasing intent for products from countries that do or do not produce GM crops. A purchasing experiment was conducted, where cherries labelled as GM, organic or conventional were on sale in a roadside stall.

Food distribution channel members expressed concern about possibility of contamination or mix‐up between GM and non‐GM food. However, presence of GM crops in a country does not cause negative perception of food in general from that country. Approximately 30 per cent of consumers in the purchasing experiment proved willing to purchase GM cherries when there was a defined consumer benefit – either lower price or spray‐free.

Countries that have not yet planted GM food crops need to be cautious about possible negative impacts on channel member perceptions of non‐GM versions of the same crop from the same country. However, planting GM crops does not appear likely to damage the overall reputation of a food‐supplying country. GM applications in non‐food areas seem unlikely to damage perceptions of country image in relation to supply of food products from that country.

Provides useful information for those planning to plant GM food crops.