Genetically Modified Foods: 

Consumer Views and Regulations Around the World 

AGB 318 California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA   21nov00 

Karin Helgren, Jessica Peacock, Dale Finnegan, Sasha Sprow, Bronwen King

AGB 318-01 Fall 2000 Prof. Neal MacDougall. 

http://www.calpoly.edu/~nmacdoug/AGB31801_00_04/AGB31801_Index.html 

For centuries, humans have been selecting, sowing, and harvesting seeds that produce food products that will sustain them. Over the years, population is steadily increasing which is in turn increasing the global food demand. Therefore, the need for improved agricultural crops also is steadily becoming greater. Scientists have recently developed a safe method for battling the potential food shortage problems our world might be facing through the use of food biotechnology and creation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). GMOs can be classified as an induced mutation, which benefits the species production. These are plants or animals which have had genes changed in the laboratory by scientists. Food biotechnology uses what is known about plant science and genetics to improve food and how it is produced. Biotechnology is the enhancement of traditional plant breeding that stems from our growing understanding of the genetic structure of all living things, especially plants grown for our food. Since 1973, genetic modification has been possible through the transfer of isolated genes into the DNA of another organism. The large corporate investments needed to develop a commercial application for biotechnology did not occur until 1980 when the U.S. Supreme Court extended patent protection for this new technology. These new biotech crops were finally released for large-scale commercial use to U.S. farmers in 1996.

Reasons for using genetic engineering are to boost yields, increase muscle bulk, increase vitamin content of crops, and make crops and farm animals resistant to disease. The benefits that we are seeing from the biotech industry come in the form of better yields, reduced fertilizer requirements, and better quality plants. Advances in the future include plants with improved disease resistance, improved drought resistance and stress tolerant along with crops containing higher levels of nutrients. Several of these advances are directed for the use in developing countries that are suffering from low nutrient diets. According to the Monsanto Corporation, by improving plant genetics, we are able to safely grow and harvest more food using fewer natural resources and chemicals. Biotechnology has offered the needed technology to produce more nutritious and better tasting foods, higher crop yields and plants that are naturally protected from disease and insects. Long-term benefits of food biotechnology include: enhancement of the environment, a positive outlook for the agricultural industry, and an increased quality of food.

Biotechnology benefits the environment in countless ways. Crops can be produced with fewer pesticides while increasing a crop's own ability to fight pests and diseases. These new crops encourage farming techniques that preserve precious topsoil, reduce soil erosion and runoff into streams and rivers, and even reduce greenhouse gas emissions through more sustainable farming practices. These farming techniques will also provide increases in productivity of marginal cropland, especially where acres for planting are decreasing around the world. Crop improvements like these can help provide an abundant, healthful food supply and protect our environment for future generations.

In addition, biotechnology benefits agriculture in various ways. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization have said, "New technologies offer a responsible way to enhance agricultural productivity today and in the future." With biotechnology, we can identify specific genetic characteristics, isolate them and transfer them to valuable crop plants. This technique is more precise and efficient than traditional crossbreeding and can increase food production through higher yields. There is also a reduced need for pesticide use where insect protected biotech crops are planted. According to the International Food Information Council, insect-protected crops allow for less potential exposure of farmers and groundwater to chemical residues, while providing farmers with season-long control. Also by reducing the need for pest control, time, effort and resources spent on the land are less, thereby preserving the topsoil. Biotech crops also provide disease resistance, therefore plants become immune to various viral diseases and pass this immunity on to future generations. Crops produced through biotechnology are becoming significant components of the U.S. harvest.

Biotechnology also provides food quality improvements. The use of biotechnology also allows for enhancements in the quality of food, from increasing crop yields to delaying ripening for transportability. In the future, consumers may enjoy better taste and nutrition including: Reduction of undesirable qualities such as saturated fats in cooking oils, elimination of allergens, increase in nutrients that help reduce the risk of chronic disease, and better delivery of proper nutrients such as Vitamin A in commonly consumed crops. Having greater product choices all year round also benefits consumers.

Although there are many proven benefits of the use of biotechnology, there is still a question about the safety of consuming products that have been grown under these conditions. Consequently, consumers are questioning the safety of foods produced using biotechnology, and concerns about this scientific process are increasing. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates biotechnology with the same rigor it applies to safeguard all foods in the marketplace. The nutrition and safety of each product is evaluated at many stages before it reaches the consumer. Research shows that foods derived through biotechnology are as safe to eat as traditional foods. The FDA has special guidelines for regulating food biotechnology: The FDA must regulate foods developed through biotechnology in the same way as foods produced by other methods; the FDA ensures the safety of these foods, and requires special labeling if the nutritional content of the food may be altered, or a substance that may cause allergies is added to the product. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization also evaluate foods enhanced by biotechnology.

Even with the numerous benefits that GMOs present, various consumers and environmental activists are uncertain on the effects of GMOs. The long-term effects of genetically modified organisms are not known at this time. There are some concerns that they could have an adverse effect on people, such as the current issue with Starlink corn that may have allergenic concerns associated with it. These types of concerns have prompted calls for all products containing genetically modified organisms to be labeled accordingly The negative reaction that consumers have to this new technology is partially due to the lack of accessible and balanced information. Consumers may feel that they have been left in the dark when it comes to biotech, which leaves the door wide open for the media to print one-sided points of view. Consumer information needs to come from a balanced perspective, not from self-interest groups or the manufacturers of the technology. However, not much of has been done, leaving the consumer very uninformed of the true regarding genetically modified foods.

These benefits may improve short-term production and results. However, long-term effects of these mutations may alter into undesired results. Mother nature didn't create these mutations. Natural evolution is a selection of mutations where only the fittest survive. Technology managed by humans has bypassed this evolutionary route to complicate and hinder nature's plans. Further mutations of the selectively mutated species may result in tragic events. These include threats to both the environment and human health. Detrimental outcomes associated with GMO's now pose new problems to other crops, plant life, and the sale of food products all over the world. It is too soon to estimate the effects of genetically modified organisms. Long term testing should have been done before genetically engineered crops were ever planted. This issue is about consumer choice and basic human rights. Consumer activist groups state that unless action is taken soon , genetic engineering will dictate the food agenda for the 21st century and alter the environment we live in. They also affirm that control of the world's basic staples will pass to a handful of multinational agrochemical companies.

It will take much more time and trust for the public to become truly comfortable with biotechnology. But if the corporate investment in the U.S. keeps losing money due to the public fear, they will sell off the technology and patients to foreign investors to minimize their losses. If this occurs, it is possible that sometime in the future, when consumers are finally comfortable with GMOs, we will be importing this technology back into the U.S. the same way we are importing electronic technology in from Japan today.

Biotechnology products, a term preferred by U.S. regulators, have become a hot topic in the United States. United States agriculture has already been using the Biotech processes in crops planted for harvest and test purposes without containment measures to prevent exposure to the broader environment. In 1998 alone, 25 percent of the United States corn acreage, 38 percent of soybean acreage, and 45 percent of cotton acreage were planted with Biotech varieties. These 45 million U.S. acres planted in Biotech varieties is a 250 percent increase from the 1997 levels (BioBasics 2). Today, more than 60 percent of packaged foods sold in United States supermarkets already contain bio-engineered ingredients (Sentinal 2).

The United States regulates these Biotech products with the use of the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Food and Drug Administration. Through thorough reviews by these governmental agencies, the United States can use a science-based approach to risk assessment. Each agency is responsible for different sectors of biotechnology processes. The United States Department of agriculture reviews Biotech seeds, crops in the field, and animals for slaughter. The United States Environmental Protection Agency reviews the safety of pesticide proteins in biotech products. The United States Food and Drug Administration reviews the foods processed from crops, animals and fish using the Biotech process. The United States Food and Drug Administration has also established a process by which companies can consult on food safety and labeling issues on new products before bringing them to market. Along with the normal FDA regulations, Biotech food also have to pass section 402(a)(1) of the adulteration provisions of FD&C act, section 409 for food provisions, the FDA's 1992 policy regarding biotech food and any new regulations that are on the horizon. These are safeguards to protect the public from being exposed to any hazards that could be associated with GMOs. In addition, Biotech foods must comply with supplementary provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, including provisions covering safety and labeling. Also under United States law, biotech foods are not commercialized unless they meet the same safety standards as their traditional counterparts (BioBasdics 2).

The corporations Dupont, Monsanto, and others have tested public opinion and found in most surveys that consumers don't fear or have knowledge of genetically altered foods (Chase 3). "People think scientists make genes in labs and insert them into food," said Carl Feldbalum, president of a Washington D.C. based Bio-National biotechnology trade group (Romero 1). The surveys also showed that while some responded negatively to genetically altered foods, they liked the idea that the food could reduce the use of chemicals.

The Future of Biotech looks promising in the United States. Similar to anything new being introduced to the American public, the security of knowing that Biotech is safe will possibly give it a boost in the future of expansion. the large food corporations say that consumer perceptions could change, when people see the future benefits. Several benefits available not only to American consumers include edible vaccines, eliminated traits that are harmful to human health, and potential to help lower food prices (Bio Basics 3). Since the world's population is expected to double to more than 10 billion people by 2030, using biotechnology to increase crop yields for land currently in agriculture use will insure a more secure sustainable agricultural future (Bio Basics 2).

In the European Union (EU), consumers are still skeptical and doubtful towards GMOs in their marketplace. According to the European Report, EU consumers are progressively more skeptical over GMOs and food produced using biotechnology. The international analysts Healy and Beaker conducted a survey between September and October 1999. This survey included about 7,000 consumers at food retail outlets in the EU. The findings reveal that 65% would not purchase goods containing GMOs, compared with 61% in 1998. Specifically, consumers in Great Britain uncertainties of GMOs have increased from 57% to 63%, Spain (from 69% to 75%), and Portugal (from 55% to 60%). This shows an increase in skepticism and resistance to GMOs.

A speech given by Mary Revelt, Agricultural Minister Counselor, provides some facts about how European consumers view GMOs. She stated that 44% of Europeans consider genetic engineering as a "serious hazard." This same group has additional concerns about artificial colorants (38%) and cholesterol (38%). She included that numerous Europeans do not have a clear understanding of the process of genetic modification.

Revelt also articulated information regarding the need for proper education of consumers in Europe was essential for proper acceptance of GMO food products. She highlights that consumers should be able to address their views and have their questions answered. However, this need has yet to be met.

According to a special survey edition of London based newspaper, The Financial Times, 16,246 European Union citizens were questioned at the end of 1996 about GMO foods. Of those questioned, 57.5% say that they would not buy GMO fruits, even if they tasted better. According to Nigel Poole, head of regulatory affairs at Zeneca Plant Science, the primary reason for skepticism of GMO foods is uninformed consumers. He states that the way to improve consumer knowledge in the realm of genetically altered foods is to foster more informed discussion. He states, "Society has got to find ways of rebuilding trust in the regulatory system and find ways of handling high-tech issues." It is evident that large food corporations need to be prepared to be patient with the EU consumer.

From the Agence France Presse English, an article entitled, "Europeans Suspicious of Biotech, Says Survey," summarizes the results of the recent European poll on genetically modified organisms. This poll, entitled "The Eurobarometre 2000", analyzed over 15,000 European consumers in the beginning of the year 2000 from the fifteen countries in the European Union. Among the findings was the actuality that 23% of European consumers think biotech would have a negative affect on their lives. This percentage has increased from 19% since the last survey. In addition, 43% of respondents said it was suitable to change a plant's genes to make the crop more nutritious or tastier while 59% of respondents believed that the use of altered genes in food products was "risky." These percentages are proving to increase each year. Most notably, more than half of those surveyed said that they would pay more for foods that did not contain modified ingredients. This shows that there may be a future for the differentiated "GMO-Free" food products in Europe.

In the country of Japan, consumers are refusing to accept GMO food products like their European counterparts. In addition, Japanese consumers are displeased about the idea of eating products made from raw materials that might have been produced using genetic modification inputs and ingredients in the food chain production.

In an article from Reuters, in early 1999 Japan was becoming the lead importer of genetically modified products. Also, this country brought in more than 3 million tons of GMO soybeans in the first seven months of 1999. Nevertheless, due to consumer demands the Japanese government has been taking steps to require labeling of GMO foods intended for human consumption be labeled GMO. This regulation would apply to products containing 5% GMO inputs of total weight. This labeling was originated to assist the Japanese buyer in the food retail outlets. Buyers can now look at food products and distinguish which food products contain GMOs. This allows for consumer choice and preference. This may show that there is a niche market segment to be researched in the Japanese marketplace.

By the beginning of 2000, Japan was struggling over what to do about GMOs. Japan is one of the largest importers of food. On the contrary, the consumer group of the country did not want to be eating GMOs. With the uncertainty of the long term effects of the changing realm of biotechnology consumers are apprehensive about the future if they consume too much of these GMO food items now.

According to an article in the Washington Post Foreign Service, Japan is attempting to make labeling of GMOs mandatory. This would put the Japanese consumer at ease. The governmental agencies in charge of food safety in Japan is claiming that it is only for consumer concerns that there is a requirement to have labels on products for GMOs and "GMO-Free" products. Yet recent studies show that there is still speculation that it is being done to protect the Japanese farmer.

One of the ways that the Japanese government has decided to deal with certifying GMOs is to have every load of imported corn and other items tested to prove the approximate percent of the product is has been Genetically Modified. It was expected earlier this year that this would effect the amount of product that is allowed in to the country. Exporters in the USA fought these regulations because they claim to already test for such traces of GMOs. These exporters ask: why are we repeating the same tests upon arrival of the product and shipping of the product? A new light to this problem is the fact that in October of 2000, a shipment of GMO free product was found in Japan to have GMOs traces. It is evident that time will tell on what regulations Japan's government will establish to combat this contaminated "GMO-Free" food products.

Japanese government's need to stay competitive with other importing nations has caused the government to step up their programs to get genetically modified seeds developed and planted. Earlier this year they registered their first rice seed. Rice is the staple crop in Japan and a symbol to many of their traditions. This shows that there is a conflict between consumer's views and the opinions of the governmental agencies.

Also during this time of uncertainty and opposition, the futures market in Japan is showing signs of a small resistance of GMOs. Traders are buying both "GMO-free" and GMO products in the market. It is causing some confusing and lack of movement in the market. A recent monumental opening of trading soybeans that are certified GMO free occurred just this year. This shows that traders are saying that they are willing to buy and sell both GMO free and GMO products. Most importantly, the new GMO free soybeans opened on the market at 30 yen higher than contracts already on the board.

Changes and decisions made in Japan will affect imports to the country but more importantly they maybe what the rest of the world will base some of their uncertainty in dealing with this new problem in the world marketplace. If Japan is successful in pleasing their consumer group and their farmers this could be a key to the future of GMOs in Japan.

In summary, genetically modified foods may be the future of feeding the world's developing countries with a promising future of agricultural commodities around the world. Alternatively, it may be the path to detrimental outcomes and new problems to other crops, plant life, and the sale of food products all over the world. It might be too soon to estimate the effects of GMOs. The overriding issue with GMOs is consumer choice and preference. Appropriate education and consumer awareness are essential to the realm and outlook of biotechnology. It will be up to consumers around the world whether the future of GMOs will survive or fail in the world marketplace.

Bibliography

1. United States Department of State. International Information Programs: Biotech Basics. Washington, 1 Dec. 1999.
2. Chase, Brett. "Biotech Crops Stunted by Perception: Consumers and Manufactures are Slow to Accept Altered Foods." Journal Sentinel Inc. 4 Sep , 2000: D3.
3. Romero Christine L. "Biotech Companies Tear Public Resistance Could Hurt Industry." Tribune Business News 24 May, 2000: 24.
4. Agence France Presse English. "Europeans Suspicious of Biotech, Says Survey" http://www.biotech-info.net/europeans_suspicious.html 
5. Blackhedge, Cath "European Attitudes" The Financial Times (March 15, 1999) Pg. 4
6. Eurobarometer Results from Survey - Official European Union Website http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg10/epo/eb.html 
7. Friends of the Earth. "Friends of the Earth, Europe GMO Foods Survey" http://www.safe-food.org/-consumer/europe  (March 7, 2000)
8. Friends of the Earth, Les Amis de la Terre Europe "Europe Says 'Non', Nien', 'No' to GMO Pollution" http://www.foeeurope.org  (March 2000)
9. "Genetic Engineering: Consumers Increasingly Skeptical Over GM Foods" European Report (March 22, 2000) Online Lexis Nexis Nov 5, 2000
10. www.japantimes.co.jp/ 
11. "Wary Japan Public Seen Stunting Genetic Food Growth." http://www.netling.de/gen/Zeiting/1999 
12. Tolbert, Kathryn. "Consumers Add Non-Modified Products to Shopping Carts." Washington Post Foreign Service, Monday, January 24, 2000:Page A08.
13. "Japan : Consumer want none of it!" Reuters. http://www.fph.ch/tc4/japaneng.html 
14. "US Grain Froup says Japan GMO tests could hurt Corn Trade." Dow Jones. March 6,2000. http://www.purfodd.org/ge/japantest.cfm 
15. www.monsanto.com 

source: http://www.calpoly.edu/~nmacdoug/AGB31801_00_04/11_GMO_Web/GMO_Paper.htm 31 Dec 2000