Are there ways to overcome these barriers?

As the previous post indicated, there are a lot of barriers to the widescale acceptance of genetically modified organisms, and perceptions vary amongst the public. This post will try to identify some of the solutions which have been suggested in the literature to help break down these barriers and open up acceptance to GM produce as a means to mitigate the food security issues associated with climate change.

Research, research, research

Many of the barriers to acceptance of GM foods revolve around a fear of the unknown. So far there have not been many long-term studies which identify any potential health impacts of GMOs which may develop over longer periods of time, and this is a barrier to public acceptance of GMOs as people cannot be sure that the food they consume now will not impact on their health in the future (Rodriguez-Entrena, 2015). Once this research has been completed the results need to be disseminated in non-technical language to a global audience, in order to allow the public to make their own  informed decisions.

Jones, 1999, makes an interesting, and perhaps slightly controversial, point about how we actually don't understand all the genes we consume already, such as 'the viable yet unknown genes of tomato, cucumber, and lettuce in a salad, the bovine genes in a beef steak, the fragmented DNA in many processed foods, and the genes of the many micro-organisms that we breathe and swallow' (p584). I understand the author to mean here that GMOs are not the only foods of which we do not fully understand the genetic make-up, and therefore we should be less concerned about consuming them, but I don't think this will put the minds of those who do not support GM at ease. 

Labelling

Currently EU legislation states that GM produce must be labelled as so, however, there is no requirement to label the product if it was raised on GM feed. (Rodriguez-Entrena, 2015).

It is important to 'translate' the contents and production method of a GM product to the general public, so that they are able to make an informed decision as a consumer. One study felt there was a need for a 'transparent and balanced information framework that makes the potential risk understandable by society' (Rodriguez-Entrena, 2015:1).

Source A clearly labelled, non-GMO product

Source A clearly labelled product containing GMO ingredients

Preventing crossbreeding

Using genetic modification to alter the reproductive period of a species so that cross-pollination is less likely is a technique which has been suggested (GMO Compass). However this may not be an effective strategy as we do not know the potential impacts of climate change on the lifecycle of different crops, therefore the pollination season may change after which this method would not be effective.

Daniell, 1999, suggests that the risk of this 'gene pollution' (p467) can be reduced by engineering male sterility in the GM crop, which reduces the risk of the transfer of the GM gene to non-target species.

Gressel, 1999, contextualises the risk of 'superweeds', by noting that the GM weeds in question would need to be able to breed with other surrounding wild weeds, when in fact 'most crops have no interbreeding relatives in much of the world' (p361).

Trade policy changes and international negotiations

If a lack of trade networks is a barrier to acceptance, Komen and Wafula, 2013, recommend that nations which do not currently trade in GMOs collaborate with other nations to establish two-way trade pathways which will make the production of GMOs in both countries economically viable. They also recommend that future policies are created in line with WTO objectives which will make international trade more straight forward.