If genetic modification were to become a tool to help combat the impacts of climate change, then it would need to be more widely supported by the public. This post looks at some of the barriers to public acceptance of genetically modified food, and I will follow it up with a second post soon about the potential ways which have been suggested to overcome these.
 |
| Source. There is widespread concern about the unknown impacts of GM, and this is one of the main barriers to public acceptance. |
1. Does GM actually increase productivity and all the other things scientists say it does?
GM foods are proposed on the basis that they can increase the yield of a crop, make it more productive and also enhance its nutritional benefits to suit the needs of the expected consumer (Rodriguez-Entrena, 2015). However, there is some doubt over the evidence which has been gathered in the last 20 years as to whether these benefits are actually achieved (Maghari et al., 2011), and that even though the increased yield is put forward as a strong case for GM foods, some studies encourage us not to expect too much (Sinclair et al., 2004).
2. The unknown health impacts
Fear of the unknown often leads to expectation of the worst case scenario. Studies concerning the health impacts of GM foods have not been running long enough to identify potential long-term impacts, therefore, data is incomplete. There are also concerns over the naturalness of the GM product, which causes consumers to lose trust in it (Bredahl, 1999)
Furthermore, the uncertainty of the final product has given rise to rumours which are an easily established barrier to public acceptance and difficult to overcome. One study identified that some participants held the opinion that 'if a GM tomato is created by transferring fish genes, it will taste like fish' (Rodriguez-Entrena, 2015:n.p.). This encourages people who are unsure to stick with the non-GMO option, as they know what to expect.
There is sometimes a discrepancy in the findings from bio-tech crop companies and other scientists (Maghari et al., 2011), where the companies have published studies indicating that there are no human health impacts associated with their transgenic crops, whereas other scientists have published data which show otherwise. This makes it very difficult for the consumer to know what to believe.
3. Suspected GMO-related health impacts
Several widespread allergy outbreaks have been reported, which are thought to be linked to GMOs. Some GM soybeans which are modified with brazil nut genes are thought to be able to trigger already existing nut allergies in the soybean consumer (Bakshi et al., 2003). Furthermore, workers in the Bt cotton fields in the Punjab region of India have severe skin allergies from close contact with the crop (Bernstein, 1999).
4. Environmental impacts
Environmentalists are concerned that the widespread introduction of GM food would change the current ecosystem irrevocably (Maghari et al., 2011). There are fears over the unknown environmental impacts that would occur if GM organisms escaped and crossbred with wild species (Darmency, 2016). There is potential for the disease-resistant aspect of GMOs to backfire and generate a 'superweed', which is extremely difficult to eradicate (Gressel, 1999).
5. Lack of awareness of the potential role of GM in food security.
Some studies have found that the potential for the use of GM as a tool to improve food security is not always associated with the idea of GM, for example, this survey of the perceptions of West African farmers (Adenle et al., 2014).
6. Trade barriers
Some countries do not allow the trade of genetically modified crops to or from their country. This means that it is not currently economically viable to develop widespread GMO production in regions such as East Africa where the majority of trade occurs with other East African nations (Komen and Wafula, 2013). Some countries are still evolving their policies on GM trade and are likely to be swayed by the position of the nations that they have established trade links with already.
Look out for tomorrow's post which will look at some of the suggested ways to overcome these barriers.
Hi Holly, I think a lot of scepticism and general dislike towards GM is unwarranted. Humans have been genetically modifying crops for hundreds and hundreds of years through selective breeding and cross-breeding, deliberately picking out the most desirable characteristics such as increased yield or longer growing seasons. Health concerns are not necessarily dismissible. However, considering the use of HUGE amounts of pesticides and insecticides on traditional crops, which are also created in lab and pretty much guaranteed to be poisonous (that's the whole point), GM doesn't seem so bad. I've just started reading Silent Spring, and I would eat a GM crop any day over a DDT sprayed crop. I think ecological concerns are very valid though - the possibility of creating a super-resistant tomato does not seem like a good idea to me, but replacing the current system of monoculture with a GM monoculture is an even trade to me. I think what people fear the most is the unknown, it's new and it's scary. Would you ever choose to eat a GM crop when you could eat the 'normal' one? I'm not sure I would - I would just stick to what I know.
ReplyDeleteHi Lucy, thanks for your comment. I agree, doing the research for this blog has made me realise how GM is becoming just another agricultural tool and like you say, there are some pretty bad ones out there already like DDT. The ecological concerns are worrying but I think further research is needed to know where we stand on that, and the potential preventative measures. I think if I could eat the 'normal' version of a food I would, and being veggie means that I wouldn't be considering which meat or fish 'version' to eat, but I think that as GM crops are already in circulation we actually consume more than we really realise already!
ReplyDelete