Studying of Genetically Modified Food - Essay Example

Introduction GM food has gained a lot of interest because food crops are genetically engineered to increase the production of food and nutrients or even disease-fighting compounds in plants. Subsequent advances in the genetic modification in agriculture through genetic engineering continue to spark debate over benefits and risks associated with GMO products. Some studies argue predictability associated with gene modification in agriculture has the potential of strengthening economies of industrialized nations, lower the use of pesticides and fight hunger in developing nations. Other studies resist widespread and implementation of the technology because of concerns that GMO foods can cross biological boundaries and cause harm to humans and the environment. Besides safety and environmental aspects, the topic draws a lot of socio-economic concerns, public knowledge and attitude, confidence in decision-making institutions and ethical concerns that shape consumer perceptions of the risks posed by GM foods. Public opinion is a force that should have been taken into account if gene engineering needed to be successful in developing new product especially the controversial GM foods. The issue of GM food is made complex by the various interested groups, the different perceptions of risk and reward as well as the conflicting perceptions regarding the benefits and costs associated with the controversial products. The answers behind the controversy are complicated ranging from ethical to religious to even potential health and safety impacts posed by the technology in GM foods. Supporters of the genetic modification in foods highlight the premise that the technology is capable of meeting not only the basic food needs of the society but also achieving nutritional, environmental and economic benefits to the consumers. Skeptics of GM foods consider this to unnecessary interference with nature that poses unknown and potentially catastrophic consequences. According to Hossain et al (2003), regardless of the potential of GM foods, they have received mixed regulatory and public acceptance within the US and other parts of the world. Moreover, regardless of the prevailing technological challenges, consumer acceptance of GM foods remains an essential factor that determines the future of the technology. This stems from the scarcity of reliable information regarding consumer awareness and perception concerning the significant subject. Based on a sample population of students, Hossain et al (2003) found the students were reluctant to consume food with GM ingredients based on the safety concerns of GM foods. The main argument to supporters of GM food is that the use of the technology can result in the development of improved products that have desirable attributes and they argue that the potential benefits of the technology outweigh small risks associated with the production of GM foods. However, until biotechnology brings tangible benefits, it remains extremely hard to persuade consumers to embrace GM food products whose safety is a concern to many people. According to Hossain et al (2003), the study findings indicate that public acceptance of GM foods increase when the foods bring tangible benefits to the consumer; even though, the study records divergent views from consumers regarding GM foods. Moreover, in the study, Hossain et al (2003) find that consumer knowledge of science positively correlated with their acceptance of GM foods, which is even consistent with findings in other studies. According to Klerck and Sweeney (2007), consumer knowledge plays an important role in expounding consumer behavior especially regarding information and information processing; hence, knowledge is essential in GM food studies because of the apprehension in the public. Communication, especially during the initial stages, is an essential part of GM because mass media is the main source of communication that consequently results in public perceptions regarding GM foods. Most information in the media suggests that GM foods may be harmful to humans and the growth of GM food crops to be harmful to the environment. Various studies confirm that this information represents key reasons why many consumers are reluctant to consume GM foods. Although in truth, there are risks associated with GM foods, most of the accusations against it by the media are never grounded in fact and the media rarely communicate the benefits associated with GM foods to the public. According to Klerck and Sweeney (2007), when consumers lack access to more impartial sources of information, their subjective knowledge that is mainly gained through controversial and biased media increases their risk perceptions regarding GM foods. According to Devos et al (2008), the significant aspect laying at the controversy of GM foods is the difference of perception regarding their risk from a scientific expert and laypeople. Experts often assess risks based on scientific standards while laypeople depend on less rigorous notions of risk. Therefore, in the GMO debate, laypeople tend to expand the notion of risk by raising various concerns like usefulness, socio-economic impacts, respect for nature, freedom of choice, long-term consequences, uncertainties and fallibility of experts and sustainability of agriculture (Devos et al, 2008). Therefore, since the public is never homogenous, there are various perceptions of risk in different nations, cultures and within different individuals at different times. According to Morin (2008), the innovation in GM food has the potential of meeting Millennium Development Goals by reducing in half the people in severe poverty and hunger. However, in the study, Morin (2008) acknowledges the controversial nature of biotechnology through GM foods because it has become a subject of debate about trade and globalization. The study points out GM technology especially in food; the technology will have to address the issues regarding climate change and ecosystem services. Moreover, if food production using the technology would use less water, energy and chemical inputs then the GM food crops are going to be significant in reducing carbon emissions and preserving the ecosystem as well as human health. In response to controversies regarding GM food and resistance to it throughout the US and across the globe because of concerns regarding risks posed by GM foods, the products have to be labeled. Labeling, according to Carlsson, Frykblom & Lagerkvist (2007) offer consumers the freedom of choice because lack of label in GM products poses the risk of uncertainty in consumers. A consumer can still prefer GM-free products because of what they consider publicly good quality even when the quality of GM and GM-free food products are the same. Arguments supporting the use of GM foods range from ethical like the way the world will be fed without GM to practical and scientific where evidence is collected to address the opposition concerns and fill the gap in the knowledge of GM foods. For instance, according to Qaim and Kouser (2013), GM foods can affect food security through increased food production. The new traits introduced in food crops pose safety risks; even though, studies indicate that these risks are not limited to GM crops because studies indicate that GM technology is not necessarily risky compared to conventional breeding techniques (Qaim & Kouser, 2013). However, in all the studies, it is clear that social factors play a significant role in the rejection of GM foods and at the core is the frustration of being unable to verify the source of the food. These fears of GM foods address people’s inability to control technology individually or even the content of food supply, while other factors include mistrust of scientific arguments and the rejection of scientific advances because of the arrogance of business and scientific leaders. Opponents of GM foods are generally concerned with the capability of growing GM food crops in a way that is environmentally susceptible regarding the utilization of energy as well as climate change. Ethical considerations by individuals who oppose GM foods rely on overstepping the moral limit that generates the fear that the outcome of GM food will never be understood until a catastrophe befalls humanity. Moreover, ecologists are concerned with the long-term consequences of GM food crops to have on the environment, biodiversity as well as on non-target organisms. According to Aleksejeva and Aleksejeva (2012), consumer acceptance of GM foods, as well as the willingness to buy them, relies on risk perception that is influenced by a consumer’s awareness, the role of media, ethical concerns, and possible benefits. However, in the various studies of all the high risks associated with GM foods from various respondents remains the main obstacle to accepting GM foods. According to Aleksejeva and Aleksejeva (2012), a lack of credible information reinforces the desire to educate the public to make them aware of GM foods by the use of scientific information. Scientific concerns regarding GM food fall into several categories that include environmental hazards, human health risks, and socio-economic dangers. According to Wohlers (2013), environmental concerns concerning GM crops focus on decreased pesticide effectiveness, soil contamination and the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds. Moreover, scientists warn that insects can become resistant and the transfer-resistant genes to other plants can result in “superweeds” and the produced toxins by GM crops can alter and eventually harm the soil ecosystem. Certain food crops like wheat, peanuts, and soybeans are commonly known to cause allergic reactions and can encourage the development of allergies in infants that are associated with life-threatening conditions. The socio-economic concern stems from the fact that bringing GM food to the market is costly for corporations and takes time and eventually the corporations have to recoup their investment (Wohlers, 2013). According to Gaskell et al (2004), Public skepticism in GM foods is largely framed as a risk issue with perceptions fluctuating from actuarial to scientific-based risks and the much skepticism regarding GM foods is mainly attributed to public misconception concerning risk. Moreover, studies by Klerck and Sweeney (2007) and Gaskell et al (2004) suggest that manipulation of the public by groups and amplification by mass media also plays a major role in the public’s perception of GM risk. Hence, to resolve the problem of widespread manipulation of the public these studies seem to endorse the dissemination of accurate risk information regarding GM foods from a trustworthy source. One drawback to the study conducted by Gaskell et al (2004) about the explanation of opposition targeting GM foods is the assumption that both the public and experts use risk-benefit analysis in coming up with judgments. However, it is clear that the way the public assesses risk is incorrect compared to experts; moreover, Gaskell et al (2004), assume that both experts and the public agree on the benefits associated with GM foods. Most of the studies point to the possibility that “benefit perception” regarding GM foods can be better compared to the “risk perception” in most of the studies. The studies could have benefited from taping into the concepts of risk and benefit analysis to benefit from the concrete formulation. Moreover, the studies could have benefited from incorporating attitudinal questions to their respondents to obtain a fair understanding of influences that affect choices in individuals about GM and GM-free foods (Canavari & Nayga, 2009). Moreover, although the findings in the studies offer interesting insights, it would be better if the studies incorporated how pricing affects the willingness of consumers to purchase GM foods. Conclusion Even though studies claim that GM foods are capable of delivering various benefits like increased productivity, low pesticide costs for the producer, decreased environmental pollution and new crop varieties capable of eliminating hunger in many developing nations, GM foods face many challenges. The opposition of GM foods mainly stems from environmentalists and the wider public with environmentalists raising the concern of the possibility of gene drift, super-weeds, and unknown long-term consequences. Moreover, the public raised concern regarding GM food concerning the ethics of genetic modification, labeling of GM foods as well as the possible health effects of taking GM foods. From the various studies, it is clear that the food industry as well as the scientific community neglect the issue of consumer acceptance of GM foods. Moreover, converse to the biotechnology’s confidence, GM foods face diverse public acceptance across the globe. As well, the studies show that consumer acceptance of GM foods relates to their level of risk perception and trust of the several information sources. References Aleksejeva, I, & Aleksejeva, I 2012, 'GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS: RISK PERCEPTION AND WILLINGNESS TO BUY GM PRODUCTS', Management Theory & Studies For Rural Business & Infrastructure Development, 33, 4, pp. 5-10. Canavari, M, & Nayga Jr., R 2009, 'On consumers' willingness to purchase nutritionally enhanced genetically modified food', Applied Economics, 41, 1, pp. 125-137. Carlsson, F, Frykblom, P, & Lagerkvist, C 2007, 'Consumer Benefits of Labels and Bans on GM Foods—Choice Experiments with Swedish Consumers', American Journal Of Agricultural Economics, 89, 1, pp. 152-161. Devos, Y, Maeseele, P, Reheul, D, Van Speybroeck, L, & De Waele, D 2008, 'ETHICS IN THE SOCIETAL DEBATE ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS: A (RE)QUEST FOR SENSE AND SENSIBILITY', Journal Of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 21, 1, pp. 29-61. Gaskell, G, Allum, N, Wagner, W, Kronberger, N, Torgersen, H, Hampel, J, & Bardes, J 2004, 'GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception', Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 24, 1, pp. 185-194. Hossain, F, Onyango, B, Schilling, B, Hallman, W, & Adelaja, A 2003, 'Product attributes, consumer benefits and public approval of genetically modified foods', International Journal Of Consumer Studies, 27, 5, pp. 353-365. Klerck, D, & Sweeney, J 2007, 'The effect of knowledge types on consumer-perceived risk and adoption of genetically modified foods', Psychology & Marketing, 24, 2, pp. 171-193. Morin, X 2008, 'Genetically modified food from crops: progress, pawns, and possibilities', Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, 392, 3, pp. 333-340. Qaim, M, & Kouser, S 2013, 'Genetically Modified Crops and Food Security', Plos ONE, 8, 6, pp. 1-7. Wohlers, AE 2013, 'Labeling of genetically modified food', Politics & The Life Sciences, 32, 1, pp. 73-84. Read More