Genetically modified food controversies - Wikipedia. Genetically modified food controversies are disputes over the use of foods and other goods derived from genetically modified crops instead of conventional crops, and other uses of genetic engineering in food production. The dispute involves consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non- governmental organizations, and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified food (GM food or GMO food) are whether such food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the objectivity of scientific research and publication, the effect of genetically modified crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of such crops for farmers, and the role of the crops in feeding the world population. In addition, products derived from GMO organisms play a role in the production of ethanol fuels and pharmaceuticals. Specific concerns include mixing of genetically modified and non- genetically modified products in the food supply,[1] effects of GMOs on the environment,[2][3] the rigor of the regulatory process,[4][5] and consolidation of control of the food supply in companies that make and sell GMOs.[2]Advocacy groups such as the Center for Food Safety, Organic Consumers Association, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace, say risks have not been adequately identified and managed, and they have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities. The safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies starts with an evaluation of whether or not the food is substantially equivalent to non- genetically engineered counterparts that are already deemed fit for human consumption.[6][7][8][9] No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from genetically modified food.[1. There is a scientific consensus[1. GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[1. GM food needs to be tested on a case- by- case basis before introduction.[2. Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[2. The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[2. Public perception. Consumer concerns about food quality first became prominent long before the advent of GM foods in the 1. Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle led to the 1. Pure Food and Drug Act, the first major US legislation on the subject.[3. This began an enduring concern over the purity and later "naturalness" of food that evolved from a focus on sanitation to include added ingredients such as preservatives and flavors and sweeteners, residues such as pesticides, the rise of organic food as a category and finally to concerns over GM food. The public came to see the latter as "unnatural" which created a reverse halo effect.[3. Specific perceptions include genetic engineering as meddling with naturally evolved biological processes, scientific limitations on comprehending potential negative ramifications.[3. 10/21:華和茶会民族系アンビエントlive. 告知. 10/21にn.a.s.s.とのコラボレーションで、華和茶会エスニックアンビエントliveを.
An opposing perception is that genetic engineering is itself an evolution of traditional selective breeding.[3. Surveys indicate public concerns that eating genetically modified food is harmful,[3. A diffuse sense that social and technological change is accelerating and that people cannot affect this change context becomes focused when such changes affect food.[4. Leaders in driving public perception of the harms of such food in the media include Jeffrey M. Smith, Dr. Oz, Oprah, and Bill Maher; [3. Organic Consumers Association,[4. Greenpeace (especially with regard to Golden rice)[4. Union of Concerned Scientists.[3. Religious groups have raised concerns over whether genetically modified food will remain kosher or halal. In 2. 00. 1 no such foods had been designated as unacceptable by Orthodox rabbis or Muslim leaders.[4. However, some Jewish groups dispute this designation.[5. Environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth,[5. Other groups such as GMWatch and The Institute of Science in Society concentrate mostly or solely on opposing genetically modified crops.[5. Food writer Michael Pollan does not oppose eating genetically modified foods, but expressed concerns about biotechnology companies holding the intellectual property of the foods people depend on, and about the effects of the growing corporatization of large- scale agriculture.[5. To address these problems, Pollan has brought up the idea of open sourcing GM foods. The idea has since been adopted to varying degrees by companies like Syngenta,[5. New America Foundation.[5. Some organizations, like The Bio. Bricks Foundation, have already worked out open- source licenses that could prove useful in this endeavour.[5. Reviews and polls. A 2. 00. 3 EMBO Reports article reported that the Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe project (PABE)[5. GMOs. Instead, PABE found that public had "key questions" about GMOs: "Why do we need GMOs? Who benefits from their use? Who decided that they should be developed and how? Why were we not better informed about their use in our food, before their arrival on the market? Why are we not given an effective choice about whether or not to buy these products? Have potential long- term and irreversible consequences been seriously evaluated, and by whom? Do regulatory authorities have sufficient powers to effectively regulate large companies? Who wishes to develop these products? Can controls imposed by regulatory authorities be applied effectively? Who will be accountable in cases of unforeseen harm?"[2. PABE also found that the public's scientific knowledge does not control public opinion, since scientific facts do not answer these questions.[2. PABE also found that the public does not demand "zero risk" in GM food discussions and is "perfectly aware that their lives are full of risks that need to be counterbalanced against each other and against the potential benefits. Rather than zero risk, what they demanded was a more realistic assessment of risks by regulatory authorities and GMO producers."[2. In 2. 00. 6, the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology made public a review of U. S. survey results from 2. The review showed that Americans' knowledge of GM foods and animals was low throughout the period. During this period protests against Calgene's Flavr Savr GM tomato mistakenly described it as containing fish genes, confusing it with DNA Plant Technology's fish tomato experimental transgenic organism, which was never commercialized.[6. A 2. 00. 7 survey by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand found that in Australia, where labeling is mandatory,[6. Australians checked product labels to see whether GM ingredients were present when initially purchasing a food item.[6. A 2. 00. 9 review article, of European consumer polls concluded that opposition to GMOs in Europe has been gradually decreasing,[6. GM products when shopping". The 2. 01. 0 "Eurobarometer" survey,[6. GM crops made from plants that are crossable by conventional breeding, evokes a smaller reaction than transgenic methods, using genes from species that are taxonomically very different.[6. A 2. 01. 0 Deloitte survey, found that 3. U. S. consumers were very or extremely concerned about GM food, a 3% reduction from 2. The same survey found gender differences: 1. A 2. 01. 3 poll by The New York Times, showed that 9. Americans wanted labeling of GM food.[6. The 2. 01. 3 vote, rejecting Washington State's GM food labeling I- 5. World Food Prize was awarded to employees of Monsanto and Syngenta.[7. The award has drawn criticism from opponents of genetically modified crops.[7. With respect to the question of "Whether GMO foods were safe to eat," the gap between the opinion of the public and that of American Association for the Advancement of Science scientists is very wide with 8. AAAS scientists saying yes in contrast to 3. Public relations campaigns and protests. Anti- GMO and anti- Monsanto protests in Washington, DC. March Against Monsanto in Stockholm, Sweden, May 2. In May 2. 01. 2, a group called "Take the Flour Back" led by Gerald Miles protested plans by a group from Rothamsted Experimental Station, based in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, England, to conduct an experimental trial wheat genetically modified to repel aphids.[7. The researchers, led by John Pickett, wrote a letter to the group in early May 2.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
November 2017
Categories |