Why do we use GMOs? Do GMOs harm health? How do GMOs affect insects? How does the regulation process work? What about GMOs and weeds? What is gene editing? Like other Americans, those with high science knowledge have low trust in information from food industry leaders to give full and accurate information about the effects of GM foods. Despite some skepticism among the public about scientists working on GM foods, most of the public wants scientists to have a seat at the policymaking table.
Six-in-ten U. Majorities also support major roles for small farmers and the general public in policy decisions related to GM foods. People who are deeply concerned about the issue of GM foods give higher priority to the general public in policy decisions.
By comparison, people who are not at all concerned or not too concerned about the issue of GM foods give higher priority to scientists in influencing policy decisions. Overall, more Americans give negative than positive assessments of how the media cover GM foods. Ratings of media coverage of GM foods is roughly similar among those with higher and lower concern about the issue of GM foods.
Americans with more science knowledge are especially critical of media coverage on GM foods. Those with little personal concern about this issue are roughly equally divided between whether the news media exaggerate the health threat, do not take the health threat seriously enough or are about right in their reporting.
Views about media attention given to skeptics of the safety of GMOs follow a similar pattern. Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings. It organizes the public into nine distinct groups, based on an analysis of their attitudes and values. Even in a polarized era, the survey reveals deep divisions in both partisan coalitions. Pew Research Center now uses as the last birth year for Millennials in our work.
President Michael Dimock explains why. The vast majority of U. Use this tool to compare the groups on some key topics and their demographics. About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world.
It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts. Newsletters Donate My Account. Research Topics. Public Divides Over Food Science.
Public awareness of genetically modified foods runs the gamut Foods with genetically modified ingredients have been available to Americans since about the mids when U. Who is particularly concerned about the issue of genetically modified foods? Public expectations about the effects of GM foods are mixed; some worry that GMOs will affect environment as well as public health Americans have mixed expectations about the likely effects from genetically modified foods, with many expressing both optimism and pessimism about consequences of GM foods.
Press Releases. Amicus Briefs. BIO Reports. Industry Analysis Reports. Biotech Jobs. Economic Development Best Practices. BIO Briefly. Issue Briefs. Good Day BIO. Health equality in access to medicines and ensuring diversity in clinical trials. In the current and next generation of black scientists and entrepreneurs. Opportunities for women, Black and other minority populations in the growing Bio-economy. Event Portfolio. Business Development. Members Only. All Events. BIO International Convention.
Learn more. October , January , Fostering the success of the Industry. BIO Online Learning. About Us. Learn about our mission, vision, values and priorities. For the next two years, six teams of researchers from government, academia, and industry investigated the issue and concluded that the risk of Bt corn to monarchs was "very low" Sears et al.
Environmental Protection Agency to approve Bt corn for an additional seven years. Another concern associated with GMOs is that private companies will claim ownership of the organisms they create and not share them at a reasonable cost with the public. If these claims are correct, it is argued that use of genetically modified crops will hurt the economy and environment, because monoculture practices by large-scale farm production centers who can afford the costly seeds will dominate over the diversity contributed by small farmers who can't afford the technology.
However, a recent meta-analysis of 15 studies reveals that, on average, two-thirds of the benefits of first-generation genetically modified crops are shared downstream, whereas only one-third accrues upstream Demont et al. These benefit shares are exhibited in both industrial and developing countries. Therefore, the argument that private companies will not share ownership of GMOs is not supported by evidence from first-generation genetically modified crops. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, public acceptance trends in Europe and Asia are mixed depending on the country and current mood at the time of the survey Hoban, Attitudes toward cloning, biotechnology, and genetically modified products differ depending upon people's level of education and interpretations of what each of these terms mean.
Support varies for different types of biotechnology; however, it is consistently lower when animals are mentioned. Furthermore, even if the technologies are shared fairly, there are people who would still resist consumable GMOs, even with thorough testing for safety, because of personal or religious beliefs. The ethical issues surrounding GMOs include debate over our right to "play God," as well as the introduction of foreign material into foods that are abstained from for religious reasons.
Some people believe that tampering with nature is intrinsically wrong, and others maintain that inserting plant genes in animals, or vice versa, is immoral. When it comes to genetically modified foods, those who feel strongly that the development of GMOs is against nature or religion have called for clear labeling rules so they can make informed selections when choosing which items to purchase. Respect for consumer choice and assumed risk is as important as having safeguards to prevent mixing of genetically modified products with non-genetically modified foods.
In order to determine the requirements for such safeguards, there must be a definitive assessment of what constitutes a GMO and universal agreement on how products should be labeled. These issues are increasingly important to consider as the number of GMOs continues to increase due to improved laboratory techniques and tools for sequencing whole genomes, better processes for cloning and transferring genes, and improved understanding of gene expression systems.
Thus, legislative practices that regulate this research have to keep pace. Prior to permitting commercial use of GMOs, governments perform risk assessments to determine the possible consequences of their use, but difficulties in estimating the impact of commercial GMO use makes regulation of these organisms a challenge. In , the first debate over the risks to humans of exposure to GMOs began when a common intestinal microorganism, E.
Initially, safety issues were a concern to individuals working in laboratories with GMOs, as well as nearby residents. However, later debate arose over concerns that recombinant organisms might be used as weapons.
The growing debate, initially restricted to scientists, eventually spread to the public, and in , the National Institutes of Health NIH established the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee to begin to address some of these issues. In the s, when deliberate releases of GMOs to the environment were beginning to occur, the U. Adherence to the guidelines provided by the NIH was voluntary for industry. Also during the s, the use of transgenic plants was becoming a valuable endeavor for production of new pharmaceuticals, and individual companies, institutions, and whole countries were beginning to view biotechnology as a lucrative means of making money Devos et al.
Worldwide commercialization of biotech products sparked new debate over the patentability of living organisms, the adverse effects of exposure to recombinant proteins, confidentiality issues, the morality and credibility of scientists, the role of government in regulating science, and other issues.
In the U. This document recommended that risk assessments be performed on a case-by-case basis. Since then, the case-by-case approach to risk assessment for genetically modified products has been widely accepted; however, the U. Although in the past, thorough regulation was lacking in many countries, governments worldwide are now meeting the demands of the public and implementing stricter testing and labeling requirements for genetically modified crops.
Proponents of the use of GMOs believe that, with adequate research, these organisms can be safely commercialized. There are many experimental variations for expression and control of engineered genes that can be applied to minimize potential risks. Some of these practices are already necessary as a result of new legislation, such as avoiding superfluous DNA transfer vector sequences and replacing selectable marker genes commonly used in the lab antibiotic resistance with innocuous plant-derived markers Ma et al.
Issues such as the risk of vaccine-expressing plants being mixed in with normal foodstuffs might be overcome by having built-in identification factors, such as pigmentation, that facilitate monitoring and separation of genetically modified products from non-GMOs.
Other built-in control techniques include having inducible promoters e. GMOs benefit mankind when used for purposes such as increasing the availability and quality of food and medical care, and contributing to a cleaner environment. If used wisely, they could result in an improved economy without doing more harm than good, and they could also make the most of their potential to alleviate hunger and disease worldwide.
However, the full potential of GMOs cannot be realized without due diligence and thorough attention to the risks associated with each new GMO on a case-by-case basis.
Barta, A. The expression of a nopaline synthase-human growth hormone chimaeric gene in transformed tobacco and sunflower callus tissue. Plant Molecular Biology 6 , — Beyer, P. Journal of Nutrition , S—S Demont, M. GM crops in Europe: How much value and for whom? EuroChoices 6 , 46—53 Devlin, R.
0コメント