Public Perceptions of Biotechnology PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by Deleted User
Alan McHughen
Tags
Summary
This review examines public perceptions of biotechnology, focusing on agricultural and food applications. The author discusses the need for accurate information to facilitate rational public debate on the technology's risks and benefits. The role of public education and media in shaping perceptions is addressed.
Full Transcript
1105_1111_200700071_McHughen.qxd:BIOT_2006 30.08.2007 13:13 Uhr Seite 1105 Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 1105–1111 DOI 10.1002/biot.200700071 www.biotechnology-journal.com Review Public perceptions o...
1105_1111_200700071_McHughen.qxd:BIOT_2006 30.08.2007 13:13 Uhr Seite 1105 Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 1105–1111 DOI 10.1002/biot.200700071 www.biotechnology-journal.com Review Public perceptions of biotechnology Alan McHughen University of California, Riverside, CA, USA The very term ‘Biotechnology’ elicits a range of emotions, from wonder and awe to downright fear Received 16 April 2007 and hostility. This is especially true among non-scientists, particularly in respect of agricultural and Revised 7 June 2007 food biotechnology. These emotions indicate just how poorly understood agricultural biotechnol- Accepted 27 June 2007 ogy is and the need for accurate, dispassionate information in the public sphere to allow a ration- al public debate on the actual, as opposed to the perceived, risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology. This review considers first the current state of public knowledge on agricultural biotechnology, and then explores some of the popular misperceptions and logical inconsistencies in both Europe and North America. I then consider the problem of widespread scientific illiteracy, and the role of the popular media in instilling and perpetuating misperceptions. The impact of in- appropriate efforts to provide ‘balance’ in a news story, and of belief systems and faith also im- pinges on public scientific illiteracy. Getting away from the abstract, we explore a more concrete example of the contrasting approach to agricultural biotechnology adoption between Europe and North America, in considering divergent approaches to enabling coexistence in farming practices. I then question who benefits from agricultural biotechnology. Is it only the big companies, or is society at large – and the environment – also deriving some benefit? Finally, a crucial aspect in such a technologically complex issue, ordinary and intelligent non-scientifically trained consumers cannot be expected to learn the intricacies of the technology to enable a personal choice to sup- port or reject biotechnology products. The only reasonable and pragmatic alternative is to place trust in someone to provide honest advice. But who, working in the public interest, is best suited to provide informed and accessible, but objective, advice to wary consumers? Keywords: Agricultural biotechnology · Misperceptions · Public education · Public perceptions · Scientific illiteracy 1 Introduction teins, saturated fats, trans fats, polyunsaturated veg- etable oils, monounsaturated fat, good carbs, bad carbs, In the generation prior to biotechnology, food, health and good cholesterol (HDL), bad cholesterol (LDL) and it is dif- diet appeared fairly straightforward and simple, but today ficult to keep them all straight. This is particularly true these are much more technical and complex. Earlier, all when components identified as being good or bad change food was assumed ‘natural’, with calories coming from status, such as fats or cholesterol, which at one time were food constituents starch, protein and especially fat. A invariably ‘bad’ and now may be good or bad, depending poor diet, typically indicated in western countries by obe- on other factors. sity, was corrected by reducing caloric intake, particular- We have also changed lifestyles, with leisure time ly fats and encouraging exercise. shifting from a reasonably active recreational allocation to Today, life is not so simple. Food, we know now, con- a more sedentary TV-watching ‘couch potato’ or internet sist of proteins, starch and carbohydrates (carbs), oils and web-surfing pastime. Changes in farm production, food fats. In addition, we’ve learned about cholesterol, lipopro- processing, storage and long distance transport capabili- ties increased food variety, availability and choice, all at Correspondence: Dr. Alan McHughen, Botany and Plant Science Depart- decreasing cost. The dramatic growth of fast food outlets ment, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA since the 1960s allowed ever more choice and more ‘free E-mail: [email protected] time’ for consumers in a hurry to get back to the rapidly Fax: +1-951-827-5717 expanding, but sedentary, TV and internet universe. © 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 1105 1105_1111_200700071_McHughen.qxd:BIOT_2006 30.08.2007 13:13 Uhr Seite 1106 Biotechnology Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 1105–1111 Journal Today, obesity is increasing, especially among chil- The results, expressed as a percentage of respondents an- dren. Concerned parents, themselves often fighting an swering correctly, were unimpressive: expanding waistband, seeking answers and remedies are – 48% Are GM foods in US supermarkets? confused by the abundance of information and advice, – 40% Do ordinary tomatoes contain genes? much of it coming from unqualified sources, or from those – 42% Would a tomato with a fish gene taste “fishy”? seeking to sell a magic solution. Miracle diets, prescrip- – 45% If you ate a GM fruit, might it alter your genes? tion drugs, herbal weight loss nostrums and radical inter- – 30% Can animal genes be inserted into a plant? ventions such as liposuction and stomach stapling sur- gery are among the choices now. Government regulations Clearly, even before asking about biotechnological ap- ensure prescription drugs are safe and efficacious, but so- proaches to food production, consumers need to learn called natural drugs and herbal remedies are exempt from something about basic biology and agriculture. The sta- FDA oversight in the USA, due to DSHEA (Dietary Sup- tus of ordinary consumer’s knowledge of food and agri- plement Health and Education Act of 1994). This means culture is frightening to those of us involved in public ed- that formulations with little or no true benefit can be sold ucation. It indicates a serious need for greatly expanded to confused consumers; the best hope is that these prod- educational services when most people do not recognize ucts work as placebos. Under DSHEA, only the clearly DNA as a natural component of ordinary tomatoes. Per- dangerous such products, such as ephedra, can be cap- haps worse, respondents are not even aware of the degree tured for regulatory authority by the FDA, and even then, of their own ignorance. These few questions, although a only after mislead consumers have suffered and perhaps small and not random sample, all provide for binary an- died. swers (Yes or No). If people who didn’t know the answer This sets the stage for biotechnology, a powerful tech- simply guessed, the proportion should have come out to nology when applied to providing drugs, and an even 50% correct. Optimistically, any reasonable proportion of more powerful, even scary, technology when applied to knowledgeable respondents knowing the true correct an- food. Borne from the cutting edge high technology of mo- swer would pull the mean well into the 50 – 60% range. lecular genetics and recombinant DNA (rDNA), how can Unfortunately, the data indicate the results were not ordinary consumers make informed choices regarding skewed upward but actually down, indicating that re- biotechnology when they cannot comprehend the funda- spondents were not simply guessing, but actively thought mentals of molecular genetics? they knew the correct answer. The problem is, what they ‘knew’ to be correct was actually wrong! Therefore, the public educator trying to teach ordinary consumers about 2 Current status of public knowledge of food, food and food production is not starting from a level field agriculture and biotechnology of ignorance, they start well behind ignorance, and must unlearn the incorrect information consumers have come A number of public opinion surveys on public attitudes to to believe is true but isn’t. various aspects of biotechnology and GM foods are avail- Americans are not alone in their deep ignorance of able. Some of these are professionally designed and con- food and agriculture, so before blaming the appalling re- ducted, yielding a large amount of useful and illuminating sult on the US educational system, consider the similar re- information. Others are poorly designed and often intend- sults from the European survey on public attitudes, called ed, evidently, to garner support for a particular viewpoint. the Eurobarometer {INRA (EUROPE) – ECOSA, 2000 }. Finally, anecdotal evidence from direct contact with ordi- Across the European Union, when asked if ordinary toma- nary consumers, although scientifically weak as it is due toes contained genes, one-third of respondents said ‘No’, to the tiny samples and non-random selections, can pro- and another third said “Don’t know”. The question asking vide some illumination of popular opinions and concerns, if eating a GM fruit might alter one’s own genes resulted as well as demonstrate, on a marginal basis, the extent of in one third saying “Don’t know”, and one quarter said popular understanding of complex issues such as food “Yes’. production and biotechnology. One other Eurobarometer question was very similar to Among the professional surveys is the FP+I survey that of the FPI survey. Respondents were asked if they from 2004 , in which American consumers were asked agreed with the statement “It is impossible to transfer an- a slate of questions on food, including some relevant to imal genes to plants”. Almost half said “Don’t know” and biotechnology. Among the questions were these gems a quarter each said “Yes’ and “No”. Clearly, citizens on (wording edited for space): both sides of the Atlantic cannot make informed deci- – Are GM foods in US supermarkets? sions and choices about biotechnology when they lack – Do ordinary tomatoes contain genes? even the underlying knowledge necessary for making ra- – Would a tomato with a fish gene taste “fishy”? tional comparisons. – If you ate a GM fruit, might it alter your genes? With this dismal level of basic knowledge among non- – Can animal genes be inserted into a plant? scientists setting the stage, the next issue is how to help 1106 © 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 1105_1111_200700071_McHughen.qxd:BIOT_2006 30.08.2007 13:13 Uhr Seite 1107 Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 1105–1111 www.biotechnology-journal.com consumers make better informed decisions. Fortunately, ‘sacred’, and the thought of creating a new organism with the International Food Information Council (IFIC) 2006 human genetic material is ethically unacceptable. The survey shows that while almost 2/3 of respondents say irony, of course, is that the majority of GM crops – the ones they’ve heard little or nothing about biotechnology, they attracting the most concern – are indeed grown with re- often express a desire to learn. This provides some en- duced environmental pesticidal load, and the most com- couragement to those of us in public education. mon and popular supported GM medical application is in- Less encouraging is where non-specialists seek infor- sulin, produced from bacteria into which a human gene mation. Most people now get their information from the had been inserted. internet, with zero quality control and plenty of organiza- tions with an agenda to sell. Television and radio remain 3.2 Terminator confusion major sources, but few programs can provide in depth analysis of technical issues. There are some excellent sci- The ETC group coined “Terminator” for the patent award- ence programs available, but they tend to be underrepre- ed to USDA and Delta and Pine Land on a mechanism to sented. Popular media remains a major source of informa- produce sterile seeds. What the patented mechanism tion, but also a major source of misinformation and there- does – at least in theory – is ensure seeds produced on the fore confusion. Accessible technical journals do exist and transgenic plant expressing the ‘terminator’ genes can- help inform a small cadre of non-scientists interested not germinate. In practice, it does not work well enough enough to actually subscribe and read the articles. But to justify commercialization (too ‘leaky’, producing too this group is a very small segment of society, and not the many fertile, viable seeds), and, with public opinion dead group needing help. set against it, Monsanto shelved plans to develop it for their commercialized GM crops. There are two major con- cerns driving public opposition: (1) Farmers, contrary to 3 Some examples of inconsistencies and ancient practice, would not be able to keep a portion of misunderstandings based on poorly informed the harvested seed of one season to use in planting the populace next crop. Instead, farmers of crops with the terminator gene would be forced to buy new seeds each year. Ac- 3.1 Red vs. Green cording to opponents, this would impose an unfair hard- ship, particularly on resource-poor farmers, and deprive A curious paradox relates to the apparent contradiction in them of an ancient right. (2) There is the fear that the ter- public opinion contrasting “red” or medical and health ap- minator gene would escape from the farm, infect nearby plications of biotechnology and “green” or agricultural crops and native plants, and render those recipient plants and food applications. rDNA has been used to transfer sterile also. Both of these scenarios incite great emotion- genes from one species to another to create useful prod- al fear in the public mind; as well they should, if they were ucts both in the medical and health field (e.g., insulin) and truly founded on fact. In the first case, terminator tech- in the agriculture and food field (e.g., cooking oil from GM nology would indeed require farmers to acquire fresh seed soybeans). The major controversy in the public debate is every year. But this is true of current hybrid technology, clearly over the agricultural applications, where concerns adopted and accepted by farmers for half a century. Even over ‘unexpected results’ or ‘long-term health conse- many farmers in developing countries grow hybrid corn quences’ restrain agricultural and food development. The and do buy seed each year. In this respect, terminator is same technology, with the same kind and degree of risks, not forcing unwary farmers into buying fresh seed each when used to create medical products attracts minimal year, as they are already familiar with the practice, and such concerns. That is, if GM soybeans, due exclusively can choose whether they wish to grow hybrids or not. Ter- to the process of rDNA in their development, were even- minator technology will not deprive farmers of anything tually found to cause some unexpected medical disorder, they enjoy now. But it would give them an option to then GM insulin should also cause the disorder and war- choose a new technology that may be beneficial for them, rants the same current concern. But it does not; the pub- just as many farmers choose hybrids and buy fresh seed lic seems not only to tolerate medical applications of year after year. Apart from this, agronomists recommend biotechnology, but also to embrace them. that farmers buy fresh seed as often as possible, even with A second, more ironic curious paradox on this same is- those crops and cultivars where seed may be saved for sue is the widespread public opinion that if any agricul- subsequent replanting. Fresh pedigreed seed is cleaner tural applications would be acceptable, it would be a GM and of higher quality than saved seed, so the upfront fi- crop developed for better environmental sustainability – nancial outlay is usually compensated by better quality say reduced pesticide use. On the other hand, the sug- and higher yields at harvest time, translating into better gestion to transfer human genetic material to a lesser financial returns for the farmer. species (and they are all lesser species) is often met with The second issue can be readily dismissed. The great horrified dismay. Humans – including their genes – are fear of having life on Earth eradicated by a rampant steril- © 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 1107 1105_1111_200700071_McHughen.qxd:BIOT_2006 30.08.2007 13:13 Uhr Seite 1108 Biotechnology Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 1105–1111 Journal ity gene is palpable, but a moment of rational considera- buy organic food because they believe organic is safer, tion can calm these waters. If the point of the terminator and to them, their faith that something is true makes it gene is to cause sterility, how can it spread? The original, factual, in spite of a lack of evidence to support the belief. intended GM crop plant produces seeds that do not ger- The journalist does not challenge the organic consumers minate, and if pollen containing the gene is transferred to with the scientific evidence undermining their beliefs, ei- a distant host, the one seed resulting from the fertilization ther directly to the young couple or to us, the viewers, who by the one GM pollen grain similarly doesn’t germinate. If may come away with the impression that both sides are a seed with terminator cannot even germinate, it would equally credible and legitimate. To those with expertise or be difficult to even invade, let alone conquer, the country- who apply critical analysis, the interview is ludicrously side. Since the whole point of the terminator gene was to lopsided, but to the ordinary consumer, it may seem like contain the GM plants and keep them from spreading, the both sides gave compelling arguments. The journalists, in fear of widespread and untimely demise of life on Earth is their own defense, will claim they are merely providing greatly exaggerated. both sides of the story, as is their professional obligation. Fear often keeps us from thinking clearly. Instead of in- But this is easily countered: When the same journalists in- citing derision, terminator (or a similar gene containment terview an astrophysicist on the latest estimates of the system) may be applied to maintain control over GM age of the universe, they do not also interview a biblical crops, to keep them from consorting with non-GM crops literalist to challenge the scientist and present the ‘other growing nearby, thus mitigating the concerns from or- side’. Similarly, when talking to a genetic engineer about ganic farmers and others fearful of GM spread. Indeed, in advances in medical applications of rDNA, they usually international negotiations Canada has officially suggest- tap a technical competitor to offer alternative approaches, ed using a GM sterility system for exactly this purpose, and rarely interview the anti-biotech activists invariably but the suggestions was dismissed by anti-GM activists interviewed in agbiotech stories. In these situations, the worldwide, even though such a system would advance media is complicit in misleading the populace by pre- their desired agenda. senting the inexpert as an expert. Popular opinions on GM crops and foods vary widely. A UK television story presented a relatively positive view- 4 How do we deal with the problem of science point of a GM crop – a GM safflower modified to produce illiteracy among the public? pharmaceutical grade insulin (BBC-2, 2007 ). The web- page includes a blog service, allowing viewers to respond 4.1 Media issues to the story. Of the 46 coherent (a small number were not) responses to date, the range of opinions (clearly not a sci- In an effort to provide balance, most media try to present entifically valid study, as these are self-selected respon- ‘both sides’ of a story, particularly in controversial issues dents) is reasonably representative of my own anecdotal such as biotech in food. But this is a mistake. In contro- experience. Seventeen responses (34%) were negative, versial issues of, say politics, it is appropriate to interview arguing agricultural biotech is primarily driven by corpo- and give reasonably equal coverage to politicians on ei- rate greed; 9 (18%) were negative, saying we do not have ther side of an issue. Such coverage is said to be balanced enough confidence in managing the risks to food or envi- and fair with both sides having a chance to explain their ronmental safety, 4 (8%) were opposed to humans “mess- positions. Both sides should present cogent arguments by ing” with nature, 16 (32%) were more positive, saying let’s articulate and credible spokespeople. But in scientific is- take a closer look and allow it if the benefits outweigh the sues, the media provides equal opportunity to those with risks. Interestingly, those worried about agbiotech being unequal credibility and authority. Interviews almost in- dominated by big multinational corporations rarely offer variably “balance” a person with high credibility, such as to support public institutions in their development of ag- Nobel laureate Norman Borlaug, speaking in favor of de- biotech crops for the public good. Public institutions such ploying biotechnology to assist poorer and malnourished as USDA and many agricultural universities have been peoples, against a charismatic opponent with little or no actively pursuing agbiotech crop breeding programs scientific expertise. A recent example comes from CBS since the early 1980s, at the very beginning of the tech- national news in the US. The clip, entitled “Are organic nology, and were instrumental in forging the enabling foods really any safer?” (CBS-TV news, 2007 ) asks a technologies. Unfortunately, critics of the big companies common and legitimate question to which many con- perhaps unwittingly condemn small companies and pub- sumers would seek an informed answer. But the clip – lic institutions at the same time, effectively throwing the necessarily brief in a news program – interviews an ex- baby out with the bathwater. pert academic nutritionist who says there is no scientific Also noteworthy is that those critical of big company data to support the notion that organic food is any safer involvement in biotech are curiously silent concerning than regular food. Then, the interview shifts to a young big company involvement in non-biotech seed, food and couple of non-scientist organic consumers, who say they 1108 © 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 1105_1111_200700071_McHughen.qxd:BIOT_2006 30.08.2007 13:13 Uhr Seite 1109 Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 1105–1111 www.biotechnology-journal.com other agricultural products, including the domination of neutral third party, in which farmers growing GM crops the organic industry by big companies. place a pin in the map to mark the location. The neutral Those critics of biotech driven by concern over possi- third party then notifies interested farmers nearby that a ble risks have, at least, some legitimacy in expressing GM crop is being grown, and the interested farmer can their concerns. What they may not be aware of is the ex- take whatever measures appropriate to minimize con- tent of regulatory oversight investigating those same con- tamination. Critics of this system argue that the plan, be- cerns for substantiated threats to the environment and ing voluntary, is entirely dependent upon the good will of food supply. Independent experts have studied those the GM farmer to place the pin in the map. This is a legit- threats since the early days of the technology, and invari- imate concern, but it was the goodwill of regular farmers ably come to the same conclusion, that products of who voluntarily came to the table with organic farmers in biotechnology pose the same risks as products of con- the first place, even though the vote of the ballot initiative ventional breeding. Such professional and independent gave them the public mandate to ignore their organic organizations as the Organization for Economic Coopera- neighbors altogether. If and when this coexistence meas- tion and Development (OECD) and US National Research ure is implemented, many jurisdictions will be watching Council of the National Academies of Science (NRC) have closely to see how well it operates. been conducting comprehensive scientific analyses of risks associated with various aspects of biotechnology 5.2 Coexistence in European Union since 1986 (see, for example, OECD, 1986 , NRC, 1987 ). For more recent scientific studies on environmental The EU decided the tolerance for commingling, admix- risks, see NRC, 2002 and, for health risks, see NRC 2004 tures or other forms of GM ‘contamination’ are to be lim-. ited to 0.9%, and any exceeding that threshold should be The critics opposed to human intervention in natural so labeled. In 2003, the European Commission published processes, or in “God’s domain” (to use HRH Prince guidelines for policies to ensure the coexistence of GM, Charles’ argument) are expressing a religious or spiritual conventional and organic crops (2003/556/EC). In belief. And it is their right to hold such beliefs. But their contrast to the California coexistence proposal, the EU co- beliefs do not relate to scientific safety issues, they are in- existence policy imposes the burden of costs on the par- stead a legitimate personal conviction. While they can ty introducing an innovation, saying “those farmers bring- choose to reject biotechnology for any reason, they can- ing in the innovation into a region should be the ones tak- not legitimately force others to adhere to the same beliefs. ing measures and changing practices if needed to ensure Finally, their beliefs seem hypocritical when they fail to coexistence.” (Gómez-Barbero and Rodríguez-Cerezo, condemn the same ‘meddling’ when used to make phar- 2007 ). In theory, this policy will allow farmers to maceuticals, or fail to condemn equally intrusive breeding choose their crops in peaceful coexistence with those technologies such as induced mutagenesis, embryo res- who choose others. But the pragmatic question is how cue, somaclonal variation or other ‘conventional’ breed- many farmers will accept the seemingly unlimited liabili- ing technologies used to develop new crop varieties. ty. The policy also fails to define ‘innovation’, so farmers (and crop breeders) may unnecessarily eschew all manner of new innovations in agriculture, fearing that such inno- 5 Coexistence: Contrasts between US and vative products as seedless fruit, broccoflower, dwarf European approaches wheat or other non-GM developments may run into simi- lar liability issues. 5.1 Coexistence in the USA San Luis Obispo County, California, conducted a demo- 6 Who benefits? cratic vote in 2004 to ban GMOs. Local farmers cam- paigned against the ballot measure, and they were sup- One of the common complaints about biotech crops is ported by the populace when the votes were finally tallied, that they are designed to benefit primarily, if not exclu- much to the dismay of anti-biotech community there. sively, the big companies who developed them. To many Nevertheless, the County, seeking to heal tensions, people suspicious of private enterprise, this seems to sought to negotiate a coexistence mechanism to allow make sense, because the GM crops on the market are al- farmers the right to grow GMO crops if they so chose, and most all modified for input traits like herbicide tolerance also to allow organic and other farmers who wish to avoid or insect resistance, and little or nothing to offer end con- GMOs the opportunity to take appropriate measures. The sumers. Various studies have shown, however, that while success of the compromise is based on the traditional private companies are in business to compete and report farmer’s community ideal neighborliness and good com- a profit, GM crops do generate benefits to ordinary peo- munication. The proposed mechanism is based on a pin- ple, from the farmers who grow them to the consumers map of the locale, maintained by a non-governmental who (ultimately) eat them. For example, GM insect-re- © 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 1109 1105_1111_200700071_McHughen.qxd:BIOT_2006 30.08.2007 13:13 Uhr Seite 1110 Biotechnology Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 1105–1111 Journal sistant Bt corn is demonstrably safer than regular corn, 7 Whom do you trust? due to the diminution of mycotoxins. In developed coun- tries, that is not a major issue because regulatory inspec- Ultimately, it comes down to a question of trust. Ordinary tions ensure corn with higher than allowed mycotoxins consumers do not have the time or inclination to learn the are kept off the market. But in poorer countries with lax or various intricacies or technicalities of molecular genetics no such regulations, consumers directly benefit from the and of agriculture generally. They may be interested, even safer GM Bt corn. In more general terms, consumers also anxious, about agriculture and food safety and security, benefit from lower grain prices resulting from the higher but most ordinary consumers would rather find someone yields generated by GM crops. Again, this is particularly they trust to champion the public interest and provide ad- evident in poorer countries, where the yield potential of vice on esoteric scientific issues. regular corn is rarely achieved because the poorer farmers In the USA, public trust is usually afforded to govern- cannot afford the input costs of crop protection chemicals ment agencies to investigate environmental and health taken for granted in richer countries. hazards, to set and enforce appropriate regulations, and to An indication that the value that the GM crops accrue advise the public in an accessible manner on these is- benefits more than the companies is evident in the world- sues. Biotechnology is not new in this regard, everything wide adoption of GM crops among farmers (who by nature from automobiles to barbeques warrants appropriate ex- are no more inclined to support private industry than their perts working in the public interest to assure safety, and neighbors). Last year, according to James , 10 million typically these experts are employed by government farmers (10.3 million) in 22 countries planted 102 million agencies. hectares of biotech crops, making GM the fastest adopt- But where do we find such experts? Industry certain- ed technology in the history of agriculture. In doing so, ly employs scientists with appropriate expertise. But in- they substantially increased their income, achieved a dustry scientists are usually prohibited from public out- 15.3% reduction in environmental impact (due mainly to reach – that’s the job of the sales force. And when they do reduced pesticide use), and substantially reduced green- engage in public education, their presentation must con- house gas emissions (Brookes and Barfoot ). Farmers form to the company line. In addition, activists are sure to may try a new product once, but if the product disap- point out that industry people cannot be trusted, as their points and fails to provide tangible benefit, the farmer will loyalty is to the shareholders, not the public. Similarly, reject it and go back to what he or she had been growing government employs many capable scientists and their previously. But that has not happened with GM crops. If loyalty should be to the taxpayers. But, again, activists anything, the demand is only increasing. This is occur- quickly criticize and challenge the loyalty of government ring even in Europe, arguably the most GM-hostile area scientists, as public service experts exchange jobs with on the planet, and even in France, where farmers are very industry on a regular basis, the “revolving door policy with traditional and any innovation, including biotechnology, big industry”, thus undermining their allegiance and is looked upon with great skepticism. In 2005, a handful of credibility. The other major source of scientists with ap- tentative French farmers were allowed to grow a mere 500 propriate expertise is academia, as both public and pri- hectares of GM corn under government supervision. In vate universities engage in broad research into the issues. 2006, the area increased 10-fold, and intentions for 2007 But here again, the credibility and loyalty of even public estimate another 6- to 10-fold increase, for a total of academics is challenged by some activists who point out 60–100-fold increase over just 2 years (USDA-FAS, 2007 that many academic research programs are funded by in- ). Clearly, the previously skeptical French farmers are dustry, and question whether the academic scientist can seeing some benefit from GM corn; the benefits are not be truly objective if their research program is tied to the going entirely to the private companies. According to the industry in question. same report, the benefits enjoyed by the French farmers Fortunately, most people do place trust in legitimate included a 9 – 12% yield increase and a dramatic drop in experts. Usually, the most trusted sources for scien- toxic fumonisin content. tific/medical information are academic scientists. Family A recent study in the EU investigated benefits from physicians are a powerful and influential source of infor- the only member country growing substantial acreage of mation, but typically that is restricted to the patient’s own a GM crop: Bt corn in Spain. Zika et al. said “The health concerns. And physicians typically are not the largest share of welfare (value) created by the introduction most knowledgeable when it comes to agriculture and of Bt maize (i.e., corn) (74.4 % on average) went to Bt food issues, and in any case are usually too busy to learn maize farmers and the rest went to the seed companies and disseminate such information. Academic scientists (25.6% on average), taken to include seed developers, working on agriculture and food are knowledgeable and seed producers and seed distributors”. credible sources of meaningful information for ordinary consumers. Unfortunately, typical academic scientists suffer two major deficiencies: One, most academic scien- tists have honed their communication skills to interact 1110 © 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 1105_1111_200700071_McHughen.qxd:BIOT_2006 30.08.2007 13:13 Uhr Seite 1111 Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 1105–1111 www.biotechnology-journal.com with other scientists, and are not adept at communicat- ing technical information in an accessible manner re- Alan McHughen is a public sector edu- quired by non-scientists. Two, most academic scientists cator, scientist and consumer advo- are penalized by their university employer if they do at- cate. After earning his doctorate at Ox- tempt to communicate with the general public, because ford University, Dr. McHughen worked their career progression depends on technical research at Yale University and the University of and teaching within the academy. Those academics with Saskatchewan before joining the Uni- versity of California, Riverside. A molec- accessible communication skills and who are conscien- ular geneticist with an interest in crop tious enough to take time away from their ‘real work’ to improvement and environmental sus- help inform the public are penalized because the efforts tainability, he helped develop US and are not recognized by their employers – even those in Canadian regulations covering geneti- public universities – and because every hour they spend cally engineered crops and foods. He served on recent US National on outreach or public education is an hour they did not Academy of Sciences panels investigating the environmental effects of spend conducting research. Both of these deficiencies are transgenic plants, and a second investigating the health effects of ge- netically modified foods. He is now Past President and Treasurer of major obstacles to a scientifically literate populace, and the International Society for Biosafety Research (ISBR). His award win- must be overcome if we wish a better informed public. ning book, ‘Pandora’s Picnic Basket; The Potential and Hazards of Ge- netically Modified Foods’ (Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-850674- 0), uses understandable, consumer-friendly language to explode the 8 Concluding remarks myths and explore the genuine risks of genetic modification (GM) technology. Clearly, most ordinary consumers lack the ability to voice an informed opinion on agricultural biotechnology, CBS-TV News, Are Organic Foods Really Any Safer? Thalia Assuras whether that is to support or reject it. As a public scien- Reports Some Scientists Believe Organic Foods Are No Healthier. tist, particularly disturbing is encountering an interested 2007, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/07/eveningnews/ citizen supporting or rejecting biotechnology against main2660788.shtml. BBC2, The return of GM crops. 2007, http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ their own values, because of simple misunderstandings. newsnight/2007/04/the_return_of_gm_crops.html. It is a sad reflection on the state of modern society – and Organization for Economic cooperation and Development (OECD), especially of education – when people vote against their Recombinant DNA safety considerations: safety considerations for industrial, agricultural and environmental applications of organisms own best interest. Such people probably are not interest- derived by recombinant DNA techniques, 1986, http://www.oecd. ed in being taught the intricacies of molecular genetics to org/dataoecd/45/54/1943773.pdf enable the better informed debate and decision. But they National Research Council, Introduction of Recombinant DNA-engi- neered organisms into the environment: Key issues. White paper p. may be willing to learn critical thinking skills to enable 24. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. 1987. better analysis of all controversial issues facing them in National Research Council, 2002. Environmental effects of trans- our increasingly complex modern world. genic plants. National Academies Press, Washington DC. National Research Council, Safety of genetically engineered foods. Those best suited to mentor these skills are academic National Academies Press, Washington D.C. 2004. scientists. Few such scientists are employed to engage in Official Journal of the European Union, 2003, http://europa.eu. public outreach efforts, so the first step to a better in- int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_189/l_18920030729en00360047.pdf Zika, E., Papatryfon, I., Wolf, O., Gómez-Barbero, M. et al., Conse- formed populace is to remove the professional obstacles quences, opportunities and challenges of modern biotechnology for deterring more academics from engagement. Unfortu- Europe, 2007, http://bio4eu.jrc.es/documents/Bio4EUsynthesisre- nately and paradoxically, few universities – including portEUR22728EN.pdf. See also, Gómez-Barbero, M., Rodríguez- public universities – see public education and social em- Cerezo, E., GM crops in EU agriculture. Case study for the BIO4EU project (Draft). European Commission, 2007. powerment as their responsibility. Dalmacio, S. C., Lugod, T., Serrano, R. E.M., Munkvold, G. P., Re- duced incidence of bacterial rot on transgenic insect-resistant maize in the Philippines. Plant Dis. 2007, 91:346–351. James, C., Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops, 2006 9 References ISAAA report 35. ISAAA, Ithaca, NY 2007, http://www.isaaa.org/re- sources/publications/briefs/35/highlights/default.html. Hallman, W. K., Hebden, W. C., Cuite, C. L., Aquino, H. L., Lang, J. Brookes, G., Barfoot, P., GM Crops: The First Ten Years - Global So- T., Americans and GM Food: Knowledge, Opinion and Interest in cio-Economic and Environmental Impacts. ISAAA Brief 36. ISAAA, 2004. Food Policy Institute Report RR-1104-007, 2004. Ithaca, NY 2006, http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/ INRA (EUROPE) – ECOSA, 2000. The Europeans and Biotechnology. briefs/36/default.html. Eurobarometer Report 52.1, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/ USDA-Foreign Agriculture Service, France, Biotechnology Positive archives/ebs/ebs_134_en.pdf. 2006 Results & New Regulatory Framework Improve 2007 Prospects. International Food Information Council (IFIC). Food Biotechnology: GAIN report FR7013, 2007, http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/ A Study of U.S. Consumer Attitudinal Trends, 2006 Report. 200703/146280665.pdf. http://www.ific.org/research/upload/2006%20Biotech%20Con- National Science Foundation (NSF), Science and Engineering indi- sumer%20Research%20Report.pdf. cators, 2006. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s3.htm# Gaskell, G., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Corchero, C. et al., Europeans c7s3l4. See also: IPSOS-MORI, 2006 Public Trust In Doctors Is Still and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends. Final report on High, http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2006/rcp.shtml and Canadi- Eurobarometer 64.3., 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/ar- an Biotechnology Secretariat, Canada-U.S. Survey on Biotechnolo- chives/ebs/ebs_244b_en.pdf. gy, Ottawa 2005. © 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 1111