Public Acceptance genetically modified (GM) crops and food

The speed at which genetically modified (‘GM’) crops and food havearrived has been unexpectedly rapid. In North America, where labelling of GM food or products is not undertaken unless there is a substantial difference from non-GM food, there are more than 300 million people routinely eating GM produce. In Europe, different forces prevail on public opinion, many of which are more connected with other events such as the ‘mad cow disease’ (BSE) outbreak in the UK, trust of scientists, politics and trade. These will slow acceptance and development of GM foods and biotechnology and put Europe at a competitive disadvantage compared with North America. Australia lies between Europe and North America in terms of public acceptance of GM crops and food, with transgenic cotton and carnations currently commercialised.
Major questions in acceptance of GM technology arise:

- Is GM food safe?
- Are there any long-term effects from eating GM food?
- Should all GM food be labelled?
- Should consumers have the right to choose between GM and non-GM food?
- Will they contain new allergens?
- What are the environmental consequences?
There is, of course, no logical reason why any organisation would wish to produce unsafe food. At present, GM food is subjected to much more stringent testing than conventional foods and is probably safer as a result. The labelling issue is not as simple as it may seem. It is straightforward to label a transgenic tomato as such but, for example, soy products are used in differing amounts in thousands of processed foods and it is difficult to label these in a meaningful and informative way. Similarly, cotton oil is relatively pure and free of DNA or protein derived from transgenes conferring herbicide tolerance. Does it need to be labelled as GM? Is it substantially equivalent to the non-GM product or not – where should the line be drawn? There are also concerns about ‘ethnically’ sensitive genes (e.g. a gene derived from a pig inserted in a crop plant) and access of developing countries to GM technologies.
The large-scale consumption of GM food in North America by 300 million people since its introduction, without any reported problems, supports the general view based on the science that GM food is safe. Environmental issues should perhaps be of more concern. Pollination of
organic crops by transgenic maize is an issue,80 as is possible injury to Monarch butterfly caterpillars eating food plants dusted with Bt maize pollen. In contrast, there are reports of increased numbers of birds of prey after 3 years’ growth of Bt insect-resistant crops, as fewer nontarget insects are killed, and this effect is transmitted through the food chain.
At present, public debate often has little to do with the science and actual risks and more to do with sensationalism and disinformation. Banner headlines occur regularly in the press, on ‘Demon Seeds’, ‘Mutant Foods from the Gene Giants’, ‘Frankenstein foods’, etc.
However, this phase is expected to pass fairly rapidly, as understanding of the benefits of the technologies in efficient food production, improved food quality, protection of the environment and of biodiversity are realised.