Over 55% of Americans are against Genetically Modified foods; in Italy it is 74% while in France over 87% of the total population interviewed believed Genetically Modified food is harmful to human health. Indeed this is the view shared by the larger population across Europe which is against the steps taken by the United States in its bid to have countries accept to take up genetically modified foods their market. Genetically Modified foods are foods produced through genetic engineering.
This is through a process that takes place in the laboratory where the DNA of an organism is altered with an intention of modifying its traits to ensure it survives in the desired conditions or environment. Genetically modified crops can produce uncharacteristically high yields or survive in unusual harsh conditions. This is the logic behind their modification. The first evidence of Genetically Modified food was in California where a tomato was engineered to improve its resistance to diseases.
Initially the introduction of this tomato into the market was received well, building a perception that consumers would welcome such products in future. This however would change especially across Europe after the widespread case of the mad cow disease that would put in to disrepute the ability of government to effectively regulate food production standards (Neils Fold, Bill Pritchord, 2005,121). United States represents one of the major nations that have embraced the production and consumption of genetically modified foods leading the pack of other countries such as Argentina, china India and South Africa.
It is in Europe that much spirited opposition to these foodstuffs is being put with the government being under pressure from the public to regulate the production and consumption of these products often citing health hazards posed to the public. The position of this paper is that this opposition to genetically modified foods especially Europe is warranted until the dangers that they pose to human health can be established. The European Union had banned the production and importation of genetically modified food for six years. This ban however was lifted on May 2004 after the European Union Commission ruled that it be lifted.
The greatest force behind this was the United States that was decrying huge loses in terms of sale as the importation had been curtailed. The European Union members had all along been unable to come in to agreement in regard to what was appropriate. It is important to note the policies of the United States and European Union as far as Genetically Modified organisms are concerned; to understand the different social and policy stands taken by the two blocs. In the United States there has been a low outcry from the public regarding GM foods, this issue has not enjoyed much sensationalization in the media.
With no spirited fight at home and in recognition of the economic potency that lies in genetically modified foods, the government has been quick to grant a conducive and enabling environment for the market to thrive. Over 55% of the total land surface on earth covered with genetically engineered crops is in the United States. This, in 2005, amounted to over 222 million acres. There has been a rapid increase in other areas especially is southern America and India. Dave Toke that this opposition is widespread in the world although mostly centered in Europe. He says:
Unfortunately for the biotechnology industry, European consumers may prove not to be idiosyncratic in this skepticism about Gm food. In India, where the dominant Hindu religion favors vegetarianism, many are worried about animal genes being spread onto vegetables. (2004,P 29) This is just a simple exemplification of the interaction of social politics with science as is the case in Europe where for some individual countries; the situation is rather grim for these crops. This situation has been curtailed by the big role that media plays in shaping the tastes of the public.
The media has blatantly demonized these products and the message has sunk deep in to the people’s mind. Media limelight has been on this. The lifting of the ban by the EU communion has seen the upsurge of these products being introduced to the market but still the response from the consumers has not been encouraging. There are a number of factors that have shaped this deep resentment and opposition apart from the media. The mad cow incident is still fresh in the minds of many people in Europe. The mad cow disease outbreak painted a bad picture in the people’s minds, distrusting the ability of government institutions to regulate health issues.
Despite the official guarantee by the government that there was no likelihood of an outbreak, the opposite happened. The bird flu also further eroded the publics’ confidence in the guarantees of what was safe for consumption and what was unsafe. This erosion has made people to be wary of new foodstuffs in the market no matter the guarantees. This distrust largely emanates from the fact there is a slight sluggishness in the existing food regimes in Europe compared to the United States where the Food and Drug Administration is usually under tight public scrutiny.
There have been a number of scares in Europe in regard to food regulations; the Coca-Cola scare that happened in Belgium is still fresh in most peoples mind. What is happening in Europe can be interpreted along the broad lines of social and public institutions failure, where the public, basing their judgment on past incidences, has been having little confidence on the governments’ ability to safeguard the public against sub standard food stuffs (Neils Fold, Bill Pritchord, 2005,121).
Prior to the fatalities recorded after people consumed beef infected with the Mad Cow Disease, scientists had together with the government assured the public that such a scenario was unlikely. It happened and the public was led to believe that scientists’ intentions were geared to harm them. It is this perception that has seen people distrust scientists’ views on the appropriateness of these foodstuffs. The strong lobby groups that exist in Europe have further exacerbated this stubbornness; they are committed to seeing that GM foods don’t find a root there.
France is one such country that has openly been opening up and warming to the economic potency of the genetically modified foods by the close of 2006. Public response to the debate was still to the negative. Green Peace movement is one of the lobby group movements that are at the forefront in shaping negative sentiments against these products with a network that runs deep in almost all the European Union member countries.
In these concerted efforts, Green Peace France had published maps in its website giving locations inside France where GM maize was being grown, upon an order by the court to remove the publication, this movement took an unprecedented move of marking with a big ‘X’ in the fields where GM maize was grown. They still have not relented in their bid to oppose this. This is just an example to show how the anti GM lobby groups have put up spirited campaigns to shape the publics’ opinions in regard to the products. It has also to be put in mind the culinary traditions differences between US and Europe.
Britain especially has overtime held a traditionalistic view of food. This is different from the United States where corporatism has taken root. In UK for example, the public is already complaining of the way that food seems to be changing hands in the process of manufacturing before it gets to the table, as Alan McHughen notes (2000,109) “UK public has traditionally had a more socialistic view of profit seeking business than the public in America” These huge companies that are pitching camp are viewed as only interested in profits rather than food safety.
There is divided opinion among scientists on the safety of genetically modified foods to human health. This division is not aiding much in shaping the pubic opinion in turn. Majority of the people across Europe believe that GM foods are not safe for human consumption. Those that support these products and the United States claim that they are safe. This safety is indeed not certain, as neither of the parties have been able to come up with adequate research to show otherwise.
Anti-GM products cite a number of their opposition; they see a group of scientists driven by economic gains at the expense of the public interest. There are a number of fears that arise across the mention of genetically modified foods that may impact negatively on human health. A number of scientists have decried issues such as toxicity, nutrition and increase in the level of resistance of the body to antibiotics. Studies have shown that GM food products have an ability of increasing food allergy, this has not been confirmed categorically but there are fears that GM products can result to allergic reactions.
This would be if the food were sourced from organisms that had not been known to be sources of food before, bodies have a high likelihood of responding negatively to such products. This makes the public wary of such products and even some companies have discontinued their production for fear of lawsuits from the consumers. There has been a growing sense of sense dissatisfaction regarding the way the biotechnology companies have handled the public relations issue in clear disregard of the sensitive nature matter in Europe.
One such company is Monsanto, an American firm that is said to have exuded arrogance in the way it sought to introduce its products in Europe. The bone of contention revolves around the initial introduction of herbicide resistant strain of crops. This is an issue that did not endear it to the public. The initial publics perception of these products was one of skepticism and distrust. It is this high handedness that infuriated the public creating a perception that these companies were not for the publics’ interest. It is because they did not take enough time to introduce their products.
They had not made ample investment in public relations. The standoff in Europe at the moment is where both parties are at a crossroad. The anti-GM lobbyists have been engaging in sabotage destroying crops that have been grown through genetic engineering. Even after the European commission lifted the ban on GM foods importation, thousand of acres especially in France have been destroyed. Pro-GM lobby groups have not also relented in their struggle to have the government loosen the regulations on genetic modified food.
They want to see the predominant perception among the majority of the public change to make them more receptive to the changes in technology (David Gibbs, 2000,246). These pro-genetic modified food lobbyist claim that the main reason behind the reluctance of the public to take up GM products arise from the stringent government regulations in regard to their consumption and importation. They want to see efforts done enough to educate the public on the side effects or the positive effects of GM foods. The GM food protesters have succeeded in painting another negative image as far as these products are concerned.
A case is cited where these protesters among them prominent scientists appear in the maize fields wearing masks and gloves creating a perception that what they are handling is highly toxic. The press on the other hand perceives these products as contaminated. Some scientists have called opposition to GM-foods as unreasonable. Lobbyists specifically are against the move by some of the opponents who have resulted to destroying the fields and yet are calling for more research to be conducted to establish the safety level of these products.
There is unanimity that more research needs to be done to gain more knowledge on whether these crops can have any ramifications both to the environment and human health. Although opinion polls conducted indicate that most people in Europe do not consider much the effects that these can have on the environment, there are still fears that need to be addressed. However farmers that have eagerly taken to GM- crops do not cite environmental factors as among their highest fears.
As afore mentioned, biotechnological companies blundered for not marketing their products well in Europe as they did in America where majority of the farmers have taken to GM-crops. However, it should be noted the government in United States had a great role to play in shaping public perception (David Gibbs, 2000,246). There are fears in Europe that a number of investors specializing biotechnology could withdraw their ventures in the European countries characterized by stiff opposition to GM food.
Withdrawal of this investment would sound a death knell to the expansion of GM-food. The government and the multinationals would not want to risk their funds on projects without returns and are threatening to transfer their investments to other places like America. In fact the growing concern across the pro-GM stakeholders is that with the continued opposition to genetically modified food in Europe, America and Japan stand to gain much economically as their public is more receptive of GM- foods.
This means that in the end, GM- food in Europe will be non-existent and it will take eternity for the public’s perception to change for the better. Already there is some sort of reluctancy on the side of GM companies, to spend their money in Europe on projects that are not likely to pay off. Norvartis, a Swedish company, is one such multinational amongst many that is voicing negative concerns. Although they admit that the company has not shifted base from Europe, a large portion of resources are being channeled to areas where there is near certainty of revenue (David Gibbs, 2000,246).
The negative perception towards genetically modified food also is due to the fact that much has not been done by scientists to prove that these products are okay. One investor blames this negative perception not only on the distrust that exists between the scientists and the public, but also on communication breakdown. Compared to the united state, European lobbyists fair badly. The U. S lobbyists go even to the extent of testifying in the congress, convincing it on the safety of GM- foods. Such bold steps are lacking in Europe where lobby groups have not organized them and mobilized themselves well.