Global Perceptions of GMOs

Biotechnology was put on the development fast track in the United States when the administration of President George H. W. Bush lowered the regulatory hurdles in 1992. In 2001,52.6 million hectares were planted in GM crops in thirteen countries. With 68 percent of the world total, the United States is the clear global leader in GM crop production, followed by Argentina, Canada, China, South Africa, Germany, and Spain, respectively, in area planted.

The number of GM hectares in the United States has risen from 1.4 million in 1996, when the first GM seed was sold, to 35.6 million in 2001. Although this technology has been fast-tracked in the United States, most countries have adopted the European Union (EU) policy of the precautionary principle in regard to GM crops.

The basic premise is that safety of new technologies must be vouchsafed before the technologies are introduced into consumer markets. The majority of people living in the fifteen countries of the European Union (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) are concerned about potential harmful effects of GMOs on human health and the environment.

There has been considerable public opposition to GM foods in the European Union, led by consumer organizations and environmental groups. The greatest opposition has come from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Greece, Belgium, and Denmark. In 1998 the EU stopped approving any new GM crops and removed many genetically engineered foods from the market. Mandatory labeling is required for any foods that contain more than 1 percent GM product.

Many food producers and supermarket chains claim to sell only GM-free products. Rabobank, a leading European financial institution, refuses to finance certain forms of biotechnology related to GMOs. Countries with bans or moratoriums on GMOs include Algeria, Austria, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Greece, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, and the United Kingdom. An increasing number of countries, including Australia (1 percent GMO content), China, EU (.5 percent), Japan (.1 percent), Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Paraguay, South Africa, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Vietnam, are legislating mandatory labeling. The African continent is divided over GM foods.

Whereas South Africa, Kenya, and Egypt have approved some GM crops, countries such as Ethiopia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe are so strongly opposed that they have refused U.S. shipments of GM grain, even when people are starving.

Developing countries are deeply concerned about issues of food safety, contamination of biodiversity, ownership issues related to intellectual property, loss of free markets, and economic control by multinational corporations that own and tie the technology to their chemical products. In addition to the uncertainties and discord in regard to biotechnology, it raises many issues in regard to globalization, free trade, international governance, and countries' rights to implement and enforce what they believe is safe and prudent policy to protect their citizens.

In summary, GM foods are produced by a revolutionary technology that recombines the DNA of vastly different organisms by bypassing natural mechanisms that protect genomic integrity. This technology is so new that it presents many unknowns, particularly in regard to genetics. Current guidelines to monitor the safety of GM foods do not adequately address issues of human health or environmental impact.

Sound principles of toxicology, ecology, and evolutionary genetics that are necessary to accurately assess the impact of releasing transgenes into the human food supply and the environment have not been incorporated into the regulatory structure.

In light of the unknowns and potential risks posed by GM foods, until the risks of using genetically engineered crops are better understood and regulatory protocols are in place, some experts think it would be wise to slow development of GMOs and in the interim promote safer food-production methods already available.