This document discusses genetically modified crops and differences in public opinion about them between the US and Europe. It hypothesizes that public opinion is more negative and exaggerated compared to the actual risks and effects. The document reviews the science and goals of GM crops, potential costs and environmental/health concerns. It finds that consumer fears are possible risks but the actual impacts found in studies have been small. Public opinion differs between the US and Europe with Europeans more concerned about long term effects and supporting mandatory labeling.

1. Genetically Modified Crops
How do the preconceived notions
associated with transgenic foods in
the United States and Europe differ
from its actual risks and effects?
By Amy Braun, Päivö Kinnunen, and Adam Kaplan

2. Our Hypothesis
 We predict that, in general, public
opinion concerning GM foods is
extremely negative, blown out of
proportion from the actual effects.
Further, we will explore how public
opinion towards GM foods differs across
geographical and cultural boundaries,
e.g. from America to Western Europe,
and why these differences may arise.

3. Review: GMO’s
 The science behind genetically modified
foods is vast and varying depending on
the company and farmer’s needs
 Many different types of GMO’s, for different
climates, crops, and soils
 A common goal is to reduce competition
with weeds within the fields, allowing
the crop to have higher yields as well as
less time dedicated to tending to the
crops

4. Review: GMO’s
 Costs decrease:
 The seed is less expensive from seed
distributors due to mass production rather
than smaller suppliers
 The increased yields with decreased initial
cost provides potential increased profits
for farmers
 Subsidized imports keep cost low in other
countries, as well

5. Review: GMO’s
 Costs increase:
 Cannot reuse seeds from crops the year
before like in traditional farming
 More herbicides and fertilizers are needed
to aid GMO crops, especially after the first
years of use on the same field.
 Need to ensure security so there is limited
spread of seed to neighboring farms

6. Environmental Concerns
 As Andow explains in Risk Assessment For
Genetically Modified Crops, that there are
many possible problems for non-target
organisms, or plants that do not include the
targeted genetically modified organisms
 This causes a decrease in biodiversity as well
as increased vulnerability to disease or
natural disaster once there is a monoculture

7. Case Study: Environment
 MEXICO’S CORN CROPS
 This area was once filled with a high
variety of corn crops, each suited for soil
types, altitudes, rainfall and temperature
have now nearly abandoned the
indigenous varieties and instead buy the
less expensive American brands, including
GMOs, even though they are not preferred
by locals.

8. Health Concerns
 In the U.S.
 the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration
do not run any additional testing on the foods
because they are thought to be something that is
equivalent to a product on the market
 Depending on the study, 75% to 92% of Americans
want to have labelling on the products that
include GM foods. Considering that almost 60% of
Americans say that if GM foods were clearly
labelled they would avoid purchasing them, it is
understandable that there is a lot of lobbying
against labelling of GM foods.

9. Case Study: GMOs in the U.S.
 A study done in January of 2001 by the Mellman
Group and Public Opinion Strategies
 It shows that consumers know little about GM foods
and are unconcerned about their safety.
 One in five changed their mind about GMO use after
they learned how wide spread they are.
 US consumers are concerned about food freshness
and food poisoning, rather than genetically modified
foods which comes after salmonella and chemicals &
fertilizers.
 Many say they want more research and labelling so
that they know when they are eating GM foods.

10. Health Concerns
Worldwide
 antibiotic resistance: the genes that are
added to the crops to resist insects can
cause resistance to common antibiotics,
including penicillin and ampicillin
 increased pesticide, fertilizer and
herbicide usage: build up of poisons
 Allergies: the splicing of different types of
plants could cause allergies (ex: peanut) to
spread among many food types

11. Worldwide Response
According to Gaskell, about 50% of United States citizens were
in favor of GMOs, while 30% of Europeans were opposed
www.GMO-free-regions.org

12. Labeling for GMOs abroad
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
Percentage pro labelling
Denmark
Canada
Finland
France
Belgium
Austria
Germany
UK
Greece
Sweden
Netherlands
US
Spain
Italy
Luxemburg
Portugal
Ireland
GE product labelling by country
Figure 1: Percentage of customers that want to have labelling in products that include GE foods in different countries
(Data from: Center for Food Safety, 2000 and Eurobarometer, 1997)

13. European Opposition and Testing
Levels of opposition to GM food and genetic testing
25
20
15
10
5
France
Spain
Ireland
Figure 2: Levels of opposition to GM food and genetic testing in Europe in 1999 (Data from: Gaskell
et al. 2000)
0
Percentage
Austria
Luxemburg
Belgium
Germany
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Sweden
Italy
UK
Netherlands
Portugal
in Europe in 1999

14. Europe versus United States
 From Eurobarometer survey in November 1999
 Europeans seem to be more concerned about the long
term effects of GM crops than American customers
including concerns that they are a threat to natural
order, that GM food is fundamentally unnatural and
that it poses a risk to future generations
 The supporters of GM technology are more likely to be
younger, male and better educated than opponents.
 Opponents are also more likely to agree with
statements like: ‘ordinary tomatoes do not contain
genes, and GM tomatoes do’ and ‘by eating GM foods
persons genes could be affected.’ Agreeing with such
statements shows a lack of scientific knowledge and
shows also that much of the opposition to GM foods is
more sentimental than rational.

15. Fears versus Impact
Consumer fears: Real impact:
Chemical interaction with living things Very small, but targeting a pest with any method, biological
or chemical, without side effect is possible cause of
problem. (Dale et al. 2002)
Change in persistence or invasiveness of the crop Small with current case-by-case assessment of GM crops,
with relevant underpinning research. (Dale et al. 2002)
Gene flow by pollination to weeds and feral plants Some possible future modifications in GM crops, such as
salt tolerance or cold tolerance, could potentially produce
novel crop types whose impact on the environment will
need to be assessed with particular care. (Dale et al.
2002)
Reduced efficiency of pest, disease, and weed control Smaller risk than with the use chemical control. (Dale et al.
2002)
Effect on wildlife biodiversity Risk not higher than with conventional agriculture. (Dale et
al. 2002)
Effect on soil and water by the increased use of herbicides
due to GM herbicide tolerant crops
Decrease in herbicide use in the US after the introduction
of GM soybean. (Dale et al. 2002)
Introduction of allergenes Negligible with current methods

16. Systems Diagram

18. Conclusion
 Consumer fears are all potential risks, some
more than others, and use of GM crops
should only be continued with extreme care
and intense long term research on the topic
should be continued. With most of the cases
the use of GM crops can only be justified
when the conventional methods are worse
and pose even higher risks to the
environment.
 Also, the labeling that is enforced in much of
the world should also be mandatory here in
the United States.

19. Work Cited
 Andow, D.A. et. Al. “Non-target and Biodiversity Risk Assessment For Genetically Modified
Crops.” 9th Annual Symposium on the Biosaftey of GMOs. (24-29 Sep 2006).
 Dale, Phillip J., Belinda Clarke, and Eliana Fontes. "Potential for the Environmental Impact
of Transgenic Crops." Nature Biotechnology 20 (2002): 567-574.
 Evenson, R, E., and D. Gollin. "Assessing the Impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to
2000." Science 300 (2003): 758-762.
 Gaskell, George, Martin W. Bauer, John Durant, and Nicholas C. Allum. "Worlds Apart? the
Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S." Science 285 (1999): 384-
387.
 D'agnolo, G. "GMO: Human Health Risk Assessment." Veteinary Research Communications
29 (2005): 7-11.
 "GMO Free Regions." European Conference on GMO-Free Regions. 6 Mar. 2007
<www.GMO-free-regions.org>.
 Levidow, Les, and Karin Boschert. "Coexistance or Contradiction? GM Crops Versus
Alternative Agriculture in Europe." Geoforum (2007): 1-26.
 Zwahlen, Claudia, and D.a. Andow. "Assessing Environmental Risks of Transgenic Plants."
Ecology Letters 9 (2006): 196-214.