PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Food, Genetically Modified”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources

Safety assessments and public concern for genetically modified food products: the American view.

In the relatively short time since their commercial introduction in 1996, genetically modified (GM) crops have been rapidly adopted in the United States GM crops are regulated through a coordinated framework developed in 1992 and administered by three agencies-the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) that ensures the products are safe to grow, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that ensures the products are safe for the environment, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that ensures the products are safe to eat. Rigorous food and environmental safety assessments must be completed before GM crops can be commercialized. Fifty-one products have been reviewed by the FDA, including several varieties of corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, rice, sugar beets, potatoes, tomatoes, squash, papaya, and flax. Because FDA considers these crops "substantially equivalent" to their conventional counterparts, no special labeling is required for GM crops in the United States and they are managed as commodities with no segregation or identity preservation. GM crops have thus made their way through commodity distribution channels into thousands of ingredients used in processed foods. It has been estimated that 70% to 85% of processed foods on supermarket shelves in the United States today contain one or more ingredients potentially derived from GM crops. The food industry and retail industry have been monitoring the opinions of their consumers on the GM issue for the past several years. Numerous independent groups have also surveyed consumer concerns about GM foods. The results of these surveys are shared and discussed here.

Animals↗

What determines the acceptability of genetically modified food that can improve human nutrition?

It has been predicted that by 2025 there will be an annual shortfall of cereals for feeding the human population of 68.5 million tones. One possible solution is the use of genetically modified (GM) crops, which are already grown extensively (59 million ha of GM crops were planted in 2002) in the USA, South America, Africa and China. Nevertheless, there is considerable disagreement about the advisability of using such crops, particularly in Europe. Obviously, the safety of the food derived from the GM crops is a primary consideration. Safety assessment relies on establishing that the food is substantially equivalent to its non-GM counterpart and specific testing for allergenicity of proteins and toxicity of metabolites and the whole food. There appears to be international agreement on the principles of safety assessment. Safety to the environment is equally important, but will not be covered in this presentation. The public's perception of the risk of new technology is critical to its acceptance. Perception of risk, in turn, depends on the credibility of the source of the information and trust in the regulatory process. In many countries, the public appears to have lost its trust in the scientists and government dealing with GM food, making the acceptability of GM crops uncertain. Of equal importance are the socio-economic factors that impinge on the viability of GM produce. These include intellectual property protection, trade liberalization (through subsidy and tariff barriers in developed countries) and the intensity of bio safety regulations. The socio-economic interests of developed and developing countries may diverge and may even be contradictory in any one country. Acceptance of GM crops will thus depend on detailed issues surrounding particular crops and economies.

Commerce↗

Mad cows, mad corn and mad communities: the role of socio-cultural factors in the perceived risk of genetically-modified food.

The rapid globalization of the world economy has increased the need for a knowledge base of reliable socio-cultural differences in perceptions, values and ways of thinking about new food technologies. Awareness of socio-cultural differences is important because collaborative efforts to deal with food hazards presuppose some understanding of where, how and why the viewpoints of various stakeholders may differ. In the present paper factors that influence public perceptions of genetically-modified (GM) food are discussed, with a special focus on the unique circumstances of populations in the USA, Europe and developing countries. It is argued that effective communication and decision making about the risk of GM food depends critically on understanding how socio-cultural groups differ in their values and in the way they deal with the risks and benefits of new technologies. The implications of psychological aspects of perceived risk (including the roles of qualitative dimensions of risk, world views and trust) for public acceptance of new food technologies are highlighted.

Animals↗