Innovations are central for the economic growth; however, the use of new technologies needs to be widely accepted in the general public and the society as a whole. Biotechnology in general, and the use of genetic engineering in food production in particular are seen critically by the European public and perceived as "risky", and a transatlantic divide between European and US citizens has been observed. This review investigates the reasons for those differing perceptions and proposes new strategies to communicate the benefits of biotechnology in agriculture to a broader public. When analyzing the dialogue process that has taken place between public, scientists, governmental organizations and industry, questions arise on what has been done differently in Europe, in order to propose new, more successful and efficient communication strategies for the future. food use by the FDA in the early 90s and is now widely used in the cheese production [4]. The higher acceptance of genetically modified foods and feeds in North America compared to Europe [5] is demonstrated by the fact, that two thirds of GM corn cultivations in this region are genetically modified plants, whereas in Europe, GM plants make a minor proportion only. The public needs to be placed in a position to make qualified decisions, and politicians must take the lead in the societal discourse and assume their responsibility. One milestone towards acceptance is to reach a better level of public "trust and understanding", however, for obtaining this goal it is necessary to provide a broad basis of transparency on all possible levels, including politics, governments and industry.In this review, we will analyze the origin of the transatlantic divide and propose appropriate communication strategies to enhance the public understanding of the facts on genetic engineering and the dependency on biotechnological innovations in Europe.
More information = higher acceptance?It has been often assumed, that the low acceptance in Europe correlates with a low amount of knowledge on biotechnology and genetic engineering, suggesting that education programs would change the publics' perception. Therefore, past communication programs were often conducted as an "educational approach". However, recent experiences and studies contradict this hypothesis. In fact, it appears that factual knowledge of science has little influence on the attitudes [6], and campaigns to educate an apparently ignorant public did not significantly change attitudes. Evidence also comes from a recent Eurobarometer survey [7] showing that a majority is still worried about genetically modified products in food and drinks (Fig.1).Using results from a 1999 Eurobarometer survey, and a parallel telephone survey in the US in 2000, a study [8] also explored the relationship between levels of knowledge, education and perception for biotechnology across a number of medical and agricultural applications. This study found only a weak relationship among these factors, questioning the common assumption, that higher scie...
