Transparent communication strategy on GMOs: Will it change public opinion?

Abstract

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...

Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) against Aedes Species Mosquitoes: A Roadmap and Good Practice Framework for Designing, Implementing and Evaluating Pilot Field Trials

“…3 [18] provides useful support and indicates requirements and standards for exporting, shipping, and releasing biological control agents and other beneficial organisms, such as sterile insects in agriculture. The recent common guidance by WHO-IAEA for SIT as a vector control solution [17] can further help public acceptance [19,20] and official support. From the outset it is important to determine which local and national authorities and regulations govern the release of sterile mosquitoes, because lack of clarity can lead to delay.…”

The psychological perspective on the adoption of approved genetically modified crops in the presence of acceptability constraint: the contingent role of passion

“…Prior research suggests that there were different acceptability levels of GM crops across different countries, and this acceptability highly influenced by the knowledge of GM technology and trust. 19 For instance, Eurozone have reservations and depicts less supportive intentions for GM crops, 20 compared to the United States, 21 Japan, 22 South Africa, 23 and China. 24 Regulatory authorities in Europe have significantly lower trust in comparison to the United States 25,21 However, the story in the China, India, and Philippines is different for GM crops and food; there is limited research on the adoption of approved GM crops and the impact of psychological distance on farmer intentions.…”

Field Cage Studies and Progressive Evaluation of Genetically-Engineered Mosquitoes

“…Genetically-engineered (GE) Ae. aegypti strains that are unable to transmit dengue [11] or that bear sterility genes [12], [13] constitute new tools to control dengue and merit confined experimental evaluation while public and scientific discourse enables appropriate oversight of this new technology [14], [15]. Concern regarding the use of GE organisms, and the absence of guidelines to help researchers interact with local communities, motivated the elaboration of a framework for the development, evaluation, and application of genetic strategies for prevention of mosquito-borne disease [16].…”