An Overview of Attitudes Toward Genetically Engineered Food

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 459-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sydney E. Scott ◽  
Yoel Inbar ◽  
Christopher D. Wirz ◽  
Dominique Brossard ◽  
Paul Rozin

Genetically engineered food has had its DNA, RNA, or proteins manipulated by intentional human intervention. We provide an overview of the importance and regulation of genetically engineered food and lay attitudes toward it. We first discuss the pronaturalness context in the United States and Europe that preceded the appearance of genetically engineered food. We then review the definition, prevalence, and regulation of this type of food. Genetically engineered food is widespread in some countries, but there is great controversy worldwide among individuals, governments, and other institutions about the advisability of growing and consuming it. In general, life scientists have a much more positive view of genetically engineered food than laypeople. We examine the bases of lay opposition to genetically engineered food and the evidence for how attitudes change. Laypeople tend to see genetically engineered food as dangerous and offering few benefits. We suggest that much of the lay opposition is morally based. One possibility is that, in some contexts, people view nature and naturalness as sacred and genetically engineered food as a violation of naturalness. We also suggest that for many people these perceptions of naturalness and attitudes toward genetically engineered food follow the sympathetic magical law of contagion, in which even minimal contact between a natural food and an unnatural entity, either a scientist or a piece of foreign DNA, pollutes or contaminates the natural entity and renders it unacceptable or even immoral to consume.

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debalin Sarangi ◽  
Amit J. Jhala

AbstractDue to depressed corn and soybean prices over the last few years in the United States, growers in Nebraska are showing interest in no-tillage (hereafter referred to as no-till) conventional (non–genetically engineered [non-GE]) soybean production. Due to the increasing number of herbicide-resistant weeds in the United States, weed control in no-till non-GE soybean using POST herbicides is a challenge. The objectives of this study were to compare PRE-only, PRE followed by (fb) POST, and PRE fb POST with residual (POST-WR) herbicide programs for Palmer amaranth and velvetleaf control and soybean injury and yield, as well as to estimate the gross profit margins and benefit–cost ratio of herbicide programs. A field experiment was conducted in 2016 and 2017 at Clay Center, NE. The PRE herbicides tested in this study resulted in ≥95% Palmer amaranth and velvetleaf control at 28 d after PRE (DAPRE). Averaged across the programs, the PRE-only program controlled Palmer amaranth 66%, whereas 86% and 97% control was obtained with the PRE fb POST and PRE fb POST-WR programs, respectively, at 28 d after POST (DAPOST). At 28 DAPOST, the PRE fb POST herbicide programs controlled velvetleaf 94%, whereas the PRE-only program resulted in 85% control. Mixing soil-residual herbicides with foliar-active POST programs did not improve velvetleaf control. Averaged across herbicide programs, PRE fb POST programs increased soybean yield by 10% and 41% in 2016 and 2017, respectively, over the PRE-only programs. Moreover, PRE fb POST-WR programs produced 7% and 40% higher soybean yield in 2016 and 2017, respectively, compared with the PRE fb POST programs. The gross profit margin (US$1,184.3 ha−1) was highest under flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone (PRE) fb fluthiacet-methyl plusS-metolachlor/fomesafen (POST-WR) treatment; however, the benefit–cost ratio was highest (6.1) with the PRE-only program of flumioxazin/chlorimuron-ethyl.


2015 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 466-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
David N. Wear ◽  
Ernest Dixon ◽  
Robert C. Abt ◽  
Navinder Singh

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 322

The FDA has been regulating genetically engineered (GE) animals under the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act or the Act) since producers of these animals first approached the agency in the mid-1990s, although it did not issue a final Guidance for Industry clarifying its statutory authority until 2009 (Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals Containing Heritable rDNA Constructs: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM113903.pdf). The regulatory trigger that enables the regulation of these animals under the new animal drug provisions of the Act is the definition of a drug as “an article (other than food) that is intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.” The products of modern biotechnology (such as spliced recombinant DNA) are technically the “articles” that must be approved, but for shorthand, we often refer to the regulation of “genetically engineered” animals. For the purpose of the guidance, FDA defined “genetically engineered (GE) animals” as those animals modified by rDNA techniques, including all progeny that contain the modification. The term GE animal can refer both to an animal with a heritable rDNA construct or its residues and to an animal with a nonheritable rDNA construct (e.g. a construct intended as therapy for a disease in that animal). If the agency engages in an “action,” such as an approval, obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are triggered, such that the agency must perform an environmental assessment to determine whether a significant impact is likely to occur on the environment of the United States. If not, the agency issues a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). If a significant impact is likely to occur as the result of an agency action, the agency must engage in a more complex process to characterise that impact in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This regulation is consistent with the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, a policy that was first issued by issued by the Office of Science and Technology Policy [51 Fed Reg 23,302 (1986)] of the United States Government. It describes the interagency mechanism for “sharing scientific information related to biotechnology,” and states that, to the extent possible, jurisdiction of the products of biotechnology lies with a single agency. Where more than one agency will review a particular product, “the policy establishes a lead agency and consolidated or coordinated reviews.” Consistent with this policy, FDA has leveraged, and intends to continue to leverage, the expertise of other agencies in the review of GE animal-related applications. Under certain conditions, based on risk, the agency may not enforce the premarket approval requirement for some GE animals. In general, these include GE animals of non-food species that are regulated by other government agencies or entities, such as GE animals of non-food species that are raised and used in contained and controlled conditions such as GE laboratory animals (e.g. mice, rats, some model fish) used in research institutions. In addition, on a case-by-case basis, the agency may consider exercising enforcement discretion for GE animals of very low risk, non-food species GE animals, such as the Zebra danio aquarium fish genetically engineered to fluoresce in the dark (GloFish). An exemption from the prohibition on introducing an unapproved new animal drug in interstate commerce is provided for in the regulations covering “investigations,” which allow for lawful research to occur, including the shipping of GE animals or their gametes from the sponsor of an investigation to other qualified investigators. These and other responsibilities are outlined in GFI 187, as are recommendations for the submission of data to be reviewed by CVM’s hierarchical risk-based review, and will be the subject of this talk.


Author(s):  
Jill Rubin ◽  
Anna Tesmenitsky

This article documents the early warning signs of health and environmental dangers of DDT, vinyl chloride, and leaded gasoline. In each case, industry scientists and/or public health officials warned of potential hazards but their advice was ignored at great cost to human health and the environment. Now, genetically engineered (GE) foods have been introduced to our food supply and exhibit many of the same early warning signs. Leaded gasoline was sold in the United States from 1923 through 1986. The additive was introduced without safety testing even though it was known that lead was neurotoxic. Industry efforts kept the federal government from studying or banning leaded gasoline for decades. Leaded gasoline released millions of tons of lead into the air. Lead can cause brain damage and even death. Vinyl chloride, used to make PVC plastic, has a similar history. When scientific studies confirmed that vinyl chloride was a carcinogen, industry representatives signed a secrecy agreement to keep the information from becoming public. DDT was used all over the United States to kill unwanted pests. Evidence of DDT's environmental and health impacts began to emerge in the 1950s. DDT is now deemed a probable human carcinogen, suspected of causing liver damage, and blamed for triggering premature births. GE foods have been introduced into our food supply with no required safety testing. Initial independent studies indicate that GE foods can trigger unexpected or unknown allergic reactions, may damage organs and immune system, can contaminate neighboring crops, and may cause ecological damage. Yet, industry studies about GE food products are considered proprietary and are not available for peer review or public scrutiny. In reaction to the rejection of GE foods by many European countries and companies, the biotechnology industry is waging a massive propaganda effort in the United States. But when it comes to our food supply, we should not take any health or safety risks. We make these recommendations: Hold biotechnology companies liable for any harm that comes from the use of GE foods. This will give them a financial incentive to ensure that GE foods are safe and provide compensation to any future victims Place a moratorium on GE foods until they are proven safe through independent, long-term testing for health and environmental impacts Require labeling of all GE foods that are proven safe to give consumers the right to know and choose


Significance Senior US officials see Communist-led China as the foremost threat to the United States. The Trump administration’s campaign against it spans the spectrum of government actions: criticism; tariffs; sanctions; regulatory crackdowns; military intimidation; support for Taiwan; and restrictions on imports, exports, investment and visas. Impacts Beijing will have little success in driving a wedge between Washington and its major Western allies. The West is unlikely to produce a convincing alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Negative public views of China incentivise China-bashing by politicians, which in turn feeds negative public opinion in a downward spiral. Beijing will persist in its efforts to encourage a more positive view of China among Western publics.


mBio ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Veronica N. Kos ◽  
Christopher A. Desjardins ◽  
Allison Griggs ◽  
Gustavo Cerqueira ◽  
Andries Van Tonder ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTMethicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA) strains are leading causes of hospital-acquired infections in the United States, and clonal cluster 5 (CC5) is the predominant lineage responsible for these infections. Since 2002, there have been 12 cases of vancomycin-resistantS. aureus(VRSA) infection in the United States—all CC5 strains. To understand this genetic background and what distinguishes it from other lineages, we generated and analyzed high-quality draft genome sequences for all available VRSA strains. Sequence comparisons show unambiguously that each strain independently acquired Tn1546and that all VRSA strains last shared a common ancestor over 50 years ago, well before the occurrence of vancomycin resistance in this species. In contrast to existing hypotheses on what predisposes this lineage to acquire Tn1546, the barrier posed by restriction systems appears to be intact in most VRSA strains. However, VRSA (and other CC5) strains were found to possess a constellation of traits that appears to be optimized for proliferation in precisely the types of polymicrobic infection where transfer could occur. They lack a bacteriocin operon that would be predicted to limit the occurrence of non-CC5 strains in mixed infection and harbor a cluster of unique superantigens and lipoproteins to confound host immunity. A frameshift indprA, which in other microbes influences uptake of foreign DNA, may also make this lineage conducive to foreign DNA acquisition.IMPORTANCEInvasive methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA) infection now ranks among the leading causes of death in the United States. Vancomycin is a key last-line bactericidal drug for treating these infections. However, since 2002, vancomycin resistance has entered this species. Of the now 12 cases of vancomycin-resistantS. aureus(VRSA), each was believed to represent a new acquisition of the vancomycin-resistant transposon Tn1546from enterococcal donors. All acquisitions of Tn1546so far have occurred in MRSA strains of the clonal cluster 5 genetic background, the most common hospital lineage causing hospital-acquired MRSA infection. To understand the nature of these strains, we determined and examined the nucleotide sequences of the genomes of all available VRSA. Genome comparison identified candidate features that position strains of this lineage well for acquiring resistance to antibiotics in mixed infection.


Author(s):  
J. Ann Tickner

This chapter focuses on two self-reliant development models, the United States from 1776 to 1829 and India from 1947 to 1980. These strategies are contrasted with self-reliant models, articulated by Thomas Jefferson and Mohandas Gandhi. The chapter then discusses the author’s later thinking about the gendered state as well as other feminist writings on the state, focusing on chapters in Gendered States that analyze state masculinity. It also reviews IR feminist work presenting a more positive view of the state. It concludes by critically reassessing the author’s early work on self-reliant development and suggests we need new models going beyond a statist world.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document