What do you think about GMOs?

2002/07/11 Carton Virto, Eider - Elhuyar Zientzia

• Bioteknologia
• Etika

Transgenic plants are an important topic of debate in Europe and the world. But in Europe, biotechnology companies, and not only them, are very concerned. Unlike the United States, the controversy raised by transgenic plants is preventing the development of indigenous biotechnology, a very important strategic field. On the other hand, those who consider GMOs unacceptable to the environment, society and health complain that their concerns are not taken into account. And everyone sees the opinion of citizens full of topics.

Three years ago, an international research group proposed that the European Commission investigate the real opinion of citizens on GMOs. In five countries (UK, Spain, Italy, France and Germany) 55 citizen groups have been collecting data for two years. In addition, interviews have been held with members of the biotechnology industry, environmentalists and authorities to learn how citizen perception is reflected in these sectors.

The results have shaken the authorities, which have made it clear that the opinion of citizens is reflected in false topics among those who should make decisions.

Ignorant but sensible

It is often attributed to citizens who are ignorant, manipulated and who base their opinion on unscientific ethical concerns. Many scientists and authorities believe that to have a reasonable opinion on GMOs it is essential to have a specialized knowledge about genetic transformation. And the report indicates that citizens have very little knowledge of it. But their attitude towards GMOs is not a consequence of lack of knowledge.

Opinion is based not on scientific knowledge, but on empirical knowledge. The report highlights two significant points: the trend towards human failure and technological advances and institutional behavior in risk management. Precisely this last point has prevailed as a source of concern. It seems that society is not satisfied with the management of the mad cow crisis, and that facts only as exceptions are considered a habitual behavior of the authorities. Research participants have shown great doubts about the honesty of organizations, as they do not learn from mistakes and feel the same with GMOs.

What do citizens think?

The research has made it clear that the attitude of citizens and their reflection in power centers do not coincide. And in view of the topics that have been used for research, it seems that society is considered relatively simple. To do this, just read the list: the core of the problem lies in the scientific ignorance of people, is in favor or is against GMOs, society has a contradictory opinion that GM animals and plants do in medicine, but do not want in agriculture, or consumers are selfish with respect to poor people in the Third World, because many biotechnology companies argue that GMOs will be the solution of world hunger.

Based on these topics, 55 groups of citizens have shown very different concerns. For example, why do we need transgenics? What benefits will they report to us? For whom will the benefits be? Why don't they allow us to decide whether to consume them or not? If you don't want to hide anything, why don't you want to label? Are the authorities able to balance the momentum of biotech companies? Have the risks been seriously analyzed? How do you take into account the uncertainty when regulating the use of GMOs?

The problem is not biotechnology

In general, it seems that Europeans do not oppose GMOs at all or at all. There are advantages, such as if insects are resistant, they will decrease pesticide use or increase agriculture efficiency. But at the same time they are cautious and do not want GMOs to be marketed quickly and in any way. They are aware of the uncertainty of science and technological advances, of the need to seek a balance between risks and benefits. On the contrary, they attribute risk underestimation to organizations.

The authors of the report noted that the roots of the debate are not in biotechnology, but in the way institutions manage the issue. They lack credibility, lack social debate on the paths of scientific research, lack of recognition of the mistakes of the past, lack transparency... they seem to lack everything. Full report here