Genetically Modified Food and European Consumer Behavior

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
European Consumers
Reasons behind the Rejection of GMF in the European Market
Conclusion
Bibliography
Footnotes

Introduction

Genetically Modified Food (GMF) is a product of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). These organisms have been genetically bioengineered or cloned either chemically, through selective breeding or by use of radiations.^[1] The organisms have been subjected to experimental analysis for a long period in an effort to eradicate hunger in the world.

GMF trigger controversial legal, health and ethical issues that are yet to be resolved. GMF critics express their concerns based on economic, ecological and biological issues. For instance, steroids are incorporated in organisms to modify them into larger and better products. Supporters of the technology on the other hand have a Utilitarian perspective stating that various advantages outweigh the harmful effects and therefore, the GMF should be embraced globally.

For instance, GMFs are pesticide free and it is not only environmentally safe but also is economical for farmers since the plants or animals can resist pests. They therefore are not prone to diseases such as bacterial, fungal or viral. The foods can be modified to resist cold, drought and still maintain or amplify the nutritional value and to crown it all, they are more affordable^[2].

Irrespective of all the merits, some countries have opted to ban the foods or others trade organizations such as the European Union dictate that GMF must be highlighted on the product labels. Consequently consumers are reluctant at incorporating them in their diet^[3]. Is it within the rights of individuals to alter organisms just because they have ability to do so? This paper will address the issue of GMFs and why they are still rejected by the European consumers irrespective of the outwards consumer benefits they have.

European Consumers

The European market as compared to that of the United States reflects a contrasting stand. In the U.S, GMF is embraced as an economically and socially attractive sector, that its growth continuous to be enormous. Large farms continue to be allotted to cater for GMOs.

Conversely, GMF food are scarce in Europe for the countries continue to impose harsh laws regarding GMF production and having to ban the GMF based on negative opinion. In Europe, there are fewer lands for cultivation and often are positioned in areas of high population. These lands are not public but private property and therefore, cultivation is hard.

Disregard for GMF in Europe is mainly due to the issue that the food requires more analysis in terms of being tested and researched more. The EU Directive 2001/18/EC outdated the Directive 90/220/EEC restricting marketing and experimental release of GMF. The directive was aimed at ensuring extensive research is carried on GMFs for the benefit of the public. Labeling every product with GMF was also a requirement for the consumers to make personal choices on the products.

In the United Kingdom, GMF is restricted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in the market as enforced by the EU directives. The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) is awarded with the responsibility of advising the Food Standards Agency (FSA) on GMF to ensure public food safety. This has facilitated banning of GMF since they are said to be hazardous to the human health.^[4]

Reasons behind the Rejection of GMF in the European Market

One of the core issues surrounding the dilemma of whether or not to embrace the GMFs is inadequate understanding of the technology surrounding the issue. Many European consumers fear technological debut and therefore they becomes skeptic. Inadequate understanding results to mistrust which often is undesirable especially when it is expressed publicly.

The European Union is applying the strategy of taking things slow and meanwhile, research could be done extensively on the benefits and hazards associated with the food.^[5] GMFs cannot be regarded as inherently dangerous and therefore, it is for the welfare of the consumers. This is because GMF not only add up to malnutrition problem but also they aid in conserving the environment since it amplifies production and decreases overreliance of chemicals.

In the rising global population, such a technology would prove beneficial since more food is needed and no enough agricultural land. This is especially very timely in developing world and therefore, Europeans may be reluctant at embracing the technology since it does not seem very critical in their world forgetting that in the future, a higher food demand may force the use of GMF to become the only way forward.^[6]

The European consumers sometimes disregard the GMF claiming that the practice is unnatural since it causes irreversible harm to organisms. In such cases, an animal may not recover the changes since they are genetically incorporated. The germ plasm which dictates heredity may be discarded through the technology. This violates the intellectual’s rights since it involves altering organisms for the benefit of human.

Other consumers are afraid of food-borne diseases such as the mad cow although it is not related with the issue of bioengineering. They have noted strong phrases such as “What is happening to our food? Is it still safe? Are we being told everything?”^[7] In EU, a hard stance on the issue is evident since the debates surrounding GMO initiated from there. It has resulted to differentiated European market which has fears of transgenic food with various supermarkets chains aiding in embracing GM free food which sells more.^[8]

They claim that every individual has a right to preference which emphasize on the need to put labels The European market is not only opposed to selling the GMFs in their region but also in having these organisms grown there.

The Europeans have a tendency of being so keen on the views and opinions of environmentalists rather than the academic institutions. It is crucial since these environmentalists have been having a negative opinion about bioengineering and therefore, this affects the consumer.

This is unlike the Americans who look upon academic opinions and less on that of the environmentalists. The cultural attitudes are crucial when it becomes to the consumers preference. The European media is very extensive when it comes to covering issues regarding GMF. They have insisted on using strong statements referring to GMF as Frankenstein Foods.^[9] As a result, there has the public is alarmed about the effects of these products.

Conclusion

Consumer opinion is very significant when it comes to implementing certain policies. Negative opinion of the GMF in the European consumers has not only affected globalization efforts but also a clash in the global socio-political welfare.^[10]

Cultural differences, individual opinions, the media and environmental entities have had a great part in influencing the trends by which GMF is handled in Europe. International trade is affected by such differences. Public uneasiness regarding GMF especially in Europe has affected their productivity.

The public has been influenced by the environmentalists and the media thus creating uncertainty of the future of GMF. European Union member states have been faced with a dilemma regarding GMF since it has adversely affected the international trade. Nevertheless, European consumers prefer organic food rather than GMF and their opinion should not be interfered with since they possess the right to do so.^[11]

Bibliography

Gaisford, J & Kerr W, Economic analysis for international trade negotiations: the WTO and Agricultural Trade, Edward Elgar Publishing, United Kingdom, 2001.

Gordon, S, Critical Perspective on Genetically Modified Crops and Food, Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., New York, 2006.

Nottingham, S, Eat Your Genes: How Genetically Modified Food is Entering our Diet. Zed Books, Ltd, New York, 2003.

Shaw, I, Is It Safe to Eat? Enjoy Eating and Minimizing Food Risks. Springer, New Zealand, 2005.

Sherlock, R & Morrey, J, Ethical Issues in Biotechnology. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Maryland, 2002.

Footnotes

I Shaw, Is It Safe to Eat? Enjoy Eating and Minimizing Food Risks, Springer, New Zealand, 2005, p. 213 & 214
S Nottingham, Eat Your Genes: How Genetically Modified Food is Entering our Diet, Zed Books Ltd, New York, 2003, p. xxv
J Gaisford & W Kerr, Economic analysis for international trade negotiations: the WTO and Agricultural Trade, Edward Elgar Publishing, United Kingdom, 2001, p. 156
Nottingham, p. xxi
Gaisford, p.149
S Gordon, Critical Perspective on Genetically Modified Crops and Food, Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., New York, 2006, p. 145
R Sherlock & J Morrey, Ethical Issues in Biotechnology, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers ,Inc., Maryland, 2002, p. 186
Gaisford, p.151
Gaisford, p.149
Sherlock, p.186
Nottingham, p. xxvi

Click Here To Order Now!