BIO 2001 International Biotechnology Conference &
Exhibition, San Diego, CA

June 23 – 27, 2001

On the road for Info.Resource, publisher of Oregon-Bioscience.com

By Lorraine Ruff, David Gabrilska and Scott Sipes
Milestones, the critical thinking company
Seattle, WA

November 12 –16, 2001 - Caracas, VENEZUELA
BIOSAFETY 3 - Advanced issues in biosafety: risk monitoring and public perception of biotechnology

Location: Instituto Internacional de Estudios Avanzados (IDEA).
Organizers: Efrain Salazar (CENIAP) and Rafael Rangel (Centro Technologico Polar)

General aspects of biosafety and risk assessment, risk monitoring of GMOs and public perception of biotechnology will be the issues addressed by international experts in this workshop.

http://www.icgeb.trieste.it/~bsafesrv/bsfn0011.htm

 

June 2001

As late as 1989, all genes involved in field tests were publicly disclosed, the report found. By last year, two-thirds of the field-tested crops contained genes labeled "confidential business information." So regulators, but not the public, knew which genes were being used in the environment.

The practice extends beyond corporations anxious to protect trade secrets. Universities are also putting field tests under wraps, according to the report, though many biotech researchers oppose such secrecy. "Most of the scientific community would always prefer maximum disclosure and openness," says Dr. Zeigler at Kansas State University. "Free exchange and access to information is critical to progress."

http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/06/15/p2s2.htm

 

January 2001
Food Safety And The Consumer - Perils Of Poor Risk Communication

The applications respondents' were most familiar with were genetic testing for disease (84 percent), reflecting perhaps the publics support for using biotechnology to combat disease or the media attention received by this topic.

On the other hand, acceptance of biotechnology by the public may not be related to awareness at all. Regardless of whether individuals were aware of biotechnology, respondents were able to make judgements about how useful or risky it was (Frewer et al., 1994; Frewer et al., 1995). Of the variables studied, usefulness, riskiness and morality, it was found that moral acceptability of biotechnology was the strongest predictor of support for biotechnology (fig 8) (Einsiedel 1997).

http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/risk-anal/powell.html

 

Nov 2000
A review of surveys

In Europe, considering the generally "bad" press for genetic engineering and biotechnology in recent years, a review of surveys suggests that the level of acceptance was "astonishingly high" and that informed understanding of developing biotechnologies and their acceptance were clearly correlated. In the U.S. and Australia, informed understanding of biotechnology does not correlate with acceptance of biotechnology (Zechendorf, 1994).

http://www.thinkmilestones.com/Archive/perception_analysis_intro.htm

 

October 2000
FDA Report on Consumer Focus Groups on Biotechnology

Most participants accepted as a matter of course that the short-term safety of bioengineered foods can be determined by science and therefore it was not in question.…Many participants recognized possible benefits and believed the risks should be tolerated for the sake of these benefits.…Participants who were more familiar and sympathetic with farmers also expressed the view that the benefits of biotechnology may outweigh the risks. Level of knowledge about food biotechnology was not obviously correlated with how people saw the risk/benefit tradeoff. There was a degree of technological fatalism, the belief that ordinary people can't have much influence over the spread of new technologies, associated with acceptance of food biotechnology.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/biorpt.html#findings

 

June 2000
A public perception study with no conclusions drawn.

http://filebox.vt.edu/cals/cses/chagedor/index.html

 

May/June 2000

Positive consumer attitudes regarding biotechnology are back on an upward trend after a slight slump last fall. This is according to the latest International Food Information Council (IFIC) survey, conducted from May 5 to 9, 2000 by Wirthlin Worldwide. Since October 1999, consumers are somewhat more likely to buy foods that have been enhanced to "taste better or fresher" (54 percent), or foods that have been modified for insect protection and to require less pesticide spray (69 percent). http://www.ific.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=17946&PROACTIVE
_ID=cecfcfcccac9cdcccac5cecfcfcfc5cecfcac8cbcfcdc6cecdc5cf

 

August 1999
Attitudes in the USA

In the USA today, no application of biotechnology is widely criticized. The movie "Jurassic Park", for instance, with its horrific science fiction imagery of biotechnology, stirred no debate on biotechnology whatsoever.

More than half the food items in supermarkets in the USA are thought to contain products from GMOs. For a long time there was some criticism of diverse applications of biotechnology….However, these voices have found hardly any echo in the general media.

http://www.biotechknowledge.com/showlib.php3?1924

 

March/April 1999

A new national survey finds American consumer support remains strong for foods produced through biotechnology. The Wirthlin survey, conducted for the International Food Information Council (IFIC) in February 1999, asked 1,000 U.S. adult consumers about their attitudes toward food biotechnology. Most of the new survey questions had been asked in an IFIC-commissioned March 1997 Wirthlin survey. http://www.ific.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=18981&PROACTIVE
_ID=cecfcfcccac9cdcccac5cecfcfcfc5cecfcac8cbcfcdc6cecdc5cf

 

September 1998
The European Commission survey of perceptions of biotechnology

A key finding emerging from these surveys is that differences between U.S. and European consumers, in terms of their perceptions about biotechnology, are not as substantial as expected.

http://www.agbioforum.org/vol1no1/zechen.html

 

July 1998

The significance of the Swiss referendum is that it was probably the first time that average citizens had a direct vote on the issue. The subject of genetic engineering is highly technical and is often very emotionally debated. The public referendum forced the voters to consider the potential costs and benefits of a technology that is often not well understood in all its complexities by the "average" person on the street. Scientists and researchers had to become involved in the public policy debate to defend their work before the general public. In the end, 40.6 % of the voters bothered to vote - which is more or less in line with other referendum participations - and two-thirds of the voters rejected the proposed restrictions.

http://www.foodstuff.org/News/OnThePlate/Jul98.htm

 

1992-1996
Australian links

The Australian public is broadly supportive of a wide range of genetic engineering projects. The average Australian rates the average genetic engineering project as a "good idea".

Of the genetic engineering products we asked about in the survey, the most popular are a treatment for blood cancer, a drug that lowers blood pressure, and cotton that resists insect pests. More than 90% of Australians favour these. Then comes healthier cooking oil, genetically modified viruses to protect farm crops by attacking insect pests, viruses to control imported animal pests, and lean pork. Support is lowest for the genetically engineered tomato but even here a clear majority is in favour, 64% declaring them to be a "good idea" or a "very good idea" so long as they are clearly labeled.

http://www.arts.usask.ca/policynut/courses/links.htm

 

Back to BIO 2001 News