Utilizing online survey data of US consumers, this study examines the extent to which consumers' acceptance of genetically modified (GM) and gene-edited (GE) food is driven by their risk attitudes. Our results indicate that individuals with high-risk propensity are more likely to accept both GM and GE food than individuals with low- and medium-risk propensity. Our results also find differences in consumers' attitudes toward plants and animal products in the context of both GM and GE. Intriguingly, these attitudinal differences can be explained by consumers' risk propensities. Specifically, both low- and medium-risk propensity consumers differentiate between plants and animal products; the latter is less acceptable than the former, indicating a tendency to have more concerns about the application of biotechnology to animals than plants. However, individuals with high-risk propensity do not differentiate between GM and GE plants and animal products. Our results suggest that policymakers, the food industry, and researchers need to consider these attitudinal differences while studying consumer attitudes toward GM and GE food. Failing to capture these attitudinal differences in studies focusing on consumer behavior toward GM and GE food may result in either overestimating or underestimating consumer response.

In January 2020, the United States implemented a federal bioengineered labeling standard for food products that contain genetically modified material set to go into effect in January 2022. This bioengineered label indicates which products contain detectable levels of genetic material that have been modified through lab techniques that cannot be achieved in nature. An already existing alternative to the bioengineered label is the Non-GMO Project verified label which has been on the market since 2007, and indicates products free of genetically modified material through lab techniques. As consumers are now confronted with multiple labels pertaining to information related to genetic engineering, it is important to understand how people interpret these labels as it can lead to a greater understanding of how they inform consumer choice. We conducted a survey with 153 biology and environmental studies undergraduate students at Binghamton University in Binghamton, New York, asking questions about participants' views on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and related terminology, corresponding food labels and how these labels influence their purchasing decisions. Results demonstrated a lack of awareness of the bioengineered label compared to the Non-GMO Project verified label. Additionally, individuals associated ‘bioengineered’ and ‘genetically modified’ with differing themes, where ‘bioengineered’ was more often associated with a scientific theme and ‘genetically modified’ was more often associated with an agricultural theme. There was also a discrepancy in how individuals said these labels influenced their purchases vs how the labels actually influenced purchasing decisions when participating in choice experiments. While the majority of participants reported that neither the Non-GMO Project verified label nor the bioengineered label influenced their purchasing decisions, in choice experiments, the majority of respondents chose products with the Non-GMO Project verified label. This study can give insight into overall perceptions of different terminologies associated with genetic engineering, in addition to how these labels are interpreted by consumers, and how they could affect purchasing decisions with the implementation of the new bioengineered label.

This Article frames the precautionary principle as an inner limit to the EU institutions’ broad discretion in the field of EU risk regulation, contextualizing recourse to the principle against the more encompassing backdrop of socially acceptable risk approaches. On these grounds, it inquires to what extent the precautionary principle may be successfully invoked in challenges to acts which are deemed insufficiently protective. The opening sections set the ground for the analysis. The third section analyzes challenges to regulatory acts, arguing that the Court has followed a quantitative threshold approach. This is legally tenable and appropriate; however, it cannot do justice to the true nature of the precautionary principle. The following sections analyze cases involving legislative acts. This includes an in-depth examination of the recent Blaise case, which has put judicial review of compliance with the precautionary principle under the spotlight. Against this overall background, this Article concludes that judicial review can hardly do justice to the precautionary principle, as applicable to the risk management process and underpinning EU legislative frameworks. It will ultimately rest on EU risk managers and EU legislators to ensure that the principle is applied and that its overarching goals are pursued.

In May 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) released the report “Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects,” summarizing scientific consensus on genetically engineered crops and their implications. NASEM reports aim to give the public and policymakers information on socially relevant science issues. Their impact, however, is not well understood. This analysis combines national pre- and post-report survey data with a large-scale content analysis of Twitter discussion to examine the report’s effect on public perceptions of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We find that the report’s release corresponded with reduced negativity in Twitter discourse and increased ambivalence in public risk and benefit perceptions of GMOs, mirroring the NASEM report’s conclusions. Surprisingly, this change was most likely for individuals least trusting of scientific studies or university scientists. Our findings indicate that NASEM consensus reports can help shape public discourse, even in, or perhaps because of, the complex information landscape of traditional and social media.

This article explores the ethical issues that have been identified in emerging technologies, from early genetic engineering to synthetic biology. The scientific advances in the field form a continuum, and some ethical considerations can be raised time and again when new developments occur. An underlying concern is the cumulative effect of scientific advances and ensuing technological innovation that can change our understanding of life and humanity.

This paper argues that the processes of evolutionary selection are becoming increasingly artificial, a trend that goes against the belief in a purely natural selection process claimed by Darwin's natural selection theory. Artificial selection is mentioned by Darwin, but it was ignored by Social Darwinists, and it is all but absent in neo-Darwinian thinking. This omission results in an underestimation of probable impacts of artificial selection upon assumed evolutionary processes, and has implications for the ideological uses of Darwin's language, particularly in relation to poverty and other social inequalities. The influence of artificial selection on genotypic and phenotypic adaptations arguably represents a substantial shift in the presumed path of evolution, a shift laden with both biological and political implications.

This paper frames the GM cotton approval debate in Turkey in the context of a socio-political process in which conflicts must be resolved between competing interests and among people who hold different value systems and have different priorities. Four different cotton farming alternatives— business as usual (BAU), ecological farming (ECO), GM farming (GM), and good agricultural practices (GAP)—are assessed and evaluated via a set of environmental, social, and economic criteria chosen on the basis of an extensive review of the cotton production and genetically modified organism (GMO) literatures, and in-depth interviews with several key stakeholders and experts in Turkey. The results show that when economic concerns are considered primary, GM farming is the preferred practice. In contrast, when only the social dimension is prioritised, the ECO alternative performs best. Finally, when the economic and social dimensions are appraised together, GAP emerges as a compromise solution. This study reveals that the decision to approve GM farming is not only complex but also value-laden and interest-based.

Pollen-mediated gene flow in space is well documented and isolation distances are recommended to ensure genetic purity of Brassica napus seed crops. Isolation in time could also contribute to gene flow management but has been little investigated. We assessed the effects of asynchronous and synchronous flowering on intraspecific B. napus gene flow by seeding adjacent plots of transgenic spring canola cultivars, either resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate, over a 0–4 week interval and measuring outcrossing rates and seed-set. Outcrossing rates, evaluated in the center of the first adjacent row, were reduced to the lowest level in plots flowering first when the seeding interval > 2 weeks. Increasing the time gap increased outcrossing rates in plots flowering second up to a seeding interval of two weeks. Flowers that opened during the last week of the flowering period produced fewer seed (< 10% of total seed production) and a smaller fraction of outcrossed seed (–25%). Observed time gap effects were likely caused by extraneous pollen load during the receptivity of productive seed-setting early flowers. Clearly, manipulation of B. napus flowering development through staggered planting dates can contribute to gene flow management. The approach will need to be validated by additional site-years and increased isolation distances.

This article understands risk dialectically as a decision-making resource stressing probability but as also giving rise to further uncertainties. It shows that the panel report in EC – Biotech reflects an understanding of risk as decision-making that is deterministic and leaves little room for the application of precautionary approaches and non-scientific factors. It submits that such an approach is unsuitable for novel technologies with limited background knowledge and reduces the accountability of risk regulators. A different approach is put forth, which allows members greater scope for precautionary action while preventing trade protectionism. The article concludes that law can enhance its authority and epistemic validity through scientific evidence but only if it recognizes science's epistemic and its own limitations. Law has to approach science as contested knowledge and risk regulation as political decision-making, leading – inevitably – to more indeterminate solutions to legal conflicts.

In a series of focus groups during 2001 and 2002, organic farmers from different regions of the United States identified a wide range of risks to their operations. The focus groups were facilitated by the University of Maryland in cooperation with a research team from USDA's Economic Research Service, to explore the risks faced by organic farmers, how they are managed, and needs for risk management assistance. Contamination of organic production from genetically modified organisms was seen as a major risk, particularly by grain, soybean and cotton farmers. Focus-group participants producing grains and cotton—many of whom knew about and had obtained crop insurance—raised concerns about coverage offered, including the need for insurance to reflect the higher prices received for organic crops. Most fruit and vegetable producers participating in the focus groups had little knowledge of crop insurance. When provided with basic information about crop insurance, operators of small fruit and vegetable farms were skeptical about its usefulness for their type of operation.

Representatives of the developers of modern agricultural biotechnology are proposing a tiered approach for conducting non-target organism risk assessment for genetically modified (GM) plants in Europe. The approach was developed by the Technical Advisory Group of the EuropaBio Plant Biotechnology Unit (http://www.europabio.org/TAG.htm) and complements other international activities to harmonize risk assessment. In the European Union (EU), the principles and methods to be followed in an environmental risk assessment for the placing on the market of GM plants are laid out in Annex II of Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs, Commission Decision 2002/623/EC and Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003. Additional information is provided in the European Food Safety Authority guidance document of 2004. However, risk assessment for effects to non-target organisms could benefit from further clarification and remains the subject of much discussion in Europe. The industry-wide approach developed by EuropaBio is based on the fundamental steps of risk evaluation, namely hazard and exposure assessment. It follows a structured scheme including assessment planning, product characterization and assessment of hazard/exposure (Tier 0), single high dose and dose response testing (Tier 1), refined hazard characterization and exposure assessment (Tier 2) and further refined risk assessment experiments (Tier 3). An additional tier (Tier 4) was included to reflect the fact that post-market activities such as monitoring are required under Directive 2001/18/EC. The approach is compatible with conditions of commercial release in the EU and around the world.

The monitoring of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) after deliberate release is important in order to assess and evaluate possible environmental effects. Concerns have been raised that the transgenic crop, Bt maize, may affect butterflies occurring in field margins. Therefore, a monitoring of butterflies was suggested accompanying the commercial cultivation of Bt maize. In this study, baseline data on the butterfly species and their abundance in maize field margins is presented together with implications for butterfly monitoring. The study was conducted in Bavaria, South Germany, between 2000–2002. A total of 33 butterfly species was recorded in field margins.A small number of species dominated the community, and butterflies observed were mostly common species. Observation duration was the most important factor influencing the monitoring results. Field margin size affected the butterfly abundance, and habitat diversity had a tendency to influence species richness. Sample size and statistical power analyses indicated that a sample size in the range of 75 to 150 field margins for treatment (transgenic maize) and control (conventional maize) would detect (power of 80%) effects larger than 15% in species richness and the butterfly abundance pooled across species. However, a much higher number of field margins must be sampled in order to achieve a higher statistical power, to detect smaller effects, and to monitor single butterfly species.

Due to the involvement of scientific, industrial, commercial and public sectors of society, the complexity of the issues concerning the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for the environment, agriculture, and human and animal health calls for a wide coverage of information. Accordingly, development of the field of biotechnology, along with concerns related to the fate of released GMOs, has led to a rapid development of tools for disseminating such information. As a result, there is a growing number of databases aimed at collecting and storing information related to GMOs. Most of the sites deal with information on environmental releases, field trials, transgenes and related sequences, regulations and legislation, risk assessment documents, and literature. Databases are mainly established and managed by scientific, national or international authorities, and are addressed towards scientists, government officials, policy makers, consumers, farmers, environmental groups and civil society representatives. This complexity can lead to an overlapping of information. The purpose of the present review is to analyse the relevant databases currently available on the web, providing comments on their vastly different information and on the structure of the sites pertaining to different users. A preliminary overview on the development of these sites during the last decade, at both the national and international level, is also provided.

Modern biotechnology has led to the development and use of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) for agriculture and other purposes. Regulators at the national level are increasingly depending on risk assessment as a tool for assessing potential adverse effects of LMOs on the environment and human health. In addition, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an international agreement expected to enter into force in the near future, requires risk assessment as the basis for decision-making regarding import of some LMOs. While LMO risk assessment is relatively new, there are other risk assessment disciplines which have developed over longer time periods. The field of assessment of the environmental and human health risks of chemicals is particularly well developed, and is similar in application to LMO risk assessment. This paper aims to draw lessons for LMO risk assessment from the vast experience with chemical risk assessment. Seven general principles are outlined which should serve as a useful checklist to guide assessments of risks posed by LMOs.