Abstract
The new technologies for modifying agricultural crops through genetic engineering hold promise for creating valuable new food and feed sources, which are more affordable and environmentally friendly. With such new technologies come issues relating to the mechanisms by which such products reach the marketplace and how consumer and environmental safety can be assured. Extensive policy and infrastructure have developed in the U. S. for governing the development and release of biotechnological products. These policies have focused on not only addressing consumer and environmental safety issues but also aim to bolster public acceptance by addressing consumer concerns. Much of the unrest relating to the new foods derives from the fact that the majority of the population does not understand how food is grown or processed. Without an historical understanding of how our foods were developed, it is difficult to understand how the foods of tomorrow will be similar to or different from the foods of the past and therefore assessing their safety becomes problematic. The potential for risk in genetically engineered foods can be fairly accurately assessed using current scientific information and this has formed the basis for certain aspects of regulatory policy. However, public concern, often inconsistent with the scientific measurement of risk, has also influenced regulatory policy. The basis for this concern depends on the familiarity, “friendliness” and voluntary nature of the risk. For example, compare the adverse consumer reactions to E. coli 0157: H7-contaminated hamburger in the U. S. and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)-tainted beef in the EU to the willing acceptance by many of the risks of picking and eating wild mushrooms and consuming deadly puffer fish. Many consumers in the U. S. also willingly consume the new low-calorie fat substitute despite the warning label, which states that it might cause diarrhea or interfere with nutrient absorption. These examples demonstrate that different situations and products can result in different perceptions of acceptable risk and these different perceptions can affect the development and application of regulatory policy. Biotechnology is an example where public perception of risk varies widely. These misconceptions often lead to modifications in regulatory policy which are inconsistent with the scientific measurement of risk. Some consumers believe that regulatory policy should strive for “zero risk”, not realizing that developing such policy comes at an economic price that might be inconsistent with the degree of risk and might not be necessary to insure public safety.
