Ishii, T., & Araki, M. (2016). Consumer acceptance of food crops developed by genome editing. Plant cell reports , 35 (7), 1507-1518.
Consumer acceptance of GMOs is one of the persistent topics in the adoption of genome edited crops in agriculture. Ishii and Araki (2016) noted the existence of a large body of empirical evidence showing the increasing adoption of GM crops in permissive countries. However, they also pointed out the lack of consensus on the way forward as some factions in the same settings remain vehemently opposed to GMOs. It is important to note that Ishii and Araki (2016) sought not to corroborate existing evidence through analysis of consumer acceptance. The researchers deviate from this approach that dominates public discourse by exploring the motivations behind positive or negative consumer attitudes towards GMOs.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Therefore, Ishii and Araki (2016) study can be classified as a literature review of critical concepts in the field of GMOs. In the review, the authors link negative attitude to GMOs to: insufficient knowledge of GMOs, the lack of trust in developers and/or relevant regulations, poor risk–benefit communication, and ethical values (1507). Consequently, the article is structured to address specific issues of relevance in alteration of public perceptions. The researchers highlight some of the plants that have benefitted from genome editing and the important role they play as food and/or as raw materials for the agriculture industry. According to Ishii and Araki (2016) the solution the current uncertainty surrounding GMOs can be resolved through dissemination of knowledge on different breeding techniques, communicating risk-benefit effects, developing trust in developers, developing trust in regulatory mechanisms, and a paradigm shift in ethical values (1507). One can argue that the critical aspect highlighted in the article is the need to ensure information cascades down to the consumers to facilitate informed decision-making. When debates on GMOs remain to be affairs of scientists, regulators, and political stakeholders, the uncertainty about their adoption is likely to persist.
Jacobsen, E., & Schouten, H. J. (2010). Cisgenesis strongly improves introgression breeding and induced translocation breeding of plants. Trends in Biotechnology , 25 (5), 219-223.
One of the dominant topics about GMOs relates to which crops fall into the category of classical bred plants, hence should be exempted from GMO legislation. Jacobsen and Schouten (2010) present their argument for advocating for the inclusion of plants bred through cisgenesis among those exempted from GMO regulations. According to the authors of the article, DNA sequence information has facilitated isolation of cisgenes derived from crops themselves or from crossable species (219). The cisgenes can be employed in transformation protocols without leaving marker genes, hence can play a crucial role in improving plant breeding while remaining within the gene pool of a classical breeder. Cisgenes have significant similarities to the genes used in classical breeding (219).
One can argue that Jacobsen and Schouten (2010) recognized the blanket application of GMO regulations even to situations where they are unnecessary. The researchers highlight the implications of the current regulations in regards to risk assessments being based on transgenes coming from non-crossable species. This law only exempts transgenes from a gene pool of classical breeder, which has disfranchised progress made through other genetic improvement techniques such as cisgenesis. The article highlights the existing disconnect between practice and regulations in relation to GMOs. In support of their argument for exemption of cisgenes from GMO regulations, Jacobsen and Schouten (2010) provide comprehensive and detailed analysis of different genetic improvement techniques and compare it to cisgenesis, which is presented as feasible with superior benefits as shown by evidence from practical application. The article demonstrated the gap in knowledge about practical implications of genetic improvement techniques among regulatory stakeholders, a discourse Ishii and Araki (2016) attributed to negative perceptions towards GMOs.
Pavone, V., & Martinelli, L. (2015). Cisgenics as emerging bio-objects: Bio-objectification and bio-identification in agrobiotech innovation. New Genetics and Society , 34 (1), 52-71.
In this study, Pavone and Martinelli (2015) combined frame analysis of academic literature and policy documents, with a structured questionnaire to generate perceptions of scientists on objectification of cisgenesis and implications of the prevailing legal frameworks (p. 58). The study corroborates the argument advanced in Jacobsen and Schouten (2010) calling for exemption of plants bred through cisgenesis from GMO regulations. In the findings of this qualitative study, a thematic analysis of recurrent topics revealed that most scientists strongly believe in the potential of cisgenics to enhance beneficial effects of GMOs, facilitate market introduction, and improve acceptance. Governments of different countries in Europe where the study was conducted were also demonstrated to have invested resources in the field because of its relevance and potential.
However, worth noting is the consensus among scientists surveyed that exclusion of cisgenics bred plants from GMO regulations would present a bright future for the agricultural industry. Nevertheless, efforts by some stakeholders to suppress exclusion of cisgenics bred plants are widely spread. Such stakeholders argue that exclusion of these plants calls for segmentation of GMO industry, which would be detrimental to the progress made in the field, as it would set a dangerous precedent that focuses on individual cultivars. Pavone and Martinelli (2015) findings also demonstrated that scientists strongly believe the risks associated with cisgenics to be less inherent in the wake of increasing world population and decline in food productions and other natural resources (p. 63). One can argue that this study bridges the gap evidenced between practice and regulatory frameworks in relation to adoption of GMOs. The unwillingness demonstrated by regulatory bodies to exclude cisgenics bred plants from their legal frameworks despite overwhelming scientific evidence, points to persistence of controversies where GMOs are concerned. Like Jacobsen and Schouten (2010), Pavone and Martinelli (2015) advanced the argument that de-regulation of cisgenics would be instrumental in addressing GMOs acceptance issues among the public.
Waltz, E. (2015). Nonbrowning GM apple cleared for market. Nature Biotechnology, 33 (4), 326–327.
In the article Waltz (2015) demonstrated practical application and implications of genetic modification techniques. The mixed reactions that greeted the approval of the first GM apple developed to resist browning indicated that developments in the field would always court controversy. While the decision was acclaimed as a scientific breakthrough by the developers and other stakeholders, other consumer groups, such as the Center for Consumer Safety have questioned safety of the Okanagan’s apple, citing inadequate environmental assessment by the approving body, the UD Department of Agriculture (Waltz, 2015, p. 327). One can argue that such concerns may be justified because there is no evidence of the genetic modification has adverse effects or not. According to Waltz (2015), the apples were genetically engineered with the transgene that produces specific RNAs to silence the expression of at least four PPO browning genes. Polyphenol Oxidases (PPOs) naturally occur in fruits and vegetables and are responsible for catalyzing the oxidation of polyphenols to quinones, resulting to oxidative browning (p. 326). While the engineered apple can resist browning it is unclear what other effects the silencing of the genes can have. However, controversy has focused on labelling and environmental concerns (Waltz, 2015), implying that regardless of progress made in the field of GMOs, criticism is inevitable.
Scientific Controversy in the Findings and Discussions
The scientific controversy of significance to the field of GMOs is illustrated in Pavone and Martinelli (2015) article. In the findings and discussion of the article, the researchers illustrated that a consensus exists among scientists in support of benefits of cisgenics outweighing its demerits. However, the refusal by regulatory bodies to de-regulate cisgenics is perceived as one of the controversies that continue to be retrogressive to the field of biotechnology and agriculture. As mentioned earlier, utilization of the concepts of bio-objectification and bio-identification in Pavone and Martinelli (2015) to generate scientists’ perceptions on cisgenics revealed overwhelming positive responses. Scientists strongly believe that cisgenics is the way forward in genetic engineering of GMOs, a notion that regulatory bodies have continued to controversially disregard.
The impasse created by legal frameworks can be contextualized in the article by Waltz (2015) illustrating the duality in reactions to developments in the field of GMOs. The approval of the nongrowing GM apple by the USDA has attracted major controversy not because of the genetic modification techniques used to engineer the fruit, but because of the regulations on packaging (326 and 327). Proponents of such regulations advance the argument that all GMOs released to the market must be labelled GM. However, developers of the apple cite that such regulations are inapplicable in this context because the genetic improvement process has been approved by the relevant body. One can argue that the developers of the apple fruit base their argument on the findings and discussion in Jacobsen and Schouten (2010, p. 222) that genetic improvement techniques such as cisgenesis are powerful alternatives to classical methods of alien gene transfer that are time-consuming, have linkage drags, and involve multiple steps. Cisgenics employs cisgenes isolated from a pool of genes from plants of crossable species (p. 219). The approval of the non-browning apple by the USDA may have been based on the cisgenics concept. Therefore, it highlights the controversy in the application of GMO regulation intended for risk assessment on transgenes from non-crossable species on transgenes from crossable species.
The findings by Jacobsen and Schouten (2010), Waltz (2015), and Pavone and Martinelli (2015) illustrated that GMO regulations are the greatest impediment to adoption of GM crops in agriculture and food industries. The findings corroborate assertions advanced in Ishii and Araki (2016) that disconnect between knowledge and practice is a major factor aiding persistent negative attitudes towards GMOs. Ishii and Araki (2016) emphasized on accountability and responsibility by developers in education of the public about the advantages and disadvantages of specific breeding and genome editing. The technical explanation of GM techniques should be based on the consumers’ point of view rather that of developers or administrative personnel. Addressing the controversy highlighted herein requires re-evaluation of current GMO regulation in the context of specific genetic improvement techniques. This way, blanket application of the rules that has greatly impeded adoption of bioengineering techniques whose benefits outweigh disadvantages overwhelmingly, such as cisgenics, can be avoided.
References
Ishii, T., & Araki, M. (2016). Consumer acceptance of food crops developed by genome editing. Plant cell reports , 35 (7), 1507-1518.
Jacobsen, E., & Schouten, H. J. (2010). Cisgenesis strongly improves introgression breeding and induced translocation breeding of plants. Trends in biotechnology , 25 (5), 219-223.
Pavone, V., & Martinelli, L. (2015). Cisgenics as emerging bio-objects: Bio-objectification and bio-identification in agrobiotech innovation. New Genetics and Society , 34 (1), 52-71.
Waltz, E. (2015). Nonbrowning GM apple cleared for market. Nature Biotechnology, 33 (4), 326–327.
