What is a gene? What is genetic modifcation?

[Link] [Link] What is a gene?

All plants and animals are made of billions of tiny cells. Inside each cell is a nucleus that contains DNA. DNA is passed on from one generation to the next and with it all the information to make the organism and keep it functioning. Genes are made of DNA and, if DNA is like an information library, genes are like individual instruction books. The instructions in genes allow them to make proteins which are the building bocks of life. They make up the structural parts of the organism and may make other sorts of molecules like starch, oil, fibre, or fat, which are used within the organism. An organism is mainly made up of proteins or the things proteins make. Genes make up much less than 0.1 per cent of the weight of an organism, but they control everything else.

Genetic modification (GM)

Genetic modification (GM), genetic manipulation (GM) and genetic engineering (GE) all refer to the same thing the use of modern biotechnology techniques to change the genes of an organism, such as a plant or animal. A genetically modified organism (GMO) is a plant, animal or other organism that has been changed using genetic modification. Traditional breeding of plants and animals aims to tailor the plant or animal for a certain application. For example, a new crop variety might be bred that is more drought tolerant or resistant to a certain disease. The process of traditional breeding involves finding individuals with favourable traits and crossing them with each other with the aim that the progeny of the cross will have the favourable traits from both parents. In reality the progeny have a mix of traits, both good and bad from their parents, and it takes a number of breeding cycles to eliminate the negative traits and build on the positive. The final new plant variety or breed of animal will hopefully just have the desired traits, which it will have inherited from its ancestors along with the associated genes for those traits. Traditional breeding is a way of harnessing the genetic resources of an organism by breeding out unwanted genes and breeding in desirable genes. GM breeding is used because it can change the genes of an organism in ways not possible through traditional breeding techniques providing opportunities for new plant varieties and animal breeds. GM includes using genes from one organism and inserting them into another. For example, insect resistant GM cotton uses a gene from a naturally occurring soil bacterium to provide it

with built-in insect protection. The use of insect resistant GM cotton has reduced pesticide use over 80 per cent in Australia. However, GM does not necessarily mean that a gene from another organism has to be used to create the GMO. GM can mean that the organisms own genes are changed. For example, gene silencing turns down the activity of certain genes already within an organism, such as in oilseed crops where it is being used to turn down the production of unhealthy oils. GM is also used for purely research purposes, for example, to discover genes.

Fast facts
Genetic modification (GM) is the use of modern biotechnology techniques to change the genes of an organism, such as a plant or animal. A genetically modified organism (GMO) is a plant, animal or other organism that has been changed using genetic modification. GM can change the genes of an organism in ways not possible through traditional breeding techniques.

Genetic modification
As scientific understanding of DNA increases, so does the ability to copy and alter the molecule. This is called genetic engineering or genetic modification. The definition of genetic modification is 'any alteration of genetic material (DNA or RNA) of an organism by means that could not occur naturally through mating or recombination'. The genetic techniques involved could include:
transferring genes from one organism to another moving, deleting, modifying, or multiplying genes within a living organism modifying existing genes or constructing new ones, and incorporating them into a new organism.

There are many applications for genetic modification. For example, human insulin for diabetics was previously obtained from genetically-engineered bacteria from pigs. This represented a huge advance for diabetic patients. The insulin produced by this process is not recognised by the immune system, so problems suffered by diabetic patients in the past involving development of antibodies and allergy to pig insulin (a problem in the 1980s) are now totally absent. A variety of other enzymes and chemicals are now also produced by genetically-modified bacteria. Scientists are using genetic engineering in animals to produce improved vaccines for animal diseases, and medical compounds for humans. The term 'pharming' has been used to describe these concepts.
TopFoto

Plant modification is often concerned with improving the ability to survive in particular environments, to provide greater resistance to pests and diseases, to improve nutritional qualities, and to create immunity to certain herbicides. Genetically-engineered plants are also being used to produce compounds of use to industry. Gene therapy is the generic term for genetic modification of humans. Some trials have taken place to introduce genes into the body which can fight specific diseases. This is specifically referred to as somatic therapy - where changes may occur to selected parts of the body, but are not passed on to the next generation. Somatic therapy does not alter the gametes. Genetic engineering of gametes or embryos is currently not permitted. In theory, such a process could be used to remove or alter the genes which cause inherited diseases. This form of gene therapy is called germline therapy. If used, it would result in changes which could be inherited. In theory, gene therapy could be used to correct genetic defects such as sickle cell anaemia and cystic fibrosis, but also more common diseases such as cancer and heart disease. The main barrier to this sort of therapy is actually getting the treatment gene (or 'therapeutic gene') gene into the correct cell. Cells are surrounded by fatty cell membrane, which is very resistant to large molecules such as DNA passing through it. Currently, researchers are looking at alternative modes of treatment - such as engineering viruses to cross into cells carrying therapeutic genes, so allowing gene therapy.

Biotechnology and Food Food Additives -

brings together information about biotechnology, genetic engineering, and how food is affected by these processes. Provides science-based information about the safety of food additives, the history of the regulation of food additives, how the safety of a proposed food additive is assessed, and information about specific food additives which have aroused concern.

Food Contaminants Food Irradiation -

Discusses such topics as: Lead, Mercury, Cadmium, PCBs, Dioxins, and Pesticides in your food Discusses issues of safety, quality, and environmental protection with regard to food irradiation.

Natural Toxins in Food Pesticides in Food -

Information on naturally-occurring toxins in food plants, toxic mushrooms, naturally occurring carcinogens, 'Endocrine Disrupters' in plants, naturally occurring toxins used as pesticides, and toxins in shellfish. Answers some of the most common questions about pesticides and fo

Food safety and foodborne illness

Fact sheet N237 Reviewed March 2007

Food safety is an increasingly important public health issue. Governments all over the world are intensifying their efforts to improve food safety. These efforts are in response to an increasing number of food safety problems and rising consumer concerns. Definition of foodborne illness: Foodborne illnesses are defined as diseases, usually either infectious or toxic in nature, caused by agents that enter the body through the ingestion of food. Every person is at risk of foodborne illness. Magnitude of foodborne illness: Foodborne diseases are a widespread and growing public health problem, both in developed and developing countries. The global incidence of foodborne disease is difficult to estimate, but it has been reported that in 2005 alone 1.8 million people died from diarrhoeal diseases. A great proportion of these cases can be attributed to contamination of food and drinking water. Additionally, diarrhoea is a major cause of malnutrition in infants and young children. In industrialized countries, the percentage of the population suffering from foodborne diseases each year has been reported to be up to 30%. In the United States of America (USA), for example, around 76 million cases of foodborne diseases, resulting in 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths, are estimated to occur each year. While less well documented, developing countries bear the brunt of the problem due to the presence of a wide range of foodborne diseases, including those caused by parasites. The high prevalence of diarrhoeal diseases in many developing countries suggests major underlying food safety problems. While most foodborne diseases are sporadic and often not reported, foodborne disease outbreaks may take on massive proportions. For example, in 1994, an outbreak of salmonellosis due to contaminated ice cream occurred in the USA, affecting an estimated 224,000 persons. In 1988, an outbreak of hepatitis A, resulting from the consumption of contaminated clams, affected some 300,000 individuals in China. Major foodborne diseases from microorganisms Salmonellosis is a major problem in most countries. Salmonellosis is caused by the Salmonella bacteria and symptoms are fever, headache, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhoea. Examples of foods involved in outbreaks of salmonellosis are eggs, poultry and other meats, raw milk and chocolate. Campylobacteriosis is a widespread infection. It is caused by certain species of Campylobacter bacteria and in some countries, the reported number of cases surpasses the incidence of salmonellosis. Foodborne cases are mainly caused by foods such as raw milk, raw or undercooked poultry and drinking water. Acute health effects of campylobacteriosis include severe abdominal pain, fever, nausea and diarrhoea. In two to ten per cent of cases the infection may lead to chronic health problems, including reactive arthritis and neurological disorders. Infections due to enterohaemorrhagic (causing intestinal bleeding) E. coli, e.g. [Link] O157, and listeriosis are important foodborne diseases which have emerged over the last decades. Although their incidence is relatively low, their severe and sometimes fatal health consequences, particularly among infants, children and the elderly, make them among the most serious foodborne infections. Cholera is a major public health problem in developing countries, also causing enormous economic losses. The disease is caused by the bacterium Vibrio cholerae. In addition to water, contaminated foods can be the vehicle of infection. Different foods, including rice, vegetables, millet gruel and various types of seafood have been implicated in outbreaks of cholera. Symptoms, including abdominal pain, vomiting and profuse watery diarrhoea, may lead to severe dehydration and possibly death, unless fluid and salt are replaced. Other food safety problems: some major examples Naturally occurring toxins, such as mycotoxins, marine biotoxins, cyanogenic glycosides and toxins occurring in poisonous mushrooms, periodically cause severe intoxications. Mycotoxins, such as aflatoxin and ochratoxin A, are found at measurable levels in many staple foods; the health implications of long-term exposure of such toxins are poorly understood. Unconventional agents such as the agent causing bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or "mad cow disease"), is associated with variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob (vCJD) Disease in humans. Consumption of bovine products containing brain tissue is the most likely route for transmission of the agent to humans. Persistant Organic Pollutants (POPs) are compounds that accumulate in the environment and the human body. Known examples are Dioxins and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). Dioxins are unwanted byproducts of some industrial processes and waste incineration. Exposure to POPs may result in a wide variety of adverse effects in humans. Metals: such as lead and mercury, cause neurological damage in infants and children. Exposure to cadmium can also cause kidney damage, usually seen in the elderly. These (and POPs) may contaminate food through pollution of air, water and soil. Costs of foodborne diseases Food contamination creates an enormous social and economic burden on communities and their health systems. In the USA, diseases caused by the major pathogens alone are estimated to cost up to US $35 billion annually (1997) in medical costs and lost productivity. The reemergence of cholera in Peru in 1991 resulted in the loss of US $500 million in fish and fishery product exports that year. Challenges and developments in food safety The safety of food derived from biotechnology needs to be carefully assessed. To provide the scientific basis for decisions regarding human health, new methods and policies to assess such food need to be developed and agreed upon internationally. The assessment should consider health benefits as well as possible negative health implications. Crops modified to resist pests, foods with allergens removed or food with an increase of essential nutrients are possible examples of the former, while anti-microbial markers in some genetically modified foods have been suggested to be an example of the latter. The weighing of potential risks and benefits is an important aspect of assessment of foods derived from biotechnology that has not received much attention in the past. Likewise, clear communication of the basis for safety assessment in this area is generally lacking at national and international levels. If not properly monitored and assessed, changes in animal husbandry practices, including feeding, may have serious implications for food safety. For example, increased use of ruminant bone and meat meal as feed supplement for cattle appear to have played a role in the emergence of BSE. Adding low levels of antibiotics to animal feed in order to increase growth rate has raised concern about the transfer of antibiotic resistance to human pathogens from this practice. Modern intensive agricultural practices contribute to increasing the availability of affordable foodstuffs and the use of food additives can improve the quality, quantity and safety of the food supply. However, appropriate controls are necessary to ensure their proper and safe use along the entire food chain. Pre-market review and approval followed by continuous monitoring are necessary to ensure the safe use of pesticides, veterinary drugs and food additives.

Other challenges, which need to be addressed to help ensure food safety, include the globalization of trade in food, urbanization, changes in lifestyles, international travel, environmental pollution, deliberate contamination and natural and manmade disasters. The food production chain has become more complex, providing greater opportunities for contamination and growth of pathogens. Many outbreaks of foodborne diseases that were once contained within a small community may now take on global dimensions. Future directions for food safety at the World Health Organization (WHO) In partnership with other stakeholders, WHO is developing policies that will further promote the safety of food. These policies cover the entire food chain from production to consumption and will make use of different types of expertise. The Work of the WHO Department of Food Safety and other WHO programmes and departments includes strengthening food safety systems, promoting good manufacturing practices and educating retailers and consumers about appropriate food handling. Education of consumers and training of food handlers in safe food handling is one of the most critical interventions in the prevention of foodborne illnesses. WHO is promoting in-country laboratory-based surveillance of priority foodborne diseases in humans and animals, as well as the monitoring of pathogens in food. In co-operation with its Member States, WHO is working to support the development of internationally agreed-upon guidelines for data collection in countries. WHO is also compiling outbreak and surveillance databases, and is broadening its epidemic surveillance capacity to include foodborne disease outbreaks. WHO is expanding its global network of participating institutions to monitor chemical contamination of the food supply, particularly in developing countries. WHO is promoting the use of all food technologies which may contribute to public health, such as pasteurization, food irradiation and fermentation. WHO has undertaken an important new initiative to strengthen the scientific basis of food safety activities through the establishment of a WHO/FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) expert advisory body to assess microbiological risks in food. WHO is increasing its involvement in the work of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission, whose standards, guidelines and recommendations are regarded as the international reference for food safety requirements by the World Trade Organization. WHO and FAO is initiating a thorough review of Codex primo 2002. Biotechnology has become a major public issue in developed as well as developing countries. WHO, jointly with FAO, will convene a series of expert consultations to assess the safety and nutritional aspects of foods derived from genetically modified plants, microorganisms, and animals. WHO has initiated work to establish a knowledge base focusing on a broader evaluation of risks, benefits and other considerations related to the production and consumption of foods derived from biotechnology.

Food Safety Concerns and Biotechnology: Consumers' Attitudes to Genetically Modified Products in Urban China
Peter Ho and Eduard B. Vermeer University of Groningen; Leiden University
This article is based on a survey of consumer awareness and acceptance of genetically modified (GM) food products in China. In recent years, the Chinese government has grown more cautious about the risks of transgenic food crops and publicity about these crops and risks. The state plays a critical role in biotech politics and does not allow GM food to become a prominent public issue. Our survey, which polled the opinions of approximately 1,000 urban respondents, showed that only one fifth of consumers had a limited understanding of genes and GM products. In the absence of adequate information on GMOs, the overall majority of the respondents (60%) were neutral or even unwilling to consume GM food. More importantly, when given both positive and negative information about potential GM food allergenicity, the willingness to buy dropped sharply. This might point to future scenarios of Chinese consumer resistance against GM food products.

Key words: biosafety, consumer resistance, genetically modified food, labeling, risk.
Introduction Studies have been conducted in many countries on the public acceptance of genetically modified (GM) food products. International comparisons are complicated by differences in adoption rates of GM crops and their processed products, differences in national legislation about their admissibility, and differences in labeling requirements. In most countries, public awareness and acceptance have been shaped primarily by mixed messages from action groups and the industry. On one side, concerned biologists, organic farmers, and environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have linked up with concerned consumers. On the other side, agricultural specialists and biotech industry representatives highlight the benefits of GM crops to farmers and consumers (Wansink & Kim, 2002). Evidence from biological studies is interpreted in such different ways that one should not expect any convergence of opinions in the near future (e.g., Royal Society of London, 2003). The Chinese government has become more cautious about food safety and the potential risks of transgenic food crops in recent years and tries to keep all options open. Basic consumer understanding of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is very low, mainly because genetic modification is not allowed to become a widely debated issue in the media. In September 2003, two months after the Beijing government had implemented regulations on labeling genetically modified soybean oil, we conducted a survey of consumer awareness and acceptance of GM food products in four supermarkets in different districts (three in Beijing and one in Shijiazhuang city). We interviewed almost 1,000 customers about their personal backgrounds, attitudes towards various types of food, and opinions on food safety. The overall majority of respondents (71%) said they had heard of transgenic food products. However, only one fifth of the customers showed understanding of genes and GM products. Most consumers (60%) were neutral or even unwilling to consume GM food. We also tested consumers' reactions to information about reduced pesticide use and the possibility of GM food allergies. Additional positive and negative information about GM food had a great impact, driving down the willingness to buy GM food. Additional information also substantially narrowed the difference between those initially in favor of GM food and those against it. This paper is divided into four sections. We begin with an overview of China's biotech and biosafety policies, based on recent literature, official Chinese sources, and interviews with GMO experts and supermarket managers. In the subsequent two sections, we provide more detailed information on soybeans, GM food labeling, and the state of Chinese public opinion on GM food before the new labeling regulations. The final section presents a detailed analysis of the survey data regarding questions on food safety in general, biosafety and human health, the necessity of labeling, and the willingness to consume and buy GM products. The Political Economy of China's Biotech Policies All over the globe, farmers, governments, and food retailers have to find an adequate response to the new challenges of biotechnology. In the United States, GM crops have received the benefit of the doubt, as long as they have "substantial equivalence" and give no evidence of negative impact on health and the environment; GM labeling is voluntary. The United States has been the world leader in the cultivation of GM crops for years and currently accounts for the majority (59%) of the total world acreage of GM crops (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, 2004). The European Union (EU), on the other hand, has taken a more cautious course by instituting a five-year moratorium in 1998. This moratorium was lifted in July 2003, when legislation was passed to meet environmental and health safety concerns, to protect the interests of producers of traditional and organic crops (through zoning requirements to be worked out by the member states), and to uphold consumers' "right to know" through labeling. Under the new rules, the food industry is obliged to transmit and retain relevant information at each stage from the farm to the consumer for five years, even if the final product has no more DNA or protein of GM origin (Prakash & Kollman, 2003). By comparison, China has generally adopted a positive position towards GM crops. China has more farmers and more consumers than any other country in the world. Over the past decade, China has invested heavily in agricultural technologies that improve quality and increase output of grain, cotton, oil crops, fruit, vegetables, and other crops. Biotechnology is one instrument. At present, China has become the fourth largest grower of GM crops (after the United States, Argentina, and Canada). China presently accounts for the world's largest acreage in pest-resistant Bt cotton.1 In 2003, Chinese and Monsanto Bt cotton varieties covered 51% of China's total cotton area (Huang, Rozelle, Pray, & Wang, 2002; Huang & Wang, 2003). However, Chinese and foreign biotech and seed companies have found it hard to muster sufficient capital to invest and grow because of illegal copying of GM cottonseed by farmers themselves. Monsanto has frequently complained about "fake" seeds being sold under its name. China does not want to become dependent on foreign (particularly US) seed companies for cotton or grain seed. Therefore, while allowing joint ventures with foreign companies such as Monsanto, the Chinese government has supported setting up Chinese biotech companies (such as Weiming and Biocentury) that develop GM seeds and supply them more inexpensively. Moreover, there is a self-propelled development pushed by Chinese bioscientists at research institutes and universities and subsidized by the Ministry of Science and Technology. There has been a shift in research funding away from qualities that are useful in poverty reduction (such as drought resistance) to areas that offer higher returns: disease and insect resistance, protein enhancement, and golden rice. Many GMOs have been approved for field trials or environmental release in China. Between 1996 and 2000, China approved 45 GM plant applications for field trials, 65 for commercial release, and 31 for commercialization. By January 2003, trials had been approved for wheat, maize, potatoes, soybeans, rape, peanuts, cabbages, potatoes, and rice (Huang et al., 2002). A confidential study prepared for China's State Council in 2001 was quite straightforward: "GM organisms do not pose a higher risk than varieties bred through ordinary breeding. The greater risk lies in a state that neglects to use these powerful techniques in order to solve the daily increase in food demand.... China should not accept being controlled by others" (Ma & Wang, 2002). The study recommended a dual strategy for imports. With crops for which China was temporarily unable to achieve commercial production (such as transgenic wheat and beans), China could use a high threshold for biosafety techniques in order to delay import of foreign products. In the meantime, China could strengthen its research and development (R&D): "Once our independently developed products are ripe, we could open our markets again. For crops that have rather great risks of safety and ecology or in cases where we may occupy the world market with nontransgenic crops, such as rice and vegetables, we may stop imports of foreign products for a certain period, and give as a reason that within China R&D of these crops is forbidden." In fact, Monsanto claims that its Bollgard cotton has been subjected to much more severe biosafety testing and geographical limitations than domestic Bt strains. The authors of the report also warned against false publicity: "The problem of GMOs is sensitive, and we should keep reports about transgenic crops strictly in check, in order to prevent unsuitable news and stirred-up (chaozuo) reports, and reduce negative impacts. We should not engage in too much media reporting" (Ma & Wang, 2002). In a 2002 policy statement, the government mentioned a number of reasons for its support for agricultural biotechnology. China needed to increase its unit grain yield by over 40% by 2030 in order to feed its growing population. Bt cotton had been quite successful and already brought over five billion yuan2 in farmers' benefits. Agricultural production costs should be lowered in order to compete with foreign imports after China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Farm incomes should be increased. Biotechnology was the future battleground for international competition. Therefore, during 2001-2005, China's investment in biotechnological R&D and commercialization should triple over the previous five years to more than ten billion yuan. The Chinese developments have caused concern among critical foreign and domestic observers. Some even predicted a "genetic Bhopal," because "regulatory arrangements may be weaker in less developed countries, more difficult to manage or more easily subverted, leading to lower standards for food safety and environmental protection" (Kydd, Haddock, Mansfield, Ainsworth & Buckwell, 2000, p. 1137). However, a recent study demonstrates that current biotech politics in China actually feature complex dynamics with various checks and balances, and the state displays a deeply contradictory position towards biotechnology (Zhao & Ho, in press). In fact, China's biotech policies are strongly wavering between concerns over biosafety and developmental goals such as economic development, food security, and poverty reduction. In particular, after the 2000 US StarLink corn crisis affected international marketing prospects, China has grown more cautious. With food crops, China has been careful in allowing field experiments and has not permitted commercial releases to date (with the exception of delayedripening and virus-resistant tomatoes and MV-resistant sweet peppers in 1998/9). In addition, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety has been signed by China (unlike the United States) and now awaits ratification. China qualifies its GM policy as "positive in research, careful in popularization, strengthening management, and safe promotion" (Nongmin Ribao, Aug. 6, 2003). However, it should be noted that different sections within the Chinese government represent and defend different interests. The Ministry of Agriculture (MAGR) is the leading agency for regulations on agricultural biotechnology, to the regret of those that believe that the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) should play a greater role (which it might get under the new Biosafety Law that the Ministry of Science and Technology and SEPA have drafted; Cao, 2003; SEPA official, personal communication, Nov. 5, 2003) as well as those who favor a greater role for the Food Industry Bureaus. China's scientific community is deeply divided between those who are enthusiastic about biotechnological progress and its future economic benefits, those who are concerned about the irreversible impact of escaped GM crops on wild and domesticated varieties, and (somewhere in the middle) those who believe it is only a matter of years before insect resistance will become ineffective. Despite this, the Chinese government has promoted the study of environmental and health effects of GM crops.3 The various interests and views come together in the Safety Evaluation Committee of GM Agriculture, which makes recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture about trials, release, and commercialization of biotech crops. As with the EU (but on a much larger scale), China is considering zoning. Entire provinces should grow either GM or GM-free crops. For instance, MAGR considers that for export and environmental reasons, Xinjiang province should grow only GM-free Bt cotton and tomatoes and Yunnan province only GM-free rice, according to a Genescan advisor (Nao, 2002). In the interest of exports, the Northeast should maintain its GM-free status for soybeans and rice. In 2002, MAGR made a revival plan for soybean production in the Northeast and designated 23 high-fat non-GM superior soybean varieties for popularization (Nongmin Ribao, Aug. 20 & 21, 2003). Zoning will facilitate inspection and control and ensure the separation of trade flows and provision of GM-free certificates demanded by EU and other foreign importers.4 China's entry into the WTO gave an impetus to the adoption of protective measures against foreign imports of GMOs. In May 2001, the State Council issued Safety Regulations on GM Crops, and two months later (under pressure from premier Zhu Rongji) the Ministry of Agriculture passed Regulations on Labeling Agricultural Transgenic Organisms. In April 2002, the Ministry of Health issued Health Regulations on GM Food, which also demanded labeling and added the requirement that if transgenic food products originated from potentially allergenic food, they should have a label saying that people who were allergic to GM food should be careful. These sets of regulations have drawn criticisms from Chinese industry representatives as having been adopted too hastily without regard to costs and the lack of low-cost testing equipment for GMO detection.5 The haste has been attributed to China's wish to have trade regulations in place before WTO entry. Even though the MAGR regulations demanded that five categories of GM food products be labeled by March 20, 2002 (soybeans, corn, rapeseed, tomatoes and their derived products, and cottonseed), it was not until July 2003 that these regulations began to be implemented domesticallyand then only for the single category of soybean oil. During that time, foreign imports of agricultural products in these five categories were subject to administrative approval, which required that they be certified not to cause harm to humans, animals, or the environment, be for sale in the country of origin, and contain labeling noting the use of GM ingredients (Foreign Agricultural Service, 2002). One reason for the delay in the implementation of food product labeling was that the organization of inspection and verification had not been completed yet. Another reason was that China's food industry needed more time. However, with China's weak civil society (Ho, 2001), the environmental and socioeconomic risks of biotechnology receive only limited attention in the public media. According to The New York Times: "Enthusiasm for the new science abounds. There is no public debate to stir up the opposition that has brought the development of genetically modified crops to a near standstill in India," and "with no independent news coverage..., consumers are unaware that they are eating modified food" (Smith, 2000, p. 1). Against this backdrop, it is important to assess the current level of awareness of Chinese consumers and their perception of the risks of GM food. Before turning to the analysis of our survey data, we will first discuss China's labeling regulations with particular reference to the production of soybeans and the sale of soybean products. Soybeans and Labeling of GM Food in Chinese Stores China has a huge demand for soybeans and has become the world's largest importer of soybeans, most of which are genetically modified. The beans are crushed in coastal factories. Because of their high fat content (22%), imported beans are more suitable for making oil than domestic beans, which have a fat content of 1920%; partly because of US subsidies, imported soybeans are cheaper as well.6 The demand for soybean dregs and soy protein for animal feed is also increasing. Under pressure from the US Department of Commerce, domestic traders, and the food industry, interim rules were adopted to ease restrictions; these rules shortened inspection terms for imported GM crops from 270 days to 30 days, and normal imports of GM-labeled soybeans were restored. In February 2004, the Chinese MAGR approved three- and five-year import safety certificates for Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans and a few other Monsanto products.7 After the MAGR GM labeling rules had been promulgated for some time, some Chinese media started to wonder why they were not implemented, saying that consumers had the right to know and choose under the Cartagena protocol. In July 2003, the Beijing Municipal authorities fined manufacturers of 14 brands of soybean oil for not labeling GM ingredients. Local TV and newspapers publicized the labeling requirement for soybean oil. Later that month, supermarkets received faxes from the Agricultural Bureau ordering them to stop selling nonlabeled GM soybean oils. In some supermarkets, the suppliers of cooking and salad oil withdrew their stock and substituted it for labeled products. In other supermarkets (e.g., Carrefour), local staff stamped their stocks with a temporary notice indicating its GM origin. In early August, inspectors found a high compliance rate at Beijing's markets and supermarkets. Offenders had their products confiscated and were fined 10,000-50,000 yuan.

Some companies apparently had prepared better than others. Almost all labels said that the product originally had used transgenic ingredients but no longer contained transgenic elements. They used the least explicit of the three types of labels prescribed by the MAGR labeling regulations: Labels of products containing GMOs should read "transgenic ___;" products containing directly processed GM products should be labeled "product made from transgenic ___" or "the processed materials are transgenic ___." Products that have used GMOs (or processed products containing GMO elements), but no longer have detectable transgenic elements in the final product, should be labeled "the materials used for this product had [or were] transgenic materials, but the final product does no longer contain transgenic elements." This last label was almost universally adopted. Some interviewees felt that such labels were designed to minimize consumer concern. An official said its wording was chosen by industry itself, "which should not have happened because it is not reliable" (MAGR Supervision and Testing Centre official, personal communication, Nov. 5, 2003). One biologist said it was inaccurate, because even if heating destroys the original proteins, soy oil still contains broken strings of genetically modified DNA. Moreover, regulations said the labels should be well visible and designed and printed together with the packaging and branding. The Ministry of Agriculture has complained that the food industry has designed the GM labels in a very "bashful" manner, making them difficult to read for consumers. Greenpeace has kept up its propaganda offensive by sponsoring a Chinese plaintiff to sue Nestl in Switzerland (under the Chinese Law on Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests) for its sale of non-GM-labeled Nesquik in China. This consumer claim has been given some publicity in the Chinese media (Yao, 2004). Greenpeace Hong Kong (2003) offered a dual-language Greenpeace Shoppers' Guide to Avoiding GE Food 2003 on its website that put brands of food and drink products from 140 companies into green, yellow, and red categories. Red indicates the company's failure to respond or to promise the product was GM-free. The listing reflects mainly US versus EU brands and is of little use to mainland Chinese consumers, as it lists Hong Kong brands but not those available in the People's Republic of China. Our consumer survey was conducted two months after the implementation of the labeling rules. Memories of the introduction of GM labels were still fresh. Some Beijing supermarkets we visited had run out of stocks of soybean oil, because residents had been hoarding soybean oil in response to the rapid price increases of soybean oil following the interruption of imports. Wherever we went, we found that all brands carried GM labels, with the single exception of a leftover old bottle. The most popular brands were Jinlongyu (Arawana),Fulinmen (Fortune), Luhua, Yuanbao (Gold Ingots), Hongdeng (Red Lantern), and Jinxiang (King Elephant). Although the labeling campaign was meant to be national, not local, Shanghai followed the labeling rules, as did Tianjin two months later. In other cities, such as Xi'an, some well-known national brands (including also rape oil, e.g., Liyu [Golden Carp] and Jiaoshu [Bagus]) had followed suit,8 but others did not; in particular, local oil trading companies and their brands continued to sell their products without GM labels. Industry representatives have pointed out that local suppliers might need more time but would comply eventually. Prelabeling Consumer Surveys and Imputed Preferences A recent poll of 600 consumers in China found that 62% had a favorable opinion about biotechnology, while only 9% had a negative opinion. At the same time, however, the overall majority of the respondents (99%) had no or little knowledge of biotechnology (Li, Curtis, McCluskey, & Wahl, 2002). A similarly low awareness of GM food issues was found in a Chinese mail survey in 2002. However, in contrast to the first survey, a much higher percentage of respondents in this survey believed GM foods were harmful to human health or the environment in the long run (respectively 37% and 29%; Zhong, Marchant, Ding, & Lu, 2002). From the results from these surveys, we might reach two conclusions. First, the overall majority of polled Chinese consumers have little or no knowledge of GM food. Second, in the absence of sufficient understanding of biotechnology, Chinese consumers' attitudes towards food safety can be manipulated easily towards either positive or negative attitudes. A similar picture arises from the surveys of urban consumer attitudes to GM food prior to the implementation of the GM labeling requirements in July 2003.9 For these reasons, interview methodology should be designed with care; one should also take Chinese cultural and linguistic characteristics into account. In our survey, we have taken the very limited awareness of GM and GM food of Chinese urban consumers as a starting point and subsequently tested the effects of information supplied to them on their attitudes. This comes close to a simulation of the future reaction of Chinese consumers to GM food once their awareness has been raised. It should be noted that Chinese consumers' awareness had already been raised by the government's labeling campaign in the months before our survey. Predictions about how Chinese consumers would react to labeling have differed. GMO proponents feared that "GMO products would be considered aliens in the market, and people naturally avoid buying such products because they do not know much about GMOs," as stated by Chen Zhanliang, president of the Chinese Agricultural University, director of the National Laboratory of Genetic Engineering, and founder of several biotech companies. Chen has also been quoted as saying: "The public has a right to know the truth about GM foods, but another truth about human nature is that the more you learn, the less safe you feel." Most scientists expected a negative reaction from Chinese customers. Part of the reason lies with inaccurate media coverage (Sheng, 2001). Others said that if GM foods really pose no harm, people would finally accept them (Yao, 2004). One of our interviewees, a supermarket manager, felt that a GM label meant an official approval of its safety. According to our interviewed managers, few if any customers had asked questions about the GM labels. Apparently, no problems had been expected, because staff and employees of the visited supermarkets (including Carrefour) had not received particular instructions about GM food products. Greenpeace believescontrary to the 2003 findings of Hu and Chen about the effects of positive informationthat better understanding of GM and labeling will lead the consumer to demand GM-free or organic products. Their survey found that 56% would choose non-GM food over GM food if given the choice; 44% would choose non-GM food even if it costs 10% more than a GM counterpart. The same survey showed that 60% of consumers would not buy GM food even at a discount of 10%. Because almost 60% of respondents did not know about GM food, it is likely that these answers have been influenced by the line of questioning (Hepeng, 2003). Greenpeace collected supportive statements from a few dozen food companies in China and concluded that companies and consumers were "pushing GM food off the shelves" (Greenpeace International, 2003; Phillips, 2003). This may have been wishful thinking. Other surveys (including ours) show that this claim is largely overstated. However, this does not imply that such a scenario might not occur in the future. The overall picture that arises from our data is that the average consumer has little comprehension of general scientific principles of GM food and its production. In the absence of this understanding, a majority of the respondents are uncertain whether they would consume GM food products. Strikingly, when we providedthrough carefully designed questionsneutrally worded background information on the scientific debates on biotechnology, we found a substantial drop in the willingness to buy GM food products. Survey Results: Attitudes to Food Safety and GM Products Recent Chinese food scandals surrounding contaminated rice, the illegal recycling of moon-cake fillings, and the outbreak of chicken influenza in Hong Kong and Guangzhou have damaged consumers' trust in food safety. This is also confirmed by our study. The survey data reveal that food safety was positively graded by

fewer than half of the respondents. Only 17% and 31% of the respondents deemed food safety to be "excellent" or "good," respectively (Table 1). An almost equal number found it was "not so good" (yiban); 6% said it was simply "bad" (cha).10 Indeed, China's food safety system leaves much to be desired. Standards are incomplete, inspection is weak, and regulations are not sufficiently followed. The market for "green" food is chaotic, and many products are not tested for safety. Moreover, departmental responsibilities are not clear, and there is a shortage of qualified inspectors (Zhou & Yang, 2002). The relatively negative opinion of food safety in China, although undoubtedly based on actual consumer experiences, may also have been fueled by repeated government warnings against bad food products in recent years. Laws, regulations, and standards on food safety have been tightened recentlyalso due to the newly established Food and Drugs Administration in 2004and monitoring procedures are being strengthened. Our survey showed that a large majority of the respondents had bought green food products; only 14% never or only rarely did so. It should be noted that the standards for such a denomination are lower in China than in the West. Negative answers were more frequent among those under 25 and those over 54 and twice as frequent in the lower education and income groups as in the highest education and income group. Gender made no difference. The self-professed willingness to pay (WTP) extra for products guaranteed to be from organic agriculture was high. Only 23% said they were unwilling, and 11% chose the qualified answer "only for nonprocessed products." The WTP for products from ecological agriculture was substantially lower at 40% and 16% for nonprocessed products only. One might infer from these responses that many respondents (rightly or wrongly) thought that they did not pay extra for green food products. In the following four subsections, we will look into more detail into the respondents' answers to questions on (a) GM food and its production; (b) biosafety and human health; (c) labeling; and (d) the willingness to buy and consume GM products.

Table 1. General attitude towards foodtotal and by educational group (% of valid answers).
Question Response Total 17.2 30.9 41.6 5.9 4.5 86.1 6.4 7.5 39.9 44.2 15.8 Lower educated 22 28 38 5 7 76 10 14 34 49 17 Higher educated 15 32 40 10 4 90 4 6 43 42 15

A. How do you grade the safety of Chinese food products? Excellent (n = 962) Good Not so good Bad Hard to say B. Do you buy "green" food products? (n = 958) Yes Rarely No C. Are you willing to pay more for ecological food products, produced with less chemical fertilizers and pesticides? (n = 934) Yes No Only nonprocessed D. Are you willing to pay more for organic food products, produced without any chemical fertilizers or pesticides? (n = 929) Yes No Only nonprocessed

66.1 23.0 10.9

53 33 14

73 17 10

GM Food and Biotech Farming It is important to note that the overall majority of respondents (71%) said they had heard of transgenic food products (Table 2). This high awareness compared to earlier surveys might be attributed to the government campaign (conducted only two months earlier) for labeling cooking and salad oils based on GM soybeans. However, as we noted in the introduction, the self-reported awareness of GM does not imply an equally high understanding of the meaning of genetic modification. For instance, most respondents were unable to name any GM crop at all. Of the 32% that could, one half mentioned one GM crop, while few (11%) could mention more than one. It is interesting to note that few people mentioned the "wrong" crops (i.e., crops that have not been commercialized yet or are still at an experimental/field trial stage in China). The crop most frequently mentioned was soybeans (49%) and soy or vegetable oil (13%).11 The frequent answer of GM soybeans (which China imports in huge quantities from the United States but does not grow yet), contrasts ironically with the infrequent answer of GM cotton, of which China is the absolute world leader in production. Apparently, government propaganda about GMOs and labeling has not been well understood by most

consumers. For instance, a small percentage of respondents (15%) were actually aware of the fact that at least some of their cotton clothing must have been made from GM cotton. In fact, few people have been able to link the GM soybean message with GM crops in general. Our study also tried to probe into Chinese consumers' understanding of some aspects of biotechnological farming. Recent studies found that farmers have little comprehension of biotechnology in generallet alone of the potential biosafety issues of the GM crops they grow.12 So, what would consumers understand of biotechnological farming? According to our survey, disappointingly little: Only 19% of respondents could mention one or two reasons why farmers grow GM crops.13 Even worse, of those giving a second reason, almost half gave a wrong answer (such as "improving the structure of production"). The lack of understanding of the benefits for farmers should be attributed to the reluctance of the Chinese government and media to report on issues related to genetic modification. As we saw above, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and government's position is that such reporting might upset the general population and could be detrimental to a policy of keeping all options open. Less than one fifth (18%) of our sample population gave correct answers to both our questions testing knowledge about the presence of genes and the capacity of modified genes in animal feed for altering human genes. The first question had a lower score (27%) than the second one (37%). The questions "Nontransgenic soybeans do not contain genes, but transgenic soybeans do; true or false?" and "Eating transgenic food may change a person's genes; true or false?" were taken from a recent survey.14

Table 2. Awareness and understanding of GM crops and food products (% of valid answers).
Yes Lower educated 55 Higher educated No 82 18 Don't know/unsure 11

Question Have you heard of transgenic (GM) food products? Can you mention some GM crops? Which? Can you mention reasons for their cultivation? Which? Have you eaten GM products and food based on them? Have you worn clothes made from GM cotton? Is it false to say that non-GM soybeans do not have genes? Is it false to say that eating GM food may change one's genes?

Total 71

32 19

26 24

38 68 22 73 8

37

30

40 32

31

15 27

20 17

10 36 35 19

49 55

37

30

45 15

48

Biosafety, Human Health, and the Environment Initially, most respondents did not seem very concerned about the potential risks of GM food to human health: 82% thought the cooked or processed products were safe, while 71% thought the same about meat. However, the views on unprocessed food were negative, with the majority (53%) deeming unprocessed GM products "unsafe" or "rather unsafe" (bu zemme anquan; seeTable 3).15 We hypothesized that the opinion about GM products would be correlated with respondents' views on food safety in general. This was confirmed. Those who thought food safety was "good" or "rather good," compared to the equally large group with the opposite view, more often deemed GMO-based products to be "safe" or "rather safe."16 Moreover, there is no scientific basis for a greater concern about consuming meat from animals fed with GM feed than concern for consuming processed products based on GM crops. For this reason, we may conclude that the negative appraisal of GM products (nonprocessed or otherwise) reflects respondents' opinions about differences in food safety between nonprocessed, processed, and cooked food, rather than a well-informed opinion about the risks of GM food. Most respondents did not believe GM crops might cause damage to other crops or the ecology, but many were not sure: 38% answered they did not, 29% "maybe, but nothing important" (meishemme liaobuqi), and only 13% said they did. Those who had not heard about GM food before, or were not sure they had, least often thought they might do damage. The belief that GM foods might do damage was slightly more prevalent among men, the more highly educated, higher middle and high incomes, and those with farm experience (Table 4). The lack of attention to genetic modification in Chinese education and the media in general may explain why differences between groups are small.17

Table 3. Assessment of safety of GMO-based food products for human consumption and opinion on food safety in general (% of valid answers).
Response Unprocessed GM food Safe Total 26 Lower educated 40 Higher educated 21

(n = 854) Rather safe Rather unsafe Unsafe Processed/cooked GM products (n = 831)a Safe Rather safe Rather unsafe Unsafe Meat from animals using GM feed (n = 818) Safe Rather safe Rather unsafe Unsafe Opinion on food safety in general (n = 962) Good Rather good Not so good Bad Hard to say
a

21 28 25 33 49 15 4 32 39 22 8 17 31 42 6 4

19 17 22 39 43 14 2 36 34 22 8 22 28 38 5 7

19 33 26 26 52 19 3 28 38 27 7 15 32 40 10 4

Of the 831 valid responses for processed/cooked GM products, 16% said "good" and 7% said "bad."

Table 4. Belief that GM crops might damage other crops or the ecology (% of valid answers).
Yes All respondents Respondents who heard of GM food before Respondents who never heard of GM food Respondents who were not sure Male : female <25 years old : >54 years old Low education : high education Low income : higher middle and high income Farm experience : no farm experience Internet users : internet nonusers 13 15 8 7 16 : 12 13 : 13 12 : 15 12 : 17 16 : 11 15 : 11 Maybe, but minor 29 27 32 28 33 : 27 21 : 36 28 : 29 30 : 26 32 : 26 26 : 33 No 38 40 32 38 33 : 40 40 : 38 41 : 36 39 : 35 35 : 40 40 : 36 Hard to say 20 17 29 27 18 : 21 26 : 13 19 : 20 20 : 21 17 : 22 20 : 21

Awareness of and Demand for Labeling The majority of the respondents (55%) said they did not know the government had promulgated new labeling rules for GM food. Even among the highly educated, a high proportion was not aware of the new regulations (47%). This seems a rather disappointing result for the recent government campaign. After having responded to some questions with positive and negative information about genetic modification, customers were asked whether they felt that the government should make such regulations. Two thirds said "yes," 10% said "no," and 24% were "not sure" (Table 5).18 Asked for which out of four given types of products labeling was needed, 58% of the respondents indicated processed and cooked food products, including edible oil and drinks, 37% meat from animals fed with GM feed, 35% nonprocessed food, and 17% cotton. Considering the expressed greater worries about the safety of nonprocessed GM food versus processed or cooked GM food, it may seem strange that nonprocessed products were mentioned less often. However, the high percentage mentioning processed and cooked food products may be attributed to the fact that to date, labeling requirements had been implemented only for edible and cooking oils. Animal feed and cotton had not been included in the 2002 MAGR list, but several fresh products such as peppers and tomatoes had. Another (probably very minor) explanation may be that some customers may have doubted the practicality of labeling fresh products and feed.

Table 5. Awareness of and demand for labeling GM products (% of valid answers).

Question Do you know if government made rules for labeling GM food products? (n = 958) Response Yes No Yes No Don't know If yes, for which products? You may choose more than one. (n = 941) Unprocessed Cooked Feed Cotton Of above, choosing only one (n = 654) Unprocessed Cooked Feed Cotton Total 45 55 66 10 24 35 58 37 19 15 33 13 8 Lower educated 31 68 51 16 33 39 49 30 19 26 29 13 9 Higher educated 53 47 82 5 13 37 63 47 20 12 28 14 6

Do you hold there should be such rules? (n = 959)

Consumption and Purchase of GM Food In this subsection, we will deal with the willingness to consume and the willingness to purchase GM food. As we saw in a previous subsection, consumers show a very limited understanding of GM food and its production. In the absence of such knowledge, most consumers remain neutral or unwilling to consume GM food. However, positive and negative information about the potential allergenicity of GM food has a great impact on the willingness to buy. We asked four different questions regarding the willingness to consume GMO-based food products. Due to the limited and recent labeling that so far extends only to soy oil (and sometimes rapeseed oil), the Chinese consumer is not offered a real choice between the same products with or without GMOs. Moreover, GM soybean oil is cheaper than non-GM soybean oil. In September 2003, some imported brands have labeled rapeseed (and canola) oil as based on GMOs, but most domestic brands did not. Since then, the Chinese customer can avoid GM-labeled oils only by purchasing more expensive sunflower and peanut oil. In view of this limited availability and the lack of relevant knowledge with most customers, we decided to ask first about the willingness to consume, then provide positive and negative information about pesticide use, health, the ecology, and government labeling requirements, and only then ask for willingness to pay for slightly more expensive food products that are guaranteed to be free from transgenic elements (see Table 6). The initial willingness to consume food containing GM-based ingredients was rather high, 40% being "very" or "rather" willing. On the other hand, the majority of respondents was neutral (51%), or was "rather" to "very" unwilling (a total of 9%) to consume GM food. As was to be expected, willingness to consume was positively associated (p < 0.01) with a belief in the safety of food in general (r = 0.249) and negatively associated with trust in the safety of GM nonprocessed food, processed food, and meat (r = -0.116, -0.130, and -0.270). Knowledge about genes (r = -0.216 and -0.279) and education (r = -0.109) were negatively correlated. There were less significant (p< 0.05) positive correlations with having farming relatives (r = 0.071), with not buying green food (r = 0.066), and, surprisingly, with the belief that GM crops pose a danger to the ecology or other crops (r = 0.075). However, we should not simply conclude from the latter result that consumers did not care about environmental effects. The answers may have been influenced by positive information about the reduced pesticide

use required by GM crops. In the light of the limited awareness and information, it is not surprising that one half of respondents adopted a neutral attitude towards the consumption of GM food. In subsequent questions about the purchase of GM food, we forced respondents to abandon this neutral position, so we cannot directly measure the effect of positive information about reduced pesticide use. After asking, "if GM crops use less pesticides than non-GM crops, how willing would you be to buy GM agricultural products and products based on them?", willingness went up to 78% of respondents. The fact that our calculated unwillingness score went up from 1.90 to 1.95 instead of down (Table 6) suggests that the initial "neutral" answer concealed a less positive attitude than average. Subsequent negative information contained in our rather cautiously phrased question, "some scientists say that GM food products may give allergic reactions with a few people, but other scientists do not agree; if you knew this debate goes on, would you still buy GM food products?", strongly decreased the willingness to buy GM food. In fact, the average willingness dropped by a quarter, to 52% (Table 6).19

Table 6. Willingness to consume GM food products (% of valid answers).

Question A. Willing to consume food containing GM-based ingredients? (n = 946) Responsea 1 2 neutral 3 4 B. If with less pesticide use? 1 2 3 4 C. If some allergic reactions possible? 1 2 3 4 D. Willing to pay for GM-free food? Yes No D1. Only for nonprocessed products?
a b

Total 17 23 51 7 2 30 48 20 2 11 41 43 5 31 40 29

Lower educated 22 23 49 5 1 34 39 23 5 13 43 39 6 31 48 21

Higher educated 12 24 51 9 4 24 53 21 2 7 46 43 5 33 36 32

Scoreb 1.90

1.95

2.33

2.62

Yes

1 = very willing; 4 = very unwilling. Based on unrounded figures; yes weighted as 1.5, no as 3.5.

Conclusion: Scenarios of Consumer Resistance? China's unprecedented economic development, industrialization, and urbanization have been accompanied by profound changes in the food chainwith potentially grave implications. Although China's agricultural production chain is different from that of the West,20 Chinese consumers wrongly assumed that they were safe from food crises, such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the United Kingdom. This was painfully demonstrated with the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in spring 2003. Nobody could have predicted that the consumption of civet cats in South China would have caused such dramatic domestic and global consequences. During the following year, Chinese consumers were plagued by news about carcinogenic substances in Lee Kum Kee's oyster sauce and toxic chemicals in Long Kou rice vermicelli. The death of hundreds of infants due to bad-quality baby milk powder in Anhui in 2004 shocked public opinion. From this we might learn that China is not that much different from industrialized societies: The increasing scale, complexity, and diversification of food production and consumption also entail problems of food safety. In this light, the Chinese government's relatively positive stance towards allowing GMOs into the food chain is remarkable. The critical question asks whether Chinese consumers are sufficiently aware of the potential risks of GM foodparticularly so in a semiauthoritarian context with restrained freedom of press and

speech. It is against this backdrop that we have conducted a survey on Chinese urban consumers' awareness and acceptance of GM food products. From the survey, which polled approximately 1,000 respondents, we can draw four critical conclusions. First, the overall majority of respondents (71%) had heard of transgenic food. This high percentage is most likely due to the government campaigns to raise awareness for the new labeling rules. However, it should be noted that a substantial proportion of consumers (55%) said they did not know the government had promulgated new labeling rules for GM food. Even close to half of the highly educated respondents were not aware of the new labeling rules. These results point to a larger underlying problemcitizens' widespread lack of basic understanding of GMOs and their potential risks to the environment and human health. Our survey data confirm this picture, which brings us to our second conclusion. An absolute majority of urban consumers (over 80%) had no inkling about genes and could not correctly answer whether the statement "nontransgenic soybeans do not contain genes, but transgenic soybeans do" was true or false. The same counted for the question about whether eating transgenic food could alter a person's genes. Furthermore, elementary knowledge about biotech farming was also lacking among our respondents. For instance, most consumers were unable to mention any genetically modified crop at all, and few people could relate GM soybean to GM crops in general. Third, the survey demonstrates the critical role of the state in China's political economy of biotech. The poor understanding of biotech and its potential risks can in large part be attributed to the state's reluctance to allow the emergence of uninhibited public debates about genetic modification. This reluctance is not just driven by a fear of social unrest, but most likely also by a felt need to protect the domestic biotech industry against potential consumer resistance. According to Xue Dayuan, former deputy director of the Biosafety Office of the State Environmental Protection Agency, in 2004 the State Council had issued a confidential notice to concerned state institutions, which called for a halt to discussions about biotechnology in the media (Xue Dayuan, personal communication, September 2004). However, this is not to say that the Chinese state discourages reporting about biotech altogether. Rather, it is a matter of state-guided, "well-balanced" reporting about biotech. This is demonstrated by China's first article about biosafety of GM crops in the nation's main government newspaper: the People's Daily. This article was written by Mang Keqiang, a reputable professor at the Institute of Microbiology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. He warned that "once agricultural transgenic plants and microorganisms are released and spread into the environment, they might be difficult to control (yi shifang tuiguang, ze nanyi kongzhi)" and hoped that the "involvement of other concerned experts in the discussion will bring these questions to the attention of governmental policy makers and the administrative departments in charge of research funds" (Mang, June 13 & 20, 1996). It is critical to note that Mang Keqiang did not write on a personal title, but had been invited by the central authorities to do so (Mang Keqiang, personal communication, 2002). The proactive and dominant role of the Chinese state in the biotechnological arena is also demonstrated by the fact that no domestic NGOs have made biotechnology a field of activity in Chinese society today. To date, Greenpeace is the only NGO that has worked in this area, and has done so only with great caution due to past confrontations with the government.21 It is therefore no wonder that information about food safety in relation to biotech almost exclusively comes through government channels. In a recent survey of 1,000 Chinese respondents, it was found that less than 3% had heard about GM food through environmental NGOs.22 Our fourth and final conclusion is that in the absence of sufficient understanding of GM food, its production, and potential risks, Chinese urban consumers' acceptance of GM food safety can move in quite opposite directions. Initially, our survey shows that a relatively high percentage of respondents are willing to consume GM food (40%). At the same time, it is crucial to realize that a substantial proportion of consumers is actually neutral (51%) or unwilling (9%) to consume GM food. When we provided both positive and negative background information on the scientific discussions on GM food risks (through carefully designed and neutrally worded questions), the willingness to purchase GM food products dropped substantially (by 25%). This is an important result that might point to future scenarios of widespread consumer resistance against GM food, as also occurred in countries in the European Union. Endnotes
1

Bt cotton contains genes from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis that produce toxins against bollworm in the plant. The yuan is pegged to the US dollar at approximately 8:1.

Research on allergenicity and corresponding evaluation methods, standards, and rules were established in 2000. A blood data bank of allergic incidents has not yet been established, and evaluation standards do not conform to international standards (Lu & Liu, 2003).
4

It will also help protect China's organic food crops that now grow on more than 700,000 hectares and account for US$25 million in annual exports. In 2002, Jiangsu province adopted rules to protect designated organic food zones from sowing, cultivating, or processing GMOs within a one-kilometer zone (State Environmental Protection Agency, 2002, p. 861).
5

The rules have a labeling threshold of 0%, which would make them the world's strictest, but an expert of the MAGR Supervision and Testing Center for Agricultural Product Quality stated that a subsequent technical attachment mentions a 1% threshold (personal communication, Nov. 11, 2003).
6

Imports were 14 million tons in 2001, fell to 11.3 million tons in 2002 because of the administrative barriers of the new import regulations, and jumped to 20.7 million tons in 2003 (Nongmin Ribao, Aug. 6 & Aug. 20, 2003).
7

These products included one version of Roundup Ready corn (which allows growers to use glyphosate-based herbicides that have a favorable environmental profile), YieldGard Corn Borer and Bollgard cotton (which protect themselves from certain insect pests), and Roundup Ready cotton.
8

Fortune Fulinmen used transgenic labeling since June 2002, according to its producer, Beihai Grain and Oil Industry (China Youth Daily, Jan. 24, 2003).

A Greenpeace survey of a thousand Guangzhou consumers found that 64% did not know that their supermarkets sold GM food products and that 87% felt they should be labeled (Greenpeace International, 2003). A 2002 survey of 289 customers in Tianjin found no link between food safety concerns and attitude towards GM food (Wang, 2003). The lack of awareness is also shown by Xuan and Zhou (2002). A survey of 600 consumers in China, the Philippines, and Indonesia found a highly positive attitude towards biotechnology and GM food. When asked about food concerns, consumers did not mention biotechnology spontaneously even once (Asian Food Information Center, 2003).
10

The "bad" judgment was given by 9% of men and 5% of women, but otherwise there was little gender or age difference in the answers.

11

This answer was followed by the mentioning of tomatoes (9%), then rice, cotton, and maize (5% each). As a second crop, soybeans, maize, or tomatoes were mentioned about 20% each, cotton 12%, and as a third crop, wheat and cotton (27% and 18%, respectively). TobaccoChina's first GM crop, developed in the late 1980s but halted after some years because of foreign buyerswas mentioned only once.

12

When confronted with the question of what government should do to cope with GM safety problems and guarantee a healthy development of transgenic crops, fewer than 10% felt that government should forbid R&D of transgenic crops, more than 30% that it should improve the regulatory framework, and more than 60% that it should increase investment in R&D (Ma & Huang, 2003). In another study on risk perceptions of Bt cotton by farmers, it was found that 71% of the sampled farmers could not explain the principle by which Bt cotton resists the bollworm (Zhang, 2002).
13

One half of these mentioned an "increase in output," which does not prove an understanding of the reasons for adoption of GM crops. Less than half of the reasons were specific, mentioning most often (in order of frequency) positive health effects, reduced pesticide use, lower costs, and environmental effects.
14

Compared to this study (which interviewed only college students), our respondents did better than the Japanese but scored much worse than the Norwegian, US, and Taiwanese students, of whom two thirds or more gave the correct answers (Chern, Rickertsen, Tsuboi , & Fu, 2002). Because respondents were offered the easy answer "hard to say," the number of accidentally correct guesses should have been small.
15

The 11-15% nonrespondents to the questions (which did not allow the answer "hard to say") were higher than the 4% for the question about food safety in general, showing a somewhat greater uncertainty about how to assess GM products.
16

For nonprocessed, processed/cooked, and meat products, the difference in positive appraisal was 6-12%, namely 50% vs. 44%, 89% vs. 77%, and 77% vs. 65%, respectively.
17

Those who had heard of genetic modification before had a considerably higher total of yes or no answers than those who had not (55% vs. 40%) and less often answered "hard to say" (17% vs. 29%). To a lesser extent, the former also held true for internet users. These results suggest they had made up their minds more often than others. Of course, this holds true only if one assumes that the answers "yes, but not important" and "hard to say" reflect uncertainty rather than a wellfounded opinion. As with studies in other countries, demographic variables had little influence.
18

The awareness of labeling rules was positively related to age. People under 25 years old were less often, and those over 54 more often, aware of GM rules (33% and 55%). However, a smaller than average majority of these two age groups (63% and 57%, respectively) felt a need for [Link] less educated felt much less need for such rules than the highly educated. Lower-income people also expressed a lesser need (56%). Those who believed they were consuming GM food products knew about government rules more often (67%) and felt more often that labeling was needed than those who thought not or did not know (77% vs. 60% and 61%). Willingness to pay for guaranteed GM-free food was also a related factor. 52% of the willing, as opposed to 37% of the unwilling, had heard of GM regulations, and 75% as opposed to 55% felt such rules were needed. Those willing to pay for organic agricultural products scored highest, 78% feeling there should be GM rules (vs. only 44% of the unwilling).
19

The less-educated reacted less strongly to the allergy question, their willingness dropping by 16.5% to 56%. In addition, 31% said they would be willing to pay more for GM-free food, and 40% to be unwilling to do so. More (48%) of the less-educated were unwilling. 29% (and 21% of the less-educated only) limited their willingness to pay more for nonprocessed natural food products, not for processed products and cooked food. Income was not a factor.
20

A large proportion of Chinese agriculture is still conducted in a semitraditional manner on small plots with high labor inputs and a low level of mechanization.

21

The Greenpeace office was reopened in spring 2002 after being closed down in 1995 because of an incident in August of that year when public security personnel arrested six foreign Greenpeace demonstrators, detained them for one day, and expelled them from China for unfurling an antinuclear banner in Tiananmen Square.
22

Of the interviewees, 37.2% had heard about GM food through the media, 12.8% through friends, 12.3% through books and articles, 2.8% through school, 2.0% through the government, and 1.5% through companies (Green Community Research Center, 2002). References Asian Food Information Center. (2003). Consumer perceptions of food biotechnology in Asia. Available on the World Wide Web:[Link] consumer survey public [Link]. Cao Desheng. (2003, October 29). Workshop stresses bio-safety. China Daily. Chern, W.S., Rickertsen, K., Tsuboi, N., & Fu, T. (2002). Consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for genetically modified vegetable oil and salmon: A multiple-country assessment. Agbioforum, 5(3), 105-112. Available on the World Wide Web: [Link] Foreign Agricultural Service. (2002). China, People's Republic of, food and agricultural import regulations and standards, ag GMO implementation measures 2002. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture. Green Community Research Center. (2002). Guangzhou shimin zhuanjiyin anquan yishi diaochao fenxi baogao [Research report on awareness of transgenic safety by Guangzhou citizens]. Guangzhou: Zhongshan University and Greenpeace. Greenpeace Hong Kong. (2003). Greenpeace shoppers' guide to avoiding GE food 2003. Available on the World Wide Web:[Link] Greenpeace International. (2003, July). Companies in China clear genetically engineered food off their shelves [press release]. Available on the World Wide Web: [Link] Hepeng, J. (2003, January). Chinese public 'cautious over GM food'. [Link]. Available on the World Wide Web: [Link] fuseaction=readNews&itemid=416. Ho, P. (2001). Greening without conflict? Environmentalism, green NGOs and civil society in China. Development and Change, 32, 893-921. Hu, W., & Chen, K. (2004). Can Chinese consumers be persuaded? The case of genetically modified vegetable oil. AgBioForum, 7(3), 124-132. Available on the World Wide Web: [Link] Huang, J., Rozelle, S., Pray, C., & Wang, Q.F. (2002). Plant biotechnology in China. Science, 295, 674-77. Huang, J., & Wang, Q. (2003). Biotechnology policy and regulation in China(IDS working paper 195). Sussex, UK: Institute of Development Studies.

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. (2004).Global status of commercialized transgenic crops 2004. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA. Available on the World Wide Web: [Link] Kydd, J., Haddock, J., Mansfield, J., Ainsworth, C., & Buckwell, A. (2000). Genetically modified organisms: Major issues and policy responses for developing countries. Journal of International Development, 12, 1133-1145. Li, Q., Curtis, K.R., McCluskey, J.J., & Wahl, T.I. (2002). Consumer attitudes toward genetically modified foods in Beijing, China. AgBioForum, 5(4), 145-152. Available on the World Wide Web: [Link] Lu, X., & Liu, X. (2003). Asessment of allergenicity of transgenic food [Link] Shipin Weisheng Zazhi [Chinese Journal of Food Hygiene], 15(3), 238244. Ma, H., & Wang, M. (2002). Guanyu zhuanjiyin shengwudi jishu chanyehua yu anquanxing [Commercialization and safety of transgenic biotechnology]. In H. Ma & M. Wang (Eds.), Zhongguo fazhan yanjiu: Guowuyuan fazhan yanjiu zhongxin yanjiu baogaoxuan [China Development Studies DRC 2002: selected research reports of DRC of the State Council] (pp. 514-522). Beijing: Zhongguo fazhan chubanshe. Ma, S., & Huang, Z. (2003). Rural households, government and transgenic agricultural products: An analysis of Chinese farmers' inclinations to grow transgenic crops. Zhongguo nongcun jingji, 2003(4), 34-40. Mang, K. (1996, June 13 & 20). The safety issue of transgenic plants (parts I and II). Renmin Ribao [People's Daily], pp. 12 & 11. Nao, N. (2002, December 20). Analysis: China seen a crouching dragon in biotechnology. Reuters. National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2003). Zhongguo renkou tongji nianjian 2003 [China population statistical yearbook 2003]. Beijing: China Statistics Press. Phillips, H. (2003, June 17). Consumers push GM food off shelves. South China Morning Post. Prakash, A., & Kollman, K.L. (2003). Biopolitics in the EU and the US: A race to the bottom or convergence to the top? International Studies Quarterly, 47, 617641. Royal Society of London. (2003). British farm scale evaluations of spring-sown genetically modified crops: Preface. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 358, 1775-1776. Available on the World Wide Web:[Link] Sheng, He (2001, August 16). Heard of It, But What Is It? China Daily. Smith, C.S. (2000, October 7). China rushes to adopt genetically modified [Link] New York Times, p. 5. State Environmental Protection Administration. (2002). 2002 Huanjing baohu wenjian xuanbian [Selection of documents on environmental protection 2002], Vol. 2. Beijing: SEPA. Wang, Z. (2003). Shipin anquandi renzhi he xiaofeizhe jueding: Guanyu Tianjinshi geti xiaofeizhedi shizheng fenxi [Food safety awareness and consumers' decisions: a positive analysis of individual consumers in Tianjin Municipality], Zhongguo Nongcun Jingji, 2003(4), 41-48. Wansink, B., & Kim, J. (2002). The marketing battle over genetically modified foods: False assumptions about consumer behavior. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(8), 1405-17 Xuan, Y., and Zhou, S. (2002). Guanyu xiaofeizhe dui zhuanjiyin nongchanpin renzhidi diaocha (Investigation of consumers' awareness of transgenic agricultural products), Zhongguo Renkou, Ziyuan yu Huanjing, 12(3), 126-131. Yao Lan (2004, January 8). Nestle urged to 'tell truth' about GMOs. China Daily. Zhang, J. (2004). Risk perception of Bt cotton in China: A farmers' survey. MA thesis, Groningen University Centre for Development Studies, The Netherlands. Zhao, H., & Ho, P. (in press). A developmental risk society? Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in China. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development. Zhong, F., Marchant, M.A., Ding, Y., & Lu, K. (2002). GM foods: A Nanjing case study of Chinese consumers' awareness and potential attitudes. AgBioForum,5(4), 136-144. Available on the World Wide Web: [Link] Zhou, D., & Haijuan, Y. (2002). Information asymmetry in control over food quality safety and government surveillance mechanism. Zhongguo nongcun jingji, 2002(6), 29-35. Appendix A. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Our sample population consisted of almost 1,000 customers visiting four supermarkets in Beijing and Shijiazhuang in September 2003 (Table A1). Most were women. Their age distribution did not differ much from the general adult Beijing population, except for a much lower percentage of people over 64 (16% of the Beijing urban population of 15 years and older is over 64; National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2003) and a slightly lower percentage aged 55-64. In the absence of other data, it is hard to say whether the slanted gender distribution and the rather even age distribution in the under-55 age cohorts reflect the general composition of the Chinese shopping population. The gender ratio did not differ significantly between age groups except for a slightly higher male percentage in the 25-34 cohort (34%).

Table A1. Characteristics of the sample population.

Gender Age 70.5% female; 29.5% male 26.7% under 25; 23.1% 25-34; 20% 35-44; 19.8% 45-54; 8.3% 55-64; 2.1% 65 and over

Education Income Smokers Internet users Farm experience Farm relatives

16.6% primary; 48.4% midddle; 35.1% tertiary 24.1% low; 43.3% lower middle; 30.1% higher middle; 2.5% high 19.8% (39.9% of men; 11.3% of women) 54.7% (60.1% of men; 52.5% of women) 36% (46.4% of men; 31.6% of women) 55.4% (57.6% of men; 54.7% of women)

Note. n = 965. Income had 44 missing values; other items had 7-24 missing values.

Most customers (73%) put themselves in the middle-income categories; 24% claimed to have a low income. Men classified themselves less often as low income (19% vs. 26% of women) and more often as high income (6% vs. 1% of women). One third of the youngest group had a low income. Most high incomes were in the 25-35 age group. Otherwise, age did not affect reported income much. Gender difference in reported education was found only in the highest educational category, with 39% and 33%, respectively, of men and women. Our sample was more highly educated than average for Beijing.23 The internet was used by almost as many women as men, most often by the young but still by 40% of those aged over 54. Internet use is important, because (more so than the occasional reporting in newspapers and other Chinese media) it offers information on GM food and its safety aspects.24 More than one third of the respondents had some experience with farming, particularly those in the 45-54 age group (many of whom had been sent down to the country in the 1970s). More than half had relatives who were farmers. Smoking had the greatest gender difference, and was associated with high age, low educational level, farming experience, and farming relatives. Our sample was taken at different times of the day at three supermarkets in Beijing (a Carrefour in a central residential area, a Hong Kong-Chinese JV in the Jianguomenwai business district, and a Chinese supermarket in a workers' district) and one in the nearby provincial capital of Shijiazhuang. Customers were promised a small gift upon completion of the questionnaire; few refused to participate. Therefore, we are confident that our sample population was an adequate reflection of metropolitan supermarket customers in general. Notes
23

About half of this is due to an underrepesentation of elderly people. Of the Beijing population over six years old, 15% have primary school or less, 33% junior middle, 26% senior middle, and 25% tertiary education (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2003). The percentage of tertiary education among those over 20 years old is about 30%.
24

The most popular website, [Link] points to information on the website of the China Food Industry Association, [Link]

Appendix B. Separate Groups in the Sample Based on the respondents' answers, three groups with special characteristics may be distinguished: the knowledgeable, the willing, and those with farm experience. These are discussed in detail below. Knowledgeable (K) Group The Knowledgeable (K) group consists of those (n = 172) who answered the two questions on genes correctly. The higher-educated people belonged to the K group almost twice as often as the lower-educated ones. The group had more males (34%) and fewer people under 25 (18%) than average. Members of this group were less prone to confess ignorance or uncertainty and more often chose positive or negative answers. More of them had heard of GM food (88% vs. 77%) and indicated they consumed it (48% vs. 37%). However, they were more convinced that their clothes are made from GM-free cotton (49% vs. 36%)something Chinese consumers cannot possibly know. Also, they were less uncertain about the question of whether GMOs may damage other crops or the ecology, being more often convinced that GMOs do not (46% vs. 38%) or do (17% vs. 13%). The K group was similar to the population in its professed knowledge of government regulations about GM food products but more often said there should be such regulations (81% vs. 66%). As for the types of product that need regulation, the K group answered more often three or all four product types (26% vs. 13%). The K group had a slightly higher initial willingness to buy GM food (45% vs. 40%). Almost half took a neutral attitude. Their appraisal of GMO-based food products was more negative ("rather unsafe" or "unsafe") with nonprocessed food (62% vs. 52%) but less negative with processed or cooked food (13% vs. 19%) and meat (23% vs. 30%). Their reaction to positive and negative information about GM crops and food was more extreme than average. Positive information about reduced pesticide use pushed up their willingness to buy to 85% (as opposed to a 77% average); subsequent negative information about possible allergic reactions drove it down to 48% (as opposed to a 52% average). However, only few became very unwilling. We conclude that most Chinese consumerseven those with knowledge about geneshave little or no awareness of GMOs and the advantages and risks of GM-based food products; new information makes a great difference to their attitude. Willing (W) Group After the respondent's awareness of GMO problems had been raised through reading and responding to various questions, we asked whether they were willing to pay more for GM-free food. The 31% who answered with an unqualified "yes" we refer to as the Willing (W) group. Their characteristics of gender, age, education, and income do not differ from the others. That goes also for farm experience, farming relatives, internet use, and smoking. The W group was more ignorant about genes than average. Although similar percentages of the W group, compared to the other groups, gave the correct answers to the two questions about genes (27%

and 38%), more gave the wrong answers (30% and 22% against averages of 19% and 15%). Therefore, their willingness to pay for GM-free food was not based on superior knowledge. The W group had more people who stated they had heard of GMO-based food (76% vs. an average of 71%), had bought "green" food (91% vs. 86%), knew there were government regulations for GMO-based food (52% vs. 45%), felt the need for such rules (75% vs. 66%), believed they had consumed it (43% vs. 37%), and thought GM crops might damage other crops or the ecology (20% vs.13%). Their conviction that GM food was safe was about average, but more believed that safety of food in general was good (28% vs. 11%). The question concerning allergic reactions affected their willingness to buy less than average, with 20% (vs. 11%) remaining very willing. The W group had a much higher than average willingness to pay for products from ecological agriculture (66% vs. 40%) and organic agriculture (77% vs. 66%). In conclusion, whether more ignorant in some respects or more knowledgeable in others, the Willing group was more likely to be positive about anything. Farm Experience (F) Group 36% of our respondents had experience with farming, and 55% had farming relatives. The latter did not influence answers much, but the former did. Our hypothesis was that the Farm Experience (F) group would have a greater understanding of GMOs and the reasons for the adoption of GM crops and therefore be more receptive to GM food. Their demographic characteristics differ from the others in that they have more males (38%), fewer people aged 35-44, and more people aged 45-54 (the latter difference reflects the rustication campaigns of the 1970s). They have a lower than average level of formal education and considerably fewer people in the higher income categories (21% vs. 33%). Our hypothesis was not confirmed. The F group scored slightly lower than average in their understanding of what genes are and can do. Wrong answers to the two related questions were given by 22% (vs. 19%) and 21% (vs. 15%). Only slightly fewer people in the F group were unaware of GMO-based food products (16%). They could not name more GM crops than other people. Even if they gave slightly more reasons why farmers might grow GM crops, there were fewer correct reasons given (22% vs. 19% gave one reason, and 14% vs. 12% gave two, but most frequently mentioned were production increase and improvement of management structure). More than average, yet still a minority (21%), thought they had worn clothes made from GM cotton. Slightly more than average (16%) thought GM crops might harm other crops or the ecology. Slightly more (41%) said they consumed GM food, and their initial willingness to do so was also slightly higher (21% being "very willing"). They had a higher opinion of food safety in China in general (53% deeming it "good" or "rather good") and were more convinced of the safety of GM food in China (32% vs. 26% for unprocessed food, 37% vs. 32% for cooked food, and 35% vs. 32% for meat). The F group was more willing than average to pay for ecological and organic food (42% and 70% vs. 34% and 66%). Their reaction to information about reduced pesticide use was more positive than average (35% vs. 30% becoming "very willing" to buy). After receiving information about allergies, more of them than average remained very willing or willing to buy (57% vs. 52%). It appears the F group is not better informed about GM but has a more positive attitude than average about all that has to do with agriculture. Appendix C. Relation with Gender, Age, Smoking, and Income Gender did not affect the responses much. Men knew more often than women that all soybeans have genes (32% vs. 24%). They were slightly more confident about knowing relevant government regulations (47%) but felt slightly less need for them (64%) and had slightly more trust in the safety of fresh and cooked GMO-based food (44% and 73%, respectively). Positive information about reduced pesticide use had the same impact on men and women. However, there was a substantial gender difference in the effect of information about possible allergic reactions. It drove the willingness of women to buy GM food down to 49%, but 58% of men remained willing, in spite of the fact that more men than women believed GM could damage other crops or the ecology (16% vs. 12%), at least to a minor extent (33% vs. 27%). The under-25 age group had heard of GM food products least often (62%), was least convinced they ate them (30%), was least aware of labeling regulations (33%), and showed the greatest understanding of what genes are and may do (with 35% and 43% correct answers). They were slightly less confident about the safety of processed or cooked GM-based food (78%) and least influenced by positive information about pesticides (going up from initially 42% willing plus "neutral" to 72% willing). After negative information, they became least willing to consume GM food (46%). Their eventual willingness to pay extra for GM-free food hardly differed from other age groups. The over-54 age group was most aware of government regulations (55%), least convinced rules were needed (57%), had least understanding of genes (14% and 28% correct answers to the two questions), and was most confident that nonprocessed food products based on GM were safe to eat (63%). Positive and negative information about GM had the least impact, with their willingness to consume dropping by 20%. The 25-44 age group was initially least willing to consume GM food (35% as opposed to 42% of the others). They reacted slightly more strongly to positive and negative information about GM, their willingness to buy dropping from 79% to 52%, as opposed to a drop from 75% to 52% with the other age groups. The attitudes of smokers differed from nonsmokers in some respects. General characteristics (age, education, income) of male smokers did not differ from nonsmokers, but female smokers were slightly overrepresented in the over-54 age category and underrepresented among below-25 age and higher education categories. Smokers scored lower on knowing that eating GM food will not change a person's genes (27%) and more often thought GM crops might damage other crops or the ecology (20%). Fewer smokers were aware of government regulations (42%) and fewer felt they were needed (62% of male and 42% of female smokers, vs. 70% of nonsmokers). Smokers were slightly more willing to consume GM food (43%) and more positive about its safety for human consumption in its three forms (60%, 84%, and 75%). Positive information about pesticide use brought their willingness up to the same level as that of nonsmokers, but subsequent information about allergies brought it down less, 15% remaining "very willing." One might say that smokers cared less. However, their eventual willingness to pay for organic, ecological, and GM-free food did not differ significantly from that of nonsmokers. Income was a significant factor in several answers. For valid statistical analysis, we included the small high-income group in the higher-middle-income group. Compared to this combined "higher" group, the low-income group had less often heard of GM food (65% vs. 77%) or of labeling regulations (40% vs. 49%), and a smaller majority felt a need for them (56% vs. 70%). Although their appreciation of GM food product safety was not very different, more often they deemed nonprocessed GM food "unsafe" (33% vs. 22%) rather than "rather unsafe" (21% vs. 32%). The higher-middle-income group showed less willingness to consume GM food (35% vs. 42% of the others) and more often took a neutral position (55% vs. 50%). A larger minority remained unwilling to buy GM food even when told of reduced pesticide use (26% vs. 21%); information about allergies had slightly smaller impact. More (but still a small minority) thought GM crops might damage other crops or the ecology (17% vs. 10%) and fewer that they did not (35% vs. 39%). 10% (vs. 4%

of the others) classified China's food safety as outright bad. For food guaranteed as GM-free, their WTP was similar to others, except that fewer (26% vs. 31%) chose the option "only for nonprocessed products". Appendix D. Initial WTPThree Separate Groups In Table D1, we distinguish three groups based on their initial willingness to buy GM food. Most initially neutral customers (N) swung to "very willing" (19%) or "rather willing" (58%) to pay more after the first (positive) question, with a total average score of 1.96. After the second (negative) question, a slight majority of them swung to "rather unwilling" (51%) or "very unwilling" (4%), with a total average score of 2.53. The initially willing customers (W) responded more positively to the first question, 47% "very willing" and 39% "rather willing," with an average score of 1.68. After negative information, 69% remained willing, but their average score went to 2.13. Their final WTP was slightly higher than average, with 33% saying yes, 35% no, and an average score of 2.53. The rather small group of initially unwilling customers had a similarly large swing. 39% became willing after positive information, but only 14% remained so after negative information.

Table D1. Willingness to buy GM-based food products of the initially willing (W), neutral (N), and unwilling (U) customers, and willingness to pay more for GM-free food (% of valid answers).
Willingnessa Initial attitude If less pesticide 1 2 3 4 Avg. If possible allergy 1 2 3 4 Avg. WTP for GMO-free 1-2 3-4 Avg. Fresh food only n
a

W 1.58 47 39 12 1 1.68 19 50 30 1 2.13 33 35 2.53 31 377

N 2.50 19 58 21 2 1.96 6 40 51 4 2.53 28 44 2.83 28 481

U 3.25 11 28 53 7 2.56 3 11 63 23 3.05 31 36 2.57 33 88

1 = very willing; 4 = very unwilling.

The lack of willingness to pay more for GM-free food was greatest with those who had been neutral before. It differed little between the initially willing and unwilling. This remarkable result seems to show that additional informationgood and badnarrowed the difference between those initially in favor and those who were not. However, only part of this should be attributed to our additional information and forcing respondents to choose between either positive or negative answers. The final question asked for willingness to paymore for GM-free food, not just readiness to buy food with or without GMO-based ingredients. The ratio between the willing and unwilling to pay more (31:40) was lower than the one for ecological food (40:44) and much lower than the ratio for organic agriculture (66:23). Apparently, GM-free food was not valued as highly as ecological or organic food. In all three categories (W, N, and U) a high percentage (28-33%) of respondents were willing to pay for GM-free only for nonprocessed natural products. We can not offer a single interpretation. Some may have believed that processing and/or cooking removes all GMOs anyway, so paying for GM-free food is unnecessary. Others may have been attracted by the possibility of adopting an answer between yes and no, so this result should not be taken at face value. Authors' Note

Peter Ho is professor of International Development Studies and concurrent director of the Centre for Development Studies of the University of Groningen. Eduard B. Vermeer is Senior Lecturer at Leiden University. This research is part of the ENRICH project (2000-2004/LUW/CHI/001) funded by SAIL/Nuffic, The Hague, The Netherlands. Dr. Vermeer acted as a consultant to this project. The authors are grateful to the helpful comments of the two anonymous reviewers of this journal.

Suggested citation: Ho, P., & Vermeer, E.B. (2004). Food safety concerns and biotechnology: Consumers' attitudes to genetically modified products in urban [Link], 7(4), 158-175. Available on the World Wide Web:[Link]

About two years ago, dozens of workers at a large chicken hatchery in Arkansas began experiencing mysterious skin rashes, with painful lumps scattered over their hands, arms, and legs. "They hurt real bad," says Joyce Long, 48, a 32-year veteran of the hatchery, where until recently, workers handled eggs and chicks with bare hands. "When we went and got cultured, doctors told us we had a superbug." Its name, she learned, was MRSA, or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus [Link] form of staph bacteria developed a mutation that resists antibiotics (including methicillin), making it hard to treat, even lethal. According to the CDC, certain types of MRSA infections kill 18,000 Americans a year more than die from AIDS. Soon co-workers at the nearby processing plant, where hundreds of thousands of chicken carcasses are prepped daily for sale, began finding the lumps. Dean Reeves, 50, an 11-year employee, went to the hospital with an excruciating bump on her thighshe thought was a spider bite. It wasn't: She, too, had contracted MRSA, as had her husband, Bill, 46, who also works at the facility. Since late 2007, Dean has had monthly relapses. Even the safety glasses, gloves, and smocks workers wear (along with upgraded regular cleaning of equipment) aren't enough to protect them, says Bill. "We work so fast, we often stick ourselves with knives or scissors and get blood on us from head to foot." When a swelling rose over one of his eyes, he was told he might go blind; if the infection progressed to his brain, he'd die. Did any food safety agency test for MRSA in this plant's chickens, which were then sold to the public and served on American dinner tables? Did any government organization determine the source of the outbreak? Calls to the USDA, CDC, and Arkansas Department of Health yielded a no to both questions; the poultry company that owns the

operation did not respond to multiple requests for a comment from Prevention. Yet in recent years, studies have found MRSA in retail cuts of pork, chicken, beef, and other meats in the United States, Europe, and Asia. To get answers, we investigated how MRSA has entered our food supply with limited government response; we considered the massive use of antibiotics in agriculture and its role in creating resistant microbes like MRSA; and we examined the safety of supermarket meat. Here, we offer our findings and expert advice to protect you and your family.
Advertise | AdChoices

Are you at risk? You've probably heard of people contracting certain strains of MRSA in hospitals, where it causes many illnesses: postsurgical infections, pneumonia, bacteremia, and more. Others encounter different types of the bug in community centers such as gyms, where skin contact occurs and items like sports equipment are shared; this form causes skin infections that may become systemic and turn lethal. Then in 2008, a new source and strain of MRSA emerged in the United States. Researcher Tara Smith, PhD, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Iowa, studied two large Midwestern hog farms and found the strain, ST398, in 45 percent of farmers and 49 percent of pigs. The startling discovery and the close connection between animal health and our own that it implied caused widespread publicity and much official hand-wringing. To date, though, the government has yet to put a comprehensive MRSA inspection process in place, let alone fix our problematic meat-production system. You may not have the same close contact with meat that a processing plant worker has, but scientists warn there is reason for concern: Most of us handle meat daily, as we bread chicken cutlets, trim fat from pork, or form chopped beef into burgers. Cooking does kill the microbe, but MRSA thrives on skin, so you can contract it by touching infected raw meat when you have a cut on your hand, explains Stuart Levy, MD, a Tufts University professor of microbiology and medicine. MRSA also flourishes in nasal passages, so touching your nose after touching meat gives the bug another way into your body, adds Smith. Tainted meat exposed Extensive research in Europe and Asia has found MRSA in many food animal species, and in the past year, US researchers have begun testing meat sold here. Scientists at Louisiana State University Agricultural Center tested 120 cuts of locally purchased meat and found MRSA in 4 percent of the pork and 1 percent of the beef. A University of Maryland scientist found it in 1 out of 300 pork samples from the Washington, DC, area. And a study in Canada (from which we import thousands of tons of meat annually) found MRSA in 9 percent of 212 pork samples. The percentages may be small, but according to the USDA, Americans eat more than 180 million pounds of meat every day. "When you consider the tiny size of the meat studies, the fact that they found any contamination at all is amazing," says Steven Roach, public health program director for Food Animal Concerns Trust.
1. Don't miss these Health stories

Paul Brian

Sagging face final hurdle after losing 240 pounds

Substantial weight loss leaves many formerly fat people seeking plastic surgery to repair under-eye bags, slack jaws and so many wrinkles that it led one online patient to comment: I looked like everything had melted.

2. 3. 4. 5.

What we eat is bumming us out, new book says The scent of a man? Could be an STD Eating raw cookie dough can really make you sick Holiday hazard: Hacking, germ-spewing shoppers

In some cases, the tainted meat probably came from infected animals; in others, already infected humans could have passed on MRSA to the meat during processing. Regardless of where it originated, even a small proportion of contaminated meat could mean a tremendous amount of MRSA out there. "We need more US research to figure out what's going on," says Roach. Facts about MRSAMRSA is so common in the United States that it accounts for more than half of all soft-tissue and skin infections in ERs. The CDC estimates that invasive MRSA infections (those that entered the bloodstream) number more than 94,000 a year. Even more troubling, if you add up the other types of illnesses MRSA can cause, including urinary tract infections, pneumonia, and inpatient skin infections, the total could be 8 to 11 times more than that, reports a study by epidemiologist William Jarvis, MD, of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology. The numbers are high and rising: From 1996 to 2005, MRSA-related hospitalizations increased nearly tenfold.

People who get MRSA need ever more powerful medication. "Staph-related infections have become serious illnesses that can require hospitalization and stronger drugs," says Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association (APHA). For hatchery worker Long, doctors went through several antibiotics, with little success. The swellings would subside, then reappear. "Every time I went back to work, I got it again, for a total of 10 times," she says. Antibiotics in animals Scientists know that antibiotic overuse in humans caused ordinary staph to become resistant, says Levy. And they know the large amounts of meds used by agriculture caused other bacteria, such as E. coli and salmonella, to develop resistance. "Now we're looking at the relationship between antibiotic use on farms and MRSA," he says. It's an important mission, as industrial agriculture is the country's largest antibiotic user: Animals consume nearly 70 percent of these meds, perhaps more than 24 million pounds a year, says the Union of Concerned Scientists. The drugs compensate for the often unsanitary conditions in the country's 19,000 factory farms also called concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs where about half our meat is produced. Long gone are many family farms with animals grazing on pastureland, says Bob Martin, senior officer of the Pew Environment Group. "Instead, they're packed into cramped quarters, never going outdoors, living in their waste." A swine CAFO may

house thousands of hogs; a poultry operation, hundreds of thousands of chickens. "As a result, you need to suppress infection," he says. The large amounts of antibiotics used in CAFOs include drugs critical to curing human illnesses, he says. Premixed animal feed can contain medications you may have taken, such as tetracycline and cephalosporin (Keflex is a familiar brand); you can also buy a 50-pound bag of antibiotics at a feed store to add to your animals' chow no prescription necessary, confirms Amy Meyer, executive director of the Missouri Farmers Union. Most of the antibiotics given to CAFO animals are not only used to fight infection, but also to stimulate growth, says David Wallinga, MD, Food and Health Program director at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. The near constant exposure to less-than-therapeutic levels of antibiotics allows the resistant bacteria to survive; they can then be transferred to people, he says. This needless use of medication is what docs try to avoid when they don't prescribe antibiotics for a simple cold. "These operations are reservoirs of antibiotic resistance," says researcher Smith.
Advertise | AdChoices

In the areas surrounding CAFOs, docs see firsthand how MRSA impacts the community. Philip McClure, DO, practices in Trenton, MO, which is home to many hog farms. MRSA infections have risen as the number of pigs has grown, he says. "Both CAFO workers and others get them," says McClure, who treats a MRSA-related skin problem every month. That may be because you can pick up MRSA and not show symptoms for years. Meanwhile, you can pass it to others by something as simple as sharing a towel. Kim Howland, 44, a former hog CAFO worker in Oklahoma, fears she did just that, when in 2007, her husband and daughter developed MRSA skin infections. "My coworkers told me about lumps they had and I realized I could have become a carrier," she says. Howland, who left her job, wasn't tested at the time, so she'll never know if she gave MRSA to her family. Concerned about the risks of CAFOs (including increased antibiotic resistance, pollution, and disease in nearby areas), the APHA back in 2003 called for a moratorium on building new ones. Who's watching out for you? Until recently, the CDC has acknowledged the presence of MRSA in meat but downplayed the danger. In 2008, then CDC director Julie Louise Gerberding, MD, MPH, wrote that foodborne transmission of MRSA is "possible" but, if it happens, "likely accounts for a very small proportion of human infections in the US." Liz Wagstrom, DVM, assistant vice president of science and technology for the National Pork Board, agrees, saying that this kind of transmission would be extremely rare. Neither group could provide an estimate when queried by Prevention, but considering the high numbers of MRSA infections, even a tiny percentage could be a lot of people. Facts about MRSAOne reason the CDC and the National Pork Board must guess about transmission rates and why we don't know exactly how many MRSA-related infections occur is that the federal government doesn't collect data on MRSA outbreaks, says Karen Steuer, director of government operations for the Pew Environment Group. According to the US Government Accountability Office, there's no testing for MRSA on farms. And the National

Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System tests just 400 retail cuts of meat each month for four drug-resistant bacteria which don't include MRSA. "These gaps in data keep us in the dark," says Steuer. Without farm-to-fork surveillance, it's difficult to connect problems at a certain farm to MRSA outbreaks. "If we don't fix this, mortality rates will go much higher," she says. "We have an impending crisis." A rising tide of concern is firing up health care activists and congressional policy makers to contain the MRSA threat. Several ideas are on the government's table. Keep Antibiotics Working, a national coalition of health and science organizations, calls for more federal research on MRSA and meat. In Congress, Representative Rosa L. DeLauro suggests giving all supervision of food now split among many agencies to just one, which may improve oversight. And Representative Louise Slaughter, MSPH, reportedly Congress's only microbiologist, wants to trim agriculture's use of antibiotics only to those drugs that are not essential for human use. Earlier this year, she reintroduced the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, and Senator Edward Kennedy submitted a related bill in the Senate. Bottom line, says Roach of Food Animal Concerns Trust, we need to think of ways to raise animals that prevent them from getting sick in the first place. And we must move quickly, adds Slaughter: "As a scientist and mother, I cannot overstate the urgency. We should be able to buy food without worrying about exposing our family to potentially deadly bacteria that no longer responds to medical treatment."

Food safety[1] is a scientific discipline describing handling, preparation, and storage of food in ways that prevent foodborne illness. This includes a number of routines that should be followed to avoid potentially severe health hazards.

Food can transmit disease from person to person as well as serve as a growth medium forbacteria that can cause food poisoning. Debates on genetic food safety include such issues as impact of genetically modified food on health of further generations and genetic pollution of environment, which can destroy natural biological diversity. In developed countries there are intricate standards for food preparation, whereas in lesser developed countries the main issue is simply the availability of adequate safe water, which is usually a critical item.[2] In theory food poisoning is 100% preventable The five key principles of food hygiene, according to WHO, are:[3]

1.
2.

Prevent contaminating food with pathogens spreading from people, pets, and pests.

Separate raw and cooked foods to prevent contaminating the cooked foods.

3. 4. 5.

Cook foods for the appropriate length of time and at the appropriate temperature to kill pathogens. Store food at the proper temperature. Do use safe water and cooked materials

ISO 22000
ISO 22000 is a standard developed by the International Organization for Standardization dealing with food safety. This is a general derivative of ISO 9000. ISO 22000 standard: The ISO 22000 international standard specifies the requirements for a food safety management system that involves interactive communication, system management, prerequisite programs, HACCP principles. [edit]Incidence

A 2003 World Health Organization (WHO) report concluded that about 30% of reported food poisoning outbreaks in the WHO European Region occur in private homes.[4] According to the WHO and CDC, in the USA alone, annually, there are 76 million cases of foodborne illness leading to 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths.[5] [edit]Regulatory [edit]Australia Australian Food Authority is working toward ensuring that all food businesses implement food safety systems to ensure food is safe to consume in a bid to halt the increasing incidence of food poisoning, this includes basic food safety training for at least one person in each business. Smart business operators know that basic food safety training improves the bottom line, staff take more pride in their work; there is less waste; and customers can have more confidence in the food they consume. Food Safety training in units of competence from a relevant training package, must be delivered by a Registered Training Organization (RTO) to enable staff to be issued with a nationally recognised unit of competency code on their certificate. Generally this training can be completed in less than one day. Training options are available to suit the needs of everyone. Training may be carried out in-house for a group, in a public class, via correspondence or online. Basic food safety training includes:

agencies

Understanding the hazards associated with the main types of food and the conditions to prevent the growth of bacteria which can cause food poisoning The problems associated with product packaging such as leaks in vacuum packs, damage to packaging or pest infestation, as well as problems and diseases spread by pests. Safe food handling. This includes safe procedures for each process such as receiving, re-packing, food storage, preparation and cooking, cooling and re-heating, displaying products, handling products when serving customers, packaging, cleaning and sanitizing, pest control, transport and delivery. Also the causes of cross contamination. Catering for customers who are particularly at risk of food-borne illness, including allergies and intolerance.

Correct cleaning and sanitizing procedures, cleaning products and their correct use, and the storage of cleaning items such as brushes, mops and cloths. Personal hygiene, hand washing, illness, and protective clothing.

People responsible for serving unsafe food can be liable for heavy fines under this new legislation, consumers are pleased that industry will be forced to take food safety seriously. [edit]China Main article: Food safety in the People's Republic of China

Food safety is a growing concern in Chinese agriculture. The Chinese government oversees agricultural production as well as the manufacture of food packaging, containers, chemical additives, drug production, and business regulation. In recent years, the Chinese government attempted to consolidate food regulation with the creation of the State Food and Drug Administration in 2003, and officials have also been under increasing public and international pressure to solve food safety problems. However, it appears that regulations are not well known by the trade. Labels used for "green" food, "organic" food and "pollution-free" food are not well recognized by traders and many are unclear about their meaning. A survey by the World Bank found that supermarket managers had difficulty in obtaining produce that met safety requirements and found that a high percentage of produce did not comply with established standards.[6]

Traditional marketing systems, whether in China or the rest of Asia, presently provide little motivation or incentive for individual farmers to make improvements to either quality or safety as their produce tends to get grouped together with standard products as it progresses through the marketing channel. Direct linkages between farmer groups and traders or ultimate buyers, such as supermarkets, can help avoid this problem. Governments need to improve the condition of many markets through upgrading management and reinvesting market fees in physical infrastructure. Wholesale markets need to investigate the feasibility of developing separate sections to handle fruits and vegetables that meet defined safety and quality standards.[7] [edit]European

Union

The parliament of the European Union (EU) makes legislation in the form of directives and regulations, many of which are mandatory for member states and which therefore must be incorporated into individual countries' national legislation. As a very large organisation that exists to remove barriers to trade between member states, and into which individual member states have only a proportional influence, the outcome is often seen as an excessively bureaucratic 'one size fits all' approach. However, in relation to food safety the tendency to err on the side of maximum protection for the consumer may be seen as a positive benefit. The EU parliament is informed on food safety matters by theEuropean Food Safety Authority.

Individual member states may also have other legislation and controls in respect of food safety, provided that they do not prevent trade with other states, and can differ considerably in their internal structures and approaches to the regulatory control of food safety. [edit]Germany The Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV)[8] is a Federal Ministry of the Federal Republic of [Link]: Founded as Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Foresting in 1949, this name did not change until 2001. Then the name changed to Federal Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture. At the 22nd of November 2005, the name got changed again to its current state: Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection. The reason for this last change was that all the resorts

should get equal ranking which was achieved by sorting the resorts alphabetically. Vision: A balanced and healthy diet with safe food, distinct consumer rights and consumer information for various areas of life, and a strong and sustainable agriculture as well as perspectives for our rural areas are important goals of the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV). The Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety is under the control of the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection. It exercises several duties, with which it contributes to safer food and thereby intensifies health-based consumer protection in Germany. Food can be manufactured and sold within Germany without a special permission, as long as it does not cause any damage on consumers health and meets the general standards set by the legislation. However, manufacturers, carriers, importers and retailers are responsible for the food they pass into circulation. They are obliged to ensure and document the safety and quality of their food with the use of in-house control mechanisms. [edit]Hong

Kong

In Hong Kong SAR, the Centre for Food Safety is in charge of ensuring food sold is safe and fit for consumption. [edit]Pakistan Pakistan does not have an integrated legal framework but has a set of laws, which deals with various aspects of food safety. These laws, despite the fact that they were enacted long time ago, have tremendous capacity to achieve at least minimum level of food safety. However, like many other laws, these laws remain very poorly enforced. There are four laws that specifically deal with food safety. Three of these laws directly focus issues related to food safety, while the fourth, the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority Act, is indirectly relevant to food safety.

The Pure Food Ordinance 1960 consolidates and amends the law in relation to the preparation and the sale of foods. All provinces and some northern areas have adopted this law with certain amendments. Its aim is to ensure purity of food being supplied to people in the market and, therefore, provides for preventing adulteration. The Pure Food Ordinance 1960 does not apply to cantonment areas. There is a separate law for cantonments called "The Cantonment Pure Food Act, 1966". There is no substantial difference between the Pure Food Ordinance 1960 and The Cantonment Pure Food Act. Even the rules of operation are very much similar.

Pakistan Hotels and Restaurant Act, 1976 applies to all hotels and restaurants in Pakistan and seeks to control and regulate the rates and standard of service(s) by hotels and restaurants. In addition to other provisions, under section 22(2), the sale of food or beverages that are contaminated, not prepared hygienically or served in utensils that are not hygienic or clean is an offense. There are no express provisions for consumer complaints in the Pakistan Restaurants Act, 1976, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority Act, 1996. The laws do not prevent citizens from lodging complaints with the concerned government officials; however, the consideration and handling of complaints is a matter of discretion of the officials.[9] [edit]South

Korea

[edit]Korea Food & Drug Administration Korea Food & Drug Administration (KFDA)[10] is working for food safety since 1945. It is part of the Government of South Korea.

IOAS[11]-Organic Certification Bodies Registered in KFDA: "Organic" or related claims can be labelled on food products when organic certificates are considered as valid by KFDA. KFDA admits organic certificates which can be issued by 1) IFOAM (International Federation of Organic

Agriculture Movement) accredited certification bodies 2) Government accredited certification bodies - 328 bodies in 29 countries have been registered in KFDA.

Food Import Report: According to Food Import Report,[12] it is supposed to report or register what you import. Competent authority is as follows:

Product

Authority

Imported Agricultural Products, Processed Foods, Food Additives, Utensils, Containers & Packages or Health Functional Foods

KFDA (Korea Food and Drug Administration)

Imported Livestock, Livestock products (including Dairy products)

NVRQS (National Veterinary Research and Quarantine Service)

Packaged meat, milk & dairy products (butter, cheese), hamburger patties, meat ball and other processed products which are stipulated by Livestock Sanitation Management Act

NVRQS (National Veterinary Research and Quarantine Service)

Imported Marine products; fresh, chilled, frozen, salted, dehydrated, eviscerated marine produce which can be recognized its characteristics [edit]National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation

NFIS (National Fisheries Products Quality Inspection Service)

National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation (NIFDS)[13] is functioning as well. The National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation is a national organization for toxicological tests and research. Under the Korea Food & Drug Administration, the Institute performs research on toxicology, pharmacology, and risk analysis of foods, drugs, and their additives. The Institute strives primarily to understand important biological triggering mechanisms and improve assessment methods of human exposure, sensitivities, and risk by (1) conducting basic, applied, and policy research that closely examines biologically triggering harmful effects on the regulated products such as foods, food additives, and drugs, and (2) operating the national toxicology program for the toxicological test development and inspection of hazardous chemical ubstances assessments. The Institute ensures safety by (1) investigation and research on safety by its own researchers, (2) contract research by external academicians and research centers. [edit]United

States

The US food system is regulated by numerous federal, state and local officials. It has been criticized as lacking in "organization, regulatory tools, and resources to address food borne illness."[14] [edit]Federal level regulation The Food and Drug Administration publishes the Food Code, a model set of guidelines and procedures that assists food control jurisdictions by providing a scientifically sound technical and legal basis for regulating the retail and food service industries, including restaurants, grocery stores and institutional foodservice providers such as nursing homes. Regulatory agencies at all levels of government in the United States use the FDA Food Code to develop or update food safety rules in their jurisdictions that are consistent with national food regulatory policy. According to the FDA, 48 of 56 states and territories, representing 79% of the U.S. population, have adopted food codes patterned after one of the five versions of the Food Code, beginning with the 1993 edition.[15]

In the United States, federal regulations governing food safety are fragmented and complicated, according to a February 2007 report from the Government Accountability Office.[16] There are 15 agencies sharing oversight responsibilities in the food safety system, although the two primary agencies are the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), which is responsible for the safety of meat, poultry, and processed egg products, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for virtually all other foods.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service has approximately 7,800 inspection program personnel working in nearly 6,200 federally inspected meat, poultry and processed egg establishments. FSIS is charged with administering and enforcing the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, the Egg Products Inspection Act, portions of the Agricultural Marketing Act, the Humane Slaughter Act, and the regulations that implement these laws. FSIS inspection program personnel inspect every animal before slaughter, and each carcass after slaughter to ensure public health requirements are met. In fiscal year (FY) 2008, this included about 50 billion pounds of livestock carcasses, about 59 billion pounds of poultry carcasses, and about 4.3 billion pounds of processed egg products. At U.S. borders, they also inspected 3.3 billion pounds of imported meat and poultry products.[17] [edit]Industry pressure There have been concerns over the efficacy of safety practices and food industry pressure on U.S. regulators. A study reported by Reuters found that "the food industry is jeopardizing U.S. public health by withholding information from food safety investigators or pressuring regulators to withdraw or alter policy designed to protect consumers". A survey found that 25% of U.S. government inspectors and scientists surveyed have experienced during the past year corporate interests forcing their food safety agency to withdraw or to modify agency policy or action that protects consumers. Scientists have observed that management undercuts field inspectors who stand up for food safety against industry pressure. According to Dr. Dean Wyatt, a USDA veterinarian who oversees federal slaughter house inspectors, "Upper level management does not adequately support field inspectors and the actions they take to protect the food supply. Not only is there lack of support, but there's outright obstruction, retaliation and abuse of power."[18] [edit]State and local regulation A number of U.S. states have their own meat inspection programs that substitute for USDA inspection for meats that are sold only in-state.
[19]

Certain state programs have been criticized for undue leniency to bad practices.[20]

However, other state food safety programs supplement, rather than replace, Federal inspections, generally with the goal of increasing consumer confidence in the state's produce. For example, state health departments have a role in investigating outbreaks of food-borne disease bacteria, as in the case of the 2006 outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7 (bad E. coli bacteria) from processed spinach.[21] Health departments also promote better food processing practices to eliminate these threats.[22]

In addition to the US Food and Drug Administration, several states that are major producers of fresh fruits and vegetables (including California,Arizona and Florida) have their own state programs to test produce for pesticide residues.[23]

Restaurants and other retail food establishments fall under state law and are regulated by state or local health departments. Typically these regulations require official inspections of specific design features, best food-handling practices, and certification of food handlers.[24] In some places a letter grade or numerical score must be prominently posted following each inspection.[25] In some localities, inspection deficiencies and remedial action are posted on the Internet.[26]

[edit]Manufacturing [edit]HACCP

control

guidelines

Main article: Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points

The UK Food Standards Agency publishes recommendations as part of its Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) programme. The relevant guidelines[27] state that:

"Cooking food until the CORE TEMPERATURE is 75 C or above will ensure that harmful bacteria are destroyed. However, lower cooking temperatures are acceptable provided that the CORE TEMPERATURE is maintained for a specified period of time as follows :

60 C for a minimum of 45 minutes 65 C for a minimum of 10 minutes 70 C for a minimum of 2 minutes"

Previous guidance from a leaflet produced by the UK Department Of Health Handling Cooked Meats Safely A Ten Point Plan also allowed for:

"75 C for a minimum of 30 seconds 80 C for a minimum of 6 seconds"

as well as the above. Secondary references for the above may be found at[28][29][30][31][32]

Note that recommended cooking conditions are only appropriate if initial bacterial numbers in the uncooked food are small. Cooking does not overcome poor hygiene. [edit]Consumer [edit]United

labeling

Kingdom

Foodstuffs in the UK have one of two labels to indicate the nature of the deterioration of the product and any subsequent health issues. EHO Food Hygiene certification is required to prepare and distribute food. While there is no specified expiry date of such a qualification the changes in legislation it is suggested to update every five years.

Best before indicates a future date beyond which the food product may lose quality in terms of taste or texture amongst others, but does not imply any serious health problems if food is consumed beyond this date (within reasonable limits).

Use by indicates a legal date beyond which it is not permissible to sell a food product (usually one that deteriorates fairly rapidly after production) due to the potential serious nature of consumption of pathogens. Leeway is sometimes provided by producers in stating display until dates so that products are not at their limit of safe consumption on the actual date stated (this latter is voluntary and not subject to regulatory control). This allows for the variability in production, storage and display methods. [edit]United

States

With the exception of infant formula and baby foods which must be withdrawn by their expiration date, Federal law does not require expiration dates. For all other foods, except dairy products in some states, freshness dating is strictly voluntary on the part of manufacturers. In response to consumer demand, perishable foods are typically labeled with a Sell by date.[33] It is up to the consumer to decide how long after the Sell

by date a package is usable. Other common dating statements are Best if used by, Use-by date, Expiration date,Guaranteed fresh <date>, and Pack date.[34] [edit]Australia

and New Zealand

Guide to Food Labelling and Other Information Requirements: This guide provides background information on the general labelling requirements in the Code. The information in this guide applies both to food for retail sale and to food for catering purposes. Foods for catering purposes means those foods for use in restaurants, canteens, schools, caterers or self-catering institutions, where food is offered for immediate consumption. Labelling and information requirements in the new Code apply both to food sold or prepared for sale in Australia and New Zealand and food imported into Australia and New Zealand. Warning and Advisory Declarations, Ingredient Labelling, Date Marking, Nutrition Information Requirements, Legibility Requirements for Food Labels, Percentage Labelling, Information Requirements for Foods Exempt from Bearing a Label.[35][36] [edit]Issues

associated with sell by / use by dates

According to the UK's Waste & Resources Action Programme, 33% percent of all food produced is wasted along the chill chain or at the consumer.[37] At the same time, a large number of people get sick every year due to spoiled food. [edit]UK

government to replace sell by / use by dates?

According to the UK minister Hilary Benn the use by date and sell by dates are old technologies that are outdated and should be replaced by other solutions or disposed of altogether.[38] [edit]How

to enhance food safety

There is a number of ways to enhance sell by and use by dates. These include better education of consumers on how to use, transport, and store fresh food products, but also by enhancing the use by and sell by dates by adding to the package smart indicators such as TTIs (Time Temperature Indicators). These show through a visible color change whether the product is still fresh. TTIs are already in use by retailers and food producers in France (Monoprix and Carrefour), Switzerland (Kneuss), and other countries in western Europe.[39] [edit]Consumer

tips: How to keep food safe

1. One of the simplest measures that any person can take to prevent the spread of foodborne illness is to properly wash his or her hands before preparing or eating any meal. Many people who believe they are adequately washing their hands are sorely mistaken. According to a study conducted by the American Society of Microbiology, 97% of females and 92% of males said they washed their hands, but those numbers turned out to be 75% of females and 58% of males upon observation.[40] A proper hand-washing technique suggested by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services includes using soap and warm water; washing vigorously for 1020 seconds, making sure to reach all surfaces of the hands including the wrists, between the fingers, and under the finger nails; rinsing well; drying hands with a paper towel; and using a paper towel to turn off the water. It is certainly important to wash your hands before preparing a meal and eating, but hands should also be washed after using the restroom, coughing/sneezing, touching cuts or skin infections, handling raw meat, and touching pets or other animals. Almost half the cases of foodborne illnesses could be prevented by better hand-washing by food handlers.[41] In addition, hand sanitizer is a helpful follow-up to hand-washing, but it should never be used to replace this valuable technique.

2. Some foods should simply never be ingested in the first place because they have such a high risk of containing harmful bacteria that can make people ill. These foods include raw milk, unpasteurized dairy products, unpasteurized juices (such as fresh apple cider), raw meat, and raw cookie dough.[42]

3. In cases of suspected food spoilage, food should never simply be tasted, smelled, or eye-balled in order to determine its safety. It is true that in some cases, the presence of mold or other growths may indicate that a food has reached its expiration date and should not be consumed. However, some foods may look and smell fine, but if they have been stored at room temperature for over 2 hours, microscopic bacteria may have been allowed to grow. The safe temperature for foods in refrigerators is between 2C (35F) and 7C (45F), and freezers should be kept at -18C (0F) or below.[43]

4. It is not safe to let meats thaw on the counter all day, because this allows any germs present on the food to thrive. Safer alternatives to this practice include thawing the food under running water (21C (70F) or below) for less than 2 hours, placing the food in the refrigerator to thaw, or thawing the food in the microwave as part of the cooking process.[43]

5. It is also important to make sure that raw meats are cooked to the appropriate internal temperature before they are consumed. Safe internal temperatures for various meats include 74C (165F) for poultry, 68C (155F) for ground meat, and 63C (145F) for fish and pork.
[43]

It is not sufficient to judge the doneness of meat by its internal color. According to a study performed by the USDA, 25% of hamburgers

with a brown internal color were not cooked to the proper temperature.[43] Instead of simply eyeballing the meat, it is essential to use a meat thermometer to judge the safety of consuming the food.

6. The cooking process is often the time that foodborne pathogens are allowed to enter the food we eat because of the prevalence of cross contamination. Cross contamination occurs when a person handling raw meats, eggs, fish, or other foods containing harmful pathogens touches cooking utensils, cutting boards, or cooking surfaces and spreads the pathogens to ready-to-eat foods in the process. This mode of transmission can be interrupted by washing hands after handling raw foods, washing utensils and cutting boards that have come in contact with raw foods, and disinfecting counter surfaces frequently.[43]

7. Leftovers are ideally stored in the refrigerator in shallow containers (2 inches tall or less) so that the cooling process can be accelerated and the buildup of harmful bacteria can be prevented. Storing foods in larger containers may keep foods warm and allow harmful bacteria to grow.
[41]

8. Fruits and vegetables are an important part of a healthy diet, and proper handling of them can help reduce your risk of foodborne illness. The Centers for Disease Control recommends:[44] Clean: Wash all produce under running water before eating. Even if you plan to peel fruits and veggies, its important to wash them first because bacteria can spread from the outside to the inside as you cut or peel them. Scrub firm produce with a produce brush.
[45]

Separate: Keep produce separate from meat, poultry, eggs, and seafood, in your grocery cart, bags,

refrigerator and countertop. Use separate cutting boards for produce and meat and wash with warm, soapy water after each use. [Link] all cut, peeled, or cooked produce within 2 hours. After a certain time, harmful bacteria may grow on produce and increase the risk of foodborne illness.[46] [edit]Codex

Alimentarius

In 2003, the WHO and FAO published the Codex Alimentarius which serves as a guideline to food safety.[47]

[edit]See

also

food portal

Adulterated food Aseptic Processing Danger zone (food safety) FDA Food Safety Modernization Act Food and Bioprocess Technology Food and Nutrition Service Food chemistry Food Engineering Food microbiology Food packaging Food preservation Food quality Food rheology Food safety risk analysis Food spoilage Food storage Food supplements Food Technology International Food Safety Network List of non-profit food safety organisations SAFE FOODS HACCP ISO 22000 ISO 9000

Consumers are concerned about the safety of their food supply. Their major concerns are identified as food additives, pesticide residues, food processing aids, and preservatives. This is in direct opposition to the relative priority placed upon food safety concerns as evaluated by food microbiologists and the U. S. Food and Drug Administration who rank microbiological hazards as the major food safety issue. For at least the past fifteen years a regulatory priority assessment has ranked food safety issues in descending priority as shown in Table I.

Table 1. Relative Risks of Food Safety Issues

While microbiological problems can and do appear in our food supply, these problems arise from infrequent breakdowns in the food production, processing, storage, distribution and final handling of our foods. These situations are the exception rather than the rule when we consider the more than 250 billion meals that are prepared and eaten in the U. S. each year.

Top 5 Food Safety Concerns

Posted on September 13, 2011 by admin| Leave a comment

Is Our Food Safe?

Top 5 Food Safety Concerns

Global food production has rapidly been consolidated in recent decades, with some troubling results. The takeover of the food industry by a few multinational corporations has radically shifted the focus of food production.

Increased competition and the imposition of the corporate structure have together led to a general preference for profitability over quality.

Unfortunately, cutting corners has become common practice across all aspects of food productionfrom waste management to the quality of animal feed to the technical training that farm and food workers receive. The consequences have largely come at the cost of consumersand the safety of their food. Here are the 5 top consumer food safety concerns. The 5 Biggest Food Safety Concerns

Food Safety Concerns - Foodborne Illness

1. Foodborne IllnessFoodborne illness is still the most prevalent risk with food. Its made even more so by high-density, low-sanitation livestock facilities, among other factory farm practices, which spread disease frighteningly rapidly. 76 million Americans suffer from food poisoning each year. More than 300,000 people are hospitalized every year for food related illnesses and more than 5,000 of those people die. Of course, this can be mitigated with better education about food safety and preparation, but it could also be mitigated by better practices on the production, processing, and distribution end.

2. Food ContaminantsWhile bacterial and viral contamination that cause foodborne illness are most peoples primary food safety concern, there are also a wide variety of other substances that leech into food and can cause health issues. Heavy metals like lead, mercury, and cadmium are occasionally found in food; ingesting heavy metals can lead to serious cases of poisoning, as well as related diseases like Minamata disease from mercury and Itai-Itai disease from cadmium.

Food Safety Concerns - Pesticide Exposure

3. Pesticide ExposurePesticides are a food contaminant that warrant special mention. Pesticides are used in many agricultural operations, from fruit and vegetable production to animal feeding operations. Exposure to pesticides has been linked to infertility, birth defects, nervous system damage, poisoning, and even cancer. Washing produce is an important way of reducing pesticide exposure, but there are also organic farmers who do not use synthetic pesticides to begin with. This is unfortunately the exception to the rule.

4. Antibiotic ResistanceOne of the side affects of treating dairy cows with Monsantos recombinant bovine growth hormone (commonly known as rBGH) is also increased risk of udder infection. Rather than simply halting use of the hormone, many American companies began using antibiotics as a preventative measure instead. Widespread overuse of antibiotics can cause the development of antibiotic resistant diseases and infections. Bacteria can rapidly evolve this trait with prolonged exposure to antibiotics and using antibiotics in a preventative manner rather than therapeutically can lead to diseases and infections that are untreatable.

5. Environmental EffectsAgriculture is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and environmental pollution. Soil degradation, water and air contamination, destruction of ecosystems, and climate change are some of the negative ecological consequences of agricultural operations. While there is increasing awareness of these issues and innovative attempts to address them, the de facto practices of the agriculture industry remain troubling.