Compare the Level of Awareness of GM Foods among the Citizens of these Countries (Saudi Arabia and Ireland)

Compare the Level of Awareness of GM Foods among the Citizens of these Countries (Saudi Arabia and Ireland)

nName

nCourse

nInstitution

nDate

n

nLITERATURE REVIEW

nHistory and development of GM foods

nDue to the advancement in biotechnology, the genetically modified crops have been developed. The main aim of genetic modification was to enhance or establish desirable characteristics of other species. The origin of genetically modified organism dates back in the 1980s after the scientific discovery, which revealed that some types of DNA could be relocated across different organism (Valpuesta 2002, p. 19). Essentially, this was the foundation of the process of genetic modification. The first plant to undergo the process of genetic modification was tobacco in 1983, where a plant that was resistant to anti-biotic was generated. Consequently, genetically modified cotton was productively developed in 1990. In addition, in 1995 soybeans that were herbicide-immune were formulated from a biotech firm known as Monsanto, which were referred to as “Round-Up-Ready”. Furthermore, in 2000 the technology of genetically engineering was enhanced following the scientific discovery that identified a modification process that could be utilized to introduce vitamins and nutrients to enrich foods (Kreipe 2010, p. 59).

nIn the contemporary world, biotechnology is widely used across the planet in the production of GM foods. More than 17 nations as of 2004 were growing GM food crops by approximately 8.25 million farmers. Crops that account for a high percentage of genetically modified crops include soybeans at 60 per cent, maize at 23 per cent, and cotton at 11 per cent and canola at 6 per cent (Honkanen and Verplanken 2004, p. 3). The US is one of the leading countries in development of biotechnology, which produce approximately 59 per cent of all genetically modified crops across the world. The use of GM foods has spread in different parts of the globe among different countries such as the developing countries and western countries (Al-Kandari and Jukes 2012, p. 13).

nGlobalization has enabled different scientists and scientific institutions to cooperate hence forming a network that facilitates the spread of GM foods. In this regard, this type of network plays a crucial role in the process of developing and sharing knowledge, information and biotechnology (Ruse, and Castle 2002, p. 4). Furthermore, globalization has enabled strong cooperation between different nations in different parts of the globe. In most cases, developing countries need expertise on the development and use of biotechnology (Skancke 2009, p. 8). Through this collaboration, developed countries are able to share information as well as receive feedback on the use of GM foods.

nThe use and development of GM foods in the world have been surrounded by controversies due to diverse cultures and perceptions among various societies. In addition, genetically modified foods have produced huge controversy, as people perceive them as very close to the sense of identity of humans (Harris 2004, p. 6). In addition, they assume that genetic material manipulation is synonymous with nature manipulation. Therefore, many people believe that when humans consume GM foods, which contain the genetically modified materials they will be unnatural. In this regard, people assume that persons who eat these kinds of foods will grow into unnatural organisms (Nottingham 2003, p. 39). Another controversy arises because the GM foods are often associated with patented technologies related to huge multinational firms (Ruse, and Castle 2002, p. 6). Consequently, the introduction of GM foods in some countries especially has produced a higher rate of resistance. Farmers in developing countries resist introduction of GM foods because they fear an efficient of competition from crops that are generated through advanced technology. Moreover, in case they begin to plant them, they may pay huge fees to multinational companies that have the right of patency to that technology (Kreipe 2010, p. 61).

nThe GM foods have diverse health effects to persons who are exposed to such foods. The most vulnerable population includes children and pregnant mothers. Toxins in the GM foods are likely to affect the unborn. Research also indicates that GM foods have the capacity to remain inside a human body that regenerate after a long term hence causing harmful diseases. In addition, it causes diseases such as cancer and allergy among people (Ruse, and Castle 2002, p. 13).

nPublic perception about GM foods

nGM crops are considered the immediate solution to lessen famine and malnutrition in evolving countries. Despite the intense awareness of biotechnology, consumer acceptance of GM foods varies sharply around the world with the greatest resistance coming from European Union (Vecchione, Feldman and Wunderlich 2014, p. 5). The outcome of 2010 Euro barometer analysis for the life sciences and biotechnology indicated the considerable quantity of the EU-27 populace do not exhibit positive view on GM food. In details, 61 per cent of respondents oppose while less than 23 per cent support and the remainder 16 per cent were undecided. There is no combined position in the European Union in regards to GM foods. Only five countries in Europe, which include Spain, Portugal, Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia, grow GM crops. Simply corn and potatoes are the once which have of been officially approved by European Union for farming (Nottingham 2003, p. 27). In Ireland, the support of GM foods is small according to a poll done in 2000 shown that 97 per cent of respondents were did not support the GM foods. The survey further indicates that consumers with a positive response to GM represented 31 per cent of those polled (Costa-Font, Gil, and Traill 2008, p. 7). While support for GM pest-resistant crops was 33% and 20% of respondents were ready to purchase fruits with better taste (Ruse, and Castle 2002, p. 19).

nThere has been a negative perception of GM foods such as Allergic reactions. GMO foods can bring allergy to people. According to Brown University, genetic variation mostly blends or increases proteins that were not original to the plant or animal, presenting new allergies to the human body (Carter, Moschini and Sheldon 2011, p. 39). In some instances, proteins from an organism that you are allergic can get to a body that you were not allergic to causing the similar allergic response to the first organism. While positively other perceive it as insect resistant. Individual GMO foods have been revised to make them more resilient to insect pests. A toxic organism can be incorporated into the crops to make them insect repulsive, and at the same time human-friendly (Kreipe 2010, p. 46). It will bring down pesticide being used on plants therefore reducing its contact with the pesticide.

nIt is perceived to decrease Antibiotic Efficacy. According to Costa-Font, Gil, and Traill (2008), individual GMO foods exhibit antibiotic features that are built to make them immune to diseases or viruses (Costa-Font, Gil, and Traill 2008, p. 10). When you consume them, antibiotic manufacturers remain in your body and can render antibiotic medicines less effective. However, the University cautions GMO foods steady exposure to antibiotics can add to the decreased efficiency of antibiotic drugs seen in hospitals across the world. On the other hand, it is perceived to contribute to environmental protection. Morris and Adley (2001) reports the rise in GMO crops regularly needs fewer chemicals, time, and apparatuses; this can lessen environmental pollution, gas emissions from greenhouses together with soil erosion (Morris and Adley 2001, p. 2). Therefore, upgrade the overall beauty and well-being of the farms environment and further contribute to the sustainability of fresher air and uncontaminated water, which will ultimately profit your well-being (Freedman 2009, p. 14).

nThere have been ethical concerns emanating from GMO foods. One of them is risks to food web is a real concern about GM technology. Whichever pesticide or herbicide in the crop may affect negatively on animals and other organisms in the atmosphere. For instance, GM sugar beets that were formed to be unaffected by herbicides successfully reduce weeds. Skylark birds that feed on the seeds of this concrete plant (Kreipe 2010, p. 59). An animal feeding on GM crop itself and the plant was intended to produce a pesticide; the animal may die or get sick. A North American study, caterpillars of the monarch butterfly died when they consumed pollen from GM corn crops (D’Mello 2003, p. 45).

nGM foods in Ireland and Saudi Arabia

nThe Saudi Arabian Ministry of Interior permitted imports of genetically modified crops for animal and human intake. According to Al-Kandari and Jukes (2012), the license applied to all imported and products produced locally, nonetheless no GM crops are currently being grown in Saudi Arabia. A study newly published in the Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, shown that Star Link maize a Bt corn that was not allowed for human use was found in the Saudi Arabian food market (Al-Kandari and Jukes 2012, p. 10). However, a study involving 200 food samples gathered between 2009 and 2010 Saudi Arabian provinces of Al-Qassim, Madina and Riyadh indicated several instances of GM contamination by a percentage of 5.9% were positive for Star Link maize. Since 2004, no GMO foods have been grown in Saudi Arabia. Notwithstanding this a 2010 study indicated that 20 out of 202 specimen of mainly imported foods contaminating produce in Riyadh markets with GMOs (Al-Khayri and Hassan 2012, p. 2).

nIn the 2007 Republic of Ireland, Government established a GMO-free policy, but the Environment Minister of Northern Ireland Assembly declined to collaborate. As a result, GMOs prevalence continued. In 2009 October, the Irish Government formally embraced a new program that would declare Ireland GM-free zone from growing of GM crops all states included to better Irelands competitive lead as a GM-free nation. Nevertheless, the Government failed to instrument that policy with any legislation (Ruse, and Castle 2002, p. 23). It was a deliberate act done by Fianna Fail, which was the majority party so that they can form a government with the Green Party. Consequently, this lead to Fine Gael and Labor government that was elected in 2011 that GMO-free policy invalid. In 2011, the government voted in support of faulty European Commission compromised offer (Carter, Moschini and Sheldon 2011, p. 41). That would approve distinct member states to ban crops that would be subject to numerous conditions. On the one hand giving a chance to extensive cultivation and contamination across the EU the deal is will be approved by the commission (Freedman 2009, p. 81). Meanwhile, consumption of GMOs food is going on.

nSaudi Arabia mainly relies on imported crops and foods by 60-70 per cent. The control of it is only dependent on its nutrient and satisfactory level of mycotoxins without regarding genetic manipulation, and this makes the prevalence level to be higher (Al-Khayri and Hassan 2012, p. 3). Unlike Saudi Arabia, political interests in Ireland has hindered definite laws being enacted that would help in regulating GMO foods, therefore making its market contaminated, and the rate of prevalence is not much different (Elsanhoty 2013, p. 11).

nGM foods due to its resistance to pests remain constant in the market when the other organic crop subdue to harsh environmental conditions, and so people view them as more reliable notwithstanding its perceived health concerns (D’Mello 2003, p. 47). There has been no apparent substantive education on GM foods in these countries, and so people end up ignorantly consuming them without being aware. There has to be collective engagement between concerned stakeholders in creating awareness on its pros and cons so that the consumers can choose what suits them (Hamad Al-j 2010, p. 13).

nThe potential gains of these crops are critical to enormous profits making. Billions of dollars are being put into gene research, and this tells financial benefits growers of GM crop make in returns. In addition, this taxes minted from the two countries explains why GM foods continue without proper information on both short-term and long-term is at best imprudent and highly risky.

nPublic awareness and perception of GM foods in Saudi Arabia

nA study by Hamad Al-j (2010) has revealed that the majority of residents in Saudi Arabia lack adequate perception and awareness regarding the GM foods. The main reason for this is that most of the citizens in Saudi Arabia have no knowledge of GM foods and the gene technology that is used in production. Therefore, they needed labeling of the products and monitoring of the presence of GM foods in the market (Hamad Al-j 2010, p. 15). Furthermore, most of the respondents of a study conducted in Saudi Arabia revealed that they were unaware of the components of GM food and had insufficient awareness on labeling between traditional and GM foods. A study conducted by Al-Kandari and Jukes (2012) in the same country noted that consumers are highly sensitive to use GM foods because of religion and ethical concerns (Al-Kandari and Jukes 2012, p. 10).

nOn the other hand, research has indicated that most of the consumers in Ireland have more information concerning the GM foods hence have higher level of awareness as compared to Saudi Arabia counterparts (Vecchione, Feldman and Wunderlich 2014, p. 7). Most notably, the study noted that most of consumers in Ireland had more interest in genetically modified foods. Therefore, this indicated that they more likely to have a discussion with colleagues, friends and family members related to GM foods. The Irish government unlike Saudi government has imposed mandatory labeling of GM foods. Consequently, approximately 95 per cent of consumers in this country have adequate information associated to use of GM foods, which helps them to increase their awareness as well as make informed choices. The regulations of European Union ensure that all manufacturers label food products that have GM ingredients (Costa-Font, Gil, and Traill 2008, p. 11). Consequently, the residents of this country are aware of the type of foods they are purchasing and consuming unlike their counterparts in Saudi Arabia.

nThe level of awareness in Saudi Arabia regarding the production, sale and consumption of GM foods are lower relative to Ireland. The consumers of GM foods in Saudi Arabia markets do not have sufficient information leading to lack awareness. Consumers in this country purchase GM foods unknowingly as the mandatory labeling is rarely complied with (Al-Kandari and Jukes 2012, p. 11). On the contrary, consumers of GM foods in Ireland have a lot of information on GM foods because they government and the EU have imposed mandatory labelling of GM food products while these rules are strictly adhered to. Therefore, they are able to make decisions on what they buy (Carter, Moschini and Sheldon 2011, p. 81).

nThere are differences in awareness sensitization instruments between the two countries. In Saudi Arabia, awareness sensitization campaigns were delivered through the media, Islamic fatwa (legal rulings) and anti-GMO movement (Hamad Al-j 2010, p. 18). Most notably, Hamad Al-j (2010) noted that these instruments of sensitization were not effective in creation of awareness among the consumers. Nonetheless, consumers Ireland receives their awareness sensitization through instruments such as labels that exist in each food item. In addition, consumers in Ireland have more access to awareness sensitization through research and food regulation agencies. The awareness sensitization instruments in Ireland were more effective in creating awareness as compared to Saudi Arabia (Hamad Al-j 2010, p. 16).

nIn Ireland, the legal instrument that applies to the use of GM foods includes the EU legislation. Since early 1990s, the European Union introduced a comprehensive legal framework. The EU legislations have set up procedure that a GM food should follow before it is sold in the EU country such as Ireland. In this respect, the GM food product must be scientifically assessed prior to entry in the market. Legal instruments such as Regulation (EC) have established principles for use of GM food in the market aiming to protect the health and safety of consumers. In addition, the Regulation demands precise labeling of GM foods that helps them to make informed decisions. In addition, labeling is aimed at helping consuming to deal with their concern (Brunk and Coward 2009, p. 7).

nIn Saudi Arabia, the government control the use, importation and selling of GM foods through the Ministry of agriculture. In addition, since the country is a member of the gulf Cooperation Country (GCC), it has adopted GM foods regulations from GCC. The legal instruments in the country have introduced labeling decrees for GM foods in the country. The legislations have also banned the importation of GM crop in Saudi Arabia (Al-Khayri and Hassan 2012, p. 5). The ministry of Commerce and industry in the Saudi Arabia permits the imports of GM processed food products unless they clearly labeled. The existence of legal provisions has reduced importation and production of GM foods although there are many cases of non-compliance.

nThe role of the media in GM awareness creation in both countries

nIn both countries, media has played a crucial role in creation of awareness of the use, production and harmful effects of GM foods in the respective countries. Due to the advancement of social media, many consumers can access a lot of information that helps them to make informed choices. In addition, the media have enabled the faster spread of information among the citizens of these countries (Carter, Moschini and Sheldon 2011, p. 101).

nThe European Union has also funded research on GM food that helps to increase information among its member states including Ireland. Moreover, this type of research acts as education tools to support a new concept or to reduce misconceptions about GM foods. There are also education centers in schools that deliver information concerning genetically engineered crops (Carter, Moschini and Sheldon 2011, p. 13). Similarly, in Saudi Arabia, the government also uses education forums that are organized by the Ministry of Agriculture, which acts as educational tools to sensitize consumers of these types of foods. The Ministry of Higher education has organized dialogue forums that create an avenue for sharing information concerning GM foods. Nonetheless, there is limited research on GM foods funded by Saudi Arabian government (Nottingham 2003, p. 35).

nResearch conducted in Saudi Arabia noted that the majority of respondents had insufficient information concerning GM foods. Therefore, media and other educational tools were not effective in sensitizing citizens on the issue (Elsanhoty, Al-Turki and Ramadan 2013, p. 9). Many respondents held misconceptions about GM foods. The study noted that only 9 per cent of the respondent believed that media is effective in creation of awareness. However, reports indicate that most of the citizens in Ireland had sufficient knowledge regarding GM foods. Therefore, it indicate that media is effective in spread of information (Elsanhoty, Al-Turki and Ramadan 2013, p. 12).

n

nReferences

nAl-Kandari, D. and Jukes, D., 2012. The food control system in Saudi Arabia – Centralizing food control activities. Food Control, 28 (1), 33-46.

nAl-Khayri, J. and Hassan, M., 2012. Socio-Demographic Factors Influencing Public Perception of Genetically Modified Food in Saudi Arabia. American J. of Food Technology, 7 (3), 101-112.

nAl-Mutairi, S., Connerton, I. and Dingwall, R., 2015. Food safety organisations in Saudi Arabia – Organisational, historical and future analysis. Food Control, 47, 478-486.

nBrunk, C. and Coward, H., 2009. Acceptable genes?. Albany: SUNY Press.

nCarter, C., Moschini, G. and Sheldon, I., 2011. Genetically modified food and global welfare. Bingley: Emerald Group Pub.

nCosta-Font, M., Gil, J. and Traill, W., 2008. Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy, 33 (2), 99-111.

nD’Mello, J., 2003. Food safety. Oxon, UK: CABI Pub.

nElsanhoty, R., 2013. Genetically modified Roundup Ready soybean in processed meat products in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Annals of Agricultural Sciences, 58 (2), 231-237.

nElsanhoty, R., Al-Turki, A. and Ramadan, M., 2013. Prevalence of Genetically Modified Rice, Maize, and Soy in Saudi Food Products. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 171 (4), 883-899.

nFreedman, J., 2009. Genetically modified food. New York, NY: Rosen Pub. Group.

nHamad Al-j, D., 2010. Perceptions and Attitudes of Riyadh University Students towards Products Derived from Genetically Modified Crops in Saudi Arabia. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 13 (1), 28-33.

nHarris, N., 2004. Genetically engineered foods. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.

nHonkanen, P. and Verplanken, B., 2004. Understanding Attitudes Towards Genetically Modified Food: The Role of Values and Attitude Strength. J Consum Policy, 27 (4), 401-420.

nKreipe, M., 2010. Genetically modified food. Hamburg: Diplomica Verlag.

nMorris, S. and Adley, C., 2001. Irish public perceptions and attitudes to modern biotechnology: an overview with a focus on GM foods. Trends in Biotechnology, 19 (2), 43-48.

nNottingham, S., 2003. Eat your genes. London: Zed Books Ltd.

nRuse, M. and Castle, D., 2002. Genetically modified foods. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.

nSkancke, J., 2009. Genetically modified food. Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

nValpuesta, V., 2002. Fruit and vegetable biotechnology. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press.

nVecchione, M., Feldman, C. and Wunderlich, S., 2014. Consumer knowledge and attitudes about genetically modified food products and labelling policy. Int J Food Sci Nutr, 1-7.