logo
 
Today's Top Story
Today's most-read story is:

The Demise of Big Bang Cosmology?

Main Menu

Amazon.com

Advertisement

Lunar Info

Relevant Ad Links

Our Newsletter

The Magickal Web Newsletter

Absolutely the best Magickal newsletter going - delivered to your inbox each week!

We value your privacy. We will not give your email address to anyone.


Security Monitor
Running - Screening - Strict
Spambot blocker has denied 1413 access attempts in the last 7 days

We Are Your Holistic News Connection

Health/Nutrition: Awareness of Genetically Modified Wheat is Low; So Is Opposition

Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 02:00 PM

Genetically modified wheat hasn’t yet been introduced into the U.S. market. When that happens, public acceptance of the product may depend on what people know about it. Currently, they don’t know much.

Awareness of Genetically Modified Wheat is Low; So Is Opposition

A Food Safety Consortium survey conducted by Kansas State University indicated that most respondents had little to no prior knowledge about biotechnology, but about the same number of people said they would still purchase genetically modified (GM) wheat products. But when provided information about opposition to GM products, respondents were more likely to refrain from buying GM products.

“GM wheat has been on hold for a few years, but I think it’s eventually going to be a reality,” said Sean Fox, the KSU professor of agricultural economics who supervised the survey.

The cause for potential concern among marketers is that wheat is a crop directly consumed by humans, so some inherent opposition to genetic modification could hamper willingness to buy products with GM wheat in them. Fox noted that GM versions of corn, soybeans, canola and cotton have not generally been used for direct human consumption, so little opposition has arisen from consumer advocacy groups.

Fox’s survey of households in metropolitan Kansas City included a definition of GM as “a process in which a plant or animal’s genetic makeup is altered by implanting genes from other organisms.” Everyone received that definition. Then the survey was split these ways:

  • Half the households received a survey containing a statement about opposition to GM that said “consumer and environmental groups such as the Organic Consumer Association, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are very opposed to GM technology because they believe it creates significant health risks for consumers and will damage the environment.”
  • The other half of households received a survey that had this informative statement: “Current crops that are produced with GM technology include soybeans, corn and canola. These crops are processed into ingredients that are frequently used in bread.”
  • One-fourth of the households received both of the above statements; another one-fourth received neither.

Among all the households, 68 percent said they would purchase GM wheat-based products, although 67 percent of the households indicated they had not heard about GM processing or knew little about it. The respondents were given the opportunity to decide whether they would pay more to buy a non-GM version of a wheat-based product, and 72 percent said they would not.

But the households who received the survey containing the statement about opposition to GM products were less likely to accept GM-processed wheat products and were willing to pay an additional 12 cents a loaf of bread to avoid GM wheat.

“Providing them with information about opposition made them more likely, or increased their willingness to pay, to avoid it,” Fox said.

Telling consumers that many wheat products already contain some GM ingredients didn’t affect their decision whether or not to purchase those products, regardless of whether they were told about the opposition to GM.

“It’s probably difficult to find food products that don’t contain some GM ingredients,” Fox said. “Not a lot of people are aware of that. But telling them that didn’t make a lot of difference. It really didn’t enhance their acceptance of GM wheat. But the overall acceptance was pretty high.”

Under current U.S. regulations, it isn’t necessary for product labels to indicate if the ingredients are genetically modified. If GM wheat goes on the market and into bread, that fact won’t need to be noted on the label unless federal regulations change. “Most bread right now contains some GM ingredients because it contains soy oil or soy flour,” Fox said. “It doesn’t have to be labeled.”

Fox pointed out that consumer activist groups opposed to GM have targeted GM wheat if moves are made to put it on the market. Although the KSU survey seems to show that domestic wheat consumption might not be harmed by introduction of genetic modification, exports could be another matter.

Overseas opposition to GM products of any kind could hurt American exports. About half of U.S.-grown wheat is exported to other countries for sale, and some U.S. wheat producers are worried about warnings from Asian wheat buyers and consumers who say they won’t buy imported GM wheat.


©Copyright 2007 by AlternativeApproaches.com





Printer Friendly Page Printer Friendly Page Send this story to someone

Comments

Add a new Comment





Last Month's 10 Most Read Featured Articles on Alternative Approaches

1. The Gathering of the Tribes on a Warm San Franciscan Night by Christine Hall

2. Penetration by Marat Zakharin

3. Winter Solstice 2008 - Visualize Sustainable World Prosperity Now by Christine Hall

4. The Children of Sexual Abuse by Charlotte Shaw

5. Impulse by Marat Zakharin

6. Fulcanelli and the Mystery of the Cross at Hendaye by Vincent Bridges

7. The Prophecies of South America by Robert A. Nelson

8. Aliens, Vampires, and The Da Vinci Code by Judy Kennedy

9. The Mermaids of Atlantis by Adrienne Dumas

10. A Midsummer Wicca Sabbat by Rose Ariadne

Search Amazon

Advertisements

Commercial Messages

Advertise Here


Recommend Our Site
Do a friend a favor...
Recommend Our Site
Click Here


News of interest to the magickal community as it happens.