The process to get rid of those unwanted properties again through interbreeding takes decades. Returning to the potato example, there are wild potato species that are resistant to diseases which consumer potatoes are unable to protect against.
By crossing a wild potato species with a cultivated one, seedlings are produced with a gene package of which only half originates from the wild potato. To make the plant material usable for food production again through interbreeding with the cultivated potato, about thirty years would be needed. Using genetic modification, a new variation with exactly the right properties can be developed in a short time, as only the desired gene is transferred.
The technology, which allows adjustment of the properties of plants, animals or micro-organisms in a specified way, has no particular disadvantages. It is however important that the technology be used properly. There are national and international agreements regarding this. In practice, plant breeding or genetic modification could change many more properties of organisms than is desirable.
This is why each property is reviewed by experts on the national and international level, and permitted adjustments are established. The legislation surrounding the technology also has disadvantages. Companies that develop a new plant variety can apply for patents. This patent disallows others from using this new variety for further breeding.
This enables companies that have developed a new plant type through genetic modification to continue selling this variety for years. And because the modified species often have excellent properties, farmers will also want them. In this way, monocultures can arise. In conventional breeding there are, of course, always varieties preferred by farmers, but because the varieties that have been created through breeding may be further bred by others this is only the plant breeder's right, not a patent there is a constant flow of new varieties on the market.
This is absolutely not the case. The use of cross breeding will always be important to be able to guarantee a wide variety of agricultural products. Good agricultural practice is always the starting point. Genetic modification is just one of the pillars that can be used to optimise the food supply while keeping it sustainable. In addition, consumers should always have the choice whether or not they want food that contains genetically modified ingredients.
It should not be the case that a few large seed producers decide what people eat worldwide. In , genetically modified crops were grown on more than million hectares worldwide.
The insulin is then purified and packaged into bottles and insulin pens for distribution to patients with diabetes. Related Content:. What is DNA? What is a GMO? What is gene therapy? What is a mutation?
What are single gene disorders? What is genome editing? What is selective breeding? How helpful was this page? What's the main reason for your rating? Which of these best describes your occupation?
What is the first part of your school's postcode? How has the site influenced you or others? Thankyou, we value your feedback! We use cookies to improve this site. In general, the lowest income group more often reported disagreement with the use of GM for grain production, fruit and vegetable production, and livestock production than did higher income groups.
Similar to differences across income levels, the acceptance of GM between respondents with and without college degrees differed for every one of the uses studied.
For each use studied, a larger proportion of respondents with a college degree reported agreement with the use of GM than respondents without a college degree. Five individual ordered and binary logit models with associated marginal effects were estimated in order to explain the acceptance of GM across five different categories or uses grain production, fruit or vegetable production, livestock production, human medicine, and human health reasons and are displayed in Table 5 ordered logit coefficient estimates , 6 and 7 ordered logit marginal effects , and 8 binary logit coefficient estimates and marginal effects.
A number of variables behaved similarly across all five logit models estimated. For example, all region of residence variables were insignificant across all five logit models. Given the lack of significant differences across regions in the cross tabulations Table 4 , this lack of significance in the logit models is not surprising. In addition to region, all age variables showed no significance in all five models. Awareness of ZIKV was an insignificant variable in all five models.
Two variables were significant in all models, namely, being male and GM awareness. Being male was significant and positive for all models, meaning that respondents who reported being male were more likely to agree with all five of the uses of GM studied than those who were female.
In the binary models, Table 8 , the marginal contribution of being male for each model ranged from 0. For brevity, only the marginal contribution of the binary logits will be discussed. The only other coefficient estimate that was significant across all models was GM awareness, and it was positive in all five models. In this analysis, GM awareness was incorporated as those who self-reported awareness of GM mosquito technology.
The marginal contribution in the binary models ranges from 0. Given the limited measurement of GM awareness in this analysis, future work with more breadth of analysis regarding various aspects of GM awareness are warranted.
When estimating acceptance of grain production, fruit and vegetable production, and livestock production the highest income category was significant and positive, indicating that those with higher incomes were more likely to be in agreement with these GM uses than those in the middle income category. In the ordered logit models although not in the binary logit models the highest income category was also positive and significant for acceptance of GM use for human health reasons. In the binary logit models for fruit or vegetable production the lower income category was also significant negative , which suggests that those in the lower income category were less likely to agree with GM use than the middle income.
The positive and significant coefficients for having a college degree for both human medicine and human health uses of GM indicate that those with higher education were more likely to agree with GM use for these reasons than those without a college degree. Respondents were asked about their awareness of ZIKV at the time of participating in the survey.
Only 8. In total, Widmar et al. Respondents were asked three distinct questions linking human illness and mosquitoes. A total of In total Respondents were asked if they were aware of the development of a GM mosquito Aedes Aegypti which mates to bear terminal offspring and the majority In addition to awareness about the potential GM solution to combat ZIKV, respondents were asked about their willingness to support the release of the GM mosquitoes in both the Caribbean and the U.
Overall, over three-quarters of respondents were supportive of introducing the GM mosquitoes in both locales, with Those who said they would not support the introduction of the GM mosquitoes were asked a follow up question and were provided a number of options, of which, they were allowed to select more than one.
For the U. Caribbean Respondents were asked to indicate between most preferred, neutral, or least preferred method for three methods of potential mosquito control in the U. Respondents were distributed nearly in thirds for all levels of preference for all methods, for both the U. Acceptance of various forms of mosquito control, including the use of a GM mosquito, was analyzed across various respondent demographics. Table 9 displays the percentage of respondents within various demographic groups who were aware of the GM mosquito, would support the release of the mosquito, and who preferred various mosquito control techniques for use in the Caribbean and U.
Males and females reported awareness of the GM mosquito at different rates, with A higher percentage of the youngest age category 18 to 34 years of age reported awareness of the GM mosquito, with The percent of respondents who were aware of the GM mosquito was higher amongst college degree holders Support for the introduction of GM mosquitos in the Caribbean differed between college degree holders The two higher income categories studied had higher levels of acceptance than the lowest income bracket analyzed.
Support for the introduction of the GM mosquito in the U. Several differences were seen amongst demographics in the stated preferences for mosquito control mechanisms in the U. Females rated fogging and pesticide spraying in public places as least preferred for both the U. Males ranked personal use of insect repellant bug sprays and protective clothing as the least preferred method for both the U.
In both the U. The only significant difference seen across education categories was for the release of GM mosquitoes in the U. Notably, the proportion of survey respondent acceptance of food production uses grain, fruit and vegetable, and livestock production differed significantly from the proportion which accepted GM for both human health reasons and human medicine. A potential hypothesis surrounding this difference in acceptance of GM amongst food production uses is the association with animals livestock versus plants crops and the perceived relationship to human beings.
Animals are more human-like than plants and it is conceivable that GM in animals is perceived quite differently than when used in plant production. Regardless of the minor differences in acceptance between livestock and other food production uses, the significant differences, and notably higher acceptance of GM for human medicine and human health reasons, are important results which offer some insight into the potential for accepted GM uses to improve the human condition.
Various willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept analyses of consumer preference in various countries have been conducted regarding GM and non-GM food products. Fernandez-Cornejo et al. Lusk et al. Chiang et al. This analysis supports previous findings that people have a higher rate of acceptance of GM for human medicine and human health uses than other potential uses such as food production.
Being male, younger, of higher income, and college educated generally contributed to higher willingness to accept GM technology, which could be related to the access of information. Increasing resources, such as income and education, could improve access to information about GM technology, and eventually, understanding. Conversations about GM technology have been rising over time and younger people are avid users of quick information portals, i.
While, specific awareness of ZIKV was an insignificant variable in all five of the logit models, GM mosquito awareness was statistically significant and positive in contributing to acceptance of all five GM uses. GM mosquito technology could find some support in ZIKV impacted regions and may even be preferred to some other method of control.
This finding could suggest information about one aspect of GM technology that could impact the acceptance of another. Thus, promotion of awareness of GM technologies used in health and medicine may be an important component of attempts to gain acceptance in the realm of public perception of GM technologies for use in other aspects of improving the human condition such as through food and nutrition.
Admittedly the measurement of GM awareness in this analysis is limited; specifically only awareness of the GM mosquito was measured or self-reported and then used in the models. Additional measures of awareness across the five uses may further inform related analyses. Furthermore, logit models predicting acceptance of GM across five uses employed basic demographics sex, age, income, region of residence, education ZIKV awareness, and GM awareness measured by GM mosquito awareness.
Certainly one might consider the potential contribution of factors beyond the scope of this study, including awareness of or experience with GM in medical procedures, occupation, or more specific knowledge on food production. Furthermore, future studies may wish to consider both more specific GM uses, beyond the five broad categories studied here, and perhaps the study of GM acceptance concurrently rather than each use analyzed separately to account for within person impacts on responses.
The development of a GM mosquito as a means of control for mosquito borne illnesses was a key area of focus around the globe in relating to human health. Most obviously related in terms of this study were the stated preferences for mosquito control strategies. Respondents were distributed nearly in thirds for all levels of preference for all methods fogging and spraying in public places, release of GM mosquitoes to reduce populations, and personal use of insect repellents, bug sprays, and protective clothing , for both the U.
In other words, no single method was chosen as the most preferred for any majority of respondents in the sample for either the location. However, for both locations, the largest share of respondents although not a majority of respondents found fogging and pesticide spraying to be the least preferred method.
It is possible that recent press related to illegal use of pesticides in the U. Virgin Islands may have fed fears of public spraying, in particular in resort locations where multiple offenses have been admitted to and families left permanently disabled [ 28 ][ 29 ]. This finding surrounding acceptability of fogging and spraying leaves room for the further acceptance of GM mosquitoes or GM-derived control methods in the future.
Notably, this study found Interestingly, region of residence did not significantly explain acceptance of any of the five GM uses investigated. The lack of significance of region is important to consider for GM mosquitos because different regions face different impacts from mosquito populations. Populations in highly impacted regions have expressed interest in preventing the spread of diseases using GM technology. For example, research conducted in Mali showed that most study participants were pragmatic about use of GM mosquitoes as part of the vector control strategy for malaria when they were properly informed about the purposes of the program [ 30 ].
Specifically to the U. While not explored here, one reason for the insignificance of region could be national and global coverage of ZIKV in the media, making all more aware, not just those in regions of higher risk. Election day brought the question of GM mosquito introduction in the U. Given the nature of the referenda, it is not clear what decisions will result [ 31 ], although this recent example from Florida highlights the potential for locale-specific differences, not just regional differences, in acceptance, in particular in those locales targeted for release.
The objective of this study was to explore U. A total of responses were collected. Statistically significant differences in the proportion of the sample accepting GM uses for human health and human medicine versus GM uses for food production were found. Overall, a significantly higher proportion of respondents were willing to accept GM uses for human medicine and health reasons than for food production grain, fruits and vegetables, and livestock.
Respondents reporting being male, being younger, having higher incomes, and being college educated were more likely to agree with GM technology for any of the five uses. Interestingly, the lower income segment was least likely to support GM uses in agriculture, which may run counter to their own self-interest in that loss of GM varieties would lead to higher food prices, which disproportionally affect the poor.
Specific to ZIKV, Generally, males, younger respondents, college degree holders, and those with higher incomes were more likely to be aware of the development of a GM mosquito.
0コメント