Today, rather than spraying chemicals in fields to bolster crop production, genes from
naturally occurring organisms with pesticidal or herbicide-tolerant properties are being
engineered into plants. And just as in the earlier period of chemical pesticides use, the
public discussion of agricultural biotechnology has been framed narrowly in terms of
risk versus benefit, rather than in a more complete outlook where the objectives are to maxi-
mize benefits while minimizing risks.
The public discussion of genetically engineered foods has, since at least 1998, been
characterized by seemingly simple questions that many have failed to adequately answer
the following questions: Why are you messing with nature? Why don’t you label every-
thing? Can you guarantee there won’t be any long-term risks? Why are you playing God?
A May 2007 review of a documentary,The Future of Food(available at http://www.
newstarget.com/021827.html), while exaggerated, summarizes much of the concern
regarding genetically engineered food:
There is a cabal of power-hungry corporations that are systematically destroying humanity’s
future. These companies have taken over the food supply, injected pesticides, viruses and
invading genes into staple crops, engineered “terminator” genes that make crop seeds unviable,
destroyed the livelihood of farmers and used every tactic they could think of—legal threats,
intimidation, bribery, monopolistic market practices and many more—to gain monopolistic
control over the global food supply. One documentary brings you this astonishing story.
Through the testimony of family farmers, ecological scientists, agricultural experts and numer-
ous public documents, The Future of Food tells a horrifying, heart-stopping story of how Big
Agriculture has sold out the future of human civilization for the almighty dollar.Beginning in 1994 with the US introduction of the Flavr Savr tomato, the products of agri-
cultural biotechnology—using the tools of molecular biology to move and alter specific
genes to bolster crop productivity, extend the shelf life of fresh fruits and vegetables, and
reduce the environmental stresses of food production—have been commercially available.
Since 1995, North American—and international—farmers have increasingly chosen to
pay extra for genetically enhanced corn, soy, canola, and potato seed because, quite
simply, it works: increased yields on the same amount of land, reductions in chemical use,
more efficient farming systems. So, why has this technology engendered such deep hostility?
15.2 Perceptions of Risk
How an individual perceives a risk—in this case the risk posed by genetically engineered
food—has been the subject of extensive research. Sandman (1987) noted that the public
generally pays too little attention to the hazardous nature of risks, and experts usually com-
pletely ignore those factors that fuel consumer unrest or outrage. Scientists, in general,
define risks in the language and procedures of science itself; they consider the nature of
the harm that may occur, the probability that it will occur, and the number of people
who may be affected (Groth 1991). Most citizens seem less aware of the quantitative or
probabilistic nature of a risk, and much more concerned with broader, qualitative attributes,
such as whether the risk is voluntarily assumed, whether the risks and benefits are fairly
distributed, whether the risk can be controlled by the individual, whether a risk is necessary
and unavoidable or whether there are safer alternatives, whether the risk is familiar or
exotic, whether the risk is natural or technological in origin, and so forth (Sandman
1987). But such generalizations are of limited value.
15.2. PERCEPTIONS OF RISK 345