Contents - Faperta

458 Biotechnological Approaches for Pest Management and Ecological Sustainability
with improved characteristics (Mendoza and Ables, 2003). Sixty percent believed they
would benefi t from biotechnology in the near future, and 82% would strongly support
policy on labeling a product only if there is an allergen or substantial change in the composition
of foods. Cloning of animals for food was acceptable to 37% of the respondents,
while cloning of humans was unacceptable to 79% of the people.
Role of the Scientific Community, NGOs, and the Media
There is a continued need to educate the general public about the benefi ts of biotechnology
and the perceived risks, if any. Environmentalists often focus on possible ecological impact
from the use of biotechnology. In countries where consumers are more negative about
biotechnology, media coverage and public opposition have been more pronounced. As a
result, a discussion on the benefi ts of biotechnology has been ignored, while the perceived
risks have been emphasized.
Most of the scientifi c community and the public agree that the risks of genetic engineering
are largely exaggerated, but there is a need for strict regulatory mechanisms. The farmers
and the public believe that biotechnology will lead to increased food production and
improved nutrition (Pilcher and Rice, 1998). Level of education, religion, socioeconomic
factors, pressure by the environmental groups, and governmental policy are likely to shape
public opinion about biotechnology. Scientifi c literacy, scientifi c proof of lack of evidence
for presumed risks, informal dissemination of information through the public media, clear
standards, food labeling, reducing the extent of exaggerated expectations arising from
science fi ction, making the public part of the decision-making process, and reliability of
information are important to provide a clear picture of the benefi ts and risks of biotechnology.
Farmers’ willingness to use or consume a range of crops modifi ed genetically for
on-farm production or input benefi ts (such as insect pest and herbicide resistance) is quite
high (McDougall et al., 2001). Acceptability of products specifying cross-species or crosskingdom
gene transfer was quite low. Concerns have also been raised about corporate
ownership and marketing of the technology, and the potential lack of demand for food
derived from genetically modifi ed plants.
In light of public concerns with the safety of genetically modifi ed crops, the issue of food
labeling, and governmental regulation of transgenic plants, quality control, and monitoring
of the process of transgenic seed product development has been advocated for ensuring
customer satisfaction (Mumm and Walters, 2001). The primary goal of quality control
monitoring is to ensure the authenticity (transgenic event identity and purity) of seed
materials used in product testing, in the development of regulatory data packages for governmental
review, and to produce seed for commercial release. Monitoring is performed to
confi rm the presence of the presumed transgenic event(s) and the absence of all others.
Sophisticated quality control strategies formulated to monitor the product development
process and to maintain quality standards in the manufacturing industry can serve as a
foundation in devising effi cient strategies tailored to meet the needs of the seed industry.
However, it is impossible to follow food labeling in village markets in developed and
developing countries, where food and food products from both transgenic and nontransgenic
sources is bought by local traders and sold in small quantities to consumers in
unpacked and unprocessed form.