"Frontmatter". In: Plant Genomics and Proteomics

T
RADE
I
SSUES
Why are issues about the movement of GM products important? The major
growers of GM crops are also major exporters (Table 10.1) but only comprise
a very small fraction of the nations that consume these crops. Therefore, the
worldwide acceptance is important in the propagation of GM crops and their
adoption. In this respect, the USA, joined by Argentina, Canada, and Egypt,
has recently (2003) filed a complaint to the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
challenging the European Union’s (EU) de facto moratorium on the com-
mercialization of GM products, arguing that the EU’s moratorium on the
approval and commercialization of GM products is an illegal trade barrier
under WTO rules. The European Commission countered by calling the move
legally unwarranted, economically unfounded, and politically unhelpful
and arguing that the EU’s regulatory system for GMO authorization is in
line with WTO rules.
1 9 2
10. B
I O E T H I C A L
C
O N C E R N S A N D T H E
F
U T U R E O F
P
L A N T
G
E N O M I C S
TABLE 10.1. P
RODUCTION AND
T
RADE OF
GM A
GRI
-F
OOD
P
RODUCTS
, 2000 
Number of
Percentage of global
Number of 
producing
exports from GM
importing
Crop
countries
producers
countries
Maize/corn
8
85
168
Soybeans
6
88
114
Canola
2
50
68
From Pardey and Ko (2003).

---

P
UBLIC
P
ERCEPTION
Even though there are no documented cases of harm resulting from the use
of this technology (people around the world have been eating biotech food
for years) the public perception of GMOs and their products has not always
been positive. For example, the consumer perception of risk associated with
eating of GM soybeans is less when the consumer is given information
regarding consumer benefits than when no informa-tion concerning benefits
is provided (Brown and Ping, 2003). Therefore, consumer perception of risk
associated with the consumption of GM-derived foods is affected by the
direct associated benefits detailed to the consumer. The response in Western
Europe to the new technology cannot simply be alleviated through asser-
tions by scientists that there is negligible risk. Nor can the safety of GM foods
be based solely on scientific risk as-sessments unless there is a scientific 
consensus that the impact on the environment is negligible. Therefore, 
the approach such as that at http://www.ars.usda.gov/sites/monarch/
index.html “Butterflies and Bt corn—Allowing science to guide decisions,”
may not be very effective in swaying public opinion.
There must be some tangible benefit to the consumer, not just the pro-
ducer or supplier, to make the introduction of the new technology rea-
sonable. In the developing world, the benefits to the small farmer from the
increase in economic activity and the improvement in the living standards
for a large proportion of the population may be a sufficient perceived benefit
to the consumers to promote the adoption of the new technologies.
However, this circumstance, in itself, raises additional problems with
respect to the framework and resources in place in many developing coun-
tries to permit the growth and distribution of GMOs.
C
ASE
S
TUDY
Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia, and Zimbabwe raised
concerns about damaging their future trade with the EU if they accepted
food aid that included genetically modified corn, even though a signifi-
cant portion of the population was starving. The primary concern was that
farmers could plant the US-donated corn kernels and if those plants cross-
pollinated with the local corn varieties the EU could bar their corn or corn-
fed animal exports. The situation was exacerbated in that the countries
involved did not have adequate protocols to manage GM crops. This
problem could have been negated by the supply of ground corn, removing
the possibility of the GM material being planted, but USAID donations
would not cover the cost of milling. 
The UNEP International Guidelines and the Cartagena Protocol states: 
P
U B L I C
P
E R C E P T I O N
1 9 3

---