The Poor, Malnutrition, Biofortification, and Biotechnology - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 161

2010). Probing the real-life behavior of UK tourists to North America (where “GM
food” is ubiquitous) showed that only 15 percent of respondents made attempts to avoid
GM food (Moses 2008).
Still, even if large parts of society are probably indifferent about GM crops, there are
vociferous opponents whose opinions are often given a disproportionate reception in
the general media (e.g., Sample 2011; BBC 2011; Reville 2011). Generally, opposition to
genetic engineering can be traced back to three broad groups of reasons: “risks,” “social
aspects,” and “metaphysics” (Dürnberger 2011). Potential risks of new GM crops for
human health or the environment are routinely assessed in the authorization process
before the crops are commercialized. Hence using such alleged risks as justification for
opposing safety-assessed and approved GM crops is more likely a sign of a deeper dis-
trust of science or of government institutions and regulatory and political processes in
general.
Often opposition to GM crops is also based on socioeconomic arguments regard-
ing the alleged market power of agri-biotech companies, the patenting of GM crops, a
feared control of the food chain through private corporations, or an expected structural
change in rural areas due to technological change. Hence these arguments rather reflect
political attitudes critical of market systems, “globalization,” or technical progress, and
GM crops are simply targeted as a convenient proxy. This view may also explain the
inconsistencies in some arguments. For instance, conventional crops can also be pat-
ented, the market power of agri-biotech companies is probably much more limited than
that of other players in the food chain (e.g., GM potatoes were taken of the market in
the United States due to pressure from the downstream food industry), and GM crops
are not exclusive to the private sector and industrial agriculture, since they can—and
indeed are—also developed by public or humanitarian entities for use by small-scale
farmers.
Finally, GM crops are also opposed because of metaphysical considerations, includ-
ing respect for “nature.” If these considerations take the form of categorical arguments,
they generally preclude any compromise on the issue. For instance, if genetic engineer-
ing is seen as a violation of the sacredness of nature, potential benefits of GM crops can
hardly compensate for what is perceived to be a fundamental mistake. Nevertheless, to
be accepted as sensible arguments, these reasons need to be validated for consistency
and rationality. This can be done by analyzing whether the arguments are also used to
oppose biotechnology if used for other purposes, or if other technologies are opposed
if used for the same purposes (Dürnberger 2011). In the case of GM crops, for instance,
such metaphysical arguments are rarely used to oppose the application of modern bio-
technology in the field of pharmaceutics and diagnostics, and neither are other breeding
technologies opposed that are used to develop crops with novel traits. Hence, given this
inconsistency, it is questionable whether such arguments are used out of genuine oppo-
sition to GM crops, or, again, whether they simply exploit GM crops to score points in a
larger debate.
In this context biofortification has also come under fire, irrespective of any poten-
tial benefits it may bring, simply because—via Golden Rice—it can be linked to genetic