In Japan in 1991, 48% of the public agreed that genetically modified plants and animals would help Japanese agriculture become less dependent upon pesticides,  while 49% of teachers and56% of scientists agreed with this. 71% of company scientists agreed with this statement. Only 7% of scientists and the public disagreed with this, while 13% of teachers disagreed. This question statement is a major argument of those calling for the development of genetic engineering in agriculture, and the result suggests that it is supported by a majority of people. In the Netherlands in a 1991 survey, foodstuffs made from genetic engineering that were perceived to have reduced levels of pesticide were more acceptable than better for health, longer shelf life or better taste .The sports fish is an example of genetic engineering for fun - and many people reject such genetic engineering . The highest degree of support for the sports fish is in the USA where 53%approved in a 1986 survey. However, this was lower in 1993. One of the most striking points of this collection is the high level of approval of this example in Thailand and India. This trend was also seen in the Singapore and Hong Kong samples, and also reported in a student survey in China .
The general support for products of genetic engineering seems to be high, especially if they are claimed to be more healthy. When specific details of an application were given there was generally greater acceptance, suggesting people have some discretion. People may approve applications if they see benefits, not only to themselves but also to the environment and other people. It also suggests that if details are given the public will show greater acceptance of an application, seen also for human gene therapy compared to human gene manipulation in general. This discretion has been called a measure of bioethical maturity of society.
Support for specific applications of gene therapy was significantly less for "improving physical characters", "improving intelligence" or "making people more ethical" than for curing diseases like cancer or diabetes, except in India and Thailand, but there was little difference between inheritable or non-inheritable gene therapy. A significant preference for therapeutic over cosmetic applications of gene therapy was also seen in the USA.In India and Thailand more than 50% of the 900+ total respondents in each country supported enhancement of physical characters, intelligence, or making people more ethical. It could suggest several things: that poor living standards and infectious disease make people more pragmatic about "improvement", or that people in those countries have not thought about the implications (even though they were relatively highly educated samples). It is interesting if this is a general trend in developing countries, as it could have significant implications for international policy. |
|
There have been several major surveys on attitudes to biotechnology. Understanding, the public image of biotechnology is useful for different groups of people. These type of studies have at least two purposes, one being academic study, and the other being public relations for the biotechnology industry. Both of these purposes are relevant to the formulation of policy that will be appropriate to each country. There are few surveys looking at the acceptance of biotechnology in developing countries. In 1993 the International Bioethics Survey was conducted in Australia, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, The Philippines, Russia, Singapore and Thailand, with the aid of collaborators. The survey finds that people have both hopes and fears about biotechnology, in different countries we see a similarly diverse range of opinions, and in all cases more support is given for specific applications that are perceived to be for a worthy goal than for general questions.
Although people have always faced risk, and at least in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, have faced technological forces which transform society, biotechnology has more critics than most. These studies suggest many of the claims that critics make may not represent the views of ordinary people. Perhaps this influence is no where stronger than in Europe, as seen in the controversy associated with the bans on the use of BST made by genetic engineering to boost milk production, and on the US situation where the FDA opposes labels on products associated with genetic engineering. An educated public should assess the claims made by different groups, depending upon the trust they have in them, and may alter its views, as seen in a survey in Canada . There is also the continuing debate over patenting policy. These studies must be used responsibly, rather than just to allow better plans for the next line of commercials - public attitude making - rather than for seeing what the public has to say.
The people were all supportive of science and technology in general, and appeared to balance benefit and risk, showing discretion over the use of genetic engineering for enhancement, and realistic reasoning in responses to questions. This conflicts with the commonly held position that the public is uneducated and naive about the application of biotechnology. That claim is based on the argument that new technology presents novel choices - which is wrong, the choices themselves have existed before even if the means for effecting them were less efficient. These glimpses into the public image of biotechnology provide much food for thought, but we recognize the image may change. Taking into consideration of the world yield of maize and rice (image below respectively), it is clearly seen that Africa is a bit behind to implementation of biotechnology even with procession of some of the worlds richest farmlands.
Perhaps, if there is more campaign Africans might embrace biotechnology and certainly life will be easier. | RICE PRODUCTION ACROSS THE GLOBE | MAIZE PRODUCTION ACROSS THE GLOBE |  |  | |
|
|
 Gene
cloning of novel and improved enzymes for application in the food industry is
currently of importance. Increasingly enzymes with improved specificities are
being used to replace chemical additives, and are also being used to generate
bakery and confectionery products with improved texture, aroma, appearance and
taste properties.
For example, the application of different amylases, xylanases and proteases are
being used to generate bread and biscuit dough with improved properties.
The following list of enzymes by class / name illustrates other applications:
1. Proteases,
pectinases and amylases
Application:
- Improvement of texture and colour
2. Glucose
Isomerase
Application:
- Production of different high-fructose corn syrups
3. Proteases,
amylases, glucanases
Application:
- Enhanced malt yields, decreased filtration times
- Improved storage properties of beers
4. Rennins,
proteases, Beta-galactosidases
Application:
- Hydrolysis of whey components
- Production of enhanced flavour/taste properties
5. Starch-degrading enzymes
Application:
- Conversion of starch to glucose
Biotechnology has also been employed to obtain natural alternatives to synthetic
sweeteners, for example:
. The
production of insulin-rich raw materials
.
Genetic manipulation of crops for insulin production
.
Improved degradation/conversion of insulin to suitable end-products
.
Improved methods for the production of phenylalanine an amino acid is used in the
synthesis of Aspartame
A point to note is that all existing and future novel foodstuffs have to comply
with the FDA and EU regulations and labeling requirements before they can sold to
the consumer. |
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
| Results 33 - 36 of 52 |
