A Shift Towards Biotechnology: Social Opinion in the EU

Abstract

Consumers’ attitude to genetic engineering provides information to stakeholders who are interested in its adoption, which is essential considering the emerging growth of new breeding techniques. This short article analyses, compares, and describes the knowledge, doubts, and concerns of Europeans about biotechnology and genetic engineering over the past 20 years. Consumers’ attitude to genetic engineering provides information to stakeholders who are interested in its adoption, which is essential considering the emerging growth of new breeding techniques. This short article analyses, compares, and describes the knowledge, doubts, and concerns of Europeans about biotechnology and genetic engineering over the past 20 years. Current global challenges such as climate change, ecosystem degradation, and growing human population, have necessitated seeking new methods of production and consumption that respect the ecological boundaries of our planet. Public opinion is one of the core elements in the development of the broad discipline of biotechnology, especially because the application of genetic engineering (GE) (see Glossary) technology is controversial for today’s global food consumers, particularly in the European Union (EU). New breeding techniques (NBTs) are one of the most promising solutions for food security issues [1.Ma X. et al.Genome editing for global food security.Trends Biotechnol. 2018; 36: 123-127Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar]; however, the social acceptance of new technologies, especially in agriculture, hampers their use. Importantly, over 20 years ago, the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (also referred to as ‘the Oviedo Convention’, 1997) acknowledged the need to make society an active participant in scientific developments [2.Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (Oviedo Convention). Council of Europe, 1997Google Scholar]. Additionally, the current ‘Farm to Fork Strategy’ of the European Commission (EC) notes: ‘new innovative techniques, including biotechnology and the development of bio-based products, may play a role in increasing sustainability, provided they are safe for consumers and the environment while bringing benefits for society as a whole’ [3.EC A Farm to Fork Strategy for a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System, COM(2020) 381 final. European Commission, Brussels2020Google Scholar]. Public perceptions and opinions towards biotechnology and GE in the EU have changed over the past 20 years. This article presents the most important results from the conducted analyses and presents possible approaches for overcoming the problem of relatively small acceptance of biotechnology in the EU. With the advent of new technologies, genome editing and its public perception is gaining momentum in the scientific world, industry, and policymaking. The first genetically modified organism (GMO) was introduced into large-scale production in 1996i; however, the acceptance of GE by European people has not changed significantly over the past 20 years and remains at a relatively low level in Europe. According to the Eurobarometer reportsii,iii,iv,v, in 1999 and 2010, 41% and 53% of respondents, respectively, were optimistic about biotechnology, thus showing a 12% increase in the number of people with a positive opinion on biotechnology over the period of 10 years. Unfortunately, the Eurobarometer surveys on biotechnology were discontinued in 2010v, but other more recent sources show that the awareness of European people regarding genome editing issues ranges from 45% (Czech Republic and Germany) to 75% (Sweden), which clearly shows discrepancies between the EU countries [4.Lakomý M. et al.Public attitudes to life sciences research in six European countries.ORION Project Deliverable No. 2.3. 2018Google Scholar]. Interestingly, in Norway (a country belonging to the European Free Trade Association, EFTA), consumers had high awareness of genetically modified (GM) food, as 96% have heard about it, but only about half of them have heard about gene editingvi. Regarding the acceptance of GE, the critical issue is its application rather than the technology itself, and the applications that currently receive the highest support are prevention or cure of diseases, prevention of disabilities, and organ transplantation. The least preferred applications of GE, are changing non-life limiting characteristics of human embryos, improvement of livestock production, and improvement of plant production [4.Lakomý M. et al.Public attitudes to life sciences research in six European countries.ORION Project Deliverable No. 2.3. 2018Google Scholar] (Table 1).Table 1Changes in Public Opinion on Biotechnology by EuropeansAspectPeople (%)CountryYear of surveyRefsPublic support across countries for use of genome editing for different purposes (percent of ‘yes’ answers):prevention or cure of diseases9686SpainGermany2018[4.Lakomý M. et al.Public attitudes to life sciences research in six European countries.ORION Project Deliverable No. 2.3. 2018Google Scholar]aThe survey was conducted in six countries: Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and UK. Only extreme values in the range are shown.prevention of disabilities9375SpainSwedenorgan transplantation9070SpainGermanychanging non-life limiting characteristics of human embryos4929SpainCzech Republicimprovement of livestock production5734UKSwedenimprovement of plant production6749SpainGermanySupporting different applications of biotechnology:GM crops878241SpainNetherlandsAustria1999ii918554SpainNetherlandsGreece, Luxembourg2002iiiGM food757019NetherlandsSpainGreece1999ii747024SpainIreland, Finland, Greece2002iiiPotential concerns regarding genome editing across countries (percent of ‘yes’ answers):Side-effects8165Spain, ItalyCzech Republic, Sweden2018[4.Lakomý M. et al.Public attitudes to life sciences research in six European countries.ORION Project Deliverable No. 2.3. 2018Google Scholar]aThe survey was conducted in six countries: Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and UK. Only extreme values in the range are shown.Misuse8371SpainSwedenEthical implications7049ItalyCzech RepublicInsufficient regulation8053ItalyCzech RepublicTopics that concern people most when it comes to food:the presence of antibiotics, hormones and steroids in meat7520SwedenMalta2019viipesticide residues in food6717GreeceCzech Republicfood additives5621LithuaniaMaltathe presence of GM ingredients in food or drinks4512LithuaniaMaltagenome editing111FinlandPortugalplant diseases found in crops274GreeceGermany, Finlanda The survey was conducted in six countries: Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and UK. Only extreme values in the range are shown. Open table in a new tab In general, the level of acceptance of various applications of biotechnology and GE has not significantly changed over the past 20 years in Europe. The applications of GE in medical fields received higher approval than GM crops and GM food, as they were judged to be moderately useful and riskyiii. The majority of Norwegians were positive about using gene editing in Norwegian agriculture and aquaculture for purposes that are perceived to promote societal benefit and sustainability, such as reducing pesticide use and crop losses in plants, 68%, and climate adaptation of crop plants, 65%vi. In Poland, the main benefits of GM food indicated by citizens included eliminating hunger and decreasing product prices, but one-third of Poles did not perceive any benefits from their use [5.Rzymski P. Królczyk A. Attitudes toward genetically modified organisms in Poland: to GMO or not to GMO?.Food Secur. 2016; 8: 689-697Crossref Scopus (29) Google Scholar]. Almost half of the respondents supported the medical use of GMOs in the production of drugs and vaccines, whereas one-third did not support any use of GMOs [5.Rzymski P. Królczyk A. Attitudes toward genetically modified organisms in Poland: to GMO or not to GMO?.Food Secur. 2016; 8: 689-697Crossref Scopus (29) Google Scholar]. Citizens in countries such as Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Belgium, generally were more supportive of GM crops, but those in France, Italy, Greece, Denmark, Austria, and Luxembourg called for extension of the ‘de facto moratorium’ on the commercial exploitation of GM cropsiii (Table 1). A survey conducted in 2010 revealed an overall uncertainty regarding GM foods among the European society, and around three-quarters of the respondents agreed that GM food (70%), and animal cloning (77%), in food production are fundamentally unnatural. Sixty-one percent of European people disagreed that the development of GM food should be encouragedv. Approximately 60% of the respondents had heard about the use of GM ingredients in foods or drinks, whereas only one-fifth of the respondents were aware of genome editingvii. Side-effects and misuse of genome editing were the highest concern among the European citizens [4.Lakomý M. et al.Public attitudes to life sciences research in six European countries.ORION Project Deliverable No. 2.3. 2018Google Scholar] (Table 1). Additionally, European people were most frequently concerned about the presence of antibiotics, hormones and steroids in meat, pesticide residues in food (the highest proportion in Greece), and food additivesvii (Table 1). Twenty-seven percent of the respondents were concerned about the presence of GM ingredients in foods or drinks (mainly in Lithuania, Bulgaria, and Greece), whereas only 9% of the respondents were concerned about plant diseases, and 4% about genome editing (primarily in Finland). According to Eriksson and colleagues [6.Eriksson D. et al.Options to reform the European Union legislation on GMOs: scope and definitions.Trends Biotechnol. 2020; 38: 231-234Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar], the current regulatory framework ‘is no longer fit for purpose’, especially for NBTs. Moreover, any reform process in legislation has to be initiated by the European Commission (EC), paying attention to academic and industry communities, members of national governments, as well as EU citizens, as social acceptance and perception of biotechnology and GE is a crucial issue [7.Eriksson D. et al.Options to reform the European Union legislation on GMOs: postauthorization and beyond.Trends Biotechnol. 2020; 38: 465-446Google Scholar]. The trust of European people in the governments in framing regulations on biotechnology increased gradually from 45% to 55% between 1999 and 2010. The respondents believed that the government did a good job for society insofar as the regulation of biotechnology is part of its remitii,iii,iv,v. In 2010, three-fourths of the respondents stated that the government should take responsibility to ensure that new technologies benefit everyone. Only 16% of the respondents thought that it depended on the people themselves to seek out the benefits from new technologies. In 2019, the overall tendency to trust the national governments stood at 34%, compared with 61% who showed a tendency not to trustviii. The situation was similar for the EU itself (46% did not trust, whereas 44% of the respondents showed a tendency to trust). Three-quarters of respondents from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, said that they trust EU institutions in terms of information on food risksvii. Additionally, a clear labelling policy regarding GM products should be implemented by governments, to facilitate consumers to make informed choices [8.Cui K. Shoemaker S.P. Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: a nationwide Chinese consumer study.npj Sci. Food. 2018; 2: 10Crossref PubMed Scopus (63) Google Scholar]. A large majority of Norwegian consumers (76%), thought that labelling was important, but the labels should also contain information about which genetic technology has been used, why it was used, and which trait has been changed. More than 60% of the respondents said that the labels should distinguish between gene editing and ‘classical’ genetic modificationvi. Altogether, there is a high potential for improving the perception and receiving support of the public for GMO policies, by reforming the communication between the national governments and society, as well as by promoting open science [8.Cui K. Shoemaker S.P. Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: a nationwide Chinese consumer study.npj Sci. Food. 2018; 2: 10Crossref PubMed Scopus (63) Google Scholar] (Box 1).Box 1‘Open Science’ as an Approach to Reach the PublicOne of the priorities of the EC’s strategy for research is engaging with society and making research open and accessible, an approach called ‘Open Science’ix,x. Involving society in research, and making them co-responsible, is one of the ways to increase their interest in science and their knowledge. As indicated in Orion Open Science (‘Open Responsible research and Innovation to further Outstanding knowledge’ project, financed from the Horyzont 2020), the willingness to engage in various aspects of science ranged between 68% (in Czech Republic) and 93% (in Italy) [4.Lakomý M. et al.Public attitudes to life sciences research in six European countries.ORION Project Deliverable No. 2.3. 2018Google Scholar]. Involvement of society in science was most often viewed as giving opinions at several stages of the research process (60% to 80% of the respondents), and at least 70% of the respondents across all countries were positive to help in collecting or analysing data, and to donate research materials. Several questions regarding different aspects of involvement were also asked in the Eurobarometer surveyiv. Seventy-one percent of the European citizens showed willingness to read articles or watch TV programmes on biotechnology, and 38% agreed to sign a petition about biotechnology. Moreover, most of the European citizens thought that public involvement in science is an important issue and that open and productive dialogues are necessaryxi. One of the priorities of the EC’s strategy for research is engaging with society and making research open and accessible, an approach called ‘Open Science’ix,x. Involving society in research, and making them co-responsible, is one of the ways to increase their interest in science and their knowledge. As indicated in Orion Open Science (‘Open Responsible research and Innovation to further Outstanding knowledge’ project, financed from the Horyzont 2020), the willingness to engage in various aspects of science ranged between 68% (in Czech Republic) and 93% (in Italy) [4.Lakomý M. et al.Public attitudes to life sciences research in six European countries.ORION Project Deliverable No. 2.3. 2018Google Scholar]. Involvement of society in science was most often viewed as giving opinions at several stages of the research process (60% to 80% of the respondents), and at least 70% of the respondents across all countries were positive to help in collecting or analysing data, and to donate research materials. Several questions regarding different aspects of involvement were also asked in the Eurobarometer surveyiv. Seventy-one percent of the European citizens showed willingness to read articles or watch TV programmes on biotechnology, and 38% agreed to sign a petition about biotechnology. Moreover, most of the European citizens thought that public involvement in science is an important issue and that open and productive dialogues are necessaryxi. The results of various public opinion surveys show that the general public has a moderately optimistic perception of the contribution of science and technology to humanity. The analysis showed a small but significant shift towards biotechnology. Enthusiasm is notably apparent in terms of medical advancements, improvements in life quality, and the prospects for forthcoming generations. Unfortunately, there is a lesser degree of social acceptance of GM products, specifically GM plants, which help to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, are more resistant to pests and herbicides (or abiotic stress conditions), have improved yield, help to maintain the nutritional needs of humans and farm animals, and enable increased economic benefits for farmers [8.Cui K. Shoemaker S.P. Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: a nationwide Chinese consumer study.npj Sci. Food. 2018; 2: 10Crossref PubMed Scopus (63) Google Scholar,9.Tyczewska A. et al.Towards food security: current state and future prospects of agrobiotechnology.Trends Biotechnol. 2018; 36: 1219-1229Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar]. Engaging citizens in the development of innovations in life sciences, is more critical now than ever, and there is a potential advantage in communicating biotechnology and GE to society. People should be genuinely informed about the risks and opportunities of new scientific ideas that can solve their current social, economic, and environmental challenges. While extensive unrestricted information is often a cause of confusion among consumers, the need to communicate a common message supported by science, from academia to breeders and then to retailers, is required to improve consumers’ understanding of biotechnology and GE. Additionally, labelling food as GM will enable members of society to make their own choices about GM products. A well-informed, engaged, consulted, and involved society, is more likely to support scientific research and its consequent developments. Moreover, as noted by Ma and colleagues [1.Ma X. et al.Genome editing for global food security.Trends Biotechnol. 2018; 36: 123-127Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar], the regulatory framework, and legislation for GE technology and NBTs (including gene editing), should follow scientific control to assess the potential risk of this technology, as well as to meet farmers’ and consumers’ needs. E.W. and T.T. gave the general idea and concept of the article. E.W. and A.T. drafted the manuscript, and analysed and described changes in the perception of European people on biotechnology and genetic engineering in the past 20 years. E.W. and A.T. prepared the final version of the manuscript. T.T. supervised the work. All the authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript. This work was supported by funding from the ERANET-CORNET #22/2/2017 research project named ‘Innovative processing technology of rapeseed products for poultry nutrition’ and was cofunded by the National Centre for Research and Development . This work was also supported by the COST Association ( European Cooperation in Science and Technology ) through the COST Action PlantEd ( CA18111 ). iwww.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/event/default.asp?EventID=159 iihttp://ec.europa.eu/research/pdf/eurobarometer-en.pdf iiihttp://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_177_en.pdf ivhttp://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_244b_en.pdf vhttp://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf viwww.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2020/04/Report-consumer-attitudes-to-gene-editing-agri-and-aqua-FINAL.pdf viiwww.efsa.europa.eu/en/corporate/pub/eurobarometer19 viiihttp://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/survey/getsurveydetail/instruments/standard/surveyky/2253 ixhttp://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm?pg=open-science-policy-platform xhttp://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/srip/2020/ec_rtd_srip-2020-report.pdf xihttp://data.europa.eu/euodp/pl/data/dataset/S1096_79_2_401 deliberate interference in the genetic material of organisms in order to form new combinations of heritable genetic material. It is a set of techniques that allow to transfer genes (or its fragments), within and across species boundaries to produce improved or novel organisms called GMOs. any organism, with the exception of humans, whose genetic material has been changed in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. also called gene editing, or genome engineering, is a type of GE in which DNA is inserted, deleted, modified, or replaced in the genome of a living organism. Genome editing targets the insertions to site specific locations. methods for developing new varieties in a manner that is faster and more precise than conventional breeding techniques, by modifying the DNA of seeds and cells. Using NBTs, a number of limitations of conventional breeding can be overcome. Some of these methods include the zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs), TALENs, and the meganuclease and CRISPR systems.

Topics & Concepts