Health & Consumer Protection
Directorate General
GMOs: scientific disagreement or
differing societal perceptions?
Marco Valletta, Ph. D. – DG SANCO E1
OECD 2-3 November 2009
Consumers’ perception and
GMOs in the EU
A recent study from the University of
Wageningen – by Professor Lynn J. Frewer
Consumers
Experts
Consumer
Awareness
Consumers not willing to
seek information
Opaque / lack of trust
Risk
management
efforts
Adequate Risk management
and happy consumers
Less acceptance of
economic interests
Risk
management
priorities
More acceptance of
economic interests
Poor quality of information
Emphasise consumer
protection
Positive view – reliable
Not acknowledged by all
institutions – source of
negative perceptions
Responsibility
Emphasise state and
industry
Media
Negative view - create
public anxiety
Uncertainty
Inherent in science
Krystallis et al, 2007, Health, Risk & Society
Some basics about risk
perception by consumers
Losses have greater impact on attitudes than
gains (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979).
People weigh risk information as more
important than benefit information
Impact of balanced information higher on risk
perception than on benefit perception (Fischer
and Frewer)
Risk perception in food
technologies
 Consumer attitudes to new food technologies “not starting
from zero” – food has always been there not like pharma
 Consumers make trade-offs between risk, benefit and
cost (including ethical & environmental costs)
 Consumer decisions are made on a case-by-case basis
related to specific perceptions of risk and benefit
Consumers’ decisions and perceptions
might be (very) far from a rationale
science-based approach
EU Consumers’ resistance to GMOs
[Eurobarometer 2006]
Consumer resistance [Eurobarometer 2006]
What went wrong with GM food
 Resistance based on perceived risk






GM food perceived as unnatural and therefore risky
Uncontrollable by those exposed to them
Food is a special cause of concern (taken into the body)
Unknown long-term risks
Substantial equivalence did not address consumer concerns
Opaque risk analysis systems and decision-making practices
were not helpful
 Resistance based on values and benefit analysis
 Consumer choice issue: has to do with marketing more than
with ideology (“who wants what and why?”)
 Food a special issue in Europe
 No consumer benefits from the 1st generation of GMOs
 Who is getting the final benefits (Third Countries farmers?
Biotech companies?)
 Impact on biodiversity
 Ethical doubts
The EU legislative framework
as an attempt to respond to
consumers’ resistance
The objectives of the European Legislation
Managing possible risks
Foster innovation
Protect consumers’ right to know and
choose
Avoid trade barriers
After the food scandals of the 90s a new
regulatory framework
Directive 2001/18 on the deliberate release of GMOs into
the environment
Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003
on GM food and feed
Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003
on traceability and labelling of GMOs
The EU model approach
RA and RM as separate steps
Risk assessment: European Food Safety
Authority
Risk management: European Commission
through a regulatory committee procedure
A fully transparent process open to 27
MS of the EU and to more than half a
billion EU citizens
EFSA risk assessment
Fully independent from the political level
RA based on international standards
Some of the best scientists in the EU selected
ad hoc (GM Panel + expert + EFSA staff)
The three typical steps of RA
Compositional analysis
Food and feed safety analysis
Env. impact analysis
+ a wide consultation with 27 MS scientific
bodies
Defined as the most comprehensive (and
longest) RA process in the world
Risk management phase
Comm. / EFSA
MS Working group
EFSA’s
Final opinion
Commission
Proposal of Decision
Standing Committee (SCFCAH – GMFF)
Opinion, 3 months after EFSA’s opinion
Comments from
The public
Commission
Against, QM
In favour, QM
Commission decision
- Publication in OJ
- Inclusion in GMO register
No opinion /
In favour, QM
No Opinion
Council, 3 months
Against, QM
Commission to redraft the proposal
Elements to reassure consumers
Authorisation
Granted for 10 years
Can be reviewed/withdrawn at any moment
Renewable for 10-year periods
Always for food and feed (no Starlink case in the EU)
Authorization holder responsible for safety,
post market monitoring
Authorised products are entered in the
Community register containing all
relevant info
http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm
Consumer information - labelling
 Compulsory for food/feed contain, consist of, produced
from GMOs regardless of the presence of modified DNA or
proteins
 In the list of ingredients if pre-packaged
 Otherwise visible if non pre-packed
 0,9% threshold for adventitious presence of authorised
GMOs (operators responsible to take measures)
 Lower levels may be adopted via comitology
- National provision for GM-free labels and for menus
- NOT for products obtained from animals fed with GM feed or
treated with GM medicines (eggs, milk, meat) but the issue
is becoming more and more important and often addressed
at private level
Consequences of the EU legislation
More than 25 GMOs authorised in the EU
10 new GM food and feed authorised under the new
regulatory framework (not for cultivation)
55 requests pending (15 cultivation)
EU: second in the world for number of GM authorisations
granted
….and yet EU consumers perception is rather negative
although gradually improving
Winning consumers’ trust by improving
what the way we do what we do
Shared guidelines for RA (Comm, EFSA, MS in
consultation with stakeholders)
An evaluation of the existing legislation
The risk assessment and regulatory approval
process
The labelling rules on GM food and feed
Consumers’ acceptance
Discussion on integrating other legitimate
factors in the author. process
Conclusions
Consumers have views which are the result of
different factors and might diverge
from scientific objectivity
Scientists should keep delivering the best
possible independent risk assessment
Policy makers: not just implementer of science
but a bridge between consumers and scientists
The EU model tries to apply this approach
Results have been encouraging but more time
and more action is needed
Finding the right balance on this and other
controversial issues might imply re-thinking our
approach to policy making
Thank you!!!!!!
Marco.Valletta@ec.europa.eu