Health & Consumer ProtectionDirectorate 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 not willing to seek information

Adequate Risk management and happy consumers

More acceptance of economic interests

Emphasise state and industry

Negative view - create public anxiety

Inherent in science

Poor quality of information

Opaque / lack of trust

Less acceptance of economic interests

Emphasise consumer protection

Positive view – reliable

Not acknowledged by all institutions – source of

negative perceptions

Krystallis et al, 2007, Health, Risk & Society

Consumers Experts

Risk management

efforts

Risk management

priorities

Responsibility

Media

Uncertainty

Consumer Awareness

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 assessmentFully independent from the political levelRA based on international standardsSome of the best scientists in the EU selected ad hoc (GM Panel + expert + EFSA staff)The three typical steps of RA

Compositional analysisFood and feed safety analysisEnv. impact analysis

+ a wide consultation with 27 MS scientific bodiesDefined as the most comprehensive (and longest) RA process in the world

Risk management phase

Comm. / EFSAMS Working group

Commission Proposal of Decision

Comments from The publicStanding Committee (SCFCAH – GMFF)

Opinion, 3 months after EFSA’s opinion

Commission

In favour, QM

EFSA’s Final opinion

Commission decision - Publication in OJ- Inclusion in GMO register

No Opinion

Council, 3 monthsNo opinion /In favour, QM

Against, QM

Commission to redraft the proposal

Against, QM

Elements to reassure consumersAuthorisation

Granted for 10 yearsCan be reviewed/withdrawn at any momentRenewable for 10-year periodsAlways 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

ConclusionsConsumers 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