Abstract
Information on public awareness and acceptance issues regarding the use of Genetically Modified (GM) trees in forestry is lacking, although such information is available for GM organisms in agriculture. This is mainly due to the fact that in Europe there is no authorization for commercial planting of GM forest trees. To address this issue and within the frame of a European COST Action on the Biosafety of Transgenic Forest Trees (FP0905), a KAP (Knowledge Attitude Practice ) cross-country pilot survey was conducted among university students of different disciplines as sampling subjects. In total, 1920 completed questionnaires from 16 European and non-European countries were evaluated. The results provided novel cross-country insights into the level of public knowledge, particularly of young people and their perceptions on safety issues related to the use of GM forest trees , as well as on their attitude towards the acceptance of GM forest trees cultivation. The majority of the respondents, which was more than 60 % in all countries, approved the use of GM forest trees for commercial plantations , excluding natural forests. The majority of respondents also appeared willing to buy products from such plantations, such as wood products, pulp and paper. Over 80 % of the respondents from all countries were in favour of using labelling to identify products of GM origin, while more than 80 % of those would prefer that this labelling be legally mandatory. The top three benefits that were rated as very important in all countries involved the potential lower demand of the GM forest plantations for pesticides, the potential of GM forest trees for restoration of contaminated soils and the potential higher GM forest tree productivity. The top three GM forest tree risks that were perceived as serious hazards in all countries included the potential loss of biodiversity due to gene flow between transgenic and wild trees, the adverse effects of biotrophic processes on host ecosystems and the cultural adaptation to changing biodiversity conditions due to transgene escape. Overall, lack of knowledge regarding the potential benefits and potential risks of the cultivation of GM forest trees was observed in almost all surveyed countries.
Keywords
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aguilera J, Nielsen KM, Sweet J (2013) Risk assessment of GM trees in the EU: current regulatory framework and guidance. iForest 6:127–131
Buah JN (2011) Public perception of genetically modified food in Ghana. Am J Food Technol 6(7):541–554
Chapotin SM, Wolt JD (2007) Genetically modified crops for the bioeconomy: meeting public and regulatory expectations. Transgenic Res 16(6):675–688
Druckman JN, Kam CD (2009) Students as experimental participants: a defense of the ‘Narrow data base’. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1498843 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn
El-Lakany MH (2004) Are genetically modified trees a threat to forests? Unasylva 55(217):45–47 1
European Commision (2010) Europeans and biotechnology in 2010, winds of change? Luxembourg, pp 172. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs_341_winds_en.pdf
FAO (2008) The potential environmental, cultural and socio-economic impacts of genetically modified trees. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/13/INF/6, pp17
FAO (2010) Forests and genetically modified trees. Rome, Italy, pp 235
Farnum P, Lucier A, Meilan R (2007) Ecological and population genetics research initiatives for transgenic trees. Tree Genet Genomes 3:119–133
Ferguson CA, Chan-Halbrendt C, Wieczorek A, Wen N (2002). Results from a Hawaii opinion survey on genetically modified organisms, BIO-2, CTAHR- Nov 2002
Flachowsky H, Hanke M-V, Peil A, Strauss SH, Fladung M (2009) A review on transgenic approaches to accelerate breeding of woody plants. Plant Breed 128:217–226
Fladung M, Altosaar I, Bartsch D, Baucher M, Boscaleri F, Gallardo F, Häggman H, Hoenicka H, Nielsen K, Paffetti D, Séguin A, Stotzky G, Vettori C (2012) European discussion forum on transgenic tree biosafety. Nat Biotechnol 30:37–38
Grace D, Randolph T, Affognon H, Dramane D, Diall O, Clausen P-H (2009) Characterization and validation of farmers’ knowledge and practice of cattle trypanosomosis management in the cotton-zone of West Africa. Acta Trop 111:137–143
Grice J, Wener MK, Romanach LM, Paton S, Bonaventura P, Garrad S (2003) Genetically modified sugarcane: a case for alternate products. AgBioForum 6(4): 162–168, http://www.agbioforum.org/
Goutille F (2009) Knowledge, attitudes and practices for risk education: how to implement KAP surveys. Handicap International, Lyon 84 pp
Häggman H, Sutela S, Walter C, Fladung M (2014) Biosafety considerations in the context of deployment of GE trees. In: Fenning T (ed) Challenges and opportunities for the world’s forests in the 21st century. Forestry Sciences 81, Springer Science + Business Media Dordrecht, pp 491–524
Häggman H, Raybould A, Borem A, Fox T, Handley L, Hertzberg M Lu M, Macdonald P, Oguchi T, Pasquali G, Pearson L, Peter G, Quemanda H, Seguin A, Tattersall K, Ulian E, Walter C, and McLean M (2013) Genetically engineered trees for plantation forests: key considerations for environmental risk assessment. Plant Biotechnol J 1–14
Häggman H, Find JM, Pilate G, Gallardo F, Ruohonen-Lehto M, Kazana V, Migliacci F, Ionita L, Sijacic-Nikolic M, Donnarumma F, Harfouche A, Biricolti S, Glandorf B, Tsourgiannis L, Minol K, Paffetti D, Fladung M, Vettori C (2012) Biosafety of genetically modified forest trees (GMTs) –COST Action FP0905- a common action of European scientists. In: 2nd international conference of the IUFRO working party 2.09.02. Mendel lectures & Plenary MLP-3, p 13
Harfouche A, Meilan R, Altman A (2011) Tree genetic engineering and applications to sustainable forestry and biomass production. Trends Biotechnol 29(1):11–17
Hinchee M, Rottman W, Mullinax L, Zhang C, Chang S, Cunningham M, Pearson L, Nehra N (2009) Short-rotation woody crops for bioenergy and biofuels applications. Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 45(6):619–629
Hossain F, Oryango B, Adelaja A, Schilling B, Hallman W (2002). Public perceptions of biotechnology and acceptance of genetically modified food. Food Policy Institute Publication No. WP-0602–002
Magnusson M (2004) Consumer perception of organic and genetically modified foods. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Comprehensive summaries of Uppsala dissertations from the faculty of social sciences 137, 71 pp, Uppsala, ISBN: 91-554-5935-8
Pereira de Abreu DA, Rodriguez KV, Schroeder M, Mosqueda MB, Perez E (2006) GMO technology. Venezuelans’ consumers perceptions: situation in Caracas. J Technol Manage Innov 1(5): 80–86
Peterson RA (2001) On the use of College students in social science research: insights from a second order Meta-analysis. J Consum Res 28(3):450–461
Peterson G, Cunningham S, Deatch L, Erickson J, Quinlan A, Raez-Luna e, Tinch R, Troell M, Woodbury P, Zens C (2000) The risks and benefits of genetically modified crops: a multidisciplinary perspective. Conserv Ecol 4(1): 13 (online) URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art13/
Pew Research Center (2015) Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Available at: http://www.pewresearch.org
Sedjo RA (2006) Toward commercialization of genetically engineered forests: economic and social considerations. Resources for the Future, pp 46
Shehata S, Cox LJ (2007) Attitudes of Hawaii consumers toward genetically modified fruit, BIO-7, UH-CTAHR- Apr 2007
Siwakoti S (2009) Knowledge, attitudes and practices of women and men towards recycling in North St. James Town, Toronto, St James town initiative, Wellesley Institute, http://www.welesleyinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Report-20090401-Knowledge-Attitudes-and-Practices-Towards-Recyling-in-North-St.-James-Town.pdf
Tsourgiannis L, Kazana V, Iakovoglou V (2015) Exploring consumers’ potential behavior towards transgenic forest products: The Greek experience. iForest (in print)
Valenzuela S, Balocchi C, Rodriguez J (2006) Transgenic trees and forest biosafety. Electron J Biotechnol 9(3) on line at http://www.ejbiotechnology.info/content/vol9/issue3/full/22/
Van Frankenhuyzen K, Beardmore T (2004) Current status and environmental impact of transgenic forest trees. Can J For Res 34:1163–1180
Vettori C, Pilate G, Häggman H, Gallardo F, Ionita L, Ruohonen-Lehto M, Glandorf B, Harfouche A, Biricolti S, Paffetti D, Kazana V, Sijacic-Nikolic M, Tsourgiannis L, Migliacci F, Donnarumma F, Minol K, Fladung M (2014) COST action FP0905: biosafety of forest transgenic trees. In: Mérillon J-M, Ahuja MR (eds) Ramawat KG tree biotechnology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 112–124
Vivas A, Gelaye B, Aboset N, Kurmic A, Berhane Y, Williams MA (2010) Knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of hygiene among school children in Angolela, Ethiopia. J Prev Med Hyg 51(2):73–79
Williams CG, Davis BH (2005) Rate of transgene spread via long-distance seed dispersal in Pinus taeda. For Ecol Manage 21:95–102
Williams GC (2006) Opening Pandora’s box: governance for genetically modified forests, ISB News Report, January 2006
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kazana, V. et al. (2016). Public Knowledge and Perceptions of Safety Issues Towards the Use of Genetically Modified Forest Trees: A Cross-Country Pilot Survey. In: Vettori, C., et al. Biosafety of Forest Transgenic Trees. Forestry Sciences, vol 82. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7531-1_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7531-1_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-7529-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-7531-1
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)