Title |
Product, not process! Explaining a basic concept in agricultural biotechnologies and food safety
|
---|---|
Published in |
Life Sciences, Society and Policy, March 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s40504-017-0048-8 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Giovanni Tagliabue |
Abstract |
Most life scientists have relentlessly recommended any evaluative approach of agri-food products to be based on examination of the phenotype, i.e. the actual characteristics of the food, feed and fiber varieties: the effects of any new cultivar (or micro-organism, animal) on our health are not dependent on the process(es), the techniques used to obtain it.The so-called "genetically modified organisms" ("GMOs"), on the other hand, are commonly framed as a group with special properties - most frequently seen as dubious, or even harmful.Some social scientists still believe that considering the process is a correct background for science-based understanding and regulation. To show that such an approach is utterly wrong, and to invite scientists, teachers and science communicators to explain this mistake to students, policy-makers and the public at large, we imagined a dialogue between a social scientist, who has a positive opinion about a certain weight that a process-based orientation should have in the risk assessment, and a few experts who offer plenty of arguments against that view. The discussion focuses on new food safety. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 4 | 21% |
United States | 2 | 11% |
Chile | 2 | 11% |
Netherlands | 1 | 5% |
India | 1 | 5% |
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 5% |
Spain | 1 | 5% |
Uganda | 1 | 5% |
Unknown | 6 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 16 | 84% |
Scientists | 3 | 16% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 20% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 13% |
Researcher | 4 | 9% |
Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
Other | 2 | 4% |
Other | 2 | 4% |
Unknown | 18 | 40% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 20% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 11% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 4% |
Engineering | 2 | 4% |
Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
Other | 6 | 13% |
Unknown | 19 | 42% |