Stakeholder Positions Toward GM Food : the Case of Vitamin A Biofortified Cassava in Brazil

Governments and civil society recognize that modern biotechnology has enormous potential, for human health as well as for environmental and economic development. The first generation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture allows farmers to increase yields and reduce the use of agricultural chemicals. The second-generation of genetically modified (GM) foods is probably most interesting for consumers because these are products with enhanced-quality attributes or nutritional benefits (Onyango & Nayga, 2004). The first generation of GMOs experienced fast adoption rates in the United States and some developing countries such as Argentina (Qaim & Zilberman, 2003). However, GM food products have faced mixed regulatory and public acceptance because of the multiple concerns over the human and environmental safety of these technologies. The vast majority of studies on consumer attitudes and the acceptance of GM foods have been conducted in developed countries, where most of the controversy over GM foods originated. Because they continue struggling to achieve food security, developing countries may stand to benefit most from agricultural biotechnology. However, little is known about how the stakeholders in developing countries would respond to the second generation of GM food (Dawe & Unnevehr, 2007; Gonzalez, Johnson, & Qaim, 2009; Juma, Paarlberg, Pray, & Unnevehr, 2007). What Paarlberg (2003) observed is that developing countries have become a battleground between proponents and opponents of GMOs with governments of developed countries and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) trying to influence the developing countries’ position toward biotechnology. Aerni (2005) and Aerni and Bernauer (2006) found support for the Paarlberg argument when they concluded that in developing countries, local NGOs have adopted a political agenda against or in favor of agricultural biotechnology depending on their foreign donors, normally international NGOs or organizations. To avoid ineffective political polarization, Paarlberg suggests increasing the participation of local academia in the public debate since these institutions have a potential domestic leadership role, especially regarding agricultural biotechnology. People still trust academia more than other stakeholders, therefore they can use this political resource to focus the biotechnology debate on domestic problems and curb the foreign interference. These studies suggest that much work needs to be done, starting with understanding the true internal position of developing countries, which is decisive for future of these technologies (Juma et al., 2007). Following the model of Aerni and Bernauer (2006), this article examines which factors affect stakeholder positions toward GM food crops in Brazil, paying special attention to the case of a new GM cassava biofortified with provitamin A. Perceptions about the benefits of the so-called second-generation GM crops that have direct benefits for consumer are analyzed, and the tradeoffs that stakeholders make between the advanCarolina González International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Colombia / PhD candidate, University of Hohenheim, Germany