“Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed.” - Abraham Lincoln. “For me every ruler is alien that defies public opinion” - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

To be able to comment on whether GMOs make sense for India or not, we assert that assessing public opinion in the matter is a must. It is important to ‘systematically assess reliable cross-cultural differences in perceptions, values, attitudes and behaviors regarding GM food, in order to fill in current knowledge gaps. If community, industry and government stakeholders are to agree on an acceptable level of risk for specific products or technologies, effective and responsible communication is essential. Assessment of, and communication about, risk will only be successful if it is based on a thorough understanding of the psychological and socio-cultural determinants of risk (Finucane, 2002).’ There are various factors that lead to the formation of public opinion and perception of risks and benefits; it is this formed collective opinion that influences public policies and incorporation of the technology. In our paper, we have first briefly looked at the pros and cons of genetic engineering and how risk is perceived. We have then looked at various factors that affect public opinion like the role of media, government and regulating bodies, culture, attitude of people towards technology and whether the decision of labeling will have a positive impact on public perception or not. We have briefly looked at how GMOs were received in other parts of the world - namely Europe, Japan, USA, India and China - in the context of these factors, to figure out whether GMOs will make sense in India or not. It was seen that attitude towards GMOs in European countries and Japan is largely negative whereas in the United States people are more receptive to GMOs. In most developing countries, scientific innovation and modernization is highly encouraged and genetic engineering is seen as necessary for the development of the nation while ensuring safety for the people.

“We need to strike a balance between using the potential of biotechnology to meet the requirements of hungry people while addressing concerns about interfering with nature”- Dr. Manmohan Singh.

1 The GMO debate
GMOs cover a broad spectrum of topics like genetically modified medicines, animals, crops and food. In our paper, we have focused on GM crops and food because debate in these applications is most heated. GM crops have several benefits. They reduce the maturation time of the crop, can be made less vulnerable to floods, drought and frost and give increased crop yields. They can be made resistant to pests and diseases hence needing significantly less quantity of insecticides. GM food has more nutritional value. GE animals can give increased quantity of meat, eggs and milk. GE can also produce ‘edible vaccines,’ foods that contain substances that protect their consumers from certain diseases (Volti, 2010). To society, GMOs provide the opportunity to attain food security and benefit socioeconomically. This is true especially for developing countries where demand for food is huge and increasing.

The drawbacks of genetic engineering involve the issues of ethics, safety and labeling. Many religious groups argue that biotechnology is equivalent to ‘playing God’ and is fundamentally wrong. Mixing genes and changing the DNA code is tampering with nature and could lead to adverse repercussions. There are objections to incorporating animal genes in plants. There are several concerns about safety, potential health hazards, allergic responses, environmental impact and potential unknown effects. Critics also say that in industrialized nations, the ‘farm problem' stems from too much production, not too little, resulting in low food prices; increasing production exacerbates the problem and puts pressure on small farmers (Volti, 2010). Another important concern is that of labeling. It is mandatory in some countries and isn’t in others. How then will effective trade be facilitated and how will labeling of food products that employ the use of GM ingredients be executed? Who will bear the costs of extensive labeling? The debate is on. While the questions linger, people weigh the perceived risk against the perceived benefits of the technology. Ultimately, for the technology to be diffused and integrated well within society, public cooperation is essential.

2 Risk perception
When a new technology is introduced, the public forms a perception about the benefits that the technology will provide and the risk that society will have to incur to use it. This risk perception influences how people view the technology and how far they are willing to go to encourage it. Whereas technological sophisticated analysts employ risk assessment to evaluate hazards, the majority of citizens rely on intuitive risk judgments, typically called ‘risk perceptions’ (Slovic, 1987). In the case of genetic engineering, there are two types of oppositions faced. One is the ethical or religious argument that ‘playing god’ or ‘tampering with nature’ is wrong. The other argument is related to the consequences of application and as such is more closely related to perceived risks or outcomes of applications (Frewer and Shepherd, 1995) (Figure 1). Genetic engineering, especially GM food, has a dread risk associated with it. When exposure to a risk is perceived as involuntary, the risk is regarded as more threatening than when an individual has a choice over personal exposure (Volti, 2010). In contrast, GM medicines have less dread risk associated with them because exposure is usually voluntary and some potential benefit to the patient is anticipated in the short term (Finucane, 2002). While scientists may measure risk primarily as a function of probability, public perceptions of risk incorporate many other non-technical factors (Slovic, 1987). These perceptions and the opposition to technology that accompanies them have puzzled and frustrated industrialists and regulators for long (Slovic, 1987). We will look at these non-technical risk perception factors that lead to a unanimous perception of risk associated with a technology like genetic engineering.

Figure 1 GMOs application preference

3 How society sees technology
How a society looks at technology plays an integral role on the acceptance and integration of any new technology. Social context plays a very important role in risk assessment and receptiveness to technologies. If the need is not significant, a diminished perception of benefit and an inflated perception of risk is usually formed. 

In developed countries (US, Europe, Japan), technology is valued and encouraged - most of the people rely heavily on technological innovations like computers and cell phones. But in the Europe and Japan, this dependence on technology is accompanied with skepticism when it comes to complex, cutting edge technologies like nuclear power and GMOs. One reason for this, we propose, could be the absence of desperate need. Most people in developed countries are well off, well fed and farmers produce more than sufficient quantities of produce. The general feeling is that they don’t really need the technology so why take the risk of trying it out. Studies in Europe and Japan provide strong evidence that consumers are willing to take on the unknown risks of consuming genetically modified foods only if these products are offered at significant cost savings over non-GM foods (Curtis et al., 2004) . Another major reason for the skepticism towards technologies like GE and nuclear energy could be because people are largely disconnected from them. The technologies seem complex and far away from the immediate social setting. Consumers don’t know what the technologies really are (or how they work) and don’t see direct tangible benefits. The instantaneous satisfaction of using cell phones, computers and iPods is appreciated by people; the same is not the case with complex technologies like GE where many ambiguities coexist with apathy and lack of knowledge.. 

In the United States, studies have shown that people are open to scientific innovation and developments and more willing to try out new technologies. According to several studies and research papers (Curtis et al., 2004; Ten Eyck, 2005; Teng, 2008). Americans do not show any strong sentiment in favor of or against GMOs. They feel that GM foods are no different from other foods and are evaluated with equal standards (Curtis et al., 2004). They are seen to be more broad minded and much less distrustful of genetic engineering that people in Europe and Japan. 

In developing countries, there are many social issues that need to be considered when we look at how technology is viewed. Developing nations are inherently poor. Millions of people live in abject poverty. In such context, modernization and technology are seen as tools that can lift the people from this state. People expectantly wait for the tendrils of modernization to reach their homes and change their lives for the better. Technology is seen as a tool that will help the country rise up to match the competencies of the developed world and help raise the standard of living of the masses. In India, agriculture is the primary occupation for a vast majority of the people. . Farmers are unable to afford expensive equipments and enough pesticides and fertilizers. They produce limited quantities of crops which they are forced to sell at ridiculously low prices. Water is scarce and they mostly rely on rain. Moreover, most people in developing countries don’t get to eat a nutritional diet, many even starve. There is a severe dearth of technological innovations all around. In such context, if we look at all the potential gains one can get from GM food and crops, it is little surprise that people in developing countries look at GE as a beacon of hope for the future. 

In India, despite the potential risks and high initial costs involved, farmers showing inclination to switch to GM crops like Bt cotton. “Bt cotton has made India a cotton exporting country. The success achieved in cotton must be used to make the country self sufficient in rice, wheat, pulse and oil seed production,” said the then finance minister, Mr. Chidambaram. A similar positive response to technology, modernization and GE is seen in China and Columbia. In a survey in China, it was found that consumers were willing to pay a 16% premium for GM soybean oil and a 38% premium for GM rice over the non-GM alternatives (Curtis et al., 2004)! Pachico and Wolf (2002) found that 66% of the survey respondents in Colombia were willing to try genetically modified foods, and the willingness to purchase genetically modified foods was high among those who felt they did not have adequate or high quality foods available at home (Curtis et al., 2004). In China, genetic engineering is seen as a possible way of boosting China’s food security, and lessen the impact of industrialization, which diminishes the availability of agricultural land. China’s biotechnology research budget in 2001 was triple the budget of US$120 million in 2000 (Zhang and Zhou, 2003). James and Krattiger (1999) estimate that transgenic technology may increase rice production in Asia alone by 10~20% in the next decade (Curtis et al., 2004) (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Survey respondents presently living in

4 The role of media
Genetic engineering is a relatively new technology and many people are not aware about it. Media has a significant impact on public opinion formation in cases where public knowledge is low. We can expect media presentations to have some effect on public opinion, as no opinions existed prior to the story being published (Ten Eyck, 2005). It has been observed that extensive media coverage can contribute to heightened perceptions of risk (Curtis et al., 2004) which is not healthy if the technology needs to be successfully adopted by a country. Several studies and surveys have been conducted over the years to uncover a correlation between what the media projects and what is perceived about genetically modified organisms.

In Europe, GMOs are negatively perceived. In the early nineties, discussions about biotechnology were confined to smaller circles like scientists and members of parliament. A strong opposition to GMOs started in the late 1990s in Europe with the import of transgenic seeds from the United States in 1996. This and cases of mad cow’s disease, asbestos, Bt corn and others were hugely publicized by the media causing people to become distrustful of authority. Issues of technological risks, prevention and management quickly became a topic of discussion, especially in agricultural and food sector. The media adopted a critical take on the issue. Extensive media coverage about GMOs led to an adverse risk perception by the people (Gaskell et al., 1999). Associations and societies cropped up to fight GMOs. They caused a lot of hype and panic amongst the masses through mass dissemination of alerts and warnings, petitions and leaflets (Bonny, 2003). Communication technologies like the internet played an important role in spreading the word against GMOs. The media played a pivotal role by reporting a lot about the working of the anti-GMO lobbies. By the end of the nineties many journalists became increasingly opposed to GMOs (Bonny, 2003). This was different from the 1980s when there were few articles reported about GMOs and most came from scientific journalists who were much more aware about the technology and projected it as a promising innovation. Leading newspapers and news channels started competing for attention by putting up shocking and scandalous headlines against GMOs. Scientists were partially or inaccurately quoted in interviews or reports. Views expressed by scientists tend to be complex and subtle whereas those expressed by anti-GMO groups are simple and flashy -‘GMOs are dangerous, they must be avoided.’ Subsequently, European public adopted a ‘better safe than sorry’ take on the issue and adopted a precautionary approach.

Interestingly, consumer concerns regarding GM foods in the US are generally limited (Curtis et al., 2004). Media coverage and number of articles in this field have been few leading to a lower perception of risk and hype generation. Moreover, from a national survey in 2003 in the United States, only 55 percent of respondents said they trust the media to tell them the truth about biotechnology (Ten Eyck, 2005). But it was also found that people who had heard about biotechnology did so mostly through the media as compared to other sources. So, although they came across some positive and some negative information about GMOs in the media, they weren’t always entirely trusting in the media and used their own judgment (and trust in regulatory bodies and scientists) as well in risk assessment. Studies show that consumer trust in government authorities regarding food safety is relatively high in the States (Ten Eyck, 2005). The lack of media attention, positive disposition towards scientific innovation, and trust in government regulators, provide evidence for a general acceptance of genetically modified foods (Curtis et al., 2004).

In developing countries like China, people have a positive perception about GE technology and its scope. In China, the government exercises tight political and ideological control over the media. Government- controlled media coverage in China concerning genetically modified crops has been very positive (Curtis et al., 2004). In a study by McCluskey, Curtis and Wahl, only 9.3% of the survey respondents in China had a somewhat negative or very negative opinion concerning the use of biotechnology in foods (Curtis et al., 2004). Very few people (about 7.8%) said that they associated GMOs with high risk.

Media is not a very trusted source of information for most Indians - especially those in rural areas. Media is a less trusted source of information than the government. A survey was conducted amongst 4 050 farmers from 5 states. (Suman Sahai, 2010) In a survey conducted amongst 4 050 farmers in India on the issue of trust, media came in fourth, after the government (the most trusted source amongst 87.3% of the respondents), seed dealers and scientists. Amongst the 500 consumers surveyed in 5 cities, totaling 2 500 urban consumers, media again was found to be less trusted than the government (Figure 3). But, in topics where the public has less knowledge (like scientific studies or technological innovations) they inadvertently tend to rely on the media to form an opinion. For example, the media played a significant role in the case of Bt Brinjal. There were reports published that claimed Bt Brinjal had the potential to adversely affect the liver and ovaries, as found in the test results on guinea pigs by Mahyco. In association with the NGOs, questions were raised by the media on the assessment of risks verses benefits of this technology in the country. Media questioned the lack of transparency in the bill by National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill, 2009, that transferred all the power of regulation from the hands of Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) to a three member team of technical expert. The media used this and the fact that most of the clauses in this act were kept confidential, to create a negative image of GM regulators. In India, GMOs are relatively new and awareness is low and anything that will be reported by the media will be new information for the people. It will be the role of the media to responsibly report about the technology and state facts accurately, especially from the scientific perspective. Media will have to avoid falling into the trap of reporting extensively about flashy anti-GMO drives and protest and use shocking headlines to attract public attention (Figure 4). The discussion about GMOs must be reported in a calm and objective manner and the media must not stoke public sentiment and make the people emotionally charged against GMOs (Figure 5). 

Figure 3 Sources of information

Figure 4 Claimed awareness level

Figure 5 Trust in sources and in scientists

5 The role of stakeholders
Power - or the public perception of power - is likely to be an important determinant of the debates about risks and of the public perceptions of risks (Volti, 2010). The credibility of the risk regulators is also likely to be an important factor in public risk acceptance (Volti, 2010). A further consideration, related to both ethical concerns and risk perception, is that control of the technology is seen to be at a societal level. Debate may center on who decides what, rather than merely what is decided. Failure of scientists and administrators to regulate the technology adequately will lead to a rapid loss of public trust (Marris, 2006). Gaskell et al. (1999) claimed that consumers’ trust in government could substitute their knowledge on GM Foods. As this technology is relatively new and unexplored, the trust in the authorities and controllers of this technology plays an important role in determining consumer reaction.

In case of developed countries like Japan and Europe, food scares and scandals have tarnished the image of authorities leading to a lack of trust in the regulatory system. Other issues like that of contaminated blood (HIV), mad cow's disease and asbestos led to strong distrust and caused people to think that firms and public authorities sometimes disregard certain health risks in order to protect certain economic or political interests. (Bonny, 2003) Failure of the concerned authorities in anticipating the risks involved and taking timely preventive measure in some of the food scandals (Qiu and Huang, 2006) has led to inflated levels of perceived risks with respect to GMOs. In Europe, there is mistrust in the policies of public authorities and firms involved in the commercialization of GMOs. In a study done in July, 2000, 58% of people disagreed with the opinion that the ‘public authorities can be trusted to make good decisions on GMOs.’ (Marris, 2006). Such association is not based on the confusion about the biological processes involved, but rather the daily encounter people had with such institutions. (Finucane and Holup, 2005) Therefore, the consumers believe that the advantages would accrue only to the biotech companies and not them (Brossard and Shanahan, 2007). In Japan, the disappointing economy, government scandals and the government’s handling of discovery of bovine spongiform encepha- lopathy (BSE) may have caused consumers to be less trusting of government reassurances and GM food products (Curtis et al., 2004).

The scene is different in the States where people look positively at GMOs; people there trust regulatory bodies. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) all evaluate GM food, environmental effects and public health safety. Consumers trust these bodies and regulatory actions taken by them. Polls done by Pew GM food survey in August 2003, clearly show that the people have strong faith in the FDA (83% have ‘great deal of trust in the source’ and only 14% don’t trust it) (Teng, 2008). The other government regulators captured around 63% of the trust in the consumers. The lack of media attention, positive disposition towards scientific innovation, and trust in government regulators concerning food safety, provide evidence for a general acceptance of genetically modified foods. (Curtis et al., 2004)

In developing countries, a vast majority of people are found to be very trusting of the government and rely on them to make the right decision for the people. Chinese respondents in a 2003 survey were found to be trusting of government regulators concerning the safety of the food supply and very positive towards science, including the use of biotechnology in agriculture. (Curtis et al., 2004) In another study done by the Center for Chinese agricultural policies, a strong correlation was found between trust in the government institutions and the acceptance level of GMO technology (Teng, 2008) The acceptability rate was 73% in respondents who strongly trusted the government. In a survey done in Columbia, three quarter of the respondents agreed (or strongly agreed) that their government ‘provides an adequate level of safety in food supply.’(Curtis et al., 2004) In India, both the urban consumers and farmers, trust the government the most and NGOs the least. In a multi-agency research study done among 4 050 farmers, it was found that 87.3% farmers trusted the government followed by seed dealers, scientists and media. The NGOs were trusted the least and the result was same for all age groups and level of education (Suman Sahai, 2010) (Figure 6). The 2 500 consumers of the GM products in urban cities surveyed also placed maximum trust in the government and minimum in the NGOs, with media and scientists in between respectively. Therefore if the perceived image of government and regulatory bodies of this technology is good in the mind of the public, the level of perceived risks are found to be low (Marris, 2006).

Figure 6 Education Background in some countries

6 Cultural context
'The survival of mankind will depend to a large extent on the ability of people who think differently to act together.’- Geert Hofstede, 1984.

Understanding the role of social and cultural differences in risk assessment is critical for accurately interpreting information and events in different cultures. This in turn is crucial for facilitating socioeconomic development in a way that appropriately balances the costs and benefits of new technologies in the unique environmental and human health contexts of different countries (Finucane, 2002). Religious and ethical beliefs, local tastes and values all play a major role in risk assessment of new technologies. The trans-Atlantic debate is not only about basic health or wealth or environmental protection. Rather, the opposition in Europe to American GM exports is also determined importantly by cultural values that reflect sensitivities to dread and unknown risk (Finucane, 2002).

Within Europe itself, several cultures coexist. If a culture is closed and conservative, the people will tend to be dismissive of new technologies. For example, the French are particular about preserving their traditions and culture. They spend a lot of effort in trying to ‘reassert their ‘culinary sovereignty’’ (Finucane, 2002) because they think the invasion of America’s fast food culture is eroding their own food and habits. If one culture is feeling invaded by another it will elicit a sense of dread risk to the extent that the invasion is uncontrollable, involuntary, a threat to future generations and inequitable (Finucane, 2002). Hence, there are strong protests against GM food because it is seen as an invasion that is uncontrollable, involuntary and a threat to their culture. Moreover, European and Japanese cultures tend to take pride in traditional ways of doing things and do not necessarily see scientific discovery as life-improving. Europeans are often skeptical of new developments and have a ‘Why fix our food system if it isn’t broken?’ attitude. (Curtis et al., 2004) Ethical opposition to GMOs is also strong. Ethical concerns appear to be greater for genetic engineering than for other technological hazards (Volti, 2010) or other food-related hazards, for example, chemicals in food (Volti, 2010). Perceptions of unnaturalness and questions regarding the need for the technology and its potential benefits are as relevant in the public debate as issues of risk and danger (Frewer et al., 2007). Several religious bodies have asserted that biotechnology amounts to ‘playing God’ and tweaking with nature and the natural order of things which is inherently wrong. GM foods are considered morally disgusting by members of the Scottish Anglican church (Finucane, 2002). Critics also share a concern that changing the DNA of a plant is a ‘dangerous venture into uncharted territories.’ (Volti, 2010) If we step out of the definition of culture being restrained by political boundaries, several surveys find that white males view the world as much less risky. White females and non white males were found to perceive fewer risks from GM food and non white females perceived the highest risk amongst the group (Finucane, 2002).

In case of developing countries, like India, food is a part of cultural identity and has religious significance to people. There are issues concerning the use of genes derived from animals. The very practice arouses strong emotions against the technology. These sentiments need to be carefully considered when communicating about the technology in countries like India. Decision making and communication about GM food risks will only be successful if it is based on a thorough understanding of the psychological and socio-cultural determinants of risk (Newell, 2003). Cultural theory has been highly influential in the debate on risk perception, providing a parsimonious account of the complexities underlying what people fear and why (Newell, 2003). 

7 GM labels
Labeling is often used to deliver information to consumers on characteristics of products that they are not able to evaluate. Economists refer to this type of characteristic as a credence attribute (Caswell, 2000). Labeling can transform such a credence characteristic into a search attribute that consumers can learn about by inspecting the product’s package (Caswell, 2000). Psychometric studies have found that control is an important characteristic of risk perceptions for many hazards (Slovic, 1987). Genetic engineering is characterized as a technology over which the individual has very little personal control; its control is seen to be the responsibility of science or the government. If food products of the technology are not labeled, personal choice and control over consumption are severely limited (Frewer et al., 2007).

Labeling of food is complex and expensive and the decision to label it is debatable. There are some people who are conscious, well aware, read food labels and want to have the right to make a choice about the food that they purchase. They might eat GM food or they might avoid it, but they don’t mind the introduction of the food in the markets as long as they are clearly marked separately with labels and consumers can choose. Some people are strongly opposed to GM food and might read labels to make sure they don’t buy it. They oppose the very existence of the food in the markets. There is another section of people who do not read food labels. They are either not well informed or they are indifferent to it. The consumers who are indifferent to GM food and don’t care whether they eat it or not and will in any case be open to the technology and their habit of reading labels or not will not influence the decision of labeling. The consumers who don’t read labels and are unaware about GM technology would be influenced by factors like the media, cultural and religious context and various stakeholders.

It has been observed that people in both the developed and developing countries prefer the labeling of food. In case of Europe and Japan there are mandatory labeling policies owing to the ‘high risk and low benefit’ perception of the public.(Haslberger, 2000) In the United States, although people are not strongly opposed to the technology, people preferred GM food to be labeled. In one survey, extensive labeling was demanded by 70% of the people, 40% wanted more stringent regulation on biotechnology (Haslberger, 2000). An overwhelming majority of Americans (94%) think GM foods should be labeled, but only about half (54%) said it would negatively affect their purchasing decision. They wanted certification from the FDA and other regulators on the products about the risks involved.

But are labels an effective way to convey the message to people? In a United States survey it was found that only 64% of total respondents read labels (Curtis et al., 2004). An important issue in the cost benefit analysis is how effectively labels convey information that consumers want (Ruibal-Mendieta and Lints, 1998). Labeling is likely to have little impact without public understanding of what labels mean (Haslberger, 2000). If the message is not clear, there will be no change or very less change in the current scenario and the acceptance of this technology might or might not be affected by choosing to label GM food. It could even have a negative impact on consumers' perception which should be avoided (Ruibal-Mendieta and Lints, 1998). It is believed that if the consumer knows that GM food has additional benefits like reduced fat and increased nutritional content, they might prefer to purchase the product (Caswell, 2000).

If we look at labeling from the point of view of the people in developing countries we see several factors that don’t support the labeling of GM food. In India, per capita incomes are low and so is the purchasing power of people. Most people would opt for cheaper food over food that has more nutritional value. Labeling is expensive. If the price of a GM commodity is lower than its non-GM competitor initially, labeling will drive up its price by a significant amount. Hence, the perceived benefit is pitched against the increased costs due to labeling. This price sensitivity is not restricted to people in rural areas but also in urban areas. In a survey done in India, of the ‘internet and city’ respondents 94.5 and 97 percent, respectively, consider the labeling of GM food as somewhat or very important. (Suman Sahai, 2010) However, the results tend to change when considering a possible cost associated with labeling: 28 percent of city respondents would not support labeling anymore with any cost, and an additional 36 percent would not if the price increase exceeds 5 percent. Overall, 64 and 47 percent of city and Internet respondents (respectively) would not support labeling if it results in 5 percent price increases (Sangeeta and Guillaume, 1999).

Literacy levels are very low in developing countries. People are not well informed about GM food, sometimes not at all. Reading labels will be out of question for people in rural areas, many of whom can’t read anything at all. Cost will be the determining factor when they buy food because of the poverty. In urban areas too, very few people know about GM food. In one Indian survey, only 11 percent of city survey respondents were either very well or somewhat informed about GM foods (Suman Sahai, 2010). More than 92 percent of city respondents admit that they don’t know whether or not GM technology has been used to create pest-resistant cotton. ‘Even among the middle class, which is educated and exposed to the media, internet and sources of information, about 80 per cent of the consumers studied had not heard of GM food. The study found that most consumers are not clear about what exactly GM foods are or how they are produced. Consumers have not heard much either about the risks or the benefits associated with GM foods (Suman Sahai, 2010). Hence, the percentage of people who will actually benefit from labels will be very small. Several questions need to be asked here. Will spending huge amounts of money and resources to do extensive labeling have the desired benefits? How shall one proceed with the cost-benefit analysis when it comes to labeling? Will enough people even read the labels? These are very tricky questions that would need a lot of deliberation and debate before a mutual consensus can be framed for developing countries like India.

8 Our survey
We conducted an online survey of people in 30 countries - a total of 99 respondents. 51 respondents hailed from India, 28 from Europe, 5 from the United States and 5 from Asia. 2 respondents were from Mexico and 8 from countries that we haven’t discussed or reviewed in our paper. In the analysis of our survey results, we have only looked at Europe and India because we didn’t get enough responses from any of the other regions. There were two respondents in Europe and three in India who said they knew nothing about GMOs. In plotting graphs and pie charts, we have eliminated their responses.Indian respondents claimed to know more, in general, about GMOs than European counterparts. A higher percentage of Indian respondents said they were ‘aware about the uses and controversies of GMOs’ and almost the same percentage of people in both India and Europe said they ‘know what GMOs are briefly.’ About the same percentage of people in both regions said they ‘don’t know what GMOs are.’

Most people in both regions (40 and 42 percent) preferred the application of GMOs in medicines over anything else. This collaborates with what we found in the text as well - GM medicines were considered less risky and more beneficial than were GM crops or food. In India, 29% of respondents favored GM crops while the number was only 19% in Europe. This collaborates with the findings of several previous studies conducted in these regions. People in developing countries are more in favor of the use of GM crops because they are agrarian economies and in dire need of food and an economic boost. Developed countries don’t really see the need for this application and find the risks are too high to take. In India, amongst the respondents, no one preferred the use of GMOs in their food - it suggests even educated people in India are not yet ready to see their food as being somewhat artificially created and this reaffirms the influence of culture. 15% Indians were open to the use of GMO applications on animals / human transplantations as compared to 8% of Europeans. This again shows that Indians are more open and receptive to the use of this potentially risky technology, as was postulated in our paper.

When it came to sources of information from where respondents heard of GMOs - the clear winner was the internet. This was probably because our survey was internet based, implying most respondents were active internet users. Another point to note is that 39% Indian respondents said they learnt about GMOs from newspapers and magazines as compared to 22% in Europe. This probably means, Indians actively sought information in newspapers over European counterparts. While no one in India learnt about GMOs through the radio, in Europe 7% respondents did.

On the issue of trust, scientists were the clear winner by a huge margin – 69% in Europe and 75% respondents in India. While no one in India trusted industries, 12% European respondents did. Although the surveys and studies we had reviewed in our paper had found that the government was most trusted in developing nations and least trusted in Europe - our survey results don’t show this trend. This could probably be because most of our respondents belonged to the urban class and are politically well aware as compared to people from rural areas who would be more likely to put blind faith in government authorities.

When it came to really trusting scientists to make the right choices for society or not- 30% European respondents they either said that ‘scientists don’t know what is good for the public’ or ‘scientists are not to be trusted.’ This number is only 19% in India. Remarkably similar trends were seen both in India and Europe when it came to the perception of biotechnology and nuclear technology. 92% and 96% of European and Indian respondents said biotechnology is beneficial and must be encouraged, the rest said otherwise. The numbers favoring nuclear technology were clearly less in both regions – 65% and 75% respectively (Figure 7).

Figure 7 Perception of biotechnologyand of nuclear technology

We plotted graphs of people who thought both nuclear and biotechnology is dangerous – this number, against the use of both technologies, was higher in Europe. This reaffirms the fact that there is a more positive disposition towards technology, even complex and potentially risky technologies, in developing countries as compared to Europe.

Finally, we asked the respondents to what extent they trusted media. Majority of the people said that they ‘use their discretion’ and trust media only ‘sometimes’ (65% and 87% in Europe and India respectively). 27% respondents from Europe said they ‘don’t trust the media at all’ as compared to the 11% in India who said this. Perhaps, the media hype with regards to GMOs has made people distrustful of the media in Europe and urban, internet using respondents in India trust the media more than what surveys taken of rural people would suggest.

9 Conclusion
In this paper we have looked at several factors that contribute to risk perception of GMOs. We have seen how various factors have contributed to risk perception in the United States, in Europe and in developing countries. A survey conducted across these regions reflected the trends observed in the literature.

Authors’ contributions
Parul Goyal finished the paper, Stuti Gurtoo also read the manuscript and revised it. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements
We thank two anonymous reviewers for their strict criticism on this paper.

References
Bonny S., 2003, Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe, Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 6(1): 51-71

Brossard D., and Shanahan J., 2007, Perspectives on communication about Agricultural Biotechnology, CAB International, pp.1-19

Caswell J.A., 2000, Labeling policy for GMO's- to each his own? Agbioforum, 3(1): 53-57

Curtis K.R., McCluskey J.J., and Wahl T.I., 2004, Consumer acceptance of genetically modified food products on the developing world, AgBioForum, 7(1-2): 13

Finucane M.L., 2002, Mad cows, mad corn and mad communities: the role of socio-cultural factors in the perceived risk of genetically-modified food, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 61: 31-37 http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/PNS2001127

Finucane M.L., and Holup J.L., 2005, Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified food: an overview of the literature, Soc. Sci. Med., 60(7): 1603-1612 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.007

Frewer L.J., and Shepherd R., 1995, Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology, Agriculture and Human Values, 12(1): 48-57 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02218074

Frewer L.J., Howard C., and Shepherd R., 1997, Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general specific applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit and ethics, Science Technology Human Values, 22(1): 98-124 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016224399702200105

Gaskell G., Bauer M.W., Durant J., and Allum N.C., 1999, Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US, Science, 285(5426): 384-387 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.285.5426.384

Haslberger A.G., 2000, Monitoring and labeling of genetically modified products, Science, 287(5452): 431-432 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5452.431

Marris C., 2001, Public views GMOs: deconstructing the myths, EMBO reports, 2(7): 545-548 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/embo-reports/kve142

Newell P., 2003, Biotech firms, biotech politics: Negotiating GMOs in India, The Journal of Environment Development, 16(2): 183-206 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1070496507300920

Qiu H.H., and Huang J.K., 2006, Consumer's trust in government and their attitudes towards genetically modified food: Empirical evidence from China, Centre Chinese agricultural policy, pp.1-17

Ruibal-Mendieta N.L., and Lints F.A., 1998, Novel and transgenic food crops: overview of scientific verses public opinion, Transgenic Research, 7(5): 379-386 http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008845323046

Sangeeta B., and Guillaume G., 2010, Labeling genetically modified food in India - Economic consequences in four marketing channels, International Food Policy Research Institute, pp.1-60

Slovic P., 1987, Perception of risk, Science, 236(4799): 280-285 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507

Suman Sahai, 2010, Peoples’ perceptions about GM crops and foods report, Gene Campaign and Prof E Haribabu, April 1st, pp.1-5

Ten Eyck T.A., 2005, The media and public opinion on genetics and biotechnology: mirrors, windows, or walls? Public Understanding of Science, 14(3): 305-316 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662505052888

Teng P.P., 2008, An Asian perspective on GMO and biotechnology issues, Asia Pac. J. Clin. Nutr., 17(Sup1): 237-240

Traill W.B., Jaeger S.R., Yee W.M.S., Valli C., House L.O., Lusk J.L., Moore M., and Morrow J.L., 2005, Categories of GM risk-benefit perceptions and their antecedents, Agbioforum, 7(4): 176-186

Volti R., 2010, Society and Technological Change, 6th edition, Medical and Biological Technologies, Worth Publishers, US, pp.233-278

Zhang T., and Zhou S.D., 2003, The economic and social impact of GMOs in China, China Perspectives, May-June