Potentialities of new agri-biotechnology for sustainable nutrition

Titolo Rivista RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA'
Autori/Curatori Daniela Covino, Flavio Boccia
Anno di pubblicazione 2017 Fascicolo 2016/2
Lingua Inglese Numero pagine 10 P. 97-106 Dimensione file 152 KB
DOI 10.3280/RISS2016-002009
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

Transgenic foods could be considered as daily conventional foods, that carry various kinds of well-known genetic modifications, and sometimes they are also able to perform a particular function. They are products which outwardly are the same as conventional ones, but they have features that can also be quite different. These foods could help improve the well-being of our society, especially for the fringe of the population with chronic diseases related to allergy phenomena or food intolerance, or a deficiency/excess of certain nutritional factors. The presence of novel foods on the market could improve their diet and, consequently, their well-being. The aim of the present work is to focus on the potential role of second generation genetically modified foods of enhancing more sustainable dietary regimes in terms of welfare. Functional transgenic food may be defined as daily conventional ones, carrying modifications in nutrients content, capable of performing as dietary supplement. Nutritional characteristics may strongly differ from usual foods in our dietary regimen in terms of vitamins, fat, gluten and so on. It is well accepted that such a kind of food might contribute to improves societies’ welfare, especially for people affected by chronic disease depending on allergies or intolerance, deficiency or surplus of specific nutritional factors. Still, several issues are to debate in terms of their acceptability and equivalence.

I cibi transgenici potrebbero essere considerati come normali alimenti quotidiani, in grado però di apportare, grazie alle proprie caratteristiche genetiche di nuova generazione, contenuti nutrizionali specifici per particolari necessità alimentari dei singoli individui. Ma la considerazione che normalmente caratterizza tale genere di nuovi alimenti è di carattere totalmente diverso, spesso anzi molto osteggiato dall’opinione pubblica corrente. Scopo del presente lavoro è quello di porre attenzione al ruolo che in potenza potrebbero avere i cibi geneticamente modificati di nuova generazione nel miglioramento, dal punto di vista della sostenibilità, dei regimi dietetici in termini di benessere e salute del consumatore finale. Restano tuttavia aperte numerose questioni relative alla loro equivalenza sostanziale ed accettabilità da parte della collettività.

Keywords:Consumatore, marketing, OGM, salute, sicurezza.

  1. Amaru S. (2014). A natural compromise: a moderate solution to the GMO & “natural” labeling disputes. Food and Drug Law Journal, 69, 4: 575-601.
  2. Batrinou A.M., Dimitriou E., Liatsos D., Pletsa V. (2005). Genetically modified foods: the effect of information. Nutrition & Food Science, 3, 35: 35-46.
  3. Bianchi P.G. (2000). The ‘farmer's privilege’ according to the EC Regulation no. 2100/94 and Directive 98/44/EC. ENSE: Rome.
  4. Boccaletti S., Moro D. (2000). Consumer willingness-to-pay for GM food products in Italy. AgBioForum – The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics, 4: 259-267.
  5. Boccia F. (2016). Consumer perception: an analysis on second generation genetically modified foods. Nutrition and Food Science, 46, 5: 637-646.
  6. Boccia F. (2015). Genetically Modified Organisms: What Issues in the Italian Market? Quality – Access to Success, 16, 145: 105-110.
  7. Boccia F., Sarnacchiaro P. (2015). Genetically Modified Foods and Consumer Perspective. Recent Patents on Food, Nutrition & Agriculture, 7, 1: 28-34.
  8. Boccia F., Sarnacchiaro P. (2013). The Italian consumer and genetically modified food. Quality – Access to Success, 14, 136: 105-108.
  9. Bredahl L. (2001). Determinants of Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions With Regard to Genetically Modified Food – Results of a Cross-National Survey. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24, 1: 23-61.
  10. Bruno F. (2003). The legal aspects transgenic agriculture. INEA: Rome.
  11. Conner A.J., Glare T.R., Nap J.-P. (2003). The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. The Plant Journal, 33, 1: 19-46.
  12. Covino D. (2016). GMOs and the issue of coexistence in Italy. Nutrition and Food Science, 46, 5: 659-671.
  13. Covino D. (2014). Health, Rights and European Legislation on GM Food. Quality – Access to Success, 15, 142: 98-100.
  14. Curtis K.R., Moeltner K. (2007). The effect of consumer risk perceptions on the propensity to purchase genetically modified foods in Romania. Agribusiness, 23, 2: 263-278.
  15. De Steur H., Gellynck X., Storozhenko S., Liqun G., Lambert W., Van Der Straeten D., Viaene J. (2010). Willingness-to-accept and purchase genetically modified rice with high folate content in Shanxi Province, China. Appetite, 54, 1: 118-125.
  16. Defez R. (2010). This explains why someone starts to write the numbers on GMOs. Available at http://www.salmone.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/il_foglio.pdf (accessed March 2016).
  17. Defez R. (2014). Bees Inspector Clouseau. Available at http://www.salmone.org/il-caso-ogm-e-nella-cinquina-del-galileo (accessed February 2016).
  18. Defez R. (2015a). GMOs: some serve to Italy. Available at https:// www.senato.it/application/xmanager/projects/leg17/attachments/documento_evento_procedura_commissione/files/000/002/745/DEFEZ2.pdf (accessed February 2016).
  19. Defez R. (2015b). GMO: Italian research in agriculture serves in open field. Available at https://www.senato.it/application/xmanager/projects/leg17/attachments/ documento_evento_procedura_commissione/files/000/002/907/Documentazione _dott._Defez_n.4.pdf (accessed March 2016).
  20. Deodhar S.Y., Ganesh S., Chern W.S. (2008). Emerging markets for GM foods: an Indian perspective on consumer understanding and the willingness to pay. International Journal of Biotechnology, 10, 6: 570-587.
  21. Eurobarometer (2013). The Europeans and biotechnology in 2012. A report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project ‘Life Sciences in European Society’. Eurobarometer: Netherlands.
  22. Frewer L., Lassen J., Kettlitz B., Scholderer J., Beekman V., Berdal K.G. (2004). Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42, 7: 1181-1193.
  23. Gaskell G., Allum N., Bauer M., Durant J., Allansdottir A., Bonfadelli H., Boy D., de Cheveigne S., Fjaestad B., Gutteling J.M., Hampel J., Jelsoe E., Jesuino J.C., Kohring M., Kronberger N., Midden C., Nielsen T.H., Przestalski A., Rusanen T., Sakellaris G., Torgersen H., Twardowski T., Wagner W. (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nat Biotech, 18, 9: 935-938.
  24. Giarè F. (2003). Information, communication and participation. The case of biotechnologies. INEA: Rome.
  25. Goyal P., Gurtoo S. (2011). Factors Influencing Public Perception: Genetically Modified Organisms. GMO Biosafety Research, 2, 1: 1-11.
  26. Harrison R.W., Boccaletti S., House L. (2004). Risk Perceptions of Urban Italian and United States consumers for genetically modified foods. AgBioForum – The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics, 7: 195-201.
  27. ISAAA (2016). Global status of commercialized transgenic crops. Available at http://www.isaaa.org accessed 4 October 2016.
  28. Knight J.G., Mather D.W., Holdsworth D.K. (2005). Consumer benefits and acceptance of genetically modified food. Journal of Public Affairs, 5, 3-4: 226-235.
  29. Loureiro M.L., Bugbee M. (2005). Enhanced GM foods: Are consumers ready to pay for the potential benefits of biotechnology? Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39, 1: 52-70.
  30. Lusk J.L., Roosen J., Fox J.A. (2003). Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85, 1: 16-29.
  31. Mcinerney C., Bird N., Nucci M. (2004). The Flow of Scientific Knowledge from Lab to the Lay Public: The Case of Genetically Modified Food. Science Communication, 26, 1: 44-74.
  32. Montuori P., Triassi M., Sarnacchiaro P. (2012). The consumption of genetically modified foods in Italian high school students. Food Quality and Preference, 26, 2: 246-251.
  33. Russo D. (2015). Relationship between genetically modified foods and mass retail. Quality – Access to Success, 16, 146: 93-96.
  34. Sarno V., Malgeri Manzo R. (2016). Italian companies’ attitude towards GM crops. Nutrition and Food Science, 46, 5: 685-694.
  35. Sarno V., Ardeleanu M.P. (2014). Information management and consumer behavior towards GMOs. Quality – Access to Success, 15, 138: 93-99.
  36. Siegrist, M. (2008). Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19, 11: 603-608.
  37. Sjöberg L. (2004). Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology. Science and society, 5, 1: S47-S51.
  38. Soregaroli C., Boccaletti S., Moro D. (2003). Consumers’ attitudes towards labeled and unlabeled GM Products in Italy. Paper presented at IAMA World Food and Agribusiness Forum Proceedings June 2003, Cancun, Mexico.
  39. Tanaka Y. (2004). Major Psychological Factors Affecting Acceptance of Gene-Recombination Technology. Risk Analysis, 24, 6: 1575-1583.
  40. Vilella-Vila M., Costa-Font J., Mossialos E. (2005). Consumer involvement and acceptance of biotechnology in the European Union: a specific focus on Spain and the UK. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29, 2: 108-118.
  41. Wohlers A.E. (2010). Regulating genetically modified food. Politics & the Life Sciences, 29, 2: 17-39.
  42. Yamaguchi T., Suda F. (2010). Changing social order and the quest for justification: GMO controversies in Japan. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35, 3: 382-407.
  43. Yang Y.T., Chen B. (2016). Governing GMOs in the USA: Science, law and public health. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 96, 6: 1851-1855.
  44. Zechendorf B. (1999). Agricultural Biotechnology: Why Do Europeans Have Difficulty Accepting It? AgBioForum, 1, 1: 8-13

  • Knowledge and Food Sustainability: the Metaverse as a New Economic-Environmental Paradigm Flavio Boccia, Daniela Covino, in Journal of the Knowledge Economy /2023 pp.14841
    DOI: 10.1007/s13132-023-01626-w
  • Metaverse, the last technological frontier of environmental sustainable food: Worldwide evidence from the first business case studies Flavio Boccia, Joanna Rosak-Szyrocka, Houman Hashemzadeh, Daniela Covino, in RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA' 1/2023 pp.153
    DOI: 10.3280/RISS2023-001009
  • Genetically modified and socially responsible foods: A significant relationship for consumer's preferences Daniela Covino, Flavio Boccia, Immacolata Viola, in RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA' 2/2022 pp.371
    DOI: 10.3280/RISS2021-002024
  • Neuromarketing: some remarks by an economic experiment on food consumer perception and ethic sustainability Daniela Covino, Immacolata Viola, Tetiana Paientko, Flavio Boccia, in RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA' 1/2021 pp.187
    DOI: 10.3280/RISS2021-001011

Daniela Covino, Flavio Boccia, Potentialities of new agri-biotechnology for sustainable nutrition in "RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA'" 2/2016, pp 97-106, DOI: 10.3280/RISS2016-002009