| Abstract: | The promises and pitfalls of agricultural biotechnology have long been debated. The public is often thwarted because consumers frequently perceive as risky, and therefore undesirable, those advances that they do not understand or of which they are unaware. A comparative study of the introduction of a biotechnology innovation in the United States (US) and in the European Union (EU) is a case in point. In the US, despite concerns of consumer protection and environmental groups that the use of genetically produced growth hormone in milk‐producing cows will adversely impact the safety of the milk supply, scientific evidence and governmental findings appear to indicate that milk from treated cows is identical in quality, taste and nutritional value to milk from untreated cows. Experience to date in the US demonstrates some consumer resistance to milk from those cows that have received the growth hormone, which typically leads to a 10% increase in milk production. In fact, if there is no perceived differentiation between the two forms of milk, the issue offers little choice to consumers at large, and may result in economic benefit only to selected dairy farmers, as well as the producers of the genetically produced growth hormone. This situation in the US is an example of dysfunctional technology transfer, with perceived desirable benefits to a few, and perceived undesirable benefits to society‐at‐large. The information suggests that the US may have reacted hastily in approving the use of bovine growth hormone in milk‐producing cows. The EU has taken a divergent approach by enacting moratoriums against its use. The differences identified in this study, contrasting responses to the bovine somatotrophin issue in the US and EU – driven in part by general consumer attitudes towards biotechnology – may provide insights into the issues and challenges that will be faced by both advocates and opponents of global proliferation of certain advances in biotechnology. |
