This edition of the Biotechnology and Development Monitor surveys the perceptions and expectations that have developed in the public domain on agricultural gene technology in recent years. A first generation of genetically modified (GM) crops are now established in some regions of the world, a process that has lead to varying degrees of public controversy and anxiety. Some argue that the genetic modification of crops is only an extension of conventional plant breeding techniques. Others say that it represents a fundamental and dangerous departure from conventional breeding. Because of such polarized opinions, the application of these techniques for food production cannot be considered a purely technical matter to be dealt with by scientific experts and agronomists alone. For some, the acronym GMO (genetically modified organism) has become a touch stone that has lead them into a philosophical and political re-evaluation of 'the way we live'. For others GMOs can mean everything from new economic opportunities to a trade risk. As this edition of the Monitor shows, there are many different and often conflicting stakeholders' perceptions and expectations of genetic modification techniques in agriculture.

For this issue authors from different parts of the world were requested to analyse the factors that have influenced public perceptions and expectations of biotechnology as applied to agriculture in their own countries over the last 25 years. Such factors may include strategic research and development decisions by private firms, international and national public research policies, governmental regulations for safety in biotechnology, campaigning activities by non-governmental organisations and the ways the media report on biotechnology.

Every recent survey of public attitudes and perceptions of biotechnology in advanced economies in the North suggests that the public wish to be better informed on the subject. In the Netherlands, for example, a survey conducted in June 2001 showed that 70 percent of the population considered there was not enough information on the subject (Gutteling, 2001). It also indicated decreasing levels of public confidence in GM food.

Whilst perceptions in the North can be assessed to some extent through surveys, in the South, information and insight into public perceptions and the way these are formed, (see Aerni) are often distorted or mediated through stakeholders and opinion leaders with their own agendas. In countries such as Zambia (see Chinsembu and Kambikambi) where access to the internet is erratic and there are few newspapers, magazines and other sources of information in the public domain, the role of less formal sources of information becomes particularly important.

The corporate and promotional literature routinely circulated to farmers, seed stockists and extension officers by agricultural companies have a much greater impact in such situations (see Kruszewska, Monitor No. 44-45). Promises of higher yields, reduced expenditure on external inputs and greater food security for farmers caught in economic or ecological crises (see Dhar), can be appealing and overshadow long-term environmental and health risks that affect future generations.

Farming is, by its very nature, routine and often located in isolated areas, away from mainstream sources of information. Although developing countries may be able to make better use of information technology (ITC) in the future, this is certainly not always the case now.

When, in 1997, a meeting of USA farm industries representatives was asked, "What do you say about the many European consumers rejecting GM foods?" the unanimous response was that "the European public needs educating." Since then the European public have examined the 'education' fed to it by institutions, industry, governments, media and the EU and, still dissatisfied, have lead the agenda into new areas.