 |
| About Bioline | All Journals | Testimonials | Membership | News |
|
||||||
|
||||||
Australasian Biotechnology, Vol. 11 No. 3, 2001, pp. 36-39 GMOs ATTITUDES OF PULSE FARMERS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA TOWARDS GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS IN AGRICULTURE D. J. McDougall1,2, N. E. Longnecker2, S. P. Marsh2,3 and F. P. Smith2* 1 Muresk Institute of Agriculture, Curtin University. 2 Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, The University of Western Australia. 3 Department of Agricultural Economics, The University of Sydney. Code Number: au01046 Abstract A survey of pulse farmers in Western Australia in April 1999 found high levels of awareness of and interest in genetic engineering. Farmers' willingness to use or consume a range of crops genetically modified for on-farm production or input benefits (such as pest and herbicide resistance) was generally high. Acceptability of a range of other potential products specifying cross-species or cross-kingdom gene transfer was less. Labelling of GM foods was rated as important. Concern over a number of GM issues was highest with regard to the corporate ownership and marketing of the technology, and the potential lack of demand for GM produce. Farmers also noted concern about a range of environmental and human health and safety issues. We conclude that pulse farmers in Western Australia are highly aware of and generally (but not entirely) accepting of GMOs in agriculture. Attitudes are most positive where a direct benefit to farm production is indicated. Nonetheless significant concerns over socio-economic, environmental and human health issues are present. Introduction Several recent surveys have gauged the perceptions and attitudes of Australian consumers (general public) towards genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including those in agriculture (Kelley, 1995; Norton et al., 1998; Schibeci et al., 1997). By contrast, little has been done to specifically seek farmers' opinions on agricultural GMOs, despite them being central to application of the technology. While farmers are themselves potential consumers of the end products of GM technologies, it is possible that in their capacity as producers and marketers of GMOs, their attitudes to GM technologies may differ from those of the wider community. This survey of pulse (grain legume) farmers in Western Australia was conducted to: i) gauge farmer understanding and perceptions of genetic engineering; ii) assess farmer attitudes to genetically modified crops and their acceptance of the technology; iii) investigate where farmers get information about genetic engineering; iv) raise farmers' awareness about the issues surrounding the genetic engineering debate; and, v) give farmers an opportunity to voice opinions and concerns. A number of questions posed in this survey were identical to those posed to previous surveys of the general public (Norton et al., 1998) in order to determine if there were significant differences between opinions of primary producers and of consumers about genetic modification of organisms. Materials and Methods One thousand surveys were sent to pulse farmers in Western Australia in April, 1999. Farmers were randomly selected by including one survey in each fourth copy of the Grain Pool of Western Australia's Legume Logic newsletter. As the authors did not have access to the list of recipients, no follow-up requests were issued. A total of 193 (19.3%) responses were received. Responses were analysed using Excel and Stata software packages. Responses to questions in the sections headed 'Willingness to Use' and 'Issues of Concern' were summed for each individual to give an overall score indicating that individual's acceptance of and level of concern about GM products respectively. Space was provided on the survey for 'other concerns'. Results The demographics of the respondents (Table 1) are summarised as follows: sex - 95% male; average age - 47 years; average farm size - 4200 ha; average area of farm cropped - 54%; average number of field days attended each year - 4. Respondents' previous knowledge about genetic engineering is indicated in Table 2. Of all respondents: 93% said they had previously heard about genetic engineering; 72% said they had a basic understanding of genetic engineering; and 82% indicated that they were interested in genetic engineering. The majority of respondents (57%) nominated that their attitude to genetic engineering had not changed in the last five years. Most farmers received information about genetic engineering from the mass media (rural magazines 87%; radio/television 78%; public press 64%). However a significant proportion of respondents indicated that research publications (30%) and public forums (26%) were a source of information. The internet and 'other' sources were indicated by only 3% each. The willingness of respondents to use or consume genetically modified organisms was generally high (Tables 3 and 4). However, pulse farmers indicated they were significantly less willing-to use both lupins and clover genetically modified to be herbicide-resistant than those genetically modified to be higher yielding (P = 0.003 and 0.02 respectively). The difference between crops modified to be higher yielding and those modified to be pest-resistant is not significant. Average ratings of acceptability of various genetically modified products (Table 5) were similar to responses to the same questions put to general consumers in a previous survey (Norton et al. 1998), with the exception of higher acceptability by farmers of the strike-resistant sheep and herbicide-resistant wheat. Concern about a number of issues that have appeared in the press is indicated in Table 6. Corporate ownership of the technology and the potential lack of export market for GM products were of greatest concern. However, there were significant levels of concern about all issues. Potential changes to farming systems were of least concern. When respondents were invited to list "any other concerns", comments about the ownership and control of the technology were most frequent (12 comments), eg. "I'm very concerned that multinationals will own it all [fertilizer, seed, chemicals] and the farmer will be only used to own the medium to stand the crop up in and be exposed to all the risk. We will be peasants." "The control large corporations will gain over the whole seed-fertiliser-chemical-product-marketing. Farmers as usual are at the bottom of the chain." "I'm concerned about multinationals locking us in and then screwing us." "Biggest concern is the large companies dominating the farming industry and the effect will be high input costs and a very low controlled return to the grower (much as it is now)!" Comments about possible unknown consequences were also frequent (9 comments) e.g. "The long term results and impact on human and natural resources are mainly my concern. . . . I can see big benefits in my industry but at what cost?" "When these ideas are set up we are always assured there are no dangers etc but then twenty, thirty years later we learn differently. That is a huge concern to me as to the effect on the health of humans, other animals and plants." Also frequent were concerns about herbicide resistance in both crops and weeds (9 comments) e.g. "The use of genetically modified crop species to make them resistant to various herbicides may cause them to become themselves a weed problem", and "Herbicide resistant weeds is the most important issue in cropping" Other comments related to moral and ethical issues (6 comments), health and food safety concerns (6), food labelling (6), the need for more information to assist farmers' decisions (5), the desire for strong regulation (4), doubt over export markets and consumer acceptance (3), a preference for genetically engineered plants over animals (3), the "too rapid" pace of development (2), the perception that the research is misguided (2), and the desire to preserve a "clean, green" image in Western Australian farm produce (1). A full spectrum of opinions on the technology was expressed, for example: "There is a need for very well-informed discussion about the whole issue. Some products could be very safe and acceptable but we need to know the source of the introduced gene before we can decide whether that food is acceptable. Personally I can see myself making the decision on each individual product erring on the side of caution for the early products. Anxiety about new developments in this field is understandable but in twenty years it is likely many products will be accepted without question." "The quicker you can produce better agricultural plants the better." "No real concerns as we have been doing it for years." There is a weak relationship (R2 = 0.1) between individuals' scores of overall acceptability and concern. Partitioning the data into high and low acceptance and high and low concern indicates a significant association between low acceptance and high concern (chi-squared test, P<0.001). However the data indicate that even farmers with high levels of acceptance of GMOs in agriculture may still be moderately to extremely concerned about the issues presented. A high level of acceptability of GM products can be associated with both high and low levels of concern. There appears to be little relationship between any of the demographic data collected and respondents' scores of overall acceptability or concern. Age, education and attendance at field days were not significantly related to either acceptance or concern. Farm size was very weakly related to acceptability. Simple regression gives an R2 of 0.02 but the trend is significant (F = 0.027). The question: 'If products containing genetically manipulated material appeared on supermarket shelves, how important is it for this characteristic to be pointed out through a label?' was asked concerning two products: canola oil which contains no genetically modified material, but has been extracted from a genetically modified plant, and a tomato containing genetically modified material. On a scale of 0 ('labelling not important') to 6 ('labelling essential') there was no substantive difference in the desire for these different products to be labelled (canola oil mean score 4.4, tomato mean score 4.7) even though the canola oil technically contains no genetically modified material in the product on the shelf. Discussion Pulse farmers in Western Australia are highly aware of and have a high degree of interest in the issue of GMOs in agriculture (Table 2). The rural media are the most important sources of information on GMOs and these results agree with other studies that indicate that rural press and radio are likely to be highly effective means of disseminating information to the farming community (Watts and Kubicki 1997, Woods et al. 1993). A large proportion of farmers gain information from research publications and public forums, indicating a high level of active engagement in the debate. The unimportance of the internet as a source of information may reflect the poorer infrastructure and support for this technology in rural areas (Buckeridge 1996, Groves 1996). Willingness to use and consume GMOs with clearly stated agricultural benefits was generally high, and was greater than for a range of products without specific benefits to farmers (Tables 3, 4 and 5). Willingness to use crops genetically modified for herbicide resistance was slightly but significantly less than willingness to use those modified for pest resistance or higher yield per se (Table 3). This distinction reflects farmers' concerns about herbicide resistance (Table 6 and below). Acceptability of GMOs was lowest where reference had been made to cross-species or cross-kingdom genetic manipulation involving animals or humans. A number of 'other comments' emphasised an acceptance of genetic manipulation of plants but not of animals. The results for farmers in Table 5 do not differ greatly from those of general consumers asked the same questions in a previous survey (Norton et al 1998), except that where a specific farm benefit was indicated (i.e. blowfly resistant sheep and herbicide resistant wheat) farmers indicated a higher degree of acceptance than did general consumers. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that consumers will more readily accept GM products where they perceive a specific benefit for themselves. Farmers' concerns over a number of GM issues were generally high (Table 6) and a high level of acceptance of GMOs in agriculture does not necessarily remove this concern. All the issues identified attracted at least moderate concern and one third of respondents took the opportunity to emphasis or elaborate upon their concerns in the "other concerns" section of the survey. The greatest concern centred on the socio-economic implications of the marketing and control of GM technology, but market security, herbicide resistance and unknown side effects were also key concerns (Table 6, and see comments in Results section). The potential for GM crops to change current farming practices was the issue of least concern to respondents, probably indicating a general acceptance of technological change within the industry. References
Copyright 2001 - AusBiotech The following images related to this document are available:Photo images[au01046t2.jpg] [au01046t5.jpg] [au01046t4.jpg] [au01046t1.jpg] [au01046t6.jpg] [au01046t3.jpg] |
| |||||||||
