 |
| About Bioline | All Journals | Testimonials | Membership | News |
|
||||||
|
||||||
Australasian Biotechnology, Australian Public's Perception of Genetically-Engineered Foods Janet Norton, Geoffrey Lawrence, Graham Wood, Central Queensland University Code Number:AU98027 This paper describes a recent Australian survey on attitudes to genetically-engineered foods. Initial results of the survey are discussed and presented in tabular form. While there is some acceptance of particular genetically-engineered products, the results show that responfdents did have concerns over the long-term health effects of eating genetically-engineered foods and the potential risk to the environment. Respondents clearly endorsed labelling of the products and government control of the technology. The Authors Janet Norton is a doctoral student at Central Queensland University. Geoffrey Lawrence is Director of the Institute of Sustainable Regional Development and Professor of Sociology at Central Queensland University. Graham Wood is Professor of Mathematics at Central Queensland University. As genetically-engineered foods gradually reach the market place the issue of their acceptance - or rejection - by consumers becomes a critical concern. According to one prominent geneticist, suitable education will dispel any "irrational" fears the public might have of these foods (Peacock 1994). While this may be so, social research shows there is growing public disquiet towards biotechnological applications in the food industry (Wagner et al.1997). A number of studies have been conducted in an attempt to establish consumers' attitudes to foods which contain a genetically-engineered component. Within the European Community, a series of surveys sought to measure public perceptions of genetic engineering. The Eurobarometer is conducted at regular intervals and examines attitudes to a number of genetic engineering applications (INRA 1991). Since 1991 support for genetic engineering has been declining (Jank 1995). This is despite the fact that comparison of the 1996 Eurobarometer with the 1993 and 1991 surveys shows that the public's knowledge of genetic engineering has increased. Respondents are less optimistic that applications of genetic engineering will improve their quality of life. There is growing concern about the potential risks of genetic engineering and the "moral acceptability" of some applications (Wagner et al. 1997). Respondents also considered that genetically-engineered foods should be labelled and that there should be public consultation prior to the development of new biotechnologies. Canadian research produced similar results. Participants considered gene transfer to be most acceptable if there was a specific goal, such as preventing a fatal disease, to be achieved. The study also found that attitudes to genetic engineering were affected by a respondent's "core beliefs", that is, their knowledge of science and technology, attitude to nature and attitude to God. The study concluded that respondents had not as yet clearly defined biotechnology and were thus unable to make absolute judgements about the technology (Decima Research 1993). In New Zealand the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research conducted research into public attitudes to genetic engineering in 1990. This survey found that while most respondents were familiar with the term genetic engineering, most felt that they could not adequately explain what it involved. Concerns were expressed about the potential for disaster, possible hazards arising from unknown areas of research, problems of control, environmental damage, and the unknown side effects of genetically-engineered foods. Manipulation of plants cells was considered to be most acceptable, with manipulation of human cells the least acceptable. The study concluded that concern "centres on moral and ethical implications of the research and on the possibility of environmental or human hazards resulting from the introduction of genetically modified organisms" (Couchman and Fink-Jensen 1990). Within Australia, a study commissioned by the Department of Industry, Science and Technology was conducted in 1994. This was a mailed survey and indicated that Australians were supportive of genetic engineering. A number of applications including new drugs, pest resistant cotton, cooking oils, lean pork and a tastier tomato were all presented to the public. Contrary to overseas studies, there was a positive reaction to all these products. The study also showed that there was no variation in support in relation to gender, age or educational levels. Opposition to genetically-engineered products was exhibited only by those who placed a low priority on improvements in health and agriculture and those without a scientific world view. However, results still indicated that respondents wished products to be labelled (Kelley 1995). The questions on genetic engineering were part of a much larger survey; no national survey devoted solely to genetic engineering has been previously conducted in Australia. Construction and Conduct of the Survey In December, 1996 - January, 1997 a mail survey sought to determine Australian consumers' attitudes to genetically-engineered foods. General information was provided on genetic engineering as well as on the application of the technology to various products. The products (or potential products) chosen for inclusion in the survey were: a tomato that had its own genetic structure altered, cheese produced using genetically-engineered Chymosin, wheat containing the Bt gene, a blue rose containing genes from another plant, pork containing gene sequence of human origin, sheep genetically-engineered to be resistant to blowfly strike, and a tomato containing a gene sequence from a fish. Information on each of these products was provided and the respondent asked to answer a series of related questions. These questions were presented in a particular way. Rather than rely on a simple Likert scale to determine the degree of agreement or otherwise with a statement, respondents were given two opposing viewpoints and asked to indicate their extent of agreement or disagreement on a one to six scale. Thus an average result of 3.5 indicates no preference for either extreme. The ordering of viewpoints was varied from question to question. Full details of methodology will appear in the next issue of Australasian Biotechnology. Results We present here an initial analysis of the data. This descriptive analysis indicates a number of interesting trends. As has been shown by previous research, genetic engineering of plants was more acceptable than the genetic engineering of animals and humans (see Table 1). A total of 66 percent of respondents considered it to be acceptable to genetically-engineer plants compared to 40 percent finding genetic engineering of animals acceptable and 25 percent approving of the genetic engineering of humans. Further, only 32 percent considered that it was morally correct to use human genes in other organisms. When asked about genetic engineering in general, respondents were concerned about the risks of genetically-engineered organisms. Seventy-five percent considered that the accidental release of these organisms would cause environmental damage and 56 percent considered that eating genetically-engineered foods would have long term health effects. In addition 52 percent felt that the risks of genetic engineering would outweigh the benefits (see Table 1). There was overwhelming support for government control of genetically-engineered foods (92 percent) as well as for consultation with consumers before the release of such foods (93 percent) (see Table 1). Table 1: General attitudes to genetic engineering Strongly agree 1 Strongly disagree 6 Mean
All results given as percentages For each of the seven products described, a series of questions was asked. These included:
The results are now discussed and summarised in tables. i) Acceptability Respondents found the blue rose to be the most acceptable product, followed by the tomato (with its own genes altered), the blowfly resistant sheep, cheese, wheat, the tomato containing genes from a fish and the pork (see Table 2). This is consistent with responses to the more general set of questions with the exception of the genetic engineering of sheep. Respondents perhaps considered that there was a benefit to the animal in this example. (This is revealed in another question - benefits outweigh risks (see Table 8).) There was considerable resistance to the genetically-engineered pig with 65 percent of respondents considering it to be unacceptable. Table 2: Acceptability of genetic engineering
All results given as percentages ii) Release and Environmental Damage With the exception of the genetically-engineered pig, the majority of respondents considered that release of the organism would not cause environmental damage. In a similar fashion to that described previously, concern arose according to the type of genetic engineering being performed (see Table 3). Both the tomato containing genes from another source and the wheat had respectively only 59 percent and 55 percent of respondents considering that their release would not cause environmental damage. In both cases, however, approximately 28 percent of respondents only agreed mildly with this statement. This places both products on the border line of acceptance in terms of perceived environmental damage. Table 3: Release will not cause environmental damage
All results given as percentages iii) Eating and Long Term Health Effects When asked whether eating the various products would not have long term health effects, only the cheese and the tomato with its own gene structure altered (57 and 55 percent respectively) had a majority of support. Respondents were concerned about the effects of eating the other products (see Table 4). Pork was again the product that caused the most concern. These results are similar to those shown in Table 5 - concern about eating the products. In another question, 60 percent of respondents indicated that they would not eat the meat from the genetically-engineered sheep. Table 4: Long term health effects
All results given as percentages Table 5: Concern about eating the product
All results given as percentages iv) Buying the product Respondents indicated that they were prepared to buy some of these products (see Table 6). Wool and the blue rose were the most acceptable with pork, tomato using fish genes and wheat being the least acceptable. Again, while a majority of respondents indicated that they would buy these products (with the exception of the pork) there are a large number who only mildly agree with the statement. In Table 7, it can be clearly seen that respondents considered that all products should be clearly labelled, including those products which respondents considered were acceptable. v) Benefits of the product Table 6: Willingness to buy the product
All results given as percentages Table 7: Product should be labelled
All results given as percentages When faced with specific products, respondents considered that the benefits of some outweighed the risks. Only the genetically-engineered pig was considered to have more risks than benefits. (This is a similar result to that shown in Table 2.) Once again, support for the various products decreased according to the type of product, how it was produced and whether it would be eaten (see Table 8). When compared with the general question asked in Table 1, with the exception of the pork, individual products gained more support than did the abstract concept of genetic engineering. Table 8: Benefits outweigh risks
All results given as percentages vi) Support for products developed using genetic engineering Respondents were also asked, in two separate questions, whether they considered the products described were of importance to them - that is, whether they would like to see the product on the market. The first question asked whether the product was desired if it could be produced using conventional methods (that is, without genetic engineering) and the second asked about the desirability of the product if it could be produced only using genetic engineering. The results are shown in Table 9. Table 9: Importance of each product
Results based on sample sizes of at least 984 It can clearly be seen that support drops for all genetically-engineered products. Products that will be eaten (with the exception of wheat) have little support if they are produced using genetic engineering. These results indicate that respondents are not opposed to the products themselves but rather to the type of technology used to produce them. In another question 86 percent of respondents considered that genetic engineering offered benefits to society. Yet, in a further question, 80 percent considered that it posed some risk to society. Thus, while consumers are prepared to acknowledge benefits they appear well aware of the potential dangers that society faces. Despite some 66 percent of respondents having indicated that they had little or no knowledge of genetic engineering methods prior to doing the survey, they nevertheless endorse genetic engineering in its broadest sense, while recognising that there will be risks in going down the biotechnology path. Concern about risk explains why people are more likely to endorse a continuation of existing methods of plant and animal breeding over genetic engineering (see Table 9) vii) Trust in organisations to tell the truth about genetic engineering Respondents were also asked to rate a number of organisations according to the amount of trust that they had in them to tell the truth about genetic engineering. Organisations were rated on a scale from one to six, where one indicated no trust and six indicated complete trust. The mean value for each organisation is shown in Table 10. Respondents had the most trust in schools or universities and environmental organisations to tell the truth with least trust in industry, the media and political organisations. This lack of trust was highlighted in later questions in the survey. When asked if information given to them by the government about the risks of technology was honest and reliable, 73 percent of respondents disagreed. Similarly, when asked if business and industry provided honest and reliable information on the risks of technology, 76 percent of respondents disagreed. Table 10: Trust in organisations to tell the truth about genetic engineering
Results based on sample sizes of at least 973 viii) Issues of concern A further question asked respondents to indicate their level of concern about a number of wider issues facing contemporary Australian society. Responses were rated on a scale from one to six, where one indicated no concern and six indicated great concern. Mean values for each issue are shown in Table 11. Genetically-engineered foods received the lowest rating - with a mean of 4.19 - of all issues, showing that while it was of concern to respondents, all other issues were of greater concern. Respondents did, however, rate preserving the environment as an issue of great concern (mean of 5.35). Table 11: Issues of concern to respendents
Results based on sample sizes of at least 984 Discussion In the United States, the Office of Technology Assessment carried out a telephone survey in 1987. This study concluded that: while a majority of the public expresses concern about genetic engineering in the abstract, it approves nearly every specific environmental or therapeutic application. However, while Americans find the end products of biotechnology attractive, they are sufficiently concerned about potential risks that a majority believe strict regulation is essential (Office of Technology Assessment 1987, p5). This latest Australian survey appears to agree, at least to some extent, with this finding. Responses to questions phrased generally revealed that respondents were concerned about the potential for environmental damage and indicated that risks outweighed benefits of genetic engineering whereas this was not always the case when particular products were discussed. Respondents support products that they perceive as benefiting either the organism being genetically altered or the environment. Thus respondents found it acceptable to genetically alter sheep to be resistant to blowfly strike or wheat to reduce the amount of insecticide spraying and considered that the benefits of these products outweighed the risks. The blue rose appears to be supported for different reasons. Firstly, it is clearly stated that it is not a food and secondly, it is the only product described which uses plant-to-plant gene transfer. This support is indicative of the acceptability of genetically-engineering plants. While respondents were prepared to wear the wool from the sheep, they were reluctant to eat its meat. As well, there was slight concern over long term health effects caused by eating the genetically altered wheat. This demonstrated another trend within the data. Those products that were to be ingested had least support. This support decreased according to the type of genetic manipulation occurring. Thus the tomato with its own genetic structure altered and the cheese produced from Chymosin were the products that produced the least amount of concern. These were followed, in order, by the tomato containing a fish gene sequence, the altered wheat and the pork containing a gene sequence of human origin. The blue rose, which would obviously not be ingested, received the most support in all questions. This is consistent with the more general result that respondents found genetic manipulation of plants more acceptable than the genetic manipulation of animals. Regardless of whether a product had general support, respondents considered that it was important that it be labelled as genetically altered. This result is consistent with that found by Kelley in 1994. However, the Australian House of Representatives Standing Committee (1992) deemed that there would be no compulsory labelling of food products containing genetically-modified organisms. According to the Standing Committee: If labelling was required for products produced by genetic modification, the industry would be singled out. It could suffer financial penalty in trying to overcome possible consumer resistance and could be vulnerable to any emotional argument from those vehemently opposed to the technology (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry Science and Technology 1992, p253). The overwhelming support for labelling even from those supportive of the technology, shown in these results, should cause authorities to rethink this stance. Respondents demonstrated a clear concern about the use of genetic engineering to produce the items listed in the survey. When asked if they approved of the development of the products themselves there was considerable support. However, this support dropped significantly when the product was to be developed using genetic engineering - only the altered wheat, sheep and blue rose retained majority support when they were to be developed using genetic engineering. Support for the altered wheat and the sheep remained over 70 percent, which is consistent with the fact that for these products, respondents perceived benefits either to the organism itself or to the environment. Respondents are therefore concerned not about the product, per se, but rather the technology used to produce it. This should not be viewed as resistance to scientific developments, as in later questions in the survey 86 percent of respondents considered that scientific research was necessary and should be supported, even if there were no immediate benefits, and 81 percent considered that Australia's national prosperity depended upon scientific development. It does indicate, however, that the public is much more likely to approve conventional R&D programs, rather than those utilising genetic engineering. Despite the general support for scientific development, respondents demonstrated a lack of trust in a number of bodies to tell the truth about genetic engineering. Industry groups, political organisations and the media were not seen as trustworthy by respondents. Schools and universities and environmental organisations were regarded as being able to be trusted to tell the truth in this area. This is similar to the results of a telephone survey in New Jersey, where research reported that participants regarded scientists as the most credible source of information on genetic engineering, while companies involved in genetic engineering were rated as the least credible (Hallman and Metcalfe 1993). Another study in the United States showed that participants had only moderate trust in statements on biotechnology made by government agencies and were not totally convinced that the government could protect them from the hazards of these new foods (Zimmerman et al. 1994). Conclusion Further results of the survey are currently in preparation. These initial results demonstrate that while there is support for some genetically-engineered products, this support drops when the technology is applied to foods. When asked about genetic engineering in general terms, respondents, on balance, answer that such engineering of plants is more acceptable than that of animals and humans and that it was morally incorrect to transfer human genetic material to other organisms. Respondents considered, on balance, that there would be long term health effects from eating genetically-engineered foods, that the risks outweighed the benefits, and that accidental releases of genetically-engineered organisms would cause environmental damage. Consultation with consumers prior to the release of genetically-engineered foods, and government control of these products, were considered to be necessary. When particular products were considered, however, support was forthcoming for those products which were not to be eaten or which had the ability to benefit the organism being altered or to reduce environmental damage. This support reduced if the resulting product was to be ingested. While a majority of respondents were concerned about the long term health effects of eating these products when discussed in the abstract, some products (cheese and the tomato produced using its own genes) did not elicit a similar response. There was a reluctance to buy some products, particularly those that would be ingested. Again the cheese and tomato (own genes) were considered more favourably by respondents. Importantly, even those who supported the various products considered labelling to be important. While respondents considered that there were both benefits offered - and risks posed - to society by genetic engineering, they were not opposed to the products discussed, per se. Opposition was directed at the type of technology used to develop the products, especially food products. This survey indicates, contrary to earlier Australian results, that consumers do have concerns about genetically-engineered foods and their effects on the environment and health. These results are similar to those reported overseas. Biotechnologists should be aware that concerns over genetic engineering are not necessarily the result of the ignorance of the general public. Where there is a perceived benefit to the organism being altered (e.g. blowfly resistant sheep) or a benefit to the environment (e.g. insect resistant wheat), respondents were prepared to accept the resulting product. However, labelling of all food products which embodied the gene technology, and consultation with the general public prior to release of any genetically-engineered products, were strongly endorsed by respondents. Biotechnologists should heed this message if the products resulting from gene technology are to be used widely in the food industry. Acknowledgments The research described in this paper was made possible by a University Research Grant provided by the Central Queensland University. References Beus, C.E. and Dunlap, R.E. 1991. `Measuring Adherence to Alternative vs Conventional Agricultural Paradigms: A Proposed Scale'. Rural Sociology 56: 432-460. Bureau of Industry Economics 1995. `Science Awareness and Understanding: How Australia Ranks in International Surveys' . Canberra: Bureau of Industry Economics. Couchman, P.K. and Fink-Jensen, K. 1990. `Public Attitudes to Genetic Engineering in New Zealand' . Christchurch: DSIR. Decima Research 1993. `Final Report to the Canadian Institute of Biotechnology on Public Attitudes towards Biotechnology' . Ottawa: Canadian Institution of Biotechnology. Hallman, W.K. and Metcalfe, J. 1993. `Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology: A Survey of New Jersey Residents' . New Brunswick: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry Science and Technology 1992. `Genetic Manipulation: The Threat or the Glory?' . Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. INRA 1991. `Opinions of Europeans on Biotechnology in 1991' . Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Jank, B. 1995. `Biotechnology in European Society'. Trends in biotechnology 13: 42-44. Kelley, J. 1995. `Public Perceptions of Genetic Engineering: Australia, 1994' . Canberra: Department of Industry, Science and Technology. Lawrence, G. and Vanclay, F. 1998 (forthcoming). `Gene-biotechnology, the state and Australia's agri-food industries' in Hindmarsh, R., Lawrence, G., Norton, J. (eds) Altered Genes Allen & Unwin. Norton, J. 1998 (forthcoming). `Throwing up concerns about novel foods' in Hindmarsh, R., Lawrence, G., Norton, J. (eds) Altered Genes Allen & Unwin. Norton, J. and Lawrence, G. 1996. `Consumers' attitudes to genetically-engineered food products: Focus group research in Rockhampton, Queensland' in Lawrence, G., Lyons, K., Momtaz, S. (ed.) Social Change in Rural Australia. Rockhampton: Rural Social and Economic Research Centre. Office of Technology Assessment 1987. `New Developments in Biotechnology: Public Perceptions of Biotechnology' - Washington, D.C.: US Congress Office of Technology Assessment. Peacock, J. 1994. `Genetic Engineering of Crop Plants Will Enhance the Quality and Diversity of Foods'. Food Australia 46: 379 - 381. Salant, P. and Dillman, D. 1994. How to Conduct Your Own Survey. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Wagner, W., Torgerson, H., Einsiedel, E., Jelsoe, E., Fredickson, H., Lassen, J., Rusanen, T., Boy, D., de Cheveigne, S., Hampel, J., Stathopoulou, A., Allansdotottir, A., Midden, C., Nielsen, T., Przestalski, A., Twardowski, T., Fjaestad, B., Olsson, S., Olofsson, A., Gaskell, G., Durant, J., Bauer, M. and Liakopoulos, M. 1997. `Europe ambivalent on biotechnology'. Nature 387: 845 - 847. Zimmerman, L., Kendall, P., Stone, M. and Hoban, T. 1994. `Consumer Knowledge and Concern about Biotechnology and Food Safety'. Food Technology 48: 71-77. Copyright 1998 Australian Biotechnology Association Ltd. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||
