Australasian Biotechnology (backfiles) AusBiotech ISSN: 1036-7128 Vol. 8, Num. 4, 1998

The Australian Public's Perception of Genetically-Engineered Foods - Methodology

Janet Norton, Geoffrey Lawrence, Graham Wood

Central Queensland University

Code Number:AU98033
Sizes of Files:
      Text: 7K
      Graphics: No associated graphics files

Continued from last issue (pp172-181)

In December, 1996 - January, 1997 a mail survey sought to determine Australian consumers' attitudes to genetically-engineered foods. This was a national survey originating from, and funded by, Central Queensland University.

The survey was administered in accordance with the four stage method described by Salant and Dillman (1994). This required the sending of an initial contact letter, followed by the survey package, followed by a simple follow-up letter, followed by a replacement survey. Participants, chosen randomly from the Electoral Roll, were sent an initial postcard alerting them to the fact that they would be receiving the survey in the near future. The survey package was subsequently sent. Three weeks later, a follow-up reminder letter was mailed to those participants who had not returned the survey in the free-pay envelope. After a further three weeks a replacement survey was sent to those participants who had still not returned the questionnaire. This methodology resulted in the return of 1009 completed surveys. When calculated on raw numbers of surveys sent, this equated to a response rate of 45 percent. Eliminating `unused' surveys - those which did not reach the person identified in the Electoral Roll - increases the response rate to 52 percent.

The questionnaire consisted of four sections: questions relating to genetic engineering, questions relating to science and technology, questions relating to food, and demographic data. As previous research had shown that people had little knowledge of genetic engineering (Norton and Lawrence 1996), the survey also contained information on genetic engineering techniques. 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. In this way, it was hoped to determine whether there was concern over the technology itself or if concern was related to particular products, or indeed, if there was concern at all.

The questions relating to genetic engineering 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. This method had been used previously in research by Beus and Dunlap and had proved effective (Beus and Dunlap 1991). Instruction was as indicated in the box on the next page.

The section on science and technology contained a group of questions used in an Australian survey to determine Australians' knowledge of science (Bureau of Industry Economics 1995). Inclusion of this set of questions meant that responses to this survey could be compared with those of the previous study to determine if there were any differences in knowledge. Respondents were also asked to indicate where they gained their information on science and technology and to give their own rating of their understanding of science and technology.

The third section of the survey requested Likert scale responses to questions which endeavoured to establish respondents' attitudes to food. A second set of questions was modelled on a series of questions used in a Canadian survey (Decima Research 1993) and attempted to determine respondents' social and political views. A number of questions were added to reflect the Australian situation.

The final section of the survey was designed to gain demographic data from the respondents. As well as determining gender, age, place of abode, and income, a number of questions were asked to determine if the respondent had children under 18, did the shopping on a regular basis, prepared meals on a regular basis or had special dietary requirements. All of these measures have the potential to affect a person's attitude to foods and food products. Finally, respondents were asked if they would like to receive a summary of the results of the survey.

Figure 1: Instructions for completing questions

The next group of questions list several pairs of contrasting views regarding genetic engineering. For each pair please indicate which one of the two views you most agree with - the one in the left hand column or the one in the right hand column - by circling the appropriate number on the line between them.

Copyright 1998 Australian Biotechnology Association Ltd.