Consumer Views

Printer Friendly

Issue in Brief:
When Given the Facts, Consumers Support Biotechnology

Given the discussion of agricultural biotechnology generated by groups opposed to this technology, it is not surprising that consumer attitudes, as measured by surveys, appear to vary. However, scratching the surface of these surveys reveals that, when the facts are presented, consumers support biotechnology.

As with any poll, responses can be influenced by a number of factors. For example, the way the question is phrased can have a huge impact on the response. A seminar hosted by the Pew Initiative on Food Biotechnology, for example, revealed that when consumers were asked directly if foods developed through biotechnology should be labeled, 93 percent said yes. Yet, when consumers are given a list of new items they would like to see on a food label, only 7 percent indicated a preference for information on biotech ingredients.

The level of knowledge of the respondents is another factor that can skew results. Many consumers, for example, have a limited understanding of agricultural practices, including practices such as cross-breeding that have been done routinely over a long period. A study appearing the Journal of American College of Nutrition found that people provided with science-based information become much more accepting of new technologies. Researchers found only 31 percent of the participants believed biotech crops were properly regulated and 25 percent were confident biotech was unlikely to introduce allergens into existing food. However, following an information session, 83 percent said crops were properly regulated and 63 percent believed biotechnology was unlikely to add new allergens to the food supply, demonstrating that consumer attitudes are influenced by knowledge.

The recent focus on biotechnology also has masked concerns that pose greater risks to consumers. For example, when asked in an annual study by the Food Marketing Institute which food-related concerns constitute a health risk, consumers ranked the health risks of bacteria, product tampering, pesticide residue, eating food past sell-by/use-by dates, antibiotics/hormones in livestock, and food handling in supermarkets ahead of biotech foods, which were among the lowest ranking concerns on the list.

These results have been borne out in other surveys. An August 2002 survey of U.S. consumers by the International Food Information Council found that when asked to identify information currently not on food labels they would like to see added, three out of four consumers said "nothing," and only 1 percent mentioned genetically engineered foods. In the same survey, when consumers were asked whether they support the FDA policy, which requires special labeling for biotech foods only if the safety and nutritional content were changed, a majority (59 percent) of consumers said yes.

This IFIC survey was in line with the results of a 2002 Oregon ballot initiative that would have mandated special labeling of biotech foods. Despite a huge effort by biotech opponents, the labeling initiative was rejected by voters 72 to 28 percent. The outcome of the Oregon vote confirms that when consumers are presented with the facts about biotechnology and food labeling issues, they agree with FDA's existing labeling criteria. Consumers also are aware that the new "organic" certification provides choices for consumers who wish to avoid biotech products.

There is also a split in how U.S. and European consumers rate regulatory institutions. Europeans are much more likely to view the regulatory system more critically. This stems in large part from the number of food and health-related scares that have occurred in Western Europe over the last few years. Examples include bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, in the United Kingdom, HIV-tainted blood supplies in France and contaminated soft drinks in Belgium. Surveys indicate that Americans display a much higher degree of confidence in U.S. regulatory institutions than Europeans do in their regulatory institutions.

Not surprisingly, the more people learn about agricultural biotechnology, the more they support it. The biotechnology industry is working with scientists and educators to ensure that the public gets straight talk on biotechnology. As people learn more about the many benefits of biotechnology and its record of safe use, support will continue to grow.

Resources:

• AgBioForum, Public Acceptance of Agrobiotechnology, 1(1), 1998.
  This issue of the online journal is devoted to consumer perceptions and labeling.
• Barry Bozeman and the Center for Science, Policy and Outcomes of Columbia University, Public Perceptions Toward Biotechnology (2002).
  Slide presentation.
• Center for Consumer Research, University of California-Davis.
• Consumer Freedom, Biotechnology.
• Einsiedel, E. 2000. Consumers and GM food labels: Providing information or sowing confusion? AgBioForum 3(4), 231-235.
• European Federation of Biotechnology, Task Group on Public Perceptions of Biotechnology.
• European Union, "Consumer Attitudes and Decision-Making with Regard to Genetically Modified Food Products," EC-Sponsored Research on the Safety of Genetically Modified Organisms: A Review of Results (2001).
• Fischhoff, B., and Fischhoff, I. 2001 Publics' opinions about biotechnologies. AgBioForum 4(3 & 4): 155-162.
• Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Nutrition, Report on Consumer Focus Groups on Biotechnology (2000).
• Food Marketing Institute, Bioengineered Food and You (1999).
• Food Marketing Institute, Trends in the United States, Consumer Attitudes & the Supermarket (2002). Tracks consumer behavior and attitudes on a wide range of issues that are important to understanding the grocery shopper. Available for purchase here.
• Gaskell, G. 2000. Agricultural biotechnology and public attitudes in the European Union. AgBioForum 3(2 & 3): 87-96.
• Gaskell, G., et al. 1999. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science 285: 384-387.
• William K. Hallman et al. Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods: Americans Know Not What they Eat, Food Policy Institute (March 15, 2002).
• William K. Hallman, Consumer Concerns About Biotechnology: International Perspectives, Food Policy Institute (June 2000).
• Thomas Hoban, Public Perceptions and Understanding of Biotechnology (Selections from Research to Date).
• International Food Information Council, U.S. Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Biotechnology (survey conducted August 2002).
• National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, Genetically Modified Food and the Consumer, NABC Report 13 (2001).
• National Science Foundation, "Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding," Science and Engineering Indicators 2000, Vol. 1 (2001).
  To read the full report, click here.
• Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Polls.
• Teisl, M.F., et al. 2002. Focus group reactions to genetically modified food labels, AgBioForum 5(1): 6-9.
• Santerre, C.R., and Machtmes, K.L. 2002. The impact of consumer food biotechnology training on knowledge and attitude. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, The Future of Food and Nutrition with Biotechnology, Supplement 21(3S): 174S-177S. Read the article abstract here.

For more links, click here.

About advertising opportunities