Through commercial application, biotechnology may offer the potential to substantially improve health, agriculture, farming practices and the quality of foods. However, the rapid advances in biotechnology have been accompanied by serious debates among bio-ethicists, consumer advocacy groups, regulators, academics and members of the general public. Public engagement of the need for such a controversial technology is crucial for deriving any benefits associated with the technology.
In democratic societies, public perceptions can both promote and hamper commercial introduction and adoption of new technologies. Public perceptions of biotechnology have received extensive attention in recent years in most Western countries, including articles, book chapters, conferences, a public perception bibliography series, studies of social implications and public concerns about biotechnology and entire books. There have been numerous surveys on public perceptions of biotechnology. The summary report provides a current overview and summary of such work and recommendations for future policy development.
This presentation provides a review of public perceptions of biotechnology in Ontario, Canada, the U.S., the European Union and Australia with an analysis of the key findings and differences. Awareness of biotechnology is high globally but knowledge and understanding of the technology remains limited. Acceptance is limited in all countries, and for most consumers, tends to be conditional and dependent upon perceptions of benefits and moral acceptability. Canadians and Europeans seem to share the same concerns and perceive similar benefits, however Europeans are less likely to perceive direct benefits to the consumer. Overall, Canadians, Americans and Australians tend to be more supportive of biotechnology and its application than Europeans, which seems to translate into increased willingness to purchase products of biotechnology. Americans appear to be the most positively predisposed towards biotechnology, but are the least aware and least interested in learning about the technology. Although public support has dropped worldwide in the last 3 years, when put into context of other food risks, biotechnology is of less concern than chemical pesticides, microbial contamination and additives.
Public opinion surveys have shown high variability in attitudes toward biotechnology with consumer acceptance of biotechnology being driven by a number of inter-related factors. The most important of these seem to be knowledge level, awareness of benefits, confidence and trust.
There is ample indication that the debate regarding biotechnology has "barely penetrated" public awareness (Pollara and Earnscliffe, 1999). According to this survey, the majority of Canadians consider the debate on genetically modified products to be an ideological one between special
interest groups rather than one over health and safety.
The most recent research by Earnscliffe Research (2001) found that Canadians were still supportive of biotechnology and there appears to be some movement towards more tempered views with acceptability of applications considered on a case-by-case basis. They found that interest in the issue is low with only about one quarter of the population involved.
Surveys have shown that global differences in support for specific applications of agricultural biotechnology are based on factors that include a country's culture and history, economic conditions, and government initiatives or responses related to the issues. However, some major trends can be identified. In 1997, Einsiedel found Canadians to be more supportive towards technology in general and biotechnology than Europeans. Canadians also were more optimistic that genetic engineering will improve life than Europeans (Einsiedel, 1997). This trend has continued despite worldwide drop in support.
Results from international surveys indicate that consumers around the world have a primarily negative view about genetically engineered (GE) foods and perceive the issue as one where the risks outweigh the benefits (Angus Reid, 2000). European support for all applications of biotechnology has dropped since 1996 (Gaskell et al., 2000).
Overall support for genetic engineering seems to be selective among consumers worldwide with higher support for medical applications than plant applications Plant applications that are associated with specific benefits generally receive higher rankings. Cloning and animal applications of biotechnology received the lowest approval ratings in most surveys reviewed
Although consumers worldwide appear to have a negative view of biotechnology, when put into context of other risks and issues, concern for biotechnology is relatively low compared to other food safety issues. For example, in several national surveys, Canadians and Americans rated chemical pesticides and bacterial contamination as their top concerns about food (CFIA, 1998; CMF&Z, 2000; IFIC, 2001; Einsiedel, 2000). In all these surveys, genetically engineered (GE) foods were included but were of less concern than risks such as hormones, additives, and irradiation. Europeans have similar concerns. When asked to rate a list of food safety risks that included genetically modified foods, seven risks were rated as more serious, including bacteria, pesticides, antibiotics and mould.
Perceptions of specific risks and benefits of biotechnology are similar among consumers worldwide. In the Angus Reid World Poll (2000), Europe had the greatest percentage of respondents who felt genetic engineering had no benefits, however there was little difference in responses when asked about perceived risks. Primary benefits perceived by all consumers surveyed in the Angus-Reid World Poll (2000) included increased efficiency/higher yields, increased food quality, and reduced pesticides. These benefits are consistent with results from similar surveys.
Unknown impacts/uncertainty and health-related risks are the top concerns in numerous surveys, while consumers also consistently mention environmental and ethical issues. For Canadians, Americans and Europeans, there is a strong moral component to the use of biotechnology from which may stem some of the opposition towards this technology. Recent studies suggest that Canadians are beginning to see the issue more in the context of public health and safety rather than science and technology.
Overall, support for the technology tends to be dependent upon perception of benefits. Health-related and environmental benefits are much more important than taste, cost or production benefits.
As a result, communications efforts should focus on the risks and benefits of each application of biotechnology on a case-by-case basis. Consumer concerns over ethical issues, safety and human health impacts of each application must also be addressed. Much of the information currently provided by national and international regulatory and scientific bodies has focused primarily on scientific and technical aspects of the various applications, which may not be in line with consumer concerns.
Overall, global awareness of biotechnology is high. Awareness is highest in Northern Europe with awareness in south-central Europe similar to that in Canada (Eurobarometer, 1999). Compared to Canadians and Europeans, Americans seem to be less aware of and have a poorer understanding of biotechnology; however, support for biotechnology remains high and has not dropped as in Canada and Europe.
Simple awareness of biotechnology surveys provided no indication of actual levels of knowledge and understanding, nor does increased public understanding necessarily facilitate acceptance of the technology. Many studies have found that although the U.S. and Canada have relatively low levels of understanding of the technology, support remains higher than in Europe where perceived knowledge and understanding is relatively high. Findings from the Eurobarometer (1999) surveys indicated that people with greater knowledge are more likely to express a definite opinion, but this opinion can be either positive or negative.
Current research on perception of food related risks has identified trust in food safety regulators as a primary predictor of consumer support for food technologies and consumer confidence in the food supply (Dittus & Hillers, 1993; Frewer et al., 1994). People who demonstrate low trust in regulatory agencies have the highest concern about possible risks regarding pesticides and agricultural biotechnology.
In general terms, consumers are largely confident in their respective regulatory systems to ensure food safety, with North Americans having the most confidence. North Americans also had the greatest awareness of who is responsible for ensuring food safety. Americans appear to have more trust than either Canadians or Europeans in companies and organizations to provide safe products, except when the products are genetically engineered (Ipsos-Reid, 2001).
The most commonly mentioned sources of information on food related risks are television, newspapers and other media outlets. However, surveys have also shown that these sources are not well trusted by the international public (Campbell & Wheeler, 1999; Frewer et al., 1995; Zimmerman et al., 1994).
According to Einsiedel (1997) both Canadian and European consumers trusted environmental organizations, consumer organizations and medical professionals more than any other source in 1996. In a more recent study, Einsiedel (2000) found that Canadians added farmers and scientists to their list of groups doing the best jobs for society. Canadians have not shown such a loss of trust and have greater trust in universities than Europeans (Einsiedel, 1997). European trust in government and regulatory agencies is also much lower than North Americans¹ with Europeans preferring international regulatory agencies.
How do public perceptions, knowledge and understanding affect willingness to purchase the products of biotechnology? It is necessary to use caution when interpreting results of surveys on purchase behavior. Surveys are generally poor predictors of actual consumer behavior, as consumers often say one thing and do another. They do, however, provide information on consumer intentions.
Einsiedel (2000) found that Canadians were similar to Europeans in that 54 per cent were willing to pay more for food not genetically modified. However, 50 per cent would buy genetically modified foods if they were more nutritious, a percentage that dropped to 34 per cent if the only advantage was improved taste. This is supported by another Canadian survey that found 64 per cent said that they would buy GE foods if they were more nutritious, but only 47 per cent would buy them if the only advantage was reduced cost.
International consumers considered nutrition, labeling, and whether the products were domestically produced to be the most important influencers of purchasing decisions. Genetic modification was the second last important factor influencing purchasing decisions (chosen by 5 to 10 per cent of respondents) rated just below price (Angus Reid, 2000)
Most consumers around the world are at least sometimes likely to read labels on food. There is little variation between countries with the exception being the U.K., where few consumers say they read labels. At least 19 to 39 per cent of consumers worldwide say they always read labels (Angus Reid, 2000).
Recent surveys indicated that most consumers (60 to 90 per cent) will agree when asked if foods produced through biotechnology should be labeled. However, when the International Food Information Council (IFIC, 2001) asked Americans, unprompted, what further information they would like to see on labels, over 75 per cent said nothing while only two per cent mentioned genetically altered. The Angus Reid World Poll (2000) found that when the connection was made between labeling and increased food costs, consumers were generally not willing to pay more for labels.
Overall, labeling seemed to be more of a priority for Europeans, Canadians and Australians than for Americans, who were found to be much less willing to pay more for labeling. Surveys also suggest that consumers would favour non-GE foods because straightforward labeling statements imply that non-GE foods are better or safer.
Angus Reid Group Inc. 2000. Significant Knowledge Gap In Debate Over Modified Foods (Available: http://www.angusreid.com/MEDIA/CONTENT/Displaypr.cfm?id_to_view=1039 ).
Campbell, Y. and Wheeler, H. 1999. Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology. Biotechnology Australia. http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/industry_research/reports/reports.asp
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). 1998. 1998 Safe Food Handling Survey. A Report for Canadian Food Inspection Agency. A report by Environics Research Group Limited. PN 4242.
CFM&Z. 2000. Food Safety Survey. Available at: http://www.cmfz.com/foodsafety/
Dittus, K.L. and Hillers, V.N. 1993. Consumer trust and behavior related to pesticides. Food Technol. 477: 87-89.
Earnscliffe Research and Communications. 2001. Presentation to the CFIA Consultation on Plant Molecular Farming. Ottawa. November 1, 2001.
Einsiedel, E.F. 2000. Biotechnology and the Canadian public: 1997 and 2000. University of Calgary. Calgary Alberta.
Einsiedel, E.F. 1997. Biotechnology and the Canadian public: Report On A 1997 National Survey And Some International Comparisons. University of Calgary, Alberta.
Eurobarometer 1999
Frewer, L.J., Shepherd, R. and Sparks, P. 1994. The interrelationship between perceived knowledge, control and risk associated with a range of food-related hazards targeted at the individual, other people and society. J. Food Safety 14: 19-40.
Gaskell, G., Aflum, N., Baur, M., Durant, J., Allansdotir, A., Bonfadelli, H., Boy, D., Cheveigne, S., Fjaestad, B., Gutteling, J.M., Hampel, J., Jelsoe, E., Correia Jesuino, J., Kohring, M., Kronberger, N., Midden, C., Nielsen, T.H., Przestalski, A., Rusanen, T., Sakellaris, G., Torgersen, H., Twardowski, T., and Wagner, W. 2000. Biotechnology and the European public.
Nature Biotech. 18(9):935-938.
International Food Information Council (IFIC) (Wirthlin Group Quorum Survey). 2001. U.S. Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Biotechnology. Available: http://www.ificinfo.health.org/foodbiotech/survey.htm
Ipsos-Reid. 2001. New Thoughts for Food: Consumer perceptions and attitudes toward foods. Final Report. Wave 1, March 30. Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Pollara and Earnscliffe Research. 1999. Majority immune to biotech health scare: Willing to take risks. Kathryn May, National Post, July 24, 2000. Available at URL: http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/printer/printer.asp?f=/stories/20000724/352505.html
Zimmerman, L., Kendall, P., Stone, M., and Hoban, T. 1994. Consumer knowledge and concern about biotechnology and food safety. Food Technol. 48 (11). 71-77.