Transcript Top Ten Reasons for No Biotechnology
Social Reaction to Food Biotechnology
Dr. Thomas J. Hoban Professor of Sociology and Food Science NC State University
Biotechnology Must Better Meet Perceived Social Needs
The potential benefits of biotechnology will only be realized if society accepts the science and new products as safe and ethical
.
Such
acceptance is not guaranteed.
Social Challenges Facing Food Biotechnology
New food technologies are initially resisted (margarine, pasteurization, microwaves) Most people have limited knowledge about or interest in science and agriculture.
Ethics and emotions play a major role in shaping public perceptions of food Strong government regulations are a prerequisite for food industry and consumer confidence Biotechnology raises complex moral issues that need attention (more so with animals than plants).
We Find Great Variation in Social Acceptance of Different Products in Different Markets
Public Support Varies for Different Applications of Biotechnology
(Includes 35 Countries – N = 35,000)
New Human Medicines Crops to Produce Plastics Bacteria to Clean Waste Crops with Fewer Chems More Nutritious Crops GM Feed (Healthier Meat) Clone Animals (Medicine) Increase Animal Productivity 0 85 10 20 55 42 35 30 40 50 60 (Percent Agreement) 70 68 71 74 73 80 90 100
Environics International, 2000
“The benefits of biotechnology to create food crops that do not require chemical pesticides are greater than the risks.” (35,000 Consumers from 35 Countries) United States Asia (Average) Latin/South Amer (Ave) Canada Australia Russia Europe (Average) 0% 60 59 55 66 15 16 7 44 40 38 14 8 37 37 42 18 44 20% Agree 40% Not Sure 60% Disagree 80% 27 25 25 23 100%
Environics International, 2000
“The benefits of biotechnology to create food crops that do not require chemical pesticides are greater than the risks.” (European Consumers) Netherlands Great Britain Germany Spain Italy France Greece 0% 22 22 34 42 41 39 20% 55 8 37 18 11 10 25 47 49 36 24 24 54 54 48 40% Agree Not Sure 60% Disagree 80% 100%
Environics International, 2000
China Thailand India Phillipines Korea Japan 0% “The benefits of biotechnology to create food crops that do not require chemical pesticides are greater than the risks.” ( Asian Consumers) 43 33 20% 69 62 72 72 18 19 11 11 17 17 18 20 10 28 47 39 40% Agree Not Sure 60% Disagree 80% 100%
Environics International, 2000
“The benefits of biotechnology to create food crops that do not require chemical pesticides are greater than the risks.” ( Latin and South American Consumers) Cuba Columbia Venezuela Mexico Panama Peru Brazil Chile Argentina 0% 47 44 66 64 62 59 58 55 20% 79 16 25 7 16 13 14 8 19 17 26 24 34 37 32 31 26 17 4 40% Agree Not Sure 60% Disagree 80% 100%
Environics International, 2000
EU Consumers:
Things were Finally Getting Better before US WTO “Retaliation”
Europeans’ Support for Genetically Modified Food (Selected Countries) 100 80 60 40 20 0 UK Sweden Spain Italy Germany France 1996 1999 2002
(Eurobarometer, 2003)
European Views on GM Crop Impacts on Environment (Five Countries) GM Crops Pose Risks to the Environment GM Crops will upset Balance of Nature 0 53 62 55 63 20 40 60 Percent Response 2002 2001 80 100
(ABE, 2003)
Europeans Who Report they are Mostly Hearing Opponents’ Views has Decreased 100 80 60 40 20 0 58 54 UK 53 31 45 35 63 61 58 53 Spain Italy Germany France 2001 2002
(ABE, 2003)
Little Change in Europeans’ Knowledge about Biotechnology Cloning Makes Identical Copy Yeast is a Living Organism GM Animals are always bigger Ordinary Tomatoes Have No Genes 0 20 40 60 80 Percent Giving Correct Answer 2002 1999 1996 100
(Eurobarometer, 2003)
Europeans Have Valid Reasons for their Slowness in Accepting GMOs
Biotechnology arrived on the EU market on the heels of mad-cow disease and other problems EU consumers recognize no benefits from the first generation of GMOs Questions remain for many about the long-term safety for the environment and human health Given no clear benefits and the concern over risks, the EU position seems reasonable to their consumers Europeans resent Americanization in all its forms, but particularly when it comes to food (e.g., McDonalds)
US Consumers:
Ignorance Should Not Be Considered Bliss
Trends in U.S. Consumers’ Awareness of Biotechnology 100 80 60 40 20 0 19 92 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 Fe b 99 S ep -9 9 O ct -9 9 Ja n 00 Fe b 00 M ar -0 0 M ay -0 0 S ep -0 0 O ct -0 0 Ja n O Ju 1 ne -O S 1 ep t O A 1 ug -O A 2 pr A il O ug 3 us t O 3
(Various Sources)
Most American Consumers Still Do Not Know that Foods Produced with Biotechnology are Already in Stores 100 80 60 40 20 0 40 33 38 43 36 33 35 19 97 Fe b 99 O ct -9 9 M ay -0 0 Ja n O 1 S ep t O 1 A ug -O 2 A pr il O 3 36
(IFIC, 2003)
Most US Consumers’ Still Do Not Realize That They Already are Eating GM Foods 40 30 20 10 0 80 70 60 50 62 58
No, Have NOT
19 18 19 24
Not Sure
2001 2003
Yes, Have Eaten
Pew Ag Biotech
American Consumers’ Support for the Use of Biotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production has Recently Declined 100 80 60 40 20 0 71 1992 70 1994 71 1998 64 2000 48 2002
(Hoban and Others)
American Support for Ag Biotech is Still Higher than in Most of Europe Netherlands United States France Germany Italy Poland Great Britain 0 10 49 48 34 30 27 27 20 30 (Percent Support) 40 40 50 60
Worldviews 2002
American Consumers Express Concerns over Biotech Risks
80% agree
“Humans are not perfect, so serious accidents involving GM foods are bound to happen.”
74% agreed
“Nature is so complex it is impossible to predict what will happen with GM Crops.”
(Rutgers University, 2001)
American Consumers Have Doubts about Motives and Management
73% agree
“Most GM foods were created because scientists were able to make them, not because the public wanted them.”
68% agree
“Companies involved in creating GM crops believe profits are more important than safety.”
(Rutgers University, 2001)
American Consumers Expect MORE FDA Regulation of GM Food
89% agree
“Companies should be required to submit safety data to the FDA for review, and no GM food product should be allowed on the market until the FDA determines it is safe.” =
Consensus from FDA Hearings
35% agree
“Companies should be allowed to put a GM food product on the market without any special review by the FDA, if the company can show it is as safe as any food.” =
Latest Word from Bush’s FDA
Pew AgBiotech, 2003
US Acceptance of Biotechnology has Dropped – Especially for Animals Insect Protected Crops (1992) Insect Protected Crops (1994) Insect Protected Crops (2000) 51 63 67 22 18 17 27 18 16 Disease Resistant Animals (1992) Disease Resistant Animals (1994) Disease Resistant Animals (2000) 38 54 55 23 22 24 39 24 21 Faster Growing Fish (1992) Faster Growing Fish (1994) Faster Growing Fish (2000) 32 28 23 20 24 25 57 47 47 0% Acceptable (4-5) 20% 40% Neutral (3) 60% 80% Unacceptable (1-2) 100%
(Hoban, 1992-2000)
Transgenic Applications Vary in their Acceptability among US Consumers (based on source of the DNA) More Nutritious Potatoes with CORN Gene More Nutritious Potatoes with an ANIMAL Gene Leaner Chicken with ANIMAL Gene Leaner Chicken with HUMAN Gene 25 39 66 10 0 20 40 60 80 Percent who Find Application "Acceptable" 100
Hoban and Kendall, 1992
Most U.S. Consumers Believe Animal Biotechnology is Morally Wrong
(1 in 4 also object to Plants)
100 80 60 40 20 0 70 53 42 24 6 5 Yes, Wrong No, NOT Wrong Plants Animals Don't Know
Hoban and Kendall, 1992
Why Animal Biotechnology is Less Acceptable than Plants
People worry a lot about animal pain and suffering (anthropomorphism). People love their pets and care about wildlife.
Trend toward vegetarianism and animal rights (especially among young women) Animals can move around once released into environment (concerns over GM fish) Once we modify animals, it could be a slippery slope to genetically modified people. Animal biotechnology sounds bad (“yuck”) The federal government is unprepared for the arrival of cloned or GM animals (which will be met with considerable consumer opposition).
What Images does Animal Biotechnology Imply?
Conclusions and Implications
Top Ten Reasons the World Does Not Want Biotechnology
Europe has seized the high ground in the GMO debate Activist groups have found that GMO’s can be an effective fundraising and PR tool Experts focus on logic and science, while lay public relies on emotion and ethics.
Initial products only benefit the biotech industry and large-scale US farms The US is seen as trying to force feed GMOs to the EU and rest of world
Top Ten Reasons the World Does Not Want Biotechnology
Food industry has been caught in the middle with nothing to gain and much to lose.
Developing countries resent being pawns in the US-EU conflict – need assistance.
People value nature for its own sake and have legitimate concerns about biotech.
Proponents have hyped benefits, while downplaying risk and stifling dissent Trust in biotechnology is directly related to trust in the US government (which is down)
The Public Expects Strong Government Policies
Recent news that FDA will not seek mandatory review of GM foods sends a very negative signal to consumers and the food value chain The Bush administration may win the WTO trade war but they will lose the hearts, minds, and stomachs of many consumers -- not only in the EU but in the US and elsewhere.
FDA review will need to be much stronger when foods are no longer substantially equivalent (but are functionally non-equivalent) The federal government is unprepared for the arrival of cloned or genetically modified animals (consumer opposition could spill over into plant biotech).
How to Prevent Further Rejection of Biotechnology
Recognize that concerned consumers and food companies are already moving toward organic foods Speed up development of crops with REAL consumer benefits (healthier oils, better taste, shelf life) Don’t cause any more problems for the food industry (NO food crops for pharma, consider hemp) Ensure that the FDA maintains a strong regulatory program to ensure food safety.
Make sure all farmers comply with the requirements for IRM, identity preservation and regulatory approval (no planting until global approval)
Points for Reflection
“Sound science” is only one factor influencing public perception and public policy. For many people this is no longer enough. People choose food based on emotion not logic; consumers want and will demand choice.
Recognize that perception is reality. Education about benefits will not calm concerns over risk.
Biotechnology benefits must exceed risks; but few benefits will outweigh moral objections (as with animal biotechnology)