| Genetically Modified Crops
Briefing Paper 19/2003
by Stewart Smith
Extract from NSW Parliament (here)
6.0 PUBLIC ATTITUDES TO GM FOODS
Public attitudes to GM foods are important because they strongly influence the regulatory regime. Stone et al have noted that consumer attitudes towards GM products vary significantly between regions, and that attitudes are influenced by several factors:
- Information available to consumers about GM food, which is likely to vary with health and environmental safety concerns and community understanding of the technology;
- Consumer choice concerns;
- Consumer confidence in food safety authorities; and
- Income levels. 48
The Commonwealth Government Agency Biotechnology Australia has commissioned regular surveys on public attitudes towards genetically modified crops. A survey in 2001 noted that there is a potential relationship between the perceived benefits of an application and its acceptance - the more perceived benefits the more likely the application is likely to be accepted. 49 A yearly GMO public attitudes survey, commissioned by Biotechnology Australia since 2001, found the following in May 2003:
In regard to the risks of genetically modified food and crops outweighing the benefits:
- 54% believe risks are higher than benefits (compared with 51% in 2002 and 49% in 2001);
- 27% believe that the benefits are higher than the risks (32% in 2002, 20% in 2001);
- 19% are uncertain (17% in 2002, 31% in 2001).
The results demonstrate the high level of public uncertainty about the technology, 31 percent were unsure in 2001, reduced to 19 percent in 2003. The percentage of respondents believing the risks are higher than benefits has increased each year, whilst those who believe the benefits are higher than the risks has varied dramatically from 20 percent in 2001, up to 32 percent in 2002, and down to 27 percent in 2003.
The survey also sought the key benefits and risks of GM foods, with the highest perceived benefits as follows:
- More efficient use of agricultural land – 55%;
- Decreased use of pesticides and chemicals – 54%;
- Higher crop yields resulting in less expensive food – 44%;
- Improved nutritional value of food – 41%.
In comparison, the highest perceived risks were:
- Potential allergens in food – 65%;
- Multinational control of food supply – 59%;
- Unknown long term environmental effects – 55%;
- Unknown long-term health effects – 45%.
The survey found that overall 90% of respondents felt that biotechnology would be important to the nation’s future and 86% felt that Australia should be actively involved in biotechnology developments if it would lead to improved standards of living.50
The Queensland State Government (Department of Primary Industries) surveyed attitudes of Queensland consumers to a range of GM food issues in May 2000 and again in May 2002. The results showed that of six food purchase decision factors:
- only 9% of respondents rated ‘not genetically modified’ as the most important in 2000 and this reduced to 5% in 2002 - on a par with environment (9 and 7%) and organics (4 and 5%);
- ‘Produced in Australia’ (33 and 34%), ‘price’ (24 and 26%) and ‘health benefits’ (21 and 22%) were seen as the most important of the six attributes provided;
- When asked how important different factors are in deciding to buy GM food: ‘major health benefits’, ‘good for the environment’ and ‘better taste’ were seen as the most important;
- ‘Price’ and ‘appearance’ were less important factors in deciding to buy GM food, as was ‘slight health benefits’ and ‘a well known brand’ but these last two increased in importance from 2000 to 2002;
- Those surveyed showed a level of confusion about the meaning of the term ‘ Genetically Modified Food’ with a range of answers given and 10 per cent of consumers not having heard of the term. 51
The review by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries noted that consumer related benefits affect the acceptability of GM products. The benefits include factors such as price, quality and purity. Other factors such as product availability, advertising and convenience also affect consumer behaviour toward a product. However, the benefits a consumer associates with these attributes does not appear to be the main drivers of GM consumption, and it was identified that this may be due to risk issues. When confronted with risk, people behave differently. Each individual places their own degree of importance on food product attribute and each consumer exercises a product attribute trade-off with respect to risk. A range of risk triggers can deter acceptance of food products. This risk/benefit analysis is one of the major keys to understanding what drives consumer behaviour.
In assessing consequences, consumers appraise unknown future risks against current benefits.52
The Queensland Department of Primary Industries report concluded:
- Where the risks of negative effects from genetically modified (GM) food technology offset closely held beliefs, consumers are likely to react negatively to positive information supplied about GM food;
- W here consumers are largely uncertain about biotechnology, and where GM foods may have negative associations, addressing the concerns directly is essential;
- Mandatory labelling is strongly favoured by all consumers but labels need to be clear and unambiguous. However, there is no guarantee consumers will read them or react favourably to the information provided;
- There may be many benefits of GM products such as price and health. However, consumers want the power of choice. Separate supply chains may be required to provide this choice. This is at the centre of the debate on GM free zones and GM and non-GM product differentiation;
- A number of companies and countries have already positioned themselves as GM free zones. However, the effectiveness of this approach and the economic advantages and unforeseen consequences of restricting trade are yet unknown;
- It is becoming increasingly important to consider the effects on trade access when devising policies to handle GM food issues;
- For industries willing to accept risks involved, there may be substantial rewards for positioning themselves as pioneers, taking first mover advantage either as GM or non-GM providers. 53
Stone et al in a review of the literature concluded that consumer surveys indicate that:
- There is greater acceptance of GM food technology where it is used specifically to improve foods;
- Consumer resistance is lower where a direct benefit from consumption is easily identifiable; and
- There is considerable variance in consumer responses to several GM food issues, both through time and between countries. For instance:
- US consumers have the most relaxed views about the use of biotechnology in food production, and this attitude has been consistent over time;
- European consumers are more cautious about GM food, and this caution has been strengthening over time; and
- Australian consumers’ attitudes to GM food fall between attitudes held by US and European consumers, with resistance appearing to decline over time. 54
References:
48 - Stone,S. Matysek, A. and Dolling, A. Modelling Possible Impacts of GM Crops on Australian Trade . Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper, October 2002, at 23.
49 - Biotechnology Australia, Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey Final Report , July 2001, at 15. Research conducted by Millward Brown Australia.
50 - “Slight rise in concerns about GM foods and crops” Media Backgrounder, Biotechnology Australia, 17 June 2003.
51 - Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Drivers of Consumer Behaviour, http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/businessservices/11429.html, Accessed July 2003.
52 - Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Drivers of Consumer Behaviour, http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/businessservices/11429.html, Accessed July 2003. See also the work of Wansink, B. & Kim, J. (2001). The marketing battle over genetically modified foods: False assumptions about consumer behaviour. American Behavioural Scientist, vol 44,1405-1417. and Nelson, C. H. (2001). Risk perception, behaviour, and consumer response to genetically modified organisms: toward understanding American and European public reaction. The American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 44, Issue 8, 1371-1388.
53 - Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Drivers of Consumer Behaviour, http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/businessservices/11429.html, Accessed July 2003.
54 - Stone,S. Matysek, A. and Dolling, A. Modelling Possible Impacts of GM Crops on Australian Trade . Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper, October 2002, at 29. |
