Most people are unwilling to accept food that is produced by biotechnology
or genetic engineering, according to a Dutch survey of 870 people. On a
scale of acceptability ranging from 1 (totally unacceptable) to 38 (totally
acceptable), people gave genetically engineered foods an average rating
of just 5.6.
Anneka Hamstra of the Dutch Institute for Consumer Research in The Hague
says in her report, Biotechnology in Foodstuffs, that people are most likely
to accept genetically engineered food if they can see obvious benefits either
to the consumer or to the environment. People questioned in the survey gave
their highest score, 7.8, to foods from crops that had been manipulated
to reduce the amount of pesticides applied to the fields.
Those questioned almost unanimously rejected the use of human genetic
material to improve food production, giving this option a score of only
2.5. They were better disposed towards the idea of manipulating plants and
microbes (6.4 and 6.3) than to the thought of improving livestock through
genetic engineering (4.3).
Advertisement
鈥楶eople are very unhappy about eating meat from genetically engineered
animals. They are either afraid it will harm them, or worried about it on
ethical grounds,鈥� says Hamstra. 鈥楤ut acceptance is less of a problem when
microorganisms and plants are involved.鈥�
Hamstra concludes that part of the explanation for people鈥檚 fears lies
in their source of information about biotechnology. Although almost 75 per
cent of those who took part in the survey had heard of genetic engineering,
75 per cent of the 鈥榠nitiated鈥� learnt what they knew from the media. Most
media reports about genetic engineering present negative aspects that are
seen as more newsworthy.
Even when Hamstra provided respondents with positive information about
genetically engineered products, this did not always help and in some cases
it hard ened opposition. 鈥楥onsumers are only prepared to accept improvements
in their food when there is no suspicion of any adverse effects,鈥� she says.
Hamstra believes that consumers may gradually come to accept genetically
engineered food products, particularly if the industry can demonstrate the
benefits of biotechnology in other fields, such as medicine. People鈥檚 acceptance
would also depend on openness on the part of the industry and the involvement
of consumers in discussions about the development of biotechnology.
Louis Da Gama, the executive director of the BioIndustry Association,
which represents British biotechnology companies, says he is not surprised
at the outcome of the study. 鈥業t鈥檚 no wonder that people have a negative
view of genetic engineering when the newspapers describe it as a molecular
Auschwitz,鈥� he says. 鈥楢s time goes on and people get more accustomed to
the benefits . . . that鈥檚 when there will be a change in attitudes.鈥�
Eirlys Roberts, head of the European Research Institute for Consumer
Affairs, says the report raised important issues, in particular the idea
that acceptability depends on a product having demonstrable benefits. 鈥業
have not heard of any biotechnologically engineered food that costs less
or tastes better.鈥�
鈥榃hat the general public feel is that all the decisions are made without
consulting them, without their being involved in the decision-making,鈥� she
said. The industry must try to reach consumers by first convincing environmental
organisations and consumer groups of the potential benefits of the technology.
鈥榃e hope that people will gradually get a more rational view; then they
will be able to judge more clearly.鈥�
