community attitudes to biotechnology … · · 2015-02-03community attitudes to biotechnology...

COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO BIOTECHNOLOGY REPORT ON FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

APPLICATIONS

Prepared for Biotechnology Australia Eureka Project 4001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Research context 1

Research design 3

Research findings 6 Overall awareness and perceptions of biotechnology in the area of food and agriculture 7 Awareness and perceptions of GM food crops 21 Awareness and perceptions of biotechnology (non-GM) food crops 39 Awareness and perceptions of GM non-food crops 43

Conclusions 50

BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS OF BIOTECHNOLOGY

JUNE 2007 | PAGE 1

RESEARCH CONTEXT

Biotechnology Australia

Biotechnology Australia is a multi-departmental Australian Government agency responsible for

managing, with its partners, the National Biotechnology Strategy (NBS) and coordinating non-

regulatory biotechnology issues for the Australian Government. Biotechnology Australia’s goal

is to ensure Australia captures the benefits arising from the medical, agricultural and

environmental application of biotechnology, while protecting the safety of people and the

environment.

Importance of community attitudes

Community attitudes are a crucial issue in the development of the Australian biotechnology

sector. If Australians are not in favour of certain applications of biotechnology, efforts made by

scientists on research and development will be constricted, and a host of potential benefits in

fields ranging from medicine to food to textiles are likely to be lost. There is a need to

understand the underlying drivers of community acceptance of biotechnology and ways in

which public rejection of biotechnology may be minimised - both to inform the public about

biotechnology and to inform scientists of the public’s needs and concerns

The nature of community attitudes

Research has shown that it is no longer sufficient to ask broad questions relating to attitudes

towards, or acceptance of, biotechnology per se, as these measures vary markedly for different

applications of biotechnology and gene technology. Issues that may be taken into account

when evaluating an application are:

Potential harm to humans, animals or the environment

1 This section outlines the background

to the project, and specifies our understanding of the research

objectives


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 2

Regulation and control of the process of development

Scope of benefits: humanity, scientific career advancement, or corporate profit

Potential for unforeseen outcomes to occur

Trade-offs may occur among these factors. For instance, harm to animals may be acceptable

to some if the application can save human lives, but not if it only is for corporate profit.

The need for research

This research represents the fifth wave of Biotechnology Australia’s ongoing attitudinal

research. As such, it is an opportunity to identify and understand any new issues that have

arisen, as well as any changes in community attitudes and their drivers, since 2005. The

increased understanding of social drivers of attitudes regarding biotechnology will be used to

identify differences in the various audiences and stakeholders. Finally, the research will enable

the success of some aspects of the Public Awareness Program to be measured.

The enhanced understanding of community attitudes and concerns that will result from this

research will be used to guide the further development of the Public Awareness Program. It

will uncover any significant changes, new problem areas and priority targets in terms of public

attitudes to be addressed. It will also provide information on the most effective means by

which information can be imparted, and guidance in terms of the conduct of further community

consultations.

Research objectives

Overall, the aim of this project was to update and further develop understanding of the

community’s awareness of, attitudes towards and concerns about different applications of

biotechnology, and the ways in which these drive community acceptance. In addition, research

aimed to understand community aspirations for biotechnology, information sources, and the

success of current public information and awareness strategies.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 3

RESEARCH DESIGN

To meet these objectives, a multi-stage quantitative-qualitative methodology was undertaken,

as illustrated in the following diagram.

A multi-stage research program

Initially, a brief literature review was conducted to ensure that Eureka was fully aware of any

new developments in the area of biotechnology. Following this, a phase of exploratory

2 In this section, details of our

proposed research design are provided, as well as our rationale for

using this methodology

Exploratory qualitative research

Questionnaire design and pre-piloting

Quantitative survey

Explanatory qualitative research

Reporting of findings and strategic recommendations

Review of recent research and literature

Exploratory qualitative research

Questionnaire design and pre-piloting

Quantitative survey

Explanatory qualitative research

Reporting of findings and strategic recommendations

Review of recent research and literature


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 4

qualitative research was conducted in order to identify issues, attitudes, motivations and

behaviours which may have arisen since the last wave of the research. Quantitative research

was then carried out to measure the incidence of awareness, perceptions and attitudes relating

to biotechnology. This phase utilised a split sample CATI/ online methodology. Finally, an

explanatory phase of qualitative research was conducted in order to investigate and explain in

detail the findings from the survey.

Sample

Exploratory qualitative phase

The sample structure for the exploratory qualitative research is shown in the table below.

Table 1. Sample structure for exploratory qualitative research

Age

18-30 years 31-65 years

Non-tertiary Sydney Wagga Wagga Education level Tertiary Wagga Wagga Sydney

This phase comprised of four discussion groups, with the variables of education, age and

location (metropolitan and non-metropolitan) factored into the structure. The discussion

groups were 2 hours in duration, and all participants received an incentive of $70.

Quantitative phase

This phase of the research has traditionally been conducted over the telephone via CATI

(Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing). This wave, however, Biotechnology Australia

sought to migrate the study to an online methodology. For a survey of this length, an online

methodology is beneficial to participants, as they are able to complete the survey at a time of

their choosing and over multiple sittings if desired. There are also notable cost savings.

A split CATI/online sample methodology was deemed the most prudent approach to facilitate

the migration as this would enable clean comparison of data over time. The total sample for

consisted of 1,067 Australians between 18 and 75 years of age. Approximately half the

interviews (n=534) were conducted via CATI and the other half (n=533) were conducted

online.

The telephone sample was recruited using List Assisted Random Digit Dialling (LARDD)

methodology, to yield a more representative sample than the Electronic White Pages (EWP).

The sample was stratified by location (nationally by state/territory and, within these, by


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 5

rural/regional/metropolitan areas) in such a way that the sample was in proportion to the

population. In addition, within each location stratum, broad age and gender quotas were

applied, again proportional to the population. Sampling methods employing a disproportionate

chance of selection were used to deal with groups who were known to be less inclined to do

surveys or more difficult to contact (e.g. males and younger persons) in order to be

representative. Importantly, this approach mirrors the approach of the previous wave of

research, thus ensuring comparability. The questionnaire averaged 29 minutes duration.

For the online methodology, samples were sourced from an online panel, that is, individuals

who have opted to receive email invitations to participate in surveys from our fieldwork

supplier. Stratification and quota sampling occurred as per the telephone methodology.

Explanatory qualitative phase

The sample structure for the explanatory qualitative phase was based on two main variables,

location and level of support, and is presented below. In the recruitment process, participants

were required to rate their attitude towards the use of gene technology in today’s society on a

scale of 0 to 10 (where 0 is completely opposed and 10 is fully supportive). Once again, the

duration of the groups was 2 hours, and a $70 incentive was provided.

Table 2. Sample structure for explanatory qualitative research

Location

Bathurst Sydney (City) Hurstville

Low 31-65 years 18-30 years 31-65 years Level of support Medium 18-30 years 31-65 years 18-30 years

High 18-30 years 18-30 years 31-65 years

In the following chapter, results from the qualitative and quantitative phases are combined and

presented together for each issue.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 6

RESEARCH FINDINGS

This section details the findings from the quantitative and qualitative phases of research

pertaining to food and agricultural applications of biotechnology. Where it would assist the

reader to understand the research findings, verbatim quotations from research participants

have been included to illustrate the range of views typically expressed.

The findings cover overall awareness and perceptions of biotechnology in the area of food and

agricultural, as well those specifically relating to the use of genetic modification in food and

non-food crops, biotechnology in the production of food from plants. There is also an

examination of the response to media stories relating to the roles of genes in human behaviour.

The following points are relevant to the interpretation of the quantitative findings:

Data from telephone interviews (not online) has been used for this wave’s analysis, in order

to ensure methodologically consistent data are compared over time. Previous waves of

research were conducted over the telephone.

Significant trends over time are denoted with a circle (increase) or box (decrease)

A number of questionnaire changes were made to meet the needs of stakeholders involved

in the research. Comparisons over time are therefore only possible for some questions.

One important change was that definitions of biotechnology, gene technology and genetic

modification were provided at the commencement of the survey questionnaire and before

each of the later group discussions. This was done at the request of stakeholders, to avoid

any ambiguity in meaning when using these terms.

3 This section presents the findings for community attitudes and perceptions of food and agricultural applications

of biotechnology


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 7

Overall awareness and perceptions of biotechnology in the area of food and agriculture

Knowledge and awareness of technology terminology

Participants in the survey were asked to indicate their self-assessed level of awareness and

knowledge of six technologies: genetic modification, gene technology, biotechnology, stem cell

research, cloning and IVF. Results for the current wave are shown in Figure 1 and results

comparing the current wave with Wave 4 are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1. Understanding of technology terminology

5950

35 3522 18

32 47

5158

57 60

8 413

721 22

0

20

40

60

80

100

IVF Cloning Geneticmodification

Stem cellresearch

Genetechnology

Biotechnology

%

You know enough about it that you could explain it to a friend You have heard of it, but know very little or nothing about

You have not heard of it Don't know

Base: all CATI (n=534)

Participants’ self-assessed level of knowledge was highest for IVF, with 59% indicating that

they could explain the technology to a friend. One in two participants (50%) indicated an

equivalent level of knowledge for cloning, while just over one in three (35%) did so for genetic

modification and stem cell research. The technologies that participants felt least

knowledgeable about were gene technology and biotechnology. Twenty-two percent and 18%

signified that they could explain these technologies to a friend respectively.

Awareness of all technologies was high. More than nine in ten participants noted that they had

at least heard of cloning, IVF and stem cell research. Awareness of genetic modification, gene

technology and biotechnology was slightly lower, at 87%, 79% and 78% respectively.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 8

Analysis1 was conducted on the relationship between demographic and psychographic

variables, and knowledge of technology terminology. Table 3 below summarises the subgroups

found to be significantly more likely to indicate being able to explain a technology to a friend.

In sum, those who felt comfortable with new technologies expressed greater technology

knowledge than those who did not feel comfortable, those participants who were university

educated had greater self-assessed knowledge than those who were not, and finally, males

were more likely to indicate being able to explain technologies to a friend than females.

Table 3. Predictors of knowledge of terminology

More likely to be able to explain to a friend

Item Subgroup % Total for item %

Genetic modification 44 35 Stem cell research 42 35 Gene technology 32 22

Technophiles (new technologies excite me more than they concern me) Biotechnology 28 18

Technophiles (technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it)

Cloning 64 50

Cloning 60 50 Genetic modification 48 35 Stem cell research 45 35 Gene technology 31 22

University educated

Biotechnology 27 18

Cloning 55 50 Stem cell research 41 35 Gene technology 26 22

Males

Biotechnology 26 18

The question on terminology was asked in the same way in 2005 for three of these

technologies: cloning, stem cell research and biotechnology. Comparative results over time for

these technologies are presented in Figure 2 below. Results indicate that there have been no

significant improvements in self-assessed knowledge of these technologies over time.

1 Pearson Chi square tests were conducted to test the significance of the relationship between variables. This test compares the actual frequencies of the cross tabulation to the frequencies we would expect if there was no relationship between the variables. Those relationships that have a probability of being due to chance that are less than 5% are described as being statistically significant.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 9

Figure 2. Understanding of technology terminology - trends over time

5036

18 18

44 47

58 58

65 60

2 4 6 717 22

54

35

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005 2007 2005* 2007 2005 2007

Cloning Stem cell research Biotechnology

%

You know enough about it that you could explain it to a friend You have heard of it, but know very little or nothing aboutYou have not heard of it

Base: all CATI 2005 (n=1,068) 2007 (n=534)* 2005 Use of stem cells

5036

18 18

44 47

58 58

65 60

2 4 6 717 22

54

35

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005 2007 2005* 2007 2005 2007

Cloning Stem cell research Biotechnology

%

You know enough about it that you could explain it to a friend You have heard of it, but know very little or nothing aboutYou have not heard of it

Base: all CATI 2005 (n=1,068) 2007 (n=534)* 2005 Use of stem cells

Perceptions of technologies

Participants in the survey were subsequently asked whether they believed each of the same

technologies was likely to improve our way of life in the future, have no effect or make things

worse. The results are illustrated in Figure 3.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 10

Figure 3. Perceived future impact of technologies on our way of life

8773 68

45

28

2

56

9

11

5

108

2948

612

18 17 13

0

20

40

60

80

100

Stem cellresearch

Genetechnology

Biotechnology Geneticmodification

Cloning

%

Don't know

Make things worse

Have no effect

Improve our way of lifein the future

Base: all CATI (n=534)

Of all technologies, participants were most likely to predict that stem cell research would have

a positive future impact on our way of life. Indeed, almost nine in ten (87%) indicated that it

would improve our way of life, while only 5% felt that it would make things worse. Predictions

for gene technology and biotechnology were positive from the majority of participants, with

73% and 68% respectively signifying that these technologies would improve our way of life,

and only a small number (10% and 8% respectively) predicting things being made worse.

Positive future perceptions drop markedly for genetic modification (45%) and cloning (28%),

while negative future perceptions increase correspondingly (29% and 48%).

Participants were least able to respond to this question in relation to biotechnology and genetic

modification. Just under one in five (18% and 17% respectively) provided a ‘don’t know’

response.

Analysis2 was conducted on the relationship between demographic and psychographic

variables, and positive perceptions of technologies. Table 4 below summarises the subgroups

found to be significantly more likely to view technologies improving our way of life in the

future. In sum, those who feel more comfortable with new technologies had more positive

outlooks for technologies in the future than others, males had more positive perceptions of

cloning and genetic modification than females, females had more positive perceptions of IVF

2 Pearson Chi square tests were conducted using a significance criterion of p<.05


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 11

than males, and lastly, those who are university educated and those aged 18-30 were more

likely than others to predict that cloning will have a positive impact on our future way of life.

Table 4. Predictors of positive perceptions of technologies

Will improve our way of life in the future

Item Subgroup % Total for item %

Biotechnology 77 68 Gene technology 82 73 Genetic modification 61 45 Cloning 34 28 Stem cell research 94 87

‘Technophiles’ (new technologies excite me more than they concern me)

IVF 88 83

Cloning 33 28 Males

Genetic modification 52 45

Females IVF 86 83 University educated Cloning 34 28 18-30 Cloning 39 28

Figure 4 below presents the results over time for the applicable items in this question.

Figure 4. Perceived future impact of technologies on our way of life – trends over time

82 87

6068

1928

22

56

11

11

75

7

8

5848

9 6

2818 13 13

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005* 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007

(n=1,000) (n=498) (n=880) (n=415) (n=1,044) n=515)

Stem cell research Biotechnology Cloning

%

Improve our way of life in the future Have no effect Make things worse Don't know

Base: those aware CATI* 2005 Use of stem cells

There were significant increases in the proportion indicating that stem cell research,

biotechnology and cloning will improve our way of life in the future. The proportion rose from


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 12

82% to 87% for stem cell research, from 60% to 68% for biotechnology, and from 19% to

28% for cloning.

Support for gene technology in food and agriculture

Survey participants indicated their overall support for the use of gene technology in the area of

food and agriculture by providing a rating out of 10, where 0 indicated that they were

‘completely against it’ and 10 indicated that they were ‘fully supportive’. The frequency

distribution chart (Figure 5) below presents the results from this wave, alongside those from

Wave 4.

Figure 5. Overall support for the use of gene technology in food and agriculture applications today

11

3

6

108

23

10

12

8

3

68

4 4

6 5

22

11

14

9

3

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

%

2005 (mean=4.9) 2007 (mean =5.5)

Base: All CATI, 2005 n=1,068, 2007 n=534

As indicated in the legend of the chart, there was a significant increase since last wave in the

mean rating of support for the use of food and agriculture in its applications today. The

average rating given by participants in the current wave was 5.5 out of 10, while the average

rating given in 2005 was 4.9.

There was a notable increase in the proportion of participants rating themselves ‘fully

supportive’ of gene technology in food and agricultural applications, from 6% in 2005 to 12% in


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 13

2007. There was a corresponding decline in the proportion of participants giving a support

rating of 5 or lower. Only 8% of participants noted that they were ‘completely against it’.

Analysis3 was conducted to determine any demographic or psychographic differences in overall

support. Results are summarised in Table 5 below. In sum, overall support for the use of gene

technology in food and agriculture applications was significantly greater among males and

among those who are more excited than concerned by new technologies. As we would

anticipate, overall support among those who agreed that we should use more natural ways of

farming was significantly lower.

Table 5. Subgroup differences in level of overall support

Mean overall support Item Subgroup mean rating

Overall mean rating for item

More positive Males Food and agriculture 5.8 5.5 Technophiles (new technologies excite me more than they concern me)

Food and agriculture 6.6 5.5

Less positive Natural farming enthusiasts Food and agriculture 4.7 5.5

These questions were also asked in 2005. The results over time for these questions are

presented in Figures 8 and 9 below.

Awareness and perceptions of applications of biotechnology

Participants in the survey were asked a series of questions relating to different applications of

biotechnology. For each set of applications, questions were asked regarding participants’

awareness, perceived usefulness, perceived risks and acceptability of the technology. Each

question was first asked in relation to a general area (e.g. using biotechnology in the

production of food from plants) and then more specifically in relation to the techniques used in

that area. Here, results are presented for the general areas (Figures 6 to 9). This allows for

comparison of the perceptions of the use of food and agriculture with those of other

applications of gene technology. More detailed findings relating to awareness and perceptions

3 Anova tests and Spearman’s correlation were conducted where appropriate using a significance criterion of p<.05


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 14

of GM food crops, awareness and perceptions of biotechnology (non-GM) food crops, and

awareness and perceptions of GM non-food crops are provided in the following sections.

Figure 6. Awareness of general applications

9585

74 70 6855

515

24 30 3143

2 2 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

Using stem cellsto conduct

medicalresearch andtreat disease

(n=267)

Modifying thegenes of plantsto produce food

(n=266)

Usingbiotechnology inthe production offood from plants

(n=254)

Using genetechnology to

producemedicines(n=256)

Using genetechnology in

humantransplants

(n=285)

Modifying thegenes of plantsto produce non-

food crops(n=274)

% Don't knowNoYes

Base: rotated questions CATI

The majority of participants were aware of all applications of biotechnology. Awareness of

modifying plant genes to produce food was high, at 85%, and awareness was higher only for

stem cells (95%). Almost three out of every four participants were aware of biotechnology in

food production (74%), an awareness level just higher than the two other health and medical

applications (70% for use of gene technology in medicine production and 68% for use of gene

technology in human transplants). Awareness of modifying plant genes to produce non food

crops was somewhat lower at just over one in two (55%).

A summary of demographic and psychographic differences4 in awareness of applications is

presented in Table 6. In sum, there was significantly higher awareness of GM food crops and

GM non-food crops among males, but significantly higher awareness of use of gene technology

in human transplants among females.



JUNE 2007 | PAGE 15

Table 6. Subgroup differences in awareness of applications

Awareness Item Subgroup % Total for item %

GM food crops 91 85 Males GM non-food

crops 66 55

Females Human transplants

73 68

Figure 7. Perceived usefulness of general applications

96 96 9183 83

70

2 3 712 13

21

2 1 2 5 4 8

0

20

40

60

80

100



Using stem cellsto conduct


(n=267)


humantransplants

(n=285)

Usingbiotechnology inthe production offood from plants

(n=254)


(n=266)


food crops(n=274)

% Don't knowNoYes


There were high levels of perceived utility for the three food and agriculture applications of

biotechnology. Just over eight in ten (83%) indicated that using biotechnology in the

production of plants from food and modifying plant genes to produce food were useful, while

slightly fewer (70%) indicated that modifying plant genes to produce non-food crops was

useful. Levels of perceived utility were lower for these applications than for each of the health

and medicine applications of biotechnology.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 16

As demonstrated in Table 7 below, an analysis5 of subgroup differences established that

‘technophiles’ (those who agree that technologies excite more than concern them) were

significantly more likely to perceive a number of applications as useful. In addition, males were

significantly more likely to see use of gene technology to produce medicines as useful.

Table 7. Subgroup differences in perceived usefulness of applications

Perceived usefulness Item Subgroup % Total for item %

GM food crops 92 83 GM non-food crops

83 70

Human transplants

99 91

Technophiles (new technologies excite me more than they concern me)

Medicines 100 96 Males Medicines 99 96

Figure 8. Perceived risk of general applications

54 48 47 44 42 37

42 46 48 50 53 59

5 6 5 6 5 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

Modifying thegenes ofplants to

produce food(n=266)

Usingbiotechnology

in theproduction of

food fromplants (n=254)


humantransplants

(n=285)



Modifying thegenes ofplants to

produce non-food crops

(n=274)

Using stemcells toconductmedical

research andtreat disease

(n=267)

% Don't knowNoYes


There were fairly high levels of perceived risk for all applications of biotechnology, together

with high levels of perceived utility. The proportion of participants rating applications as ‘risky’



JUNE 2007 | PAGE 17

ranged from 37%, for the use of stem cells to conduct medical research and treat disease, to

54%, for modifying the genes of plants to produce food. Among food and agriculture

applications, GM non-food crops were perceived to be least risky, at 42%.

A summary of the demographic and psychographic differences6 in perceived risk is presented in

Table 8. In sum, the only significant differences to emerge were that those who disagreed that

‘new technologies excite me more than concern me’ were more likely to perceive the use of

stem cells and the use of gene technology in the production of medicines to be risky.

Table 8. Subgroup differences in perceived risk of applications

Risks Item Subgroup % Total for item %

Medicines 59 44 Technophobes (disagree that new technologies excite me more than they concern me) Stem cells 49 37

Figure 9. Perceived acceptability of general applications

92 89 8476 73 73

5 9 1320 24 24

3 2 3 4 3 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

Using stemcells to conduct


(n=267)




humantransplants

(n=285)

Usingbiotechnology

in theproduction of

food fromplants (n=254)


(n=266)


food crops(n=274)

%

Don't knowNoYes




JUNE 2007 | PAGE 18

Results for perceived acceptability of applications follow a similar pattern to those for perceived

utility, with food and agricultural applications receiving fewer ‘acceptable’ ratings than health

and medical applications. Perceived acceptability was fairly high across all applications.

As indicated in Table 9 below, the only significant predictor7 of perceived acceptance of

technologies was attitude towards new technologies. ‘Technophiles’ were significantly more

accepting of all applications.

Table 9. Subgroup differences in perceived acceptability of applications

Acceptance Item Subgroup % Total for item %

GM food crops 84 73 GM non-food crops 91 73 Biotechnology in the production of food from plants

89 76

Medicines 94 89 Stem cells 98 92

Technophiles (new technologies excite me more than they concern me)

Human transplants 93 84

Qualitative findings

Group discussions shed some light on why, in general, agricultural applications of biotechnology

received less support than medical applications..

The purpose of biotechnology in agriculture – and of GM crops in particular – was perceived

by many to be commercial, and as bringing benefit to large producers and big businesses

rather than to consumers, farmers or society generally. By contrast, the purpose of

biotechnology in the medical realm was perceived to be altruistic and humanitarian, and as

benefiting society as a whole.

The changes that are made to plant characteristics through genetic modification were

commonly said to be cosmetic – in other words, changing the outward appearance of the

product for the purpose of increasing sales, with little benefit for consumers or farmers.

Many people expressed concern about the level of control that can be exercised over GM

crops, particularly once they are released from the laboratory into the environment. The

risks of widespread planting of GM crops were thought by some to be high, potentially



JUNE 2007 | PAGE 19

affecting all members of society through “contamination of the food chain.” In addition, the

process of introducing GM crops was believed to be irreversible. Some commented that GM

plant strains were more virulent than, and therefore likely to take over, natural varieties.

Some participants described feeling powerless to influence how biotechnology is used in

agriculture, with many believing that the information they receive about food-production

processes is insufficient and that food labelling requirements are inadequate. This is linked

to the misconception that GM products are widely available on supermarket shelves. As a

result, these participants believed they were unable to exercise choice as consumers.

Of the three areas of application with an agricultural focus, the use of biotechnology in the

production of food from plants was regarded as the most acceptable – largely because it was

believed to include comparatively ‘natural’ methods like selective breeding. However,

participants generally had very limited understanding of what ‘biotechnology’ might mean in

this context, beyond a general notion of the ‘natural’ (i.e. selective breeding) and the

‘unnatural’ (i.e. genetic modification).

While survey results indicated very similar levels of acceptability in relation to GM food and

non-food crops, it was clear from the group discussions that many were uncertain about what

types of non-food crops might be grown, and did not automatically associate these with (for

example) textiles, fuels or plastics. As a result of this uncertainty, participants initially

regarded GM food crops (with which people are more familiar) as more acceptable than non-

food crops. However, after being told of the possible uses for GM non-food crops – particularly

those with an environmental benefit – there was much greater support for their use.

The following quotes are typical of group discussion feedback on biotechnology in food and

agriculture:

I think if there’s a benefit, like if it’s going to feed the third world or make wheat that grows in the desert, then that’s acceptable. If it’s because you want to copyright your genes and only have certain growers paying you money to get the seed, if it’s about money, then it’s not acceptable to me.

I’m happy if it’s to help out with global warming or something like that, or with medicine, or research to make food more drought resistant or store resistant or bug-resistant if there’s some particular species of frog that’s eating crops … because I don’t want it to be used for cosmetic use – to make things look better, but not any real benefit.

I think the one that people are most scared of is the food thing, because it reaches the greatest number of people, and we don’t know what effects it’s going to have. It might cause cancer…we don’t want to [get in the situation where] we can’t change it. Once the damage is done, the damage is done.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 20

General attitudes towards the use of gene technology in food and agriculture

Participants in the survey were asked to indicate their level of agreement to several statements

concerning the use of gene technology in food and agriculture. Participants stated if they

agreed or disagreed with a particular statement, and whether it was at a strong or mild level.

Participants could also indicate neutrality. The results are shown in Figure 10 below.

Figure 10. Attitudes towards gene technology in food and agriculture

1945 6 10 19% 0%

2028 9 15 27% 1%

1822 13 13 30% 4%

1422 17 12 33% 2%

1916 16 28 21% 0%

1310 18 37 21% 0%

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Genetic modification in agriculture is mostly for the benefitof commercial companies

Plant, animal characteristics should only be changedthrough traditional breeding methods

Australian farms need GM organisms to stay financiallyviable

Australian farms need to be free of GM organisms to stayfinancially viable

Commercial use of genetic modification and its productsshould be stopped

R&D into genetic modification should be stopped

Disagreement strong mild

Agreementmild strong Neutral

Don't know

The majority of participants (55%) expressed agreement that genetic modification in

agriculture was mostly for the benefit of commercial companies, with more than a third (37%)

agreeing strongly.

There was a nett positive response to the view that plant and animal characteristics should only

be changed through traditional breeding methods, with 44% agreeing and 35% disagreeing.

There were no clear views regarding the economic impact of gene technology on farms. Just

under three in ten (29%) agreed that Australian farms need GM organisms to stay financially

viable, but an almost equal number (26%) agreed that Australian farms need to be free of GM

organisms to stay financially viable. There were also similar levels of disagreement to both

these statements (36% and 40% respectively).

There were few who argued against the commercial use of genetic modification and its

products, and research into genetic modification. Twenty-four percent and 16% agreed with

these statements respectively


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 21

Awareness and perceptions of GM food crops

This section presents the detailed findings for perceptions of the use of genetic modification in

food crops. Participants were asked their opinions on the general application, as well as

specific examples of modification of genes, such as by introducing the genes of; a plant of the

same species, a plant of a different species, a bacterium, and an animal. Figures 11 to 14

show the results over time for awareness, perceived usefulness, perceived risk and perceived

acceptability of these forms of genetic modification. This is followed by a discussion of the

qualitative feedback regarding the genetic modification of plants to produce food.

Awareness

Figure 11. Awareness of GM food crops

85

66 65

4126

15

33 33

5673

1 2 3 1

0

20

40

60

80

100


... by introducingthe genes of a

plant of the samespecies


plant of adifferent species


bacterium

... by introducingthe genes of an

animal

%

Don't knowNoYes

Base: rotated question CATI (n=266)

85

66 65

4126

15

33 33

5673

1 2 3 1

0

20

40

60

80

100







bacterium


animal

%

Don't knowNoYes


Awareness of the general application was high, at close to nine in ten (85%). This reduced,

however, once participants were provided with details about the technique. Awareness of

modification via introduction of genes of a plant of the same species and via introduction of

genes of a different plant species was similar, at 66% and 65% respectively. There was

another marked decline in awareness for the application involving introduction of the genes of a

bacterium. Awareness was notably lower again for the application involving the introduction of

animal genes, at just over one in four (26%).


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 22

Perceived usefulness

Figure 12. Perceived usefulness of GM food crops

83 8573

53

29

13 920

36

57

4 5 8 11 14

0

20

40

60

80

100







bacterium


animal

%

Don't knowNoYes


83 8573

53

29

13 920

36

57

4 5 8 11 14

0

20

40

60

80

100







bacterium


animal

%

Don't knowNoYes


Perceived usefulness of the general application and of the application involving introduction of

same plant species genes was high, at over eight in ten (83% and 85% respectively). Positive

perceptions declined steadily, however, as the relationship between the plant and the

secondary organism weakened. Thus, perceived utility for the introduction of different plant

species genes was 73%, and this dropped again for the introduction of bacterium genes (53%)

and finally to the introduction of animal genes (29%).


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 23

Perceived risk

Figure 13. Perceived risk of the use of GM crops

54

73 70

52

29

42

21 24

43

66

5 6 5 5 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Modifying thegenes of plants to

produce food


animal


bacterium


plant of a differentspecies



%

Don't knowNoYes


54

73 70

52

29

42

21 24

43

66

5 6 5 5 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Modifying thegenes of plants to

produce food


animal


bacterium


plant of a differentspecies



%

Don't knowNoYes


There were fairly high levels of perceived risk across all applications. Just over one in two

(54%) felt that the general application was risky. This rose to almost three in four (73%) for

the application involving the introduction of genes of an animal, and was similar for the

application involving introduction of bacterium genes. There was substantially lower perceived

risk, however, for applications involving close species or same species modification (52% and

29% respectively).

Indeed, perceptions of the risks posed by GM food crops were the focus of much group

discussion. As noted earlier, there were some with strong concerns that GM crops could ‘take

over’ the environment, crowding out natural plant varieties and making (more expensive)

organic or non-GM foods hard to find. With many people wishing to buy (or at least wishing to

have the option to buy) organic/non-GM where possible, it was feared that this scenario would

stifle consumer choice. Additionally, the introduction of GM crops was said to be irreversible, a

notion that was of concern for many people.

The difference is once you’ve got the GM crops in place, they can naturally be cross-pollinated with non-GM crops, and you get GM crops spreading because they’re stronger and natural selection takes their own course.

It’s getting to the point where we don’t get a choice, with breads and chips; everything’s got chemicals and preservatives. It’s affecting our children. We


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 24

don’t have a choice, we make our food from fresh produce, which will be impossible to get if they do that.

Once these changes are made, there’s no going back. You can’t change your mind.

Health risks were also raised by many participants as a reason for exercising caution in allowing

GM crops to be grown. These people argued that there is not enough evidence to show that

GM crops are completely safe in all circumstances, and that research would need to be carried

out over many years. With potentially all members of the population ingesting GM foods, it

was regarded as very important that the safety of GM foods is unequivocally established.

With modification of genes in plants and things, you could be bringing in all sorts of diseases that we don’t know about, and things that we haven’t really trialled for a number of years. It might take generations before something happens.

Only time and research can dispel any concerns.

Perceived acceptability

Figure 14. Perceived acceptability of the use of GM crops

7384

65

3927

2412

33

5568

3 3 2 7 5

0

20

40

60

80

100







bacterium


animal

%

Don't knowNoYes


7384

65

3927

2412

33

5568

3 3 2 7 5

0

20

40

60

80

100







bacterium


animal

%

Don't knowNoYes


Perceived acceptability followed a similar trend to perceived usefulness, with positive

perceptions increasing as the relationship between the plant and the secondary organism

strengthened. Perceived acceptability was at its highest for the application involving the


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 25

introduction of the genes of a plant of the same species, at more than eight in ten (84%). This

declined steadily until its lowest point of 27% for the application involving the introduction of

animal genes.

Group discussion participants were asked for their views on the difference between internal,

close-family and inter-species genetic modification (analogous to the survey question reported

above). Generally speaking, inter-species genetic modification was regarded as much more

‘unnatural’ – and therefore to be done cautiously or not at all - than internal and close-family

GM. This appeared to be the case even for those people who were otherwise strongly

supportive of gene technology and its application in agriculture.

Figure 15 below presents the results over time for the four key questions on awareness,

perceived usefulness, perceived risk and perceived acceptability.

Figure 15. GM food crops: trends over time

7685

64

8371

5448

73

2315

30

1323

4247

24

16 4 6 5 5 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007

Awareness Useful Risky Acceptable

% Don't know

No

Yes

Base: rotated questions CATI 2005 (n=537) 2007 (n=266)

7685

64

8371

5448

73

2315

30

1323

4247

24

16 4 6 5 5 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007

Awareness Useful Risky Acceptable

% Don't know

No

Yes

Base: rotated questions CATI 2005 (n=537) 2007 (n=266)

There have been substantial significant increases in awareness and positive perceptions of GM

food crops since 2005. Awareness rose from 76% in 2005 to 85% in 2007, perceived utility

rose from 64% to 83%, perceived risk dropped from 71% to 54% and perceived acceptability

rose from 48% to 73%. These results are noteworthy for the size of the movements.

Group discussion results indicate that much of the increase in the acceptability of GM food

crops over time is explained by greater familiarity with the notion of GM plants. In fact, some

people regard the widespread use of GM crops as a fait accompli, and therefore no longer worth

objecting to. As well, the lack of negative publicity relating to GM crops has led to a relaxation


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 26

of anxiety about the risks that they pose. In other words, since there appear to have been

little or no negative consequences of planting and eating GM food crops, there is less concern

about the risks that they pose for the future.

Perceived acceptability of GM food crops under certain conditions

Those survey participants who indicated that GM food crops were ‘unacceptable’ were asked

whether or not they would find GM food crops acceptable under certain conditions. Responses

to this question are presented in Figure 16 below.

Figure 16. Acceptability of GM food crops if…

38 32 32 31

8

60 66 62 65

89

2 2 6 5 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

If the food waslabelled asgeneticallymodified, in

accordance withfood regulations

If the food wascertified as safeby a government

regulator

If it wasdeveloped by a

governmentfunded research

body

If it wasdeveloped by an

Australiancompany

If it wasdeveloped by acompany based

overseas

% Don't knowNoYes

Base: those who said GM food crops unacceptable, CATI (n=65)

The majority of participants who indicated that GM food crops were ‘unacceptable’ were not

swayed by further information regarding labelling, certification, or the source of the food. The

most positive impact on perceptions was found when participants were informed that the food

would be labelled as genetically modified, in accordance with food regulations. In this instance,

just under two in five (38%) stated that GM food crops would be acceptable under this

condition. Just over three in ten participants were positively influenced by information on

certification by a government regulator (32%), by information on development by a

government research body (32%) and by information on development by an Australian

company. Of these participants, development by an overseas company had the least positive

impact on perceptions (8%).

Labelling of food containing GM content was an important issue for group discussion

participants. As reported earlier, there is a widespread belief that Australians are currently


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 27

unknowingly eating GM foods, because such foods are not labelled properly. As a result, some

people felt they were being misled into eating GM foods that they didn’t want to. For many,

however, it was the in principle desire for consumer choice that was important, rather than the

desire to actively avoid GM products.

It’s the only voice that consumers have really. It’s what you buy.

There was talk about labelling the fruit and vegetables and I was waiting for it. It never happened.

I think that if they weren’t labelling it people would be a lot more sceptical about it. I think if information is out there in the open then people who are more sceptical about it can make their own informed decision. But for those who don’t really mind, [label it] so that they don’t have this really negative connotation about it to begin with.

Group discussion participants were not necessarily convinced that government certification of a

GM crop or food would guarantee its safety or benefit. Instead, a number of people suggested

that more faith might be placed in the CSIRO’s assessment.

Participants were also asked whether the country where GM crops are developed is an

important consideration. While most people favoured supporting Australian companies in

principle, the country of origin was not deemed to be a significant factor in assessing whether a

crop was acceptable. However, they were more sceptical about GM crops developed in a

country where regulatory systems were perceived to be more lax, for fear that the crop might

be unsafe.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 28

Attitudes towards objectives of GM food crops

Survey participants were presented with a series of objectives of GM food crops and were asked

their views on their perceived value. Results are presented in Figure 17 below.

Figure 17. Perceived value of objectives of GM food crops

6958 52

45 4434 29 25

1825

2734

2832

31 33

5 5 8 1013

1719 19

8 11 11 11 14 17 17 21

1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

..to makeplants

droughtresistant

..to makethe foodhealthier

..to makethe plants

pestresistant

..to makethe plants

frostresistant

..to makethe foodcheaper

..to makethe food

lastlonger

..to makethe plantsherbicidetolerant

..to makethe plants

maturemore

quickly

%

Dont knowNot at all valuableNot very valuableSomewhat valuableVery valuable

Base: those who said GM food crops unacceptable, CATI (n=65)

The majority of participants indicated they perceived some value in all objectives. The

objective perceived to be most valuable was drought resistance, with just over two-thirds

(69%) rating this objective as very valuable. This was followed by making the food healthier

(58% very valuable) and making the plants pest resistant (52% very valuable).

At the other end of the scale, the objective perceived to be least valuable was the accelerated

maturation of plants, with one in four (25%) viewing this as very valuable and just over one in

five (21%) rating it as not at all valuable. Herbicide tolerance and making the food last longer

were seen to be the next least valuable objectives. These objectives were rated as very

valuable by 29% and 34% respectively, and as not at all valuable by 17% of participants.

Drought resistance was regarded as the most important objective of those put to the group

discussions, with pest resistance also regarded as very valuable. There was widespread

agreement that any solutions to environmental problems that biotechnology can provide are

worthwhile. Many of these objectives were characterised as man-made solutions to man-made

problems. In addition, drought resistance, pest resistance and frost resistance were all seen as

minimising the risk of adverse events, with farmers and consumers the likely beneficiaries.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 29

We live in an environment that’s changing, and perhaps we have to look at modifying crops for them to still be produced. Because our environment’s changing. Things need to be made more drought resistant. We have to be open to these genetically modified things.

I don’t want my food modified for any of those reasons. Nature’s taken care of things in the past. The only thing maybe is drought resistance because of climate change and lack of water.

If the pests are going to affect the crops and everything, if it is affected by the pests it mightn’t be as healthy. Then maybe being pest resistant is important for having a healthy plant.

Meanwhile, some other objectives were regarded as generating commercial advantage for big

business, but being of less apparent benefit for farmers, consumers and society. For instance,

making food last longer and making plants mature more quickly were interpreted by many as

being ultimately for the benefit of corporations (i.e. supermarket chains and agricultural

companies) rather than producers and consumers, who would benefit marginally if at all.

However, rural groups appeared to understand better the benefits of growing crops that mature

more quickly.

You'd hope that there'd be other benefits that people would be inventing or producing GM that'd go to the general public, for example more food for costs, but large companies don't invest for decades of confidential research and pay farmers large amounts of money to run tests without expecting a return.

Group discussion participants were supportive of making food healthier in principle, but did not

readily appreciate what health benefits might accrue from eating GM crops. Some people

construed herbicide tolerance as meaning that more chemicals would be used on these plants,

and expressed unease about this objective (this reflects wider disapproval of the use of

chemicals in agriculture, particularly among people in metropolitan areas). Others did not

appear to understand what this ‘herbicide tolerance’ meant or implied.

One perceived objective of GM food crops that was raised many group discussion participants

was to improve the look and feel of fruit and vegetables, rather than to impart plants with more

important characteristics. This view was linked to the common perception that GM foods are

widely prevalent, and that fresh food looks ‘unnaturally’ attractive compared with the past. The

following comments were typical:

I remember as a kid you used to get a pear and it tasted like a pear. Now it tastes like chalk.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 30

Tomatoes I know have definitely been genetically modified. Now they look beautiful, but there’s no flavour.

Some participants also raised the notion of genetically modifying crops so that they don’t bear

seeds – so that farmers need to continue purchasing seed from patent-holders.

Group discussions held in rural locations tended to understand the potential benefits of GM

crops for farmers and rural communities more readily than their metropolitan counterparts.

Nevertheless, these groups also emphasised the need to encourage healthy markets so that

farmers were given a fair deal.

Knowledge of GM crops and foods

Participants’ general knowledge of GM crops and foods was examined by a series of ‘true or

false’ questions. Four statements regarding the prevalence of GM foods and crops were

presented to participants, who were required to indicate whether or not each statement was

true. The same four statements were presented to participants in the 2005 wave of research.

Results for both waves are presented in Figure 18 below. The correct response to each of

these statements is displayed in red at the foot of the item.

Figure 18. Knowledge of GM crops and foods

46 46

26 2542 49

34 41

42 48

65 71 3333

4748

12 7 9 4

25 18 1911

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007

Most of the processedfoods in Australian

supermarkets contain GMingredients

Most of the fresh fruit andvegetables grown in

Australia are GM

Most of the cotton grown inAustralia is GM

Most of the vegetable oilsproduced in Australia are

made from GM crops

%

True False Don't know

Base: 2005 all (n=1118), 2007 all CATI (n=534)

FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE

46 46

26 2542 49

34 41

42 48

65 71 3333

4748

12 7 9 4

25 18 1911

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007

Most of the processedfoods in Australian

supermarkets contain GMingredients

Most of the fresh fruit andvegetables grown in

Australia are GM

Most of the cotton grown inAustralia is GM

Most of the vegetable oilsproduced in Australia are

made from GM crops

%

True False Don't know

Base: 2005 all (n=1118), 2007 all CATI (n=534)

FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE

There have been significant improvements in knowledge since last wave for three of the four

statements: the proportion of participants who correctly indicated that most of the processed

foods in Australian supermarkets contain GM ingredients is ‘false’ rose from 42% to 48%; the


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 31

proportion of participants who correctly indicated that most of the fresh fruit and vegetables

grown in Australia is ‘false’ rose from 65% to 71%, and the proportion of participants who

correctly indicated that most of the cotton grown in Australia is GM is ‘true’ rose from 42% to

49%.

Knowledge declined this wave, however, for the final statement regarding the GM status of

vegetable oils. A higher proportion of participants incorrectly indicated that this statement was

‘true’ (up from 34% to 41%).

Improvements in knowledge aside, there remain widespread misconceptions regarding

genetically modified crops and foods.

Results from group discussions indicate that, as in the 2005 wave of this research, there is a

widespread perception that GM foods, in particular GM fruit and vegetables, are prevalent

(although not necessarily dominant – as asked in the quantitative survey) in Australia’s food

supply.

Survey participants were asked whether or not they thought that commercial GM crops were

allowed to be grown in their state of residence. Those who indicated affirmatively were then

asked to state what type of crops they thought these were. This question was asked as an

unprompted question. Results for these questions are presented in Figures 19 to 20 below.

Please note that the sample sizes for Tasmania and Northern Territory are very low and should

therefore be interpreted with caution.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 32

Figure 19. Awareness of GM crop growth in Australia

Are GM crops grown commercially in your state?

40 45 44 40 39 3829 28

1715 20

1631

1324 29

43 40 3643

31

49 47 44

0

20

40

60

80

100

Total(n=1118)

NSW(n=376)

SA(n=90)

VIC(n=269)

TAS*(n=36)

QLD(n=218)

NT*(n=17)

WA(n=112)

State of residence

%

Dont know

No

Yes

Base: All COMBINED, n=1118

More than four in ten (43%) participants were unable to answer this question, an indication of

the low levels of awareness. The ‘don’t know’ responses reached a high of 49% in Queensland.

Among those who did respond to this question, participants were more likely to believe that GM

crops were grown in their own state than not (40% indicated yes and 17% indicated no). The

proportion of ‘yes’ responses were fairly similar across states, including in NSW and QLD, where

GM cotton is grown commercially.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 33

Figure 20. Perceived GM crops grown commercially in own state

28 29

36

9

44

1821

1713

18

24

2

29

2

13

58

5 4 45 5 47

24

73 3 43 2

11

3 2 31

45 4 3

12

4 3 36

2

30

25

16

335

3

0

20

40

60

Total (n=505) NSW (n=180) VIC (n=121) QLD (n=98) SA* (n=45) WA* (n=40)

%

Canola Wheat Cotton Corn Tomatoes Soya Sugar/Sugarcane Grapes Other fruit Other veg

B All COMBINED

Across most states, GM canola was the most commonly cited crop. The exception was in

Queensland, where instead, GM cotton was the most commonly cited crop. Three of these

states coincided with those in which GM canola trials are taking place: NSW, Victoria and South

Australia.

GM wheat was the next most commonly cited crop, followed by GM cotton. The highest

proportion of mentions came from NSW (24%) and Queensland (29%), the states in which it is

grown. However, it should be noted that participants were somewhat ‘primed’ about GM

cotton, having previously answered the ‘true/false’ question on GM cotton growth in Australia.

The suggestions of corn, tomatoes, grapes, other fruit and other vegetables are indicative of

the misconceptions regarding genetic modification of fruit and vegetables. Group discussion

participants were equally mistaken, with people in rural areas mentioning a large number of

crops they believed are grown in NSW (watermelon, corn, cotton, silver beet, wheat, and rice).

Rural and metropolitan groups alike had very limited knowledge of the moratoria in place, with

agricultural workers and people living outside regional centres the exception. No participants

could recall any media coverage of the moratoria or related issues.

There was a general agreement in most groups that farmers should be consulted and have a

major role in decisions on which GM crops are allowed under what conditions.

All survey participants were asked whether or not they would support the commercial growth of

GM crops in their own state. Those who responded negatively (or were unsure) were asked if

they would support the growth of GM crops under certain positive conditions, while those who


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 34

responded affirmatively (or were unsure) were asked if they would still support the growth of

GM crops under certain negative conditions. Figures 21 to 24 present these results.

Figure 21. Support for growing GM crops in own state

50

31

18

0

20

40

60

80

100

Valid Percent

Total (n=1118)

%Yes No Don't know

Base: All COMBINED

One in two participants (50%) indicated that they would be in favour of growing GM crops in

their own state. Just over three in ten (31%) indicated that they would not be in favour of

growing GM crops, while the remainder (18%) said that they were unsure.

Figure 22. Support for growing GM crops under positive conditions

30

34

59

0 20 40 60 80

There was evidence that manyfarmers wanted to plant Genetically

Modified crops

There was evidence that it wouldenhance Australias economic

competitiveness

The crops passed stringentregulations pertaining to health and

the environment

% In favour if...Base: Not in favour or dk (n=555)COMBINED data


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 35

The majority (59%) of those who did not respond positively to the growth of GM crops in their

own state would sway their opinion if the crops passed stringent regulations pertaining to

health and the environment. Combining the results from this question and the previous

question, 80% of participants would be in favour of growing GM crops in their own state if the

crops passed stringent regulations pertaining to health and the environment.

Just over one third (34%) of participants would change their opinion if growing GM crops

enhanced Australia’s economic competitiveness, while three in ten (30%) would do so if there

was evidence that many farmers wanted to plant GM crops.

Figure 23. Support for growing GM crops under negative conditions

12

16

33

0 20 40 60 80

The health and the environmentalimpacts of the crops could not be

established

There was evidence that it woulddiminish Australias economic

competitiveness

There was evidence that very fewfarmers wanted to plant Genetically

Modified crops

% In favour if...Base: In favour or dk (n=767)COMBINED data

These conditions were presented to participants who responded affirmatively to the growth of

GM crops in their own state, or who were unsure. Only a minority of participants would remain

in favour of growing GM crops if the health and environmental impacts of the crops could not

be established (12% remain in favour), or if there was evidence that it would diminish

Australia’s economic competitiveness (16%) or if there was evidence that few farmers wanted

to plant genetically modified crops (33%). These figures translate to 8%, 11% and 22% of the

total sample.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 36

Figure 24. Support for GM crop growth in own state: by state of residence

50 55 53 50 50 50 47 44

31 2724 33 34 39 41

36

18 18 2317 16 11 12

20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Total(n=1118)

NSW(n=376)

WA(n=112)

QLD(n=218)

SA (n=90)

TAS*(n=36)

NT*(n=17)

VIC(n=269)

State of residence

%

Dont know

No

Yes

Base: All COMBINED* Caution, low base

Support for the growth of GM crops was fairly similar across states, ranging from 55% in NSW

to 44% in Victoria.

GM food products

Survey participants were asked to state their willingness to eat a range of different types of

food, including food products derived from cloned animals, GM food products, as well as foods

currently commonly eaten. They rated their willingness on a scale from 0 to 10, where 10

indicated the greatest level of willingness and 0 indicated the greatest level of hesitation. The

results are displayed in Figure 25.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 37

Figure 25. Consumer willingness to eat GM foods

8.7

6.15.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.2

3.7 3.6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Organic

food

Non-o

rganic

food

Food w

ith sm

all amoun

t GM in

gredients

Food c

ontaining prese

rvativ

es

Food m

ade from G

M crops

GM fruit a

nd ve

getables

Meat*

from an

imals

fed w

ith G

M stoc

k feed

Food grow

n with

use o

f pes

ticides

Meat* fro

m GM an

imals

Meat*

from of

fsprin

g of c

loned a

nimals

Meat*

from cl

oned anim

als

Mea

n w

illin

gnes

s (o

ut o

f 10)

Base: all CATI (n=534)* Meat refers to 'meat and other products'

As anticipated, participants indicated being much more willing to eat organic food than all other

types of foods. The average rating of ‘willingness’ was 8.7 out of 10. There was fairly low

stated willingness to eat all other types of foods, including those commonly eaten such as food

grown with the use of pesticides (mean rating of 4.6).

Participants were least willing to consume meat and other products from cloned animals (mean

rating of 3.6) and from the offspring of cloned animals (mean rating of 3.7). The next lowest

mean rating was given for meat and other products from GM animals (4.2).

Among other GM related food products, participants were most willing to eat food with a small

amount of GM ingredients (mean rating 5.2), followed by food made from GM food crops (mean

rating 5.1), then GM fruit and vegetables (4.9) and meat and other animal products fed with

GM stock feed (4.7).

Of note, however, participants indicated being less willing to eat food grown with the use of

pesticides (4.6) than food made from GM crops (5.1). This suggests that actual behaviour does

not follow claimed behaviour.

A very similar question was asked in 2005. Note, however, that the wording referred to

‘confidence in eating foods’ rather than ‘willingness to eat foods’. Participants were required to

respond on a 10 points scale, with the end points referring to greatest and least levels of

confidence. Results for the two waves are presented in Figure 26, but bearing in mind the

difference in wording.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 38

Figure 26. Consumer willingness to consume foods: trends over time

8.3

5.7

3.9

5.1

4.0 3.84.2

3.3

8.7

6.1

5.2 5.2 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Organic food Non organicfood

Food thatcontains a

small amountof GM

ingredients*

Foodcontaining

preservatives

GM fruit &vegetables

Meat & otherproducts fromanimals fed

with GM stockfeed*

Food grownwith the use of

pesticides

Meat & otherproducts fromGM animals*

Mea

n ra

ting

(out

of 1

0)

2005 (confidence to eat foods) 2007 (willingness to eat foods)

Base: all CATI 2005 (n=1,068) 2007 (n=534)*2005 questions referred to 'meat' instead of 'meat and other products'Question changed in 2007 from ‘confidence’ to ‘willingness’ to eat products

8.3

5.7

3.9

5.1

4.0 3.84.2

3.3

8.7

6.1

5.2 5.2 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Organic food Non organicfood

Food thatcontains a

small amountof GM

ingredients*

Foodcontaining

preservatives

GM fruit &vegetables

Meat & otherproducts fromanimals fed

with GM stockfeed*

Food grownwith the use of

pesticides

Meat & otherproducts fromGM animals*

Mea

n ra

ting

(out

of 1

0)

2005 (confidence to eat foods) 2007 (willingness to eat foods)

Base: all CATI 2005 (n=1,068) 2007 (n=534)*2005 questions referred to 'meat' instead of 'meat and other products'Question changed in 2007 from ‘confidence’ to ‘willingness’ to eat products

An examination of the non-GM and cloning related items provides a baseline comparison from

which to work. Results indicate no difference between results for food containing preservatives

and a significant increase of 0.4 for organic food, non-organic food and food grown with the use

of pesticides. There have been much larger increases, however, for the GM and cloning related

items, an indication that there has been an increase in willingness to eat these items. The

largest gain was seen for food containing a small amount of GM ingredients, with the mean

rating rising from 3.9 to 5.2. The mean for the remaining items each increased by 0.9: up

from 4.0 to 4.9 for GM fruit and vegetables; up from 3.8 to 4.7 for meat and other products

from animals fed with GM stock, and up from 3.3 to 4.2 for meat and other products from GM

animals.

Group discussion participants described food from GM plants and artificial chemicals and

flavours as equally unnatural and to be avoided if possible. However, many people

acknowledged that they probably ate GM foods regularly (with GM foods believed to be more

widespread than in reality), and that they would probably continue to do so. In fact, some

participants preferred not to know too much about what they were consuming, thinking that

they would be disturbed by the information. The phrase “ignorance is bliss” was used in

several groups to describe this sentiment. Rural groups appeared to be less concerned than

metropolitan groups about food grown using chemicals and fertilisers, which are in general use

and considered to be safe. Interestingly, some group discussion participants said that they

would prefer to eat GM fruit and vegetables to heavily processed foods free of GM content,

which were seen by these participants as even less ‘natural’.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 39

Group discussions revealed much greater concerns about GM animal products, with many

participants wary about eating meat from GM and cloned animals. For some, GM meat was

regarded as ‘a bridge too far’; these people reported seeking out organic meat wherever

possible. Many referred to Dolly the Sheep, and subsequent attempts to clone farm animals, as

evidence that cloning techniques are not refined enough to produce healthy animals (and

healthy meat).

There was some disagreement within group discussions about whether meat from GM animals

or meat from cloned animals is safer.

My understanding is that to clone any animal you have to get a cell from that creature and it produces exactly the same, theoretically, set of genes. You're not modifying the genes; you're just taking them and saying I want an exact copy. Whereas genetic modification, you're taking the gene, and modifying it. So that to me is a little bit scarier than cloning.

A minority of participants were unconcerned about eating GM meat, saying that they trusted

that government would not allow unsafe meat to be sold to consumers.

Awareness and perceptions of biotechnology (non-GM) food crops

Participants were asked their opinions about the use of biotechnology in the production of food

from plants. They were asked about their awareness, perceived usefulness, perceived risk and

acceptability of using biotechnology in this context. They were then asked their views on using

biotechnology to assist in conventional breeding and by changing the genes of a plant without

introducing new DNA. This section was newly introduced to the survey this wave. Results for

these questions are presented in Figures 27 to 30 below.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 40

Awareness

Figure 27. Awareness of biotechnology (non-GM) food crops

7459

46

24

3852

2 3 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

Using biotechnology in theproduction of food from

plants

... to assist in conventionalbreeding

... by changing the genes ofa plant without introducing

new DNA

%

Don't knowNoYes


7459

46

24

3852

2 3 1

0

20

40

60

80

100


plants



new DNA

%

Don't knowNoYes


Almost three in four (74%) participants were aware of the use biotechnology in the production

of food from plants. Awareness, however, declined when prompted with specific details about

the technique. Awareness of the application to assist in conventional breeding was 59%, while

awareness of the application involving changing the genes of a plant without introducing new

DNA was just under one in two (46%).


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 41


Figure 28. Perceived usefulness of biotechnology (non-GM) food crops

8373 72

1219 20

5 7 8

0

20

40

60

80

100


plants



new DNA

%

Don't knowNoYes


8373 72

1219 20

5 7 8

0

20

40

60

80

100


plants



new DNA

%

Don't knowNoYes


The large majority of participants perceived the main application to be useful (83%). There

was a slight drop in positive perceptions for the specific applications, with 73% indicating that

using biotechnology to assist in conventional breeding was useful and 72% indicating that

changing the genes of a plant without introducing new DNA was useful.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 42

Perceived risk

Figure 29. Perceived risk of biotechnology (non-GM) food crops

48 5244

46 4450

6 4 5

0

20

40

60

80

100


plants


new DNA


%

Don't knowNoYes


48 5244

46 4450

6 4 5

0

20

40

60

80

100


plants


new DNA


%

Don't knowNoYes


There was a fairly high level of perceived risk for all applications, with around 1 in 2 claiming

that each was ‘risky’.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 43


Figure 30. Perceived acceptability of biotechnology (non-GM) food crops

7669 68

20 29 27

4 2 5

0

20

40

60

80

100


plants


new DNA


%

Don't knowNoYes


7669 68

20 29 27

4 2 5

0

20

40

60

80

100


plants


new DNA


%

Don't knowNoYes


The majority (76%) of participants perceived the use of biotechnology in the production of food

from plants to be acceptable. There was a slight reduction in positive perceptions for the two

specific applications, with just over two in three participants claiming each was acceptable.

Among group discussion participants, there was very little understanding of the nature of

biotechnology in agriculture without genetic modification. As noted earlier, there was a general

perception of the ‘natural’ (e.g. selective breeding) and the ‘unnatural’ (e.g. genetic

modification and cloning), but beyond this there was little notion of the techniques or objectives

in question. For this reason, some participants regard biotechnology (in its broadest sense) as

more natural than genetic modification, and therefore preferable.

Awareness and perceptions of GM non-food crops

Participants were asked their views on modifying the genes of plants to produce non-food

crops. Once again they were asked about their awareness, perceived usefulness, perceived risk

and perceived acceptability of the use of gene technology in this context. They were then

asked their views on modifying the genes of plants to produce non-food crops to produce fuels,

to produce clothing and other textiles and to produce plastics. This section was newly

introduced to the survey this wave. Results for these questions are presented in Figures 31 to

34 below.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 44

Awareness

Figure 31. Awareness of GM non-food crops

55 53 50

19

43 46 49

79

1 1 1 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

Modifying the genesof plants to produce

non-food crops

... to produce fuels ... to produceclothing and other

textiles

... to produce plastics

%

Don't knowNoYes


55 53 50

19

43 46 49

79

1 1 1 1

0

20

40

60

80

100


non-food crops


textiles


%

Don't knowNoYes


Just over one in two participants (55%) were aware of modifying the genes of plants to

produce non-food crops. Awareness was fairly similar for the application when used to produce

fuels (53%) and when used to produce clothing and other textiles (50%). Awareness was

lowest for the use of the application to produce plastics, at less than one in five (19%).


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 45


Figure 32. Perceived usefulness of GM non-food crops

70

89 84

62

21

8 14

32

8 3 3 6

0

20

40

60

80

100


non-food crops

... to produce fuels ... to produce clothingand other textiles


%

Don't knowNoYes


Seven in ten participants (70%) perceived that modifying the genes of plants to produce non-

food crops was useful. When prompted with specific applications, perceived utility was higher

for the production of fuels (89%) and for the production of clothing and other textiles (84%),

but lower for the production of plastics (62%).


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 46

Perceived risk

Figure 33. Perceived risk of GM non-food crops

42 4736 36

5349

61 61

5 4 3 4

0

20

40

60

80

100


non-food crops

... to produceplastics

... to produceclothing and other

textiles

... to produce fuels

%

Don't knowNoYes


There were fairly high levels of risk associated with the use of biotechnology to produce non-

food crops, although less so than for the other food and agriculture applications. Forty-two

percent of participants indicated that the general application was ‘risky’. This was slightly

higher (47%) when for the purpose of producing plastics, but slightly lower when for the

purpose of producing clothing and textiles (36%) and for producing fuels (36%).


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 47


Figure 34. Perceived acceptability of GM non-food crops

7385 81

64

2413 17

34

3 2 2 3

0

20

40

60

80

100


non-food crops


textiles


%

Don't knowNoYes


7385 81

64

2413 17

34

3 2 2 3

0

20

40

60

80

100


non-food crops


textiles


%

Don't knowNoYes


Perceived acceptability of GM non-food crop applications followed a very similar trend to

perceived utility of GM non-food applications. Positive perceptions were higher for the specific

applications associated with fuel production (85%) and clothing production (81%) than for the

main application (73%), which in turn was higher than positive perceptions associated with the

production of plastics (64%).

Many group discussion participants were initially unsure of what kinds of non-food crops might

be genetically modified, and for what purposes. In the absence of further information, some

were hesitant to support growing such crops.

However, once it was revealed what kinds of crops might be grown – i.e. for textiles, fuels and

plastics – participants were much more supportive. In fact, the imperative to protect the

environment was generally believed to override any other concerns, meaning that GM fuel

crops (in particular) and GM crops for producing plastics were regarded positively.

You can be positive about gene modification in one area, but you don’t have to be positive about it another area. So I’m more positive about it affecting these kinds of areas, then I would be about food. I’d obviously look at it in a more positive light, but it doesn’t mean I’m going to eat GM food over organic food.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 48

There were slight apprehensions about GM cotton, which participants did not associate with

water savings or drought resistance. Instead, they questioned why cotton would be genetically

modified, believing the Australian cotton industry to be in good shape.

Perceptions of objectives of biotechnology

Survey participants were presented with a series of broader objectives of biotechnology and

were asked to rate the value of each of these objectives. Figure 35 below presents this data.

Figure 35. Perceived value of broader objectives of biotechnology

38

63

66

71

74

77

81

84

86

86

33

23

20

19

17

19

14

13

11

10

15

7

6

4

4

2

2

1

1

2

11

6

5

3

4

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

3

3

1

1

1

1

0

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Lower plastic product cost

Lower petrol cost

Address declining biodiversity/extinction plants & animals

Combat salinity

Help address climate change

(Non-gene tech') to enablefarmers use less pesticides

Reduce fossil fuel consumption

Encourage development moreenviron' friendly vehicle fuels

Clean up pollution

Recycle water more effectively

%

Very valuable Somewhat valuable Not very valuable Not at all valuable Dont know

Base: All CATI, n=534

As we would anticipate, there was very high perceived value for all objectives, with the

exception of lowering the cost of plastics. Indeed, more than eight in ten participants rated

each of these objectives as either very valuable or somewhat valuable. Objectives that were

seen to be particularly valuable were water recycling (86% very valuable), cleaning up pollution

(86% very valuable) and the development of more environmentally friendly fuels (84% very

valuable).

At the other end of the scale, lowering the cost of plastic products was rated as very valuable

by just 38%.

Group discussion feedback indicated strong support for the use of biotechnology in addressing

environmental problems. The most pressing problems for participants were generally those

relating to climate change and water shortages. Indeed, some people regarded such initiatives

as the most valuable aspect of biotechnology.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 49

I think I’m more interested in the things that preserve the earth, than I am in preserving individual lives to be honest, because that’s the future generation. As we get more and more into this thing where we’re curing diseases…we all look at human life as such a precious thing, the earth is a lot more precious and has been around a lot longer.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 50

CONCLUSIONS

Biotechnology in food and agriculture

Survey results indicate significant increases in both awareness of and support for GM food

crops since 2005. As in previous research on these issues, attitudes towards biotechnology in

food and agriculture are on balance less positive than attitudes towards biotechnology in health

and medicine. Many tend to associate GM crops with commercial objectives – although when

prompted (and sometimes spontaneously), people voice strong support for the development of

GM crops that could contribute to humanitarian or environmental objectives (the most

prominent example being drought resistant crops). Indeed, qualitative and quantitative

participants alike regarded environmental objectives as very valuable in the development of

gene technology and GM plants.

A minority remains strongly opposed to GM food crops in particular. Their resistance is

associated with a number of attitudes and beliefs, including a belief in natural (non-

industrialised) farming practices; opposition to big business and the globalisation of commercial

agriculture; environmental opposition to the release of unnaturally modified organisms into the

ecosystem; health concerns about genetic modification in the food chain, and discomfort with

science and new technology generally. Opposition to genetic modification is much stronger

where animal products are involved – including among those not overly concerned about GM

plants.

As in 2005, there is a widespread misconception that GM foods are widely prevalent in our food

supply – as well as an associated assumption and concern that GM products are not labelled as

they should be, and that consumers are being misled into buying GM inadvertently. There is

also very low awareness of the moratoria that are currently in place, preventing the commercial

production of GM crops. Many consumers are more troubled over what they see as a lack of

informed choice than over the prospect of ingesting GM food, which they believe is already

4 This section presents the conclusions

of the research


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 51

commonplace. Stated willingness to eat genetically modified products is low, particularly for

meat and other animal products.

Nevertheless, stated willingness to eat foods commonly eaten, such as food with preservatives

and food made with the use of pesticides, is equally as low as willingness to eat non-animal

related GM products. Therefore it would seem that stated concerns are somewhat inflated and

that actual behaviour will not necessarily follow claimed intent.

Compared to food crops, awareness of understanding of GM non-food crops is much lower,

although there is more in-principle support for non-food crops due to lower perceived risks to

human health in the long term. Support is especially strong for GM biofuel crops, with people

readily associating such crops with the looming fuel crisis and the need to combat global

warming. However, some research participants expressed caution on this issue, arguing that

care (and perhaps GM) would be needed to avoid displacing food crops from prime land.

There is low understanding of the use of non-GM techniques in agriculture, with the majority

unsure what such techniques would entail. Many assume that the techniques would be more

‘natural’ and therefore preferable to genetic modification.

Broadly speaking, it appears that people have become more familiar with biotechnology and

gene technology over the last two years. There is no reason to suppose that the trend towards

greater acceptance will not continue, as these technologies become a more normal part of

everyday life. There is no great public appetite for detailed factual information about how

things are done; rather, people are more interested in learning about the potential benefits of

technology.


JUNE 2007

community attitudes to biotechnology … · · 2015-02-03community attitudes to biotechnology...

Documents