Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Geoforum 39 (2008) 204–212

Identifying farmer attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) cropsin Scotland: Are they pro- or anti-GM?

Clare Hall

Scottish Agricultural College, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom

Received 8 May 2006; received in revised form 13 April 2007

Abstract

The GM debate in the European Union has been consistently presented as being conflictual and contentious, characterised as beingpolarised into those who are pro-GM and those who are anti-GM. This is largely based on the positions adopted by the public (con-sumers), non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and industry and corporate bodies. One group largely lacking from this debate isfarmers, and yet their decisions about whether or not to cultivate GM crops will be crucial to the future of the technology in Europeanagriculture. This paper reports findings from a study investigating farmers’ attitudes to GM crops in Scotland using Q methodology.Results reveal three discourses, one inclined to be positive towards the idea of GM and demonstrating an expectation of benefits, thesecond representing a more uncertain position, wary of the potential risks of the technology but likely to be reluctant adopters, andthe third describing a group who demonstrate a somewhat fatalistic attitude towards the issue of GM technology adoption and impact.These findings contribute to the GM debate by elaborating the views of this important stakeholder group and suggest that they may beless profoundly pro- or anti-GM than other groups involved in the debate. This is significant if they represent the ‘middle ground’between the biotechnology industry and the public.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Genetically modified crops; Farmers; Q methodology; Attitudes; Scotland; GM debate

1. Introduction

The GM debate in the EU has been consistently pre-sented as being contentious (Levidow and Carr, 2007),and characterised as being polarised (Freidberg and Horo-witz, 2004) into those who are pro-GM and those who areanti-GM (Scott and Carr, 2003). Cocklin (in press) talkabout ‘‘mediating the debate’’ and many authors refer toconflict (Levidow and Carr, 2007; Borch and Rasmussen,2005) and controversy (Herrick, 2005; Borch and Rasmus-sen, 2005). Gray (2004) even calls it a ‘‘raging contro-versy’’. The debate is described as being ‘‘intense’’ (Borchand Rasmussen, 2005), one where there are contending dis-courses (Levidow and Carr, 2007), and indeed where thereis crisis and a breakdown in reasonable scientific discourse

0016-7185/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.06.003

E-mail address: clare.hall@sac.ac.uk

(Scott, 2003). As might be expected where there is intensedebate, there are widely different opinions, and partiesare strongly opposed (Borch and Rasmussen, 2005). Specif-ically, it has been consistently reported that there is resis-tance amongst consumers (Brooks, 2005), who are bothsceptical of the claims of benefits, and fearful of the poten-tial risks (Tsioumani, 2004). Meanwhile certain non-gov-ernmental organisations (NGOs) have been highlyprominent and actively anti-GM, forcing the biotechnol-ogy industry to largely retreat from the EU market (Tsiou-mani, 2004). These stakeholder groups are usuallyacknowledged to hold a position that is overall eitherpro- or anti-GM. One key stakeholder group largely miss-ing from this debate so far has been farmers. If, as Scott(2003) claims, the stakes are high in the GM debate, farm-ers could represent a crucial player in the game. They arepotentially subject to influence from both sides of thedebate: Encouraged by industry to adopt the new

C. Hall / Geoforum 39 (2008) 204–212 205

technology, targeted by protest groups intent on destroyingcrops, and wary of consumer (and supermarket) rejectionof GM food. Farmers are indeed in the midst of this intensedebate, and an understanding of their potential decisionsregarding adoption is crucial to understanding how bio-technology might or might not feature in European agricul-ture in the future.

There is another reason why understanding the attitudesof farmers is important. Legislation covering the commer-cial planting of GM crops in Scotland is operational at theEU level and Member States cannot unilaterally decide togrow or ban a GM crop. Once a particular modified crophas been approved for commercial release under EU Delib-erate release directive 2001/18 it is the decision of thefarmer that will determine if and where that crop will begrown. Hence understanding of farmer intentions and atti-tudes towards GM crops is central to understanding howthe adoption of GM technology might develop across Eur-ope. At Member State level, policy makers are faced withthe challenge of deciding upon guidelines or regulation todeal with the potential co-existence of GM crops with otherfarming systems in the landscape, and will need to haveknowledge of the attitudes, intentions and opinions offarmers. As Austin et al. (1998) state, in order to designrobust and acceptable policy it is necessary to have adetailed understanding of the motivations of farmers.

Many studies have investigated consumer attitudestowards GM food and crops (see for example, Baker andBurnham, 2001; Gaskell et al., 2003; Grove-White et al.,1997) but consideration of farmer attitudes is, as notedabove, largely absent from the GM debate. Nevertheless,a small number of studies have enquired into farmer atti-tudes and perceptions relating to GM technology in agri-culture. Cook and Fairweather (2003) concluded thatattitudes and beliefs about the consequences of using GMtechnology were key factors affecting farmer decisionsregarding use of GM in agriculture. Chong (2005) foundthat Indian farmers’ perceptions of GM pest resistantaubergine were focused primarily on the expectation ofeconomic benefits.

These two studies point to the need to investigate farmerattitudes to and perceptions of GM technology. Certainly amore detailed exploration of attitudes can be informative,particularly when complex and contentious issues areunder consideration. In these cases Q methodology is avalid approach. Q methodology aims at an in-depth under-standing of the attitudes of some members of a specific partof the population, but is not intended to lead to conclu-sions about the opinions of the population at large (Brown,1993). The approach combines qualitative survey methodssuch as interviews, with quantitative statistical analysis,including principal components analysis and varimax rota-tion. The objective of the approach is to identify a numberof positions relating to the topic, that represent the spec-trum of views among the targeted population.

Originally used in the field of psychology and widelyused in health studies, Q methodology is now used across

a range of social science disciplines and studies, includingpolitical science, investigation of environmental issuesand, to a limited extent, geography (see for example, dis-cussion in Robbins and Krueger, 2000; Eden et al., 2005).The approach can be used wherever the aim is to investi-gate the attitudes and opinions that comprise the wholesocial discourse associated with a particular topic. Of inter-est here are papers that report the use of Q methodology toexplore a range of land use issues, including watershedmanagement (Webler et al., 2003), sustainable forestry(Swedeen, 2006), location of waste facilities (Wolsink,2004), wolf management (Byrd, 2002), and forest manage-ment (Steelman and Maguire, 1999). A number of Q meth-odology studies have been conducted with farmers (Walter,1997; Brodt et al., 2006; Davies and Hodge, 2007) or inves-tigated wider agrarian issues (Levin et al., 2003; Peritoreand Galve-Peritore, 1990). The role of local knowledge offorest environments was studied by Robbins (2000) in aQ methodology study using photographs, and Wilkinset al. (2001) specifically investigated the issue of GM crops.No previous studies could be found that had used Q meth-odology to investigate farmer attitudes to GM crops.Hence the aim of this research is to fill this gap and therebyadd the views of an important stakeholder group to theoverall GM debate. Given that other stakeholders havegenerally adopted a position on either one side of thedebate or the other, it might be expected that farmers willsimilarly adopt a pro- or anti-GM stance. Following CAPreforms in the EU and the expectation that farmers mustnow respond directly to market signals, it can be hypothes-ised that they are likely to follow the position adopted bythe European public, so far anti-GM.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Thenext section describes the methodology. This is followed bypresentation of results, which in turn are followed by dis-cussion and conclusions.

2. Method

Q methodology involves a number of stages, as follows.First, the researcher identifies the area of discourse and therelevant population. Having done so, the second stageinvolves the collection of statements relating to the dis-course. The third stage is the selection of a limited numberof representative statements from all of those collected.Next, participants are required to rank or ‘sort’ the state-ments against a scale (usually agree to disagree). This is fol-lowed by the fifth stage of the process during whichstatistical analysis of the ‘sorts’ is carried out to enablethe extraction of a few ‘typical’ sorts. Finally, these typicalsorts are described and interpreted (Barry and Proops,1999).

The second stage of the research reported here (the col-lection of statements from participants) was completed inspring 2005 (results are presented below). The statementcollection process was completed, in this case, throughthe use of a postal survey, distributed to farmers across

206 C. Hall / Geoforum 39 (2008) 204–212

Scotland. The survey contained 13 mainly open-endedquestions designed specifically to elicit statements. Forexample, farmers were asked ‘‘What do you think will bethe main advantages (if any) arising from the introductionof genetically modified crops in Scotland?’’. A number ofthe questions and their responses are discussed below (all13 questions are appended).

From the full set of over 700 statements (known as theconcourse), collected via the postal survey, 48 were selectedby the researcher to be representative of all views expressedby farmers. This process used a matrix, featuring, on oneaxis, thematic elements that arose from the statement col-lection process (co-existence, crop management, consumeropinion, environment, finances, safety, technology, andoverall view of GM), and on the other axis, the positionrepresented by the statement (GM positive, GM negative,neutral). Each of the 700 statements were assigned to therelevant box in the matrix. For example, under the the-matic element ‘Costs/finances’ one of the ‘GM positivestatements’ is ‘‘I would choose to grow GM crops if therewas a bigger margin for growing them’’. A process of elim-inating repetitive or similar statements from boxes resultedin the reduced number of 48 statements. Depending onhow frequently thematic elements were referred to, the finalmatrix boxes include one, two or three statements. Toensure a balance of views, the columns are equally repre-sented. The final collection of 48 statements is known asthe Q set. As with sampling people in survey research,the main goal in selecting a Q set is to provide a miniaturethat is representative of the larger population (of state-ments) being analysed (Brown, 1993).

The next stage of the research involved face to face inter-views with participants during summer 2005 and spring2006. During the interviews farmers were required to rank(or ‘sort’) the 48 statements comprising the Q set. Thesestatements had to be arranged on a template, against a stan-dard Likert scale. The template of 48 boxes (one for eachstatement) formed the shape of a quasi-normal distributionand the seven point Likert scale ran from ‘strongly disagree’to ‘strongly agree’. The Q study sorting scheme is shown inTable 1. The forced distribution used in Q methodologyrequires participants to place only a limited number of thestatements at the extremes of the scale. In this way, they mustconsider carefully which statements they feel most stronglyabout. In addition, as they work through the sorting exer-cise, participants compare every statement with every otherstatement and thus reveal the relative strength with whichcertain statements are viewed. Hence, what is demonstratedis not just their response to particular statements, but theiroverall attitude to the topic under consideration.

Table 1Q study sorting scheme

Statement rank �3 �2 �1Point on scale Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagreNumber of statements 4 6 8

The next stage of Q methodology is the analysis of the‘sorts’ using a software package designed for the process,in this case PQMethod (Schmolck, 2002). The first stageof the analysis involves correlating every sort with everyother sort. Sorts are then factor analysed and rotated inorder to reduce the data to a limited number of definingsorts, usually three or four, and no more than eight. Thedefining sorts that emerge from factor analysis representdifferent attitude groups that exist within the overall dis-course relating to the topic under investigation.

3. Results

3.1. Responses to survey questions

Here consideration is given to some of the responsesreceived to some of the 13 questions contained in the postalsurvey, in order to provide initial insight into farmeropinions.

Farmers were asked ‘‘Do you think the introduction ofGM crops into Scottish agriculture would be good or badfor Scottish farming?’’. In response to this, 30% said ‘good’and 36% said ‘bad’. The remaining 34% either said they‘don’t know’ or they said both ‘good’ and ‘bad’, dependingon a range of circumstances, such as public opinion, thetype of modification introduced, and whether or not itwas proven safe. The reasons given for saying that theintroduction of GM would be ‘good’ were generally basedon the expectation that production costs would be lowerand/or yields higher. Reasons given for saying that theintroduction of GM crops would be ‘bad’ were commonlythat it would be damaging to Scottish farming because thepublic does not want it. There were also some concernsabout possible environmental impact.

When asked ‘what do you think will be the main prob-lems (if any) presented by the introduction of GM crops inScotland?’ farmers referred to public mistrust, the potentialfor cross-contamination of non-GM crops by GM crops,and the possibility of the development of so-called ‘super-weeds’ that would be difficult to get rid of. The expectationwas that these problems would be experienced first andforemost by the farmers themselves, although some respon-dents felt that consumers would also experience problemsarising from GM. In a small number of cases the responsewas that everyone or the whole food chain would experi-ence problems arising from the introduction of GM. Farm-ers were also asked what they thought the main advantageswould be and responded that these would likely be lowerproduction costs, less chemical use and higher yields. Ben-eficiaries were expected to be the supermarkets but also

0 +1 +2 +3e Neutral/No opinion Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree

12 8 6 4

Table 2Eigenvalues and variance explained

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Eigenvalues 4.9289 2.4491 1.1901% expl.Var. 33 16 8

C. Hall / Geoforum 39 (2008) 204–212 207

growers and plant breeders, and in some cases, consumers,through cheaper food.

An issue that frequently arises in public debates or sur-veys about GM crops is the potential impact on the envi-ronment, including farmland wildlife and biodiversity.For example, 91% of people who completed questionnairesas part of the UK-wide ‘GM Nation’ debate agreed withthe statement ‘‘I am concerned about the potential negativeimpact of GM crops on the environment’’ (Heller, 2003).However, when the farmers were asked ‘how do you thinkGM crops might impact on farmland wildlife (if at all)?’responses included ‘‘no impacts’’, ‘‘don’t know’’, ‘‘cannotforesee any’’, ‘‘wildlife is adaptable’’ and ‘‘will benefit wild-life if less chemicals are used’’. Overall, 37% of farmerscommented that they did not think there would be any sig-nificant impact on wildlife, or indeed that the impact wouldbe beneficial. 45% of respondents stated that they did notknow how GM might impact on wildlife or they said thatit could be good or bad, and only 18% were sure that theimpact would be bad. Apparently the farmers in this surveydo not share the same level of concern about the potentialimpacts of GM crops on the environment and biodiversityas the general public.

While these responses tell us something about farmerattitudes, the use of Q methodology provides the opportu-nity to conduct a more structured analysis of opinions.These results are reported next.

4. Results from Q sorting

As noted above, a sample of 48 statements were selectedfrom those collected via the postal survey, using a samplingmatrix. These 48 statements were then printed onto indi-vidual cards and presented to 15 farmers during farm inter-views, for ranking against a Likert scale. The rankedstatements formed each farmer’s Q sort. The Q sorts col-lected during the farm visits formed the basic unit of datafor analysis. The initial stage of the analysis was the con-struction of a correlation matrix of all the sorts. This is use-ful as it provides an indication of patterns of similaritybetween sorts. The Q sorts were then factor analysed, usingPrincipal Components Analysis (PCA). In this process thecorrelation matrix was examined to determine how manydifferent families or groups (factors) existed. Hence thepurpose of factor analysis was to determine if there was asmaller number of Q sorts that constituted patterns of dis-course among the participants. Q sorts that were highlycorrelated with one another could be said to have a ‘family’resemblance, and those belonging to one group were highlycorrelated with one another but uncorrelated with the sortsin other groups (Brown, 1993).

After conducting PCA an initial set of ‘factor loadings’were derived for each of the Q sorts. The loadings showedthe extent to which each Q sort was associated with eachfactor. The original set of eight factors (the default settingin PQMethod) was of interest only to the extent that it pro-vided the basis for investigating the factors further. The

next stage of Q methodology is to rotate factors (usingvarimax rotation) to ‘‘find the simplest structure in the datathat can explain the greatest amount of variability’’ (Swe-deen, 2006). In this study rotation was conducted fourtimes, on two, three, four and five factors. The three factorsolution was the one that provided the most coherentexplanation of the sorts, hence the study reveals three fac-tor groups. Eigenvalues and percentage variance explainedby each factor are as shown in Table 2.

To interpret these three factors factor scores were used.A factor score is the score for a statement that is an averageof the scores given to that statement by all of the Q sortsassociated with the factor. Hence factor scores werederived by taking the factor loadings of the sorts andweighting them to account for the fact that some were clo-ser approximations of the factor than others. The weightswere elicited by dividing each factor loading by 1 minusthe square of the factor loading. The sort with the highestfactor loading was given the most weight (0.75/(1 � 0.752)) = 1.70. Weighted scores were calculated inPQMethod for all 48 statements, based on how each sortassociated with the factor scored that statement in the ori-ginal sorting procedure. For convenience, the statementswere returned to the original Q sort format, such that thefour statements with the highest weighted composites wereassigned +3, the next six highest assigned +2 and so on.

As noted above, analysis of the Q sorts revealed threefactors and the converted factor scores were then used tointerpret how the statements were ranked both withinand between factors. The factor scores identified whichstatements had some degree of common ranking across fac-tors, and which ones had a high degree of disagreementbetween factors. Differences of two or more between factorscores can be considered significant (Brown, 1993). Usingconverted factor scores helped to identify which statementstypify a particular factor. The 48 statements with their fac-tor scores are shown in Table 3. These results are discussedbelow.

5. Discussion of results

5.1. Factor 1 – benefit believers

The results presented in Table 3 suggest that factor 1represents a position that is inclined to be positive towardsthe idea of GM. The factor does not appear to be ada-mantly pro-GM but importantly is not as cautious towardsthe technology as factor 2 or as fatalistic as factor 3. Thisfactor demonstrates some concern about safety, recognis-ing that it needs to be proven to be safe (statement 4,

Table 3Factor Q sort values for each statement

Statement Factor 1 score Factor 2 score Factor 3 score

1. Problems arising from the introduction of GM crops would impact on farmers as they are perceived as being custodians of land and areeasiest to target

1 2 1

2. I don’t know how GM crops might impact on farmland wildlife but wildlife is pretty adaptable 0 �2 �23. Problems arising from the introduction of GM crops would impact on the environment, that in turn affects everyone and everything �1 1 �24. If proven ‘safe’ the introduction of genetically modified crops into Scottish agriculture would be good for Scottish farming 3 0 �15. I don’t believe there is any difference in quality/safety of eating either GM or non-GM so cross-contamination would not be a problem 1 �2 �26. I might be encouraged to grow GM crops by clearly demonstrated advantages and no long or short term risks to environment 3 1 37. It would be better if Scotland is seen to be GM-free �2 1 08. I can’t say what factors might encourage me to grow GM crops – it will depend on the features produced by the GM and which crop it is 1 0 29. If a farm nearby decided to grow genetically modified crops I would not be happy as I would not want my soil contaminated with GM

pollen. I should have the right to decide what happens on my land�3 0 1

10. I would not choose to grow GM crops because crops grown in countries which are completely GM-free may get higher prices due toconsumer demand

�2 2 0

11. I would choose to grow GM crops because technology should be embraced 1 1 �212. The main problem that would arise from the introduction of genetically modified crops in Scotland would be that it would reinforce the

existence of input-dependent industrial agriculture�1 �1 �1

13. I cannot understand the argument about contamination of GM crops – cross pollination or contamination are emotive words and wehave always accepted it

0 �2 �3

14. The only advantage I can see from introducing GM crops would be being able to produce a crop at a lower cost, but this, as with all cropmarketing, will just force us to take a lower price

0 �1 �1

15. The introduction of GM crops in Scotland should benefit wildlife because there is the potential for less spray to be needed 1 �1 116. Personally I can see no reason for not having GM crops other than the problem of bad publicity 2 �1 �217. I am not sure whether the introduction of genetically modified crops into Scottish agriculture would be good or bad for Scottish farming

but until the public is in favour of GM crops they are a non-starter0 3 0

18. Problems arising from the introduction of GM crops would impact on farmers who will have fields of crops they cannot get rid of �1 �1 �119. All growers would benefit if GM crops were introduced to Scotland 0 �2 �320. I would be discouraged from growing GM crops by the risk of having groups of objectors arriving on our farm 0 0 �121. We have already seen a reduction in wildlife species due to natural habitat loss – GM crops would exacerbate this problem 0 �2 �122. I would choose to grow GM crops if there was a bigger margin for growing them 1 �3 223. I would not choose to grow GM crops because the risks are unknown and future generations should not be put at risk �3 2 024. I don’t know who would benefit if GM crops were introduced in Scotland �1 0 325. I might be encouraged to grow GM crops by the fact that the modified plants may be easier to treat for mildew and many of our common

everyday problems2 0 0

26. I don’t know if I would choose to grow GM crops. It would depend on press coverage �2 0 127. The existence of both genetically modified crops and non-genetically modified crops in Scotland would mean that the natural, good food

image of Scotland would be jeopardised�1 2 0

28. The introduction of genetically modified crops into Scottish agriculture would be good for Scottish farming in as much as it may reducecosts of growing them

2 �2 2

29. I don’t believe there would be any problems arising from the existence of both genetically modified crops and non-genetically modifiedcrops in Scotland

1 �3 �3

30. The existence of both GM & non-GM crops would lead to problems for the purity of non-GM product but this is only relevant if amarket continues to exist for guaranteed non-GM produce and that may become doubtful

0 0 3

31. The existence of both genetically modified crops and non-genetically modified crops in Scotland would lead to cross pollination and thismust not be allowed to happen

�2 0 0

32. I do not think contamination of non-GM crops by GM crops can be prevented and it would just have to be accepted 0 �3 133. In future we may be able to grow GM crops for specific purposes or in conditions other than their natural environments which could be an

advantage1 0 1

208C

.H

all

/G

eofo

rum

39

(2

00

8)

20

4–

21

2

34.

Do

n’t

intr

od

uce

GM

cro

ps

–w

ear

ean

isla

nd

,w

em

ayb

eab

leto

trad

ew

orl

dw

ide

on

ou

rG

M-f

ree

stat

us

�3

32

35.

Im

igh

tb

een

cou

rage

dto

gro

wG

Mcr

op

sw

hen

ever

yo

ne

else

isan

dth

ep

rofi

tab

ilit

yo

fth

ecr

op

mak

eit

nec

essa

ryto

gow

ith

the

tid

e0

30

36.

Id

on

’tth

ink

ther

eis

any

nee

dfo

rge

net

ical

lym

od

ified

cro

ps

asw

ear

est

rugg

lin

gto

get

ad

ecen

tp

rice

for

wh

atw

egr

ow

�3

10

37.

Inte

rfer

ence

fro

mac

tivi

sts

totr

ial

cro

ps

sho

uld

be

dea

ltw

ith

seve

rely

inth

ela

wco

urt

sas

the

acti

vist

sar

eo

nly

hin

der

ing

the

inte

rest

so

fm

ank

ind

3�

2�

1

38.

Im

igh

tb

een

cou

rage

dto

gro

wG

Mcr

op

sif

ther

ew

asd

eman

dfr

om

con

sum

ers

22

039

.T

he

intr

od

uct

ion

of

gen

etic

ally

mo

difi

edcr

op

sin

toS

cott

ish

agri

cult

ure

wo

uld

be

goo

dfo

rS

cott

ish

farm

ing

pro

vid

edth

eco

rrec

tch

arac

teri

stic

sar

ein

tro

du

ced

,e.

g.d

isea

seco

ntr

ol

31

3

40.

Ith

ink

the

intr

od

uct

ion

of

gen

etic

ally

mo

difi

edcr

op

sin

toS

cott

ish

agri

cult

ure

wo

uld

be

bad

for

Sco

ttis

hfa

rmin

gb

ut

on

lyb

ecau

seth

ep

ub

lic

per

ceiv

eit

asb

ad0

30

41.

I’m

no

tsu

reif

the

intr

od

uct

ion

of

GM

cro

ps

isli

kel

yto

be

ap

rob

lem

bu

tth

ere

may

be

ap

rob

lem

wit

hth

esu

rro

un

din

gen

viro

nm

ent,

i.e.

inse

cts,

bir

ds

and

wil

dli

fe�

12

�3

42.

Id

on

’tk

no

wif

Iw

ou

ldch

oo

seto

gro

wG

Mcr

op

sb

ecau

seI

stil

ln

eed

tob

eco

nvi

nce

dit

issa

fean

dn

ot

just

com

mer

cial

�2

12

43.

Co

nta

min

atio

no

fn

on

-GM

cro

ps

by

GM

cro

ps

sho

uld

be

dea

ltw

ith

by

cro

pd

estr

uct

ion

�2

0�

244

.If

on

ly‘n

atu

ral’

gen

esar

ead

ded

toG

Mp

lan

tsth

enit

’so

kb

ut

ifit

invo

lves

usi

ng

gen

esfr

om

ad

iffer

ent

spec

ies

then

it’s

no

to

k0

�1

145

.T

her

ew

ou

ldb

eve

ryfe

wad

van

tage

sto

the

farm

erfr

om

the

intr

od

uct

ion

of

GM

cro

ps

inS

cotl

and

bu

tif

an

itro

gen

fixi

ng

gen

eco

uld

be

imp

lan

ted

ince

real

s,to

geth

erw

ith

dis

ease

resi

stan

ceth

enlo

ng

term

secu

rity

of

foo

dsu

pp

lyw

ith

low

oil

-bas

edin

pu

tsco

uld

be

guar

ante

ed2

12

46.

Far

mer

sw

ou

ldb

enefi

tfr

om

low

erco

sts

and

incr

ease

dyi

eld

sif

GM

cro

ps

wer

ein

tro

du

ced

inS

cotl

and

2�

10

47.

Id

on

’tth

ink

ther

eis

ap

lace

for

bo

thG

Mcr

op

san

dn

on

-GM

cro

ps

–it

wil

lh

ave

tob

eei

ther

on

eo

rth

eo

ther

�1

�3

�1

48.

Intr

od

uci

ng

GM

cro

ps

may

mea

nm

ore

attr

acti

ve-l

oo

kin

gp

rod

uct

sli

ke

bri

ght

red

smo

oth

tom

ato

es,

alth

ou

ghth

ism

ayp

ut

bu

yers

off

bec

ause

they

wil

llo

ok

asif

they

are

GM

and

no

tn

atu

ral

�1

01

C. Hall / Geoforum 39 (2008) 204–212 209

converted factor score +3) but this does not mean thatfarmers in this factor are likely to be hesitant to adoptthe technology because of safety fears (42,�2). Over andabove considerations of safety this factor sees the potentialtechnological advantages of GM (46, +2;25,+2). The posi-tion presented by factor 1 does not see any difference in thequality or safety of GM food compared to conventionallyproduced food (5,+1). In fact, this factor is not concernedabout other farmers growing GM crops nearby (9,�3), thepotential of cross-contamination (31,�2), or potentialfuture risks (23,�3). Farmers in this factor are also likelyto be unconcerned about the impact on wildlife (41,�1).

This factor could be said to describe optimists, thosewho tend not to be risk-averse, or perhaps even thosewho are irresponsible risk-takers, depending on interpreta-tion. Those represented by this factor believe farmerswould benefit from lower costs and increased yields(46,+2) but do not expect it to be a magic formula forall farmers (19, 0). It is likely that those in this factor aregenerally more inclined to be technology-adopters andwhile recognising that safety may be an issue with newtechnologies, are far more inclined to believe that thepotential benefits are likely to outweigh any potential risks.It is likely that this position would refer to any new tech-nology, suggesting that to factor 1, GM technology is littledifferent to any other agricultural development. In line withtheir largely pro-technology stance, farmers represented bythis factor believe that protesters should be dealt with bythe courts (37, +3), presumably as they are hindering tech-nology development. Neither do they see any purpose inremaining GM-free as an island, as this is unlikely to pro-vide any competitive advantage (10,�2;34,�3). Indeed dis-cussions during farm interviews revealed that some farmersbelieve that the longer this country remains GM-free thegreater likelihood that the UK will find itself in a compet-itively disadvantaged position.

5.2. Factor 2 – risk perceivers

The position represented by this factor is much lessinclined than factor 1 to be supportive of GM but is notnecessarily anti-GM (6, +1). The factor group is certainlyconcerned about the potential risks (23, +2;41,+2;3,+1)and is much less sure of the possible benefits than Factor1 (19,�2;46,�1). Importantly, unlike factor 1, this factorsees that being GM-free could be an advantage (10,+2).The position represented by this factor also shows recogni-tion of and concern about public reaction and consumerdemand (17,+3;40,+3). Overall, the position representedby this factor is one that demonstrates much more concernabout the potential risks than factor 1 and is also less con-vinced that GM will inevitably play a role in the future offarming in Scotland. Farmers in this group are likely to bereluctant adopters (if at all) (35, +3) and would probablybe more willing to consider other options, such as GM-free,recognising that consumers may prefer this and be willingto pay for it (10, +2).

210 C. Hall / Geoforum 39 (2008) 204–212

5.3. Factor 3 – fatalists

Factor three results describe a somewhat fatalistic atti-tude towards GM technology and the problems that itmight create (32, +1). They demonstrate uncertaintyabout who might benefit (24, +3) and what might leadthem to adopt the technology (8,+2). They are some-what cynical about the idea of a lasting market forGM-free produce, assuming that the public will eventu-ally accept it (30, +3). They appear to be unconcernedabout the idea of protesters arriving on their farm shouldthey grow GM crops (20,�1). They also appear to beunconcerned about the possibility of risk to wildlife(41,�3). Equally, however, they do not believe that allfarmers would benefit (19,�3) and are unlikely to goahead and adopt GM simply in the name of technologydevelopment (11,�2). Overall this group appears to holda somewhat cynical view of the world, not demonstratinga particularly strong viewpoint either in favour oragainst GM, and suggesting a position that believes whatwill be will be.

5.4. Consensus statements

Although the factors clearly represent different posi-tions, there are a number of points of consensus betweenthem. The consensus statements represent the pragmaticfarmer viewpoint that they all share. Hence, they all agreethat the technology is acceptable as another technologicaldevelopment if it is shown to be beneficial and without riskto the environment (statement 6; converted factor scores 3,1, 3). Also, they all foresee that the farmer would beimpacted by and blamed for any problems that arose(1;1,2,1). Further, they agree that genetic modificationmay offer a solution to common agricultural challenges(i.e. nitrogen fixation) (45; 2,1,2). None of them agree thatGM technology would reinforce ‘input-dependent indus-trial agriculture’ (12,all �1) and they also all disagree thatfarmers might end up with fields of crops that they cannotsell (18,all �1). All of these consensus statements appear tobe grounded in practical farming experience and it is there-fore this common experience that binds together the farm-ers represented by the different factors. They all operate inthe same ‘real-world’.

Overall, in line with many responses to the questions inthe postal survey, all factors demonstrate a circumspectapproach to the possibility of introducing GM crops. Theyare differentiated by the degree of caution and concernabout potential risks and the expectation of potential ben-efits. Factor 1 describes a discourse that is less risk averse,more pro-technology, and more sure of the benefits likelyto be realised through GM technology. Factor 2 describesa discourse that is less certain of the potential benefits andmore open to other possibilities for the future of farming.Factor 3 suggests a position that is largely fatalistic, cer-tainly not ignorant of potential risks and benefits but notleaning in any particular direction.

6. Conclusions

Results suggest that farmers involved in this study areconcerned about a range of issues that might arise fromthe introduction of GM crops, and have good awarenessof the potential risks and benefits. There are a number ofissues that appear to unite the farmers. First, in manycases it is the reaction of the public and the need fordemand for GM products that is recognised as beingkey. This supports the hypothesis that the positionadopted by farmers towards GM crops is likely to followthat of the general public. Second, there is significantawareness and understanding of potential risks and ben-efits amongst all farmers surveyed. Third, there is under-standing that GM technology may provide practicalsolutions to agricultural challenges. The overriding sensetherefore is that if these three criteria are satisfied – ifthere is public acceptance and consumer demand, the‘right’ balance of risk and benefit, and technologically‘useful’ solutions, then GM crops in Scotland will beno bad thing. What remains to be resolved therefore iswhat the correct balance of risk and benefit might be,and whether in fact the public will continue to be con-cerned about the issue.

Despite these areas of common interest the overallresults from the study demonstrate that there are a vari-ety of views towards GM crops. As discussed, the Qmethodology analysis reveals three discourses, oneinclined to be positive towards the idea of GM, and dem-onstrating a belief in the benefits to be offered by newtechnology, another more inclined to be opposed andconcerned about a range of potential risks, and the thirddemonstrating a somewhat fatalistic attitude towards GMtechnology development. However, in line with responsesto the questions in the postal survey and the discussionsduring the farm interviews, none of the factor groupsdemonstrate a clear commitment to being either pro-GM or anti-GM, opting instead for a much more prag-matic stance.

As a unique stakeholder group in the GM debate thefarmers involved in this study do not appear to occupyone extreme position in the way that most other groupshave been portrayed as doing (see for example, Brooks,2005). They are apparently willing to wait, either to beconvinced of the benefits of the technology, perhaps bythe biotechnology companies or more likely the experi-ence of other farmers, or to be convinced that the poten-tial risks, perhaps related to a backlash from consumersand supermarkets, are too great to hazard growing GMcrops.

Acknowledgements

With thanks to the Scottish Executive Environment andRural Affairs department for funding this research. Thanksare also due to all the farmers who contributed to the post-al survey and the farm interviews.

C. Hall / Geoforum 39 (2008) 204–212 211

Appendix. Thirteen questions from survey

What do you understand by the phrase ‘geneticallymodified crops’?Do you think the introduction of genetically modifiedcrops into Scottish agriculture would be good or badfor Scottish farming? Please explain your answer in asmuch detail as you can.What do you think will be the main problems (if any)presented by the introduction of genetically modifiedcrops in Scotland?Who will experience these problems (if you think therewill be any)?What do you think will be the main advantages (if any)arising from the introduction of genetically modifiedcrops in Scotland?Who will benefit from the advantages (if you think therewill be any)?How do you think genetically modified crops mightimpact on farmland wildlife (if at all)? (This could begood and/or bad impacts).What problems (if any) do you think could arise fromthe existence of both genetically modified crops andnon-genetically modified crops in Scotland?Some people are concerned that genetically modifiedplants will find their way into non-genetically modifiedcrops.If genetically modified crops are grown in Scotland, doyou think that contamination of non-genetically modi-fied crops will be a problem? Please explain youranswer.If you do think that contamination of non-geneticallymodified crops will be a problem, how do you think itshould be dealt with?What do you think people (other farmers and non-farm-ers) might feel about a farm nearby deciding to growgenetically modified crops?What factors might encourage you to grow geneticallymodified crops?What factors might discourage you from growing GMcrops?

References

Austin, E., Willock, J., Deary, I., Gibson, G., Dent, J., Edwards-Jones,G., Morgan, O., Grieve, R., Sutherland, A., 1998. Empirical modelsof farmer behaviour using psychological, social and economicvariables. Part 1: linear modelling. Agricultural Systems 58 (2),203–224.

Baker, G.A., Burnham, T.A., 2001. Consumer response to geneticallymodified foods: market segment analysis and implications for produc-ers and policy makers. Journal of Agricultural and ResourceEconomics 26 (2), 387–403.

Barry, J., Proops, J., 1999. Seeking sustainability discourses with Qmethodology. Ecological Economics 28, 337–345.

Borch, K., Rasmussen, B., 2005. Refining the debate on GM crops usingtechnological foresight – the Danish experience. Technological Fore-casting & Social Change 72, 549–566.

Brodt, S., Klonsky, K., Tourte, L., 2006. Farmer goals and managementstyles: implications for advancing biologically based agriculture.Agricultural Systems 89, 90–105.

Brooks, S., 2005. Biotechnology and the politics of truth: from the GreenRevolution to an evergreen revolution. Sociologia Ruralis 45 (4), 360–379.

Brown, S., 1993. A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity 16 (3/4), 91–138.

Byrd, K., 2002. Mirrors and metaphors: contemporary narratives of thewolf in Minnesota. Ethics, Place and Environment 5 (1), 50–65.

Chong, M., 2005. Perception of the risks and benefits of Bt eggplant byIndian farmers. Journal of Risk Research 8 (7–8), 617–634.

Cocklin, C. et al., in press. Competitiveness versus ‘clean and green’? Theregulation and governance of GMOs in Australia and the UK.Geoforum, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.09.009.

Cook, A., Fairweather, J., 2003. New Zealand farmer and growerintentions to use gene technology: results from a resurvey. AgBioFo-rum 6 (3), 120–127.

Davies, B., Hodge, I., 2007. Exploring environmental perspectives inlowland agriculture: a Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK.Ecological Economics 61 (2-3), 323–333.

Eden, S., Donaldson, A., Walker, G., 2005. Structuring subjectiv-ities? Using Q methodology in human geography. Area 37 (4),413–422.

Freidberg, S., Horowitz, L., 2004. Converging networks and clashingstories: South Africa’s agricultural biotechnology debate. AfricaToday 51 (1), 3–25.

Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Stares, S., 2003. Europeans and biotechnology in2002, Eurobarometer 58.0. A report to the Directorate General forResearch from the project ‘Life Sciences in European Society’.European Commission, Brussels.

Gray, A., 2004. Twelfth BES lecture. Ecology and government policies:the GM crop debate. Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 1–10.

Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Mayer, S., Wynne, B., 1997. Uncertainworld: genetically modified organisms, food and public attitudes inBritain. In: IEPPP. Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Heller, P. (Ed.), 2003. GM Nation? The Findings of the Public Debate.DTI, London.

Herrick, C., 2005. Cultures of GM: discourses of risk and labelling ofGMOs in the UK and EU. Area 37 (3), 286–294.

Levidow, L., Carr, S., 2007. GM crops on trial: technological developmentas a real-world experiment. Futures 39, 408–431.

Levin, C., Long, J., Simler, K., Johnson-Welch, C., 2003. Cultivatingnutrition: a survey of viewpoints on integrating agriculture andnutrition. FCND Discussion paper no 154. International Food PolicyResearch Institute, Washington, DC.

Peritore, N., Galve-Peritore, A., 1990. Brazilian attitudes towardsagrarian reform: a Q methodology opinion study of a conflictualissue. The Journal of Developing Areas 24, 377–406.

Robbins, P., 2000. The practical politics of knowing: state environmentalknowledge and local political economy. Economic Geography 76 (2),126–144.

Robbins, P., Krueger, R., 2000. Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Qmethod in human geography. Professional Geographer 52 (4), 636–648.

Schmolck, P., 2002. PQMethod 2.11. Downloaded from www.rz.unibw-muenchen.de/~p41bsmk/qmethod/.

Scott, D., 2003. Science and the consequences of mistrust: lessons fromrecent GM controversies. Journal of Agricultural and EnvironmentalEthics 16, 569–582.

Scott, M., Carr, S., 2003. Cultural theory and plural rationalities:perspectives on GM among UK scientists. Innovation 16 (4), 349–368.

Steelman, T., Maguire, L., 1999. Understanding participant perspectives:Q methodology in national forest management. Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management 18 (3), 361–388.

Swedeen, P., 2006. Post-normal science in practice: a Q study of thepotential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA. Ecolog-ical Economics 57 (2), 190–208.

212 C. Hall / Geoforum 39 (2008) 204–212

Tsioumani, E., 2004. Genetically modified organisms in the EU: publicattitudes and regulatory developments. Review of European Commu-nity and International Environmental Law 13 (3), 279–288.

Walter, G., 1997. Images of success: how Illionois farmers define thesuccessful farmer. Rural Sociology 62 (1), 48–68.

Webler, T., Tuler, S., Shockey, I., Stern, P., Beattie, R., 2003. Participa-tion by local government officials in watershed management planning.Society and Natural Resources 16, 105–121.

Wilkins, J., Kraak, V., Pelletier, D., McCullum, C., Uusitalo, U.,2001. Moving from dialogue to debate about geneticallyengineered food and crops: insights from a Land GrantUniversity. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 18 (2/3),167–199.

Wolsink, M., 2004. Policy beliefs in spatial decisions: contrasting corebeliefs concerning space-making for waste infrastructure. UrbanStudies 41 (13), 2669–2690.