Community Leader Response to Educational Information about ...

JFS:

Sensory and Nutritive Qualities of Food

Community Leader Response to Educational Information about Biotechnology C. BRUHN AND A. MASON

Introduction

A

GRICULTURAL APPLICATIONS OF BIOTECHNOLOGY DEPEND

in part on consumer acceptance. Although few consumers in the U.S.A. know much about biotechnology, many know it exists, and their attitudes toward it are generally positive (Hoban and Kendall 1993; Abt Associates 1996; Wirthlin Group 2001). A 1997 national survey of 1,004 U.S. adults found that 79% of Americans were aware of biotechnology, with 54% believing biotechnology has already benefited them and 78% predicting biotechnology will benefit them in the next 5 years (Wirthlin Group 1997). Almost 40% of the respondents knew that foods produced through biotechnology were already in supermarkets. Acceptance of gene transfer was higher when tied to a specific benefit (Hoban and Kendall 1993; Walter 1994). Use of biotechnology to help farm animals resist disease was acceptable to about 50% of U.S. consumers in 1992, and was more acceptable than the general use of crossbreeding to change animals (Hoban and Kendall 1993). People more readily accepted plant-to-plant transfers than animal-to-animal transfers, and were most concerned about cross-species transfers. Generally, most consumers responded positively to human health benefits, followed by benefits to the environment (Hoban and Kendall 1993; Walter 1994; Zimmerman and others 1994; Kelley 1995; Hoban 1996). In February 1999, 77% of U.S. consumers indicated they would purchase produce modified by biotechnology to reduce pesticide use, while 62% said they would purchase such produce for improved flavor (Wirthlin Group 2001). However, consumer confidence in biotechnology fell during 1999 such that, by October 1999, only 67% of consumers stated they would buy produce modified by biotechnology to reduce pesticide use and 51% for improved flavor. This attitude change corresponds to a period in which claims of harm from biotechnology exceeded benefits by 70%, compared to 30% (International Food Information Council Foundation 2000). Since then, interest in purchase has gradually increased. In January 2001, 70% of consumers indicated they would buy to reduce pesticide use, while 58% said they would purchase for improved

© 2002 Institute of Food Technologists

flavor (Wirthlin Group 2001). Consumers opposed to applications of biotechnology have expressed concern that it might threaten the balance of nature and would result in unforeseen consequences (Hoban and Kendall 1993). Some were also concerned that pesticide use would increase, and that only large corporations would benefit at the expense of small businesses and family farms. Others stated that human modification of nature was “contrary to God’s will.” Consumers may have encountered concerns about biotechnology or genetic modification through media coverage or on the Internet. Those actively lobbying against genetic engineering (GE) describe the technology as “revolutionary,” in the early experimental stages of development, and likely to endanger human health and the environment (Cummins and Lilliston 1999). These individuals and groups contend that genetic modification of foods reduces the desirable components of the food and may increase antibiotic resistance by encouraging antibiotic-resistance marker genes to combine with disease-causing bacteria. They argue that farmers growing GE crops will not reduce their use of pesticides and herbicides. In addition, some point out that genetically altered pollen will drift into adjoining fields, polluting the DNA of non-GE crops. Those concerned about this technology also believe that GE crops will decrease the number of beneficial insects and soil microorganisms, and will increase pest and weed resistance to pesticides and herbicides. They predict that GE plants and animals will overpower wild counterparts, thus reducing genetic diversity. Some also contend that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulatory agencies do not require premarket studies to ascertain whether increased levels of human allergens or toxins are present in GE foods. Others assert that engineering and patenting animals reduce living creatures to the status of manufactured products and will result in animal suffering. Surveys indicate consumers receive most of their information from television, newspapers, magazines, and face-toface conversations (Hoban and Kendall 1993; Buzby and Ready 1996). Consumers evaluate information by considering the credibility of the source, the frequency of the mesVol. 67, Nr. 1, 2002—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE

399


ABSTRACT: Although response to biotechnology by United States consumer is positive, many know little about it, and some question risks and benefits. This project evaluated how science-based information affects community leaders’ attitudes. A videotape providing a consistent message was developed and shown in 1995 to 365 California and Indiana consumers who then participated in a discussion and completed questionnaires. Providing a realistic perspective of the risks and benefits associated with biotechnology reinforced consumers’ positive attitudes and enhanced their regard for the participating university. After the program, those believing that biotechnology offers society many benefits increased from 33% to 63%. A minority of consumers viewed biotechnology negatively, uncertain about cross-species transfer and unexpected changes. Keywords: biotechnology, genetic engineering, consumer attitudes, genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

Community response to biotechnology information . . . Table 1—Demographic characteristics of California and Indiana participants California

Indiana

All participants

Gender n = 333 Male Female

82% 18%

81% 19%

82% 18%

Under 20 20 to 29 years 30 to 39 years 40 to 49 years 50 to 59 years 60 years or older Prefer not to answer Gross family income n = 327

0 1% 2% 12% 13% 70% 2%

1% 2% 10% 20% 22% 44% 1%

1% 1% 6% 16% 18% 57% 1%

⬍ $20 thousand/year $20 to 49 thousand/year $50 thousand/year or more Prefer not to answer

4% 33% 37% 26%

5% 19% 67% 9%

4% 26% 53% 17%

Age group n = 335

Materials and Methods VIDEOTAPE, WRITTEN MATERIAL, AND A DISCUSSION FORMAT


were used to present information on food biotechnology to active members of community organizations in California and Indiana. A videotape was chosen because it allows for consistency in core message delivery while providing visual interest. Using videotapes, nonexperts can deliver information with greater confidence. Author Bruhn worked with University of California experts to prepare a script that highlighted areas in which consumer knowledge was limited; for example, plant and animal production practices (Hoban and Kendall 1993). The script drew a comparison between traditional practices of plant selection and breeding, and the more specific and controlled techniques of recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology. The script summarized potential uses of rDNA technology to enhance healthfulness of food products, improve taste, and produce food crops with fewer environmental impacts. The script also addressed concerns that genetic changes could generate new risks, and discussed the existence of a regulatory framework to control them. Author Bruhn prepared written material to accompany the videotape, and used preand post-program questionnaires to measure changes in attitudes and knowledge among participants. All material was pilot-tested and revised for clarity when needed. By direct contact with community organizations or through county Cooperative Extension Advisors, the authors arranged to present the program called “Science and Society” at regularly scheduled meetings of organizations such as

400

California A lot of knowledge Some knowledge A little knowledge No knowledge

1% 20% 52% 27%

Indiana

Total participants

3% 19% 46% 32%

2% 20% 49% 29%

n = 356

sage, and whether the information makes sense to them personally (Bruhn and others 1992). Consumers expressed the greatest trust in information from health experts, followed by university sources, environmental groups, the Food and Drug Administration, and states’ Departments of Agriculture (Hoban and Kendall 1993; Hoban 1994). Fewest consumers trusted information from activist groups, biotechnology companies, food industry processors, and food retailers. This study was undertaken to evaluate how the presentation of biotechnology information from a credible information source, using a videotape and discussion format, would affect consumers’ attitudes.

A

Table 2—Participants’ assessment of their knowledge about biotechnology prior to participating in educational program

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 67, Nr. 1, 2002

League of Women Voters, Kiwanis, Lions, Soroptomist, and Newcomers. Active participants in these groups were considered community leaders. It was hoped that they would informally share information with others who did not attend the presentation. This program was delivered multiple times in 1995, with group size ranging from 25 to 60 people. A total of 336 participants in California and Indiana completed preand post-program questionnaires. The “Science and Society” program began with a brief introduction, after which participants completed a pre-program questionnaire. Next, the 10-min videotape was shown. Participants were then encouraged to ask questions or respond to the benefits or risks of biotechnology. An open dialogue was created by asking participants if they found developments in recombinant DNA technology “very exciting” or “very scary.” Motivated by participant comments, the authors led a discussion that focused on human and environmental safety and the availability of foods produced by the use of biotechnology. Before leaving, participants were asked to complete the post-program questionnaire and were encouraged to take the consumer brochures developed to accompany the videotape: “Most Commonly Asked Questions About Biotechnology,” “Most Commonly Asked Questions About rBST,” and “Biotechnology Update.” The length of the program varied from approximately 25 to 40 min, depending on the meeting schedule. Attitude changes and differences between states were determined by Chi Square analysis using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software. Because there were no significant differences between participant attitudes in California and Indiana, the data were combined in analysis.

Results and Discussion

T

HERE WERE MORE MALE THAN FEMALE PARTICIPANTS IN THE

program (Table 1). Most participants were over 60 years of age; however, other age groups were represented. More than half indicated their gross family income was more than $50,000 per year. Knowledge of biotechnology was not widespread among participants, with only 2% describing their knowledge as “a lot” and 20% as “some” at the beginning of the program (Table 2). Despite limited familiarity with biotechnology, 33% believed biotechnology offered society a lot of benefits and an additional 35% believed biotechnology offered some benefits (Table 3). Consumer attitudes toward biotechnology changed as a result of the program. After viewing the video and participating in the discussion, the percent of participants who thought biotechnology offered society a lot of benefits increased to 63%, with a total of 96% expecting some level of societal benefits. After the program, 54 out of 99 people who were initially uncertain about benefits to society felt biotechnology would provide a lot of benefits, and 37

Community response to biotechnology information . . .

Initial

Post discussion Significance

Does biotechnology offer society benefits? n = 334 A lot of benefits Some benefits Uncertain A few benefits No benefits

0.000 33% 35% 29% 2% 1%

63% 33% 2% 2% ⬍1%

7% 39% 42% 9% 3%

6% 59% 11% 20% 4%

Does biotechnology present society with risks? n = 336 A lot of risks Some risks Uncertain A few risks No risks

Table 4—Participants’ attitudes toward biotechnology before and after participating in educational program Initial Biotechnology can help people use resources more wisely n = 334 Strongly agree Somewhat agree Uncertain Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

0.000

indicated some benefits. Five people remained uncertain, with 2 indicating they thought biotechnology would offer society few benefits, and 1 person indicating no benefits. Before the program, 7% felt biotechnology presented society with a lot of risks and 39% believed biotechnology presented some risks. After the program, these percentages changed to 6% believing biotechnology presented a lot of risks, and 59% believing there were some risks. The perception that biotechnology helps people use resources more wisely increased from 71% “strongly” or “somewhat agreeing” before participating in the program to 95% afterward (Table 4). Of the 92 people uncertain about the effects of biotechnology on resource use, in the postprogram questionnaire 36 agreed strongly and 49 agreed somewhat that biotechnology could impact efficient use of resources. Although environmental and food safety oversight were mentioned only briefly during the program and discussion, participant confidence in the adequacy of environmental and safety regulations also increased. One of the most controversial and least understood aspects of biotechnology is transfer of genetic material from an animal to a plant. Some groups have suggested that a fish gene transferred to a tomato may make the tomato “fishy.” Study participants who were initially uncertain if such a transfer made a plant “animal-like” totalled 57% (Table 5). After participating in the program, 24% were still uncertain, but 70% thought such a transfer did not make the plant animallike. Initially, 31% of participants thought an animal-to-plant transfer was acceptable if done for a good reason, while 59% were uncertain. After the presentation, 71% thought such a transfer would be acceptable, 24% remained uncertain, and 5% were opposed. Acceptability of transferring genetic material from an animal to a plant to enable the food to grow in colder climates (an application described in the videotape) increased from 36% to 75% from pre- to post-program. However, 23% remained uncertain and 2% were opposed to transferring genetic material from an animal to a plant for this reason. Lastly, participants were asked to judge the overall impact of biotechnology on human health and environmental quality. The percentage of participants who thought biotechnology would have a “very” or “somewhat positive” effect on human health and well-being increased from 71% before the program to 90% afterward (Table 6). Only 2% felt the overall


0.000 34% 37% 28% 0 1%

57% 38% 4% 1% < 1%

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Uncertain Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Food safety regulations for new plants are adequate n = 328

7% 19% 56% 11% 7%

13% 38% 36% 10% 3%

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Uncertain Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

8% 18% 57% 11% 6%

Environmental regulations for new plants are adequate n = 327

0.000

0.000 14% 40% 33% 9% 4%

effect would be “somewhat” or “very negative” after the program. Of the 83 people who initially believed biotechnology would have a neutral effect on human health, after participating in the program 22 believed the impact would be very positive and 42 believed it would be somewhat positive. Similarly, participants who evaluated the effect on environmental quality as very or somewhat positive increased from 65% prior to the program to 83% afterward. After the program, only 3% believed the environmental impact would be somewhat or very negative. Of the 99 people who initially believed biotechnology would have a neutral effect on environmental quality, after participating in the program 23 believed the effect would be very positive, 46 believed it would be somewhat positive, 27 thought it would be neutral, and 3 thought it would be somewhat negative. In the post-video discussion, participants were most interested in receiving additional information about the effects of biotechnology on food quality and safety, and were least interested in receiving information about regulations, farming, and the use of biotechnology in foreign countries. Those participants inquiring about the potentially positive applications of biotechnology expressed much interest in the possibility that anticancer components could be engineered into food, or that homegrown flavors could be increased in fruits available in the supermarket. Participants were also interested in the potential use of plants to remediate environmental contamination by helping to clean oil spills or remove toxic substances from soil or water. Those who viewed biotechnology as risky after the video presentation expressed concern about unknown consequences of plant breeding, especially the increase of allergenic components. Some were concerned that biotechnologically modified plants or animals would out-compete native varieties, which would result in a loss of biological diversity. Participants also expressed concern about the appropriateVol. 67, Nr. 1, 2002—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE

401


Table 3—Participants’ perception of societal benefits and risks from application of biotechnology on society

Community response to biotechnology information . . . Table 5—Participants’ attitudes toward transferring a gene from an animal to a plant Initial


Transferring a gene from an animal to a plant makes the plant animal-like n = 15 Agree Uncertain Disagree

Initial


Potential impact on human health and well being n = 329 0.000 2% 57% 41%

6% 24% 70%

Transferring a gene from an animal to a plant is okay if done for a good reason n = 321

Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative Very negative

0.000 25% 46% 25% 3% 1%

48% 42% 8% 1% 1%

21% 44% 30% 4% 1%

44% 39% 14% 2% 1

Potential impact on environmental Qualityn = 326 0.000

Agree Uncertain Disagree Transferring a gene from an animal to a plant is okay if it enables food to grow in colder climates n = 311

31% 59% 10%

71% 24% 5%

Agree Uncertain Disagree

36% 57% 7%

75% 23% 2%

Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative Very negative

0.000

0.000


ness and safety of humans forcing genetic changes not possible through traditional means. Some were unaware that humans have made genetic changes in plants and animals for centuries and viewed such changes as a new endeavor. Others were aware of gradual changes over time, but were concerned about the rapid rate of change possible through the use of rDNA technology. Concerns about applications of biotechnology to animals focused on treating them humanely. Participants were concerned that animals may be exploited to serve human demands. They were unaware of rDNA applications which could enhance animal health and well-being, because these benefits are seldom discussed in the media. Participants were most uncertain about cross-species transfers because they feared that essential and unique species-specific characteristics were being transferred. These findings are consistent with those reported in nationwide studies (Hoban 1994; Gaskell and others 1999; Grabowski 2000; Wirthlin 2001). Most U.S. consumers express positive attitudes about potential applications of DNA technology. In 1995 there had been little negative media coverage of this technology; however, individuals and some special interest groups had expressed concern over the technology, as discussed earlier. Although more are aware of biotechnology today than in 1995, only 36% of people interviewed in 2001 were aware that foods modified by biotechnology were in the supermarket (Wirthlin 2001). Furthermore, only 53% of consumers interviewed in a nationwide telephone survey had heard of the recall of products containing biotechnologically modified StarLink corn (Grabowski 2000). Therefore, as people continue to be relatively uninformed about the potential benefits and risks of this technology, the need for a public outreach program remains. The positive response to this program may be higher than expected in the general population. Previous research has shown that more men than women expect to personally benefit from biotechnology, and more men than women find 402

Table 6—Participant assessment of overall impact of biotechnology on human health and environmental quality

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 67, Nr. 1, 2002

food applications resulting from gene transfer acceptable (Hoban and Kendall 1993). Participants with incomes over $50,000 per year also viewed biotechnology more positively than those with lower incomes. Therefore, the high percentage of men and persons with incomes over $50,000 in this sample may have led to a more positive response than would be expected in the general population. In addition, this project measured short-term attitude change and may not reflect attitudes after longer consideration of the topic. This program aimed to present a balanced coverage of biotechnology, with considerations given to both potential positive and negative ramifications. Change in consumer attitudes reported in nationwide studies may be correlated with the messages received through the media. For example, extensive coverage in 1999 of potential dangers to monarch butterflies may have led to a 12% drop in positive attitudes toward biotechnology, recorded from February to October of that year (Wirthlin 2001). Subsequent interviews reported a 5% increase in positive response to biotechnology in January 2001 compared to May 2000. Message content as well as perception of credibility can significantly affect consumer attitudes. The presenters may have increased the credibility of the information they offered by being open to participants’ concerns, and by acknowledging the potential risks of biotechnology both in the videotape and in discussion. However, not all consumers found this technology acceptable at the conclusion of the program. A minority maintained or gained a negative view toward biotechnology. About one-quarter of participants were uncertain about the appropriateness and value of animal-plant transfers. Those with negative views toward biotechnology generally maintained that perception, while those who were uncertain about it before the presentation usually viewed biotechnology more positively afterward. This research project clearly demonstrates that sharing science-based information about biotechnology can increase its acceptance. More importantly, however, it demonstrates an approach in which community members and scientific experts can engage in dialogue about contemporary issues.

Conclusions

T

HE IMPACT OF THIS OUTREACH PROGRAM ON PARTICIPANTS

was greater than gaining knowledge or changing atti-

Community response to biotechnology information . . .

References Abt Associates Inc. 1996. Trends in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Food Marketing Institute (FMI). 91 p. Bruhn CM, Peterson S, Sakovich N. 1992. Consumer response to information on integrated pest management. J Food Safety 12:315-326. Buzby JC, Ready RC. 1996. Do consumers trust food safety information? Food Rev 19(1):46-49. Cummins R, Lilliston B. 1999. Campaign for Food Safety News #21—Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops: Why We Need A Global Moratorium. Little Marais, Minn.: BioDemocracy and Organic Consumers Assn. Available from: . Accessed Aug 25 1999. Gaskell G, Bauer MW, Durant J, Allum NC. 1999. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science 285(5426):384-387. Grabowski G. 2000. GMA survey shows Americans learning more about biotechnology: Food consumption patterns unchanged. News release, October 12, 2000. Available from: . Accessed Jan 4 2001. Hoban T. 1994. Consumer awareness and acceptance of bovine somatotropin.

Washington, D.C.: Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA). 15 p. Hoban T. 1996. How Japanese consumers view biotechnology. Food Technol 50(7):85-88. Hoban T, Kendall PA. 1993. Consumer attitudes about the use of biotechnology in agriculture and food production. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina State University. 11 p. Available from: Dr. Thomas J. Hoban, Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695. International Food Information Council Foundation. 2000. Food for thought III: Reporting of diet, nutrition, and food safety. Washington, D.C.: International Food Information Council (IFIC). 7 p. Kelley J. 1995. Public perceptions of genetic engineering: Australia 1994. Australia: International Social Science Survey/Australia. 77 p. Available from Dr. Jonathan Kelley, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Walter R. 1994. Baseline study of public attitudes to biotechnology. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Institute of Biotechnology. 5 p. Wirthlin Group. 1997. U.S. consumer attitudes toward food biotechnology. Washington, D.C.: International Food Information Council (IFIC). 4 p. Wirthlin Group. 2001. U.S. Consumer attitudes toward food biotechnology. Washington, D.C.: International Food Information Council (IFIC). Available from: . Accessed Feb 18 2001. Zimmerman L, Kendall P, Stone M, Hoban T. 1994. Consumer knowledge and concern about biotechnology and food safety. Food Technol 48(11):71-77. MS20000758, Submitted 7/27/00, Accepted 9/13/01, Received 9/17/01 The Science and Society educational program was partially funded by the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Agreement Number 94-EFSQ-1-4141. Preparation of the videotape, “Biotechnology, a Better Understanding” was funded by the University of California Biotechnology Research and Education Program. The authors gratefully acknowledge California Cooperative Extension Advisors Susan Peterson and Carol Powell for their invaluable assistance.

Author Christine Bruhn is affiliated with The Center for Consumer Research of the Food Science and Technology Dept., University of California, Davis, CA 95616-8598. Author April Mason is affiliated with Purdue University’s Consumer and Family Sciences. Address inquiries to author Bruhn (E-mail: [email protected]).

Vol. 67, Nr. 1, 2002—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE

403


tudes. Participants appreciated the personal interaction with university representatives, and valued the opportunity to hear a scientific perspective on areas of personal concern. In order for biotechnology to be accepted, consumers must have confidence that it does not adversely affect food safety, food quality, the environment, or the humane treatment of animals. They must also be confident that a regulatory system is overseeing safety. Acceptance of any technology is enhanced when consumers see direct benefits. This project clearly demonstrates that when a knowledgeable person presents a videotape and leads a discussion with community leaders, their knowledge and attitudes about these technologies is likely to change.