A Summary of Recent Public Attitude Surveys to Genetic Engineering and Genetically Engineered Food

Public awareness of biotechnology in Europe is growing [1] but it is still at a low level compared with knowledge on other food issues. A UK poll carried out by Market Measures for J.Sainsbury Plc found that 81.5% of those polled were aware of BSE and 22.4% E-coli compared with only 1.9% for genetically modified foods. This reflects the fact that there has been no real public debate on the issue in Britain compared with many other EU countries, particularly Germany and Austria. The biotechnology industry's European trade group Europabio were warned by the global PR group Burson Marstellar [2] to avoid controversial issues, "Public issues of environmental and health risk are communications killing fields for bioindustries in Europe", suggesting that the industry is still not ready to have a full and open debate with all sectors of the community.

3. Public Opinion

Despite the low level of knowledge in the UK, public opinion is strengthening against genetically engineered food throughout the European Community. The latest Eurobarometer Poll published in March 1996 [3] showed a hardening of attitudes since previous polls in 1991 and 1993. The European public are now more knowledgable about genetic engineering but the latest poll of 16,000 people carried out in October and November 1996 shows that optimism about biotechnology and genetic engineering improving our way of life has declined.

George Gaskill of the Department of Social Psychology at the London School of Economics summed up the findings, "Many Europeans are uneasy about modern biotechnology, particularly about new genetic technologies" [3].

A Greenpeace funded poll carried out by MORI in December 1996 [4] in Europe interviewed 8,000 people and found 59% opposed to some extent to genetically engineered food and 67% personally unhappy to consume it. Only 22% of people supported the introduction. The UK response was less certain in the opposition to GE food although 53% said they would be unhappy to consume it..

The much smaller poll carried our for Sainsbury's [1] in spring 1997 confirms that the public in the UK are also very wary of genetic engineering. Fifty three percent of householders who are aware of the issue and were solely or jointly responsible for household food and grocery shopping, said they would "definitely would not buy" (37%) or "probably would not buy" (16%) genetically engineered products. Only 3% said they would "definitely buy" and 15% "probably". Twenty nine percent were undecided.

A study by Lancaster University [5] based on nine focus groups in the north and south of England in November and December 1996 found "considerable ambivalence in the UK towards GMOs

in food products".

A national referendum in Austria (April 1997) confirmed it as the country leading opposition to genetic engineering in Europe. Over twenty one percent of the voting population signed the referendum calling for a ban on GE food imported, GE releases and patenting of living beings. Only 100,000 signatures are required before the Austrian parliament has to address the issue within 12 months. This is the second most successful referendum in Austria's history - the first being opposition to the building of the Vienna Conference Centre.

The Eurobarometer poll revealed how moral issues play a very strong part in shaping people's views on biotechnology. The usefulness of the product is pre-condition of support. If products are perceived as useful, the public seems to be willing to accept an eliminate of risk. However, moral doubts veto both usefulness and risk. Britons in particular are concerned about morality.

This contrasts with the approach of regulators whose main concern is risk assessment "public concern is unlikely to be alleviated by technically based reassurances and or regulatory initiatives that deal exclusively with the avoidance of harm" [3].

Support exists for 'traditional ' medical applications in the fields of diagnosis and treatment but few approve of transgenic animals for research or for applications such as transplantation of organs into humans.

The focus groups in the Lancaster University study confirmed that moral issues figured strongly ahead of factors such as ease of processing and appearance of the product which were found very "contentious and considered trivial". The groups had strong views about using human genes in any biotechnology field and gene transfers and the use of animals in food production and medicine. People were concerned about animal welfare and our duties towards animals and felt animals were being "abused by genetic modification".

Food safety also figured strongly in the concerns expressed by members of the focus groups. The participants felt the unexpected health effects could occur and they were, "Long term in nature and difficult to identify" and, "There was also a view that the changes genetic modification could bring would be irreversible".

Respondents to the Sainsbury's funded survey were asked what they liked about genetically engineered products. Only 30% responded with any comment and these included "Don't know enough about it" and "Other sceptical comments". By contrast nearly 75% of respondents were able to say what they disliked. The most frequently occurring comments were, "Unnatural", "Unknown effects/problem-general" and, "interfering with nature".

4. Labelling and Regulation

The Eurobarometer poll in 1996 showed the European public to be very much at odds with the current practice of the US soya bean industry not to label genetically engineered soya.

In the poll 74% of people felt GE Food should be labelled. However, members of the Lancaster University focus groups felt that labels with 'genetically modified ' on were meaningless as they

did not provide the level of information required to make a judgement, such as which genes had been used, why genetic engineering had been used and what the alternatives might be.

Sixty percent of the Eurobarometer respondents believe there should be public consultation about new developments in biotechnology and more than half (53%) did not believe current regulations were sufficient. A significant proportion (39%) were of the opinion that religious authorities should be involved in the decision making process for biotechnology.

The Eurobarometer poll asked people who should be responsible for regulating. The responses showed a clear preference for internationally controlled standards for biotechnology. More than a third supported this option compared with 8% for the European Union and 6% for national parliaments.

5. Trusted Sources of Information

A range of polls have illustrated how the public has lost faith in many institutions when it comes to making decisions about genetic engineering. A NOP poll carried out for the Food and Drink Federation in November 1995 asked consumers who would provide the most trustworthy advice and information. Health professionals, consumer groups, scientists and environmental groups all polled more than the government, retailers, manufacturers and farmers..

These results were confirmed by the Eurobarometer 1996 poll. For medical applications 46% of people trusted the medical profession most. Environmental organisations (26%) were most trusted to provide reliable information about the food applications of genetic engineering followed by consumer organisations (17%) and farmers (16%). National public bodies only gained support from 3.5% of respondents and international public bodies only 3%. Industry polled only 2% as a trusted information source on biotechnology.

The attitude of the Lancaster University focus groups to sources of information on genetic engineering was summarised as, "The discussions provided copious indications of mistrust of official institutions" and concluded "conventional patterns of official reassurance will lack purchase- leading in turn to a loss of control, and other perverse feedbacks for politicians and the political system more generally a foretaste of which has already been provided in the BSE case”.

In 1993 the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology had already recognised that both industry and Government have a serious credibility gap with the public compared with environmental groups “..it is worrying for industry that its credibility and that of the Government is so low, and that groups likely to adopt anti-biotechnology attitudes (Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace) have such a high level of credibility” [7].

6. Conclusions

1.    There is widespread concern about the applications of biotechnology through Europe.

2.    The level of concern has increased in the 1990's.

3.    The public are concerned about the health and environmental risks associated with GE foods although moral considerations are of most importance.

4.    Over half of people do not want to buy or eat GE foods.

5    The population of Europe trust medical professionals and environmental groups ahead of government, retailers and industry as reliable sources of information about biotechnology.

1. Market Measures Ltd 1997, Genetically Modified Food Research, presentation to Sainsbury's seminar 23rd May 1997.

2. Burson Marstellar, 1997, Proposals to Europabio reported in The Guardian 6th August 1997

3. Eurobarometer/ European Public Concerted Action Group 1997 Biotechnology Survey in Nature Volume 387 26 June pp845-847.

4. MORI 1996, Attitudes to Genetically Modified Food - A Survey of European Public Opinion, Research Study conducted for Greenpeace Germany December 1996.

5. Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, University of Lancaster 1997 Uncertain World: Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain CSEC, Lancaster.

6.The Food and Drink federation 1996, Modern Biotechnology: towards greater understanding The Food and Drink Federation London 1996.

7. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, 1993, Regulation of the UK Biotechnology Industry and Global Competitiveness, HMSO 1993.

October 1997.
Produced by Friends of the Earth, Food and Biotechnology Campaign, 26-28 Underwood Street, London, N1 7JQ.