Latest news
Acceptance of new technologies in food production: The example of genetic modification
Despite many efforts to inform the public about biotechnology, the support for GM foods in the European Union has decreased more or less constantly since the introduction of the first large scale GM application in soybeans in 1996. In 2010, the low level of support for GM foods is primarily related to negative perceptions of the safety for humans, both now and for future generations. The impact of GM foods on the environment comes on the second place. Contrary to what the 1999 biotechnology Eurobarometer suggests , perceptions of naturalness appear to play a rather modest role in shaping the negative attitude towards GM food. The division of benefits and risks does not seem to play a role at all.
The application is important......
Notwithstanding the general negative public attitude towards GM foods, data from previous European biotechnology surveys suggest that many citizens distinguish between different application types. GM food with health or environmental benefits gets more support in terms of ‘willingness to buy’ than GM food that is cheaper than other food.
....and so is the origin of the genes
European citizens also tend to distinguished between GM food (scab and mildew resistant apples) with genes from other species (using horizontal gene transfer) and GM food with genes from the same or related species (using vertical gene transfer or cisgenesis). The cisgenic apples are significantly more appreciated by those who responded to the 2010 Eurobarometer, although the distinction is not equally significant in all EU-27 member states.
In several countries the role of the positively perceived safety of the cisgenic apples is an important factor too. Although their environmental impact and the usefulness of the application and approach seem to be less dominant factors, they still do play a role in shaping citizens’ perception.
Naturalness
The most intriguing finding, however, concerns the role of people’s perception of naturalness. While the perception of naturalness appeared to be a minor factor in the general support (encouragement) for GM food, in the case of production methods the perception of naturalness of the transformation method seems to be the dominant factor in the shift of support (encouragement) in most member states. This looks like contradicting results, which is hard to explain. Does this mean that the role of the perception of naturalness starts playing a different role as soon as the technology seems closer to conventional breeding, or are people just confused because of the terminology that was used in the phrasing of the questions? Further qualitative research, using interviews or focus groups that confront participants with different breeding techniques could provide more insight to this question.
Trust in the regulatory process
Analysis of the data from 2005 survey shows that there is a relationship between the level of trust in the regulatory process and the level of support for GM foods. Analysis of the data from the 2002, 2005 and 2010 surveys also shows that although the general situation is improving, most member states need to investigate what causes the relatively low level of trust in their regulatory role in biotechnology and put more efforts in trust building.
A full analysis can be downloaded here
