Genetically Modified Foods - Consumer Attitudes

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Consumer Attitudes

There are lots of opinions in the media about consumers’ attitudes to genetically modified (GM) or genetically engineered foods. But most of those voicing opinions have not bothered asking the consumers themselves for their opinions. To ensure Ontario groups associated with agri-food biotechnology were not guilty of the same charge, Ontario Agri-Food Technologies commissioned a national polling agency to ask consumers a number of questions about food and genetic engineering in December 1999.

The survey involved 525 Ontario adults and 400 in Quebec, chosen by random, and contacted between December 9 and 19. Some key findings are summarized here.

When respondents were asked to name their top three concerns about food, 38 per cent of Ontarions said “cost of food,” 25 per cent said “healthy food” and 22 per cent referred to additives, chemicals, hormones or antibiotics in food. Sixteen per cent of Ontarions mentioned genetic modification as a concern. The equivalent response in Quebec was 22 per cent. Interestingly, only six per cent of respondents identified pesticides as a top concern (seven per cent in Ontario; four per cent in Quebec). It seems that current media coverage of GM food has pushed worries about pesticide residues onto a back burner.

When respondents were asked whether the following is included in the term “genetically engineered food,” the following percentages said yes (similar pattern for Ontario and Quebec):

Food crops that have been altered by the insertion of genes from another plant species: 84 per cent.
Food crops that have been altered through nuclear radiation or chemical mutation: 71 per cent.
Food crops that have been altered through crossbreeding with unrelated plant species: 71 per cent.
Food crops that have been sprayed with hormonal agents or chemicals, 60 per cent.
Food crops that have been irradiated to kill bacteria: 42 per cent.

Clearly, the public views genetic engineering and modification to mean much more than single gene transfers between species. In fact, the term appears to include – as a minimum – all genetic manipulations (real or perceived) which are considered to be non-natural in nature.

Respondents were asked if their level of concern could be classed as “very concerned,” “quite concerned,” “slightly concerned,” “not concerned,” or “don’t know enough about it to say,” with respect to several forms of genetic modification. Those who said they were very concerned or quite concerned are as follows:

Transfer of a gene from one plant species to another: 45 per cent (Ontario, 48 per cent; Quebec, 41 per cent),
Artificial modification of genes with nuclear radiation or chemical mutation: 64 per cent (Ontario 69 per cent; Quebec, 57 per cent),
Crossbreeding plants with other unrelated plant species: 27 per cent (similar in both provinces).

Across the two provinces, 36 per cent said they were less concerned about genetic modification caused by gene transfers than about artificial mutagenesis, eight per cent said they were more concerned, and 56 per cent said the level of concern is the same.

Closely related was another question where respondents were asked if their level of concern was greater, the same, less, or “don’t know enough about it to say,” when the genetically engineered ingredients were used in food production but could not be detected in the finished product (example, purified canola oil). Twenty-six per cent of Ontario respondents said more concerned and 15 per cent said less. The corresponding percentages for Quebec were 38 per cent and 11 per cent.

These survey results support the view of OCPA, AGCare, the Consumers’ Association of Canada, and other Canadian groups -- that is, that any Canadian labelling system must go beyond including only certain gene transfers, or only detectable changes in final ingredients. The European approach will not work here. Products of mutagenesis must be included.

Sixty-one per cent of respondents (similar in Ontario and Quebec) support the use of genetic engineering to reduce pesticide use in food production, and 49 per cent support its use for reducing the incidence of moulds and naturally occurring toxins in food crops. The rest did not support the use of genetic engineering for these purposes, or said that it made no difference or that they didn’t know enough about it to say.

The most questionable survey finding was that 66 per cent said they would pay more for food to have the GM content shown on the label (62 per cent in Ontario and 73 per cent in Quebec). Of those who said they would pay more, almost half said they’d be willing to pay an additional 10 per cent or more. This finding sounds suspect. Consumers are notorious for saying that they will do one thing in telephone surveys – especially in the case of spending money to do something perceived as ‘good’ – while doing something else in practice. Well-documented differences exist between the foods consumers say they buy, and what exists on their kitchen shelves.