PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARDS BIOTECHNOLOGY
IN AUSTRALIA
RESULTS OF A SURVEY OF PUBLIC ATTITUDES 2009-10
Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology in Australia - Results of a survey of public attitudes 2009-10
Research context
In 2009, the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research commissioned
the IPSOS-Eureka Social Research Institute to undertake research on community
attitudes to biotechnology. Previous surveys had been conducted every two years from
1999, to determine public attitudes towards biotechnology and biotechnology applications
in Australia.
Methodology
The project took place between December 2009 and June 2010, and involved the
collection of both qualitative and quantitative data. Specifically, the research involved:

Six focus groups of an exploratory nature (held in a metropolitan and a rural
location) (total n=47 participants);

Three stakeholder consultations (total n=15 participants); and

A survey of n=1,024 people across Australia, sampled to be demographically
representative of the wider population, conducted both online and via computerassisted telephone interviewing (CATI).
Key findings
The Australian public has continued to strongly support biotechnologies that provide
health or environmental benefits, but their support for genetically modified (GM) foods
has dropped a little since 2007.
Biotechnologies of key interest to the public include genetic modification (GM), cloning,
stem cell research and using organisms to clean up pollution.
GM food continues to be one of the least well supported biotechnologies, although the
public perceive the benefits (70%) still outweigh the risks (48%). This is a drop from
2007 in benefits (77%) and risks (54%), yet still much higher than the 2005 figure of
perceived benefits (64%) but lower than the 2005 figure of perceived risk at 71%.
The Australian public has continued to strongly support biotechnologies
that provide health or environmental benefits, but their support for
genetically modified (GM) foods has dropped a little since 2007...
In 2009-10, GM food is more highly supported than foods containing preservatives and
foods grown with pesticides.
While 67% per cent of the public say that GM foods are acceptable, half of those opposed
would change that position if there was long-term evidence of no harm being caused.
About 45% per cent of those opposed to GM foods would change their position if labelling
explained what ingredients had been modified and why. This support varies depending on
the amount of GM in the food, why the modification was made and whether the food was
a fruit and vegetable or other crop.
1
Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology in Australia - Results of a survey of public attitudes 2009-10
Figure 1: Changes in support for different applications of biotechnology over ten
years.
(Note: The large support for all applications in 2007 was linked to concerns about the state of the globe and the
role of new technologies in alleviating problems of climate change, pandemics and food shortages etc)
Other key findings include an increasing public trust in Australian regulators and a drop
in perceived value of using biotechnologies to address climate change and to produce
biofuels. Overall, support for health and medical applications of biotechnology was higher
than support for applications in food or agriculture; mean ratings were 6.2 and 5.2 out of
10, respectively. This difference was consistent with 2007 findings.
2
Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology in Australia - Results of a survey of public attitudes 2009-10
Figure 2: Overall support for health and medical vs food and agricultural
applications
Awareness and perceptions of applications of
biotechnology
Participants were presented with a number of applications of biotechnology, and for each,
were asked whether they had heard of it, whether they felt it was likely to be useful to
society, whether it would be risky to society, and whether it would be acceptable to
them.
Overall, prompted awareness of various applications of biotechnology was fairly high.
Apart from the role of biotechnology in medicine production, medical applications of
biotechnology rated highly, with more than three quarters aware of 'using stem cells to
conduct medical research and treat disease' (93%), 'using genetic information in medical
research' (81%), and 'using genetic modification to grow human tissue or organs...'
(79%). Among the food, agricultural and environmental applications, awareness of
genetically modifying plants to produce food (82%) was far higher than 'using
biotechnology in the production of food from plants' (67%), 'using genetic modification in
the control of introduced pest animals' (55%), and 'modifying the genes of plants to
produce non-food crops' (54%).
For each of these applications, more than two thirds considered the application useful.
Perceived utility was particularly high for 'using genetic information in medical research'
and 'using stem cells to conduct medical research and treat disease', was considered
useful by 92% and 91% respectively, 'using genetic modification to grow human tissue
or organs...' (75%), and 'using genetic modification in the manufacture of medicines'
(70%). Overall, there was a clear trend of decreasing perceived usefulness with
3
Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology in Australia - Results of a survey of public attitudes 2009-10
decreasing personal involvement and/or benefit, from medical and health applications, to
food crops, to environmental issues such as pest control and non-food crops.
'using stem cells to conduct medical research and treat disease', was
considered useful by 91%.
Since 2007, there has been a significant decrease in the proportion who perceive genetic
modification and biotechnology in food production as useful (77% versus 70%, and 76%
versus 69%). Conversely, in 2010 a significantly larger proportion of participants
consider genetic modification of non-food crops useful (68% versus 60% in 2007).
Risk Perception
For each application of biotechnology suggested, a sizeable proportion of participants
perceived an element of risk to society. The application most frequently considered risky
was 'using genetic modification in the control of introduced pest animals' (52%
considered it risky), followed by 'using genetic modification in the manufacture of
medicines' (51%), and 'using genetic modification to grow human tissue or o r g a n s . '
(50%).
The application most frequently considered risky was 'using genetic
modification in the control of introduced pest animals'.
Of the food and agriculture applications, 'modifying the genes of plants to produce food'
was considered risky by more participants than 'using biotechnology in the production of
food from plants' (48% versus 43%), followed by 'modifying the genes of plants to
produce non-food crops' (39%). The two applications considered risky by the fewest
people were 'using genetic information in medical research (29%), and 'using stem cells
to conduct medical research and treat disease' (24%). Since 2007, the proportion that
perceive risk has increased for both the use of biotechnology in the production of food
(43% from 34% in 2007), and the genetic modification of non-food crops (39% from
31%).
Acceptability of the various applications of biotechnology presented was generally high,
with each application receiving approval from at least three in five. The use of stem cells
and genetic information in medical research were acceptable to the greatest majority
(88% each). The remaining applications were acceptable to between 61% and 65% of
participants, including:

'using biotechnology in the production of food from plants' (65%);

'modifying the genes of plants to produce non-food crops' (63%);

'modifying the genes of plants to produce food' (63%);

'using genetic modification in the manufacture of medicines' (62%);

using genetic modification to grow human tissue or o r g a n s . ' (62%); and

'using genetic modification in the control of introduced pest animals' (61%).
There has been a decline in the proportion that consider 'modifying the genes of plants to
produce food' acceptable, from 69% in 2007 to 63% in 2010 (although still higher than
4
Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology in Australia - Results of a survey of public attitudes 2009-10
2005 at 47%. The overall acceptability of the other applications has not changed
significantly since the previous wave.
Figure 3: GM food crops: acceptability
Food and agriculture applications
As described above, overall support for applications of biotechnology to food and
agriculture was lower than support for applications in health and medicine. In addition,
overall support for genetic modification and other biotechnologies in food and agriculture
was significantly lower in 2010 than in 20071 (5.2 out of 10 versus 5.7 out of 10 in
2007). Support was significantly greater among males, and among those who are more
excited than concerned by new technologies (technophiles).
As we would anticipate, overall support among those who agreed that we should use
more natural ways of farming was significantly lower, as it was for those who agreed that
'technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it'.
Support was significantly greater among males, and among those who are
more excited than concerned by new technologies.
Attitudes to biotechnology in food and agriculture
Attitudinal statements relating to the use of biotechnology in food and agriculture
revealed that Australians hold very mixed feelings on the issue. While the majority of
participants (66%) expressed agreement that we should use more natural ways of
farming, the majority (53%) disagreed with the statement 'research and development
This difference may be due in part to a change in the question wording from 'gene
technology' to 'genetic modification and other biotechnologies'.
1
5
Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology in Australia - Results of a survey of public attitudes 2009-10
into the genetic modification of crops should be stopped', with more than a quarter
(30%) disagreeing strongly.
In addition, despite widespread cynicism about the objectives of genetic modification in
agriculture (49% agreed that it is mostly for the benefit of commercial companies), more
people disagreed (42%) than agreed (26%) that commercial use of genetic modification
should be stopped.
Opinion was also divided over whether we should accept or reject genetic modification
based on perceived risks to our economic competitiveness - while 46% agreed that we
should reject it if it reduced our economic competitiveness, 36% agreed that we should
accept some degree of risk from genetic modification, if it enhances our economic
competitiveness.
Acceptability of genetically modified food crops under
certain conditions
Those survey participants who indicated that genetically modified food crops were
'unacceptable' were asked whether or not they would find genetically modified food crops
acceptable under certain conditions.
Based on the findings of the preliminary qualitative research, two new conditions were
added to the questionnaire in 2010: 'If long-term tests had shown no risks to human
health or the environment', and 'If the labelling on the food described what component
had been genetically modified, and why'. These two conditions together ranked the
highest of the list of possible litigators; long-term evidence would convert half the nonacceptors (50%) to acceptance, and descriptive labelling would change the minds of
45%.
Among the conditions that were also posed to non-acceptors in 2007, there were no
significant differences in the strength of conversion.
long-term evidence would convert half the non-acceptors
Attitudes towards objectives of genetically modifying
food crops
Survey participants were presented with a series of objectives of genetically modifying
food crops and were asked to rate each objective on a four (4) point value scale: very
valuable, somewhat valuable, not very valuable or not at all valuable.
6
Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology in Australia - Results of a survey of public attitudes 2009-10
Figure 4: Perceived value of objectives of GM food crops: five most valuable
Of the list of ten objectives, the objectives with the highest perceived value were using
genetic modification 'to make plants drought resistant' (87% regarded this objective as
somewhat valuable or very valuable) and 'to make plants that can grow in salty soils'
(82% considered somewhat valuable or very valuable). The objectives that were
perceived as the least valuable were making plants herbicide tolerant (64%), making
plants mature more quickly (62%), and making food taste better (59%). Since 2007,
there has been a shift towards considering 'making food cheaper' and 'making plants
herbicide tolerant' as more valuable objectives of genetic modification.
Knowledge of genetically modified cropping in own state
Survey participants were also asked whether or not they thought that commercial
genetically modified crops were allowed to be grown in their state of residence, and if so,
which crops were grown. A notable proportion (43%) of participants were unable to
answer this question, an indication of the low levels of awareness of genetically modified
crop growth across Australia. Those who did respond to this question were more likely to
believe that genetically modified crops were grown in their own state than not (46%
indicated yes and 12% indicated no). Both Western Australians and Victorians were more
likely to indicate that genetically modified crops were grown in their state in 2010 than
they were in 2007 - a reflection of the recent lifting of moratoria on genetically modified
canola in these states.
Across all the large states but Queensland, the most frequently mentioned crop was
genetically modified canola (identified by 17% in NSW, 24% VIC, 33% WA, 19% SA).
Awareness of genetically modified cotton was highest in NSW and QLD, where it is grown
(9% and 14% respectively). Genetically modified wheat was also commonly cited across
most states (7% of the total sample cited wheat). Numerous suggestions of corn, soya
and other fruits and vegetables suggest there is considerable confusion between the
genetically modified food crops available worldwide, and those grown in Australia.
7
Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology in Australia - Results of a survey of public attitudes 2009-10
Support for genetically modified cropping in own state
Just less than one in two participants (49%) indicated that they would be in favour of
growing genetically modified crops in their own state, 33% were not in favour, and the
remainder (18%) said that they were unsure.
Just less than one in two participants (49%) indicated that they would be
in favour of growing genetically modified crops in their own state
Support for the growth of genetically modified crops was fairly similar across states,
ranging from 55% in NSW to 44% in Victoria. There has been no significant change in
levels of support since 2007, including those states which have been subject to
considerable media coverage of the issue, such as Western Australia and Victoria.
Genetically modified food products
Participants were asked to rate their willingness to eat a variety of different types of food
on a scale from 0 to 10, where 10 indicated the greatest level of willingness and 0
indicated the greatest level of hesitation. As anticipated, participants indicated being
much more willing to ea organic food than all other types of foods (mean rating 8.2 out
of 10).
Of all the food products related to genetic modification, participants were most willing to
eat food with a small amount of genetically modified ingredients (mean rating 5.0),
followed by food made from genetically modified food crops (4.7), then genetically
modified fruit and vegetables (4.6) and meat and other animal products fed with
genetically modified stock feed (4.4). Participants were least willing to consume meat
and other products from genetically modified animals (mean rating 3.9), cloned animals
(3.5) and from the offspring of cloned animals (3.6).
Willingness to eat a number of foods has fallen since 2007. There has been a small but
significant decrease in consumer willingness to eat organic food from 8.3 to 8.2, and
larger decreases in consumer willingness to eat genetically modified fruit and vegetables
(down from 5.0 to 4.6), meat from genetically modified animals (down from 4.3 to 3.9)
and meat from cloned animals (down from 3.8 to 3.5). The greatest decreases observed
in consumer willingness to eat foods related not to genetically modified food but to food
containing preservatives (down from 5.2 to 4.6), and food grown with the use of
pesticides (down from 4.7 to 4.0).
Of all the food products related to genetic modification, participants were
most willing to eat food with a small amount of genetically modified
ingredients
Awareness and perceptions of genetically modified nonfood crops
Participants were asked their views on modifying the genes of plants to produce non-food
crops -first in general, and then specifically to produce fuels, to produce clothing and
other textiles, and to produce plastics. More than half the research participants (54%)
were aware of genetic modification of non-food crops; when prompted with the objective
of producing fuels, awareness rose to 57%. Awareness of the use of genetically modified
non-food crops in the production of both fuels and plastics has risen significantly - from
48% to 57% for fuels, and from 18% to 29% for plastics.
8
Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology in Australia - Results of a survey of public attitudes 2009-10
The use of genetically modified crops to produce fuels has seen some significant changes
since last wave. Perceived usefulness of this application has decreased significantly
since 2007 (from 80% to 74%). While there has been no significant change in perceived
risk, the proportion that view genetic modification of non-food crops to produce fuels as
acceptable has decreased significantly (from 78% to 68%).
Figure 5: Consumer willingness to eat GM foods relative to willingness to eat
other types of foods
Environmental applications
Perceptions of environmental objectives of biotechnology
As one would anticipate, the perceived value of all environmental objectives of
biotechnology was very high; more than eight in ten participants indicated that each
objective (with the exception of lowering the cost of plastic products) was somewhat or
very valuable. Objectives that were seen to be particularly valuable were cleaning up
pollution and recycling water more effectively, perceived as somewhat or very valuable
by 97% and 96% of participants respectively.
The objectives perceived as least valuable were lowering the cost of petrol (87% consider
it somewhat or very valuable), and lowering the cost of plastic products (75% considered
it somewhat or very valuable).
For four of the ten objectives, there has been a significant shift towards the less valuable
end of the scale: 'to recycle water more efficiently', 'to encourage the development of
more environmentally friendly fuels for vehicles', 'to reduce fossil fuel consumption', and
9
Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology in Australia - Results of a survey of public attitudes 2009-10
'to help address climate change'. Firstly, the need to recycle water is likely to have
decreased in the public consciousness since the drought eased across much of the
country. The remaining objectives have clear links to biofuels and to climate change.
There appears to be rising scepticism about the value of biofuels - preliminary qualitative
research suggested that much of this uncertainty is due to concerns about food crop
displacement. This may or not also be linked to rising levels of scepticism about climate
change.
There appears to be rising scepticism about the value of biofuels preliminary qualitative research suggested that much of this uncertainty is
due to concerns about food crop displacement
Figure 6: Perceived value of environmental objectives of biotechnology
Medical applications
As noted for food and agricultural applications, there was also a significant decrease
since last wave in the mean rating of overall support for the use of genetic modification
and other biotechnologies in human health and medicine. The average rating given by
participants in the current wave was 6.2 out of 10, while the average rating given in
2007 was 6.9. As for the agricultural applications, overall support for the use of
biotechnology in health and medical applications was significantly greater among
university graduates, and among those who are more excited than concerned by new
technologies.
In previous waves of this research, participants were asked about 'using gene technology
to produce medicines'. In 2010, this question was split into two key components;
participants were asked their opinions about the use of genetic modification in the
manufacture of medicines, and about the use of genetic information in medical research.
10
Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology in Australia - Results of a survey of public attitudes 2009-10
Awareness and perceptions of using genetic modification
in the manufacture of medicines
Awareness of the use of genetic modification in the manufacture of medicines was fairly
low at 48%. Awareness levels dropped further when details of the genetically organisms
were provided: 34% had heard of manufacturing medicines by inserting genes into
animals, 29% had heard of using bacteria, and only 20% had heard of using plants. A
similar pattern was observed for perceived usefulness of the applications, although
genetically modified bacteria were considered more useful than genetically modified
animals (43% considered bacteria useful, 34% considered animals useful).
Perceived risk was moderate for the general concept (42%) but increased markedly for
the specific applications (61% for introducing human genes into animals, 50% for
introducing human genes into plants, and 56% for introducing human genes into
bacteria). Acceptability followed the reverse trend, with the general concept being
acceptable to 73%, while specific applications were acceptable to only 43% (plants and
bacteria) and 36% (animals).
Figure 7: Stem cells: acceptability trends over time
Awareness and perceptions of using genetic information
in medical research
Like stem cells, the use of genetic information in medical research is well-known and
widely accepted. Of particular interest in this survey wave was the inclusion of the subpart 'using genetic information in medical research to tailor a person's healthcare based
on their genetic make-up'. While awareness of this application was lower than the
general concept (66% compared to 81%), perceived usefulness was high at 77%.
Despite being perceived as risky by 36%, tailored healthcare was considered acceptable
by a large majority (70%).
11
Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology in Australia - Results of a survey of public attitudes 2009-10
Information
As found in 2007, unprompted awareness of organisations responsible for providing
balanced and factual information about biotechnology was very low; while 5% mentioned
the Federal Government, the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
was mentioned by less than 1% of participants. When prompted, 38% of participants had
heard of DIISR, a significant increase since 2007, when 32% had heard of Biotechnology
Australia.
Regulation
When asked to name the organisation/s responsible for regulating biotechnology in
Australia, nearly half the respondents (49%) were unable to provide an answer. The
CSIRO was most frequently mentioned (22%), followed by 'federal government' (13%).
When prompted, awareness of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS)
far exceeded awareness of other regulatory organisations, at 85%. Awareness of Food
Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) was also fairly high, at 60%. Awareness
of Biosecurity Australia has increased significantly from 23% to 34%. Less than a quarter
of participants (22%) had heard of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines
Authority, and only 8% had heard of the Office the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR).
Survey participants who had heard of each organisation were also asked if they would
trust the organisation to regulate genetic modification and other biotechnologies.
Compared to last wave, trust in the AVPMA, Biosecurity Australia and AQIS all increased
significantly (72% from 56% for APVMA, 67% from 49% for Biosecurity Australia, and
64% from 50% for AQIS).
Figure 8: Attitudes towards regulation
12
Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology in Australia - Results of a survey of public attitudes 2009-10
Key conclusions
Food and agricultural applications
Despite some shift in opinion about genetically modified food crops, there remains
widespread acknowledgement of the potential benefits they may provide. Many
recognised the value of a number of objectives of genetically modifying crops,
particularly the need to adapt to the Australian climate by producing plants that are
drought or salinity resistant. In addition, the majority of those who do not accept
genetically modified food crops would be swayed by long-term tests (50% would change
their minds), and labelling describing what component had been genetically modified,
and why (45% would be influenced).
Despite some shift in opinion about genetically modified food crops, there
remains widespread acknowledgement of the potential benefits they may
provide.
As found in previous research, there is widespread overestimation of the number of
genetically modified crops grown in Australia, and also of the pervasiveness of genetically
modified food products and ingredients throughout the food supply.
Environmental applications
Overall, the idea of using biotechnology to achieve environmental objectives was
considered very valuable. Aside from cleaning up pollution, which remains the most
valuable objective, several high-ranking environmental objectives have dropped in
perceived value since 2007. Each of these changes is likely to be the result of topical
issues: the need to recycle water is likely to be less pressing in 2010 than in 2007,
following severe rainfall deficiencies in 20062. In addition, items related to fuel use and
alternative fuels are likely to be less pertinent than they were in 2007, when fuel prices
were particularly high. Participants in the preliminary qualitative research also expressed
concerns about the possibility of fuel-producing crops displacing valuable food crops.
Finally, there was a drop in the perceived value of using biotechnology to address climate
change, which led to it being ranked as one of the least valuable environmental
objectives of biotechnology. This may be due in part to rising scepticism about
anthropogenic climate change per se, rather than doubt in the ability of biotechnology to
address the problem.
Medical applications
Of all the applications of biotechnology to medicine, the use of stem cells remains the
most accepted application, with the highest levels of awareness, and lowest perceived
risk. In general, there was a pattern among the medical applications of high levels of
awareness and perceived usefulness, a low to moderate level of perceived risk, and
majority acceptance.
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology Drought Statement Archive:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/archive/
2
13
Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology in Australia - Results of a survey of public attitudes 2009-10
Information and regulation
While awareness of the organisations responsible for providing information about
biotechnology and for its regulation within Australia remains low, there is a high level of
trust in the regulatory system, which for a number of organisations has risen since the
last wave of this survey.
14