COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO BIOTECHNOLOGY
REPORT ON FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
APPLICATIONS
PREPARED FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
EUREKA PROJECT 4001
Contents
1. Research Context ........................................................................................... 1
Biotechnology Australia .................................................................................. 1
Importance of community attitudes ................................................................. 1
The nature of community attitudes .................................................................. 1
The need for research .................................................................................... 1
Research objectives ....................................................................................... 2
2. Research Design ............................................................................................. 3
A multi-stage research program ...................................................................... 3
Sample......................................................................................................... 4
3. Research Findings .......................................................................................... 6
Overall awareness and perceptions of biotechnology in the area of food and
agriculture .................................................................................................... 6
Awareness and perceptions of GM food crops ...................................................20
Awareness and perceptions of biotechnology (non-GM) food crops ......................37
Awareness and perceptions of GM non-food crops.............................................40
4. Conclusions .................................................................................................. 45
Biotechnology in food and agriculture ..............................................................45
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
1. Research Context
This section outlines the background to the project, and specifies our
understanding of the research objectives
Biotechnology Australia
Biotechnology Australia is a multi-departmental Australian Government agency
responsible for managing, with its partners, the National Biotechnology Strategy (NBS)
and coordinating non-regulatory biotechnology issues for the Australian Government.
Biotechnology Australia's goal is to ensure Australia captures the benefits arising from
the medical, agricultural and environmental application of biotechnology, while protecting
the safety of people and the environment.
Importance of community attitudes
Community attitudes are a crucial issue in the development of the Australian
biotechnology sector. If Australians are not in favour of certain applications of
biotechnology, efforts made by scientists on research and development will be
constricted, and a host of potential benefits in fields ranging from medicine to food to
textiles are likely to be lost. There is a need to understand the underlying drivers of
community acceptance of biotechnology and ways in which public rejection of
biotechnology may be minimised - both to inform the public about biotechnology and to
inform scientists of the public's needs and concerns
The nature of community attitudes
Research has shown that it is no longer sufficient to ask broad questions relating to
attitudes towards, or acceptance of, biotechnology per se, as these measures vary
markedly for different applications of biotechnology and gene technology. Issues that
may be taken into account when evaluating an application are:

Potential harm to humans, animals or the environment

Regulation and control of the process of development

Scope of benefits: humanity, scientific career advancement, or corporate profit

Potential for unforeseen outcomes to occur
Trade-offs may occur among these factors. For instance, harm to animals may be
acceptable to some if the application can save human lives, but not if it only is for
corporate profit.
The need for research
This research represents the fifth wave of Biotechnology Australia's ongoing attitudinal
research. As such, it is an opportunity to identify and understand any new issues that
have arisen, as well as any changes in community attitudes and their drivers, since 2005.
The increased understanding of social drivers of attitudes regarding biotechnology will be
used to identify differences in the various audiences and stakeholders. Finally, the
1
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
research will enable the success of some aspects of the Public Awareness Program to be
measured.
The enhanced understanding of community attitudes and concerns that will result from
this research will be used to guide the further development of the Public Awareness
Program. It will uncover any significant changes, new problem areas and priority targets
in terms of public attitudes to be addressed. It will also provide information on the most
effective means by which information can be imparted, and guidance in terms of the
conduct of further community consultations.
Research objectives
Overall, the aim of this project was to update and further develop understanding of the
community's awareness of, attitudes towards and concerns about different applications of
biotechnology, and the ways in which these drive community acceptance. In addition,
research aimed to understand community aspirations for biotechnology, information
sources, and the success of current public information and awareness strategies.
2
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
2. Research Design
In this section, details of our proposed research design are provided, as well as
our rationale for using this methodology
To meet these objectives, a multi-stage quantitative-qualitative methodology was
undertaken, as illustrated in the following diagram.
A multi-stage research program
Initially, a brief literature review was conducted to ensure that Eureka was fully aware of
any new developments in the area of biotechnology. Following this, a phase of
exploratory qualitative research was conducted in order to identify issues, attitudes,
motivations and behaviours which may have arisen since the last wave of the research.
Quantitative research was then carried out to measure the incidence of awareness,
perceptions and attitudes relating to biotechnology. This phase utilised a split sample
CATI/ online methodology. Finally, an explanatory phase of qualitative research was
conducted in order to investigate and explain in detail the findings from the survey.
3
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Sample
Exploratory qualitative phase
The sample structure for the exploratory qualitative research is shown in the table below.
Table 1. Sample structure for exploratory qualitative research
Age
Education level
Non-tertiary
Tertiary
18-30 years
31-65 years
Sydney
Wagga Wagga
Wagga Wagga
Sydney
This phase comprised of four discussion groups, with the variables of education, age and
location (metropolitan and non-metropolitan) factored into the structure. The discussion
groups were 2 hours in duration, and all participants received an incentive of $70.
Quantitative phase
This phase of the research has traditionally been conducted over the telephone via CATI
(Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing). This wave, however, Biotechnology
Australia sought to migrate the study to an online methodology. For a survey of this
length, an online methodology is beneficial to participants, as they are able to complete
the survey at a time of their choosing and over multiple sittings if desired. There are also
notable cost savings.
A split CATI/online sample methodology was deemed the most prudent approach to
facilitate the migration as this would enable clean comparison of data over time. The
total sample for consisted of 1,067 Australians between 18 and 75 years of age.
Approximately half the interviews (n=534) were conducted via CATI and the other half
(n=533) were conducted online.
The telephone sample was recruited using List Assisted Random Digit Dialling (LARDD)
methodology, to yield a more representative sample than the Electronic White Pages
(EWP). The sample was stratified by location (nationally by state/territory and, within
these, by rural/regional/metropolitan areas) in such a way that the sample was in
proportion to the population. In addition, within each location stratum, broad age and
gender quotas were applied, again proportional to the population. Sampling methods
employing a disproportionate chance of selection were used to deal with groups who
were known to be less inclined to do surveys or more difficult to contact (e.g. males and
younger persons) in order to be representative. Importantly, this approach mirrors the
approach of the previous wave of research, thus ensuring comparability. The
questionnaire averaged 29 minutes duration.
For the online methodology, samples were sourced from an online panel, that is,
individuals who have opted to receive email invitations to participate in surveys from our
fieldwork supplier. Stratification and quota sampling occurred as per the telephone
methodology.
4
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Explanatory qualitative phase
The sample structure for the explanatory qualitative phase was based on two main
variables, location and level of support, and is presented below. In the recruitment
process, participants were required to rate their attitude towards the use of gene
technology in today's society on a scale of 0 to 10 (where 0 is completely opposed and
10 is fully supportive). Once again, the duration of the groups was 2 hours, and a $70
incentive was provided.
Table 2. Sample structure for explanatory qualitative research
Location
Bathurst
Sydney (City)
Hurstville
31-65 years
18-30 years
31-65 years
Medium
18-30 years
31-65 years
18-30 years
High
18-30 years
18-30 years
31-65 years
Level of support Low
In the following chapter, results from the qualitative and quantitative phases are
combined and presented together for each issue.
5
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
3. Research Findings
This section presents the findings for community attitudes and perceptions of
food and agricultural applications of biotechnology
This section details the findings from the quantitative and qualitative phases of research
pertaining to food and agricultural applications of biotechnology. Where it would assist
the reader to understand the research findings, verbatim quotations from research
participants have been included to illustrate the range of views typically expressed.
The findings cover overall awareness and perceptions of biotechnology in the area of food
and agricultural, as well those specifically relating to the use of genetic modification in
food and non-food crops, biotechnology in the production of food from plants. There is
also an examination of the response to media stories relating to the roles of genes in
human behaviour.
The following points are relevant to the interpretation of the quantitative findings:

Data from telephone interviews (not online) has been used for this wave's analysis,
in order to ensure methodologically consistent data are compared over time.
Previous waves of research were conducted over the telephone.

Significant trends over time are denoted with a circle (increase) or box (decrease)

A number of questionnaire changes were made to meet the needs of stakeholders
involved in the research. Comparisons over time are therefore only possible for
some questions.

One important change was that definitions of biotechnology, gene technology and
genetic modification were provided at the commencement of the survey
questionnaire and before each of the later group discussions. This was done at the
request of stakeholders, to avoid any ambiguity in meaning when using these
terms.
Overall awareness and perceptions of biotechnology in
the area of food and agriculture
Knowledge and awareness of technology terminology
Participants in the survey were asked to indicate their self-assessed level of awareness
and knowledge of six technologies: genetic modification, gene technology, biotechnology,
stem cell research, cloning and IVF. Results for the current wave are shown in Figure 1
and results comparing the current wave with Wave 4 are shown in Figure 2.
6
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Figure 1. Understanding of technology terminology
Base: all CATI (n=534)
Participants' self-assessed level of knowledge was highest for IVF, with 59% indicating
that they could explain the technology to a friend. One in two participants (50%)
indicated an equivalent level of knowledge for cloning, while just over one in three (35%)
did so for genetic modification and stem cell research. The technologies that participants
felt least knowledgeable about were gene technology and biotechnology. Twenty-two
percent and 18% signified that they could explain these technologies to a friend
respectively.
Awareness of all technologies was high. More than nine in ten participants noted that
they had at least heard of cloning, IVF and stem cell research. Awareness of genetic
modification, gene technology and biotechnology was slightly lower, at 87%, 79% and
78% respectively.
Analysis1 was conducted on the relationship between demographic and psychographic
variables, and knowledge of technology terminology. Table 3 below summarises the
subgroups found to be significantly more likely to indicate being able to explain a
technology to a friend. In sum, those who felt comfortable with new technologies
expressed greater technology knowledge than those who did not feel comfortable, those
participants who were university educated had greater self-assessed knowledge than
those who were not, and finally, males were more likely to indicate being able to explain
technologies to a friend than females.
Pearson Chi square tests were conducted to test the significance of the relationship
between variables. This test compares the actual frequencies of the cross tabulation to
the frequencies we would expect if there was no relationship between the variables.
Those relationships that have a probability of being due to chance that are less than 5%
are described as being statistically significant.
1
7
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Table 3. Predictors of knowledge of terminology
More likely to be able to explain
to a friend
Item
Subgroup %
Total for
item %
Technophiles (new technologies
excite me more than they concern
me)
Genetic modification
44
35
Stem cell research
42
35
Gene technology
32
22
Biotechnology
28
18
Technophiles (technological change
happens too fast for me to keep up
with it)
Cloning
64
50
University educated
Cloning
60
50
Genetic modification
48
35
Stem cell research
45
35
Gene technology
31
22
Biotechnology
27
18
Cloning
55
50
Stem cell research
41
35
Gene technology
26
22
Biotechnology
26
18
Males
The question on terminology was asked in the same way in 2005 for three of these
technologies: cloning, stem cell research and biotechnology. Comparative results over
time for these technologies are presented in Figure 2 below. Results indicate that there
have been no significant improvements in self-assessed knowledge of these technologies
over time.
8
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Figure 2. Understanding of technology terminology - trends over time
Base: all CATI 2005 (n=1,068) 2007 (n=534)
* 2005 Use of stem cells
Perceptions of technologies
Participants in the survey were subsequently asked whether they believed each of the
same technologies was likely to improve our way of life in the future, have no effect or
make things worse. The results are illustrated in Figure 3.
9
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Figure 3. Perceived future impact of technologies on our way of life
Base: all CATI (n=534)
Of all technologies, participants were most likely to predict that stem cell research would
have a positive future impact on our way of life. Indeed, almost nine in ten (87%)
indicated that it would improve our way of life, while only 5% felt that it would make
things worse. Predictions for gene technology and biotechnology were positive from the
majority of participants, with 73% and 68% respectively signifying that these
technologies would improve our way of life, and only a small number (10% and 8%
respectively) predicting things being made worse. Positive future perceptions drop
markedly for genetic modification (45%) and cloning (28%), while negative future
perceptions increase correspondingly (29% and 48%).
Participants were least able to respond to this question in relation to biotechnology and
genetic modification. Just under one in five (18% and 17% respectively) provided a
'don't know' response.
Analysis2 was conducted on the relationship between demographic and psychographic
variables, and positive perceptions of technologies. Table 4 below summarises the
subgroups found to be significantly more likely to view technologies improving our way of
life in the future. In sum, those who feel more comfortable with new technologies had
more positive outlooks for technologies in the future than others, males had more
positive perceptions of cloning and genetic modification than females, females had more
positive perceptions of IVF than males, and lastly, those who are university educated and
those aged 18-30 were more likely than others to predict that cloning will have a positive
impact on our future way of life.
2
Pearson Chi square tests were conducted using a significance criterion of p<.05
10
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Table 4. Predictors of positive perceptions of technologies
Will improve our way of life in
the future
Item
Subgroup %
Total for
item %
'Technophiles' (new technologies
excite me more than they concern
me)
Biotechnology
77
68
Gene technology
82
73
Genetic modification
61
45
Cloning
34
28
Stem cell research
94
87
IVF
88
83
Cloning
33
28
Genetic modification
52
45
Females
IVF
86
83
University educated
Cloning
34
28
18-30
Cloning
39
28
Males
Figure 4 below presents the results over time for the applicable items in this question.
Figure 4. Perceived future impact of technologies on our way of life - trends
over time
Base: those aware CATI
* 2005 Use of stem cells
11
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
There were significant increases in the proportion indicating that stem cell research,
biotechnology and cloning will improve our way of life in the future. The proportion rose
from 82% to 87% for stem cell research, from 60% to 68% for biotechnology, and from
19% to 28% for cloning.
Support for gene technology in food and agriculture
Survey participants indicated their overall support for the use of gene technology in the
area of food and agriculture by providing a rating out of 10, where 0 indicated that they
were 'completely against it' and 10 indicated that they were 'fully supportive'. The
frequency distribution chart (Figure 5) below presents the results from this wave,
alongside those from Wave 4.
Figure 5. Overall support for the use of gene technology in food and agriculture
applications today
Base: All CATI, 2005 n=1,068, 2007 n=534
As indicated in the legend of the chart, there was a significant increase since last wave in
the mean rating of support for the use of food and agriculture in its applications today.
The average rating given by participants in the current wave was 5.5 out of 10, while the
average rating given in 2005 was 4.9.
There was a notable increase in the proportion of participants rating themselves 'fully
supportive' of gene technology in food and agricultural applications, from 6% in 2005 to
12% in 2007. There was a corresponding decline in the proportion of participants giving a
support rating of 5 or lower. Only 8% of participants noted that they were 'completely
against it'.
12
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Analysis3 was conducted to determine any demographic or psychographic differences in
overall support. Results are summarised in Table 5 below. In sum, overall support for the
use of gene technology in food and agriculture applications was significantly greater
among males and among those who are more excited than concerned by new
technologies. As we would anticipate, overall support among those who agreed that we
should use more natural ways of farming was significantly lower.
Table 5. Subgroup differences in level of overall support
Mean overall support
Item
Subgroup
mean
rating
Overall mean
rating for
item
More positive
Males
Food and agriculture
5.8
5.5
Technophiles (new technologies
excite me more than they concern
me)
Food and agriculture
6.6
5.5
Food and agriculture
4.7
5.5
Less positive
Natural farming enthusiasts
These questions were also asked in 2005. The results over time for these questions are
presented in Figures 8 and 9 below.
Awareness and perceptions of applications of biotechnology
Participants in the survey were asked a series of questions relating to different
applications of biotechnology. For each set of applications, questions were asked
regarding participants' awareness, perceived usefulness, perceived risks and acceptability
of the technology. Each question was first asked in relation to a general area (e.g. using
biotechnology in the production of food from plants) and then more specifically in relation
to the techniques used in that area. Here, results are presented for the general areas
(Figures 6 to 9). This allows for comparison of the perceptions of the use of food and
agriculture with those of other applications of gene technology. More detailed findings
relating to awareness and perceptions of GM food crops, awareness and perceptions of
biotechnology (non-GM) food crops, and awareness and perceptions of GM non-food
crops are provided in the following sections.
Anova tests and Spearman's correlation were conducted where appropriate using a
significance criterion of p<.05
3
13
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Figure 6. Awareness of general applications
Base: rotated questions CATI
The majority of participants were aware of all applications of biotechnology. Awareness of
modifying plant genes to produce food was high, at 85%, and awareness was higher only
for stem cells (95%). Almost three out of every four participants were aware of
biotechnology in food production (74%), an awareness level just higher than the two
other health and medical applications (70% for use of gene technology in medicine
production and 68% for use of gene technology in human transplants). Awareness of
modifying plant genes to produce non food crops was somewhat lower at just over one in
two (55%).
A summary of demographic and psychographic differences 4 in awareness of applications
is presented in Table 6. In sum, there was significantly higher awareness of GM food
crops and GM non-food crops among males, but significantly higher awareness of use of
gene technology in human transplants among females.
Table 6. Subgroup differences in awareness of applications
Awareness
Item
Males
GM food crops
91
85
GM non-food
crops
66
55
Human
transplants
73
68
Females
4
Subgroup % Total for item
%
Pearson Chi square tests were conducted using a significance criterion of p<.05
14
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Figure 7. Perceived usefulness of general applications
Base: rotated questions CATI
There were high levels of perceived utility for the three food and agriculture applications
of biotechnology. Just over eight in ten (83%) indicated that using biotechnology in the
production of plants from food and modifying plant genes to produce food were useful,
while slightly fewer (70%) indicated that modifying plant genes to produce non-food
crops was useful. Levels of perceived utility were lower for these applications than for
each of the health and medicine applications of biotechnology.
As demonstrated in Table 7 below, an analysis5 of subgroup differences established that
'technophiles' (those who agree that technologies excite more than concern them) were
significantly more likely to perceive a number of applications as useful. In addition, males
were significantly more likely to see use of gene technology to produce medicines as
useful.
Table 7. Subgroup differences in perceived usefulness of applications
Perceived usefulness
Item
Technophiles (new technologies excite
me more than they concern me)
GM food crops
92
83
GM non-food
crops
83
70
Human
transplants
99
91
100
96
Medicines
5
Subgroup % Total for item
%
Pearson Chi square tests were conducted using a significance criterion of p<.05
15
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Perceived usefulness
Item
Males
Medicines
Subgroup % Total for item
%
99
96
Figure 8. Perceived risk of general applications
Base: rotated questions CATI
There were fairly high levels of perceived risk for all applications of biotechnology,
together with high levels of perceived utility. The proportion of participants rating
applications as 'risky' ranged from 37%, for the use of stem cells to conduct medical
research and treat disease, to 54%, for modifying the genes of plants to produce food.
Among food and agriculture applications, GM non-food crops were perceived to be least
risky, at 42%.
A summary of the demographic and psychographic differences 6 in perceived risk is
presented in Table 8. In sum, the only significant differences to emerge were that those
who disagreed that 'new technologies excite me more than concern me' were more likely
to perceive the use of stem cells and the use of gene technology in the production of
medicines to be risky.
Table 8. Subgroup differences in perceived risk of applications
Risks
Item
Subgroup %
Total for item
%
Technophobes (disagree that new
Medicines
59
44
6
Pearson Chi square tests were conducted using a significance criterion of p<.05
16
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Risks
Item
Subgroup %
Total for item
%
technologies excite me more than they
concern me)
Stem cells
49
37
Figure 9. Perceived acceptability of general applications
Base: rotated questions CATI
Results for perceived acceptability of applications follow a similar pattern to those for
perceived utility, with food and agricultural applications receiving fewer 'acceptable'
ratings than health and medical applications. Perceived acceptability was fairly high
across all applications.
As indicated in Table 9 below, the only significant predictor 7 of perceived acceptance of
technologies was attitude towards new technologies. 'Technophiles' were significantly
more accepting of all applications.
Table 9. Subgroup differences in perceived acceptability of applications
Acceptance
Item
Technophiles (new technologies
excite me more than they concern
me)
7
Subgroup %
Total for
item %
GM food crops
84
73
GM non-food crops
91
73
Biotechnology in the
production of food
from plants
89
76
Pearson Chi square tests were conducted using a significance criterion of p<.05
17
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Acceptance
Item
Subgroup %
Total for
item %
Medicines
94
89
Stem cells
98
92
Human transplants
93
84
Qualitative findings
Group discussions shed some light on why, in general, agricultural applications of
biotechnology received less support than medical applications..

The purpose of biotechnology in agriculture - and of GM crops in particular - was
perceived by many to be commercial, and as bringing benefit to large producers
and big businesses rather than to consumers, farmers or society generally. By
contrast, the purpose of biotechnology in the medical realm was perceived to be
altruistic and humanitarian, and as benefiting society as a whole.

The changes that are made to plant characteristics through genetic modification
were commonly said to be cosmetic - in other words, changing the outward
appearance of the product for the purpose of increasing sales, with little benefit for
consumers or farmers.

Many people expressed concern about the level of control that can be exercised
over GM crops, particularly once they are released from the laboratory into the
environment. The risks of widespread planting of GM crops were thought by some
to be high, potentially affecting all members of society through "contamination of
the food chain." In addition, the process of introducing GM crops was believed to be
irreversible. Some commented that GM plant strains were more virulent than, and
therefore likely to take over, natural varieties.

Some participants described feeling powerless to influence how biotechnology is
used in agriculture, with many believing that the information they receive about
food-production processes is insufficient and that food labelling requirements are
inadequate. This is linked to the misconception that GM products are widely
available on supermarket shelves. As a result, these participants believed they were
unable to exercise choice as consumers.
Of the three areas of application with an agricultural focus, the use of biotechnology in
the production of food from plants was regarded as the most acceptable - largely
because it was believed to include comparatively 'natural' methods like selective
breeding. However, participants generally had very limited understanding of what
'biotechnology' might mean in this context, beyond a general notion of the 'natural' (i.e.
selective breeding) and the 'unnatural' (i.e. genetic modification).
While survey results indicated very similar levels of acceptability in relation to GM food
and non-food crops, it was clear from the group discussions that many were uncertain
about what types of non-food crops might be grown, and did not automatically associate
these with (for example) textiles, fuels or plastics. As a result of this uncertainty,
participants initially regarded GM food crops (with which people are more familiar) as
more acceptable than nonfood crops. However, after being told of the possible uses for
18
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
GM non-food crops - particularly those with an environmental benefit - there was much
greater support for their use.
The following quotes are typical of group discussion feedback on biotechnology in food
and agriculture:
I think if there's a benefit, like if it's going to feed the third world or make wheat
that grows in the desert, then that's acceptable. If it's because you want to
copyright your genes and only have certain growers paying you money to get the
seed, if it's about money, then it's not acceptable to me.
I'm happy if it's to help out with global warming or something like that, or with
medicine, or research to make food more drought resistant or store resistant or
bug-resistant if there's some particular species of frog that's eating crops ...
because I don't want it to be used for cosmetic use - to make things look better,
but not any real benefit.
I think the one that people are most scared of is the food thing, because it reaches
the greatest number of people, and we don't know what effects it's going to have.
It might cause cancer...we don't want to [get in the situation where] we can't
change it. Once the damage is done, the damage is done.
General attitudes towards the use of gene technology in food and
agriculture
Participants in the survey were asked to indicate their level of agreement to several
statements concerning the use of gene technology in food and agriculture. Participants
stated if they agreed or disagreed with a particular statement, and whether it was at a
strong or mild level. Participants could also indicate neutrality. The results are shown in
Figure 10 below.
Figure 10. Attitudes towards gene technology in food and agriculture
The majority of participants (55%) expressed agreement that genetic modification in
agriculture was mostly for the benefit of commercial companies, with more than a third
(37%) agreeing strongly.
19
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
There was a nett positive response to the view that plant and animal characteristics
should only be changed through traditional breeding methods, with 44% agreeing and
35% disagreeing.
There were no clear views regarding the economic impact of gene technology on farms.
Just under three in ten (29%) agreed that Australian farms need GM organisms to stay
financially viable, but an almost equal number (26%) agreed that Australian farms need
to be free of GM organisms to stay financially viable. There were also similar levels of
disagreement to both these statements (36% and 40% respectively).
There were few who argued against the commercial use of genetic modification and its
products, and research into genetic modification. Twenty-four percent and 16% agreed
with these statements respectively
Awareness and perceptions of GM food crops
This section presents the detailed findings for perceptions of the use of genetic
modification in food crops. Participants were asked their opinions on the general
application, as well as specific examples of modification of genes, such as by introducing
the genes of; a plant of the same species, a plant of a different species, a bacterium, and
an animal. Figures 11 to 14 show the results over time for awareness, perceived
usefulness, perceived risk and perceived acceptability of these forms of genetic
modification. This is followed by a discussion of the qualitative feedback regarding the
genetic modification of plants to produce food.
Awareness
Figure 11. Awareness of GM food crops
Base: rotated question CATI (n=266)
Awareness of the general application was high, at close to nine in ten (85%). This
reduced, however, once participants were provided with details about the technique.
Awareness of modification via introduction of genes of a plant of the same species and
20
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
via introduction of genes of a different plant species was similar, at 66% and 65%
respectively. There was another marked decline in awareness for the application
involving introduction of the genes of a bacterium. Awareness was notably lower again
for the application involving the introduction of animal genes, at just over one in four
(26%).
Perceived usefulness
Figure 12. Perceived usefulness of GM food crops
Base: rotated question CATI (n=266)
Perceived usefulness of the general application and of the application involving
introduction of same plant species genes was high, at over eight in ten (83% and 85%
respectively). Positive perceptions declined steadily, however, as the relationship
between the plant and the secondary organism weakened. Thus, perceived utility for the
introduction of different plant species genes was 73%, and this dropped again for the
introduction of bacterium genes (53%) and finally to the introduction of animal genes
(29%).
21
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Perceived risk
Figure 13. Perceived risk of the use of GM crops
Base: rotated question CATI (n=266)
There were fairly high levels of perceived risk across all applications. Just over one in two
(54%) felt that the general application was risky. This rose to almost three in four (73%)
for the application involving the introduction of genes of an animal, and was similar for
the application involving introduction of bacterium genes. There was substantially lower
perceived risk, however, for applications involving close species or same species
modification (52% and 29% respectively).
Indeed, perceptions of the risks posed by GM food crops were the focus of much group
discussion. As noted earlier, there were some with strong concerns that GM crops could
'take over' the environment, crowding out natural plant varieties and making (more
expensive) organic or non-GM foods hard to find. With many people wishing to buy (or at
least wishing to have the option to buy) organic/non-GM where possible, it was feared
that this scenario would stifle consumer choice. Additionally, the introduction of GM crops
was said to be irreversible, a notion that was of concern for many people.
The difference is once you've got the GM crops in place, they can naturally be
cross-pollinated with non-GM crops, and you get GM crops spreading because
they're stronger and natural selection takes their own course.
It's getting to the point where we don't get a choice, with breads and chips;
everything's got chemicals and preservatives. It's affecting our children. We don't
have a choice, we make our food from fresh produce, which will be impossible to
get if they do that.
Once these changes are made, there's no going back. You can't change your mind.
Health risks were also raised by many participants as a reason for exercising caution in
allowing GM crops to be grown. These people argued that there is not enough evidence
22
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
to show that GM crops are completely safe in all circumstances, and that research would
need to be carried out over many years. With potentially all members of the population
ingesting GM foods, it was regarded as very important that the safety of GM foods is
unequivocally established.
With modification of genes in plants and things, you could be bringing in all sorts of
diseases that we don't know about, and things that we haven't really trialled for a
number of years. It might take generations before something happens.
Only time and research can dispel any concerns.
Perceived acceptability
Figure 14. Perceived acceptability of the use of GM crops
Base: rotated question CATI (n=266)
Perceived acceptability followed a similar trend to perceived usefulness, with positive
perceptions increasing as the relationship between the plant and the secondary organism
strengthened. Perceived acceptability was at its highest for the application involving the
introduction of the genes of a plant of the same species, at more than eight in ten
(84%). This declined steadily until its lowest point of 27% for the application involving
the introduction of animal genes.
Group discussion participants were asked for their views on the difference between
internal, close-family and inter-species genetic modification (analogous to the survey
question reported above). Generally speaking, inter-species genetic modification was
regarded as much more 'unnatural' - and therefore to be done cautiously or not at all than internal and close-family GM. This appeared to be the case even for those people
who were otherwise strongly supportive of gene technology and its application in
agriculture.
Figure 15 below presents the results over time for the four key questions on awareness,
perceived usefulness, perceived risk and perceived acceptability.
23
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Figure 15. GM food crops: trends over time
Base: rotated questions CATI 2005 (n=537) 2007 (n=266)
There have been substantial significant increases in awareness and positive perceptions
of GM food crops since 2005. Awareness rose from 76% in 2005 to 85% in 2007,
perceived utility rose from 64% to 83%, perceived risk dropped from 71% to 54% and
perceived acceptability rose from 48% to 73%. These results are noteworthy for the size
of the movements.
Group discussion results indicate that much of the increase in the acceptability of GM
food crops over time is explained by greater familiarity with the notion of GM plants. In
fact, some people regard the widespread use of GM crops as a fait accompli, and
therefore no longer worth objecting to. As well, the lack of negative publicity relating to
GM crops has led to a relaxation of anxiety about the risks that they pose. In other
words, since there appear to have been little or no negative consequences of planting
and eating GM food crops, there is less concern about the risks that they pose for the
future.
Perceived acceptability of GM food crops under certain conditions
Those survey participants who indicated that GM food crops were 'unacceptable' were
asked whether or not they would find GM food crops acceptable under certain conditions.
Responses to this question are presented in Figure 16 below.
24
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Figure 16. Acceptability of GM food crops if...
Base: those who said GM food crops unacceptable, CATI (n=65)
The majority of participants who indicated that GM food crops were 'unacceptable' were
not swayed by further information regarding labelling, certification, or the source of the
food. The most positive impact on perceptions was found when participants were
informed that the food would be labelled as genetically modified, in accordance with food
regulations. In this instance, just under two in five (38%) stated that GM food crops
would be acceptable under this condition. Just over three in ten participants were
positively influenced by information on certification by a government regulator (32%), by
information on development by a government research body (32%) and by information
on development by an Australian company. Of these participants, development by an
overseas company had the least positive impact on perceptions (8%).
Labelling of food containing GM content was an important issue for group discussion
participants. As reported earlier, there is a widespread belief that Australians are
currently unknowingly eating GM foods, because such foods are not labelled properly. As
a result, some people felt they were being misled into eating GM foods that they didn't
want to. For many, however, it was the in principle desire for consumer choice that was
important, rather than the desire to actively avoid GM products.
It's the only voice that consumers have really. It's what you buy.
There was talk about labelling the fruit and vegetables and I was waiting for it. It
never happened.
I think that if they weren't labelling it people would be a lot more sceptical about it.
I think if information is out there in the open then people who are more sceptical
about it can make their own informed decision. But for those who don't really mind,
[label it] so that they don't have this really negative connotation about it to begin
with.
25
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Group discussion participants were not necessarily convinced that government
certification of a GM crop or food would guarantee its safety or benefit. Instead, a
number of people suggested that more faith might be placed in the CSIRO's assessment.
Participants were also asked whether the country where GM crops are developed is an
important consideration. While most people favoured supporting Australian companies in
principle, the country of origin was not deemed to be a significant factor in assessing
whether a crop was acceptable. However, they were more sceptical about GM crops
developed in a country where regulatory systems were perceived to be more lax, for fear
that the crop might be unsafe.
Attitudes towards objectives of GM food crops
Survey participants were presented with a series of objectives of GM food crops and were
asked their views on their perceived value. Results are presented in Figure 17 below.
Figure 17. Perceived value of objectives of GM food crops
Base: those who said GM food crops unacceptable, CATI (n=65)
The majority of participants indicated they perceived some value in all objectives. The
objective perceived to be most valuable was drought resistance, with just over two-thirds
(69%) rating this objective as very valuable. This was followed by making the food
healthier (58% very valuable) and making the plants pest resistant (52% very valuable).
At the other end of the scale, the objective perceived to be least valuable was the
accelerated maturation of plants, with one in four (25%) viewing this as very valuable
and just over one in five (21%) rating it as not at all valuable. Herbicide tolerance and
making the food last longer were seen to be the next least valuable objectives. These
objectives were rated as very valuable by 29% and 34% respectively, and as not at all
valuable by 17% of participants.
Drought resistance was regarded as the most important objective of those put to the
group discussions, with pest resistance also regarded as very valuable. There was
widespread agreement that any solutions to environmental problems that biotechnology
26
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
can provide are worthwhile. Many of these objectives were characterised as man-made
solutions to man-made problems. In addition, drought resistance, pest resistance and
frost resistance were all seen as minimising the risk of adverse events, with farmers and
consumers the likely beneficiaries.
We live in an environment that's changing, and perhaps we have to look at
modifying crops for them to still be produced. Because our environment's changing.
Things need to be made more drought resistant. We have to be open to these
genetically modified things.
I don't want my food modified for any of those reasons. Nature's taken care of
things in the past. The only thing maybe is drought resistance because of climate
change and lack of water.
If the pests are going to affect the crops and everything, if it is affected by the
pests it mightn't be as healthy. Then maybe being pest resistant is important for
having a healthy plant.
Meanwhile, some other objectives were regarded as generating commercial advantage
for big business, but being of less apparent benefit for farmers, consumers and society.
For instance, making food last longer and making plants mature more quickly were
interpreted by many as being ultimately for the benefit of corporations (i.e. supermarket
chains and agricultural companies) rather than producers and consumers, who would
benefit marginally if at all. However, rural groups appeared to understand better the
benefits of growing crops that mature more quickly.
You'd hope that there'd be other benefits that people would be inventing or
producing GM that'd go to the general public, for example more food for costs, but
large companies don't invest for decades of confidential research and pay farmers
large amounts of money to run tests without expecting a return.
Group discussion participants were supportive of making food healthier in principle, but
did not readily appreciate what health benefits might accrue from eating GM crops. Some
people construed herbicide tolerance as meaning that more chemicals would be used on
these plants, and expressed unease about this objective (this reflects wider disapproval
of the use of chemicals in agriculture, particularly among people in metropolitan areas).
Others did not appear to understand what this 'herbicide tolerance' meant or implied.
One perceived objective of GM food crops that was raised many group discussion
participants was to improve the look and feel of fruit and vegetables, rather than to
impart plants with more important characteristics. This view was linked to the common
perception that GM foods are widely prevalent, and that fresh food looks 'unnaturally'
attractive compared with the past. The following comments were typical:
I remember as a kid you used to get a pear and it tasted like a pear. Now it tastes
like chalk.
Tomatoes I know have definitely been genetically modified. Now they look
beautiful, but there's no flavour.
Some participants also raised the notion of genetically modifying crops so that they don't
bear seeds - so that farmers need to continue purchasing seed from patent-holders.
Group discussions held in rural locations tended to understand the potential benefits of
GM crops for farmers and rural communities more readily than their metropolitan
27
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
counterparts. Nevertheless, these groups also emphasised the need to encourage healthy
markets so that farmers were given a fair deal.
Knowledge of GM crops and foods
Participants' general knowledge of GM crops and foods was examined by a series of 'true
or false' questions. Four statements regarding the prevalence of GM foods and crops
were presented to participants, who were required to indicate whether or not each
statement was true. The same four statements were presented to participants in the
2005 wave of research. Results for both waves are presented in Figure 18 below. The
correct response to each of these statements is displayed in red at the foot of the item.
Figure 18. Knowledge of GM crops and foods
Base: 2005 all (n=1118), 2007 all CATI (n=534)
There have been significant improvements in knowledge since last wave for three of the
four statements: the proportion of participants who correctly indicated that most of the
processed foods in Australian supermarkets contain GM ingredients is 'false' rose from
42% to 48%; the proportion of participants who correctly indicated that most of the fresh
fruit and vegetables grown in Australia is 'false' rose from 65% to 71%, and the
proportion of participants who correctly indicated that most of the cotton grown in
Australia is GM is 'true' rose from 42% to 49%.
Knowledge declined this wave, however, for the final statement regarding the GM status
of vegetable oils. A higher proportion of participants incorrectly indicated that this
statement was 'true' (up from 34% to 41%).
Improvements in knowledge aside, there remain widespread misconceptions regarding
genetically modified crops and foods.
28
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Results from group discussions indicate that, as in the 2005 wave of this research, there
is a widespread perception that GM foods, in particular GM fruit and vegetables, are
prevalent (although not necessarily dominant - as asked in the quantitative survey) in
Australia's food supply.
Survey participants were asked whether or not they thought that commercial GM crops
were allowed to be grown in their state of residence. Those who indicated affirmatively
were then asked to state what type of crops they thought these were. This question was
asked as an unprompted question. Results for these questions are presented in Figures
19 to 20 below. Please note that the sample sizes for Tasmania and Northern Territory
are very low and should therefore be interpreted with caution.
Figure 19. Awareness of GM crop growth in Australia
Base: All COMBINED, n=1118
More than four in ten (43%) participants were unable to answer this question, an
indication of the low levels of awareness. The 'don't know' responses reached a high of
49% in Queensland.
Among those who did respond to this question, participants were more likely to believe
that GM crops were grown in their own state than not (40% indicated yes and 17%
indicated no). The proportion of 'yes' responses were fairly similar across states,
including in NSW and QLD, where GM cotton is grown commercially.
29
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Figure 20. Perceived GM crops grown commercially in own state
Across most states, GM canola was the most commonly cited crop. The exception was in
Queensland, where instead, GM cotton was the most commonly cited crop. Three of
these states coincided with those in which GM canola trials are taking place: NSW,
Victoria and South Australia.
GM wheat was the next most commonly cited crop, followed by GM cotton. The highest
proportion of mentions came from NSW (24%) and Queensland (29%), the states in
which it is grown. However, it should be noted that participants were somewhat 'primed'
about GM cotton, having previously answered the 'true/false' question on GM cotton
growth in Australia.
The suggestions of corn, tomatoes, grapes, other fruit and other vegetables are
indicative of the misconceptions regarding genetic modification of fruit and vegetables.
Group discussion participants were equally mistaken, with people in rural areas
mentioning a large number of crops they believed are grown in NSW (watermelon, corn,
cotton, silver beet, wheat, and rice).
Rural and metropolitan groups alike had very limited knowledge of the moratoria in
place, with agricultural workers and people living outside regional centres the exception.
No participants could recall any media coverage of the moratoria or related issues.
There was a general agreement in most groups that farmers should be consulted and
have a major role in decisions on which GM crops are allowed under what conditions.
All survey participants were asked whether or not they would support the commercial
growth of GM crops in their own state. Those who responded negatively (or were unsure)
were asked if they would support the growth of GM crops under certain positive
conditions, while those who responded affirmatively (or were unsure) were asked if they
would still support the growth of GM crops under certain negative conditions. Figures 21
to 24 present these results.
30
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Figure 21. Support for growing GM crops in own state
Base: All COMBINED
One in two participants (50%) indicated that they would be in favour of growing GM
crops in their own state. Just over three in ten (31%) indicated that they would not be in
favour of growing GM crops, while the remainder (18%) said that they were unsure.
31
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Figure 22. Support for growing GM crops under positive conditions
The majority (59%) of those who did not respond positively to the growth of GM crops in
their own state would sway their opinion if the crops passed stringent regulations
pertaining to health and the environment. Combining the results from this question and
the previous question, 80% of participants would be in favour of growing GM crops in
their own state if the crops passed stringent regulations pertaining to health and the
environment.
Just over one third (34%) of participants would change their opinion if growing GM crops
enhanced Australia's economic competitiveness, while three in ten (30%) would do so if
there was evidence that many farmers wanted to plant GM crops.
32
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Figure 23. Support for growing GM crops under negative conditions
These conditions were presented to participants who responded affirmatively to the
growth of GM crops in their own state, or who were unsure. Only a minority of
participants would remain in favour of growing GM crops if the health and environmental
impacts of the crops could not be established (12% remain in favour), or if there was
evidence that it would diminish Australia's economic competitiveness (16%) or if there
was evidence that few farmers wanted to plant genetically modified crops (33%). These
figures translate to 8%, 11% and 22% of the total sample.
33
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Figure 24. Support for GM crop growth in own state: by state of residence
Base: All COMBINED
* Caution, low base
Support for the growth of GM crops was fairly similar across states, ranging from 55% in
NSW to 44% in Victoria.
GM food products
Survey participants were asked to state their willingness to eat a range of different types
of food, including food products derived from cloned animals, GM food products, as well
as foods currently commonly eaten. They rated their willingness on a scale from 0 to 10,
where 10 indicated the greatest level of willingness and 0 indicated the greatest level of
hesitation. The results are displayed in Figure 25.
34
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Figure 25. Consumer willingness to eat GM foods
Base: all CATI (n = 534)
* Meat refers to 'meat and other products'
As anticipated, participants indicated being much more willing to eat organic food than all
other types of foods. The average rating of 'willingness' was 8.7 out of 10. There was
fairly low stated willingness to eat all other types of foods, including those commonly
eaten such as food grown with the use of pesticides (mean rating of 4.6).
Participants were least willing to consume meat and other products from cloned animals
(mean rating of 3.6) and from the offspring of cloned animals (mean rating of 3.7). The
next lowest mean rating was given for meat and other products from GM animals (4.2).
Among other GM related food products, participants were most willing to eat food with a
small amount of GM ingredients (mean rating 5.2), followed by food made from GM food
crops (mean rating 5.1), then GM fruit and vegetables (4.9) and meat and other animal
products fed with GM stock feed (4.7).
Of note, however, participants indicated being less willing to eat food grown with the use
of pesticides (4.6) than food made from GM crops (5.1). This suggests that actual
behaviour does not follow claimed behaviour.
A very similar question was asked in 2005. Note, however, that the wording referred to
'confidence in eating foods' rather than 'willingness to eat foods'. Participants were
required to respond on a 10 points scale, with the end points referring to greatest and
least levels of confidence. Results for the two waves are presented in Figure 26, but
bearing in mind the difference in wording.
35
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Figure 26. Consumer willingness to consume foods: trends over time
Base: all CATI 2005 (n=1,068) 2007 (n=534)
*2005 questions referred to 'meat' instead of 'meat and other products'
Question changed in 2007 from 'confidence' to 'willingness' to eat products
An examination of the non-GM and cloning related items provides a baseline comparison
from which to work. Results indicate no difference between results for food containing
preservatives and a significant increase of 0.4 for organic food, non-organic food and
food grown with the use of pesticides. There have been much larger increases, however,
for the GM and cloning related items, an indication that there has been an increase in
willingness to eat these items. The largest gain was seen for food containing a small
amount of GM ingredients, with the mean rating rising from 3.9 to 5.2. The mean for the
remaining items each increased by 0.9: up from 4.0 to 4.9 for GM fruit and vegetables;
up from 3.8 to 4.7 for meat and other products from animals fed with GM stock, and up
from 3.3 to 4.2 for meat and other products from GM animals.
Group discussion participants described food from GM plants and artificial chemicals and
flavours as equally unnatural and to be avoided if possible. However, many people
acknowledged that they probably ate GM foods regularly (with GM foods believed to be
more widespread than in reality), and that they would probably continue to do so. In
fact, some participants preferred not to know too much about what they were
consuming, thinking that they would be disturbed by the information. The phrase
"ignorance is bliss" was used in several groups to describe this sentiment. Rural groups
appeared to be less concerned than metropolitan groups about food grown using
chemicals and fertilisers, which are in general use and considered to be safe.
Interestingly, some group discussion participants said that they would prefer to eat GM
fruit and vegetables to heavily processed foods free of GM content, which were seen by
these participants as even less 'natural'.
Group discussions revealed much greater concerns about GM animal products, with many
participants wary about eating meat from GM and cloned animals. For some, GM meat
was regarded as 'a bridge too far'; these people reported seeking out organic meat
wherever possible. Many referred to Dolly the Sheep, and subsequent attempts to clone
36
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
farm animals, as evidence that cloning techniques are not refined enough to produce
healthy animals (and healthy meat).
There was some disagreement within group discussions about whether meat from GM
animals or meat from cloned animals is safer.
My understanding is that to clone any animal you have to get a cell from that
creature and it produces exactly the same, theoretically, set of genes. You're not
modifying the genes; you're just taking them and saying I want an exact copy.
Whereas genetic modification, you're taking the gene, and modifying it. So that to
me is a little bit scarier than cloning.
A minority of participants were unconcerned about eating GM meat, saying that they
trusted that government would not allow unsafe meat to be sold to consumers.
Awareness and perceptions of biotechnology (non-GM)
food crops
Participants were asked their opinions about the use of biotechnology in the production of
food from plants. They were asked about their awareness, perceived usefulness,
perceived risk and acceptability of using biotechnology in this context. They were then
asked their views on using biotechnology to assist in conventional breeding and by
changing the genes of a plant without introducing new DNA. This section was newly
introduced to the survey this wave. Results for these questions are presented in Figures
27 to 30 below.
Awareness
Figure 27. Awareness of biotechnology (non-GM) food crops
Base: rotated question CATI (n=254)
Almost three in four (74%) participants were aware of the use biotechnology in the
production of food from plants. Awareness, however, declined when prompted with
37
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
specific details about the technique. Awareness of the application to assist in
conventional breeding was 59%, while awareness of the application involving changing
the genes of a plant without introducing new DNA was just under one in two (46%).
Perceived usefulness
Figure 28. Perceived usefulness of biotechnology (non-GM) food crops
Base: rotated question CATI (n=254)
The large majority of participants perceived the main application to be useful (83%).
There was a slight drop in positive perceptions for the specific applications, with 73%
indicating that using biotechnology to assist in conventional breeding was useful and
72% indicating that changing the genes of a plant without introducing new DNA was
useful.
38
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Perceived risk
Figure 29. Perceived risk of biotechnology (non-GM) food crops
Base: rotated question CATI (n=254)
There was a fairly high level of perceived risk for all applications, with around 1 in 2
claiming that each was 'risky'.
Perceived acceptability
Figure 30. Perceived acceptability of biotechnology (non-GM) food crops
Base: rotated question CATI (n=254)
39
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
The majority (76%) of participants perceived the use of biotechnology in the production
of food from plants to be acceptable. There was a slight reduction in positive perceptions
for the two specific applications, with just over two in three participants claiming each
was acceptable.
Among group discussion participants, there was very little understanding of the nature of
biotechnology in agriculture without genetic modification. As noted earlier, there was a
general perception of the 'natural' (e.g. selective breeding) and the 'unnatural' (e.g.
genetic modification and cloning), but beyond this there was little notion of the
techniques or objectives in question. For this reason, some participants regard
biotechnology (in its broadest sense) as more natural than genetic modification, and
therefore preferable.
Awareness and perceptions of GM non-food crops
Participants were asked their views on modifying the genes of plants to produce non-food
crops. Once again they were asked about their awareness, perceived usefulness,
perceived risk and perceived acceptability of the use of gene technology in this context.
They were then asked their views on modifying the genes of plants to produce non-food
crops to produce fuels, to produce clothing and other textiles and to produce plastics.
This section was newly introduced to the survey this wave. Results for these questions
are presented in Figures 31 to 34 below.
Awareness
Figure 31. Awareness of GM non-food crops
Base: rotated question CATI (n=274)
Just over one in two participants (55%) were aware of modifying the genes of plants to
produce non-food crops. Awareness was fairly similar for the application when used to
produce fuels (53%) and when used to produce clothing and other textiles (50%).
Awareness was lowest for the use of the application to produce plastics, at less than one
in five (19%).
40
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Perceived usefulness
Figure 32. Perceived usefulness of GM non-food crops
Base: rotated question CATI (n=274)
Seven in ten participants (70%) perceived that modifying the genes of plants to produce
non-food crops was useful. When prompted with specific applications, perceived utility
was higher for the production of fuels (89%) and for the production of clothing and other
textiles (84%), but lower for the production of plastics (62%).
41
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Perceived risk
Figure 33. Perceived risk of GM non-food crops
Base: rotated question CATI (n=274)
There were fairly high levels of risk associated with the use of biotechnology to produce
non-food crops, although less so than for the other food and agriculture applications.
Forty-two percent of participants indicated that the general application was 'risky'. This
was slightly higher (47%) when for the purpose of producing plastics, but slightly lower
when for the purpose of producing clothing and textiles (36%) and for producing fuels
(36%).
42
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Perceived acceptability
Figure 34. Perceived acceptability of GM non-food crops
Base: rotated question CATI (n=274)
Perceived acceptability of GM non-food crop applications followed a very similar trend to
perceived utility of GM non-food applications. Positive perceptions were higher for the
specific applications associated with fuel production (85%) and clothing production
(81%) than for the main application (73%), which in turn was higher than positive
perceptions associated with the production of plastics (64%).
Many group discussion participants were initially unsure of what kinds of non-food crops
might be genetically modified, and for what purposes. In the absence of further
information, some were hesitant to support growing such crops.
However, once it was revealed what kinds of crops might be grown - i.e. for textiles,
fuels and plastics - participants were much more supportive. In fact, the imperative to
protect the environment was generally believed to override any other concerns, meaning
that GM fuel crops (in particular) and GM crops for producing plastics were regarded
positively.
You can be positive about gene modification in one area, but you don't have to be
positive about it another area. So I'm more positive about it affecting these kinds of
areas, then I would be about food. I'd obviously look at it in a more positive light,
but it doesn't mean I'm going to eat GM food over organic food.
There were slight apprehensions about GM cotton, which participants did not associate
with water savings or drought resistance. Instead, they questioned why cotton would be
genetically modified, believing the Australian cotton industry to be in good shape.
43
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
Perceptions of objectives of biotechnology
Survey participants were presented with a series of broader objectives of biotechnology
and were asked to rate the value of each of these objectives. Figure 35 below presents
this data.
Figure 35. Perceived value of broader objectives of biotechnology
Base: All CATI, n=534
As we would anticipate, there was very high perceived value for all objectives, with the
exception of lowering the cost of plastics. Indeed, more than eight in ten participants
rated each of these objectives as either very valuable or somewhat valuable. Objectives
that were seen to be particularly valuable were water recycling (86% very valuable),
cleaning up pollution (86% very valuable) and the development of more environmentally
friendly fuels (84% very valuable).
At the other end of the scale, lowering the cost of plastic products was rated as very
valuable by just 38%.
Group discussion feedback indicated strong support for the use of biotechnology in
addressing environmental problems. The most pressing problems for participants were
generally those relating to climate change and water shortages. Indeed, some people
regarded such initiatives as the most valuable aspect of biotechnology.
I think I'm more interested in the things that preserve the earth, than I am in
preserving individual lives to be honest, because that's the future generation. As we
get more and more into this thing where we're curing diseases...we all look at
human life as such a precious thing, the earth is a lot more precious and has been
around a lot longer.
44
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
4. Conclusions
This section presents the conclusions of the research
Biotechnology in food and agriculture
Survey results indicate significant increases in both awareness of and support for GM
food crops since 2005. As in previous research on these issues, attitudes towards
biotechnology in food and agriculture are on balance less positive than attitudes towards
biotechnology in health and medicine. Many tend to associate GM crops with commercial
objectives - although when prompted (and sometimes spontaneously), people voice
strong support for the development of GM crops that could contribute to humanitarian or
environmental objectives (the most prominent example being drought resistant crops).
Indeed, qualitative and quantitative participants alike regarded environmental objectives
as very valuable in the development of gene technology and GM plants.
A minority remains strongly opposed to GM food crops in particular. Their resistance is
associated with a number of attitudes and beliefs, including a belief in natural (nonindustrialised) farming practices; opposition to big business and the globalisation of
commercial agriculture; environmental opposition to the release of unnaturally modified
organisms into the ecosystem; health concerns about genetic modification in the food
chain, and discomfort with science and new technology generally. Opposition to genetic
modification is much stronger where animal products are involved - including among
those not overly concerned about GM plants.
As in 2005, there is a widespread misconception that GM foods are widely prevalent in
our food supply - as well as an associated assumption and concern that GM products are
not labelled as they should be, and that consumers are being misled into buying GM
inadvertently. There is also very low awareness of the moratoria that are currently in
place, preventing the commercial production of GM crops. Many consumers are more
troubled over what they see as a lack of informed choice than over the prospect of
ingesting GM food, which they believe is already commonplace. Stated willingness to eat
genetically modified products is low, particularly for meat and other animal products.
Nevertheless, stated willingness to eat foods commonly eaten, such as food with
preservatives and food made with the use of pesticides, is equally as low as willingness
to eat non-animal related GM products. Therefore it would seem that stated concerns are
somewhat inflated and that actual behaviour will not necessarily follow claimed intent.
Compared to food crops, awareness of understanding of GM non-food crops is much
lower, although there is more in-principle support for non-food crops due to lower
perceived risks to human health in the long term. Support is especially strong for GM
biofuel crops, with people readily associating such crops with the looming fuel crisis and
the need to combat global warming. However, some research participants expressed
caution on this issue, arguing that care (and perhaps GM) would be needed to avoid
displacing food crops from prime land.
There is low understanding of the use of non-GM techniques in agriculture, with the
majority unsure what such techniques would entail. Many assume that the techniques
would be more 'natural' and therefore preferable to genetic modification.
Broadly speaking, it appears that people have become more familiar with biotechnology
and gene technology over the last two years. There is no reason to suppose that the
45
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Food and Agriculture Applications
trend towards greater acceptance will not continue, as these technologies become a more
normal part of everyday life. There is no great public appetite for detailed factual
information about how things are done; rather, people are more interested in learning
about the potential benefits of technology.
46