Consumer Perceptions of
Food Biotechnology in Asia
Public Report on the
Asian Food Information Centre
2002 Consumer Survey
Prepared: February 2003
Page 1 of 17
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1. Background Information
1.1 Survey design
1.2 Research Methodology
1.3 Note on Presentation of Results
2. Survey Results
2.1 Consumer Concerns about food eaten
2.2 Knowledge
2.2.1 Understanding and Awareness of the terminology “Biotechnology” and
“Genetic Modification”
2.2.2 Understanding of the language associated with Food Biotechnology/
Genetically Modified Foods
2.2.3 Awareness of the scope of food biotechnology
2.3 Perceived Benefits and Disadvantages of Biotechnology
2.4 Acceptance of Biotechnology Foods
2.5 Attitudes towards buying GM food
2.6 Sources of Information on Food Safety and Nutrition
2.7 Sources of Information on Food Biotechnology
2.8 Food Labelling
2.9 Preferred sources of information on food biotechnology
3. Summary Conclusions and Recommendations
Page
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
8
9
11
13
13
14
14
16
17
Page 2 of 17
Executive Summary
A survey in 2002 of 600 consumers in China, Indonesia and the Philippines commissioned by the
Asian Food Information Centre found that the majority of consumers are aware of the presence of
biotechnology-derived foods in their everyday diet, and are not averse to this situation. A
majority of consumer reported that they believed they had eaten genetically modified foods, took
no action to avoid this, and indeed were willing to try samples of genetically modified foods.
Knowledge levels of the science and technology, and the terminology associated with food
biotechnology was found to be low, but respondents demonstrated awareness of which food
crops which have been developed using biotechnology.
Survey respondents were questioned on their concerns about food safety. Biotechnology foods
rated as the issue of least concern. More than 90% of respondents reported personal concerns
regarding nutrition and food safety. Those of greatest concern were nutritional value, zoonoses,
microbial contamination and pesticide residues.
66% of respondents reported that they expected either themselves or their families to benefit
from food biotechnology during the next five years.
Primary sources of information for consumers on all nutrition and food safety topics, including
biotechnology were found to be the mass media, and respondents indicated this was indeed their
preferred source of this information.
Public sector information sources such as government agencies and scientists were found to be
much less popular as information sources for nutrition, food safety and biotechnology. Public
sector bodies were, however, perceived as reliable and credible protectors of human health and
safety.
Survey respondents expressed no demand for food labels to carry information on biotechnology
or its presence in food products.
AFIC recommends mass-media based public information initiatives, drawing on the expertise of
scientists and public safety experts (to ensure balance and credibility), delivered in clear, jargonfree terms which relate directly to consumers real-life food choices and experiences.
Page 3 of 17
1. Background Information
1.1 Survey design
In 1998, the Asian Food Information Centre (AFIC) commissioned Isis Research to conduct a
market research study into the knowledge and attitudes of Asian citizens to food biotechnology
or genetically modified foods (these terms were used both in the survey and throughout this
report to describe plant-based foods derived from modern recombinant DNA biotechnology
methods of plant breeding.
In February 2002, the survey was repeated with additional questions to provide an updated and
more in-depth understanding of consumer knowledge and attitudes with regard to food
biotechnology. On a number of issues of interest, more than one measurement tool was used (e.g
both closed and open-ended questions on the same subject matter), to more fully understand
consumer perceptions.
Specific objectives of the research were:
 to explore the awareness and attitudes towards biotechnology in food.
 to explore awareness and attitudes towards food safety and quality in general
 to identify consumers food demand for biotechnology information specifically, and for
nutrition and food safety information in general.
1.2 Research Methodology
A total of 600 street interviews were conducted lasting no longer than 15 minutes each. 200
interviews were carried out each in Metro Manila of the Philippines and Jakarta in Indonesia. In
China, 67 interviews were conducted each in Beijing and Shanghai while 66 interviews were
done in Guangzhou.
Quota controls were imposed on gender and age in order to ensure an even split.
Screening criteria was also imposed on age (only adults aged 18 – 65 years old interviewed) and
specific occupations were excluded (e.g. those who work or have connections with the food
industry, advertising, PR etc).
The interviews were conducted from 2nd March to 8th April 2002. Prior to this, pilot interviews
were also carried out to ensure the effectiveness of the questionnaire.
The questionnaire used in the Philippines was in English. In Indonesia, it was translated into
Bahasa Indonesian. In China, it was translated into Mandarin.
1.3 Note on Presentation of Results
The majority of results from the three country surveyed have been aggregated. However, where
there are significant differences or discrepancies between results from the three countries, or for
questions where more detailed results may be helpful, individual country results are provided.
Page 4 of 17
2. Survey Results
2.1 Consumer Concerns about food eaten
The vast majority of respondents interviewed reported that they were concerned about the food
they eat. Respondents from Indonesia expressed the greatest concern about the food they eat
(99%), followed closely by China (95%) and Philippines (93%).
Respondents were asked to spontaneously name/describe their concerns. Main concern of all
respondents (59%) was with food contents. In particular, they wanted to know about the
nutritional value of food (36%). More specifically fat content and vitamin content were
mentioned by 10% and 7%, respectively of respondents.
Other significant concerns for Indonesian respondents were preservatives or additives (20%) and
adequate packaging (28%).
Filipino respondents expressed most concern about the safety of food eaten (57%), especially if it
was clean/hygienic (22%), fresh (19%) and sanitary (19%).
Chinese respondents were concerned about how nutritious the food was (33%), as well as the
general quality of the food (35%).
Biotechnology was not mentioned spontaneously by any respondents.
Respondents were then shown a list of factors relating to food and asked how concerned they
were with each. Responses to this question are presented in Figure 1.
From the list of attributes given, the most important concern was “nutritional value”. 68% of all
respondents gave the maximum score of 10 for this attribute. This was of most concern to
Filipinos with 89% giving it a score of 10.
The second most important concern (63% gave this maximum score of 10) was “ Animal
diseases that can be passed to humans”. Both respondents from China (70%) and the Philippines
(78%) gave the highest rating of 10 for this attribute. However, only 40% of Indonesians did
likewise.
The least important concern about food was “Biotechnology or genetically modified foods”.
Only 19% of all respondents gave a score of 10 for this attribute.
Page 5 of 17
Concerns about food
Importance rating – Mean Scores
China
Indonesia
Philippines
9.67
9.13
8.99
Nutritional value
9.03
Animal diseases that can be
passed to humans
8.1
9.23
8.5
Microbial contamination
7.8
8.48
8.04
Pesticide residues
7.51
8.84
7.76
7.18
Antibiotics/hormones
8.3
7.4
7.25
Additives/preservatives
8.46
7.36
6.97
Irradiated foods
7.93
6.76
6.83
Biotechnology or GM foods
6.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
Not at all important
(Q3)
Base: All respondents (600)
7
8
9
10
Very Important
Figure 1
2.2. Knowledge
.
2.2.1 Understanding and Awareness of the terminology “Biotechnology” and “Genetic
Modification”
Awareness of terms such as biotechnology or genetic modification were found to be low; 38% of
respondents said they were “not at all aware”.
Those who reported some awareness of these terms were asked to define them. The most
common definitions are described below:


“changing the genetic code content of a product”.
“production of a better product”
“addition of other components to a product”
2.2.2 Understanding of the language associated with Food Biotechnology/ Genetically
Modified Foods
Similarly survey respondents self-assessed their awareness of the terms “genetically modified
foods” or “biotechnology derived foods” as very low or nil. Results are presented in Figure 2.
Page 6 of 17
Awareness of the term Genetically Modified
foods or Biotechnology-Derived foods
China
Indonesia
Philippines
100
90
% of Respondents
80
70
60
52
50
44
44
40
35
32
30
21
20
10
17
15
0
1
5
6
0
Very Aware (+3)
Quite Aware (+2)
Not Very Aware
(+1)
Not At All Aware
(-1)
(Q7a)
Base: All respondents (600)
Figure 2
Most common definitions of genetically modified food by those who reported some awareness
were as follows:

“Transfers altered genes into a certain product to make it bigger and sweeter”

“Food derived from genes”

“Quality products using modern technology”

“Artificially processed food”

“Food with improved quality”

“Food with additives / processing aids
Externally assessed measures of technical knowledge were also used.
Other measures of technical knowledge were also included in the survey:
Interviewees were asked if they had ever eaten any DNA 41% correctly said “yes”. A similar proportion (40%) gave a “don’t know” answer, and 18%
erroneously believed that they had never eaten DNA.
Interviewees were also presented with statements about the technology, and asked to identify it they were
true or false. Respondents could also choose “don’t know” For example -
“ordinary soybeans plants do not contain genes while genetically modified ones do”.
Only 31% of respondents recognised this as false statement; More than half of the respondents in
Indonesia (62%) and the Philippines (56%) and 29% of Chinese respondents erroneously
believed this to be true”; 32% said “Don’t know”.
Page 7 of 17
2.2.3 Awareness of the scope of food biotechnology
Respondents were also asked to name examples of biotechnology foods. Tomatoes were the most
popular example given, in China (43%), and Indonesia (27%). Rice was mentioned by 27% of
Filipino respondents
As the Figure 3 below illustrates, those respondents who provided examples, predominantly
suggested food stuffs which have indeed been modified, using biotechnology. Furthermore, the
genetic modification of all the most popular examples given have all previously been the focus of
media interest.
The accuracy with which respondents were able to name high profile examples of biotechnology
foodstuffs illustrates both the effectiveness of media in raising awareness, as well as its currently
very limited role in improving understanding of the topic.
Some Given Examples of Genetically Modified
foods or Biotechnology-Derived foods
China (82)
Indonesia (152)
Philippines (81)
50
45
43
% of Respondents
40
35
30
25
20
27
27
24
23
23
17
16
14
15
10
10
15
12
9
10
11
14
11
11
11
10
9
9
7
5
1
6
5
4
2
5
1
0
(Q7c)
To
So
Co
ma
ya
rn
toe
Be
a
s
ns
Ric
e
Po
Ma
Ap
t at
ple
ng
oe
oe
s
s
s
Or
Po
Me
an
rk/
lon
ge
Be
s
ef
Base: All who said that they were “very aware”, “quite aware” and “not very aware” (315)
Figure 3
Page 8 of 17
2. 3 Perceived Benefits and Disadvantages of Biotechnology
Respondents were asked if they expected biotechnology would provide benefits or no benefits to
either themselves or their families in the next 5 years.
66% of interviewees responded, that they anticipated benefits, and could spontaneously name
potential improvements to the safety, quality or nutritional value of their food supply, as result of
genetic enhancement.
83% of Indonesians respondents believed that biotechnology foods would deliver benefits,
followed by 60% of Filipinos and 55% of Chinese. Four in ten (40%) Chinese respondents said
“don’t know”. Just under a quarter of Filipino
respondents (23%) anticipated no benefits.
Any Perceived Benefits from
Biotechnology/GM foods in the next 5 years?
Yes
No
Don't know
60
Philippines
23
17
83
Indonesia
55
China
0
20
4
5
40
60
13
40
80
100
% of respondents
(Q8a)
Base: All respondents (600)
Figure 4
Those respondents who said they did expect benefits were asked in an open-ended question to
describe the type of benefits they anticipated, and these responses were then assigned to 1 of 10
categories.
86% of Indonesian respondents cited “improved eating quality” as the benefit they most expect.
The most common benefit mentioned in China (77%) and the Philippines (41%) was “improved
nutrition”.
Page 9 of 17
Specific Benefits of
Biotechnology/GM foods
China (110)
Indonesia (166)
Philippines (119)
100
86
90
77
80
75
% of Respondents
70
60
56
57
50
41
40
28 30
30
29
23
21
18
20
13
10
24
21
16
23
21 20
14
13
5
7
9
0
Imp
ro
ved
Incr
Red
Imp
Imp
Imp
Re d
Re d
eas
ro v
ro v
rov
uce
uce
uce
ed n
ed s
ed s
ed c
d ch
d en
d co
eati
afet
helf
hoic
utri
em i
st
vir o
ng q
t
y
i
c
li
e
n
o
al s
fe
men
n
uali
tal i
ty
mp a
ct
(Q8b)
Base: All who perceived benefits from biotech foods (395)
Figure 5
More than half of Indonesian respondents (57%) believed that “improved shelf life” could be a
significant benefit. The corresponding figures in China and the Philippines were 21% and 18%
respectively.
Other benefits identified were reduced use of chemicals, improved safety, reduced environmental
impact, greater choice and reduced purchase costs of food.
As a further measure of attitudes to food biotechnology, interviewees were shown a descriptive
but brief (100 word) definition of crop biotechnology, and then asked again to name potential
benefits and disadvantages of foods derived from biotechnology.
Most common benefits following the explanatory briefing were –

Improved yield of crops (53%)

Enhanced nutritional value (47%)

Plants resistant to attack (26%)

Improved taste (17%)
Page 10 of 17
There was no single disadvantage of food biotechnology spontaneously mentioned by any
country that stood out prominently. Those mentioned most frequently were May cause side effects (12%)
Technology too expensive for farmers (10%)
More chemicals harmful to the body (11%)
A significant proportion of respondents in each country reported that they perceived no
disadvantage of food biotechnology. (Philippines 28%, Indonesia 26% and China 12%).
2.4 Acceptance of Biotechnology Foods
Respondents were asked if they knew to the best of their knowledge, whether they had eaten any
foods that contain biotechnology-derived ingredients.
72% of Indonesians reported that they believed that they did eat foods containing genetically
modified ingredients. Slightly more than half of the respondents in China (55%) and the
Philippines (58%) did likewise.
A small proportion in each country believed that they did not eat foods with genetically modified
ingredients. The figures were 15%, 13% and 9% in the Philippines, China and Indonesia
respectively.
Almost all respondents reported that they had not take any action in the last 6 months to avoid or
seek out GM foods. Only 14% in Indonesia took any such action, compared to 7% in Philippines
and 4% in China.
When asked if they would try genetically modified corn snacks at the time of interview, 30% of
all respondents said that they “would definitely try it” while another 58% said that they “would
probably try it”.
Page 11 of 17
Would you try genetically modified
corn snacks if offered now?
China
Indonesia
Philippines
100
90
% of Respondents
80
70
64
60
60
51
50
40
30
34 32
25
20
9
10
5
8
2
7
1
1 1
4
0
Would
Would probably Would probably
Would
definitely try it
try it (+1)
not try it (-1)
definitely not
(+2)
try it (-2)
Don't know
(Q16)
Base: All respondents (600)
Figure 6
Interviewees were specifically asked if they had any reservations about consuming biotechnology
foods.
Approximately 2/3 (64%) had no reservations and 1/3 (36%) did.
Named reservations were –






harmful effects to the body.
less nutritional value.
possible side effects
presence of too much chemicals (18%).
insufficient studies/trials about such foods.
religious reservations (almost wholly Indonesia and with references to halal)
Page 12 of 17
2.5 Attitudes towards buying GM food
To measure which beneficial attributes (if any) of biotechnology foods were most highly valued
by interviewees, a series of statements were read and respondents asked to choose one of 5
responses.
%
very
likely to
buy
%
quite
likely to
buy
%
not very
likely to
buy
%
definitely
not buy
Don’t
know
All things being equal, how likely would you be to buy a variety of
produce like corn or tomatoes if they had been modified by
biotechnology to taste better or fresher?
37
51
9
2
1
All things being equal, how likely would you be to buy a variety of
produce lke corn or tomatoes if they had been modified by
biotechnology to be protected from insect damage and required
fewer pesticide applications?
41
49
8
1
1
All things being equal, how likely would you be to buy a variety of
produce like corn or tomatoes if they had been modified to have
higher nutritional value such as more vitamins or less saturated
fats?
55
39
5
1
1
All things being equal, how likely would you be to buy a variety of
produce like corn or tomatoes if they had been modified by
biotechnology to minimise damage to the environment and the
earth’s natural resources?
43
49
6
1
1
All things being equal, how likely would you be to buy a variety of
produce like corn or tomatoes, if they had been modified to make it
cheaper, but also because they cost less for the farmer to produce?
48
42
8
1
1
Statement
These survey responses indicate that respondents were positive about the broad range of
potential benefits that biotechnology-derived foods may offer to consumers. Improved nutritional
value and reduced cost appeared the most popular benefits, with 55% and 48% respectively of
respondents indicating that they were very likely to buy such produce.
2.6 Sources of Information on Food Safety and Nutrition
Interviewees were asked what in their opinion were the three most important sources of
information on any food-related health and safety matter.
The three most important sources of information on any food related health and safety matters in
China were given as 
Newspapers (59%),

TV (57%)

Posters (35%).
In Indonesia, they were –

Department of Health (66%),

TV (30%)

Committee Theology Indonesia (27%).
In the Philippines, they were 
TV (74%),

Newspapers (56%)

Radio (46%).
Page 13 of 17
2.7 Sources of Information on Food Biotechnology
Newspapers appeared to be the most common source of information where respondents in China
(78%) and Indonesia (75%) had heard or read about food biotechnology. On the other hand, the
Filipinos gave a mix of media outlets, namely TV (43%), newspaper (38%) and magazine (34%).
Conversely, few interviewees named government, department of health or doctors as information
sources.
2.8 Food Labelling
Interviewees were questioned on their use of food labels as a source of information on nutrition
and food safety.
Almost all respondents reported that they checked food labels at least sometimes.
When probed further, 80% of all Chinese respondents reported that they always checked food
labels, while at least half of respondents in the Indonesia (55%) and Philippines (50%) did so.
The most common item checked for, on food labels was “expiry date” with Indonesia (97%) the
highest, China (93%) and Philippines (82%) the least. Following closely behind were
“ingredients” and “nutritional value”. The least checked item was “biotechnology or GM
ingredients” with all three areas giving overwhelmingly low responses for it: China (3%),
Indonesia (7%) and the Philippines (2%).
Specific items checked in food labels
China
Indonesia
Philippines
82
Expiry date
93
97
56
64
Ingredients
58
54
61
Nutritional value
50
22
Country of origin
12
56
20
29
Preservatives
27
1
57
Halal labelling
1
11
18
Additives
22
16
Health messages
9
23
7
13
Shelf life
16
2
7
GM ingredients
3
0
10
20
(Q4c)
Base: All who ever checked food labels (573)
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% of respondents
Figure 7
Page 14 of 17
Most respondents felt that the level of information on food labels currently was about right:
Indonesia (87%), Philippines (78%) and China (71%). However, 23% of Chinese respondents
said that there was not enough information. Conversely 11% of Filipinos thought that there was
too much information.
A third of respondents in each country felt that there was information currently not on food labels
which they would like to see:
On probing, the missing information most sought after, was as follows –
At least 10% of respondents in each country wanted to see some sign of approval from Health
authorities on food labels.
One in five of Indonesian interviewees (20%) wanted to know the exact ingredients while only
7% of Filipino interviewees and 16% of Chinese interviewees expressed similar views.
30% of Filipinos and 13% of Indonesians wanted information on shelf life to be on food labels.
A further 20% in Indonesia wanted Halal labelling.
None of those interviewed suggested labelling for presence of biotechnology-derived ingredients
as an additional item to be included on labels.
Page 15 of 17
2.9 Preferred sources of information on food biotechnology
On questioning about preferred sources of information on food biotechnology, more than twothirds of all respondents (70%) felt that information about genetically modified foods should be
made available on TV, followed closely by newspapers at 64%. 52% of respondents from
Indonesia felt that information on genetically modified foods should come from the Department
of Health. A further 49% of Indonesians wanted such information to be in magazines while
another 36% said supermarkets. 37% of Filipinos mentioned the radio while a quarter of the
Chinese respondents (24%) highlighted the Internet.
Where should information about food
biotechnology or GM foods be made available?
China
Indonesia
Philippines
100
90
% of Respondents
80
70
60
50
79
73
66
66
55
52
49
40
37
30
36
34
25
26
23
22
24
12
12
12
10
6
3
8
4
20
18
17 18
20
10
66
6
13
9
14
13
5
7
4
5
11
7
0
Ne
Ma
Pr
Ra
od
ws
ga
di o
uc
zin
pa
t la
pe
e
be
r
ls
Go
vt
De
Do
Ph
Int
Su
Po
S
ern TV
pt
arm cho
cto
pe
ste
of
ol
rm
et
r
ac
He
ark r
y
alt
e
t
h
(Q23)
Base: All respondents (600)
Figure 8
Page 16 of 17
3. Summary Conclusions and Recommendations
Consumers demonstrate low technical knowledge. However, consumers were found to have some
awareness that biotechnology foods which have been approved as safe for human consumption
are already extensively available, and which food crops biotechnology modified varieties may be
found. The majority of consumers found this acceptable.
Consumers express some interest in learning more, but it seems likely based on previous
examples of food technology innovations such as microwave cooking and pasteurisation that the
information required is how it relates to their own daily diet, not information on the technology
itself to the scientific principles on which it is based. For example few ordinary consumers could
explain the principles or mechanisms of microwave cooking or extending shelf life through
pasteurisation, but many value the benefits these technologies bring to their everyday lives, in
terms of choice, quality and safety.
Furthermore such case studies follow similar adoption patterns. Initial disinterest and some
resistance from some select interest groups initially, but as the benefits to daily diet and health
become apparent, consumer acceptance develops quite rapidly. Such case studies also indicate
that technical knowledge is not a prerequisite of consumer acceptance, but unambiguous
communications of real (not hypothetical) risks and benefits in terms which relate to the actual
foods and diet eaten are an essential part of the adoption process.
Mass media sources appear to be by far the preferred sources of relevant information, both for
nutrition and food safety topics in general and biotechnology in particular.
The mass-media are the primary communications specialists already well-positioned to provide
relevant information. Scientific and public sector regulatory bodies are perceived as competent to
assess health and safety risks and benefits. Information campaigns which draw on the expertise
and collaboration of both of these groups could provide a very effective means by which to
improve public understanding of this issue.
Most consumers were satisfied with the information currently included on food labels, with a few
exceptions, for items such as shelf life, halal status. Biotechnology was not named as an
information item that consumers wish to see included in their food labels. Indeed the majority
thought the amount of information currently included was about right.
Page 17 of 17