4. Public Perception of Biotechnology

As we have demonstrated, biotechnology promises many potential benefits for farmers and consumers. We will achieve these benefits, however, only if the public accepts biotechnology as ethical and safe. Because genetic engineering is new and complex, people may see it as mysterious and controversial. Public opinion could have an important influence on the future direction of biotechnology.

Biotechnology is developing within a larger context of consumer concerns about health and environmental problems, especially those attributed to technology. Consumers increasingly express concern about food safety. In particular, the public perceives certain agricultural practices (e.g., the use of farm chemicals) as potentially dangerous. The use of biotechnology in agriculture and food production could elicit concerns similar to those expressed about agricultural chemicals. In addition, other dimensions of biotechnology are also starting to draw public attention (e.g., socio-economic impacts and ethical concerns).

Researchers at North Carolina State University conducted telephone interviews with 1,228 adults from across the country during early 1992. Results showed that most people were in favor of many of the potential applications. Two-thirds of the people surveyed felt that biotechnology would personally benefit people like themselves within the next five years. Just as many disagreed with the statement that only the companies that make the products will benefit from biotechnology. Three-quarters of the people surveyed felt that biotechnology will have a positive effect on food quality and nutrition. About two-thirds felt that biotechnology will also have a positive effect on environmental quality.

Consumers found certain applications to be more acceptable than others. Insect-resistant and herbicide-resistant plants were the most acceptable types of applications. Consumers were less accepting of animal related products or food additives. Survey results indicate that for many consumers lower prices will be more important than improved quality (at higher prices) as an incentive for consumption of biotechnology products.

Overall, two-thirds of the respondents supported the use of biotechnology in agriculture and food production. Certain groups were more likely to support the use of biotechnology and expressed greater willingness to buy the products. For example, men were more likely to accept the use of biotechnology, as were respondents with higher levels of education. Biotechnology was less acceptable to people who had not heard or read much about it or who expressed lower interest.
The survey did reveal some consumer concerns about the use of biotechnology in agriculture and food production. People appeared worried about the potential impacts of biotechnology on the natural environment. Moral and ethical concerns also appear relevant. About one-quarter of the respondents felt it is morally wrong to use biotechnology to change plants, and over one-half felt that use of biotechnology to change animals is morally wrong.

The survey suggest that the process of biotechnology will itself be of some importance to consumers and that the source of the genetic material used will be relevant to them. For example, about two-thirds of the respondents said that more nutritious potatoes would be acceptable if genes were added from another plant such as corn. However, only about one-quarter would find such potatoes acceptable if the genes were added from an animal. People may believe that transferring genes among different organisms involves more than the simple movement of DNA that carries a specific desirable trait.

In general, awareness and understanding of biotechnology was rather low at the time of this survey. Over one-half of the respondents had read or heard little or nothing about biotechnology or its specific applications. However, the results also show a good deal of consumer interest in learning more about biotechnology. About two-thirds of all respondents expressed some or a lot of interest in learning more about biotechnology. Most of the public's views on this subject will be shaped by the media information they receive, as well as by discussions with family and friends.

The survey clearly points out some educational needs and challenges. It is important to put biotechnology into a historical and technical context related to other types of food production technologies. The survey indicated limited understanding of traditional agricultural practices such as cross-breeding. It will be necessary, therefore, to show how biotechnology represents an incremental change rather than a drastic departure from past practices. The survey also indicates the need to more clearly differentiate the use of biotechnology from the use of pesticides and other chemical technologies. Some confusion may exist along these lines.

Public participation in the regulatory process and confidence in such regulations will be vital to ensure greater confidence in the ability of the government to manage genetic engineering effectively. The survey indicated a fairly low level of confidence in the ability of government agencies to regulate biotechnology effectively. Low confidence was also reflected in the fact that almost all respondents felt that government should pay more attention to what people like themselves think about biotechnology. In fact, over 80 percent agreed that citizens have too little say in decisions about whether or not biotechnology should be used. People clearly want more voice in decisions that affect their lives. This situation is not unique to biotechnology; it includes other areas of science and technology as well. An informed public will be an important partner in public policy decisions.

At the time of the survey, consumers appeared cautiously optimistic about the use of biotechnology in agriculture and food production. However, it also appears that consumer acceptance of food produced through biotechnology could be limited by one or more of the following factors: insufficient knowledge; lack of confidence in government; perceived exclusion from decision-making processes; moral objections to tampering with nature; and perceived environmental and food safety concerns.

It will also be important to realize that not all products of biotechnology will be evaluated equally. Acceptance of biotechnology appears to vary depending on the nature of the application, including the perceived benefits and risks of each. Further education about the potential benefits and risks of the various products of biotechnology will be vital.