SPECIAL CASE: BIOTECHNOLOGY

V. SPECIAL CASE: BIOTECHNOLOGY

Consumer attitudes toward biotechnology and labeling policy of genetically modified products differ. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy of labeling has focused on the safety of the product, not the method of production. This policy calls for

a review of any food with nutritional changes, potential allergens, or the addition of pesti- cides or herbicides. In contrast, the European Union has chosen to focus on method of production. All food products containing ‘‘genetically modified organisms’’ must be la- beled (Lewis, 1997).

A. Attitudes

Consumer response toward biotechnology in the United States is quite positive. In a 1997 study, almost 80% of Americans said they were aware of biotechnology, more than half (54%) said biotechnology has already provided benefits to them, and 78% predicted they would benefit from biotechnology in the next five years (IFIC, 1997a,b,c). Nearly half of survey respondents realized foods produced through biotechnology were already in supermarkets. Almost two-thirds (62%) indicated they were very or somewhat likely to buy a product modified to taste better or fresher, with 17% of these very likely (Abt Associates Inc., 1996). Additionally 74% were very or somewhat likely to buy a product modified to resist insect damage and require fewer pesticide applications. When specifi- cally asked, 15% of consumers viewed products modified by biotechnology as presenting

a serious health hazard. Canadians are positive toward biotechnology, however they believe the technology entails risks (Walter, 1994). Most Australians believe genetic engineering is a ‘‘good idea,’’ with as many as 90% supporting medical and environmental applications and 80% interested in tastier foods. About two-thirds indicated they would eat products modified a serious health hazard. Canadians are positive toward biotechnology, however they believe the technology entails risks (Walter, 1994). Most Australians believe genetic engineering is a ‘‘good idea,’’ with as many as 90% supporting medical and environmental applications and 80% interested in tastier foods. About two-thirds indicated they would eat products modified

When asked about the severity of potential food risks, 44% of Europeans considered genetic engineering a serious risk (Tordjman, 1995). This is about in the middle of poten- tial food risks, with bacterial contamination at the top with 85% of consumers and sugar at the bottom with 12%. Response varies by individual countries, with more consumers in Scandinavian countries, Germany, and Austria perceiving biotechnology as risky com- pared to other countries (Hoban, 1997). With the exception of Austria and Germany, half or more European consumers indicate they would purchase a product modified by genetic engineering.

B. Concerns

Questions of personal or environmental safety have led to opposition among some con- sumer and activist groups. Some believe changing nature is dangerous and each product modified by biotechnology should be tested for human and environmental safety. Some philosophically oppose modifying animals for human purposes, either by biotechnology or through traditional breeding. Others contend that specific applications, such as use of rBST to increase milk production, will lead to animal disease, increased use of antibiotics, and changes in milk which could cause cancer.

Environmental concerns are also expressed. People fear that widespread use of Bt toxin will increase the rate by which insects become resistant, thereby leading to the loss of an environmentally benign pesticide. Opponents of biotechnology are skeptical that creating herbicide resistance will really lead to less herbicide use. They see this application as expanding the market for both seeds and herbicide. Some also fear that herbicide resis- tance will spread to weeds, thereby lessening the effectiveness of more benign herbicides.

Opponents also express philosophical concerns apart from product characteristics. They believe techniques of biotechnology encourage a myopic approach to agricultural production, whereas a holistic view is needed. Some are opposed to the practice of seeking

a patent on scientific modification, saying it is inappropriate to ‘‘patent life.’’ Some believe biotechnology change is motivated by the pursuit of excess profits. Opponents also believe developing countries will be exploited in the quest for valuable genetic codes.

C. Labeling

It is unclear if mandatory labeling required in Europe will have a negative or positive impact on consumers, although it does present a significant tracking problem for manufac- turers. Labeled tomato sauce in England is well received. If consumers perceive use of biotechnology as a safe technique that increases quality or improves the environment, identification on the label could be positive. If they see biotechnology as an unnatural innovation in which they are exposed to increased risks while others get benefits, biotech- nology labeled products will be avoided. Acceptance depends on providing information to the public and consumer philosophical orientation.