News Releases

News Releases

...NO INNOVATION WITHOUT COMMUNICATION

European and North American consumers differ significantly on questions about the use of biotechnology in food production. Most consumers from the Netherlands, Sweden, the US and Canada recognise as false the statement "ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes, while genetically modified ones do." In contrast, only 34% of Austrians and 35% of Germans know this is false. In addition, significantly more people from the Netherlands, Sweden, the US and Canada recognise as false the statement "a person’s genes could be changed by eating a genetically modified food." Over 70% of Austrians thought this was true.

Professor Christine Bruhn from the Centre for Consumer Research at the University of California, Davis, USA, highlighted these huge differences in the level of public knowledge. As she presented the 26th Bawden lecture, which opened the 1999 Brighton Conference organised by the British Crop Production Council on Tuesday 16 November.

Explaining her theory that new plant production and processing techniques serve no value if they are misunderstood or rejected at any stage of the food cycle, she encouraged the scientific community to increase communication with non-scientists, especially consumers, retailers and farmers.

"Scientific advances particularly recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology have provided society with the tools to alleviate some of the world’s most pressing problems in human health and environmental stewardship," she said. "Plant diseases and pests that reduce production capacity in developing countries can now be overcome. The health enhancing components of basic foods can be increased. Food has been developed which require less energy in processing. Plants can be grown with less pesticides and fertiliser. The future should look bright, but it doesn’t. Fearful images are presented in the press. These changes are described as arrogant, immoral and dangerous to people and the environment. As a result, choice in the marketplace is curtailed or denied."

So why has this happened and what can be done about it?

One of the reasons is the complex relationship between facts and fancies. "While everyone favours production of safe food, people differ as to how safe is safe enough. Consumers, growers and scientists tend to evaluate the safety and environmental appropriateness of agricultural production techniques differently," said Professor Bruhn. "Reaction to products modified by rDNA technology differs between the US and Europe. US consumers are generally positive towards biotechnology. About 75% predict that they will benefit from biotechnology in the next five years. Almost two thirds indicate they are very, or somewhat, likely to buy a product modified to taste better or fresher. Response has changed little between 1997 and 1999."

"In contrast a 1995 survey showed 44% of Europeans considered genetic engineering a serious risk. Recently, response in the UK has become more conservative with a very high percentage of consumers indicating they will not purchase products containing GMOs."

According to Professor Bruhn, the difference may be attributed to perceptions of risk, level of knowledge and trust (or lack of it) in the regulatory authorities. When asked what group would be most likely to tell the truth about genetically modified crops Europeans identify environmental, consumer and farming organisations as most trustworthy. In contrast US consumers trust regulatory bodies with the US Department of Agriculture generating 90% support and the Food and Drug Administration 84% support.

"Lack of trust and misinformation are the primary impediments to innovations," she said. "An open dialogue between scientist and the public can help correct misinformation, generate trust and lay a basis for informed decision making."

Communication is the solution but the goal of this communication is to permit choice consistent with personal values based upon scientific information rather than distortion. "Communication does not entail one group telling the other what to think or how to act," she warned. "The first step is to listen to find out what farmers, retailers and consumers want." "The message must be complete and include information about the pros and cons of an action, its alternatives and its uncertainties."

Scientists and scientific organisations must reach beyond the confines of their profession to communicate with the users of their innovations and the public. "To communicate about food production and new technologies, identify the full range of concern. Empower the public by describing how risk is determined, how it can be monitored and how people can control or reduce risk. Identify shared values and help the target audience identify an approach to meet those values. Use the mass media, it’s where most people get their information," she said. "The operational word is transparency, sharing what is known, not in scientific detail, but the potential positive and negative effects on human health and the environment. Without communicating potential benefits and addressing concerns, innovations may not be realised," she concluded.