PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF GM FOODS: IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES IN AGRICULTURE GIULIANO TOLUSSO CAES CONFERENCE JANUARY 12, 2017 OTTAWA, ON

Transcription

1 PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF GM FOODS: IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES IN AGRICULTURE GIULIANO TOLUSSO CAES CONFERENCE JANUARY 12, 2017 OTTAWA, ON 1

2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES In March 2016, public opinion research (POR) was conducted to seek Canadians views on genetically-modified (GM) foods and on issues related to the application of science and technology in food production and manufacturing. The results of this research build on the findings of previous government and non-government funded POR. This presentation is intended to: Provide an overview of the key findings from previous and current POR on consumer views towards GM foods Explore the implications for public acceptance of future innovative agricultural technologies from a government and industry perspective Although the public generally assumes there is some control over GM foods, they are not clear on how this is done. Lack of awareness and understanding affects their confidence in the food supply and raises their level of concern. - Consumer Views on Genetically Modified Foods: Draft Report prepared by the Strategic Counsel on behalf of HC, April 2016 The findings of March 2016 POR on consumer views of GM foods provide insight into the attitudes of Canadians toward the application of science and technology in agriculture and food production 2

3 INSIGHT FROM PREVIOUS POR: THERE ARE HIGH LEVELS OF OPPOSITION TO GENETIC MODIFICATION RELATIVE TO OTHER TECHNOLOGIES Previous POR (government and sponsored) revealed moderate to high degree of public opposition to GM foods. Moreover, there is a relationship between opposition to GM technology and confidence in safety and regulatory approval systems. 3

4 INSIGHT FROM PREVIOUS POR: THERE ARE HIGH LEVELS OF SUPPORT FOR MANDATORY LABELLING Arguments for mandatory labelling are rooted in the belief that consumers have the right to know 4

5 INSIGHTS FROM PREVIOUS POR: WHILE PRICE IS STILL PARAMOUNT, CONSUMER VALUES INFLUENCE PURCHASING DECISIONS Best value for money spent and nutritional value continue to be the top deal breakers for Canadians when purchasing foods 5

6 RECENT POR PROVIDES FURTHER INSIGHT INTO PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS The March 2016 POR on GM foods was intended to: Assess public perceptions of the application of science and technology, overall, to the field of agriculture, food production and manufacturing Determine general awareness of GM foods and the extent to which awareness and understanding affects their behaviour Assess public knowledge and attitudes regarding GM foods, including science literacy, interpretation of various terms used in discussions about GM foods, and overall perceptions of GM foods and key associations Identify the perceived benefits of GM foods as well as any questions of concerns Examine the degree to which facts, information and messages related to GM foods impact perceptions, attitudes and behaviors METHODOLOGY 10 focus groups were undertaken between March 9 th and March 17 th, 2016: 2 groups in each of Halifax, Toronto, Quebec City (in French), Saskatoon and Vancouver. 1 group in each loca[on among the general popula[on/1 group among parents of children under 18 years. Each group was 2 hours in length. A survey of n=2018 respondents was completed between March 24 th and March 29 th, 2016 The final sample is propor[onate to the popula[on by region, gender, age and educa[onal abainment. The survey was conducted via an online panel. The opt- in nature of online panels means that a margin of error cannot be applied to the results. The survey was 17 minutes in length. 6

7 ATTITUDES AND IMPRESSIONS OF GM FOODS ARE NOT WELL FORMED OR INFORMED 7

8 REPORTED ATTITUDES DO NOT ALIGN WITH PURCHASING DECISIONS: THE COST OF FOOD IS STILL PARAMOUNT For many consumers the issue of GM foods is not necessarily top-of-mind at the time they are shopping for and selecting foods. However, it was clear both in the focus groups and from the survey results that the issue is an important secondary consideration. 8

9 THE RATIONALE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GM TECHNOLOGY CARRIES LITTLE WEIGHT WITH CONSUMERS Consumers basic understanding of food science and technology is low. The benefits of GM foods are either not clearly understood or not believed and negative aspects are highly emotionallycharged and conflict with peoples' values. Statements below are examples of consumer perceptions from HC POR. Monsanto is doing that in order to sell their pesticide. They re making the seed resistant to their pesticide. The reason why GMOs are so bad is that they re growing these seeds with this one gene those seedless things are really bad because if something hits that strain of corn, then that strain of corn is susceptible and is wiped out. It s any variation of a food that isn t 100% natural You re blasting something into the seeds an antibiotic resistant gene you ve got this Frakenfood I just think steroids and stuff I would say it s food that looks like food, but it was altered, possibly to increase the profit of the manufacturer, packager, distributor and very highly likely that it s harmful to the body. I believe genetically engineered means that it is created from chemicals. It s creating something from nothing 9

10 WHILE PERCEPTIONS ARE FOCUSED ON RISKS, THE PUBLIC APPEARS OPEN TO BE INFLUENCED ON BENEFITS Impressions of GM foods are largely negative, despite the fact that the majority of respondents reported having a minimal understanding of the application of biotechnology in agriculture and food production. Activist campaigns, food fads and a general mistrust of corporations appear to be causing confusion and creating negative impressions/misperceptions about GM foods. However, some focus group participants did point to benefits of GM technology (e.g., higher yields, feeding the world). Moreover, survey results suggest that getting the facts out about GM foods can improve consumers level of comfort. Respondents were read agree/disagree questions intended to measure their openness to GM foods. After being given various types of facts and information, 35% of respondents gave a higher agreement score. Analysis reveals that some respondents were more open to GM foods after being provided information relating to the approach to testing and information linking Canadian regulatory processes to international standards. Genetically modified foods are safe to eat I would be comfortable eating foods that have been genetically modified 1 st Ask 2 nd Ask (After information on GM foods) 26% Agree 43% Agree 26% Agree 41% Agree 10

11 MESSAGING ON GM FOODS SHOULD BE ALIGNED WITH CONSUMER VALUES The POR results showed that certain types of facts/information are more influential than others and suggest that effective messaging must be aligned with consumer values, such as safety and environmental sustainability. For consumers who have mixed feelings about GM foods, providing information about how assessments are conducted and how regulatory decisions are made can shift views in a more positive direction. Comparisons with other countries are also helpful, though the POR findings suggest that less focus should be placed on the U.S. given the perception that their food safety standards are more lax. Negative Response Genetic engineering GMOs Geneticallymodified foods Gene splicing Selective breeding These technologies are seen as creating something unnatural Neutral Response Positive Response Biotechnology Hybridization Natural selection These technologies were viewed as benign to slightly positive For example, knowing that GM crops use less herbicide and pesticide than non-gm crops, as well as being told that summaries of GoC safety assessments are available online had the effect of making participants more comfortable with the development and sale of GM foods in Canada.. It is also important to speak as plainly as possible when discussing GM foods publicly, while being aware that some terms trigger negative responses. 11

12 BROADER IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ADOPTION OF INNOVATIVE AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES The public s lack of science literacy and knowledge about agriculture could act as a barrier to future innovation in the sector POR results suggest that much of the public lacks science literacy and has a poor understanding of the extent to which scientific and technological developments have helped to modernize agriculture: Unless the public better understands the role of science and innovation in agriculture and food production, new innovative products could be perceived as being unnecessary and unsafe If new and emerging biotechnology applications (e.g., gene editing) are perceived mainly as a way to benefit corporate bottom lines, they could be met with resistance from the public: Much like with transgenic crops, the public may assume that new technologies disproportionately benefit industry If not addressed, myths about corporate control of agriculture may continue to hinder consumer acceptance and innovation Opportunities to support industry efforts to build and maintain public trust should continue to be explored Whereas genetic engineering has typically been used to enable a gene sequence of foreign DNA to be cut and pasted from one species to It s like a Marvel character, only food another, gene editing techniques can be used to add, delete, or replace proteins in the genetic code at very precise locations without involving the introduction of foreign DNA. By allowing for targeted changes to be introduced with less cost and time than conventional breeding methods, gene-editing could increase the value of investment in research and development. 12

13 INSIGHT FOR GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY Although the opinions expressed by respondents suggest that there are significant obstacles in attempting to reframe the conversation around GM foods, survey results and focus group discussions offered some insight that could inform future communications efforts Lessons Learned Some terminology, such as GM and biotechnology, appear to have negative associations. There could be better communication on the rationale for GM foods. A stronger rationale as to the personal and broader societal benefits is needed. Arguments about the need to feed the world have not resonated. Government Role Continue to emphasize the rigour of safety assessments, and consistency with international approaches/standards. Educate Canadians on the role of innovation in addressing challenges faced by farmers and agribusinesses. Industry Role Avoid terminology that triggers negative association; leverage nutrition and/or health professionals, farmers, international organizations and GoC scientists. Move away from messages about feeding the world towards those that emphasize individual and societal benefits. Broader effort to educate Canadians on the science of agriculture is needed. A go it alone strategy is not advisable, and documentary style productions and/or short informative videos could help to counter anti-gmo initiatives. Support agricultural awareness campaigns and initiatives to contextualize biotech as part of broader innovation in the sector. Engage with credible information sources for the purposes of scientific outreach and collaborate with stakeholders who have a strong interest in biotechnology. 13

14 TOP TAKEAWAYS Opposition to GM foods is largely based on misinformation and fear of the unknown The public s lack of science literacy and understanding is a significant factor in its reported aversion to GM foods and mistrust of industry. Public confidence has been undermined by concerns about industry influence Standard practice of industry sharing data for review by government scientists is not well understood by the public and has contributed to the perception that data is manipulated to favour industry. Further investigation into what might promote higher public trust in assessments of industry data may be warranted. Significant efforts to inform, educate and engage are required This may involve working/engaging with opponents and leveraging science-savvy supporters. But while opportunities exist to better inform and educate Canadians, messaging on GM foods could be counterproductive if not clear and focused on very specific sets of questions or concerns. POR results indicate that consumers respond favourably to a combination of messaging that stresses the scientific rigour of assessments, reassures Canadians in terms of any health/safety risks, underscores opportunities to produce nutritious food, and emphasizes broader societal benefits. 14