Societal Perspectives on Agricultural Biotechnology Dr. Thomas J. Hoban Professor of Sociology and Food Science NC State Invited presentation to USDA Advisory Committee on June 2, 2004 in Washington, DC.
Dec 24, 2015
Societal Perspectives on Agricultural Biotechnology
Dr. Thomas J. HobanProfessor of Sociology and Food ScienceNC State University
Invited presentation to USDA Advisory Committee on June 2, 2004 in Washington, DC.
Emerging Social Issues Impacting USDA More consumers are opting out of the industrial food
system in favor of booming organic market Growing sense among consumers and food industry
that risks are not being addressed in open manner Food industry is very opposed to using food crops
for drug production Confidence in US government has dropped
significantly in recent years. Animal cloning and biotech will further undermine
consumer confidence Poorly-timed WTO case has already made trade
matters worse in Europe and elsewhere
US Consumers: Low Awareness Should Not Be Considered Bliss
(Various Sources)
Trends in U.S. Consumers’ Awareness of Biotechnology
0
20
40
60
80
100
Per
cen
t W
ho
Had
Hea
rd "
A L
ot"
or
"So
met
hin
g"
(IFIC, 2003)
Most American Consumers Still Do Not Know that Foods Produced with Biotechnology are Already in Stores
363635333643
383340
0
20
40
60
80
100
Per
cen
t W
ho
Kn
ew t
hat
Bio
tech
F
oo
ds
are
In S
up
erm
arke
t
Pew Ag Biotech
Most US Consumers’ Still Do Not RealizeThat They Already are Eating GM Foods
62
19 19
58
1824
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
No, Have NOT Not Sure Yes, Have Eaten
Per
cen
t R
esp
on
se
2001 2003
US Acceptance of Biotech is Trending Toward the EU
(Hoban, 1992-2000)
US Acceptance of Biotechnology has Dropped – Especially for Animals
23
28
32
38
55
54
51
67
20
25
24
23
24
22
22
17
18
57
47
47
39
21
24
27
16
1863
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Faster Growing Fish (2000)
Faster Growing Fish (1994)
Faster Growing Fish (1992)
Disease Resistant Animals (2000)
Disease Resistant Animals (1994)
Disease Resistant Animals (1992)
Insect Protected Crops (2000)
Insect Protected Crops (1994)
Insect Protected Crops (1992)
Acceptable (4-5) Neutral (3) Unacceptable (1-2)
(Hoban and Others)
American Consumer Support for Ag Biotech has Dropped Recently
48
64717071
0
20
40
60
80
100
1992 1994 1998 2000 2002
Per
cen
t S
up
po
rt
(Worldviews 2002)
American Support for Ag Biotech is Still Higher than in Most of Europe
27
27
30
34
40
48
49
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Great Britain
Poland
Italy
Germany
France
United States
Netherlands
(Percent Support)
(Pew Global Attitudes2002)
Is it good to scientifically alter fruits and vegetables because it increases yields to feed more people and is good for the environment; Or is it bad because it could hurt human health and the environment.
10
17
20
17
27
31
37
1
2
4
9
8
6
8
89
81
76
74
65
63
55
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
France
Germany
Japan
Italy
Great Britain
Canada
United States
Good Not Sure Bad
Most Consumers Have Serious Concerns about Meat and Milk from Cloned or Transgenic Animals
Why Animal Biotechnology is Less Acceptable than Plants
People worry a lot about animal pain and suffering (anthropomorphism). People love their pets and care about wildlife.
Trend toward vegetarianism and animal rights (especially among young women)
Animals can move around once released into environment (concerns over GM fish)
Once we modify animals, it could be a slippery slope to genetically modified people. Animal biotechnology sounds bad (“yuck”)
The federal government is unprepared for the arrival of cloned or GM animals (which will be met with considerable consumer opposition).
(IFIC, 2004)
How much US Consumers had “heard about applying the science of biotechnology to animals?”
8
21
31
40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
A Lot Some A Little Nothing
Pe
rce
nt
Re
sp
on
se
Open-End: Cloning (17%); Hormones (16%); Bigger animals (7%); Changed Feed (6%); Genetic Engineering (5%)
(Gallup, 2003)
American Consumers’ Views that Various Actions are Morally Wrong
31
33
36
38
53
68
90
0 20 40 60 80 100
The Death Penalty
Animal Medical Tests
Wearing Animal Fur
Stem Cell Research
Abortion
Cloning Animals
Cloning Humans
Percent Response
(IFIC, 2004)
Descriptions of Three Different “Forms of Animal Biotechnology”
Genomics “uses knowledge about genetics to improve overall animal care and nutrition.”
Genetic Engineering “allows us to move beneficial traits from one animal to another in a precise way.”
Cloning “retains desirable traits by producing animals that are biologically identical to their parents.”
(IFIC, 2004)
US Consumers’ Overall Impressions of Three Forms of Animal Biotechnology
17
38
23
914
11
25
16 16
32
4
14 1115
56
0
20
40
60
80
Very Favorable SomewhatFavorable
Neither/DK SomewhatUnfavorable
Very Unfavorable
Per
cen
t R
esp
on
se
Genomics Genetic Engineering Cloning
(IFIC, 2004)
“If FDA determined that meat, milk and eggs from animals enhanced through genetic engineering (cloned animals) were safe, how likely would you be to buy them?”
20 18 20
39 43
1912
29
0
20
40
60
80
Very Likely SomewhatLikely
SomewhatUnlikely
VeryUnlikely
Per
cen
t R
esp
on
se
GE Animals Cloned Animals
(Hoban and Kendall, 1992)
Most U.S. Consumers Believe Animal Biotechnology is Morally Wrong
(1 in 4 also object to Plants)
24
6
70
5
5342
0
20
40
60
80
100
Yes, Wrong No, NOT Wrong Don't Know
Pe
rce
nt
Re
sp
on
se
Plants Anim als
(Hoban and Miller, 1998)
Most agree that “Animals have rights that people should not violate.”
18
53
4
21
4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
StronglyAgree
Agree Don't Know Disagree StronglyDisagree
Pe
rce
nt
Re
sp
on
se
Hoban and Kendall, 1992
Transgenic Applications Vary in their Acceptability to US Consumers (based on source of the DNA)
10
39
25
66
0 20 40 60 80 100
Leaner Chicken withHUMAN Gene
Leaner Chicken withANIMAL Gene
More NutritiousPotatoes with an
ANIMAL Gene
More NutritiousPotatoes with CORN
Gene
Percent who Find Application "Acceptable"
Hoban and Kendall, 1992
Transgenic Hogs Used for Hemoglobin Production (USDA-sponsored Focus Groups)
Recognized as an important medical need (similar to what we already do with animals)
Women tended to be quite concerned about the ethics of animal modification or treatment
Many felt uneasy about eating human genes “I wouldn’t mind objectively, but way back down
emotionally it would make me cringe.” “Isn’t that like cannibalism?”
Some did not see it as much of an issue: “It would still just be pork.” “I guess we probably would get used to it.”
US Consumers have Concerns about Policies and Regulations
(Rutgers University, 2001)
American Consumers Express Concerns over Biotech Risks
80% agree “Humans are not perfect, so serious accidents involving GM foods are bound to happen.”
74% agreed “Nature is so complex it is impossible to predict what will happen with GM Crops.”
(Rutgers University, 2001)
American Consumers Have Doubts about Motives and Management
73% agree “Most GM foods were created because scientists were able to make them, not because the public wanted them.”
68% agree “Companies involved in creating GM crops believe profits are more important than safety.”
(Pew AgBiotech, 2003)
American Consumers Expect MORE FDA Regulation of GM Food
89% agree “Companies should be required to submit safety data to the FDA for review, and no GM food product should be allowed on the market until the FDA determines it is safe.” = Consensus from FDA Hearings
35% agree “Companies should be allowed to put a GM food product on the market without any special review by the FDA, if the company can show it is as safe as any food.” = Current Situation
(IFIC, 2003)
Public Support for FDA’s Labeling Policy has Fallen in Recent Years
3224252724
28261920
53625957
7069697878
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nt
Re
sp
on
se
OPPOSE SUPPORT
Conclusions and Implications
Animal Biotechnology will Lead to Significant Consumer Concerns
USDA will face serious challenges from public concerns over meat and milk from cloned animals.
Regulations are not yet in place to address the scientific issues (much less consumer choice).
Animals present many ethical and emotional issues that go well beyond science and safety.
Companies tend to be small and have no track record with the agricultural and food industries.
Little has been done to communicate with the food industry which is understandably concerned.
It will be a serious mistake to expect society to accept meat and milk from cloned or transgenic animals as “substantially equivalent.”
USDA Must Respect the Needs and Concerns of the Food Value Chain
The food processing, retail and service sectors have significantly more market clout than the agricultural and biotechnology sectors combined.
So far, biotech has only meant headaches and costs for the industry (no real benefits in sight for years.)
The food industry has stated publicly that it does not want food crops used for pharmaceutical production.
Industry leaders also feel strongly about not allowing cloned animals into the meat or milk supply.
If food processors decide to stop accepting GMO crops, the ag biotech industry is basically done
How to Prevent Further Rejection of Biotechnology
Recognize that concerned consumers and food companies are already moving toward organic foods
Speed up development of crops with REAL consumer benefits (healthier oils, better taste, shelf life)
Don’t cause any more problems for the food industry (NO food crops for pharma)
Ensure that the US government maintains a strong regulatory program to ensure food safety.
Make sure all farmers comply with the requirements for IRM, identity preservation and regulatory approval (no planting until global approval)
Points for Reflection
“Sound science” is only one factor influencing public perception and public policy. For many people this is no longer enough.
People choose food based on emotion not logic; consumers want and will demand choice.
Recognize that perception is reality. Education about benefits will not calm concerns over risk.
Biotechnology benefits must exceed risks; but few benefits will outweigh moral objections (as with animal biotechnology)
Need much more research and consultation as new products arrive and new issues arise.
For More Information:
http://hoban.ncsu.edu