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