1 / 41

International Food Information Council (IFIC) and IFIC Foundation

Food Biotechnology Understanding the Consumer for Effective Communication Cheryl Toner, MS, RD Director, Health Communications International Food Information Council and Foundation. International Food Information Council (IFIC) and IFIC Foundation.

barney
Download Presentation

International Food Information Council (IFIC) and IFIC Foundation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Food BiotechnologyUnderstanding the Consumer for Effective CommunicationCheryl Toner, MS, RDDirector, Health CommunicationsInternational Food Information Council and Foundation

  2. International Food InformationCouncil (IFIC) and IFIC Foundation Mission: To communicate science-based information on food safety and nutrition issues to health professionals, journalists, educators and government officials. Primarily supported by the broad-based food, beverage and agricultural industries.

  3. American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology National Foundation for Integrated Pest Management Education American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation National Policy and Resource Center on Nutrition and Aging, Florida Int’l University American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports American College of Sports Medicine The American Dietetic Association Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation Council for Agricultural Science and Technology University of Illinois Functional Foods for Health Program Association of Women's Health, Obstetric, and Neonatal Nurses U.S. Department of Agriculture Consumer Federation of America The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Food and Drug Administration Food Marketing Institute National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, Inc. Institute of Food Technologists University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources IFIC & IFIC Foundation Partners

  4. “Food Biotechnology: Enhancing Our Food Supply” Brochure Partnership with IFIC Foundation and The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) Foundation

  5. IFIC Foundation Web Site ific.org • 1.5 million hits/ month • 20% users are international

  6. IFIC Foundation’s Food Insight • 45,000 Circulation • 7% International • 6,000 Media

  7. Goal: Effective Communication Communicate Food-Related Science in Ways that Serve Both Public Understanding and the Objectives of the Communicators

  8. Harvard / IFIC Foundation Guidelines • Journal of the National Cancer Institute—February 4, 1998 • Journal of the American MedicalAssociation—February 11, 1998

  9. General Guidelines for ALL PARTIES in the Communications Process 1. Will your communication enhance public understanding of diet and health? 2. Have you put the study findings into context? 3. Have the study or findings been peer-reviewed? 4. Have you disclosed the important facts about the study? 5. Have you disclosed all key information about the study’s funding? Harvard/IFIC, 1998

  10. IFIC Food Biotechnology Consumer Focus Groups - 1992 10 U.S. Cities

  11. ENERGY RESULTS IDENTITY SCOPE TIME Who we Respect for Ties to past, We work Benefits are, values nature and commitment hard, have a must be and deeds limits to future vision worthy, not frivolous IFIC’s Food BiotechnologyConsumer Research

  12. U.S. Consumer Attitudes TowardFood Biotechnology Wirthlin Group Quorum Surveys • March 1997 • February 1999 • October 1999 • Cogent Research • September 2001 • August 2002 • Each based on 1,000 Telephone Interviews of U.S. Adults • Nationally Projectable • May 2000 • January 2001 • April 2003 • January 2004

  13. Are there any foods or ingredients that you have avoided or eaten less of? IFIC 2004

  14. If yes, what foods or ingredients did you avoid or eat less of? (Multiple responses allowed) IFIC 2004

  15. Any info not currently on food labels that you would like to see? (Multiple responses allowed, n = 1000) IFIC 2004

  16. What, if anything, are you most concerned about when it comes to food safety? (Multiple responses allowed, n = 1000) IFIC 2004

  17. How much have you read orheard about biotechnology? IFIC 2004

  18. Are there any foods produced through biotechnology in the supermarket today? IFIC 2004

  19. Which foods produced through biotech are currently in the supermarket? (multiple answers allowed, n=357) Top 51/04 Vegetables 44% Meats 22% Corn 20% Fruits 18% Tomatoes 14% IFIC 2004

  20. Likelihood of purchase if modified by biotechnology to taste better or fresher IFIC 2004

  21. . . . if modified by biotechnology to be protected from insect damage and require fewer pesticides IFIC 2004

  22. Effect on purchasing decision if biotechnology produced cooking oil lower in saturated fat IFIC 2004

  23. Will biotechnology provide benefits for you or your family within the next 5 years? IFIC 2004

  24. What benefits do you expect from biotechnology? (Multiple responses allowed) IFIC 2004

  25. Support for FDA Labeling Policy IFIC 2004

  26. During the past few months, have you taken any action due to concerns about biotech foods? IFIC 2004

  27. How much have you read or heard about animal biotechnology? A lot 8% Some 21% A little 31% Nothing at all 39% Don’t know 1% IFIC 2004

  28. What have you read or heard about animal biotechnology? (Multiple responses allowed) Cloning 17% Faster growth/Bigger animals/More meat, milk, eggs 9% Hormones 8% Genetic engineering 5% Disease resistance/ Animal health/ Safer food 4% Changes to animal feed 4% Better food quality 3% Concerns about effects/ Testing needed 3% Steroids 3% Other 19% (Includes Mad Cow 2%) -------------------------- Nothing specific 6% Don’t know/ Refused 39% IFIC 2004

  29. Impression of using animal biotechnology to produce meat, milk, and eggs Total Favorable 28% Very Favorable 7% Somewhat Favorable 21% Neither 11% Total Not Favorable 29% Not Very Favorable 11% Not at all Favorable 18% Don’t Know 32% IFIC 2004

  30. Animal biotechnology can… PositiveNegativeNo EffectDK …increase farm 39% 21% 34% 6% efficiency by increasing the amount of food produced or decreasing the amount of feed needed by the animals. IFIC 2004

  31. Animal biotechnology can… PositiveNegativeNo EffectDK …improve the quality 58% 14% 23% 5% and safety of food IFIC 2004

  32. Animal biotechnology can… PositiveNegativeNo EffectDK …reduce the 52% 13% 26% 9% environmental impact of animal waste IFIC 2004

  33. GENOMICS…uses knowledge about genetics to improve overall animal care and nutrition Total Favorable 55%Very Favorable 17% Somewhat Favorable 38% Neither 15% Total Not Favorable 23% Somewhat Unfavorable 9% Very Unfavorable 14% Don’t Know 8% IFIC 2004

  34. GENETIC ENGINEERING…allows us to move beneficial traits from one animal to another in a precise way Total Favorable 36% Very Favorable 11% Somewhat Favorable 25% Neither 12% Total Not Favorable 48% Somewhat Unfavorable 16% Very Unfavorable 32% Don’t Know 4% IFIC 2004

  35. CLONING…retains desirable traits by producing animals that are biologically identical to the parent Total Favorable 18% Very Favorable 4% Somewhat Favorable 14% Neither 9% Total Not Favorable 71% Somewhat Unfavorable 15% Very Unfavorable 56% Don’t Know 2% IFIC 2004

  36. Impact of FDA safety determination on intent to purchase meat, milk, and eggs from GENETICALLY ENGINEERED animals Total Likely 59% Very Likely 20% Somewhat Likely 39% Total Unlikely 38% Not too Likely 18% Not at all Likely 20% Don’t Know 4% IFIC 2004

  37. Impact of FDA safety determination on intent to purchase meat, milk, and eggs fromCLONED animals Total Likely 34% Very Likely 12% Somewhat Likely 22% Total Unlikely 62% Not too Likely 19% Not at all Likely 43% Don’t Know 4% IFIC 2004

  38. Factors Affecting Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Biotechnology • Awareness • Information Sources • Education • Trust • Perceptions on Food Safety • Terminology • “Biotechnology”; Not “GMO”

  39. Potential Factors Influencing 2004 Attitudes • High overall awareness, but knowledge not deep • Biotechnology is not a food safety concern • “Mad Cow” in U.S. • Overall support for FDA labeling policy holding • Support associated with higher awareness and education ( < .05) • Consumer expect benefits from biotechnology • Animal biotechnology: The jury is still out • Higher awareness associated with likelihood to purchase ( < .05)

  40. Communicating with Consumers • Place biotechnology in context • Explain goals and benefits • Give accurate view of safety • Speak in familiar terms • Tell stories about real foods, products, and applications

  41. OECD ADA IFT FDA NAS House Science Subcommittee The Weight of the Evidence

More Related