Futures Workshop Held at Canterbury University 16 November 2009

1. Futures WorkshopHeld at Canterbury University16 November 2009 Welcome!

2. Programme: • Welcome • Introductions • Workshop aim and process • Background to the future foods research project • Promoting dialogue through “Issues Mapping” – Karen Cronin • Presentation of project reports9.30am Trends in biotechnology – Tony Conner Trends in nanotechnology, functional foods, nutrigenomics – Nigel Larsen Technologies for sustainable agriculture – Barbara Nicholas Maori perspectives on food technologies – Belinda Raskin NZ social and consumer responses – Jinny Baker International social and consumer responses – Frewer et al, pp Karen Cronin • General discussion Morning Tea11am. • Upstream engagement and technology assessment Linking dialogue to strategy – Gerald Midgley • Small group discussions 11.30am 11. Observations – Gerald Midgley 12.45pm 12. Close1pm

3. Introductions Briefly introduce yourself … Describe the best breakfast you’ve ever had!

4. Workshop aim and process Aim: To review the findings of science scoping reports, and literature reviews on social/consumer responses, and identify the key trends around future food technologies and potential implications. Process: • Map out where these examples fit in the horizon of possible future developments of food science and technologies, including: type of application; where in the value chain from ‘farm to fork’; where in the innovation cycle etc. • Draw on the diverse expertise of science sector experts/end users to comment on the trends identified, identify gaps and key issues. • Generate a shortlist of 20 indicator technologies that we can draw on to design the Issues Mapping process/dialogue workshops next year. • Identify key issues for authors to highlight when the project reports are presented at the December symposium.

5. How this research came about…

6. Developments in ‘future food’ science Functional foods: whole, fortified or enhanced foods that provide benefits beyond the provision of simple nutrients (Omega-3 fatty acids in salmon, fortified margarines with plant sterol and stanol esters to reduce cholesterol) Nutrigenomics: diet factor in chronic disease, influenced by a person’s genetic make up. Use genetic testing to design diet – promote foods to match. GM foods – transgenic and intragenic genetic modifications, Nanotechnology and food – delivering more effective nutrition (nano-emulsions), sensors for food borne contaminants, food packaging materials for longer shelf-life.

7. Other food science trends: aimed at sustainable agriculture Zespri Organic Massey Univ. Organic tomatoes & peppers field trial Pesticide residue testing

8. The Great NZ GE Debate! Communication?

9. Argument Culture

10. DialogueCulture

11. Plant and Food Research, and ESRFRST Funded Project C02X0801 2008-12Engaging scientists, industry, government and the community in dialogue on future food technologies • Explore social and economic context before committing to science investment • Futures workshop to scope future food technologies • Dialogue between stakeholders • Identifying preferred R,S&T pathways • Input to strategy and decision-making

12. Project structure FRST Research Advisory Panel: (Research design and implementation) Dr Ian Ferguson PFR Dr Val Orchard, ESR Prof Sally Davenport VUW Aroha Mead VUW Jane Cameron MoRST Maui Hudson ESR Project Sponsor: Plant & Food Research – Dr Nigel Larsen (Contracts, Administration) Project Team: Dr Nigel Larsen PFR Dr Karen Cronin ESR Prof Gerald Midgley ESR + Virginia Baker, Dr Ann Winstanley Annabel Ahuriri Driscoll, Graeme Nicholas Project Administrator : Chris Jenca ESR End Users Group: (Knowledge transfer) PFR, ESR, Fonterra, Zespri, HortNZ, Baking Industry Research Trust, Sanitarium, PGG Wrightson, Organics NZ, Maori organics, Vege Growers, Slow Food Movement, Government: MoRST, MAF, MFE, MoH, NZFSA, ERMA, NZTE Sub Contract: Prof Lynn Frewer University Wageningen, The Netherlands Sub Contract: NZ Social scientist: Dr Barbara Nicholas Stakeholders: Scientists Growers Industry (manufacturing, retail, marketing, exporting) Consumers Government Maori Health Environment Restaurateurs, Foodies, Slow Food Movement News media, Social Commentators

13. Phase I Set up project team Communication with stakeholders Phase II Scope future trajectories Review upstream engagement Review NZ,international research Map out emerging technologies Match technology life cycle to opportunities for engagement Phase III Set up stakeholder workshops Issues Mapping Workshops – general, Maori Phase IV Link to science/industry/government strategies Evaluation Final report and briefings Project Timeline 2008-12 Phase I Set up and Communication Phase II Research and Analysis Phase III StakehoIder Engagement Phase IV Strategic Development 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

14. Downstream effects of science and technology Science innovation and society Science policy and investment decisions Upstream Public Engagement Science Innovation Pipeline: Theory Lab Applied Technology Products Market Economy Society Physical Environment Karen Cronin January 2008

15. How we see things:the influence of values in future scanning

16. Exploratory approaches to ‘the future’ Exploratory methods are "outward bound". They begin with the present and move forward to the future, either by: extrapolating past trends or causal dynamics, or by asking "what if?" questions about the implications of possible developments or events that may lie outside of these familiar trends. Source EU Commission http://forlearn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/guide/4_methodology/meth_explo-norma.htm

17. Normative approaches to ‘the future’ Normative methods are "inward bound". They start with a preliminary view of a possible / desirable set of futures. They then work backwards to see if and how these might futures might grow out of the present – and how they might be achieved, or avoided, given the existing constraints, resources and technologies.

18. Trajectories for future food science New science, complex, high intervention, globalised, novel technologies Integrated management: new science, medium impact technologies Simpler, low intervention, local, familiar technologies

19. Industrial food production: food as commodity International markets Global production and distribution Long transportation lines High energy and resource use Shelf life, convenience, standardisation Homogenisation food lifestyles Centralised ownership and control of food chain

20. The social meaning of food Family History Social relations Identity Cultural diversity

21. Slow Food Movement Local Social Gourmet Family Sustainable

22. Food, lifestyle, design Steinlager launches 'Pure'

23. Food, social justice and sustainability

24. Using dialogue communication to reduce conflicts around new technology

25. “Hands across the water” – developing dialogue between stakeholders in the New Zealand biotechnology debateCronin and Jackson, 2004. Victoria University of Wellington • NZ Ministry of Research Science and Technology Dialogue Programme • February 2003 - June 2004 • GM debate as a case study of science communication • Trial of 3 approaches: “Appreciative Inquiry”“The Civil Conversation”“Issues Mapping” • ‘GM Scientists’ &‘Community Interest Group’ Members Experience of communication to date?Common ground on the issues?New methods for communication in the future? http://www.morst.govt.nz/current-work/science-in-society/dialogue/fund/

26. Risk Perceptions of Ag BiotechScientists’ views: “I believe that it is a positive science, will advance society and will increasingly be accepted as a more normal and supportive improvement in biological matter.” “For me things are givens, they are now normal and I don’t see ethical concerns because I understand the technology.” “I can see things the way they are because I am a scientist. There is an ignorance towards science because people aren’t informed.”

27. Risk Perceptions of Ag BiotechA community view:“There is an underlying feeling it’s wrong or possibly dangerous... People see you are changing something in a very fundamental away – and not for a very good reason.”

28. Experience of the GM debate “Both sides abuse each other and don’t want to get to a position [of agreement] – they are holding onto dogma.” #74 Scientist “There is an over reaction on both ends, and it’s not profitable for anyone. #145 community “People get sick of all the carping.” #1 scientist “People continually try to polarise the issue rather than ask what’s really going on here. What are the issues, what is the big picture? ...” #609 community

29. Issues Mapping:Finding common ground through dialogue5 step process:1. General views on future food technologies2. Risk acceptance – ranking 8 technology examples on a scale of acceptability:containment, transgenes, end use3. Underlying values: which issues are at the ‘heart of the matter’ for you?4. Making an ‘issues map’ – seeing where your preferences sit in relation to others’5. Discussion and reflection.

30. Issues Mapping Interviews- General views on acceptability of GM/GE- Range of acceptability for: transgenes/ end use/ containment- Which issues are at the ‘heart of the matter’ for you?

31. a) Human gene therapy to treat a disorder that causes illness such as cystic fibrosis b) Putting a synthetic human gene into the gene of a dairy cow, so that it is reproduced and can be extracted in quantities from the cow’s milk. c) Using a green fluorescent protein (say from a jelly fish) as a marker to make a mouse glow so you can tell that it has been genetically modified. d) Changing part of a sheep gene, to increase the muscle growth in the sheep e) Changing the genes in a white clover plant to reduce its vulnerability to viral disease f) Putting another plant gene in broccoli or asparagus to increase its shelf life g) Putting a fish antifreeze gene in strawberries to increase their shelf life h) Putting another fish gene in the gene of a salmon to make it grow faster i) Altering the genes of a microbe for pollution control e.g. to take up heavy metals j) Putting a microbe called Bt in corn to work as a pesticide Cronin and Jackson 2004 Issues Mapping: GE scientists and members of community interest groups

32. Cronin and Jackson 2004 Issues Mapping: GE scientists and members of community interest groups LEAST NEUTRAL MOST a) Human gene therapy to treat a disorder that causes illness such as cystic fibrosis b) Putting a synthetic human gene into the gene of a dairy cow, so that it is reproduced and can be extracted in quantities from the cow’s milk. c) Using a green fluorescent protein (say from a jelly fish) as a marker to make a mouse glow so you can tell that it has been genetically modified. d) Changing part of a sheep gene, to increase the muscle growth in the sheep e) Changing the genes in a white clover plant to reduce its vulnerability to viral disease f) Putting another plant gene in broccoli or asparagus to increase its shelf life g) Putting a fish antifreeze gene in strawberries to increase their shelf life h) Putting another fish gene in the gene of a salmon to make it grow faster i) Altering the genes of a microbe for pollution control e.g. to take up heavy metals j) Putting a microbe called Bt in corn to work as a pesticide

33. Genetic modification of human DNA e.g. gene therapy • b) Transfer of human DNA to plant or animal cells • c)Transfer of plant or animal DNA to animal cells • d) Genetic modification within a plant’s DNA • e)Transfer of DNA between different plant species • f)Genetic modification within an animal’s DNA • g)Transfer of DNA between different animal species • h)Genetic modification within a microbe • i)Transfer between microbes and plants

34. Risk acceptance Social benefit v. private profit Medical use Respect for human life Animal welfare Cosmetic purpose Net environmental benefit Modification within gene v. transgenes Uncertainty, novelty, predictability

35. MORST Dialogue Project ‘Hands Across the Water’Key Findings: The debate is not as polarized as depicted by the media Traditional stereotypes do not apply Both groups place a high priority on the environment They differ over the importance of ethical and spiritual issues Common mistrust of ‘profit motive’ Both scientists and environmentalists want better forms of dialogue and more information from each other and from government

36. Facilitated Dialogue Workshops

37. Participants at the dialogue workshops:“This has been a positive experience. It is incredibly interesting and a neat way of approaching differences.” “We have a lot in common. We’ve all got an interest in sustainability” “Scientists are human.”“Citizens are well informed.”“We can meet in the middle as people.”“A valuable insight was the finding that we really make initial assumptions and these shape our interactions with others. Defeating that might help achieve a more tolerant discourse”“ We could put a boundary [around areas of acceptability and unacceptability] and it was the same”“How can we grab the process before the next big debate?”

38. Enter… PFR and ESR

39. Discussion on project reports Trends in biotechnology – Tony Conner Trends in nanotechnology, functional foods, nutrigenomics – Nigel Larsen Technologies for sustainable agriculture – Barbara Nicholas Maori perspectives on food technologies – Belinda Raskin NZ social and consumer responses – Jinny Baker International social and consumer responses – Frewer et al, pp Karen Cronin

40. Psychological Determinants of Consumer Acceptance of Food Technologies- A Review Nidhi Gupta, Arnout Fischer and Lynn J.Frewer Marketing & Consumer Behaviour Group Wageningen University Summary of Key Points – Karen Cronin, ESR

41. Overview of consumer research • Most research on public acceptance of emerging technologies has been done after public rejection of applications. • Product Push or Consumer Pull? > explore reactions before developing products. • Consumer research > on trade offs between risks and benefits. • International consumer responses difficult to predict due to: socio-political and cultural differences; lack of data in key regions incl Asia

42. Key points • Successful development of new markets depends on consumer acceptance. • Many agrifood products developed in the past without reference to consumer preferences. • Promise of benefits – but also associated with environmental/health risks and consumer perception of risk.

43. Perceptions of different agrifood technologies • Public opposition to release of GM plants well documented. • Cloning of production animals controversial in the US. • Resistance to nanotech emerging in parts of Europe. • Few studies on functional foods/ nutrigenomics.

44. Factors affecting risk perception • Risk perceptions affect behaviour and decision making. • Food risk perception multi-dimensional: health risks, plus effects on environment, economy, animals, future generations. • From 94 research papers studied, 30 determinants affected 6 key emerging technologies.

46. Country comparisions • Most studies done in North America/Europe. • Few in SE Asia, Africa, Latin America, China, India – but increasingly affluent populations. • Little regional variation in the determinants of consumer acceptance [ but only publications in English included]. • Most studied topics = perceived benefit, perceived risk, trust- followed by individual differences, citizen knowledge and attitudes. • Most studied factors = best predictor of attitudes? • Increasing globalization of products, regulations and public awareness. • Reluctance to launch new products in regional markets due to international publicity.

48. Issues x technology • GM most studied: trust in regulators and industry, un-naturalness, personal control, consumer choice. Same issues may affect nanotechnology . • Nutrigenomics: perceived risk/benefits, control, uncertainty. • Nanotechnology: trust in government, perceived benefits, general attitudes, control. May vary with type of application e.g. packaging v. food with nanoparticles?

49. General comments • Social acceptance of technology important in strategic development and commercialisation of agrifood. • Public acceptance seen as important by product developers. • Consumers becoming more selective – aware of technology processes underpinning novel food production. • Consumer responses driven by concerns about: food quality, safety, nutrition, confidence in management/regulation. • And also by social concerns: fair trade, sustainable production. • Need to involve consumers and stakeholders – but so far few strategies to operationalise this. • Predictive models needed to support commercialisation – but few to date.

50. Morning tea