Genetic Modification and Other Food Technologies

1. Genetic Modification and Other Food Technologies Consumer Concerns & Informational Demands Professor Brian Roe, Ohio State University

2. Food Technologies • Like water and air, food is • A necessary input for life • Its intake is a regular part of daily life • Has a physical interaction with our person and well being • Compared to water and air, food .. • Has many varieties, i.e., no standard like clean water/air • Is not a public good, though its safety is seen as such • Suppliers face strong profit motives • Requires many technologies for growth, processing, and transport

3. Food Technologies • Consumer public understands imperfections • Concern with food technologies grows • In response to new science and reporting • In response to publicity • In response to corporate scandals • Skepticism of technologies influences • Markets for goods readily associated with certain technologies • R&D and, potentially, long term improvements • Policies governing technology development and information

4. Consumer Research • Summer of 2002 • Nationally representative sample of 6,172 • 2,387 responded for a 39% response rate

5. Questions Asked • Food Awareness and Attitudes • Perceptions of various food technologies • Specific knowledge of GM foods • Opinions about GM labeling policy • Who should provide the label? • What should appear on the label? • How do different labeling approaches affect .. • Consumer satisfaction with the label? • Consumer perception of the product bearing the label?

6. Today’s Focus • Consumer Concerns Across Technologies • Absolute concern • Correlation of concerns • Driving forces behind overall & relative concerns • Consumer Response to GM technology • Overall awareness and knowledge • Response to possible labeling policies

7. Concern with Technologies • Question: “Listed on this page are different items related to the way foods are produced or processed. Review the list and rate how concerned you are with each item.” 1 = not at all concerned 3 = somewhat concerned 5 = very concerned

8. Concern with Technologies • Pesticides: 4.17 • Growth Hormones: 4.00 • Antibiotics 3.77 Genetic Modification 3.73 • Irradiation 3.58 • Preservatives 3.21 • Artificial colors/flavors 3.07 • Pasteurization 2.77

9. Results • Pesticides: 4.17 • Growth Hormones: 4.00 • Antibiotics 3.77 Genetic Modification 3.73 • Irradiation 3.58 • Preservatives 3.21 • Artificial colors/flavors 3.07 • Pasteurization 2.77 New Technology Old Technology

10. Comments on Rankings • Pesticides and Hormones dominate – why? • Both health and environmental connections • Pesticides may be more ubiquitous • Even healthy eaters exposed • Hormones limited to subset of animal products • Antibiotics, GM, Irradiation - in the middle • Fewer avenues of concern • Or, potentially offsetting positive attributes

11. Correlation of Concerns

12. New vs. Old Technologies

13. Limited Correlation in New Tech

14. Explaining General Levels of Concern • Less concerned Demographic groups • Males • Less than 30 years and more than 65 years • Families with older kids (> 5 years) • Those with more than college education • Caucasian • Household Incomes > $95,000/year • Those working in food industry jobs

15. Explaining General Levels of Concern • Groups with higher general concern • Organic purchasers • Nutrition label readers • Farmers market shoppers • The lowest income group

16. What Affects Relative Concern? • Gender • Males: more concerned about pesticides • Females: irradiation • Age • Under 30: more concerned with GM & irradiation • Over 65: • more concerned with antibiotics • Less concerned with hormones, GM

17. What Affects Relative Concern? • Children in house • Under 5: less concerned with art. colors & flavors • Older children • More concerned with GM and antibiotics • Less concerned with pasteurization and preservatives • Fewer years of formal education • More concerned with pasteurization, irradiation • Less concerned with antibiotics, hormones

18. What Affects Relative Concern? • Race: Caucasians are … • More concerned with hormones, GM, art. flavors/colors • Less concerned with pesticides, irradiation, pasteurization • Low income groups • More concern with irradiation, • Less concern with hormones • Work in food sector • Less concerned with GM and antibiotics

19. Results “Have you ever heard of food being genetically engineered or genetically modified?” • 76% said yes • Similar to other, recent national polls • Most identified tomatoes and corn as individual foods that have been modified

20. Results “What % of food sold in the US is genetically modified or contains GM ingredients?” • Average respondent said 39%

21. Results “What % of food sold in the US is genetically modified or contains GM ingredients?” • Average respondent said 39% • 50% of respondents said 30% or less

22. Results “What % of food sold in the US is genetically modified or contains GM ingredients?” • Average respondent said 39% • 50% of respondents said 30% or less • And in reality ????

23. Results “What % of food sold in the US is genetically modified or contains GM ingredients?” • Average respondent said 39% • 50% of respondents said 30% or less • And in reality ???? • About 70% of foods contain some amount of GM ingredient

24. Concern with Technologies • “Rate how concerned you are with each of the following food processing techniques?” • Antibiotics, GM, growth hormones, irradiation, pesticides, preservatives, pasteurization • Not at all concerned = 1 • Very concerned = 5

25. “Rate the potential benefits of GM foods” Not at all important = 1  Very important = 5 Decrease Pesticide Use 4.12 More food for LD countries 3.92 Lower food prices 3.84 Increased vitamins/min 3.82 Decrease antibiotic use 3.82 Decrease fat in foods 3.76

26. “Rate the potential concerns w/ GM foods” Not at all important = 1  Very important = 5 Unknown long-term health 4.42 Risk of antibiotic resistance 4.38 Increased use of pesticides 4.21 Unknown toxins produced 4.19 Unknown LT environ effects 4.18 Genetic contamination of env 4.13

27. GM Labeling in US • No labeling required if … • GM procedures does not significantly alter product • Provides guidelines for those who voluntarily wish to label the absence or presence of GM • Suggests wording • Suggests giving a reason why it is used • Discourages mentioning unknown long-term effects

28. GM Labeling • Ever seen products labeled?

29. GM Labeling • Ever seen products labeled? • 12% said yes

30. GM Labeling • Ever seen products labeled? • 12% said yes • Would you like to see GM labels?

31. GM Labeling • Ever seen products labeled? • 12% said yes • Would you like to see GM labels? • 85% said yes

32. GM Labeling • Ever seen products labeled? • 12% said yes • Would you like to see GM labels? • 85% said yes • On other surveys • If you ask people to volunteer new informational items, however, very few say GM labeling is needed • If you ask if the FDA policy is OK, about 2/3 say yes

33. How to label? The Options • Testing for GM content … • Mandatory for all foods • Voluntary • Put labels on … • All foods: GM and non-GM • GM foods only • Non-GM foods

34. How to label? • Mandatory Testing/Label GM Foods • 46% preferred this option • Mandatory Testing/Label All Foods • 43% • Voluntary/Non-GM foods • 7% • Mandatory/Non-GM foods • 4%

35. Who Should Certify Labels? • Listed about 14 possible agencies/organizations • FDA 40% • USDA 33% • Consumers Union 6% • NIH 6% • OCA 3% • EPA 3% • Greenpeace, AMA,NRDC <3%

36. What Info on the Label? • Any allergy or other warnings 4.6 • 800-number/web site 4.2 • Which ingredients 4.2 • Who is certifying this 4.2 • Any benefits from GM 3.9 • Why GM used 3.5 • How GM takes place 3.4

37. How Do Different Labels Affect Consumer Views of Products • Presented respondents a mock food label • Altered the label • GM message - yes/no, reason, long term unknowns • Who certifies - USDA, FDA, OCA, IPP, None • Link for more info • Asked to rate • Credibility and adequacy of information • Health and environmental view of product

38. Message, Credibility, Adequacy • Simple GM content vs. No GM content claim • “Contains GM” • More credible • Less Adequate • Adding the reason for using GM vs. simple GM • Decreases credibility ratings • Increases Adequacy rating • Mentioning long-term health/env. Unknowns • Has little impact on adequacy and credibility ratings • Adding contact information increases credibility, • Particularly for products with simple claims of No GM

39. Message, Health & Env. Ratings • Simple GM vs. No GM labels • Same health ratings if certified by FDA or No one • If certified by USDA, GM perceived as higher risk than No GM • No difference in env. risk ratings across messages • Adding reason for GM has little impact • Mentioning long-term unknowns • Has little impact on health and env. risk ratings

40. Agency and Product Ratings • For simple claims (GM, No GM) • FDA seen as most credible and most adequate • For claims providing a reason for GM • FDA, USDA similarly credible • Perceived health risk higher for USDA v. FDA • Both for simple GM and GM labels with reason • Purchase intentions higher for USDA for simple GM claims

41. Impacts of consumer tech concerns • Acceptance/purchase of existing products using technology • Investment into research and development for new technologies • Public demands for regulation and policies that affect technology and associated risks • Affect the quality, quantity, price and variety of products in the marketplace

42. Lessons Learned • Higher concern for technologies that • May have both personal health and env issues • Feature little direct benefit for consumers • Concern correlated across technologies with similar mode of affecting food, e.g., • Hormones and GM concern positively correlated • Antibiotics and irradiation negatively correlated

43. Lessons Learned • Relative concern varies across people • E.g., GM and antibiotics have same average concern across sample • Individuals’ concern show mild, negative correl. • Individual characteristics have opposite influence • >65 yrs more concerned with antibiotics, less w/GM • Organic & Food Coop purchasers more concerned with GM, less with antibiotics

44. Lessons Learned • Labeling needs to address more than just content • The most credible, adequate labels are simple No-GM messages certified by FDA • No such label is possible under current regulation • Adding information about the reason for GM • Increases adequacy, decreases credibility • Adequacy, credibility increases with contact info