Outline of the project ‘Food, Markets and Society’ II

1. Plant and Food Research, and ESRFRST Funded Project C02X0801 2008-12 Outline of the project ‘Food, Markets and Society’ II National Symposium on Future Food Technologies Auckland University 3 December 2009 Dr Karen Cronin Science Leader, Science Technology and Society Environmental Science and Research ESR Wellington

2. 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.

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

4. The Great GE Debate! Communication?

5. Argument Culture

6. DialogueCulture

7. PeterSandman - 4 stages of Evolution in Risk Communication:1) “Stonewalling” – ‘the public’ is as ill-informed about risks; public opinion should have little influence in decision-making.2) The “Missionary” approach – if ‘the public’ is educated with data they will understand risks more accurately and respond appropriately.3) “Dialogue” – communication should be a two way process, with both sides listening to each other and recognising where there are legitimate concerns.4) “Organisational change” – proponents of change actively seek to involve stakeholders in decision making (including the selection of options) and alter organisational behaviour to adopt inclusive practices. Sandman, P. (1989). Hazard versus outrage in the public perception of risk. In V. Covello, D. McCallum & M. Pavlova (Eds.), Effective risk communication: The role and responsibility of government and non-government organisations (pp. 45-49). New York: Plenum Press. Sandman, P. (1991). Risk = hazard + outrage. A formula for effective risk communication [Video]: American Association for Industrial Hygiene.

8. Match the communication method to the nature of the technology One way communication: Main issues are technical Low ethical/moral risk dimension Consensus on end use/social purpose Technology proposal and its impacts well understood Two way communication: Main issues are social or cultural Significant ethical/moral consequences Lack of consensus on social purpose Impacts of technology uncertain Knowledge field rapidly evolving

9. “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/

10. “[I would like to see] better processes – that acknowledge the wisdom and world views of all people involved. … the power difference e.g. scientists (knowledge holder) vs. myself (spiritual concerns- lay person knowledge) can be very frustrating…” #Community“I would hope that we learn to engage the public in a different way and before the debate [takes off]. People are curious about the technology. As scientists we need to focus more on the community.” #Scientist“Hands Across the Water – developing dialogue between stakeholders in the NZ biotechnology debate”Cronin and Jackson, 2004.

11. 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

12. Next steps in the project

13. 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

14. Research Strategy… Biotechnology Nanotechnology Functional foods/ Nutrigenomics Technologies for sustainable agriculture Other future food technologies? • Scope out a wide range of emerging future food technologies • Generate a short list of 20 indicator technologies that will be useful for dialogue workshops • Dialogue workshops will reveal underlying risk attributes/preferences for a range of technologies • Feedback results to future strategy and decision making

15. 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.

16. Facilitated Dialogue Workshops

17. 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?”

18. Linking Dialogue with Strategy • The ultimate aim of our project is to inform real decision making by industry, science and government on emerging food technologies • We will run a final set of workshops in partnership with decision makers who want to evaluate their options for making strategic investments in food technologies

19. A workshop with an industry, science or government organisation may… • Identify a minimum of two strategic options to compare • Bring relevant stakeholders to the table • Identify key assumptions that each strategy is making. • Focus discussion on the most important but least certain assumptions • Look at the implications for strategy. For instance, the group may ask: • What has the discussion told us about the strengths and weaknesses of the existing alternatives? • Can we identify a fresh strategy that gives us the best of both worlds? • If there are still significant disagreements and uncertainties, can research resolve them? • What is the best way forward?

20. 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