8.1 Views on Labeling Genetically Engineered Products
8.2 Social Differences in Views about Labeling
8.3 Labeling and Choice
8.4 Summary: labeling
The question of whether or not genetically engineered products should be labeled was tested by several questions on genetically engineered tomatoes. Just after the lengthy introduction to genetic engineering using the tomato as an example, the survey continued:
4 ... a. Would you like to try eating this new tomato? Yes, definitely 17 Yes, probably 44 Mixed feelings; yes and no 16 No, probably not 17 No, definitely not 7 --- 100% (mean= 62) b. Should they be clearly labeled as genetically engineered, so you can decide for yourself whether or not to eat them? Yes, definitely 46 Yes, probably 43 Mixed feelings; yes and no 7 No, probably not 4 No, definitely not 1 --- 100% (mean= 82) c. If clearly labeled, are these new tomatoes a good idea or a bad idea? Very good idea 17 Good idea 47 Mixed feelings, hard to say 28 Bad idea 6 Very bad idea 3 --- 100% (mean= 67) d. And if the genetically engineered tomatoes were not clearly labeled? Very good idea 2 Good idea 9 Mixed feelings, hard to say 24 Bad idea 41 Very bad idea 24 --- 100% (mean= 31)
After the question on eating the tomato, the next question asked directly about labeling. The public is overwhelmingly in favour of clear labeling and the consumer's right to choose. 46% say "Yes, definitely" and a further 43% "Yes, probably" -- an overwhelming majority for labeling. Only 6% are undecided and a minuscule 4% against labeling.
In all, labeling gets 82 points out of 100. This is consistent with the public's strong general preference for consumer choice in many other contexts (Kelley, 1990: Ch. 5) and with public opinion in several overseas nations specifically on labeling genetically modified products (Hoban and Kendall, 1992; Optima, 1994: 17).
The next question asked about marketing a clearly labeled genetically engineered tomato (this question has already been discussed). If the tomatoes are to be clearly labeled, people would regard them as quite a good idea, at 67 points. A clear majority say they are either "good idea" or "very good idea".
The following question asked about marketing an unlabeled genetically engineered tomato. By contrast to the previous question, if not labeled, a clear majority would think the genetically engineered tomatoes a "bad" or "very bad" idea. Specifically, only 2% said an unlabeled tomato was a very good idea, 9% said it was a good idea, and 24% had mixed feelings. But 41% said it was a bad idea and no less than 24% said it was a very bad idea. This gives unlabeled tomatoes only 31 points out of 100 -- overwhelming rejection by the public.
Thus, judging from this series of questions on tomatoes, the public is decidedly sympathetic to genetically engineered foods, if these foods are labeled so that consumers can choose for themselves whether or not to eat them. Without labeling, a clear majority opposes genetically engineered foods.
There are no appreciable social or demographic differences in who thinks genetically engineered products should be labeled. Old and young, men and women, the well educated and the poorly educated, believers and non-believers, Catholics and Protestants, Labor and Coalition supporters all have much the same views. Only environmentalists are more inclined than others to want labeling (beta=.10).
Knowledge makes no difference either. Those who know a lot about science in general or a lot about genetic engineering in particular have much the same views as those who know little.
Worries about genetically engineered products do matter, and quite a lot (beta=.24). Those who worry are much keener on labeling.
But it is noteworthy that even among those who have not the slightest worry about genetically engineered products, but are average in other respects, labeling commands majority support. There is no substantial subgroup of the population that gives anything short of majority support to labeling.
Two parallel analyses of public support for unlabeled genetically engineered tomatoes and public support for labeled tomatoes are instructive. Worry about genetic engineering is the main influence on views about unlabeled tomatoes, with a very large effect indeed (beta=-.27). But worry matters rather less for labeled tomatoes (beta=-.21; the corresponding metric regression coefficients are -.25 and -.18, both with standard error of .03).
Conversely, support for agricultural goals creates only a modest amount of support for unlabeled tomatoes (beta=.09) compared to the huge amount of support it creates for labeled tomatoes (beta=.27; the corresponding metric regression coefficients are .13 and .37, both with a standard error of .05).
Judging from the tomato example, the key difficulty with unlabeled products is a cost (in the consumer's view) imposed on them without their consent: if genetically engineered products are unlabeled, consumers cannot easily avoid using them.
Judging from the tomato example, the public reacts to clearly labeled genetically engineered foods largely on the basis of potential agricultural benefits, and rather less on the basis of fear.
These results provide a strong argument for labeling of genetically engineered foods, at least for a period of years until public understanding and acceptance grows. This would:
Voluntary labeling (as has happened with tomatoes in the U.S.) might meet most public concerns.
The public wants genetically engineered food products to be clearly labeled, so they can choose for themselves whether or not to use them. Even if genetically engineered foods are in fact entirely safe -- a scientific issue not to be settled by public opinion polling -- people nonetheless want to make the choice themselves. Voluntary labeling might meet most public concerns.
Number of readers since 4 June
1999:
To top of page