WwA : Worldwide Attitudes
ISSN 1323-9589
Volume 19950703
Date: 3 July 1995
Jonathan Kelley
Australian National University
© Copyright Jonathan Kelley 1995. All rights reserved.
The genetic engineering revolution is upon us: New consumer products produced by genetic engineering are now beginning to appear in the market place and dozens more are soon to come. They range from genetically engineered medicines (for example, to treat leukemia, or to reduce blood pressure), through agricultural production (for example, genetically engineered cotton that resists insect pests, genetically modified viruses to attack pests), to consumer foodstuffs (for example, tastier tomatoes, or leaner pork). Genetically engineered medicines are overwhelmingly supported by the public in Australia and many other nations and genetically engineered improvements in agricultural production are almost equally popular (Hoban and Kendall, 1992; Kelley 1995a, 1995b; Kelley and Laird, 1995; Lemkow, 1993; Optima, 1994; US Congress, 1987) .Public acceptance for genetically engineered foodstuffs is less one sided. A majority support them if they are clearly labeled so consumers can themselves make the choice of whether or not to use them. But if genetically modified foods are not clearly labeled, our data suggest that a majority oppose them. This is consistent with consumers’ general insistence on choice.
This analysis is based on data from the International Social Science Survey collected from a large random sample of Australians in late 1994 and the early months of 1995. The genetic engineering questions, one module in a large survey, were sponsored by the Australian Department of Industry, Science and Technology, but the views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the Department’s views.
Asking the public about genetic engineering requires a lengthy introduction, because many people had not heard of it, and for many others a bit of reminding of what genetic engineering is about is useful to focus their thoughts, to remind them of things they may have already heard about (as most had), and to explain the topic to those previously unacquainted with it. The introduction:
Genetic engineering is a new way to create new products. Scientists can use genetic engineering on plants or animals to change things like their size, colour, or taste. They do this by moving a gene from one kind of animal or plant to another, or by turning a gene off.
Our double goal with this introduction was to maintain scientific accuracy but also to make it readily accessible to respondents with little education. We began with this general sketch of the technique, and then proceeded to a particular concrete example, because people can always think better with a concrete example to hand:
Recently, scientists have made an improved variety of tomato that has a better texture,costs less, and might make a valuable export. They turned off one of its genes, which would otherwise have made the tomato go mushy.
After introducing the example, the introduction raises the key theme of safety and danger that will echo through the rest of the examples in the module:
After careful study, a government regulatory committee believes that the new tomatoes are safe. Most scientists agree. But a few are worried and some nation-wide environmental groups say the tomatoes might be dangerous and should be banned.
This scenario sets up the actual situation in the recent U.S. introduction of genetically engineered tomatoes, a scenario likely to be repeated in Australia in coming years. At this stage the question is hypothetical -- the tomatoes are not yet on the Australian market and Australian regulatory bodies have not been asked to evaluate them -- but hypothetical questions are perfectly normal in politics and elsewhere, and usually pose respondents no particular problems -- citizens are quite accustomed to deciding about policies that do not exist and may never exist (for example, proposed taxes or economic policies).
We closed the introduction with a reassuring sentence to re-affirm that we were seeking everyone's opinion, not just the opinions of people who consider themselves experts: "
>> Most people have not heard much about genetic engineering. We just want your opinion, your best guess.
After introducing the topic of genetic engineering in this way, we then asked several questions about them, and about labeling, and concluded with a summary evaluation. (The public’s views about genetically modified tomatoes are fairly typical of their views about other genetically engineered products -- the main difference being that they support the other projects we asked about even more strongly; see Appendix A). The questions:
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)
A clear majority of the public would like to try eating the new tomato. 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. 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.
A perceived risk to health is probably the main cost.
Overseas evidence also suggests that some consumers will have moral or ethical objections which would lead them to prefer avoiding genetically modified products.
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. But opinion about other regulatory issues in Australia (for example, regulation of the economy), and opinion on regulating genetically engineered products in other nations, suggests that the public would prefer the policy to be legally obligatory.
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.
The public’s views about genetically modified tomatoes are fairly typical of their views about other genetically engineered products -- the main difference being that they support the other projects we asked about even more strongly. We asked about 7 other genetic engineering projects that are underway in Australia or overseas, or likely to be underway in the relatively near future. We began with a general introductory phrase "Here are some other things that scientists might make with genetic engineering...", and then asked people to rate the desirability of a list of possible genetically engineered products (detailed results are given below).
These results show that the citizenry holds positive attitudes towards this entire array of potential genetic engineering products: they range from moderately positive to overwhelmingly positive. At the top are "A treatment that would save the lives of people who have blood cancer" (89 points out of 100), "A genetically engineered drug that lowers blood pressure better than other drugs, reducing the risk of heart attack" (87 points), and "Genetically engineered cotton that resists insect pests -- this could greatly reduce the use of chemical pesticides" (87 points). A bit less popular, although still highly desirable in the public mind are "Healthier cooking oil and margarine, with more of the desirable, unsaturated fats and fewer of the undesirable fats" (79 points out of 100) "Genetically modified viruses to protect farm crops by attacking insect pests, such as beetles and locusts" (76 points), and "Modified viruses to control imported animal pests (such as rabbits or feral pigs) by preventing them from breeding" (76 points). The populace was a little less favorable towards "Leaner, healthier pork (assuming it is clearly labeled, so you can decide for yourself whether or not to buy it)", granting it a desirability rating of 73 points. There is still a substantial majority support for the modified pork, with 73% thinking it a "Good idea" or a "Very good idea". Support is lowest for the genetically engineered tomato: Australians accord it a desirability rating of 67 points out of 100. Even in this case, a clear majority are in favour, with 64% declaring genetically engineered tomatoes to be a "Good idea" or a "Very good idea".
It is clear the Australian public is broadly supportive of a wide range of genetic engineering projects. The average level of support is 79 points out of 100 -- so the average Australian rates the average genetic engineering project just a shade more favorable than a "good idea".
Here are some other things scientists might make with genetic engineering... e. A treatment that would save the lives of people who have blood cancerVery good idea 65 Good idea 29 Mixed feelings, hard to say 5 Bad idea 1 Very bad idea 1 --- 100% (mean= 89) f. A genetically engineered drug that lowers blood pressure better than other drugs, reducing the risk of heart attack Very good idea ...etc... (mean 87) g. Genetically engineered cotton that resists insect pests – this could greatly reduce the use of chemical pesticides Very good idea ...etc... (mean 87 ) h. Genetically modified viruses to protect farm crops by attacking insect pests, such as beetles and locusts Very good idea ...etc... (mean 76 ) i. Modified viruses to control imported animal pests (such as rabbits or feral pigs) by preventing them from breeding Very good idea ...etc... (mean 76 ) j. Leaner, healthier pork (assuming it is clearly labeled, so you can decide for yourself whether or not to buy it) Very good idea ...etc... (mean 73 ) k. Healthier cooking oil and margarine, with more of the desirable unsaturated fats and fewer of the undesirable fats Very good idea ...etc... (mean 79 )
Mean Std Dev Cases Label
MALE .55 .50 1357 Sex (Male=1)
AGE 45.95 15.09 1350 Age (years)
EDUC 11.91 2.97 1378 Education (years)
STAT 54.15 27.61 1106 Occupational Status
TCOALTN 41.31 23.75 1327 thermometer: Lib & Nationals
TLABOR 46.86 28.48 1358 thermometer: Labor
TGREENIE 49.53 23.56 1303 thermometer: Greens, environmentalists
CBELIEF 52.74 29.95 1279 Christian belief
CATH .24 .43 1378 Catholic
FEARFUL$ 33.16 22.33 1336 General fearfullness (spider, ill,...)
SCIKNOW 62.60 24.15 1333 Basic understanding of science &
SCIVIEW$ 62.36 18.06 1125 Scientific world-view (Darwin, cosmology
KNOW$GE 64.07 24.79 1326 Knowledge of G-E
WFLUOR 44.64 31.98 1334 Fluorides dangerous to health in
WCHEM 64.93 29.20 1340 Worry about chem pesticides in fa
WORRY$ 61.09 26.48 1336 Worry g-e: All fears
GAGRIC$ 85.53 16.46 1336 Goal: scientific food & agriculture
GMEDIC 95.90 12.63 1352 Feel re new medicines for cancer
USE$GE 63.34 22.96 1343 You eat G-E products
UCOTTON 73.71 20.98 1332 Wear clothes made from GE cotton
GEGOAL$2 79.42 15.86 1320 Goal: G-e -- all 8 Qs
GEALL 66.54 22.00 1327 GE benefits to outweigh risks ove
TLABEL 82.47 20.08 1319 Tomatos: Should they be clearly labeled?
TNOLBL 30.90 24.48 1335 Tomatos: If not clearly labeled, good/bad
TOKLBL 67.48 22.86 1340 Tomatos: If clearly labeled, good/ bad
Dependent Variable.. TLABEL: Tomatos: Should they be clearly labeled?
Adjusted R Square .10 Standard Error 19.08
(ns = not statistically significant at p < .05, two-tailed)
Variable B SE B Beta T Sig T
MALE ns -- ns -1.23 .22
AGE ns -- ns -1.45 .15
EDUC ns -- ns -.21 .83
STAT ns -- ns -.92 .36
TCOALTN ns -- ns -1.33 .18
TLABOR ns -- ns -.85 .40
TGREENIE .08 .03 .10 2.80 .01
CBELIEF ns -- ns .35 .72
CATH ns -- ns -1.18 .24
FEARFUL$ ns -- ns -.21 .83
SCIKNOW ns -- ns -.33 .74
SCIVIEW$ ns -- ns .88 .38
KNOW$GE ns -- ns -.38 .71
WFLUOR ns -- ns .16 .87
WCHEM ns -- ns 1.44 .15
WORRY$ .18 .03 .24 6.56 .00
GAGRIC$ ns -- ns 1.11 .27
GMEDIC ns -- ns -.56 .57
(Constant) 71.59 7.80 9.17 .00
Dependent Variable.. TNOLBL Tomatos: If not clearly labeled, good/bad
Adjusted R Square .19 Standard Error 22.07
Variable B SE B Beta T Sig T
MALE 4.97 1.55 .10 3.21 .00
AGE ns -- ns .78 .43
EDUC ns -- ns .62 .54
STAT ns -- ns .47 .64
TCOALTN ns -- ns .80 .42
TLABOR ns -- ns .74 .46
TGREENIE -.12 .03 -.11 -3.40 .00
CBELIEF ns -- ns -.51 .61
CATH ns -- ns .40 .69
FEARFUL$ ns -- ns 1.86 .06
SCIKNOW ns -- ns -.06 .96
SCIVIEW$ ns -- ns 1.25 .21
KNOW$GE .12 .04 .12 3.18 .00
WFLUOR ns -- ns -1.62 .11
WCHEM ns -- ns -1.49 .14
WORRY$ -.25 .03 -.27 -7.68 .00
GAGRIC$ .13 .05 .09 2.60 .01
GMEDIC ns -- ns 1.29 .20
(Constant) 14.89 9.03 1.65 .10
Dependent Variable.. TOKLBL Tomatos: If clearly labeled, good/ bad
Adjusted R Square .19 Standard Error 20.59
Variable B SE B Beta T Sig T
MALE 3.08 1.44 .07 2.13 .03
AGE ns -- ns -.92 .36
EDUC ns -- ns 1.43 .15
STAT ns -- ns -1.72 .09
TCOALTN ns -- ns 1.42 .16
TLABOR ns -- ns 1.42 .16
TGREENIE ns -- ns -1.66 .10
CBELIEF ns -- ns .63 .53
CATH ns -- ns .89 .38
FEARFUL$ .09 .03 .08 2.61 .01
SCIKNOW ns -- ns 1.47 .14
SCIVIEW$ .16 .05 .13 3.60 .00
KNOW$GE ns -- ns 1.82 .07
WFLUOR -.06 .03 -.08 -2.33 .02
WCHEM ns -- ns -.62 .54
WORRY$ -.18 .03 -.21 -6.01 .00
GAGRIC$ .37 .05 .27 7.96 .00
GMEDIC ns -- ns -.44 .66
(Constant) 28.28 8.42 3.36 .00
Public opinion on genetic engineering differs greatly among countries, as shown by the Eurobarometer surveys, the largest and most closely comparable international surveys to date (Lemkow 1993: 10-14; Schibeci et al. 1994: 20-21). However, our basic findings for Australia are similar to those for the USA, Canada and several European Community nations. The US Office of Technology Assessment’s excellent 1987 survey’s main conclusion could equally well stand for our Australian survey:
"In summary, most Americans appear to be pragmatists on the issue of genetic engineering. They are concerned about both the morality and the risks of the technology. The survey finds that while the public expresses concern about genetic engineering in the abstract, it approves nearly every specific environmental or therapeutic application. ... This survey indicates that a majority of the public believes the expected benefits of science, biotechnology, and genetic engineering are sufficient to outweigh the risks" (U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1987: Executive Summary; emphasis in the original).
The International Social Science Survey / Australia is a nation-wide survey conducted by researchers at the Australian National University and the University of Melbourne. Begun in 1984, it is Australia’s leading academic survey and is devoted entirely to academic research in the social sciences, is non-profit, and is not connected with any business or political party. The survey’s core sponsor is the Research School of Social Sciences at ANU. The ISSS is based on large, representative national samples of all states and territories, drawn from the electoral roll. The detailed and comprehensive survey takes about two hours to complete. It is conducted by mail. The first mailing includes a cover letter from the Australian National University and a postage-paid reply envelope, followed by a further letter about two weeks later. Anyone who did not respond within a month or so is then pursued by up to three more mailings over a six month period. Comparison with the census shows the samples collected in this way to be representative of the Australian population in age, sex, education, occupation, and other characteristics. Dr. Jonathan Kelley is Director and principal investigator of the ISSS; Dr. Clive Bean (Associate Director), Dr. M.D.R. Evans and Dr. Krzysztof Zagorski are co-principal investigators. This research reports on a preliminary sample of 1378 from the 1994/95 survey, which was conducted in late 1994 and the early months of 1995.
Australian Science and Technology Council. 1993. Gene Technology: Issues for Australia. (Occasional Paper No. 27). AGPS.
Bean, Clive S. 1991. "Comparison of National Social Science Survey Data with the 1986 Census." National Social Science Survey Report 2(#6):12-19. [ISSN 1031-4067]
Hoban, T. J. and P. A. Kendall. 1992. Consumer Attitudes about the use of Biotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production. Report for the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Extension Service.
INRA (Europe) 1993. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering: What Europeans Think About it in 1993. Report written for the European Commission, Directorate-General "Science, Research and Development", Unit XII/E/1: "Biotechnologies".
Kelley, Jonathan. 1995.
Public Perceptions of Genetic Engineering: Australia, 1994. Department of Science, Industry and Technology. Pps. 1-77.Kelley, Jonathan. 1995a. "Australians’ Evaluation of Genetic Engineering". Worldwide Attitudes 19950522: 1-8.
Kelley, Jonathan and Alan Laird. (1995) Public Attitudes toward Genetic Engineering, 1994. Paper presented to the 4th Pacific Rim Biotechnology Conference, Melbourne, February.
Lemkow, Louis. 1993. Public Attitudes to Genetic Engineering: Some European Perspectives. Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Communities.
Optima Consultants. 1994. Understanding the Consumer Interest in the New Biotechnology Industry. Ottawa: Distribution Services, Communications Branch, Industry Canada.
Schibeci, Renato, Ian Barns, Aidan Davison and Shona Kennealy. (1994) Public Perceptions of Biotechnology: First Report. Murdoch WA, Australia: School of Education, Murdoch University.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. New Developments in Biotechnology - Background Paper: Public Perceptions of Biotechnology. OTA-BP-BA-45. Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Jonathan Kelley is Senior Fellow in the Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University and Director of the National Social Science Survey. He is a graduate of Cambridge University (BA) and the University of California (PhD). He is currently studying inequality (with M. D. R. Evans), social mobility, and attitudes toward the economy (with Krzysztof Zagorski). These analyses are based on cross-national data from the International Social Survey Project, a long-established survey now conducted in 18 nations, and the new International Survey of Economic Attitudes, founded a few years ago with Evans and Zagorski and now conducted in five nations.
He has published widely in academic journals in Australia and overseas, including Australia (Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology); Britain (Sociology; British Journal of Sociology); Europe (International Social Science Journal; Social Indicators Research); and the USA (American Journal of Sociology; American Sociological Review; American Political Science Review; American Journal of Political Science; Public Opinion Quarterly).
His most recent publications are "Class and Class Conflict in Six Western Nations" American Sociological Review, April, 1995 (with Evans) and "Attitudes Toward Foreign Political Leaders: Australian Evidence" International Social Science Journal (forthcoming).
Number of
readers since 4 June 1999:
| WwA: Worldwide Attitudes | [ WwA Home | Feedback | Search | International Survey Center Home] |