Abstract

Media summary

Key words

Transgenic, values, attitudes, milk, meat, greenhouse

Introduction

Agronomic researchers around the globe are currently using recombinant DNA technology to create new and altered species of plants. Transgenic varieties of popular staple crops such as maize, soybeans, papaya and canola have been developed. These first generation transgenic crops have been engineered for resistance to herbicides, insects or viruses. Benefits have been mostly for the developers and primary producers and in some instances the environment (Vasil 2003). Considerable research into public opinion about acceptance and consumption of these transgenic crops has been conducted. Public opposition, especially in Europe and the UK, has been high with consumers observing few benefits for themselves (European Commission 2000, Marris et al.2002).

Researchers are also developing transgenic varieties of forage crops (Spangenberg et al. 2001). These crops are not intended for human consumption but for consumption by domesticated animals. These animals and the products from them, such as milk and meat, may be consumed by humans. Some of these transgenic forage crops are aimed at offering a range of benefits to consumers, as well as developers and producers. Potential benefits include: increased animal production, lower environmental emissions (e.g., greenhouse gases) and also health benefits for the consumer such as reduced incidence of heart disease and decreases in certain types of cancers. One such research project currently being undertaken by AgResearch aims to achieve these benefits by altering the lipid profile of forage crops (G. Bryan, personal communication).

Products to be consumed by humans, derived from animals fed on transgenic forage crops, are not themselves transgenic. Some research indicates that medical applications of transgenic technologies are more acceptable to the public than food applications (Frewer and Shepherd 1995, Royal Commission on Genetic Modification 2001, Small et al. 2002). Thus food products derived from animals fed on transgenic forage crops offering human health benefits may receive different levels of support from the public than the currently available set of transgenic food crops.

However, some anti-GE activists (e.g., Greenpeace) heavily lobby food producers not to use transgenic crops as feed for their animals. In New Zealand, Tegel, a chicken producing company, have declared that they will not feed their chickens on GE meal. A survey Tegel conducted found that 75% of consumers would prefer their chicken to be fed on GE-free meal (Beston 2001). Very few scientific studies have investigated public acceptance of, and values and beliefs regarding, transgenic forage crops and produce for human consumption from animals fed on transgenic forage crops. This paper reports on a study of the New Zealand public investigating these issues.

Methods

Two thousand postal surveys were sent to a random sample of the NZ population age 15+ stratified by region and income in the month of May 2003. A brief (60 word), value neutral, definition of genetic engineering was given, along with a brief description of forage crops and the potential benefits that might be achieved by genetically engineering them. Potential benefits were described as: 1) human health benefits of consuming milk and meat products of animals fed on GE forage crops – decreased risk of heart disease and some types of cancers; 2) increased animal production and; 3) reduced methane emissions. The question items consisted of statements with which respondents rated their agreement or disagreement on a five point response scale. The scale was anchored at three points: 1= Strongly agree, 3=Neutral, 5=Strongly disagree. A “don’t know” option was also available. In order to encourage participation, respondents were eligible for a draw for two prizes of $1000 and two of $500.

Results

Sample

The survey response rate was 48% with 968 usable returns giving a margin of error of approximately 3%. Respondents’ gender reflected that of the New Zealand population as at the 2001 census. A greater proportion of the sample claimed no religion (41%) than in the general population (30%), while slightly less of the sample (55%) gave their religious affiliation as Christian than in the population (59%) The proportion of New Zealand European respondents was slightly higher than the population proportion (81.9% vs. 76.9% respectively), while the proportion of Maori respondents was less than half that of the population (6.1% vs. 14.1%). Pacific Islanders and Asians were slightly under represented in the sample.

Respondent data: values, beliefs and attitudes of acceptability

Figure 1. Intrinsic moral values regarding GE forage crops.

Table 1. Intrinsic moral values: descriptive statistics.

Qu.	Count	Mean1	SD	95% CI
1	901	3.41***	1.39	0.09
2	917	3.34**	1.44	0.09

¹1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree
** p<.01 significantly differs from neutral point (3) of scale
*** p<.001 significantly differs from neutral point (3) of scale

Figure 2. Beliefs about the environmental consequences of GE forage crops.

Table 2. Beliefs about environmental consequences: descriptive statistics.

Qu.	Count	Mean1	SD	95% CI
1	808	3.60***	1.36	0.09
2	707	3.55***	1.27	0.09

¹1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree
*** p<.001 significantly differs from neutral point (3) of scale

Figure 3. Public acceptability of GE forage crops as fodder for food animals.

Table 3. Public acceptability of GE forage crops: descriptive statistics.

Qu.	Count	Mean1	SD	95% CI
1	893	3.38***	1.40	0.09

¹1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree
*** p<.001 significantly differs from neutral point (3) of scale

Figure 4. Acceptability of within species and across species GE forage crops.

Table 4. Acceptability of within and across species GE: descriptive statistics.

Qu.	Count	Mean1	SD	95% CI
1	881	3.08a	1.27	0.08
2	874	3.83***a	1.27	0.08

¹1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree
*** p<.001 significantly differs from neutral point (3) of scale
^a These values are significantly different (p<.001, paired t-test)

Figure 5. Acceptability of GE forage crops for specific reasons.

Table 5. Acceptability of GE forage crops for specific reason: descriptive statistics.

Qu.	Count	Mean1	SD	95% CI
1	885	3.35**	1.41	0.09
2	901	2.96	1.46	0.10
3	895	2.89	1.46	0.10

¹1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree
** p<.01 significantly differs from neutral point (3) of scale

Figure 6. Acceptability of consuming products from animals fed on GE crops if it is predicted to reduce heart disease.

Table 6. Acceptability of consuming products reducing heart disease: descriptive statistics.

Qu.	Count	Mean1	SD	95% CI
1	902	3.06a	1.50	0.10
2	905	2.93a	1.55	0.10

¹ 1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree
^a These values are significantly different (p<.001, paired t-test)

Conclusion

In general, genetic engineering of plants ran counter to the New Zealand public’s intrinsic moral principles with respondents significantly disagreeing that modifying plants using GE fitted with their cultural and spiritual beliefs and with their basic principles. Their beliefs about the environmental consequences of GE forage plants were also negative with respondents expressing significant disagreement that the spread of these forage crops could be controlled or that they would be environmentally friendly.

There was significant disagreement that it is acceptable to feed animals that people eat GE forage crops. However, while respondents significantly disagreed that it was acceptable to feed animals GE forage crops in order to increase animal production, they were neutral regarding the issue if it resulted in human health benefits or reduced greenhouse gas emissions. They were also neutral regarding consuming products from animals fed on GE forage crops if it was predicted to result in a reduction of heart disease. They were significantly more positive (though not substantively) towards consuming such products that resulted in a 10% reduction in heart disease over a 5% reduction. While respondents significantly disagreed that across species GE forage crops were acceptable they were neutral in regard to within species GE forage crops.

These results indicate that the public are, in general, opposed to GE forage crops but that if sufficient consumer benefits can be perceived then a substantial proportion of the population (approx 36-43%) would be prepared to accept and consume products from animals fed on GE forage crops. Within species GE forage crops are clearly more acceptable to the public than across species GE forage crops.

References

Beston A (2001, August 29). Tegel vows no GM feed for its chooks. The New Zealand Herald.

European Commission (2000). The Europeans and biotechnology (Eurobarometer 52.1). Brussels: European Commission.

Frewer LJ and Shepherd R (1995). Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology. Agriculture and Human Values, 12(1), 48-57.

Marris C, Wynne B, Simmons P, Weldon S (2002). Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe: Commission of European Communities.

Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. (2001). Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Wellington: Royal Commission on Genetic Modification.

Small BH, Wilson JA, Pedersen JA, Parminter TG (2002). Genetic engineering and the public: Attitudes, beliefs, ethics and cows. Paper presented at the New Zealand Society of Animal Production Conference 2002, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Spangenberg G, Kalla R, Lidgett A, Sawbridge T, Ong EK, John U (2001). Transgenesis and genomics in molecular breeding of forage plants. Retrieved 16 January, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/2001/plenery/6/spangenberg.htm

Vasil IK (2003). The science and politics of plant biotechnology - a personal perspective. Nature Biotechnology, 21(8), 849-851.