Lessons From Around The World - American understanding of genetically modified foods - Statistical Data Included

American Demographics, Sept 1, 2001

U.S. CONSUMERS DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS. IN AN ATTEMPT TO EDUCATE SHOPPERS - AND PREVENT PROTESTS LIKE THE ONES IN EUROPE AND JAPAN - THE WORLD'S LEADING BIOTECH COMPANIES HAVE IMPORTED SOME MARKETING STRATEGIES FROM ABROAD.

THE WORLD'S MAJOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE COMPANIES LAUNCHED AN UNPRECEDENTED COOPERATIVE PR CAMPAIGN LAST YEAR TO WIN OVER AMERICAN CONSUMERS.

You may not know it, but you've undoubtedly eaten some. In the past five years, bioengineered food has become an inescapable aspect of modern life. Approximately two-thirds of all processed food now on U.S. supermarket shelves has ingredients that have been genetically rearranged through biotechnology. This year, more than two-thirds of the American soybean crop and about one-quarter of the corn was grown from genetically altered seeds, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Yet most Americans are unaware that this latest agricultural revolution has officially begun. Just 20 percent of U.S. consumers realize that they have already eaten genetically modified foods, according to a January 2001 survey by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Less than 15 percent of us understand how common these foods are in the supermarkets.

In fact, agricultural biotechnology began to register in the American consciousness only last fall, when a type of biotech corn not yet approved for human consumption accidentally wound up in taco shells and other products. The mix-up made headlines, the food companies launched recalls, and biotech industry executives began to worry about consumer backlash. After all, a shoppers' revolt overseas had virtually shut down the Japanese and European markets for genetically modified foods. In response to protests, major British supermarket chains now refuse to stock such products, and the European Union requires labels on any food that includes even small amounts of bioengineered produce. Now, the agricultural biotech industry is rushing to halt this marketing meltdown before it reaches the U.S., where consumers spend more than $400 billion a year on groceries.

There are already signs that anti-biotech sentiment is spreading to the U.S. Anticipating consumer concern, Frito-Lay has asked its suppliers not to use genetically engineered corn and Gerber has pledged to keep its baby food biotech-free. And as a pre-emptive move, the world's major agricultural science companies launched an unprecedented cooperative PR campaign last year. Their goal: To win over the American consumer and prevent a repeat of the European reaction, where protest against genetically modified food was swift and powerful. (See timeline, page 52.) Public opinion across the continent now ranges from skeptical to hostile: According to a spring 2000 poll of 3,000 Europeans by marketing research firm Ipsos-Reid, consumers worry that the crops will mutate uncontrollably, make people sick or cause unforeseen environmental disasters, like inadvertently breeding a new race of super weeds.

Here in the U.S., consumers haven't made up their minds yet. In the Pew study, which polled 1,001 adult Americans as part of a new biotechnology education initiative, 65 percent of U.S. consumers said they supported research into genetically modified foods. But when asked whether they wanted these products on supermarket shelves, more than half (58 percent) said no, and 54 percent reported that they would not be likely to eat the foods. Other surveys found similar patterns: According to the Ipsos-Reid poll, which also surveyed 2,001 adult Americans and Canadians, respondents hope this technology will produce healthier foods (18 percent), enable farmers to use fewer pesticides (15 percent) and perhaps even help solve world hunger with more efficient crops (31 percent). But they also fear that these new foods may cause allergies or make them sick (28 percent), or that the crops may have unpredictable side effects (25 percent).

This absence of firm opinions is a crucial opportunity for the biotech companies to win the hearts and minds of consumers. To that end, the industry has taken a coordinated and proactive approach, adopting some marketing lessons from its European experience. Among the lessons:

CONSUMERS HAVE ONLY LIMITED CONFIDENCE IN SCIENCE.

Agricultural biotechnology was developed to accelerate the process of improving crops and livestock through selective breeding. Cotton, for example, was redesigned with a bacterial gene that allows the plant to produce its own pesticide, reducing the cost of spraying crops. Other plants have been modified to resist common diseases or to tolerate weed-killing herbicide sprays. Multinational titans like Novartis AG, Aventis S.A., Monsanto and DuPont have spent hundreds of millions on this research in the past two decades, mostly on modifying staples like soy, corn and cotton, making them easier and cheaper to plant and grow.

But few shoppers cheer on the farmer in his fight against the European corn borer. With no obvious consumer benefits, people are more likely to be wary of this new technology, says William Hallman, an associate professor at Rutgers University's Cook College, who studies perceptions of risk. "The products released first were not poster children for biotechnology," he says. "The benefits accrued first to the companies, secondly to farmers and to consumers dead last - if at all."