PERCEPTIONS OF THE ORGANIC INDUSTRY TOWARDS GENETIC ENGINEERING

Anita Wreford, Terry Kelly, & John Holland
Institute of Natural Resources Massey University
Palmerston North, New Zealand

Introduction

The controversial topic of genetic engineering has implications for the organic industry as well as for the general public. The long-term human health and environmental effects of transgenic crops are still largely unknown. As a result, consumers are demanding clear labelling of food, while manufacturers claim this is too difficult, and growers are unsure whether to plant transgenic crops and risk having them ripped out by protestors, or find that demand for their product has fallen due to consumer unease.

Public resistance to genetically engineered genes in food occurs for a variety of reasons, and can broadly be divided into environmental concerns, health concerns, and social and ethical concerns. Environmental concerns include the threat of herbicide tolerance (Snow and Palma 1997); the spread of genetically engineered crops into the environment (Rissler and Mellon 1996); and the loss of the naturally occurring pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which is of particular concern to organic farmers (Snow and Palma 1994).

Concerns about human and animal health centre around the possibility for antibiotic resistance to become more widespread (Ho 1998). The threat of new toxins and diseases being created is also an issue (Savage and Connor 1984), as are the toxic or allergenic effects of some transgenes (Nordlee et al. 1996), and the possible disturbance to the cell caused by the presence of altered DNA (Ho 1998).

Social and ethical concerns are formed more on the basis of cultural and social values than on scientific evidence. This often leads to a marked difference in the perception of risk between the public and scientists (Slovic 1987). Some of the major ethical concerns raised in the genetic engineering debate include the power of the multinational biotechnology firms (Kimbrell 1998); the misleading claims made about food security related to genetic engineering (Ho 1998); the freedom of choice consumers should be allowed (Reiss and Straughan 1996); sanctity of life and patenting life forms (Shiva 1997); and cultural, spiritual and religious issues (Te Pareake Mead 1997; Macer 1998).

The organic agriculture industry has an interest in the genetic engineering debate because of the potential threat the technology poses to traditional organic agriculture, and because of the possible benefit that could be gained through the exploitation of an uneasy public. The threat to organic agriculture occurs in three main forms: the corruption of organic seedlines, the loss of Bt, and a further reduction in seed varieties (Wheeler 1999). On the other hand, the public unease towards genetic engineering, and the uncertainty of whether food products contain engineered products could be used to the advantage of the organic industry.

The problem is that if genetically engineered organisms are introduced on a commercial scale in New Zealand, they may spread unintentionally to organic produce. This likely could have an important effect on both domestic and export organic markets. A better understanding of the perceptions and attitudes of the consumers in these markets towards genetic engineering, and what their probable reactions would be if organic produce contained engineered genes, is important for the organic industry. The aim of this study is to investigate the opinions throughout the organic industry in New Zealand towards genetic engineering. Specifically, this study surveys organic consumers, producers, and exporters on their perceptions and attitudes toward genetic engineering and what role GMOs might have in organic agriculture.

The organic industry is growing in importance in New Zealand, both in the export and to a lesser degree, national markets. If current trends persist, demand for organically grown produce will continue to increase. The organic industry must be aware of consumer demands, and cater for them accordingly. And policy makers must have a clear indication of the beliefs and attitudes towards GMOs within the organic sector. If the commercial production of genetically engineered organisms is allowed, New Zealand may be putting a growing export industry at risk.

Methodology

The 'organic industry' in New Zealand is defined as the producers, exporters and consumers of organic produce. Surveys of these three groups were employed to obtain their views and perceptions toward genetic engineering. Lists of certified organic producers in New Zealand were obtained from the BIO-GRO and Demeter organisations, and a list of exporters was obtained from the New Zealand Organic Products Exporters Group (OPEG). Organic consumers were identified as those that shop at organic stores.

Because of the relatively small numbers of certified organic producers and exporters, their entire populations were surveyed. A sample size of 600 was targeted for the consumer sample, which would give sampling error of four percent at the 95 percent confidence interval.

Three different but related questionnaires were designed for the different sectors within the industry. Some questions were the same for each questionnaire, enabling comparisons across groups. Other questions targeted the specific information required from each group. The exporter questionnaire concentrated on the international aspect of the genetic engineering issue and the image of New Zealand organic produce overseas. Producers were questioned specifically on their opinions about how genetic engineering could affect organic production, and whether they would consider using genetically engineered products themselves. The consumer questionnaire focused on reasons for purchasing organic food, how consumers felt about genetic engineering, and whether the respondents would consider consuming genetically engineered products.

Most questions were designed to use Likert scales, which involve providing people with statements and asking them to indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with the statement, on a scale of one to seven. This provides strength as well as direction to responses.

Exporters and producers were sent their questionnaires in the mail. Consumers were identified at organic food stores in Christchurch, Wellington, Palmerston North, and Auckland, and either completed the questionnaires in the shop or took them home to complete and returned them by mail. The response rates were 51.8 percent for consumers 56.4 percent for producers, and 67.8 percent for exporters. The consumer response rate resulted in a five percent sampling error at the 95 percent level of confidence.

Results and Discussion

The results show that as a whole, the organic industry is opposed to genetic engineering, which is not surprising. Table 1 shows the means and medians obtained for questions designed to measure attitudes towards genetic engineering.

Table 1: Respondents' attitudes toward genetic engineering

Note scale: 1= strongly agree; 4= neutral; 7= strongly disagree.

These results were as anticipated. However, the strength of feeling that was apparent in the responses was interesting. Some questions generated consistently extreme answers (either one or seven). These were predominantly in the consumer questionnaire. Consumers also indicated that even if they were reassured about the safety of GMOs with respect to human health and the environment, they still would not accept them; 75 percent of consumers stated they would not accept any food that contained GMOs, and 89 percent of consumers stated they would not accept GMOs in organic food.

Investigation was made into the reasons consumers buy organic food. Producers and exporters both had the perception that consumers purchase organic food mainly for health reasons, and less so for environmental and price reasons. Consumers themselves indicated that reduced pesticide residues was the most important benefit of organic food (79 percent), while 55 percent responded that the absence of GMOs was an important benefit of organic food, and 52 percent stated that environmental benefits of organic farming were an important reason for purchasing organic food.

As far as risks to human health are concerned, consumers indicated that genetically modified food was their greatest concern (30 percent); 20 percent indicated that pesticide residues were their greatest concern, and chemical food additives were indicated by ten percent of respondents to be the greatest risk to human health.

Consumers were asked to indicate whether they were more concerned about pesticide residues than GMOs in their food. Some inconsistencies surfaced, and it appears consumers are undecided over which of the two options they consider to be a greater concern. Forty-two percent of consumers agreed that agrichemical use was a greater concern than the impacts of GMOs on the environment, and 42 percent of consumers agreed that pesticide residues were a greater health concern to them. However, 34 percent of organic consumers both agreed that pesticide residues were a greater health concern than GMOs, and that they would not buy organic food with GMOs, even if the price was lower. This appears inconsistent – if pesticide residues are a greater concern to consumers, it would be assumed that organic food would still be preferable even if it did contain engineered genes.

Exporters and producers also appeared to be unsure about whether they believed consumers were more concerned about GMOs than agrichemical use. This is an unfortunate outcome as this is an important factor in the debate regarding genetic engineering in organic agriculture. All three groups of respondents were questioned as to their opinions regarding the effect that GMOs would have on the competitiveness of the New Zealand organic industry, and they concurred that these effects would not be positive (Table 2). None of the three groups thought organic growers would be forced into using GMOs. Similar responses were given to the statements that GMOs would have a positive effect on the local organic industry, and that genetic engineering is an important technological development for the organic industry. These results are presented in table 2.

Table 2: Respondents’ perceptions of the potential impact of GMOs on the NZ organic industry

Note scale: 1= strongly agree; 4 = neutral; 7= strongly disagree

Interestingly, ten percent of exporters disagreed that New Zealand would lose its clean green image if our organic food contained GMOs. However, it was apparent that both exporters and producers believe that international organic buyers and organic associations do not want genetically engineered products. All of the exporters and 94 percent of producers surveyed thought that organic buyers did not want genetically engineered products; and 95 percent of exporters and 94 percent of producers surveyed thought that international organic associations would not accept genetically engineered products.

Additionally, all groups generally fail to see any possible benefit to be gained from genetic engineering (Table 3). Note that the producers have more extreme views than do the consumers, which is not the case in the other groups of questions.

Table 3: Perceptions of possible benefits of GMOs (percent of respondents)

Regarding environmental impacts, 84 percent of the consumers, 83 percent of producers, and 53 percent of exporters disagreed with the idea that GMOs could be beneficial to the environment. Again, the exporters take the least extreme view of all three groups.

Eighty-seven percent of exporters agreed with a statement that demand for organic food has increased because of publicity about genetic engineering. Consumers were asked whether they bought more organic food since hearing about genetic engineering, and 61 percent agreed that they do. Notably, ten percent of consumers do not believe that organic food is free of genetically engineered genes at present.

Approximately one quarter of producers indicated that genetic engineering is against their religious beliefs, and 70 percent of producers stated that genetic engineering is not ethically acceptable. Only eight percent of consumers felt genetic engineering is against their religious beliefs, and 40 percent felt it is not ethically acceptable. However, in the consumers’ survey, they were given an "other" option in which many wrote a reason that could be included under ethical concerns.

Interestingly, perceptions appear to be formed without any form of risk-benefit analysis, which would indicate respondents are intrinsically against genetic engineering, and any arguments for the technology are disregarded because nothing can reverse that intrinsic wrongness. This was substantiated by open-ended comments made at the end of the questionnaire, many of which indicated that respondents were fundamentally opposed to genetic engineering, and nothing would really alter that.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Some interesting and important conclusions emerge from this study. While it is no surprise that those in the organic industry are opposed to genetic engineering, the strength of this opposition was surprising, particularly among consumers. Interestingly, the reasons for the rejection of genetic engineering appeared to be based more on the intrinsic "wrongness" of the technology rather than on purely factual justifications. A strong message is that the organic industry should not consider using GMOs in food production or incorporating them into organic standards, although consumers are undecided over whether they consider GMOs to be a greater health risk than pesticide residues.

The fact that many of the respondents' concerns about GMOs appear to be intrinsic is in accordance with Reiss and Straughan (1996) and their discussion of the intrinsic and extrinsic nature of concerns. This intrinsic belief is likely to be the matter that causes the controversy between proponents and opponents of genetic engineering. Proponents of genetic engineering can see that there are benefits from the technology, and become frustrated with those opposing the technology on grounds other than scientific. However, as discussed previously, if a concern is intrinsic, then further scientific or factual information is largely irrelevant, since nothing can reverse that intrinsic wrongness.

It can be concluded that organic consumers would find it difficult to accept genetic engineering in organic food. In fact, nearly ninety percent of consumers said they would not buy organic food if it contained GMOs. However, it could be assumed that if consumers were faced with the hypothetical situation where all food contained GMOs, not only organic food (which is more likely – organic food is likely to be the last to include GMOs), they may change their opinion. Interestingly, ten percent of the consumers disagreed that organic food was GMO free at present, and of them, most also indicated they would not buy organic food if it did contain GMOs. This would lead one to believe that these respondents would continue to buy organic food even if it contained GMOs, as according to their beliefs about organic food, they may already be doing this. What respondents on questionnaires say they will do and what they actually do is often different (Macpherson, 2000, pers comm). Nonetheless, it is safely concluded that organic consumers are strongly opposed to GMOs in organic food.

Participants’ comments that were written on many of the surveys suggest that the feelings against GMOs are many and varied and not easily determined by a questionnaire. Although respondents will generally agree that they are concerned about the environmental and health effects, these are unlikely to be the underlying reasons for respondents' absolute refusal to accept GMOs. Many people feel genetic engineering is a disruption of the natural cycle and that human beings are incredibly arrogant to assume the right to do this. There are many references to the "holistic" aspect of nature and the world, and that one cannot isolate aspects without considering the whole system. This is not surprising if one refers back to the principles of the organic movement (Steiner 1924).

Although the results obtained from this study may appear to be obvious to those within the organic industry, it is important that these opinions are clearly articulated and, if possible, quantified in order to have a stronger argument if and when the question of GMOs in organics is addressed. From the information obtained here, it is concluded that if the markets for New Zealand's organic food are opposed to genetically engineered organisms in that food, and if these markets form the financial backbone of the organic industry, then it would be unwise to permit GMOs to be part of organic food. In addition to this, if New Zealand is perceived to be clean and green and GMO free, keeping organic produce free of GMOs will enhance the image of the country and, therefore, of the food produced here. If demand for the organic food produced in New Zealand is dependent on our image, then it is wise not to jeopardise that image. Therefore, unless there is a radical change in the views of organic consumers, both internationally and domestically, there is no future for genetically engineered organic foods. Furthermore, it is crucial to protect organically grown produce from potential cross-contamination with GMOs. If New Zealand was successful in this while other countries were not, it could prove to be very valuable for marketing our organic exports.

Therefore, it is recommended that the organic industry take full advantage of the present situation of consumer unease about food production. Consumers of conventional food may be encouraged to purchase organic food if they are convinced of its GMO-free status. Since the organic industry in New Zealand is a growing export earner, and international consumers are indicating strongly that they do not want GMOs in organic food, it is very important to ensure that organic food is not contaminated with genetically engineered organisms. If the New Zealand government does decide to allow the commercial production of genetically engineered crops in New Zealand, strict legislation must be put in place to protect organic agriculture from cross-contamination. Guidelines on aspects such as minimum distances between organic and transgenic crops should be ensured. It is not worth jeopardising the security of this valuable market.

References

Ho, M. 1998: Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare? Gateway Books, Bath, United Kingdom

Kimbrell, A. 1998: Why Biotechnology and High-Tech Agriculture Cannot Feed the World. The Ecologist, 28: 5. United Kingdom.

Macer, D. 1998: Biotechnology in Agriculture: Ethical Aspects and Public Acceptance in Altman, A ed: Agricultural Biotechnology. Marcel Dekker Inc, NY.

Macpherson, T. 21 February 2000: Personal communication. Lecturer in Marketing, Massey, University, Palmerston North.

Nordlee, J.; Taylor, S.; Townsend, J.; Thomas, L.; Bush, B.; Bush, R. 1996: Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. The New England Journal of Medicine. 334: 11. Pp 688 - 692.

Reiss, M.; Straughan, R. 1996: Improving Nature?: The science and ethics of genetic engineering. Cambridge University Press, Great Britain.

Rissler, J.; Mellon, M. 1996: The ecological risks of engineered crops. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.

Savage. G.; Connor, A. 1994: Accumulation of toxic compounds as a consequence of pest and disease resistance in plants. Proceeding of the Nutrition Society of New Zealand. Vol. 19 pp 43 - 50.

Shiva, V. 1997: Biopiracy: The plunder of nature and knowledge. South End Press, Boston, US.

Slovic, P. 1987: Perception of Risk. Science, Vol 236, April 1987. pp 280 -285.

Snow, A.; Palma, P. 1997: Commercialisation of transgenic plants: potential ecological risks. Bioscience 47: 2. Pp 86 - 96.

Steiner, R. 1924: Agriculture. Bio-dynamic Farming and Gardening Association, Inc. USA.

Te Pareake Mead, A. 1997: Genetic resources and indigenous cultural heritage in The Royal Society of New Zealand: Gene Technology: benefits and risks.

Wheeler, C. 1999: Genetic Engineering:What it means for NZ organics. Soil and Health Jan/Feb.

anitawreford@hotmail.com