How acceptable are Gen 2 GM crops going to be?
Monsanto is the whipping boy, the mongrel dog that everyone loves to kick in the GM debate, no matter what people think of the technology and, in Adelaide at least, there seems to be a distinct polarisation of views about the use of GM technologies to generate three particular crops.
The views of Monsanto are unsurprising. What intrigued me, to some extent, was how distinct the polarisation of views was, which is in contrast to previous public engagement activities I have run on this topic.
Science very Alive
Me and a colleague from the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide have just spent three days at Science Alive, one of Adelaide’s biggest science-based events for the public. At the end of it my feet were sore and my voice was wilting faster than the potted wheat plants we had on display.
It was a showcase of science and science-based activities. It was aimed squarely at the kids, but there was no shortage of adults elbowing their children out of the way to also have a play.
Food for thought
We had our booth – Food for thought – in the fray. Our main focus was to engage with people about transgenic technologies and how they can be used in crop development. Specifically, we wanted to find out how acceptable they found the use of GM (transgenic) technologies is to generate three different crops: Rice that could make Vitamin A or Iron; drought-tolerant wheat; and wheat that required less nitrogen fertilizer. Punters got to vote on a scale of 0 to 5, with 0 being a really bad idea and 5 being a splendid idea. They did this by putting sticky dots along scale next to each crop – giving a visual presentation of trends.
Each of these crops, with the exception of Vitamin A rice, is part of active research projects in the University of Adelaide and the University of Melbourne.
The vote
In effectively every workshop I have run on this topic, the majority of people tend to change their acceptability of a GM crop according the trait or use the crop has been designed for. It was common for people to move from a zero to a five or visa versa, depending on the crop.
At this event there was a distinct, tightly grouped set of dots jammed against the zero rating and a relatively dot-free space until you got to 3 on the scale. From three to five the dots got progressively thicker.
Those who voted zero voted zero for all three crops. It was rare to find someone that voted a zero for one crop and anything higher for the others. At the other end, this was less evident, but there were still more people than I expected that voted close to five for everything.
Why?
The reasons for the zero ratings were nearly all based on the perception (real or otherwise) that GM crops were unnatural; a complete distrust of Monsanto, though for some people you could accurately insert “hate” here. Mingled with this was a dislike of their monopolisation of our food (no other big company was mentioned); and GM crops/foods are dangerous or we have no idea about the long-term effect to human health.
The group hovering around the three mark were largely there because they felt they needed more information.
At four and above people seemed to find the risks acceptable and simply said the applications were needed and that they were potentially of great value to society – or at least specific sections of it. Some people did express concerns, but thought in the cases we presented that the risks were acceptable.
It seemed, if you voted 0 you were dead against the technology, no matter where or how it was used. For everyone else the technology was less of a concern and it was the applications that were being judged. The one thing in common among nearly all voters was a complete distrust of Monsanto. And I am placing a large bet that Syngenta, BASF and the other large ag-biotech companies involved in GM research are happy that Monsanto is taking all the heat, leaving them relatively anonymous.
And the winner is….
It was not a competition, but in the spirit of the political election we are being traumatised with, it was a close race. Those voting 4-5 were only marginally greater in number than those in 0-1.
The caveats
Although all adults we spoke to, with the exception of one, said they were aware of GM foods and many of the associated arguments flying around, we were unable to assess how informed they were, nor did we try. Having said that there were many that were reluctant to vote because they felt they didn’t know enough. So, for a significant proportion of the voters it was an intuitive vote rather than an informed vote. The other caveat is that in the 3-4 minutes we had to engage with people, we were aware that our intro involving a quick explanation to clarify how a GM crop is created and the purpose of the three GM crop examples, it was potentially sounding like positive PR spin. We had to be careful to point out there were risks with this technology and that people were worried about it for a reason. We asked them if that wanted anything clarified before they voted and in some cases this led to lengthy discussions before any votes were made. But ultimately this is a quantitative exercise gathering people’s perceptions and all adults except one said they were, to varying extents, aware of the arguments surrounding GM crops. So we made the judgement that our intro would have had minimal influence on people’s vote.
Are teenagers less risk averse when it comes to technology?
As a contrast, the Friday was students’ day – mostly year 10 and 11. A large majority of the votes for this age group were grouped around the 4-5 end of the scale, for all three crops. Unlike their older counterparts, however, a large proportion (probably close to half) of students said they had not heard of GM foods. Of those that had, they knew almost nothing about them or the associated issues.
Full analysis to come
This is only an anecdotal appraisal of the voting and discussions we had with people. I will give you a more accurate picture down the track once we get a chance to do a more thorough analysis.