Attitudes among European consumers have been polled periodically by the Directorate-General for Education and Cultures’ "Citizens’ Center" as requested by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research. The study was carried out in every country of the European Union between November and December of the year prior to the publication date. Few Europeans (11%) considered themselves informed about biotechnology (INRA, 2000). Questions related to facts of biology indicate that basic knowledge was lacking among the general population. In 1999, only 34% of European consumers correctly responded that genetically modified animals are not always larger than conventional animals. Only 35% responded that the following statement is false: "ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes while genetically modified tomatoes do" (INRA, 2000). Furthermore, only 42% recognized that eating genetically modified fruit does not change your personal genes, with 24% believing human genes would be changed, and the remaining uncertain. For comparison, 46% of U.S. consumers recognized that ordinary tomatoes also contain genes and 62% knew that eating genetically engineered fruit did not change a person’s genes (Hoban, 1998
). European consumer response to these questions in 1996 and 1999 was similar, except for the question on change in personal genetic codes, where more consumers responded correctly in 1996 (48%) compared to 1999 (42%) (INRA, 2000). When basic knowledge is lacking and the belief persists that the consumption of modified fruit can change human genetic material, it is no wonder that European consumers are concerned about potential risks associated with eating genetically modified food.
Only about half of European consumers were aware of biotechnology’s many applications (INRA, 2000). Slightly over half, 56%, were aware that genetic modification could be used to make plants resistant to insect attack. About half were aware that these tools could be used to detect diseases or prepare human or animal medications. Only 28% knew that biotechnology could be used to clean toxic spills.
When asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 4 whether an application was useful, risky, or should be encouraged, the applications considered most useful were cleaning toxic spills, rated 3.24; using genetic material to detect disease, 3.4; and preparing human medicines 3.27 (INRA, 2000). The applications considered most risky were food production, 3.0, and the cloning of animals to produce medicines and vaccines, 2.92. Those applications European consumers felt should be encouraged were cleaning of toxic spills, 3.17; cloning animals whose milk can be used to produce medicines, 3.01; and detecting hereditary diseases, 3.01. Production of foods received a rating of 2.19.
Although some may interpret the relatively low score for food applications as meaning Europeans are not supportive of food applications, an examination of the question consumers were asked indicates that another interpretation is possible. Benefits of the genetic modification of food were described as "to give them a higher protein content, to keep them longer, or to change the taste." These benefits may not be very appealing to European consumers. Food applications that offer more compelling benefits may be better received.
Both food and nonfood applications of biotechnology were viewed as having some degree of risk. Even an application perceived as risky, such as cloning animals, received a high rating for "should be encouraged," 3.01 out of 4, because of the potential benefit. This suggests that Europeans may accept changes from biotechnology if the benefits were viewed as important.
When asked who is doing a good job in the area of genetic modification, most European consumers supported the work of consumer organizations, 70%; followed by newspapers, 59%; and environmental organizations, 58% (INRA, 2000). The same study showed that the government and the food industry were considered to be doing a good job by only 45% and 30%, respectively. Similarly, few European consumers, 3% to 4%, indicated that they trusted information from international or national public authorities, respectively. Consumers expressed the greatest trust in information from consumer organizations, 26%, and medical professionals, 24%.
Answers to all your Biology Questions
