BIO 2001 International Biotechnology
Conference &
Exhibition, San Diego, CA
June 23 – 27, 2001
On the road for
Info.Resource, publisher of BritishColumbiaLifeScience.com
By Lorraine Ruff, David Gabrilska and Scott
Sipes
Milestones,
the critical thinking company
Seattle, WA
"The biotechnology industry has a public
relations problem," said Wyatt Andrews, a national correspondent with CBS News, who
participated in a panel on the public’s perception of risks and benefits associated
with genetically modified (GM) foods. "That’s because the benefits of GM foods
– which now account for about 50 percent of the processed food available at the
supermarket – first came to the industry and farmers vs. the consumer," he said.
The PR problem manifests itself in different ways
at inopportune times. According to Steve Burrill, author of Biotech 2001 Life Sciences:
Genomics, proteomics…and more that was released at the convention, the
"industry [in connection with the StarLink™ corn incident earlier this year] did
not have an adequate infrastructure to differentiate between genetically modified organism
(GMO) crops and non-GMO crops. The price tag for learning this lesson: a billion dollars.
Andrews pointed out that in his reporting
he’s become very much aware that protestors resent the appearance of "corporate
control of their lives. John Q. believes that there is regulation of GM foods and that
regulators wouldn’t allow them on the shelf if they weren’t ‘okay,’
" he said.
How to win over the public perception regarding GM foods: a checklist for industry - Wyatt
Andrews, National Correspondent, CBS News
- "You are fighting visceral fears," Andrews pointed
out, and Hollywood has taken up the role of educator in Jurassic Park [I] when the
chaosist character, played by Jeff Goldblum, points out that even though the bioengineered
dinosaurs were designed to not produce, "nature will find a way." Andrews
observed that "there have been bad outcomes" and that "science doesn’t
necessarily have control. StarLinkTM corn served to prove that," he said.
- The industry needs to engage in some serious work on
demonstrable case histories that report delivered benefits of the technology, e.g., "Golden Rice."
Rice, which accounts for 80 percent of the world’s diet, does not contain Vitamin A,
an essential nutrient. Vitamin A deficiency causes blindness in 124 million children
throughout the world and 1 million cases of blindness in children worldwide. Andrews added
that the industry is spending millions of dollars promoting the prospective benefits of
vitamin A enriched golden rice, "but where’s the golden rice? You guys need to
get it [out of the lab] and to the people. Nothing will compare to a child munching on
banana chips that have been engineered as anti-malarials or seniors who use heart-healthy
oil," he said.
- The public debate is not always shaped by science but rather
by what people want," he said referencing the controversial labeling of GM foods, an
issue that represents one of the steepest divides between industry ag biotech proponents
and GM protesters. "I know there are many of you that have cautioned your clients to
resist labeling. But respectfully, may I suggest that you may be over-thinking this
one," he said, predicting that the "second you label GM foods, you’ll be
proactively dealing with the public’s perception about GM foods. You’ve got to
engage the debate," he said.
|
But in recent months, that’s changed.
According to panelist Michael Rodemeyer, executive director for the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, while
"Americans are more aware of genetically modified food than they were six months ago,
confidence in the ability of government regulators to manage these products is
mixed," he reported, referencing a Zogby International poll released in
June by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (see: Michael Rodemeyer BIO 2001 presentation).
"The national level of awareness is a
notable increase of 11 percent from an earlier study conducted for the Initiative by the
Mellman Group/Public Opinion Strategies in January 2001, when fewer than half, 44 percent,
of respondents reported hearing a ‘great deal’ or ‘some’ about
genetically modified foods," Rodemeyer said.
"The Zogby poll also revealed that consumers
have mixed confidence in the government’s ability to manage genetically modified
foods, following last fall’s recall of products contaminated with StarLink™ corn
-- a type of genetically modified corn approved only for use in animal feed that
accidentally made its way into the human food supply. More than half of respondents, or 52
percent, said they were very or somewhat confident that government regulators can manage
genetically modified foods and ensure consumer safety, while 45 percent said they were not
too confident or not at all confident in the government."
Last month, government scientists concluded that
they found no evidence that linked allergic reactions to StarLink™ corn. The Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration tested the
blood of 17 people who believed they had ingested the bioengineered corn to see if the
corn had raised antibodies to the suspected allergen. Inasmuch as no antibodies were
found, the agencies concluded that none of the people had had immune reactions to the corn
protein, cry9c.
The Zogby International poll also suggested that
consumers may be more likely to hear about product recalls and generally negative
information about genetically modified food than supportive studies. By comparison, the
January poll found that 57 percent of people surveyed had heard about the StarLinkTM
recall. In contrast, only a little more than one-third (36 percent) of respondents had
heard about the June 14, 2001 Centers for Disease Control report finding no evidence that
StarLinkTM corn caused allergic reactions in the 28 cases they had
investigated.
"Given the U.S. experience with StarLinkTM
product recalls, it is not surprising that some consumers are questioning the
government’s ability to handle these products even in the absence of any demonstrated
harm," said Rodemeyer. "We must try to learn from Europe, where governments lost
credibility in their ability to handle food safety, and work to ensure that our own
government agencies are up to the task of appropriately regulating this new, promising
technology."
Panelist Jennifer Sosin, senior managing director
of KRC Research, a public opinion company that polls for the industry-funded Council for Biotechnology Information, reported that
a recent survey demonstrated that "the more information consumers had on the benefits
of GM foods, the more likely they were to support GM foods."
Rodemeyer concurred and added:
"Despite the heated national debate about
agricultural biotechnology, our research shows that most Americans do not have strong or
well-informed opinions about this new technology," Rodemeyer said. "Interesting
to note is that after hearing that more than half of the foods on supermarket shelves are
genetically modified, one in five of those who initially said GM foods are unsafe changed
their minds.
"Essentially, public opinion is ‘up for
grabs’ because this new technology has moved faster than the public’s ability to
fully understand it and its implications," he said.
Additional Resources:
Perception
studies in the public domain concerning GMO
Back to BIO 2001 News
|
