The name is absent



6 February 1996


Journal of Food Distribution Research

Results of the eight focus groups conducted
in Raleigh and Denver provide additional insights
into consumer acceptance of biotechnology
(Hoban and Kendall 1993). Results confirmed
that foods developed through biotechnology will
be acceptable, especially if consumers recognize
personal or societal benefits. Most consumers
seemed eager to try foods that promise enhanced
flavor or nutrition. Consumers also value products
that are friendly to the environment or benefit
farmers. It will, of course, be important to con-
sumers that independent scientific experts and
government agencies have determined that the
foods are safe and nutritious. In general, consum-
ers will evaluate foods produced through biotech-
nology in the same way as they now evaluate any
food. The most important factors in their deci-
sions are taste, price, safety, and nutrition. The
process used to develop the foods is relatively
unimportant.

Biotechnology Awareness and Interest

The surveys show that most people need and
want more information about biotechnology (in
general) and specific food products. Respondents
were asked to rate their own understanding and
awareness Ofbiotechnology in three of the studies
(Figure 5). In the 1992 USDA survey, just a third
had heard or read a lot or something about bio-
technology prior to the interview. Responses were
almost the same two years later in the GMA
study. In fact, survey respondents seemed to have
even less awareness of biotechnology (despite
two years of active media coverage). Even given
recent publicity and the approval of some specific
products, awareness of biotechnology remained
low in 1995. Again, just about a third had heard
or read a lot or something about biotechnology.
Almost two out of three consumers expressed lit-
tle or no awareness of biotechnology on all three
surveys. Awareness has not increased, even
though media coverage grew over time. On a re-
lated point, the 1992 survey USDA survey shows
that consumers also have relatively little aware-
ness or understanding of traditional breeding
practices.

Results do indicate that most people are in-
terested in learning more about biotechnology.
One in five respondents to the USDA survey had
a lot of interest in learning more about biotech-
nology. Almost half reported some interest. In
1994, about one quarter reported a lot of interest
and more than a third had some interest. In both
years, less than one-in-five reported no interest in
learning about biotechnology. Respondents who
reported at least “a little” interest in learning
more about biotechnology were asked what they
would like to learn. The main area of consumer
interest involves a better, general understanding
of biotechnology — what it is, why it is needed,
and what the benefits are. Another important area
of interest involves information about the safety
of foods developed through biotechnology. Re-
spondents also expressed interest in the govern-
ment regulatory process. Most expressed rela-
tively little need to know about the technical or
scientific aspects Ofbiotechnology.

One of the keys to acceptance of products
developed through biotechnology is the extent to
which people receive information from a trusted
source. Information sources vary in their credi-
bility to consumers. Figure 6 presents the ratings
different information sources received from re-
spondents to the 1994 survey. The six most trust-
worthy sources of information included a number
of independent scientific organizations and gov-
ernment agencies. The American Medical Asso-
ciation is the most credible, even relative to the
other independent scientific sources. Five other
groups were also seen as quite credible: National
Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administra-
tion, American Dietetic Association, university
scientists, and state Departments of Agriculture.
Five sources received moderate trust ratings: reg-
istered dietitians, farmers, the Extension Service,
television news reporters, and biotechnology
companies. Finally, four sources appear to have
fairly low credibility with consumers: packaged
food manufacturers, chefs, activist groups, and
groceιy stores. Ratings on this question were
similar in 1992 (where fewer sources were in-
cluded). One significant change was that envi-
ronmental activist groups dropped significantly in
their credibility over the two-year period. During
the same time, government credibility tended to
rise.

Results from the eight 1992 focus groups
concerning awareness and educational needs were
quite consistent with the telephone survey data.



More intriguing information

1. Are combination forecasts of S&P 500 volatility statistically superior?
2. Wettbewerbs- und Industriepolitik - EU-Integration als Dritter Weg?
3. Temporary Work in Turbulent Times: The Swedish Experience
4. Ability grouping in the secondary school: attitudes of teachers of practically based subjects
5. Giant intra-abdominal hydatid cysts with multivisceral locations
6. The name is absent
7. IMMIGRATION POLICY AND THE AGRICULTURAL LABOR MARKET: THE EFFECT ON JOB DURATION
8. The name is absent
9. The role of statin drugs in combating cardiovascular diseases
10. DISCUSSION: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS OF EMERGING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES
11. TOWARD CULTURAL ONCOLOGY: THE EVOLUTIONARY INFORMATION DYNAMICS OF CANCER
12. Economies of Size for Conventional Tillage and No-till Wheat Production
13. The name is absent
14. Declining Discount Rates: Evidence from the UK
15. The name is absent
16. Biological Control of Giant Reed (Arundo donax): Economic Aspects
17. Literary criticism as such can perhaps be called the art of rereading.
18. Quality practices, priorities and performance: an international study
19. The name is absent
20. Survey of Literature on Covered and Uncovered Interest Parities