Consumer concerns

By Huw Thomas

Any new technologies are bound to cause a certain amount of apprehension, but none so much as those used in food applications, according to a recent report.

“Awareness of novel technologies does not necessarily mean that the public actually understands the science behind them.”
-Huw Thomas

Consumer Concerns

In March 2009, the Social Research Unit of the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) published a report that examined public attitudes to emerging food technologies. The report is based on academic research and a number of surveys that have been carried out both in Europe and further afield.

It is not surprising that when faced with novel food technologies, the attitude of most Europeans is one of wariness, uncertainty and occasionally negativity. This is nothing new and the public has a long history of suspicion towards and resistance to new technologies.

For many Europeans, food is a complex subject and attitudes toward it are not formed in isolation. Many other factors play important roles in helping us to develop our opinions including health, the environment, science and past experiences, the report says. These external factors may help to explain why the use of emerging technologies are deemed to be less acceptable in food applications than in industrial or medical applications.

In addition, most people are not wholly aware of these novel technologies and their use in the food sector. For example, in the UK studies have shown that the majority of consumers have not heard the term nanotechnology before. This is not the case with all novel technologies however. For instance, an impressive 81 percent of UK consumers surveyed by Eurobarometer in 2008 had heard of animal cloning and 94 percent of those asked in another survey had heard of GM.

These high levels of awareness in the UK can probably be put down to the amount of media attention that both technologies have garnered over recent years. But awareness of novel technologies does not necessarily mean that the public actually understands the science behind them.

The report details how consumers in the US would appear to have a more positive attitude towards the use of emerging technologies for food applications compared to those in Europe. One of the reasons that the report puts forward to explain this is the fact that attitudes towards science and technology generally tend to be more positive in the US as do levels of trust in regulatory authorities.

The potential benefits offered by novel technologies, in particular GM, also means that more positive attitudes can be perceived in Asia and developing countries. Meanwhile, attitudes within the EU differ substantially. UK respondents to the Eurobarometer (2008) for example were significantly less likely to think that animal cloning is morally wrong than the EU average, according to the report.

Likewise, attitudes to the different technologies also vary and the most positive responses are currently received for functional foods. This could be down to a number of reasons but the report suggests that the most likely are probably the clear consumer benefits, low perceived risk and process that are not unfamiliar or unimaginable to consumers, such as adding extra vitamins to certain foods.

Whilst functional foods are generally well perceived, consumers tend to have the greatest concerns regarding GM and animal cloning, closely followed by nanotechnologies, which are to be ingested. 'Playing god' and making irreversible changes to nature have been cited in the report as two of the main reasons why consumers display the most moral and ethical concerns regarding these technologies in particular.

From the evidence examined, the FSA report concludes that the main determinant in shaping public attitudes towards emerging food technologies is in fact a personal evaluation of perceived risks and benefits. Whilst the risks, to both human health and the environment, have been well documented and reported in the media in recent years, uncertainty remains a major contributing factor to the concerns surrounding novel technologies.

Finally, the report highlights the fact that in most locations, the media, government and industry tend to be the least trusted sources of information. People are particularly sceptical about the motives of 'big business', suspecting that the driver is profit, rather than consumer benefit.

Animal Cloning

In October 2008 Eurobarometer published an analytical report entitled European’s attitudes to animal cloning. Over 25,000 randomly selected citizens aged 15 years and above were interviewed in the 27 EU Member States. The main findings are featured below:

A large majority of EU citizens (81%) said they knew the term animal cloning, and answered correctly that “cloning is making an identical copy of an existing animal”. Only 7% of the interviewees said they had never heard of animal cloning.

Faced with several statements regarding the ethics of animal cloning, the vast majority of EU citizens agreed that:

• the long-term effects of animal cloning on nature were unknown (84%)
• animal cloning might lead to human cloning (77%)
• animal cloning was morally wrong (61%)
• cloning might decrease the genetic diversity within livestock populations (63%).

A quarter of EU citizens (23%) answered that animal cloning to preserve endangered animals would be justifiable without constraints, while 44% were willing to accept such cloning under certain circumstances. Similar proportions accepted animal cloning to improve robustness of animals against diseases (16% and 41%, respectively).

EU citizens were significantly less willing to accept animal cloning for food production purposes: 58% said that such cloning should never be justified.

Three-quarters of interviewees also agreed that there could be ethical grounds for rejecting animal cloning, and 69% agreed that animal cloning would risk treating animals as commodities rather than creatures with feelings.

38% of respondents answered that none of the potential benefits presented to them (health or economic) would justify breeding cloned animals for food production.

Respondents who agreed that such benefits exist, chose the fact that animal cloning might help to solve the worldwide food problems as the single most important benefit to justify cloning (31%).

Only three out of 10 respondents agreed that using cloning for food production would be much more efficient in the long run and lower the cost of food products for consumers, and 16% thought that animal cloning for food production would be necessary for the European food industry to be competitive.

A majority of EU citizens said that it was unlikely that they would buy meat or milk from cloned animals, even if a trusted source stated that such products were safe to eat: 20% said it was somewhat unlikely and 43% answered it was not at all likely.

Eight out of ten EU citizens (83%) said that special labeling should be required if food products from the offspring of cloned animals become available in the shops.

Source: Europeans’ attitudes towards animal cloning (2008

GM Food

Unprompted awareness of genetically modified food (GM) is low, and GM is not a front of mind concern for the majority of people.

In a 2005 Eurobarometer survey of Europeans and biotechnology 80% of the public were familiar with GM foods but only 27% actually supported it and 58% rejected it outright.

Several studies find that consumers are more certain of the risks of GM than the benefits, and that risks have a stronger influence on overall attitudes

The Eurobarometer study also showed that EU consumers have an overall positive view of medical applications of GM technology: despite viewing it as risky, they are strongly aware of the potential benefits, which leads to an overall evaluation that medical applications are morally acceptable and should be encouraged. In comparison, uncertainty about the benefits and usefulness of food applications mean that, for the majority, the risks outweighed the benefits.

Nanotechnology

Awareness of nanotechnologies is low. In a 2004 public opinion poll published jointly by the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering just 29% of the public claimed they had heard of nanotechnology, while only 19% were able to give some definition of it, whether accurate or not. Of those who were able to offer a definition of nanotechnology, 68% said it would make things better in the future.

Although general attitudes towards nanotechnologies seem fairly positive, people seem less convinced about the potential benefits of food applications and are sceptical about why these are being developed.

In general, use of nanotechnologies in packaging may be seen more positively than their use in food.

Women seem to perceive fewer potential benefits from food applications than men and seem less likely to want to buy food that has been treated using nanotechnologies. Meanwhile, older people may be more likely than others to see usefulness of packaging applications.

Concerns towards nanotechnologies in general include their effectiveness, long-term side-effects and the ability of regulators and others to ensure safety and to ensure that developments benefit the general public.

Other factors affecting peoples’ attitudes towards nanotechnologies include their scientific knowledge, their general outlook or worldview and where they have received information from.

Source: An Evidence Review of Public Attitudes to Emerging Food Technologies (2009

Functional Food

People are generally sceptical or suspicious towards functional foods and there is a degree of scepticism about food manufacturers’ motives and about the veracity of health claims.

Attitudes are not generally hostile though and the public do not consider them very risky.

Views on functional foods vary depending on the base product or ‘carrier’, the added functional ingredient, and the combination of the two (naturally occurring combinations are preferred).

Belief in the effectiveness of functional foods, and experience and/or fear of disease have been linked to positive attitudes.

Women and older people appear to have more positive attitudes towards functional food than men or younger people.

Consumption of functional foods is strongly influenced by a perceived need for the product, and to a lesser extent by a belief in the health benefits

Novel Foods

The public is generally reported to be suspicious of novel food processes, but some researchers have noted that if people are given an explanation of the technology and its purpose, their views tend to be more positive.

Attitudes are shaped by risk and benefit perceptions, as well as trust in the food industry and regulators, and the perceived naturalness of the resulting food product.

Women and older people have been found to have the highest levels of concern.