Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Grain growers’ perspectives on genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

Alexandra Smart1,2, Heather Bray1, Michael McLean1 and Amanda J. Able1,2

1 Molecular Plant Breeding Cooperative Research Centre, www.molecularplantbreeding.com Email heather.bray@molecularplantbreeding.com, michaelmclean@molecularplantbreeding.com
2
Discipline of Plant and Pest Science, The University of Adelaide, PMB 1, Waite Campus, Glen Osmond SA 5064 www.adelaide.edu.au Email amanda.able@adelaide.edu.au

Abstract

A survey of grain growers in South Australia was performed late 2003 to determine what educational needs the Molecular Plant Breeding CRC (MPBCRC) might be able to fulfil. The surveys also provided insight into grain growers’ perspectives as they relate to regulation of GMO technology and the risks and benefits of that technology. The main sources of information for growers were radio and newspaper with their trust of information being placed in scientists independent of commercial companies. A major concern of the growers was the difficulties in GMO segregation, potential contamination and the related liabilities they might face. Market access and possible consumer rejection were also drivers to ensure support for a moratorium on GM crops. However, growers acknowledged that increased pest control with less input would be advantageous in GM crops. Growers felt that they were adequately informed about GM technology, but that the public was poorly informed. Educational needs identified included a greater awareness of regulatory procedures and more information on the actual risks of GMOs.

Media Summary

South Australian grain growers feel that members of the general public are not adequately informed about trials, risk management, regulation and developing research in GM technology.

Keywords

Genetically modified crops, GM, education, communication, survey

Introduction

Increased public distrust in the processes of science and in scientific and regulatory institutions has been identified as a key reason for public negativity towards different applications of biotechnology (Frewer 2003). As a result, it is important to understand the forces that precipitate public concerns associated with a particular technology, and to address these concerns as an essential part of the communication process (Frewer 2003). The uptake of GM crops in Australian and overseas markets is not only dependent upon public perception but also upon the various elements of the supply chain and in particular, growers. In 2002, the global area of transgenic crops continued to grow for the sixth consecutive year at a rate of more than 10% per year with most of the crop being soybean (62%) (James 2003). While GM crops have been adopted widely in the main grain producing countries (such as the US) since their introduction in 1995, various nations within Europe and states in Australia have established moratoria on the commercial release of crops. New varieties being developed using GM technology undergo a much greater scrutiny than conventionally bred varieties.

The MPBCRC is actively pursuing various modern methods of plant breeding including the generation of GMOs, and has an education program that aims to promote guided and informed decisions on the use of GM technology in Australia. In an attempt to identify educational requirements of the general public and the different elements of the supply chain, MPBCRC conducted an initial survey focusing on various aspects of GM technology. This paper outlines results from that survey as they pertain to the grain growers surveyed. Our aims were to investigate current perceptions of growers, identify efficient practice for informing growers and identify what information they seek about GM crops. This information has been used to develop education and communication strategies for the MPBCRC.

Methods

Survey Formulation

The survey was developed to address the specific GM issues pertinent to growers. This survey was modelled on a similar survey conducted in a general public audience (unpublished data). After establishing the demographic of the test population, respondents were asked a series of questions about their and the public’s ability to make informed decisions on GM crops as well as where they received most information about GM crops. Growers were also asked whether they support field trials, commercial use of GM crops with regulatory approval, whether they favour a moratorium on commercial use, whether they would grow GM crops and what additional information they require. The degree of concern and likelihood of benefits were also examined.

Development of the test population and survey distribution

More than 700 surveys were distributed to the general public through various means such as shopping centres and sporting clubs. Three hundred and twenty surveys were returned. Some of these responses have been used as a comparison with growers’ responses. Growers within regions of South Australia (such as Mallala, Balaklava, Laura and Melrose), known to often grow canola in rotation with wheat or barley, were chosen as the test population. Over 140 surveys were distributed through the postmasters at the nearest towns, with 26 replying. Additional growers (5) also responded at the Royal Agricultural Show in Adelaide 2003.

Results

Information

In response to the question ‘Do you feel you have enough knowledge of GM crops to make an informed decision concerning GM crops?’, a large proportion of the general public respondents (46%) felt they could make an informed decision. However, a similar proportion (42%) felt they did not possess enough knowledge of GM crops. Interestingly, when only looking at the growers’ responses, more than 80% felt they did have enough knowledge to make an informed decision. Nevertheless, the majority of grain growers surveyed expressed a wish for more information on GMO regulation, research and potential risks. An overwhelming number of growers (85%) felt the public were not adequately informed of processes relating to trials, regulations, risk assessment and risk management.

Newspapers and radio were the major sources of information on GMOs for growers (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Major sources of information on GMOs for growers surveyed.

Scientific journals, scientists and state government extension officers were the most trusted sources of information (50% of respondents). However, 38% of respondents indicated that this was only the case if the scientists were funded independently of commercial companies. This correlated with the 60% of respondents that felt companies will only provide biased pro-GM material.

GM research and field trials

When asked the main reasons why GM crops were being developed or used in research, over 20 different types of responses were received. The most prevalent responses were: company profit, tolerance to abiotic stresses, resistance to pests and disease and fast tracking of breeding practices. With regards to growing GM crops, the majority of growers (61%) did not support growth of commercially approved crops and favoured a moratorium. Of those growers favouring a moratorium, 19% were still undecided on whether they would ever grow GM crops in the future. The growth of GM crops for research purposes (in field trials) was supported by 54% of respondents.

The support of the moratorium and reservations evident with regards to growing research field trials appears to be correlated with a feeling that risks were not addressed adequately by Australia’s GMO regulatory body, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) (58%) or a lack of knowledge about whether OGTR addressed risks (38%). However, 62% of respondents were not aware that the OGTR encourages the public to comment on proposed risk assessment and risk management plans for commercial release of GM crops.

Identified risks and concerns

For growers, the main negative risks associated with the introduction of GM crops were the difficulties in GM segregation, potential contamination and related liability (35%), market access and possible consumer rejection (27%), multinational company control and loss of choice (23%) and the development of ‘super pests’ and cross pollination issues (15%). Other risks raised included the loss of Australia’s clean GM-free image resulting in loss of market access in Europe (12%) and potential health risks (4%). Interestingly, in our general public survey, cross pollination was seen by the majority of respondents as the greatest risk (25%) followed by health risks (20%) and unknown risks (19%).

However, when asked what their level of concern with issues relating to GM crops were, growers were highly concerned about most issues except whether it was ethical (Table 1).

Table 1. Level of concern with identified risks or issues relating to GM crops.

Issues/Risks

Level of concern (%)

 

High

Moderate

Slight

None

Don’t know

Performance proven

55

17

17

0

11

Consumer acceptance

79

16

5

0

0

Market access

90

5

5

0

0

Multinational control

69

21

0

0

5

Ethical

33

11

28

17

11

Pollen flow between GM and non-GM crops

84

11

0

0

0

Liability

89

0

11

0

0

Identified benefits and potential growth

To consider growing GM crops, growers indicated that market access needed to be assured and an adequate system of GM crop and product segregation developed to ensure the chance of improper segregation, and hence liability, was low. However, when rating the likelihood of certain benefits (Table 2) growers acknowledged that increased pest control and increased yields were likely, but that environmental and health benefits were less likely.

Table 2. Rated likelihood of possible benefits from GM crops.

Possible Benefit

Likelihood (%)

 

High

Moderate

Slight

None

Don’t know

Reduced chemical use

28

22

17

22

11

Increased pest control

24

46

24

0

6

Increased yield

22

39

28

0

11

Increased profits

17

22

39

11

11

Environmental benefits

6

13

31

31

19

Quality benefits

6

35

29

12

18

Health benefits

12

12

40

18

18

Conclusions

While the majority of grain growers in South Australia feel they are quite informed about GM technology, they have also indicated a desire to learn more about GM technology and the risks associated with that technology. Comments made about fears of commercial company control by several growers (data not shown) have also highlighted the need to have transparent processes particularly during the early stages of technology development and implementation. In order for successful transparency from the laboratory to commercial crop, there needs to be a commitment from all researchers to talk about their research and an increase in industry coordination and cooperation through different agricultural industries/commodities through the supply chain to provide similar approaches in communicating about the technology and thus ensure consistent participation in the debate by all organisations. The importance of increased transparency in risk management and regulatory decision making will mean that the available information must include risks associated with a technology as well as the benefits and the fundamentals of the technology in agricultural practice. The results of our survey also highlighted the need for a more detailed awareness of the OGTR procedures.

The Molecular Plant Breeding CRC has developed an education and communication strategy which aims to deliver required information on GM technologies to growers in a transparent and uniform manner. This includes participation in field days and road shows, and targeting newspapers and radio.

Acknowledgements

The University of South Australia partially funded the work placement of Alexandra Smart.

References

Frewer L (2003). Societal issues and public attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Trends in Food Science and Technology 14, 319-332.

James C. (2003). Preview: Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2003. ISAAA Briefs No. 30. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext Page