Public Perception of Genetically modified Animals –Science, Utility and Society

Lynn J. FrewerFood and Society at the

Centre for Rural Economy

Key issues

• Increasingly impact assessment associated with food technology is focusing on both risks and benefits

• Citizen and consumer decision-making involves a trade-off between perceived risk and benefit

• Optimising communication with consumers, and public engagement in strategic development of the technology and commercialisation of products, must take account of both risk and benefit perception

• Communication should also focus on both risks and benefits

What factors determine consumer and/or societal responses to food technologies?

The “Enviropig” – excretes less phosphate in faeces therefore better for the environment – marketing strategy?

The goat that produces spider silk in its milk Fraudulent or accidental introduction into the human food chain

GM animals

The Pegasus project

Work packages and their interrelationships

WP 1

WP 5 WP 6 WP 7

WP 8Project management

Public engagement

Life science dimension

WP 3Production chain

context

WP 4

Ethical Issues: Analysis of

stakeholders positions and

ethical judgments

Policy implications and development

Foresight of GM animal

technology developments

Public perception of transgenic animals and food

WP 2 Pros & Cons

Systematic review of public perceptions of genetically modified animals and foods and pharmaceutical products derived from them

• Differences across – Time and space ?– Individual differences (gender, age, education, etc.)? – Association between aspects of perception (acceptance, trust,

etc.)?

• Comparisons with plant genetic manipulation • Both quantitative and qualitative studies

L. J. Frewer , A.R.H. Fischer, I. A. van der Lans, K. Zimmerman, X. Zhang, M. Reinders, I. van den Berg, D. Menozzi (in preparation)

Data collection and publications – timeline

Publications on public perceptions towards GMO’s have peaked (data mainly from Europe and US)

Selection and preparation of relevant data (1)

• Core constructs focused on GM included in meta analyses– Intention to purchase GM products– Acceptance of GM food– Attitude (including benefit-risk trade-off)– Benefit Perception, Risk Perception– General concern about GM foods, plants or animals– Ethical and Moral Concerns– Trust in regulators and/or industry

Data Availible for meta-analysis by type of GM organism

Data available for meta-analysis by continent (where data were collected)

• 49 papers focused on 10 animal “types” or categories• Most frequently cattle or animals for dairy production

Data focused on different types of animals

Acceptance of GM plants versus animals

• On average, attitudes to animals and GM in general slightly more positive than plants

• Possible artefact of – Sample size – Time of data collection (animal data more recent)– Regional dominance

• Suggests that overall, little difference according to GM “target”

Preliminary results • Large spread of data

– Benefit and Risk Perception: items refer to a variety of benefits and risks (including benefit in general, and risk in general)

– Trust: items refer to a variety of “involved” parties (industry, national and regional regulators)

– Intention, Attitude, Concern: variety of specific benefits and risks included in formulation of the item

• Information interventions– where is the border between biased (leading) and

unbiased information?• Studies with large N (e.g., Eurobarometer, N=15,000)

have large influence on overall analysis

Summary of results to date

• Risk perception appears to be declining with time? (But this is not a linear downward trend )

• (Slight) trend towards increasing benefit perception and acceptance with time

• Trust appears to be affected by contiguous events and is less stable than other attitudinal components

• Further breakdown by target organism and year of data collection in progress

Science and Society Case Study - recombinant human lactoferrin (rhLf) in the milk of transgenic cows

Human lactoferrin

Science and Society Case study - recombinant human lactoferrin (rhLf) in the milk of transgenic cows

Area of concern Societal Acceptance

Societal rejection

Communication of uncertainty

Human health and food safety

Medical application (infant immune system development)

• Vulnerable target groups (infants)

• Certainty demanded regarding safety?

• Food or medicine?

Incomplete data•Human health risk not yet identified•Meat accidently or fraudulently enters human food chain

Animal health and welfare

Embryo transplantation equivalent to other practices in welfare terms

Animal welfare (large offspring syndrome)

• No data on unhealthy transgenic cows

• These will be the focus of societal concern

Environmental safety Uncertainty of “no impact” following environmental release of animals?

Conclusions

• Strategic development and commercialisation– Consumer perceptions of risk and benefit– Ethical concerns and benefits of application

need to be addressed in risk communication, not just biosafety issues

– Trust in regulatory practices– Early public involvement in “design” of

products, in particular in the agrifood sector (“coproduction”)

Thank youAny questions or comments?

Mean acceptance by year

Year missing: m = −0.23

High acceptance

Low acceptance

Mean concern by Year

Year missing: m = −0.18

High concern

Low concern

Science and Society Case Study –genetically modified Salmon which grow more quickly

Emerging GM animal applications –predicting societal responses from the metanalysis

Application Rationale Example on the market

Acceptance

Xenotransplantation Therapeutic - Cells tissues and organs, e.g, human to pig

Expected in next 5 years • Medical +ve • Ethical and religious issues

–ve

Bioreactors GM animals producing therapeutics in their milk or eggs

• Atryn goat, • Rhucin or Ruconest

(outside of the EU)

• Medical +ve• Ethical and religious

issues -ve• Environmental escape

-ve

Animal productivity Increased growth, disease resistance or (food) product quality

Non licenced•Aquabounty salmon•Environpig

• Food -ve• Marketing -ve• Species dependent (fish

more +ve than mammals)

Companion animals Hyperallergenic catsFaster race horses

Glofish (fish that glow in the dark)

• Consumer data ?• Equity issues (e.g.

horseracing) -ve

Disease models Rodents, rabbits and pigs used to•Model human diseases•Test therapeutics

Most common form of GM animal (particularly rodents)

• Medical +ve • Ethical and religious

issues –ve

• Three R’s –ve

Science and Society Case study – genetically modified Salmon

Area of concern Societal Acceptance

Societal rejection

Communication of uncertainty

Human health and food safety

•Cheaper food •Increased food security •Omega 3 source

• “Unnaturalness”• Food use less

acceptable than medical use or pharmaceutical application

Incomplete data•Human health risk not yet identified?

Animal health and welfare

Fish are associated with less concern than mammals

Animal welfare concerns emerging lower down the evolutionary chain?

• No data on unhealthy transgenic fish?

• These will be the focus of societal concern

Environmental safety Contained farms with no contact with environment

•Lack of evidence to support 100% sterility if escape occurs•Deliberate (fraudulent) release

Uncertainty regarding “no impact” following environmental release of animals?•Trojan gene and wild population extinction (N.B. learned behaviours regarding predators may be “switched on”