Uncertain World

Uncertain World
Genetically Modified Organisms,

Food and Public Attitudes in Britain
Robin Grove-White Phil Macnaghten Sue Mayer Brian Wynne
A report by the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change
in association with Unilever, and with help from the Green Alliance
and a variety of other environmental and consumer
non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
LANCASTER Jll\

MARCH 1997
Acknowledgments
This report has been produced by the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change
(CSEC), in association with Unilever, and with help from the Green Alliance and a
variety of other environmental and consumer non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
We are especially grateful to the following individuals for their contributions towards
the preparation of the report: Dorothy MacKenzie, John Scott of KSBR, Irene Evans,
Kate Lamb, Barbara Hickson and, in particular, Cath Baker.
Designed and Printed by:
Templar Print & Design Ltd, Birmingham
Copies of this document are available from:
The Centre for the Study of Environmental Change
Bowland Tower East
Lancaster University
Lancaster
LA1 4YN
TeLNo. +44 (0)1524 592658
N_o;+44<m1524 846339
Contents
Preface
Chapter 1:
Chapter 2:
Chapter 3:
Chapter 4:
Chapter 5:
Bibliography
Annex
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
DIGEST
CONTEXT
The Report
Background
The Research Methods
The Analysis
FINDINGS
The Concept of Biotechnology
Responses to GMO Products
Factors Underpinning Responses
Characterising Public Concerns
Responsibilities and Institutions
IMPLICATIONS
How Reasonable are Public Responses?
BSE's Heuristic Role
'Trust' and GMO Regulation
Political Mismatches in the GMO Regulatory System
Implications for a GMO 'Crisis'
Limitations in UK Risk Assessment Culture
INNOVATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS
Innovation on What Terms ?
Institutional Experiments
The Limits of 'Labelling'
The 'Meanings' of Information
Findings in Full
Group Specifications and Topic Guide
The Researchers and Centre for the Study of
Environmental Change- details
1
3
3
3
4
5
6
6
8
11
13
14
16
16
19
19
21
23
25
27
27
29
30
32
37
60
61
Preface by Unilever
Understanding consumers is always Unilever's first priority, because our business success
depends on it.
This study is, we believe, a unique opportunity to understand the context in which consumer
perspectives are developing in relation to products made with the help of the range of
technologies known as modern biotechnology. These are important findings which we
believe it is right to share widely with all those concerned.
Modern biotechnology is seen by many as a new type of technology which needs further
public discussion in the UK. In the Netherlands, Switzerland and in some of the Scandinavian
countries a fuller debate has taken place and as a result there appears to be a greater sense
of agreement about the way the technology is managed.
We believe that public discussion means being more transparent and more involving than is
perhaps the norm in the UK.
Unilever supports the responsible use of modern biotechnology within an effective
framework of controls and information.
This study gives essential insights into the sometimes difficult questions that framework must
address and provides a deeper understanding of information needs. For example, industry
must be able to provide convincing answers to questions concerning the need for modern
biotechnology and the benefits which might arise from its use. Public confidence is as much
about institutional arrangements as about information, and information provision is not
simply an issue about labelling.
The insights of this study have been possible only because of the way in which the study has
been constructed- with valuable inputs from the Green Alliance and other NGO
contributors, qnd the wider academic understandings of social context that is the expertise
of the CSEC team at the University of Lancaster. It has been crucial to the integrity and
independence of the study that the CSEC team have had full editorial control over the
report.
Unilever is pleased to have been able to sponsor the study and we hope it will help to
engage others in a wider public discussion of the issues.
Chapter 1: DIGEST
Genetically modified organisms (GMO) in food and other consumer products are now
beginning to become available commercially in the UK.
This is sharpening the focus on questions concerning the public acceptability of such
products, and the adequacy of existing political and regulatory arrangements for
addressing actual and latent public concerns about GMOs/biotechnology.
Aspects of analogous gene technology issues in the medical sphere are being addressed
through regulation and political debate. Where food and other consumer products are
concerned, a regulatory system is in place but it is only now that the issues are beginning
to become real for the UK public.
In other European countries, such as Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Germany,
there has already been substantial social debate about GMOs in food. There is significant
public ambivalence, alongside some acceptance, in such countries, to different degrees.
Against this background, as part of a wider collaboration between Unilever, Lancaster
University's Centre for the Study of Environmental Change (CSEC), and various non-
government organisations, the present independent academic study has explored public
feelings and attitudes towards GMO products and biotechnology in Britain- against a
background of wider research understanding of social and cultural dimensions of
'environmental risk' issues.
The study has involved the gathering and interpretation of the views of members of the
public, as reflected through discussion groups.
The findings from the study highlight, inter alia:
People's considerable ambivalence in the UK towards GMOs in food products.
Their sense of 'inevitability' and fatalism, reflecting perceptions of the possible
future pervasiveness of GMOs in foods.
The apparent paradox that people may purchase particular GMO products, whilst
also harbouring significant unease about the technology as a whole, and about
potential implications of its trajectories.
The reality that much such unease is currently latent rather than explicit- which
heightens rather than diminishes the need to acknowledge and address it.
People's mixed feelings about the integrity and adequacy of present patterns of
government regulation, and in particular about official 'scientific' assurances of
safety.
The role of the BSE crisis in compounding latent public unease about limits of
'expert' knowledge, both generally and in relation to GMO possibilities
specifically.
Chapter 1: DIGEST 1
The serious limitations in practice of the established GMO political and regulatory
framework, for reflecting the true character of legitimate public concerns - for
example in relation to conceivable 'irreversible' mishaps of major ecological or
public health significance.
The disturbing relationship between present latent anxieties in this field, and
wider issues of trust in the UK's political institutions highlighted by recent opinion
surveys.
The scope and urgent need for creative institutional experiment and innovation in
the UK, aimed at catalysing sophisticated and open public discussion, and at
generating better 'social intelligence' for industry and government, in relation to
these matters.
The immediate significance of realistically grounded GMO-related concerns for
current Whitehall debates about the need for changes to the UK's existing 'risk
assessment' culture, institutions, and practices.
The relevance of broader social-scientific insights about contemporary 'risk
society', 'globalisation', and cultural change for issues of this kind.
As a result of the findings, the report urges:
An urgent two-year programme of institutional experiments, aimed at greater
involvement of the public, in order (a) to develop more socially resilient shared
understandings of the conditions of acceptability (or otherwise) of GMO foods,
and (b) to improve the 'social intelligence' of industry and Government vis a vis
relevant public sensibilities and concerns.
Recognition that while full labelling of GMO products is regarded by many
informed bodies as a necessary condition for proper market regulation, it is still
not a sufficient condition for addressing some of the most important public
concerns identified in the research.
More sophisticated interpretation of public calls for 'information' on GMOs, as
surrogates for concerns about the political and regulatory culture surrounding the
technology.
2 Chapter 1: DIGEST
Chapter 2: CONTEXT
The Report
This study outlines new research on public responses to biotechnology- also referred to as
genetically modified organisms (GMO). Its aim is to cast light on:
present public feelings about GMOs in the UK, both generally and in relation to
actual or proposed food products;
possible future public reactions and responses; and
potential approaches to improved institutional handling of the implications.
The research was undertaken in October 1996 - February 1997 by the Centre for the
Study of Environmental Change (CSEC), within an innovative collaborative framework
involving Unilever and various environmental and consumer groups (NGOs). CSEC is
grateful to these partners for advice, and to Unilever for sponsorship. We stress that the
findings, interpretations and editorial presentation are CSEC's responsibility alone.
Background
The study was undertaken at a significant moment for GMO food developments in
Britain. In 1996, the first commercial releases of GMO food products began, culminating
in significant public debate and controversy - particularly surrounding Monsanto's genetically-
modified soya, and Ciba Geigy's maize. Also important as background to the study was the
prospect of the Government's planned conference on Biotechnology, scheduled for March
1997 in response to the second report (1996) of the 'UK Government Panel on Sustainable
Development'.
Paralleling such developments in the GMO field were wider 'expert' concerns and discussions
about official handling of 'risk' issues more generally in Britain, brought to a head by the
1996-97 crisis surrounding BSE ('mad cow disease') and human health.
CSEC is a social science-based research centre at Lancaster University, founded in 1991 *.
One of its key concerns is to generate fresh patterns of understanding of the tensions
which surround environmental issues, and environmental 'knowledge conflicts', in the UK
and more widely. Central to CSEC's work has been a body of empirically-grounded
research on environmental risk issues, from climate science to BSE.
The present study reflects CSEC's particular experience in:
the sociology of public risk 'perceptions';
environmental concern as a significant cultural phenomenon; and
contemporary tensions surrounding 'policy world' use and understanding of scientific
knowledge.
It draws on insights developed in earlier work funded by the European Commission and the
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), particularly under the latter's Global
Environmental Change programme.
* Details of CSEC, and of the individual researchers on the present study, are in Appendix 1.
Chapter 2: CONTEXT 3
In the GMO domain more specifically, the study builds on a 1995 ESRC funded workshop
project by CSEC and the Green Alliance, involving GMO regulators, government agencies
and NGOs. It draws also on the involvements of the individual researchers and official
advisers variously in the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council's (BBSRC)
'Responses to Public Concern' Expert Group, the BBSRC/ESRC Risk Panel, the European
Biotechnology Federation Task Force on Public Perceptions, NGOs such as Greenpeace and
the Green Alliance, and other bodies.
The Research Methods
The study rests on the researchers' interpretation of nine focus group discussions, involving a
selection of population groups in the North and South of England. These discussions were
held in November and December 1996 in Lancashire and London. Details of the groups'
composition, and of the topics discussed, are set out in Appendix 2. The groups reflected a
spectrum of social classes and age groups, with a particular bias towards women.
CSEC has developed a body of recent insight from the use of focus group methods for
exploring hypotheses developed from the sociological understanding of 'risk', on issues of
contemporary public concern -for example, 'Public Perceptions and the Nuclear Industry in
West Cumbria' (1993, for Cumbria County Council), 'Changing Worldviews of Students'
(1993, for Greenpeace), 'Public Perceptions of Sustainability in Lancashire'(1995, for
Lancashire County Council), and work in progress for the Health and Safety Executive.
The research for the present study was designed to elicit clues about factors shaping public
attitudes and likely responses- in a field where few people could be claimed to have
'informed' or settled views, if only because of the novelty of the technology in commercially-
applied forms. This being so, qualitative focus group methods seemed to CSEC to be a
particularly appropriate research tool.
Though the primary focus was on public feelings towards GMO consumer products, the
researchers were also concerned to locate these within people's broader sense of
biotechnology as a whole. Thus, in the focus groups and subsequent interpretations, the
terms 'biotechnology' and 'GMO products' were both used, according to the specific context
In arriving at judgements on such matters of methodology, CSEC benefited from
discussions with Unilever's own market researchers and NGO collaborators, as well as expert
advice from John Scott of KSBR.
In the concluding stages of the study, some of the provisional conclusions were exposed to a
group of senior administrators with GMO responsibilities across Whitehall. This too was
valuable, and assisted the final calibration of the report, if only to clarify potentially
significant differences of perspective.
The researchers benefited also from a considerable body of earlier work on public attitudes
to genetic modification by other researchers. Most of such work has relied on questionnaire
techniques, (eg Hamstra 1994; Eurobarometer 1991, 1993, 1995) a methodology which,
whilst generating important indicators of public views, is generally unable to illuminate the
deeper reasonings and contextual understandings which underpin such responses. Similarly,
psychological studies pointing to the complexity of public views (eg Frewer et al 1996) have
been unable to incorporate adequately the fuller social and political contexts in which risks
and benefits come to be evaluated by individuals.
Hence the present study can be argued to break fresh ground, in seeking to link qualitative
research methods with wider-ranging sociological perspectives, in the GMO field.
4 Chapter 2: CONTEXT
The Analysis
The following chapter (Chapter 3) summarises key findings from the group discussions.
Chapter 4 then offers the researchers' interpretations of these findings, and of their wider-
and in some respects disturbing - potential implications for the UK polity. In Chapter 5,
possible steps towards creating a more promising UK climate on the issues are suggested.
The core analysis and recommendations are in Chapters 4 and 5.
CSEC has valued the opportunity to contribute to the discussion of matters of such public
importance. Unilever's initiative in encouraging an independent analysis, within an
innovative framework of collaboration, seems to us an encouraging one for the future.
Chapter 2: CONTEXT 5
Chapter 3: FINDINGS
This chapter summarises key findings of the focus group discussions. It is divided into five
sections. The first addresses people's reactions to biotechnology in food, including an initial
assessment of recent changes in the 'world of food'. This is followed by discussion of people's
responses to actual and proposed GMO consumer products, and an examination of the various
factors underpinning those responses. The chapter continues with an account of how people
characterise their concerns about biotechnology, and finishes by examining how people
conceive of the trustworthiness of different actors responsible for the regulation and promotion
of the technology. A fuller account of the focus group findings, supported by extensive
quotation, is set out in the Annex. Details of the composition of the nine individual groups,
and of the Topic Guide used to moderate the discussions are in Appendix 2.
Food appears to have become a topic of growing reflection for people in the 1990s. In all of
the groups, with the exception of the Lancashire schoolgirls there was an articulate discussion
of the role of food in contemporary life, and how this had changed over the past 15 or 20
years. For most people food had got better. Convenience, greater international variety, more
choice for vegetarians and an improved ability to assess foods for their 'healthiness' were
regarded as positive changes over the past decade or so. Against this was the erosion of the
'family meal', concerns about more and more processing, the use of artificial preservatives and
colouring agents, and an apparent increase in food health scares. Although some expressed a
sense of loss that fresh foods were eaten less, the pressures of busy lives meant that
convenience food was inevitable and necessary. Thus, people seemed to identify a dilemma:
although food had made aspects of life better, there was a price to pay in the form of long-
term food risks and animal welfare considerations. For some better off participants the
solution to this was more organic and natural foods, but this was not seen as a realistic option
for the less well off.
Fewer than half the participants had heard of biotechnology in the context of food. Those that
had mentioned products such as Zeneca's genetically modified tomato and the active
controversy over Monsanto's genetically modified soybean. A concept board, the wording of
which had been worked out in consultation with experienced Unilever market researchers and
NGO partners, was used to introduce the subject.
Even though the concept board had been carefully drafted to be even-handed and impartial,
the dominant reaction in all groups was negative. A range of responses arose:
that genetic modification constituted 'meddling' with nature and should be avoided;
that BSE illustrated the unforeseen hazards which could arise from such meddling;
that such interference in nature illustrated the extent to which industry, science and
technology now permeated daily life;
that the supposed benefits were for the private commercial interests promoting the
technology rather than the consumer; and
that such developments made them feel wary, suspicious and to wonder 'why'?.
Such reactions were frequently coupled with a sense of fatalism and resignation. It was
'unnatural'.
To illustrate how 'unnatural' interventions may have unforeseen and dangerous long-term
consequences, an analogy was often drawn with BSE, when cattle were fed sheep and
6 Chapter 3: FINDINGS
other mammalian offal. Turning cows into carnivores (and at times cannibals) was seen as
unnatural and the effects bad. BSE had demonstrated the power of nature to 'strike back'.
Genetic modification sounded like a similar scale of interference with natural processes,
leading many people to expect harmful effects in the long-term.
Another response was that biotechnology was too scientific for people to comprehend easily
and many wanted to know more about what was involved. There was a feeling that
scientific and technical interventions moved food even further from its (desirable) natural
state. Although current processed foods were acknowledged not to be 'natural', further
'scientific' processing in the form of genetic modification was an intensification of this. Thus
some people conceived of genetic modification as a new tier of processing with foods
produced in this way being an unwelcome move away from nature (and the land) into
science (and the laboratory).
A further link was drawn between genetic modification, science and chemicals in food.
More science was commonly equated with more chemically contaminated and less natural
food. People drew on their experiences of additives and chemicals when they read the
concept of biotechnology and linked the two in a negative way: 'It sounds very technical to
me' (North London Working Mothers); 'It makes me think of chemicals' (Lancashire Non-
Working Mothers); 'I automatically think of artificiality' (Lancashire Church Goers).
However, having to eat genetically modified foods was felt to be 'inevitable'. A number
expected they were already eating such foods unwittingly. And even though genetic
modification was identified as a further development in the history of 'meddling' with
nature, it was also seen as starkly different to past developments in food processing. Genetic
modification was seen by many as changing foods in ways which are irreversible,
fundamental, and not possible through traditional preparation techniques in the home
which convenience foods replicate. This 'newness' and unnaturalness raised moral concerns
over human entitlement to restructure the foundations of life as we know it.
Another common response was to demand to know WHY this was being done. What social
interests or purposes was it serving? Genetic modification was seen by some as a morally
contentious act which needed serious justification. Increasing profit was for many people
not a sufficiently good argument for such intervention. There was almost no support for
claims for 'improved shelf life', 'appearance', 'flavour or ease of processing', as these seemed
to be trivial or insufficient reasons for meddling with foods which were generally viewed as
basically fine.
However, a minority of individuals welcomed the potential application of genetic
modification as a positive response to demands for more food. Genetic modification was
seen as having considerable potential for helping solve problems of world hunger in the face
of mounting population pressures, especially in the Third World. But, with a few exceptions,
people tended to view such potential benefits as unlikely to be released in the currently
dominant commercial climate.
Overall, however, people's immediate responses to genetically modified foods, outside the
context of particular products, tended to reflect unease at inadequately restrained meddling
with nature, and questioning of intentions. Analogies were drawn with other experiences of
food and the risks of genetically modified foods were expected to be analogous in character
to those brought about by chemicals and industrial systems of food production - additives
and BSE being the most commonly used examples.
Chapter 3: FINDINGS 7
To explore in more depth the factors that may influence how people form opinions and
attitudes about genetically modified foods, participants were encouraged to react specifically
to three products currently available which use genetic modification in their production, and
to three proposed products. Details of the specific products and of the manner in which
they were presented to the groups are set out in the Annex. An outline of the responses to
each product is given below. The themes which cut across the individual products are then
presented in the section following, to throw light on what appeared to be shaping people's
reactions to genetically modified foods.
BOX 1: Washing Powder
The concept board had a picture of several brands of biological washing powders and a list
of their ingredients. The accompanying text said:
'Biological washing powders contain enzymes made by genetically modified bacteria to
improve stain removal at low temperatures'.
Using genetic modification to produce enzymes for use in products like washing powder
seemed to arouse little or no anxiety because people saw any side effects as likely to be
immediate and visible to the senses. For many people this lack of concern followed from the
perception that such products, unlike foods, would not be directly ingested into the body.
They seemed willing to buy these washing powders, if no allergic or other skin reaction
resulted.
Thus washing powders were placed in contrast to foods and the types of risks those may
pose. Any problems associated with foods were expected to be delayed, less easy to identify
and impossible to avoid.
BOX 2: Tomato Puree
The concept board had a picture of a Sainsbury's Californian tomato puree with the label
'Made with genetically modified tomatoes'. The accompanying text said:
'These tomatoes have been genetically modified to soften more slowly This makes
processing into tomato paste easier'.
There was a division, even amongst those who had expressed serious concerns about genetic
modification, about whether they would buy this product or not. About one third to half of
the people in all the groups said they would probably buy it. Some explained they would buy
the product if it was cheaper, or because it was deemed unrealistic to read labels and
evaluate risks in the rush of shopping. Their assessment of whether it would be purchased
came more from a sense of the realities of how they operated in the world rather than from
positive feelings about the tomato puree. Others considered processed food to have been
altered already, so further alteration was less contentious than for fresh food.
However, while many people were willing to buy the product (especially if the price was
right), there was no actual support for the concept of tomatoes that softened more slowly.
The dominant view was that this development had been carried out in the interests of food
producers and their profits, not for the consumer. A minority of people viewed such a
development as morally wrong, and possibly likely to cause unexpected effects. A number of
people reflected on how rotting was a natural process that should happen in its own time,
and how interfering with this could lead to unpredictable effects. Others commented on
how rotting provided a visual trigger for when to throw things away; losing this sign could
bring hidden effects. For others, the vision of genetically modified (unnatural) tomatoes
disturbed their sense of reality and whether such a tomato was really a tomato: 'Is
the tomato still a tomato ?'(Lancashire Non-Working Mothers); 'It's tampering isn't it?'
(Lancashire Church Goers); 'It's been meddled with' (Lancashire Risk Takers). The suspicion
with which people generally viewed the intentions of companies was related in one group to
speculation about whether the innocuous sounding tomato puree might be the first stage of
a master plan to get consumers to accept other products.
Thus a series of issues were influencing opinion about the genetically modified tomato.
Seeing an innocuous looking product, acknowledging everyday realities of shopping and the
feeling that processed foods were already unnatural led many people to feel that they would
buy genetically modified tomato paste. However, this was against a background of
questioning the motives of the producer, and most importantly, scepticism as to whether
slower softening would be beneficial for the consumer:
BOX 3: 'Vegetarian' Cheese
The concept board had a picture of the Co-op's vegetarian cheese with the label 'Produced
using gene technology and so free from animal rennet'. The accompanying text said: 'This
vegetarian cheese is made using an enzyme from genetically modified yeast. This enzyme
replaces rennet taken from calves' stomachs.'
There seemed to be few clear views on the cheese - partly because most people were not
vegetarians, and so did not feel the issue was relevant to them, and partly because they were
confused about the process of cheese making and the role of enzymes, calves and so on. In
general it was less contentious than other products and many people said they would buy it
if it tasted the same as any other cheese. But some people still disliked the idea of 'messing
about' with traditional foods. However, because of the link with vegetarians and the
possible reduction of animal suffering, this was one situation where people could see some
justification for the process, although whether it was a simple alternative between cows'
stomachs or genetic modification was also questioned.
Thus no strong emotions were raised about the Co-op's vegetarian cheese. However, there
was thoughtful questioning about how cheese was made and the interests of vegetarians,
intertwined with more straightforward considerations about taste and cost.
BOX 4: Chocolate Bars or Baby Food
The concept board had a picture of a baby food packet which includes soy protein and
labels from two chocolate bars containing lecithin extracted from soybean. The
accompanying text said: 'Chocolate bars and some baby foods may contain soy products.
Soybeans have been genetically modified to be resistant to herbicides'.
Concerns were raised not simply about the genetic modification, but also about the use of
chemicals in agriculture and their presence in food. Whether the use of herbicide was
increased or reduced was seen as an important part of coming to a view on GMOs. If
chemical use was reduced, this could make the soybean more attractive but people felt in
something of a dilemma, as the issues were not seen as straightforwardly good or bad. Not
surprisingly perhaps, the inclusion of genetically modified soybean in baby food was much
more unwelcome than in chocolate bars. People thought they would not bother to read the
labels on chocolate if they existed and would continue to buy them even if they contained
products of genetically modified soybean. However, for baby foods it was a different story.
Thus, with herbicide resistant soybean a complex weighing up of contingent factors tended
to emerge. Was genetic modification better than chemical use? Would it really achieve a
reduction in chemical use? Should babies be expected to run any risks with their food?
BOX 5: Pork
The concept board had pictures of pork chops and pigs. The accompanying text said:
'Pork could come from pigs which have been genetically modified with a human gene to
grow more quickly'.
There was overwhelming shock at the proposal to genetically modify pigs to increase yield.
The strong feelings expressed ranged from revulsion at the prospect, to concerns for the
animals involved. Indeed people tended to become more sceptical about genetic
modification in total when the pig example was raised, as it seemed to raise questions
concerning the trustworthiness of those involved: if they were doing this, what else would
they do and where would it lead? Thus for many participants, the tenor of the discussion
changed from one of ambivalence or fair-mindedness, to one of outrage and disgust. All
except two groups raised the issue of cannibalism -eating human genes felt fundamentally
wrong. It was both disgusting and immoral. Another common concern was where the
human gene came from, not only because of issues of consent but also because it raised the
prospect of experimentation on foetuses. The possible consequences of eating human genes
and human material entering the food chain were of particular concern. There was also an
overall feeling that this simply could not be justified.
So there were a complex set of factors influencing the sense of revulsion at the genetic
modification of the pig. Issues of animal welfare, unnatural interventions, whose genes were
involved and where it would all end were all raised. The only obvious gain for society was
financial gain, and this was not considered an adequate reason for venturing into such a
deeply contentious area.
BOX 6: Medicine
The concept board had a picture of sheep and of drug bottles and an injection. The
accompanying text said:
'A medicine is being developed to treat lung disease. It will be produced from a drug
extracted from the milk of sheep which have been genetically modified with a human gene.'
Whilst people felt the genetic modification of animals to produce a medicine was easier to
justify than for other reasons, there certainly was not carte blanche approval for use of
animals in this way. As well as concerns over where the gene had come from, there were
other issues to weigh up. Firstly, the severity of the disease to be treated was important.
Only if the treatment was for a life threatening disease could it be justified. Secondly, there
was a demand for alternatives to be investigated. Thirdly, there were concerns about the
welfare of the animals involved. Finally, people felt that the sheep might find their way into
the human food chain because controls would not be able to keep them separate. This
raised issues of unexpected effects of human material in the food chain.
So a complex set of factors helped constitute opinions about the genetically modified sheep.
The same revulsion that was expressed about using a genetically modified pig to produce
pork did not come across when speaking about this potential source of drug production.
That the sheep were not intended for food production removed one important source of
concern, but the fear that they might inadvertently enter the food chain was a factor which
led to anxiety. However, people were willing to set aside their concerns in the interests of
treating serious illness.
Why is it being done ?
This question was voiced repeatedly by all the groups with all the products. Although people
rarely seemed to have terms adequate to fully articulate their moral concerns, unease about
the morality of gene transfer, whatever the species involved, seemed to underlie this question.
The motives behind genetic modification of food were commonly seen to be money and profit,
and these were felt to be insufficient justification in themselves. Claims that genetic
modification would improve consumer products through ease of processing or appearance
were found very contentious and considered trivial. Generally people were sceptical as to
whether genetically modified products would benefit the consumer. They thought the true
motivations driving such developments were narrowly commercial.
Because food was considered intrinsically fine at the moment, people could see no real need
for such changes. Some even questioned whether improving flavour by genetic modification
wasn't simply a 'technical fix' to a problem created by earlier changes in food production.
Although, as reactions to the different products show, some applications appeared more
acceptable than others, if judged by whether people thought they would end up buying them,
none was wholeheartedly welcomed. It was more a case of picking the lesser of several evils.
Which species are being used ?
As well as latent anxiety and unease about genetic modification in general, people's concerns
reflected the species chosen for genetic modification as well as the donor species for the
genes. Using genes from humans was almost taboo. There seemed to be no support for the
use of human genes in food, with people feeling it tantamount to cannibalism. There were
moral concerns about whether such gene transfers should be allowed at all. Even the use of
human genes in animals for medicine was questioned. Fears were expressed about genes of
human origin re-entering the food chain inadvertently because of poor controls, and the
harmful effects these could have in the long term.
A second strand of concern focused on the use of animals. This centred on their welfare and
how this would be affected by genetically modifying them. Even though this was most acute
for the use of animals for food production, it also carried over into the medical use of animals.
Thus whether drugs could be produced in other ways was a common question, as was
whether the condition to be treated was life threatening. Therefore, even for medical
applications of genetic modification, people needed careful justification on the broadest
grounds connected with both the genetic modification itself and with wider issues of animal
welfare and our duties to animals. Even if no physical effects were seen some people felt
animals were being abused by the genetic modification itself. Another strand for some,
especially in the regular Church Goers group, was that the gradual move from plants to
animals suggested that humans might be the next focus of genetic modification. Giving
ground and allowing genetic modification of any species could be seen as the 'thin edge of the
wedge' leading to the completely unacceptable prospect of actual human modification.
The particular intensity surrounding feelings about animals have been described in other
research and reflect the special significance which animals, and our relations with them, appear
to have in the UK.
Is it safe to eat ?
A further recurrent issue was whether there may be unexpected health effects. The time that it
would take before any effects became evident, and the time needed for adequate testing to
determine whether products would be safe, was thought to be prolonged. Food safety issues
were firmly fixed in people's minds as being long-term in nature and difficult to identify.
Studies would have to be undertaken for many years, maybe even a generation, before people
would be convinced. Moreover, those undertaking the work would have to be fully
independent.
Changing official scientific advice over food with time, the impact of BSE on top of other food
scares, and a cynicism about the interests of those involved in bringing new foods to the
market lay behind these fears. BSE had had a clear impact on at least a half of the groups.
There was also a view that the changes genetic modification could bring would be irreversible
and that this might be storing up unimaginable problems for the future.
The underlying factors which appeared to influence views about the safety of genetically
modified foods were, therefore, scepticism about the ability of institutions to be able to ensure
safety, and experience with other food and health scares as being delayed and unavoidable in
nature. BSE had clearly given focus to such responses and, together with other food scares
and anxieties over chemical contamination, appeared to lead people to associate food safety
with problems that tend only to be revealed after long periods of time. This was seen most
strikingly in the ways in which people contrasted their view of the risks of genetically modified
enzymes in washing powder and genetically modified foods. The low level of concern about
human health effects of washing powder was explicitly associated with the assumption that its
effect would be sensed immediately and could then be avoided. Government and industry
were not thought to share consumers' interests in food safety, but rather to engage in
promoting their shared self-interest through mutual support.
Will there be choice ?
People were suspicious that they might be already eating genetically modified foods and
appeared to expect deception about products to continue. Several said that they thought this
was 'all history'. Price was one of the main factors determining choice and there was a
resignation about the 'inevitability' of this in their own actions. One person even characterised
low prices as forcing people not to have the choice: 'The price will force you to buy that sort of
thing' (North London 'Green Consumers'). This lack of choice was not simply seen as choosing
between products but an inevitable future of the whole technology. This was seen to be a
constraining factor not only on them as individuals but on industry as well. Thus even in role-
playing as Government, food producers or retailers, people never felt they could reject the
technology; the only option was to limit, control and try to ensure safety as best they could.
This was true however strongly people had expressed fears and unease about genetically
modified foods previously.
Against this background, even if labels containing GMO information were used on products,
people did not expect to be able to make a real choice. The products would be widespread,
with no choice between genetically modified and non- modified, for example. Indeed, with
advertising encouraging people to buy such products, combined with the more general
pressures associated with pace of life, people sensed they would have little time to read or
evaluate the labels.
The information that people wanted about GMOs from which they might make choices
seemed also to be significantly different from that on labels. Most people appeared not to be
demanding technical information (although some were interested in this), but rather wanted to
know which genes had been used, why genetic modification had been used and what
alternatives there might be. Words such as 'genetically modified' were meaningless as they did
not convey the contextualised information people could use to make a judgement.
Choice was therefore a complex issue, not restricted to the consumer but also to one's felt
ability to influence a major technological trajectory. This was a choice seen as limited to
Government and industry, because commitments and interests in genetic modification were
not seen as amenable to change. Within this framework, choice was limited by daily difficulties
of time, the complex information involved in genetic modification, and the sensed
untrustworthiness of scientists and organisations involved with the technology. The perceived
lack of choice characteristically led to feelings of cynicism, fatalism and resignation.
People were asked to select one of a number of pictures, to help summarise their feelings
about a future with genetically modified foods. They were invited to select the picture that
best encapsulated their personal feelings towards the technology. Their reactions further
suggested a significant degree of mistrust in institutions. Over and above the questioning of
the motives of those promoting genetically modified foods, was a sense that moral concerns
were discounted and thought unimportant. The dominant themes were of inevitability, the
start of an uncertain journey, anxiety about the unnatural character of such changes, and a
feeling of confusion.
Inevitability
The development of genetically modified foods appeared to be seen as lying outside people's
control, with little sphere for public choice or intervention. It was commonly seen as being
driven by powerful financial interests. These feelings of inevitability seemed to reflect a felt
absence of choice and a sense that, realistically speaking, the technology was unstoppable.
Such 'inevitability' appeared to lie behind feelings of passive resignation in the majority of the
groups.
An Uncertain Journey
Where the use of genetic modification will lead was seen to be uncertain and even scary.
Certain people talked about surreal, unnatural and oddly uniform futures. Using genetic
modification was likened to a lottery or roller coaster, where no-one knows what will happen
be it good or bad. This sense of a world increasingly beyond one's control made some very
anxious. These feelings and expressions of uncertainty seemed to reflect both a lack of
understanding of the technology and a lack of shared justification for the interventions.
Coupled with their lack of confidence in institutions to manage the risks, it was perhaps not
surprising that many people expressed such striking senses of unease about where things
might go. Nor did it seem illogical under such uncertainties, (largely unattended -to by
science) for people to focus attention on the values of those in charge.
Unnatural
Also common was the sentiment that perhaps progress was going too far and that technical
innovation should develop more cautiously. Nature should be more respected; otherwise we
interfere at our peril. The depth of debate in the group discussions seemed if anything to
heighten people's sense of anxiety about science and technology, and unease that nature and
the land could become quite so dislocated in something so basic as food.
Confusion
People felt confused, anxious and ill-informed, yet many appeared not to trust anyone to
supply the information they wanted.
The world in our hands
A few people did describe their feelings more positively as a sense of opportunity; this was on
occasions expressed through a picture that expressed the image of 'the world in our hands'.
'I think it depicts man giving a helping hand to nature' (Lancashire Church Goers). However,
equal numbers of people saw the same image as posing a burden that society may not handle
well. These conflicting feelings about the same image appeared to point to people's differing
underlying senses of confidence in technology, and in institutions to manage it safely.
Pointers to ways in which people might react to unforeseen future problems with GMO
foods may be found by looking for similarities between how they talk about this and other risk
controversies. In the groups, one way this was investigated was by playing three different
voices in simulated radio extracts, reflecting how representatives of various organisations might
speak about the introduction of genetically modified corn as a consumer product. These
voices, intended to suggest a regulator, an environmental or consumer group and an industry
representative were those judged likely to be heard in such a controversy. How people reacted
to and identified with these voices and what they were saying offered initial indications of
possible responses to a public 'scare' surrounding genetically modified foods. The responses
suggested that people have a general sense that they are not fully informed about food risks;
that they tend to mistrust scientific claims of safety; that they question the motives of
corporations involved in its development; and that they identify most with the voice of NGOs.
We now describe how people responded to the three above voices.
Feelings of Deception
People appeared to feel very strongly that they had been deceived over BSE; - scientists and the
Government either knew that CJD would be a consequence of BSE in cattle or they did not
reveal the possible consequences of uncertainty and ignorance. This appeared to contribute to
suspicion concerning the introduction of foods which were produced 'unnaturally', or which
were thought to involve 'meddling with nature' or 'going against nature'. The depth of such
feelings was associated with BSE events, in which herbivores were turned into carnivores, and
where nature apparently struck back. But it drew also on other experiences with chemical risks
and other food scares which had been long-term, and had left people feeling they were not
informed as soon as when those in authority knew about them. Because many expected that
they were already eating genetically modified foods without knowing, the seeds of deception
appeared already to have been sown in their minds.
Mistrust of claims of safety
Claims of safety and 'no scientific evidence of harm' were treated with scepticism, and even
derision. Such statements were seen to be identical to the ways in which BSE had been
handled. The mobilisation of science to support such claims failed to impress people. The
use of science in this way was argued in one case to be a strategy to 'cover their backs', by
alluding to risks but saying there was 'no evidence' of harm. This was seen most clearly
when people gave their opinions on the first voice which described the genetically modified
corn and was identified most often as a politician or someone from the Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF).
Thus the risks of GMO foods tended to be influenced by experiences with BSE, and were
seen as of the same class of risk - in terms of unnaturalness, the failure of institutions to
prevent them, the long-term character of associated risks, and our inability to avoid them.
Rather than reflecting upon the uncertain character of science, people's reactions tended to
be against those making the claims of safety, expressed as a failure of trust.
Mistrust of Benefits
The benefits of genetic modification for consumers, industry and the environment are
important features of arguments put forward by those supporting the technology. Other
research by CSEC has shown that industry feel that these benefits should be explicitly
weighed in regulations. How people weigh up benefits is therefore important to understand.
In general people seemed negative or at best ambivalent about the possible benefits of
genetic modification. This was most striking in relation to food but also included some
questioning of medical applications.
Provision of food to the Third World was seen as a complex issue which would not simply be
solved by genetic modification. The interests of companies were not seen to be consistent
with increasing food production in poorer countries because their role had to be profit
making. So whether or not it would really be used to help feed the world was questionable.
But also questioned was the morality of using a technology in Third World countries which
was seen to be dubious and risky in developed countries. A few people, however, were more
accepting of the motives expressed and felt they represented worthwhile goals.
Views on the benefits of genetically modified foods appeared therefore to be shaped by a
complex set of factors, which included people's understanding of the problem to be solved,
their expectations of the people or companies involved, and what level of justification they
demanded for any particular benefit.
Identification with NGO voices
The second voice about the genetically modified corn was intended to represent
environmental or consumer group concerns. Most people identified them correctly,
although some thought it was a scientist or other person who opposed the technology.
NGOs were described as speaking 'truthfully' as they articulated people's feeling of
unnaturalness and unpredictability. NGOs appeared repeatedly to be 'trusted' to have a
counter-balancing moral voice in a sea of self interest. Greenpeace was the most commonly
named and supported of the NGOs, its role being seen as the more significant given the
perceived void created by government inadequacy.
Chapter 4: IMPLICATIONS
The overall impression from the focus group discussions is that there is currently little public
enthusiasm for biotechnology overall or for GMO-based consumer products in particular. At
best, as Chapter 3 has suggested, a minority of people appear to feel an uneasy curiosity
about its potential value in relation to food. But more frequently, they are anxious at what
they perceive to be an intrinsically unsettling technology for which little apparent social need
exists, but behind which are sensed to be commercial interests concerned to reap substantial
benefits. There is substantial fatalism about the felt inaccessibility of the processes driving the
technology to ordinary human influences. From a starting point of low familiarity with the
actual processes involved in biotechnology, people in the groups frequently urged the need
for more information. However, in general, as such information was deployed during the
course of the discussions, their anxieties tended to increase, rather than to diminish.
Nevertheless, it tended to be assumed that, because of the evident commercial momentum,
GMO-based food (and medical) products would become increasingly pervasive, and that, if
the price advantages proved to be as claimed by the manufacturers, everybody (including
themselves) would end up buying and using them, despite the unease this prospect evoked.
Such an apparently grudging public welcome for a new technology and associated products
for which exceptionally high expectations have been expressed in recent years (Ernst &
Young 1994, CEC 1993b) raises important questions:
How reasonable are the suspicion and fatalism which were encountered in the
discussions ?
What wider social or political significance may such responses have ?
How well-placed is the regulatory umbrella currently covering the introduction of such
products in Britain to evaluate and respond to such apparently pervasive, if still largely
latent, anxieties ?
In this chapter, we explore these issues through further interpretation of the group
discussions, informed by previous research on the GMO regulatory framework, and by more
general sociological insights from work in parallel 'risk' domains. The picture that emerges is
a disturbing and complex one.
How Reasonable are Public Responses ?
Historically, there has been a tendency for protagonists of biotechnology to approach public
concerns about GMOs as if they were simply emotional, or even 'irrational'. Our research
offers little support for such a suggestion.
A striking feature of the focus groups, regardless of the participants' socio-economic
standing, was the seriousness and fair-mindedness with which most people sought to
engage in discussion of complex issues. There was little evidence of any reflex hostility to the
technology, or of any wish to avoid engagement with the complexity of what was at stake.
For example, despite their generally acknowledged unfamiliarity with the technology, most
participants were at pains to discriminate between classes of product and the different
issues, positive and negative, these raised for them. Significantly, the character of response
for a particular type of product often related to the purpose to which that product would be
put. Medical GMO products tended to be seen as relatively acceptable because of the health
16 Chapter 4: IMPLICATIONS
benefits they would bring, overriding unease about other features felt to be of concern when
applied to less socially disinterested uses. Similarly, the general argument that biotechnology
could help alleviate food shortages in Third World countries appeared to carry strong moral
weight (tempered by occasional scepticism), overriding other more 'local' concerns. By contrast,
forceful moral repugnance was expressed towards particular gene transfers across species-
from animals to plants and, more emphatically still, from humans to either animals or plants. In
general, the anxieties were more pronounced, the closer particular proposals came to
challenging people's sense of an established moral order.
It needs to be remembered that people were wrestling here with unfamiliar and disturbing
questions surrounding the physical manipulation and transgression, for commercial food
production purposes, of species boundaries hitherto regarded as fixed in nature. These are
issues for which -so new are they in terms of practical human experience- few if any of us,
'expert' or otherwise, have adequate vocabularies or concepts. Thus it was striking that the
proposed use of human genes in food products (GMO pork, for example) created genuine and
well-articulated moral distress in two of the groups- a 'common .sense' reaction reflecting
important social taboos, and casting doubt on the frequently-heard 'expert' view that
biotechnology can be endorsed as little more than a seamless further stage in long-established
(and therefore innocuous) selective-breeding practices of the kind used by farmers, plant-
breeders, and dog-owners.
In expressing views about both biotechnology overall and specific GMO consumer products
more particularly, people drew on contextual knowledge of distinctive kinds. In evaluating
particular products, their views were influenced particularly by their sense of the recent
historical reality of ever-more systematic intervention in and pre-processing of foods. Thus, in
such cases, where few obvious 'species boundary' problems for a particular product could be
sensed (the washing powder or the tomato paste, for example), the product in question
tended initially to be assessed in a fashion similar to that applied to the many other consumer
goods whose more 'conventional' chemical or additive contents are high. In such cases, there
appeared to be little spontaneous sense that people felt they were dealing with a class of
products that was different in principle from non-GMO products- rather that such GMO
products were a further stage on a continuum of modern goods produced by 'tampering' or
'meddling' with nature. In other cases, where children were involved (as with GMO soya in
baby food), anxieties were more severe, though still hardly GMO-specific. Only where cross-
species transfers from humans to pigs and sheep were introduced did concerns become acute,
and even there the medical use of the sheep product appeared to be a potentially mitigating
factor for many. Overall, this suggested that where credible evidence of serious potential social
justification existed, people were prepared to take it seriously into account in feeling their way
towards balanced judgements.
However, this picture contrasted sharply with the more general anxieties that surfaced when
people were encouraged to consider biotechnology more generally. Here, the issues that
surfaced were quite different. The specific contextual experience on which they tended to draw
in these broader exchanges related predominantly to their recent experience of national food
and risk controversies such as those surrounding BSE and salmonella, and of the performance
of both industry and government regulators, who were perceived as having failed to protect
wider public interests. There was a recurrent conviction that in such cases government
spokesmen and regulators had been biased towards industrial interests, and that scientific
reassurance had been used repeatedly to mislead and withhold information from the public.
Such experience of official 'untrustworthiness' in relation to food and public safety was then
applied to the analogous official reassurances now being given about GMO foods.
This suggests that, in considering the issue of public 'reasonableness' or 'rationality' in
attitudes towards GMOs, there is a need to be aware of the rather different planes of
reflection on which people tend to operate simultaneously- for example, as 'consumers'
Chapter 4: IMPLICATIONS 17
when confronted with the need to evaluate particular products in the shopping context, but
as 'citizens' when discussing and responding to a new technology of acknowledged social
significance. Obviously, these two planes inter-penetrate to varying degrees in most
individuals- with social concerns influencing particular product evaluations, and vice versa.
But nevertheless, the distinction is conceptually a helpful one. To each of the respective
planes, and allowing for their relative unfamiliarity with the technology, participants
appeared to bring to bear a fair-minded sense of contextual issues relevant to that plane, and
to gravitate, to varying degrees, towards judgements that were considered and
discriminating. This finding is consistent with those from a growing body of sociological
understanding of public 'risk perceptions' in other contemporary technological domains
(Royal Society 1992 (ch 5); Waterton et al 1993; Macnaghten and Urry 1997 (ch 3)).
There is currently interest within the GMO regulatory community in an apparent
contradiction in public behaviour- between the recent high level of sales of the Sainsbury
GMO tomato puree, and ex ante survey findings that a large proportion of people would
resist buying it. This 'inconsistency' is being argued to demonstrate the unreliability of
people's expressed 'attitudes' (in survey contexts), as compared with their 'real' attitudes
revealed through their market behaviour. The conclusion being implied is that the expressed
ex ante public concerns are thus revealed as captious or even vacuous.
Such a conclusion appears to rest on a misinterpretation of the ways in which people, quite
routinely, hold in tension simultaneously a range of cognitive perspectives (as 'consumers', as
'citizens' and so on), switching between different orientations, depending on the context of
discussion and the perceived possibilities for action -often reflecting realistic awareness of
being unable to control or influence the forces in play.
Such 'ambivalence' has been noted in recent research on risks and 'expertise' (Singleton and
Michael 1993; Macnaghten 1995; Wynne 1996)- and may be read more appropriately as
reflecting people's realistic appreciation of contingencies in the real world circumstances in
which they have to operate. Indeed, the idea (still prevalent in some expert 'risk assessment'
circles) that people hold monovalent 'attitudes', departures from which are evidence of
'irrationality' or 'inconsistency', is itself misguided as a basis for policy insight- and arguably
dangerous, since it contributes to official misunderstanding of tensions in the public domain,
now apparently reflected in mounting problems of mistrust and alienation (Wynne 1992).
There is a further factor which may help explain why the complexity of public responses may be
being underestimated. It may well be that an absence of public fora in which the broader
social implications of biotechnology (ie on the 'citizen' plane) have been, or might be explored
in open-ended fashion is leading individuals or groups with such concerns to focus attention, in
'protest' mode, on the particular products which are the technology's only current physical
manifestations (ie apparently at the 'consumer' plane). Such individuals may thus appear to be
investing particular products with the disturbing potentialities actually sensed in the technology
as a whole. Incongruous and even 'irrational' though such behaviours may appear to experts
focused professionally on the properties of the specific products (the new tomato puree, or
rennet-free vegetarian cheese, for example), they can be understood as entirely 'rational' when
set in the context of the apparent lack of other avenues of influence in relation to
biotechnology matters (of which more below). Again, these patterns are familiar to social
researchers in the field of public 'risk perceptions' in other contemporary technological
domains. The links between people's shrunken sense of agency in relation to new
technologies, and their expressed 'risk' concerns, has been recognised and elaborated in recent
social research. There appears to be a relationship between such lack of agency and certain
apparently 'arbitrary' recent food and animal welfare flare-ups, when political 'opportunities'
for protest present themselves (Grove-White 1996).
To understand this more clearly, it is helpful to consider further the particular role served by
the BSE crisis as a recurrent reference point in the discussions.
BSE's Heuristic Role
Repeatedly, the BSE crisis was mentioned in support of people's expressions of unease at
possible dimensions of biotechnology. Not only was the recent history of official handling of
that crisis used to illustrate a perceived tendency towards mendacity and 'cover-up' where
powerful industrial interests were at stake, but it was also held to show the unreliability of
'scientific' reassurance in such fields. Certain individuals were explicit about the educative
role the crisis had served in dispelling their 'innocence' about such matters.
It should be stressed however that the BSE experience cannot be seen as the cause of public
anxieties about GMOs in the food context. Rather it seemed to serve as a condensed symbol,
or heuristic, around which previously more diffuse and abstract concerns could be
articulated. Thus, it served variously at different points in the discussions as a focal point for
referring to the unresponsiveness of the official regulatory system, for suspicions about the
'capture' of that system by private interests, for the misleading character of scientific
statements about 'no evidence of harm', and for the 'unnaturalness' of tendencies in
modern food production. On the evidence of these discussions, there seems little doubt that
the episode has been something of a watershed in public consciousness- as much for the
way in which it encapsulated concerns about recent syndromes and trends of which people
had previously been aware in less focused fashion, as because of any precise historical
sequence of events that occurred.
Again, it may be useful to underline the essential reasonableness of the broad patterns of
association people appeared to be making between the BSE experience and the prospective
widespread diffusion of biotechnology in daily life. Contemporary sociological understanding
of public 'risk perceptions' highlights the way in which individuals' subjective assessments of
risk probabilities draw, necessarily and appropriately, on their previous experience of the
institutions (in the BSE case, simply 'the government') responsible for regulating the hazards
in question (Wynne 1980; Wynne and Mayer 1993; Jasanoff 1990; Jasanoff et al 1994). If
this performance has been found to be unsatisfactory, then the 'objective' risks are
understood to be correspondingly greater- as indeed they may well be. The BSE case is
something of a locus classicus in this respect, and the many references to it during the
discussions appeared to recognise it as such.
All of this suggests that at the core of much of the unease about biotechnology uncovered in
the groups are important questions of trust.
'Trust' and GMO Regulation
As we have already shown both in Chapter 3 and in the section immediately above, the
discussions provided copious indications of mistrust of official institutions. Indeed, such
findings are becoming a commonplace of social r ~ s e r c h and opinion polls in contemporary
Britain. Significant though these findings are however, they need to be strongly qualified,
particularly in the context of discussion about the commercial diffusion of GMOs.
The fact is, quite as striking as the mistrust, and even cynicism, towards official bodies and
spokesmen evinced in the discussions was an apparent expectation that government could
and should be capable of acting authentically in the public interest on such matters,
notwithstanding recent perceptions of contrary tendencies. In other words, there appears to
be considerable ambivalence about the expectations people have about government in relation
to 'risk' issues like those raised by biotechnology as applied to food.
At one level, it may be reasonable to see this ambivalence as a reflection of the extent to which
people feel trapped by their own dependency upon such official 'expert' systems, and are
realistic about this fact. Equally, it may be that people are led by a realistic sense of the
uncertainties involved to be sceptical about 'scientific' assurances (which typically may not be
acknowledging all of those uncertainties), and to focus instead on the possible motives and
interests driving the technology overall. Thus increasingly in domains of this kind, people may
now be exhibiting a form of 'virtual' trust in relation to regulators, acting faute de mieux 'as if'
they feel trust, because of a realistic sense of lack of alternatives in circumstances of all-
embracing and non-transparent dependency on expert judgements. If this is correct, a likely
corollary is the potential brittleness of the 'as-if' trust generated thereby, since the latter is not
rooted in authentically deep-rooted confidence based on positive experience, nor in any
expectation of agency in relation to ensuring the proper behaviour of official regulators. Given
this brittleness, an obvious concern arises- that in the event of things going wrong in the GMO
sphere- conventional patterns of official reassurance will lack purchase- leading in turn to a
loss of control, and other perverse feedbacks for politicians and the political system more
generally (a foretaste of which has already been provided in the BSE case).
However, the same public ambivalence may also have a less discouraging side. For it suggests
the persistence of a strong residual public belief that our political institutions are capable in
principle of responding to new circumstances and needs.
Nevertheless, the challenges in the GMO domain in this regard appear very substantial. In
several of the groups there were strong indications that people felt their own lurking concerns -
for example in the relation to the moral implications of the 'boundary' issues discussed above,
and the issue of 'irreversibility' should present scientific assurances about GMOs in food prove
faulty- were not being acknowledged by those responsible. This manifested itself in occasional
despair and despondency:
F: I started out not too bad when I had the discussion. I thought I'd have an open mind
about it, but I've changed my mind. As soon as I saw that about the human gene,
suddenly the enormity of it made me feel really awful. I got an awful feeling about it,
because I thought it was something that ... I think we're touching things that we don't
realise and I think that we're taking things out of the earth, and we're now trying to
correct it by using things like genetic engineering, because mistakes were made. And I
feel that time's just ticking by and we don't realise what's going to happen in the
future. I think something terrible could happen. It's given me a bad feeling really
Mod: So it's as if we're trying to fix something which is mixed up with something ... ?
F: Yes, because the earth hasn't got what it used to have. We feel we have to put
something back into the food to make it better, and maybe we're correcting things in
the wrong way I don't know ..
F: It's a frightening thought to think that time's ticking away though ...
F: Yes. It's something that I'd like to put at the back of my mind now I wouldn't like to
think about it again. I probably wouldn't- but when we talk about it, it does bring it to
your mind. But then I'll probably put it to the back of my mind now ..
(Lancashire Working Women)
This sequence -whilst at a literal level apparently interpreting the role of genetic modification in
an idiosyncratic way- reflects in heightened, even poetic, form the sense of open-ended
uncertainty evoked by discussion of the technology in several of the groups, and the strong
feelings of impotence and fatalism this seemed to engender. In such circumstances,
unambiguous unilateral assertions by industry and government spokesmen that the
technology can and should be managed safely on a 'case-by-case' basis, may have the effect
of compounding, rather than assuaging, the mistrust felt by individuals across all population
groups. Again, there is a body of sociological understanding of such human dynamics,
highlighting the ways in which such over-confident official 'body language' can be
inflammatory and actively corrosive of public respect for governme'nt- for example
historically in the sphere of nuclear safety (MacGill 1987; McSorley 1990).
The range and texture of the latent concerns hinted at in the group discussions appears to
imply a serious continuing challenge for the political process, and more particularly for the
established GMO regulatory framework- to demonstrate that the true nature of such
concerns (rather than some administratively-contrived reductionist version of them) is being
understood, respected and addressed to the maximum extent possible. The alternative, it
seems to us, is a continuing corrosion of trust. We now turn to this issue in more detail.
Political Mismatches in the GMO Regulatory System
The UK has an avowedly 'precautionary' system for handling GMO releases into the wider
environment. Of particular significance here are two expert scientific committees, the
Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment (ACRE), and the Advisory Committee
on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP), who are responsible respectively to the Secretary of
State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture for individual authorisations.
Workshops held jointly by the Green Alliance (GA) and the Centre for the Study of
Environmental Change (CSEC) in 1995, involving senior government regulators, expert
members of ACRE, industrialists, and NGO/statutory agency officials, explored in detail the
issue of the adequacy of present UK statutory arrangements for reflecting the full range of
issues, positive and negative, surrounding GMO authorisation processes in the food domain.
These workshops uncovered significant gaps, in relation both to potential benefits of GMOs
(from an industry perspective) and to a range of public concerns. In a subsequent report on
the exercise published and circulated by the Economic and Social Research Council (Mayer et
al 1996), it was concluded:
(For commercial GMO products) current approaches to environmental risk assessment
exclude wider dimensions of risk, such as justification, need, benefit, the context of use,
and public confidence in the trustworthiness of regulatory provisions and institutions
themselves .... There is immense pressure on regulatory mechanisms, which are
presently legally defined in narrow technical terms, to take responsibility also for wider
issues. The mechanisms in question are not appropriate for addressing such issues
adequately and there are no other fora for addressing these dimensions ...
The focus group discussions in the present research exercise appear strongly to reinforce these
earlier findings, particularly with respect to the de facto marginalisation of wider public concerns
and anxieties, as well as other independent research (Levidow 1996, Levidow & Carr 1996).
In the 1995 GAICSEC workshops, it was noted that ACRE's statutory remit rendered it unable, in
its pre-authorisation assessments, to take into account issues external to the particular GMO
product for which a licence was being sought. In other words, ACRE, as the government's key
adviser, was restricted overwhelmingly to considering the potential impacts of the particular
product in question. (The same is true of the Government's other key advisory body, the Advisory
Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP)). When queried on the adequacy of this,
ACRE members explained that whilst as individuals they personally were conscious of wider
considerations- for example, the overall social, ecological, medical and political implications
of society's imminent commitment to widespread reliance on GMO technology- judgements
about such matters on society's behalf were for the political world, and specifically
Parliament and politicians, rather than themselves.
It was therefore striking that the group discussions in the present research revealed minimal
sign that Parliament or politicians are seen by the public as performing the role ascribed to
them by the Government's own expert advisers. Indeed, in more than 18 hours of focus
group discussions about GMOs and who should be responsible for safeguarding the
population against any adverse effects, Parliament and politicians were barely mentioned.
In other words, it appeared from the discussions that Parliament and MPs- on whom official
experts in the technology rely explicitly to ensure that public policy is appropriately calibrated
to reflect public concerns- are almost wholly absent from people's minds as being able to
play a role in this regard. We regard this as the single most disturbing finding emerging from
the research. It is hard not to interpret it as a serious implied criticism of the present
relevance or ability of Parliament to play in practice the role ascribed to it, in relation to an
issue of potentially profound public importance.
In the GA/CSEC workshops, ACRE members and regulators referred to 'the market place' as
being where public choices about products would be made, and thus the trajectories of the
technology shaped. Similarly, in the focus group discussions, people looked to food
processors and retailers as having a wider responsibility for safeguarding customers.
However, as mentioned above, there were also substantial doubts about whether in practice
'producer' and 'consumer' interests do converge.
Thus, there appears to be an expectation amongst both regulators and members of the
public that industry will take responsibility for any wider implications of GMO technology-
but at the same time public doubts about whether such obligations are being met.
Indeed strikingly from a non-partisan perspective, what emerged from the focus groups was
that the perceived role of public guardian attributed by ACRE to Parliament politicians and
the market place, was felt in practice to be played by NGOs- and, in particular, by
Greenpeace (which was mentioned spontaneously in several of the groups):
M: What I would say is someone like Greenpeace would almost certainly have, you
know, the opposite angle to an extreme so, you know, all views must be balanced.
Mod: What, because Greenpeace would be extreme the other way?
M: Yes, they would be extreme the other way ...
(London Fathers)
F: Because they're looking at the overall picture - the whole environmental issue and
everything. Not just making money, making things grow bigger, faster and everything
else.
Mod:
F:
F:
F:
F:
F:
So Greenpeace would be quite important because it's not governed by money ?
They're our voice, aren't they? They're another way ... They educate us even more.
I mean, the politicians tell us things that we know. .. We know they're lying,. They're
out to line their pockets or fit their own ends.
Greenpeace are political as well.
Yes, but how political are they ? They're not political for the people; they're political
for the planet. Basically, I'm not. .. /'m not a big environmentalist or in Greenpeace,
but that's only because I'm too lazy to get off my arse and do something about it. I'm
bloody glad there are people out there doing it. ..
Oh. Yeah, yeah.
Damned glad. .. '
(Lancashire Non-Working Mothers)
In the immediate context we interpret these sentiments not to imply that Greenpeace and
other NGOs (the Consumers' Association and Genetics Forum, for example) are seen as
adequate surrogate regulators in the GMO arena, but rather that they are serving as proxies
(with their own priorities) for significant limitations in existing official safeguards. The fact is,
so far in Britain there has been relatively little NGO campaigning activity on GMOs or
biotechnology. This makes the role ascribed to them spontaneously in the focus groups all
the more significant- as a pointer to a need for review of, and innovation in, the official
framework of government surrounding the technology. In Chapter 5, we make our own
suggestions about the strengths and weaknesses of some possible ways forward.
To summarise, this sub-section has sought to highlight potentially important disjunctions
between official and lay public perceptions of how the present GMO regulatory system is
working. These differences can usefully be summarised in the following Table:
Comparison of Boundaries of Official UK GMO/Biotechnology Assessments
and Focus Group ('Public') Expectations
Current Regulation Focus Groups ('Public')
Individual GMO A-historical, non-contextual ContexVhistory of analogous
products individual 'scientific' risk issues/regulatory performance
assessments central to individual risk
evaluations
GMO societal Wider issues for Parliament, ParliamenVpoliticians hardly
implications politicians, market place etc mentioned. NGOs seen as
addressing wider issues
Implications for a GMO 'Crisis'
The research thus appears to reveal an uncomfortable and hitherto largely unacknowledged
situation, for government, for industry and for UK society more generally. In the GMO field, a
number of factors are combining to produce potential difficulties for which neither the public
nor our political institutions are adequately prepared.
In the commercial sphere, there is dynamic and potentially profitable innovation and trade in
GMOs on a mounting international scale. The first GMO commercial consumer products are
now being sanctioned and sold in the UK, and pressure for the introduction of more and
more can now be expected to intensify. What is more, there are expectations from
regulators that 'the market' will address both 'consumer' and 'citizen' GMO concerns.
In the lay public sphere, there is little familiarity with GMO technology, but (our research
suggests) well-grounded, if still largely latent anxieties both about the implications of the
technology itself, and about the limitations of current regulatory arrangements for
addressing such implications. In these circumstances, a few NGOs, rather than the
designated official bodies, are tending to be perceived as, effectively, the watchdogs on
society's behalf. Moreover, few significant compensating benefits to society itself are felt
currently to arise from exploitation of the technology, which is perceived to be driven largely
by straightforward commercial considerations.
In the regulatory sphere, the case-by-case GMO authorisation processes (described currently
as 'scientific', but, as such, reductionist in what they exclude from their frames of reference)
are failing to reflect, or even to recognise, some of the most significant dimensions of
realistically-grounded public concerns. Nor is there currently any adequate over-arching
political framework within which such dimensions can be evaluated in appropriate terms on
society's behalf, despite apparent official confidence that Parliament performs this role. There
is thus a chronic implicit mismatch between official and lay public understandings about the
efficacy of present GMO regulatory arrangements.
These three different dimensions combine to suggest a highly unsatisfactory situation. This is
particularly so, when a fourth dimension is added -that of the likelihood (some would say,
certainty) of a significant GMO crisis at some point in the not-too-distant future.
Historians of technology note that the social integration of most new technologies is
advanced through processes of trial and (intrinsically unpredictable) error (Krohn and Weyer
1994). The examples of the railways, and of a variety of chemical industrial processes,
including civil nuclear power, are often cited. In the biotechnology sphere, there has always
been awareness of the need to avoid disasters, because of the potential ecological and social
implications- hence the 'precautionary' regulatory approaches adopted consciously in EU
countries over the past two decades.
Nevertheless, even the most enthusiastic proponents of the technology acknowledge that
major unknowns surround our understanding of gene manipulation processes, and that the
possibility of unforeseen synergies or other unpredicted outcomes from the widespread
commercial diffusion of GMOs at some point in the future cannot be discounted. If this is the
case, it is no more than common prudence to acknowledge that a significant GMO 'event' -
a 'Three Mile Island' or 'Chernobyl' equivalent, so to speak- could conceivably occur at some
stage, and that society should consider and provide against this possibility, in planning its
approach to what is, after all, a technology which stands shortly to reach into every corner of
daily life. There were many signs in our focus group discussions that the sensed possibility of
such a major (if intrinsically unpredictable) future upset arising from GMO development
underlay much of people's deeper anxiety.
However, the UK's current regulatory mechanisms, and more particularly, the political and
scientific culture of which those mechanisms are reflections, appear simply not to be
acknowledging that such possibilities should influence public decisions- and this, despite the
fact that, in the researchers' personal experience, scientists discuss conceivable adverse
scenarios, in this as in other fields.
Translated into the public domain, this might be argued to constitute a de facto process of
political denial, on a matter of substantial public importance. Our reading of the focus group
discussions is that some of the mistrust and fatalism towards GMOs and their regulation so
evident in them may reflect an intuitive awareness that this is the case.
It may be prudent to speculate on what chains of consequence might conceivably follow in
such circumstances, in the event of a major GMO mishap. As matters now stand, not only
would the country be unprepared for the possible physical consequences of such crisis - in that
the complacency induced by political confidence in the adequacy of existing regulatory
arrangements would tend to have left the full implications of addressing such a possible
scenario unconsidered (as we have seen recently in the case of the possible BSE-CJD link,
where physical responses to disturbing new scientific findings - the huge slaughter and
incineration programmes, for example - have proved immensely costly and logistically all but
intractable in their implementation). Still more seriously, the polity as a whole would also be
politically unprepared for the potentially massive panic and intensified corrosion of trust in
authority that could also follow. Again, recent events surrounding BSE give a foretaste of the
possible dynamics that might be entailed - including further growth in cynicism towards
politics and political institutions of the kind encountered in our focus groups, and a devastating
impact on the industry, through the market. It should be added, still more speculatively, that,
in the case of a GMO 'event' of this kind, the consequences might be even further-reaching
than those from BSE - because of the intrinsic problems involved in putting the genetically
modified 'genie' back into the bottle. Indeed, to have the ramifying impacts here being
postulated, such an 'event' would not necessarily even have to occur in the UK. The
mounting globalisation of trade in GMOs means that incidents in one country will be likely
from now on to have immediate social and political feedbacks in all. This reality too appears
effectively to be unacknowledged in the present UK frameworks of GMO regulation-
providing additional ground for concern.
The problem with speculations of these kinds is that they tend to appear alarmist, when
there is no direct experience of the events being postulated. However, the precedents of the
BSE-CJD saga - and, further back in time, of the analogous UK official mind-set that
appeared to prevail in the nuclear regulatory sphere prior to the (industrially-crippling) Three-
Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents outside the UK- may be thought sufficiently relevant to
justify such scenarios. It should be added that recent signs of deterioration in the
unquestioned public acceptance of the UK's risk management culture mean that, even
without a specific crisis, there is a need for reform, to avoid further deterioration.
To summarise this section, we have found copious clues in the focus group discussions for
concern, not only about the adequacy of the GMO regulatory arrangements now in place,
but also about aspects of the underlying regulatory culture of which these are reflections.
Before offering (in Chapter 5) some considered thoughts on possible ways forward, we touch
briefly on these more fundamental cultural concerns.
Limitations in UK Risk Assessment Culture
The issues raised in this chapter, whilst potentially far-reaching in themselves, need to be
seen in a wider context.
There is a burgeoning intellectual debate in UK policy world and academic circles about the
adequacy of dominant 'risk assessment' methodologies in a growing number of spheres
(Adams 1995; Grove-White 1997; Nature 1997; Royal Society 1992). These debates are
highlighting especially the increasingly evident limitations of official dependence on
quantitative, reductionist-scientific modes of risk evaluation, as compared with other,
perhaps more socially-attuned methods. Thus historically, the UK Government's emphasis on
'sound science' in policy contexts has tended to result, in practice, in the reduction of
complex and multi-dimensional risk questions into hard and precise scientific parameters,
excluding other substantive dimensions, because of the difficulty of rendering these
amenable to unambiguous measurement (Wynne 1996). One result is that the de facto
burden of proof before risk-controlling commitments are made has often been higher than
that prevailing in other countries' regulatory frameworks. Equally, wider debate and
consultation on such framing commitments- as recommended for example by US authorities
(NRC 1996)- may have been inhibited in the UK by the policy culture's traditions of
confidentiality and informality. Parallel debate is well-advanced in the US (NRC 1996) and in
other EU member states (Beck 1992; Hajer 1995) but that in the UK has its own distinctive
flavour. For in the latter case, it relates to distinctive tensions arising from the strong
relationship between embedded reductionist-scientific traditions and the expert advisory
structures of central government.
Biotechnology raises in acute and unresolved form key issues. now crystallising in this debate,
which in recent months has been generating a flurry of conferences and other discussions
within what might be called the scientific establishment (staged by for example, Royal Society
1997; the Royal Society of Medicine 1997; the Foundation for Science and Technology 1997;
and the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) 1997).
It is too early to foresee where these discussions may lead. But the fact that they are taking
place, and that the subject matter of this report touches on so many of their central themes,
gives added weight to the suggestion that the political arena of GMO regulation provides
something of a test bed for the capacity and preparedness of official bodies to respond to
significant new public concerns. It is relevant to note that still broader social-theoretical
discussions within the social sciences in certain EU member states are now exploring these
matters in relation to wider issues of 'risk society' ( Beck 1993, 1996; Giddens 1990, 1994;
Macnaghten and Urry 1997; Szerszynski et al 1996; Wynne 1996) under world-wide
circumstances of globalisation, free trade and deregulation.
This too is important, because it shows that the currents of anxiety and public concern,
raised in modest form in our focus group discussions, are now themselves being mirrored
also in cultural contexts further afield.
With this background in mind, we turn finally to possible ways forward for the UK.
Chapter 5: INNOVATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS
Our research points towards a need for innovation in both the political and the regulatory
processes surrounding the authorisation and marketing of GMO consumer products in
Britain. As argued in the previous chapter, the present regulatory system appears to be failing
to reflect important public concerns arising from acknowledged uncertainties and unknown
potential risks from the technology (however low their 'probabilities').
In this final chapter, some possible ways forward are explored. In advancing them, we are
conscious of the current context of considerable flux and self-examination within the UK
regulatory community, surrounding the appropriate roles and relationships of the various
institutional actors (scientists, politicians, officials, NGOs, et al) in the 'risk' sphere.
It may be useful first to make clear the principles on which our suggestions are based.
Innovation on What Terms ?
In the light of both the present focus group discussions and other social research in the UK
and continental Europe, it seems clear that there are now significant differences of opinion in
society about the intrinsic desirability of GMO technology, about the extent to which its
positive features can be kept separate from its negative features, and about the degree to
which its commercial diffusion is already 'inevitable'. It seems also prudent to assume that at
some stage something may go badly wrong with GMOs, and that in such circumstances an
important question for political institutions will be whether or not there is felt to be adequate
shared 'ownership' of the problems (and the benefits) amongst the population at large for a
serious collapse of confidence in government to be avoided.
Hence it seems important at this early stage in the commercial penetration of GMOs (a) to
establish whether widely accepted terms for the development and penetration of the
technology are already in place; (b) if not, whether and how these might now be
'negotiated'; and (c) whether any such terms, if they could be agreed, could be made
sufficiently socially resilient to absorb the pressures that would be placed on them in the
event of mishap.
The answer to all of these questions in present circumstances is- nobody knows.
As the previous chapter has explained, there appear now to be a range of lurking public
concerns unreflected in present regulatory processes, and these stand to be exacerbated if
they continue to go unacknowledged and unrepresented, as at present. But their extent and
depth remains unknown, as does the degree to which they could be palliated by closer
reflection in the country's current GMO decision processes.
It may be appropriate to add that recent government deregulatory drives in Britain, aimed at
enhancing the competitiveness and freedom of operation of industry, appear to imply a
corresponding set of new responsibilities for the companies who are the beneficiaries - in
relation to the wider societal implications of their commitments. In the biotechnology
sphere, this points to a particular obligation on companies actively to catalyse more
sophisticated patterns of interaction with public concerns and priorities, than are possible
simply at the point of sale.
So far, there has been minimal attempt in the UK to engage active public involvement in
discussion of GMO food-related matters, with the result inter alia, that both government
Chapter 5: INNOVATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS 27
and industry in the UK appear to be operating on the basis of seriously limited 'social
intelligence' relevant to possible future developments. The sole initiative taken to involve the
public actively appears to have been the 'National Consensus Conference on Plant
Biotechnology' mounted by the Science Museum and the Biotechnology and Biological
Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) in 1994. This pioneering event invited a panel of lay
people to evaluate expert arguments on the various dimensions of plant biotechnology, and
resulted in a short report which gave the technology cautious endorsement (Science Museum
1994). However, the Consensus Conference, admirable and illuminating though it was as an
experiment, proved something of a political cul-de-sac, principally because it was not
thought possible to link its findings into other statutory or Parliamentary processes, or to be
more systematically diffused. By contrast, Consensus Conferences in Denmark and the
Netherlands (on which features of the UK initiative were modelled) have a statutory basis and
have already helped shape public policy towards biotechnology and other ethically
contentious issues. Similarly, the report on the first-ever consensus conference held in
Norway has recently been published on Genetically Modified Food. This lay event took place
in October 1996, having been facilitated by the National Committees for Research Ethics and
the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board (1997).
Institutional Experiments
There appears to be major scope for new institutional experiment in Britain, to stimulate
wider discussion and insight about possible positive and negative social and environmental
implications of biotechnology as a whole, about the most acceptable product classes of
GMO food developments, about 'trans-species boundary questions', and about possible
'mishap' scenarios and how these might be mitigated. In the first instance, a programme of
events over two years might be considered, to test the most productive approaches.
Such experiments could include:
Regional consensus conferences
Regional citizens panels
Focus group discussions targeted on specific product classes
National workshops, aimed at distilling the findings for wider dissemination
We suggest it would be important for such initiatives be organised independently of
government, perhaps by joint industry/university/NGO coalitions of the kind that has facilitated
the present research project. This reflects the urgent need for new thinking about more
appropriate framings of the issues to be addressed in GMO regulation- which, by definition,
calls for deliberations unconstrained by the inherited categories of prevailing official
frameworks. However, from the outset it would be sensible for there to be strong reporting
links for the findings from these processes into such official bodies as the Parliamentary Office
of Science and Technology, the Health and Safety Executive, the proposed new Food Adviser/
Food Agency, and the UK Panel on Sustainable Development, all of whom might be invited in
advance to guarantee serious attention to the findings. There might also be an agreement
with both ACRE and ACNFP that they would hold at least one discussion annually with the
coordinating group of the events, to discuss implications of the latest findings and feedbacks.
Links with the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and the Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing
should also be ensured.
Resources for the events, and for a modest infrastructure to provide logistical support and
experience, might appropriately come from a combination of industry, research council, and/or
charitable funds. Relevant insight is available from Danish, Dutch and Norwegian experience,
and indeed from the Science Museum/BBSRC. There is also now an emerging body of
28 Chapter 5: INNOVATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS
complementary knowledge and experience beginning to become available through UK local
government and Local Agenda 21 initiatives - citizen panels, citizen juries, town meetings, local
referenda, and the like (Stewart 1996). This too could yield potentially relevant insights and
interactions.
Any such programme of experiments should be designed to help catalyse wider habits of public
discussion of GMO-related issues, on the basis that intelligently conceived critical debate will be
healthier than quiescence, will provide realistic public education (in the true sense) in important
contemporary developments, and will help mitigate the possibility of unpredicted GMO-related
political crises. As a result of such processes, both industry and government will be likely
themselves to gain finer-grained 'social intelligence' on the developing character of public
sensibilities on these matters than is currently available to them.
It should be stressed that there is a significant regional dimension to certain of the suggestions
made above. This again reflects concern to escape from the dominance of centralised London-
based perspectives, which tend to occlude the significance of cultural context and local
difference for 'real' people's concerns and attitudes, on issues of many kinds.
The events should be conducted on the basis that no issues are foreclosed, and that certain
classes of GMO development- or even a// GMO developments- could prove unacceptable.
However, the present research findings and the consensus conference experience referred to
above provide confidence that people will be discriminating and fair in their judgements. Such
discrimination could mean that some types of product would be rejected - but the side benefit
would then be that the wider social conditions of acceptability would be known to both
industry and regulatory bodies, and broadly shared responsibility for unforeseen contingencies
more clearly established.
These suggestions may appear to challenge present patterns of accountability. We suggest
that that is one of their strengths - in that they aim to explore new methods of engaging public
involvement and of expanding the shared pool of 'social intelligence' with respect to this
domain, as is appropriate in a mature democracy.
The experiments could also go some way to meeting more specific concerns flowing from the
research. Of these two issues received particular attention -namely- 'Labelling' and
'Information'.
The Limits of 'Labelling'
There were recurrent calls in the focus group discussions for full and explicit labelling of goods
using GMOs, so that people in their role as 'consumers' could decide for themselves whether or
not they wanted to use such products. In view of the range of different concerns by individuals,
and by the groups as a whole, this seems entirely reasonable and appropriate. The Consumers'
Association, National Consumer Council and other independent bodies have already called for full
labelling as a matter of course. Indeed, it has been pointed out widely in the media and
elsewhere that open display of product contents on packaging is a key corollary of free markets
working in the public interest.
For all of these reasons, full labelling of GMO products seems a sine qua non of proper
'regulation' of the technology. That said, however, certain significant qualifications should be
made.
First, labelling, however indispensable, does not appear in itself to be an adequate response to
some of the most significant concerns uncovered by the present research. Not only are there
strong indications that many people do not read or understand existing labels (because of the
complexity or opacity of the information they tend to contain). But also, more significantly,
reliance on labels as a political response to concerns about the wider cumulative implications of
biotechnology for society, reduces inherently general issues to matters of atomised consumer
'decision' at the point of sale. In this sense, it appears to be no response at all to the disturbing
wider social and political dynamics we perceive to be signalled by the research.
There are, moreover, further grounds for caution about seeing labelling (indispensable as it is)
as a panacea for the difficult public issues posed by biotechnology. Recent controversies -
particularly that surrounding imports into the UK of Monsanto's GMO soya bean -suggest that
there is a strong resistance by certain manufacturers to allowing overt discrimination between
GMO and non-GMO versions of the 'same' product- on both technical and political grounds.
Though it seems implausible that the claimed technical problems could not be overcome
readily, were the will present, the political issues appear currently to be more intractable. Thus,
under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, GMO products are regarded as 'substantially
equivalent' to non-GMO versions, and hence it is being argued that discrimination against
them by importing countries would be in breach of the agreed terms of global free trade. This
issue has yet to be resolved, and so - whatever its other far-reaching implications - it should
temper confidence that labelling can be guaranteed in the UK. The 'substantial equivalence'
criterion is now also enshrined in the most recent EU legislation on labelling of GMO products,
adding to the technical and political complexity of the issue. Nevertheless, we would underline
the finding from the research that, without labelling, public concerns about GMOs will be likely
to escalate - doubtless with the active involvement of consumer and environmental NGOs.
The 'Meanings' of Information
The questions begged by the labelling issue are particular facets of the wider issues raised by
calls for 'information' about biotechnology. Such calls for information featured repeatedly in
the discussions.
As with labelling, it is hard, on the face of it, to disagree with the overall aspiration.
Appropriate and adequate knowledge is a sine qua non of effective citizen participation in
public decisions.
However, experience in other domains involving public safety suggests that calls for 'more
information' beg important questions. What kinds of information are being requested here?
Is quality of information more important than quantity? If so, who is to decide, and how-
given that, by definition, those lacking information do not know what precisely it is they lack,
and those possessing it do not know precisely what might be most useful to those lacking it
(and indeed might be reluctant, for reasons of self interest, to provide it if they did know)?
These questions appear particularly relevant in the GMO sphere, where strenuous efforts
have already been made, by the EU Commission, the Food and Drink Federation, BBSRC and
others, to make biotechnology-related information (some of it of impressive fair-mindedness
and clarity) available to a wide public. In such a context, what is the meaning of the calls for
more information?
Our interpretation of the focus group discussions is that such calls need to be understood, in
part at least, as further surrogates for the striking lack of trust in present regulatory
frameworks expressed by many of the participants. The 'information' being called for might
best be described as a call for 'experience that convinces me genuinely that I can trust the
judgment and vision of the people and procedures governing decisions taken on my behalf',
30 Chapter 5: INNOVATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS
as a call for more technical data about the technology itself. If this is so, then institutional
innovation, which broadens the range of concerns and interests reflected in GMO decision
processes, is quite as urgent a priority as 'information' of a conventional kind.
It should be added that recent research (Macnaghten et al 1995) has suggested that
information distributed by bodies already mistrusted (on the basis of experience) by members
of the public, may simply compound mistrust and feelings of alienation. This reinforces th
need for sensitive interpretation of the contextual factors which appear to us to lie behind such
calls in the present case. It points also to the need for appropriate practical measures.
Our suggestion is that the key need arising from the research is for urgent and imaginative
'institutional' experiment, in Britain as elsewhere. This should be aimed both at attuning
industry and government better to public sensibilities, and at advancing public involvement in
the crucial range of issues raised by the new commercial phase of GMO technology. The
research gives grounds for concern that limitations in present arrangements, coupled to wider
inadequacies in present UK regulatory culture overall, may be concealing from view public
concerns of major significance for the future.
It follows that prompt and far-sighted action may now be needed in the public interest. We
trust that this report points in potentially useful directions, and we are grateful to our
collaborators for having made it possible.
Bibliography
Adams, W. 1995. Risk. London: UCL Press
Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: towards a new modernity. London: Sage
Beck, U. 1996. 'World risk society as cosmopolitan society? Ecological questions in a
framework of manufactured uncertainties', Theory, Culture and Society, 13: 1-32
CEC (Commission of the European Communities) 1991. Eurobarometer Brussels: European
Commission
CEC (Commission of the European Communities) 1993a. Eurobarometer Brussels: European
Commission
CEC (Commission of the European Communities) 1993b. White Paper on Growth,
Competitiveness and Employment. Brussels: European Commission
CEC (Commission of the European Communities) 1995. Eurobarometer Brussels: European
Commission
Ernst & Young 1994. Biotechnology's Economic Impact in Europe: a survey of its future role in
competitiveness. London: Ernst & Young
Food Future 1995. Consumers and Biotechnology Report on research for the Food and Drink
Federation, 18 September, London
Frewer, L., Howard, C. and Shepherd, R. 1996. 'Public concerns in the United Kingdom about
general and specific applications of genetic engineering', Science, Technology and
Human Values, 22: 98-124
Giddens, A 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity
Giddens, A 1994. 'Living in a post-traditional society', in U. Beck, A Giddens and S. Lash
Reflexive Modernisation. Cambridge: Polity
Grove-White, R. 1996. 'Environmental knowledge and public policy needs: on humanising
the research agenda', in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne
(eds.) Risk, Environment and Modernity: towards a new ecology London: Sage
Grove-White, R. 1997 (in press). 'Environment, risk and democracy', in M. Jacobs (ed.)
Greening the Millennium. Oxford: Blackwell
Hamstra, A 1995. Consumer Acceptance Model for Food Biotechnology Final report. Leiden:
SWOKA
Jasanoff, S. 1990. The Fifth Branch: science advisors as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press
Jasanoff, S., Markle, G., Petersen, J. and Pinch, T. (eds.) 1994. Handbook of Science and
Technology Studies. London and Newbury Park: Sage
32 Bibliography
Krohn, W. and Weyer, J. 1989. 'Gesellschaft als labor: die erzeugung socialer risiken durch
experimenter forchung', Sociale Welt, 3: 349-373
Krohn, W and Weyer, J 1994. 'Society as laboratory: the production of social risks by
experimental research', Science and Public Policy, 21:173-183
Levidow, L. 1996. 'Regulating GMO releases: Britain's precautionary dilemmas', Nature,
Science, Societies, 4: 131-143
Levidow, L. and Carr, S. 1996. 'UK: Disputing boundaries of biotechnology regulation', Science
and Public Policy, 23: 164-170
MacGill, S. 1987. The Politics of Anxiety: the Black Inquiry and childhood leukemias around
Sellafield. London: Pion
Macnaghten, P. 1995. 'Public attitudes to countryside leisure: a case study on ambivalence',
Journal of Rural Studies, 11 : 13 5-14 7
Macnaghten, P. and Scott J. 1994. 'Changing worldviews of students', ECOS, 15: 2-7
Macnaghten, P. and Urry, J. 1997 (in press). Contested Natures. London: Sage
Macnaghten, P., Grove-White, R., Jacobs, M. and Wynne, B. 1995. Public Perceptions and
Sustainability: indicators, institutions, participation. Preston: Lancashire County Council
Martin, S. and Tait, J. 1992a. Release of Genetically Modified Organisms: public attitudes and
understanding. Report to the Laboratory of the Government Chemist: Bioscience and
Innovation, June 1992.
Martin, S. and Tait, J. 1992b. Biotechnology: cognitive structures of public groups. Report to
the Laboratory of the Government Chemist: Bioscience and Innovation, October 1992
Mayer, S., Hill, J., Grove-White, R. and Wynne,B. 1996. 'Uncertinty, precaution and decision
making: the release of Genetically Modified Organisms into the environment',
UK ESRC Global Environmental Change Programme Briefings, No. 8, 8 June
McSorley, J. 1990. Living in the Shadow: the people of West Cumbria and the nuclear industry
London: Pluto
National Research Council (US) 1996, 'Understanding Risk', Washington DC, National Academy
Press
Nature 1997. 'Risk and the inadequacy of science', and 'Policy learns about risk the hard way',
Nature, Vol. 385, 2 January
Royal Society of London 1992. Risk: analysis, perception, and management. London: Royal
Society
Science Museum 1994, Report on UK National Conference on Plant Technology. London:
Science Museum
Bibliography 33
Singleton, V and Michael, M. 1993. 'Actor networks and ambivalence: general practitioners in
Cervical Screening Programme', Social Studies of Science, 23: 227-264
Stewart, J. 1996. Further Innovation in Democratic Practice. University of Birmingham: School
of Public Policy
Szerszynski, B., Lash, S. and Wynne, B. 1996. 'Introduction: ecology, realism and the social
sciences', inS. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne (eds.) Risk, Environment and
Modernity: towards a new ecology. London: Sage
The National Committees for Research Ethics and the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board
1997. Fast Salmon and Technoburgers. Report from the consensus conference on
genetically modified food, 18-21 October 1996, Oslo
Wynne, B. 1980. 'Technology, risk and participation: on the social treatment of uncertainty',
in J. Conrad (ed.) Society, Technology and Risk. London: Academic Press
Wynne, B. 1992. 'Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and the public uptake
of science', Public Understanding of Science, 1: 281-304
Wynne, B. 1996. 'May the sheep safely graze', inS. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne
(eds.) Risk, Environment and Modernity: towards a new ecology. London: Sage
Wynne, B. and Mayer, S. 1993. 'How science fails the environment', New Scientist, 1876: 33-
35
Wynne, B., Waterton, C., and Grove-White, R. 1993. Public Perceptions and the Nuclear
Industry in West Cumbria. Lancaster: CSEC, Lancaster University
34 Bibliography
Annex: FINDINGS IN FULL
This annex summarises the full findings of the focus group discussions. It is divided into five
sedions. The first addresses people's reactions to biotechnology in food, including an initial
assessment of recent changes in the 'world of food'. This is followed by discussion of people's
responses to actual and proposed GMO consumer products, and an examination of the various
factors underpinning these responses. The annex continues with an account of how people
charaderise their concerns about biotechnology, and finishes by examining how people conceive
of the trustworthiness of different actors responsible for the regulation and promotion of the
technology.
Food appears to have become a topic of growing reflection for people in the 1990s. In all of the
groups, with the exception of the Lancashire schoolgirls, there was an articulate discussion of the
role of food in contemporary life, and how this had changed over the past 15 or 20 years. For
most people food had got better. Convenience, greater international variety, more choice for
vegetarians and an improved ability to assess foods for their 'healthiness' were regarded as
positive changes over the past decade or so. Against this was the erosion of the 'family meal',
concerns about more and more processing, the use of artificial preservatives and colouring
agents, and an apparent increase in food health scares. Although some expressed a sense of loss
that fresh foods were eaten less, the pressures of busy lives meant that convenience food was
inevitable and necessary. Thus, people seemed to identify a dilemma: although food had made
aspects of life better, there was a price to pay in the form of long-term food risks and animal
welfare considerations. For some better off participants the solution to this was more organic
and natural foods, but this was not seen as a realistic option for the less well off.
Fewer than half the participants had heard of biotechnology in the context of food. Those that
had mentioned products such as Zeneca's genetically modified tomato and the active controversy
over Monsanto's genetically modified soybean. A concept board, the wording of which had been
worked out in consultation with experienced Unilever market researchers and NGO partners, was
used to introduce the subject. This stated:
Biotechnology is the name given to a wide range of agricultural, industrial and medical
technologies that use living things (e.g. microbes, plants or animals) to provide goods.
Traditional products of biotechnology include beer, wine yoghurt or bread. Recent scientific
developments now enable food producers to change the genetic composition of food stuffs,
including the transfer of genes between species. Some hope such developments may
improve food products in terms of shelf life, appearance, flavour and ease of processing.
Even though the concept board had been carefully drafted to be even-handed and impartial, the
dominant reaction in all groups was negative. A range of responses arose:
that genetic modification constituted 'meddling' with nature and should be avoided;
that BSE illustrated the unforeseen hazards which could arise from such meddling;
that such interference in nature illustrated the extent to which industry, science and
technology now permeated daily life;
that the supposed benefits were for the private commercial interests promoting the
technology rather than the consumer; and
that such developments made them feel wary, suspicious and to wonder 'why' ? .
Such reactions were frequently coupled with a sense of fatalism and resignation. It was
'unnatural':
Annex: FINDINGS IN FULL 37
It sounds like they're going to do a load more messing about and I don't know why they
don't just miss that bit out and hurry up and make 3 pills, breakfast dinner and tea. We'd all
have a lot less to worry about [ironic laughter]. ... You get shades of Adolf Hitler; you know,
you get the supreme fruit and veg.
(North London Non-Working Mothers)
It sounds dangerous and unnatural . ... I get the impression that all the food's been meddled
with in a laboratory before it reaches the supermarket. It doesn't interest me at all. It's like all
these, you know these fruits that they inject with stuff to keep the apples redder for longer
and things. I want food to be fresh, I don't want it to have all this stuff in it. .. But that's like
scientifically taking natural food and making it unnatural.
(North London Working Mothers)
I think it should just be left alone. I don't think we should mess with nature. Nature was
designed for specific reasons. We mess about with it we've no right. ... I don't know, you
can mess about too much, can't you ?
(North London Working Fathers)
I find the whole concept of genetic engineering scary. It's messing around with nature isn't
it? I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing . ... That's it. It's tampering with nature. What
damage is it going to do ? If they're messing around with nature like that what damage is it
going to do to the environment? In twenty or thirty years time? I mean, maybe you won't
be able to grow your own vegetables then. Because of the damage to the ozone layer; or
something like that.
(North London 'Green Consumers')
When /look at it I think oh, they're dabbling with nature, aren't they? You read scientific
developments, that jumps out at me, scientific developments . ... You think well they're trying
to, you know, genetically change things, and all this, well what are they putting in it to
genetically change it.
It's like an interference with nature. Although they may say that it will be better; how do you
know it is going to be better; because you don't know what they've done to it do you ? So
I'd be very untrusting of it really ... I mean anything to do with genetics is frightening, isn't it
really? [In what way is it frightening to you ?) Well because they cannot prove that if it's new,
then they haven't had time to do any tests, have they over a number of years.
Well, beer; wine, yogurt and bread have been made for centuries and the main ingredient ... is
yeast and that is a natural biotechnological product I presume. When you get down to today I
don't like it. I'll accept that if we've got to feed starving millions in the vvorld, you've got to find
some way of producing masses of food cheaply but at the same time I don't like it because it's a
form of interference with nature, and I'm suspicious of any interference with nature. And I think if
you're doing mutations or whatever with foods or animals it's only a short step then to justifying it
to doing it with humans and I don't like anything that might lead to. .. I think it's the thin of the
wedge in many ways; which has already been breached.
(Lancashire Church Goers)
It doesn't seem natural. ... For man to interfere with the nature of things. I know processes of
evolution, everything goes through changes, sometimes for the better; sometimes for the
worse, but I'm not sure whether man should play God and change things for the better; for
the lucre at the end of the day
(Lancashire Risk Takers)
38 Annex: FINDINGS IN FULL
But I also think it can go a bit too far; because a tomato is a tomato really isn't it and I
think that they're trying to do so much, and make food so much better; I think they don't
know what they're getting rid of and I think they can tamper too much . ... Well! don't
think it's right because like it's saying they're changing the actual species, and each
species has adapted for its own life, and it isn't fair to change that just so we can see
something that looks nicer
(Lancashire School Girls)
To illustrate how 'unnatural' interventions may have unforeseen and dangerous long-term
consequences, an analogy was often drawn with BSE, when cattle were fed sheep and other
mammalian offal. Turning cows into carnivores (and at times cannibals) was seen as unnatural
and the effects bad. BSE had demonstrated the power of nature to 'strike back'. Genetic
modification sounded like a similar scale of interference with natural processes, leading many
people to expect harmful effects in the long-term:
F Well they seem to come up, you hear more and more things, I think you do personally
but everybody's denying what caused BSE and that it's something to do with unnatural
processes with animal foods as far as I understand it.
F Forcing natural herbivores to eat meat.
F Yes and I just think it's unnatural. Is it good for you ?
F I think we're worried basically about the safety aspects.
M I'm definitely negative. I think if I'd read that before BSE my thoughts might have been
more positive, but I think, like John said, I think you have to. Unfortunately we're going
the hard way about meddling in things that we don't really understand- Yes, at the end
of the day we were feeding meat to herbivores weren't we, so what do we really know
about what we're doing here .... I just think we meddle too much and, I don't know,
maybe we think that we've tested these things enough but we can never be sure, be
sure what the effects are going to be in 5 years, or maybe 10 years time. When do you
draw the line at the end of the day ?
Another response was that biotechnology was too scientific for people to comprehend easily and
many wanted to know more about what was involved. There was a feeling that scientific and
technical interventions moved food even further from its (desirable) natural state. Although
current processed foods were acknowledged not to be 'natural', further 'scientific' processing in
the form of genetic modification was an intensification of this. Thus some people conceived of
genetic modification as a new tier of processing with foods produced in this way being an
unwelcome move away from nature (and the land) into science (and the laboratory).
F Why does science have to come into food ?
Mod Go on, finish the thought.
F Put myself on the spot now. Food is grown and produced.
F Fish fingers aren't. Pizzas aren't.
F Shut up!
Mod Let her talk.
F Cheese and things, why does science have to get involved ? (Ot's not necessary is it.
M 1 mean if you look at traditional ones, you're not really changing the composition in the
way that is anything natural about it but now you interfere with what is natural within a
product or a species. For what reason, what is the point of messing around with it ?
A further link was drawn between genetic modification, science and chemicals in food. More
science was commonly equated with more chemically contaminated and less natural food.
People drew on their experiences of additives and chemicals when they read the concept of
biotechnology and linked the two in a negative way: 'It sounds vef}l technical to me' (North
London Working Mothers); 'It makes me think of chemicals' (Lancashire Non-Working Mothers);
'I automatically think of artificiality' (Lancashire Church Goers).
However, having to eat genetically modified foods was felt to be 'inevitable'. A number expected
they were already eating such foods unwittingly. And even though genetic modification was
identified as a further development in the history of 'meddling' with nature, it was also seen as
starkly different to past developments in food processing. Genetic modification was seen by
many as changing foods in ways which are irreversible, fundamental, and not possible through
traditional preparation techniques in the home which convenience foods replicate. This
'newness' and unnaturalness raised moral concerns over human entitlement to restructure the
foundations of life as we know it. Most people had considerable difficulty articulating such
concerns, so they were often latent and disguised in the exchanges that took place:
F I was just thinking though about, like the food that's in the supermarkets now, the pre-
processed or pre- .. you know, so you don't have to do all the fiddly bits yourself, but I
don't think of it as being scientific. I mean you're transferring [genes} ... I think that's
something completely different.
F It's like pre- processed isn't it, so they've cooked it for you.
F They've done things you would do to it.
F And they've peeled and cored things, like you would have done, its not actually scientific,
they're not doing anything particularly scientific.
Mod So what's totally different here, why is this suddenly totally different ?
F Because they're talking about transferring genes.
F Basic ingredients isn't it.
F What are they trying to do, are they trying to put sort of animal genes, mix sort of 2 sorts
of animals.
F And plants.
F Or mix sort of 2 sorts of plants.
F Animal or plants.
F You don't like, we have pets, we have babies but we don't mix their genes.
Another common response was to demand to know WHY this was being done. What social
interests or purposes was it serving? Genetic modification was seen by some as a morally
contentious act which needed serious justification. Increasing profit was for many people not a
sufficiently good argument for such intervention. There was almost no support for claims for
'improved shelf life', 'appearance', 'flavour or ease of processing', as these seemed to be trivial or
insufficient reasons for meddling with foods which were generally viewed as basically fine:
F Food is all right as it is . ... We're not sure if it's for our benefit or the manufacturers
benefit.
Mod So the question it raises for you is for whose benefit ?
F Yes I think so. Because it says there, ... perhaps the increase in flavour might be of benefit
[to us} but the other things are of no importance. I don't care what it looks like and I don't
care how long it's on the shelf for
F The rest of it ... they're adding something to it to make it taste different to what it should
taste like.
Mod Do you not think that all this is to actually improve life for consumers ?
F It doesn't sound like it.
F
F
I think that's how they will project things, but I think the problem is that the trust has gone
anyway, generally speaking, I mean, we've had so many things that we've all eaten for years
and then they've told you 'don't eat this,' and then 2 years down the line say 'well actually
you ought to still have a bit of it'. I think the trust has gone.
But all these foods; they are messing around with them. It's them that's causing the problem,
not the food.
F Well what's wrong with how things have been for years and years; what's wrong with a
tomato, or what's wrong with the banana, what's you know ..
F Maybe if you can give like some, if you can do it and its going to improve, and you can give
cold hard evidence that it's not going to harm you, there's no funny drugs been put in it,
there's nothing that's going to cause some disease or something twenty years down the line,
then yea. But how can they, how can they say what's going to happen twenty years down
the line.
Mod And how can they say that ?
F Well they can't, ci=m they ? They've got to guinea pig people aren't they, and is it worth... I
. don't know, it's just to me, it's scientific developments jumped out. And I know science has
got to move on and everything, but it always makes you a bit dubious I think.
F Scaf}l ...
F My first reaction when I read it was, why do we need to bother with that ? I mean there has
to be some advantage for the customer for something like this to be brought in, and for me
in terms of improving shelf life and appearance, flavour I don't think it's necessary
M I can only really echo what these have said other than there's a saying that 'if it isn't broke,
don't bother trying to fix it', and there's nothing wrong with food as it is naturally except that
it hasn't got a long shelf life. So really I can see pound signs all over that that sentence up
there, that's all it's really to do with.
M Yes, well that's all that is all about really, isn't it, to make food last longer so that we don't
have to throw away so much at the end of the day, ... being preserved for longer
Mod It says here in terms of shelf life, appearance, flavour and ease of processing ... [referring to
concept board]
M Appearance is not really important. ...
M The thing as well, you wouldn't be sure that ease of processing, that we'd actually see a
benefit of that. It's the processors that would benefit.
M Price wouldn't come down would it.
M No it won't. Probably is about lucre, but it's a lot more money in other people's pockets.
However, a minority of individuals welcomed the potential application of genetic modification as a
positive response to demands for more food. Genetic modification was seen as having considerable
potential for helping solve problems of world hunger in the face of mounting population pressures,
especially in the Third World. But, with a few exceptions, people tended to view such potential
benefits as unlikely to be released in the currently dominant commercial climate:
M I tend to think that most people are reluctant to change . ... and anything which comes on
the horizon it's usually put down as let's stay as we are, things in the past have been better
In a world where the population is expanding at a high rate you've got to, in all areas, be as
efficient and use technology in the most efficient manner, and in this respect although I'm
not particularly happy perhaps with choosing that food myself, I think it's something which
has to progress to help everybody, or at least to test whether or not the results would be
beneficial to help everybody
Mod
M
M
M
F
Right, so we have to go down this path ?
We have to explore it and then to determine whether it was worth-while.
Yes, that's what I see, the experimentation. I think we've got, if we were to leave it, you
know, and as [Anne} was saying, you know, if we want to leave it and not to tamper with
foods and everything, you know, when you look at the world as it is, we'd never be able
to feed the world. And I think it's looking at the Third World countries and everything,
you know, and the only way we can do that is by experiment. And I think, I'm a big
believer in 'it's every person to his own trade', whatever you call it, it's every person to his
own, his skill and everything and I think you've got to trust. .. It's like when you go to the
doctor. You trust your doctor exactly what he's says to you and what he gives you
everything. So we've got to trust these biotechnicians with the experiments and doing
our changes and I'm sure it is for the best. ...
I don't believe that farmers are necessarily thinking about the Third World.
No, /don't.
(Lancashire Church Goers).
Overall, however, people's immediate responses to genetically modified foods, outside the
context of particular products, tended to reflect unease at inadequately restrained meddling with
nature, and questioning of intentions. Analogies were drawn with other experiences of food and
the risks of genetically modified foods were expected to be analogous in character to those
brought about by chemicals and industrial systems of food production - additives and BSE being
the most commonly used examples.
To explore in more depth the factors that may influence how people form opinions and attitudes
about genetically modified foods, participants were encouraged to react specifically to three
products currently available which use genetic modification in their production, and to three
proposed products. An outline of the responses to each product is given below. The themes
which cut across the individual products are then presented in the section following, to throw
light on what appeared to be shaping people's reactions to genetically modified foods.
BOX 1: Washing Powder
The concept board had a picture of several brands of biological washing powders and a list of
their ingredients. The accompanying text said:
'Biological washing powders contain enzymes made by genetically modified bacteria to
improve stain removal at low temperatures'.
Using genetic modification to produce enzymes for use in products like washing powder seemed
to arouse little or no anxiety because people saw any side effects as likely to be immediate and
visible to the senses. For many people this lack of concern followed from the perception that
such products, unlike foods, would not be directly ingested into the body. They seemed willing to
buy these washing powders, if no allergic or other skin reaction resulted.
F ... unless you really sat down and thought about it, you wouldn't think about it at all,
because you'd think: 'Oh I'm not eating it, it's not going in my body'.
F But when its touching your skin you can see the reaction, can't you?
F You wouldn't think about it until something actually happened.
F And it would probably happen fairly immediately, the tomato might come out in twenty
years time, might be when you have children, I don't know, could do anything, but the
washing powder would show up straight away
F Yes, well, rightly or wrongly I believe that if you had a problem with that soap powder
you'd know about it. ...
F
F
F
F
F
Yes, two or three uses and you'll know. If you come up in a red rash you don't use it
again. Same with a cleaning product, isn't it?
You can take immediate action and choose something different because there is a
choice at the moment.
I'm quite happy to use the powders because I don't feel that it's doing us any harm but
like you say, if your children are suffering from eczema then you would be careful about
using them. ...
Because they're not actually going into your body You're not consuming anything. It's
just cleaning your clothes but like Nannette was saying, it is going into the water supply
so that's not such a good thing.
And also you have ordinary soap powders, if you find that it is harming your skin in any
way you can change back.
Thus washing powders were placed in contrast to foods and the types of risks those may pose.
Any problems associated with foods were expected to be delayed, less easy to identify and
impossible to avoid.
BOX 2: Tomato Puree
The concept board had a picture of a Sainsbury's Californian tomato puree with the label
'Made with genetically modified tomatoes'. The accompanying text said:
'These tomatoes have been genetically modified to soften more slowly This makes processing
into tomato paste easier'.
There was a division, even amongst those who had expressed serious concerns about genetic
modification, about whether they would buy this product or not. About one third to half of the
people in all the groups said they would probably buy it:
F That doesn't frighten me. No I'd buy that.
F /would.
F I'd have no qualms about it.
F Yes, I probably would. None at all.
Some explained they would buy the product if it was cheaper, or because it was deemed
unrealistic to read labels and evaluate risks in the rush of shopping. Their assessment of whether
it would be purchased came more from a sense of the realities of how they operated in the world
rather than from positive feelings about the tomato puree:
F Well you'd think it was, you'd look at it and think, oh that's good because it makes it
easier, but then if you thought about it any more deeply than that, you'd think 'well why
have they done it?' But you're in a rush when you go shopping so you look at things
that are easier to do or whatever.
Others considered processed food to have been altered already, so further alteration was less
contentious than for fresh food:
F I think things in tubes and tins we're not so fussy about.
F That's right.
F Because we tend to expect things in tins and tubes to have other stuff put inside.
We've got used to it
However, while many people were willing to buy the product (especially if the price was right), there
was no actual support for the concept of tomatoes that softened more slowly. The dominant view
was that this development had been carried out in the interests of food producers and their profits,
not for the consumer:
F It's not for us ...
F It's for them to economise.
A minority of people viewed such a development as morally wrong, and possibly likely to cause
unexpected effects. A number of people reflected on how rotting was a natural process that
should happen in its own time, and how interfering with this could lead to unpredictable effects.
Others commented on how rotting provided a visual trigger for when to throw things away; losing
this sign could bring hidden effects:
F Yes they should rot. If it's time for them to rot, it's time for them to rot, and that's telling
you that they're not good anymore. And if you put something in it or done something to it
to stop it' from rotting, maybe it's still doing something and you can't see it.
For others, the vision of genetically modified (unnatural) tomatoes disturbed their sense of reality
and whether such a tomato was really a tomato: 'Is the tomato still a tomato ?'(Lancashire Non-
Working Mothers); 'It's tampering isn't it?' (Lancashire Church Goers); 'It's been meddled with'
(Lancashire Risk Takers). The suspicion with which people generally viewed the intentions of
companies can be seen in the passage below, concerning whether the innocuous sounding tomato
puree might be the first stage of a master plan to get consumers to accept other products:
M I think the other point is as well that any new line or new method, the actual marketing
people have to be very careful how they introduce it to the public and if they were to
introduce the right tomato, first and foremost and say 'this is your tomato that has been
modified', or 'this is your orange', people will immediately stand back and take guard and
be suspicious. If they put it in a paste which is perhaps not the main product sale and it's in
a tube and it's in a box, people are a lot less susceptible to what they're actually buying. If it
doesn't appear to be a fresh product, it's camouflaged to some degree and then several
months down the road the advertiser and manufacturer says: 'well this has been on the
shelf for the last two years and you've been buying it' and people say: 'oh yes but we
hadn't realised'. It's a subtle way of introducing it onto the market.
Thus a series of issues were influencing opinion about the genetically modified tomato. Seeing an
innocuous looking product, acknowledging everyday realities of shopping and the feeling that
processed foods were already unnatural led many people to feel that they would buy genetically
modified tomato paste. However, this was against a background of questioning the motives of the
producer, and most importantly, scepticism as to whether slower softening would be beneficial for
the consumer:
BOX 3: 'Vegetarian' Cheese
The concept board had a picture of the Coop's vegetarian cheese with the label 'Produced using
gene technology and so free from animal rennet'. The accompanying text said:
'This vegetarian cheese is made using an enzyme from genetically modified yeast. This enzyme
replaces rennet taken from calves' stomachs. '
There seemed to be few clear views on the cheese - partly because most people were not
vegetarians, and so did not feel the issue was relevant to them, and partly because they were
confused about the process of cheese making and the role of enzymes, calves and so on. In general
it was less contentious than other products and many people said they would buy it if it tasted the
same as any other cheese:
F It depends what the taste is as well, doesn't it. I mean if I tried it and I didn't like it,
I wouldn't eat it again. I mean, I'd try it perhaps but if I go for an Edam, I want Edam,
I don't want fortified Edam because I know what Edam tastes like.
But some people still disliked the idea of 'messing about' with traditional foods. However, because
of the link with vegetarians and the possible reduction of animal suffering, this was one situation
where people could see some justification for the process, although whether it was a simple
alternative between cows' stomachs or genetic modification was also questioned:
F Well, if I read that saying about the enzyme replaces the rennet, I would think yes'. I would
rather have that, but not knowing what the enzyme means; but I think in preference it
replaces the rennet from calves' stomachs. Just by reading it.
Thus no strong emotions were raised about the Co-op's vegetarian cheese. However, there was a
thoughtful questioning about how cheese was made and the interests of vegetarians, intertwined
with more straightforward considerations about taste and cost.
BOX 4: Chocolate Bars or Baby Food
The concept board had a picture of a baby food packet which includes soy protein and labels
from two chocolate bars containing lecithin extracted from soybean. The accompanying text
said: 'Chocolate bars and some baby foods may contain soy products. Soybeans have been
genetically modified to be resistant to herbicides'.
Concerns were raised not simply about the genetic modification, but also about the use of
chemicals in agriculture and their presence in food. Whether the use of herbicide was increased or
reduced was seen as an important part of coming to a view on GMOs:
M So I'm against herbicide rather that the fact that they've used soybean.
If chemical use was reduced, this could make the soybean more attractive but people felt in
something of a dilemma, as the issues were not seen as straightforwardly good or bad:
F It's preventing us from having to put up with something even worse.
M They can use more herbicides, stronger herbicides and it doesn't affect his crop, doesn't
affect us, doesn't help us, doesn't improve the product. It just makes life easier, therefore
more profitable for the farmer. The farmer will do anything to improve his yield and
maximise his profit margins, absolutely anything.
Not surprisingly perhaps, the inclusion of genetically modified soybean in baby food was much
more unwelcome than in chocolate bars. People thought they would not bother to read the
labels on chocolate if they existed and would continue to buy them even if they contained
products of genetically modified soybean. However, for baby foods it was a different story:
F I think when you've got things like baby food and that you automatically wouldn't want
things in that that have been genetically interfered with, whatever:
Thus, with herbicide resistant soybean a complex weighing up of contingent factors tended to
emerge. Was genetic modification better than chemical use? Would it really achieve a reduction
in chemical use ? Should babies be expected to run any risks with their food ?
BOX 5: Pork
The concept board had pictures of pork chops and pigs. The accompanying text said:
'Pork could come from pigs which have been genetically modified with a human gene to grow
more quickly'.
There was overwhelming shock at the proposal to genetically modify pigs in this way. The strong
feelings expressed ranged from revulsion at the prospect, to concerns for the animals involved.
Indeed people tended to become more sceptical about genetic modification in total when the pig
example was raised, as it seemed to raise questions concerning the trustworthiness of those
involved: if they were doing this, what else would they do and where would it lead ? Thus for
many participants, the tenor of the discussion changed from one of ambivalence or fair-
mindedness, to one of outrage and disgust. All except two groups raised the issue of cannibalism
- eating human genes felt fundamentally wrong. It was both disgusting and immoral:
M It's immoral.
M It's immoral, it's wrong . ...
M How can we eat human gene, that cannot be right.
M I think we're eating it now.
M I also say that the fact that they're not growing quick enough, doesn't mean there's a
shortage in the supply of pork so why are they doing it.
Another common concern was where the human gene came from, not only because of issues of
consent but also because it raised the prospect of experimentation on foetuses.
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Where does it come from ?
Whose human gene is it? Where are they getting the human gene from?
But the thing is where do they get the genes from ?
They're dabbling with nature again, aren't they?
Human gene, dead human, live humans, embryos, aborted ?
I did hear that they use them a lot because there was a big outcry
We just don't know what goes on, do we ?
It's quite frightening really
Well they've got to get it from somewhere, haven't they ?
Sometimes better not to know.
The possible consequences of eating human genes and human material entering the food chain
were of particular concern:
46 Annex: FINDINGS !N Fllll
M
F
I mean what are the consequences of eating a human gene for Christ's sake ?
Is it safe to, eventually you're taking some, genes are so complex aren't they? Eventually
you're getting somebody else's gene. If its been modified with a human gene, it's like the
food chain. It comes back to you eventually
There was also an overall feeling that this simply could not be justified:
F
F
Mod
M
Mod
F
M
F
M
F
It's just the idea of making something grow more quickly, just so we can consume it more
quickly, doesn't appeal at all.
No it doesn't for me.
Right. So is that different from the last one ? [referring to discussion of a proposed
medicine modified with a human gene, see Box 6 below]
Yes, yes I think so because this is just for profit. Profit and pleasure. The other wasn't.
And say a bit more why that is different. I mean, how's that different for you ? I mean,
why does that make it less acceptable ?
Well the other one I suppose, in a sense it had a purpose behind - it was going to help
someone with a serious, hopefully serious, illness and there might possibly be an
argument for it. But I don't think there's an argument for feeding an animal to make it
grow more quickly to feed, you know, to ...
Just so we can kill them.
Just so that we can kill them more quickly and eat them more quickly I don't like that.
That's immoral to me.
It makes me shudder:
F It's not like there weren't enough pigs to go round anyway, so why do they need to do it ?
So there were a complex set of factors influencing the sense of revulsion at the genetic
modification of the pig. Issues of animal welfare, unnatural interventions, whose genes were
involved and where it would all end were all raised. The only obvious gain for society was
financial gain, and this was not considered an adequate reason for venturing into such a deeply
contentious area.
BOX 6: Medicine
The concept board had a picture of sheep and of drug bottles and an injection. The
accompanying text said:
'A medicine is being developed to treat lung disease. It will be produced from a drug
extracted from the milk of sheep which have been genetically modified with a human gene.'
Whilst people felt the genetic modification of animals to produce a medicine was easier to
justify than for other reasons, there certainly was not carte blanche approval for use of animals
in this way. As well as concerns over where the gene had come from, there were other issues
to weigh up. Firstly, the severity of the disease to be treated was important. Only if the
treatment was for a life threatening disease could it be justified:
F I find that acceptable because it's for a purpose, it's not just for the sake of it.
F Depending on ... I wouldn't if it was just something for a common cold, but if it was
more serious.
M I think it would also matter how serious the lung or which lung disease it was being
treated. If it was a minor lung disease, I think there would be a lot of opposition,
irrespective of what gene it was. If it was a life saving drug there'd be less
opposition.
Secondly, there was a demand for alternatives to be investigated:
F If they can produce the gene, why can't they do the whole thing themselves? Why
do they have to use a sheep. I mean all this is chemically based. Why do they need
an animal? Why can't they take it from beginning to end?
M ... we must progress and look for alternatives. This is a good example of one isn't it,
where yes they've found a way of producing this drug that helps prevent lung cancer
or helps the treatment of it. Once they've manufactured this drug, then there's a
chance that they can remanufacture an artificial source of the same, which has
happened with many drugs I would think.
Thirdly, there were concerns about the welfare of the animals involved:
F I'm a bit concerned about these poor sheep though.
F "I don't think I know enough about, like what happens to the sheep.
F Yea, my initial thing was could they not do ... , but could they not find another
method, a different cure ?
Mod So people have got some worries about the sheep ?
F If no harm comes to the sheep then I'm all for it, because it's saving lives isn't it, but
you don't want cruelty to the animals do you?"
Finally, people felt that the sheep might find their way into the human food chain because
controls would not be able to keep them separate. This raised issues of unexpected
effects of human material in the food chain:
F I don't know because we might end up eating those sheep anyway.
M I wouldn't be convinced that they wouldn't slaughter the sheep at some point and it
enter the food chain again.
So a complex set of factors helped constitute opinions about the genetically modified sheep.
The same revulsion that was expressed about using a genetically modified pig to produce
pork did not come across when speaking about this potential source of drug production.
That the sheep were not intended for food production removed one important source of
concern, but the fear that they might inadvertently enter the food chain was a factor which
led to anxiety. However, people were willing to set aside their concerns in the interests of
treating serious illness.
Why is it being done?
This question was voiced repeatedly by all the groups with all the products. Although people
rarely seemed to have terms adequate to fully articulate their moral concerns, unease about the
morality of gene transfer, whatever the species involved, seemed to underlie this question. The
motives behind genetic modification of food were commonly seen to be money and profit, and
these were felt to be insufficient justification in themselves. Claims that genetic modification
would improve consumer products through ease of processing or appearance were found very
contentious and considered trivial. Generally people were sceptical as to whether genetically
modified products would benefit the consumer. They thought the true motivations driving such
developments were narrowly commercial:
F
F
My thoughts are that it's basically money-orientated, isn't it? ... We don't need that.
We've got the natural tomatoes. We don't need that.
That's what they're saying. Well yeah, to improve shelf life. But that's only going to put
money in their pocket because they can keep the product on the shelf longer before they
have to throw it away rotten. ... So it's all money when it comes down to it. Somebody's
making a big buck out of it.
Because food was considered intrinsically fine at the moment, people could see no real need for
such changes. Some even questioned whether improving flavour by genetic modification wasn't
simply a 'technical fix' to a problem created by earlier changes in food production:
F I started out not too bad when I had the discussion, I thought I'd have an open mind
about it, but I've changed my mind as soon as I saw that [one] about the human gene, it
really .. suddenly the enormity of it made me feel really awful. I got an awful feeling
about it, because I thought it was something that, I think we're touching things that we
don't realise and I think we're taking things out of the earth and we're now trying to
correct it by using things like genetic engineering because the mistakes were made. And I
feel that time's just ticking by and we don't realise what's going to happen in the future.
I think something terrible could happen; it's given me a bad feeling really.
Although, as reactions to the different products show, some applications appeared more
acceptable than others, if judged by whether people thought they would end up buying them,
none was wholeheartedly welcomed. It was more a case of picking the lesser of several evils:
F
M
M
I think there has to be boundaries though. ... Just because it's going to be cheaper it could
actually do something that might .... It's not really natural and you have to get to the
point of saying 'well is it acceptable to do this ?'
I think realistically no-one in this room is actually excited by the prospect of genetically
engineered food, whether it be plant or animal.
I think it would be bad enough if it was from a plant, I think we all said before we prefer
people not to mess with these things, but the fact that it comes from a human being is
just, I'll use the word distasteful again.
Which species are being used ?
As well as latent anxiety and unease about genetic modification in general, people's concerns
reflected the species chosen for genetic modification as well as the donor species for the genes.
Using genes from humans was almost taboo. There seemed to be no support for the use of
human genes in food, with people feeling it tantamount to cannibalism. There were moral
concerns about whether such gene transfers should be allowed at all. Even the use of human
genes in animals for medicine was questioned. Fears were expressed about genes of human
origin re-entering the food chain inadvertently because of poor controls, and the harmful effects
these could have in the long term.
A second strand of concern focused on the use of animals. This centred on their welfare and
how this would be affected by genetically modifying them. Even though this was most acute for
the use of animals for food production, it also carried over into the medical use of animals. Thus
whether drugs could be produced in other ways was a common question, as was whether the
condition to be treated was life threatening. Therefore, even for medical applications of genetic
modification, people needed careful justification on the broadest grounds connected with both
the genetic modification itself and with wider issues of animal welfare and our duties to animals.
Even if no physical effects were seen some people felt animals were being abused by the genetic
modification itself. Another strand for some, especially in the regular Church Goers group, was
that the gradual move from plants to animals suggested that humans might be the next focus of
genetic modification. Giving ground and allowing genetic modification of any species could be
seen as the 'thin edge of the wedge' leading to the completely unacceptable prospect of actual
human modification:
F They're messing with food, the next thing is going to be human beings.
The particular intensity surrounding feelings about animals have been described in other research
and reflect the special significance which animals, and our relations with them, appear to have in
the UK.
Is it safe to eat ?
A further recurrent issue was whether there may be unexpected health effects. The time that it
would take before any effects became evident, and the time needed for adequate testing to
determine whether products would be safe, was thought to be prolonged. Food safety issues
were firmly fixed in people's minds as being long-term in nature and difficult to identify. Studies
would have to be undertaken for many years, maybe even a generation, before people would be
convinced. Moreover, those undertaking the work would have to be fully independent:
F Wary I think it would be down to time. Time will tell.
Mod And how much time would you require ?
F Well probably a generation.
Mod A generation ?
F Yeah to make sure no one's had heart attacks and things like that.
Changing official scientific advice over food with time, the impact of BSE on top of other food
scares, and a cynicism about the interests of those involved in bringing new foods to the market
lay behind these fears. BSE had had a clear impact on at least a half of the groups:
F
F
That's something they don't have to do, messing with our food.
Time and again, things have gone on, they do this spraying and things and then years later
they say: 'oh we're going to move this one because this has happened and we're going to
stop that one'.
F You've been eating beef for years and then all of a sudden, this mad cow disease or
whatever it is. I mean, all this stuff you think is actually there to benefit the consumer, or is
it there to make more profit to the people who are actually selling the food.
F I think it's all there for the money isn't it. They're trying to make more money out of selling.
Mod Well hands up those that think that they buy this stuff[GMO consumer products]
unwittingly .... So, six of you do, and only two of you don't.
F I'm not sure.
Mod You're not sure. And if you were buying this stuff unwittingly what would you think about
that?
F What if I was buying it and I didn't know, I'd be bloody annoyed to be honest.
F I'd like to know what's in it, hormones or whatever.
F Because I don't trust a laboratory, who is there in the main to make money, to think of my
health first. They're going to think of their pocket first. For example, I'm asthmatic, so
they're going to chuck anything in, now I need to know, they probably wouldn't but the
chances are that it might do. Now they're not going to think of Sharon with her poor
asthma, they're going to think of their purse.
There was also a view that the changes genetic modification could bring would be irreversible and
that this might be storing up unimaginable problems for the future:
M Once you've genetically engineered a pig, it's always going to be genetically engineered.
But how are you going to reverse it ?
M If you find out there's a problem in 10 years.
M You can't and it will go on for ever, not just for.the near future. This is permanent, once
you've genetically engineered something. I don't think it will alter naturally, although
nature will probably take over at one time and cause a problem.
Mod Right so if you tinker with something then ...
M It will be passed on to the future.
Mod It will be passed on ?
M It's irreversible though isn't it, with genetics I would imagine.
The underlying factors which appeared to influence views about the safety of genetically modified
foods were, therefore, scepticism about the ability of institutions to be able to ensure safety, and
experience with other food and health scares as being delayed and unavoidable in nature. BSE had
clearly given focus to such responses and, together with other food scares and anxieties over
chemical contamination, appeared to lead people to associate food safety with problems that tend
only to be revealed after long periods of time. This was seen most strikingly in the ways in which
people contrasted their view of the risks of genetically modified enzymes in washing powder and
genetically modified foods. The low level of concern about human health effects of washing
powder was explicitly associated with the assumption that its effect would be sensed immediately
and could then be avoided. Government and industry were not thought to share consumers'
interests in food safety, but rather to engage in promoting their shared self-interest through mutual
support.
Will there be choice ?
People were suspicious that they might be already eating genetically modified foods and appeared
to expect deception about products to continue. Several said that they thought this was 'all
history'. Price was one of the main factors determining choice and there was a resignation about
the 'inevitability' of this in their own actions. One person even characterised low prices as forcing
people not to have the choice: 'The price will force you to buy that sort of thing' (North London
'Green Consumers'). This lack of choice was not simply seen as choosing between products but an
inevitable future of the whole technology. This was seen to be a constraining factor not only on
them as individuals but on industry as well. Thus even in role-playing as Government, food
producers or retailers, people never felt they could reject the technology; the only option was to
limit, control and try to ensure safety as best they could. This was true however strongly people had
expressed fears and unease about genetically modified foods previously:
Mod You think this is a future you would go down ?
F I think if you find other retailers doing the same then you can't do otherwise.
Against this background, even if labels containing GMO information were used on products, people
did not expect to be able to make a real choice. The products would be widespread, with no choice
between genetically modified and non- modified, for example. Indeed, with advertising
encouraging people to buy such products, combined with the more general pressures associated
with pace of life, people sensed they would have little time to read or evaluate the labels:
M Put it this way, you look at them and say 'who feels confident', you've got no choice. In
actual fact there is no choice. You're not aware because you haven't been educated about
biotechnology and that the fact it is actually happening. How many people who you ask in
the street 'do you know about biotechnology in food?'- they'd say no. There's more variety
today to the way shopping habits are, but you can then be given less choice.
M .. they rarely ask the consumer what they want. Okay, they might do some market research,
but generally it's put before you, and other things go off the shelves, and you really don't
have a choice then. You either use it or don't eat it, because one firm takes it up and then
they all across the board do it. So I'd like to see more, you know, people being asked what
they feel about it more.
The information that people wanted about GMOs from which they might make choices seemed
also to be significantly different from that on labels. Most people appeared not to be demanding
technical information (although some were interested in this), but rather wanted to know which
genes had been used, why genetic modification had been used and what alternatives there might
be. Words such as 'genetically modified' were meaningless as they did not convey the
contextualised information people could use to make a judgement.
F Genetically modified.
F I mean most people wouldn't know what that meant.
F
M
Mod
F
M
F
F
I think the main worry is that we just don't know how these things have been modified or
what they've done to make it replace that.
(Lancashire Working Women - in relation to the cheese)
What they've actually done to the tomato. Yeah what have they actually done. In simple
terms for the average house wife shopper. ...
So what would you want to know ?
I would want to know that tests have been done to make sure that, you know, they don't
give you facts at the end of the day or whatever.
This was a point I was making earlier; not trusting the people, the professionals.
I don't think I would trust them.
So many things you can't trust.
Choice was therefore a complex issue, not restricted to the consumer but also to one's felt ability
to influence a major technological trajectory. This was a choice seen as limited to Government
and industry, because commitments and interests in genetic modification were not seen as
amenable to change. Within this framework, choice was limited by daily difficulties of time, the
complex information involved in genetic modification, and the sensed untrustworthiness of
scientists and organisations involved with the technology. The perceived lack of choice
characteristically led to feelings of cynicism, fatalism and resignation.
People were asked to select one of a number of pictures, to help summarise their feelings about a
future with genetically modified foods. They were invited to select the picture that best
encapsulated their personal feelings towards the technology. Their reactions further suggested a
significant degree of mistrust in institutions. Over and above the questioning of the motives of
those promoting genetically modified foods, was a sense that moral concerns were discounted
and thought unimportant. The dominant themes were of inevitability, the start of an uncertain
journey, anxiety about the unnatural character of such changes, and a feeling of confusion.
Inevitability
The development of genetically modified foods appeared to be seen as lying outside people's
control, with little sphere for public choice or intervention. It was commonly seen as being driven
by powerful financial interests:
F
F
Well that one because it makes me feel I'm not actually in control of this. I have no control
over this. It's gonna happen and I can't .... You know
It makes me feel really that we don't have a lot of choice, that things will move this way
and eventually we will have to accept it.
These feelings of inevitability seemed to reflect a felt absence of choice and a sense that,
realistically speaking, the technology was unstoppable. Such 'inevitability' appeared to lie behind
feelings of passive resignation in the majority of the groups.
An Uncertain Journey
Where the use of genetic modification will lead was seen to be uncertain and even scary. Certain
people talked about surreal, unnatural and oddly uniform futures. Using genetic modification
was likened to a lottery or roller coaster, where no-one knows what will happen be it good or
bad. This sense of a world increasingly beyond one's control made some very anxious:
F
F
It's that sensation of being completely out of control. You're sat there on top of it and you
don't know where you're going, what's happening, it's going too fast, and you don't know
what's going to happen.
... a road going to somewhere that I don't know and if I knew where I was going I'd be
able to see the end of the road. And at the moment things aren't, and I think I'm a little
bit of that at the moment, because this is out of my control.
F
M
Because you don't know. You don't know anything. The Government can tell you anything,
the manufacturers can tell you anything, the supermarkets can tell you anything. And you
have no way of knowing what they are saying, or it's like their hidden agenda isn't it ? We
don't know why they're doing it or what they're doing.
(Lancashire Non- Working Mothers)
The picture more or less states the starting of a great journey but there again it's a dark
picture, a very dark picture. I'm not sure where it's going to lead. Again, apprehension.
These feelings and expressions of uncertainty seemed to reflect both a lack of understanding of the
technology and a lack of shared justification for the interventions. Coupled with their lack of con-
fidence in institutions to manage the risks, it was perhaps not surprising that many people expressed
such striking senses of unease about where things might go. Nor did it seem illogical under such
uncertainties, (largely unattended-to by science) for people to focus attention on the values of those
in charge.
Unnatural
Also common was the sentiment that perhaps progress was going too far and that technical
innovation should develop more cautiously. Nature should be more respected; otherwise we interfere
at our peril:
F
F
F
Weird tomatoes. Is this really how we're going to make things be. You know, are we going
to mix fish with tomatoes and get. ..
I say 'Stop the progress! We've gone far enough!' If we carry on like this we're just going to
carry on damaging ourselves more. We're going to do more and more stuff that's going to
get worse and worse, and before very long, and before very long there will be sheep and pigs
hanging around with human heads on!
Like you've got your square tomato and it's just not necessary None of it's necessary- all the
products that we've had in the past there's nothing wrong with then at all. It doesn't even
look nicer. I mean, I suppose that's because of what we're used to but. ..
The depth of debate in the group discussions seemed if anything to heighten people's sense of anxiety
about science and technology, and unease that nature and the land could become quite so dislocated
in something so basic as food.
Confusion
People felt confused, anxious and ill-informed, yet many appeared not to trust anyone to supply the
information they wanted:
F Its going on at the present time, yes. In this maze, complete and utter maze.
M
I'd say in terms of confusion that it makes. You've got money, technology, time, numbers, no
clear picture.
F This immediately brings to mind why ? And what if ? And maybe, what exactly is this
biotechnology? It's like an unknown future, you don't know where it's leading. We don't
know if it will be beneficial or not to us. It's just basically confusion, isn't it? A question
mark, you don't know the facts, you don't know the truth.
The world in our hands
A few people did describe their feelings more positively, a sense of opportunity; this was on
occasions expressed though a picture that expressed the image of 'the world in our hands'.
'I think it depicts man giving a helping hand to nature' (Lancashire Church Goers). However,
equal numbers of people saw the same image as posing a burden that society may not handle
well. These conflicting feelings about the same image appeared to point to people's differing
underlying senses of confidence in technology, and in institutions to manage it safely.
Pointers to ways in which people might react to unforeseen future problems with GMO foods
may be found by looking for similarities between how they talk about this and other risk
controversies. In the groups, one way this was investigated was by playing three different
voices in simulated radio extracts, reflecting how representatives of various organisations might
speak about the introduction of genetically modified corn as a consumer product. These
voices, intended to suggest a regulator, an environmental or consumer group and an industry
representative were those judged likely to be heard in such a controversy. How people reacted
to and identified with these voices and what they were saying offered initial indications of
possible responses to a public 'scare' surrounding genetically modified foods. Details of the
corn and what each voice said are given in Box 7. The responses suggested that people have a
general sense that they are not fully informed about food risks; that they tend to mistrust
scientific claims of safety; that they question the motives of corporations involved in its
development; and that they identify most with the voice of NGOs.
Three voices were played which spoke about a new genetically modified corn.
BOX 7: Corn genetically modified with a gene taken from a bacterium to make it more
resistant to insects and cheaper to grow.
VOICE 1 -a regulator:
'Well the safety of the corn has been assessed by a group of experts and there's no scientific
evidence that the toxin in the corn can cause harm to humans. The toxin is found in very low
levels in edible parts of the corn and disappears during processing. Therefore consumers need
have no concerns about eating the genetically modified corn.'
VOICE 2- an environmental or consumer group:
'With genetic engineering the species barrier has been broken - allowing scientists to fashion
new organisms that are not found in nature or in traditionally bred crops. The long term
effects of this corn are unpredictable. It may accelerate the development of resistance in pests
and unbalance natural controls. '
VOICE 3- an industry representative:
'Crops with their own in built insecticides mean less chemicals will need to be used. We have
done feeding trials with animals and looked for any changes in the corn that could be
dangerous. Based on this we conclude genetically modified corn is just like any other corn and
just as safe. This new technology is essential to increase the world food supply without having
to plough up the entire planet. '
We now describe how people responded to the three above voices.
Feelings of Deception
People appeared to feel very strongly that they had been deceived over BSE; -scientists and the
Government either knew that CJD would be a consequence of BSE in cattle or they did not reveal
the possible consequences of uncertainty and ignorance:
M People are proved wrong so many times; who are supposed to be experts in the field.
F A lot of people think that they haven't been told, it's been too late when they've been told,
things have been kept back.
M If anybody said to me before that they were feeding cattle with cattle, I never knew
anything about that, that information wasn't available to me. I would have said without a
doubt that that isn't right.
Mod ... has BSE affected how you think about food.
M I think so.
M It's probably affected our trust in the people who are presenting food stuff to us, more
than the food itself I would have thought. You know, less likely to trust a politician that's
force feeding a youngster on a hamburger just to try and prove that it's perfectly, you
know, that the food's safe to eat. So it sort of sows the seed of doubt in their capabilities
of telling us the truth.
This appeared to contribute to suspicion concerning the introduction of foods which were
produced 'unnaturally', or which were thought to involve 'meddling with nature' or 'going
against nature'. The depth of such feelings was associated with BSE events, in which herbivores
were turned into carnivores, and where nature apparently struck back. But it drew also on other
experiences with chemical risks and other food scares which had been long-term, and had left
people feeling they were not informed as soon as when those in authority knew about them.
Because many expected that they were already eating genetically modified foods without
knowing, the seeds of deception appeared already to have been sown in their minds.
Mistrust of claims of safety
Claims of safety and 'no scientific evidence of harm' were treated with scepticism, and even
derision. Such statements were seen to be identical to the ways in which BSE had been handled.
The mobilisation of science to support such claims failed to impress people. The use of science in
this way was argued in one case to be a strategy to 'cover their backs', by alluding to risks but
saying there was 'no evidence' of harm. This was seen most clearly when people gave their
opinions on the first voice which described the genetically modified corn and was identified most
often as a politician or someone from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF). He
was intended to be a regulator:
F I think he's just trying to cover up a scam that's going on that they know about. ... The
minute they tell you not to worry about something, you worry
M lsn 't that the first statement that the Government ever made about BSE ? It recognised it
but played it down and then progressively over the next two years, you know, released a
bit more and a bit more and a bit more.
M They're always covering their own backs.
F The phrases he uses as well, like scientific evidence, whereas that's what they said about BSE,
there's no scientific ev1dence.
F So basically it's a cop out. If somebody did fall Ill in five years from then, he would then have
a get-out and be able to say: 'But I said there was no scientific ev1dence of that. I d1dn 't say it
couldn't happen' ....
M Trying to be convincing and he's not... Well, we've experience with this BSE escapade and
he's not convinced me one bit, and this sounds just like him.
F It's l1ke BSE, l1ke some politicians said about BSE, it's like the same you know, he doesn't know
a lot but all he was trying to do was cover up.
Thus the risks of GMO foods tended to be influenced by experiences with BSE, and were seen as of
the same class of risk- in terms of unnaturalness, the failure of institutions to prevent them, the
long-term character of associated risks, and our inability to avoid them. Rather than reflecting upon
the uncertain character of science, people's reactions tended to be against those making the claims
of safety, expressed as a failure of trust.
Mistrust of Benefits
The benefits of genetic modification for consumers, industry and the environment are important
features of arguments put forward by those supporting the technology. Other research by CSEC
has shown that industry feel that these benefits should be explicitly weighed in regulations. How
people weigh up benefits is therefore important to understand. In general people seemed negative
or at best ambivalent about the possible benefits of genetic modification. This was most striking in
relation to food but also included some questioning of medical applications. These feelings were
often expressed when people spoke about the third voice describing the genetically modified corn
which explained its potential benefits:
F When they say 'without damaging the planet', 'without wasting crops', you know, it's like
holding a gun to your head. It's like saying if you don't use this genetically modified thing
we're going to damage our entire planet, so we've got to use the genetically modified food.
F I think you're playing on the sympathies there of something that you just don't know
M ... there are too many cases of manufacturers using the Third World. Tobacco industries, milk,
baby milk, baby powders, all kinds of industry generally is fairly ruthless in it.
M She's telling us what she thinks we want to hear.
Provision of food to the Third World was seen as a complex issue which would not simply be solved
by genetic modification. The interests of companies were not seen to be consistent with increasing
food production in poorer countries because their role had to be profit making. So whether or not
it would really be used to help feed the world was questionable:
F
Well one of the excuses used very often by scientists is that they've got to do it because of
the starving masses in the Third World, they've got to produce the food. But I'm not
sure how much of this actually, when push comes to shove, is going to find its way there
and how much they, I don't think they're going to benefit at all, they'll be left behind, it's
just going to be our consumer society which is going to benefit.
But also questioned was the morality of using a technology in Third World countries which was
seen to be dubious and risky in developed countries:
M But it's only creating the illusion of curing the problem. Yes, but we could spend all the
money we've got on putting these countries right and there'd still be a big gap. But it's
like giving the Third World little village a tractor, isn't it. That tractor's great while it works
but the instance it stops working, it's no damn good. Give them a mule and it will last an
awful lot longer. And end up dying. But why should we inflict the technology on them
that we don't want for ourselves. Why is it right for us ? Because we've already poisoned
ourselves, why should we poison them. Well yes, so why should we do it. I think
emotionally you say it's fine to do that because it stops them from starving. I disagree, I
don't think it's right at all, for anybody I think you should have the same concerns for
the Third World as we do for ourselves.
A few people, however, were more accepting of the motives expressed and felt they represented
worthwhile goals:
F I think it's because it puts across that there is a need to do this; they need to do this
otherwise there isn't going to be enough food. So there is a reason to do it, other than
to make somebody lots of money That's the different bit that came across to me.
Views on the benefits of genetically modified foods appeared therefore to be shaped by a
complex set of factors, which included people's understanding of the problem to be solved, their
expectations of the people or companies involved, and what level of justification they demanded
for any particular benefit.
Identification with NGO voices
The second voice about the genetically modified corn was intended to represent environmental
or consumer group concerns. Most people identified them correctly, although some thought it
was a scientist or other person who opposed the technology. NGOs were described as speaking
'truthfully' as they articulated people's feeling of unnaturalness and unpredictability:
F I think he was voicing the fears that we all feel. Being on our side almost.
F Yes, it sounds like he's talking more from a position of truth. He's not trying to sell
anything for any reason. He's just talking from a truth position.
F I think he said what we said basically but in a more educated way, he knew what he was
thinking about.
NGOs appeared repeatedly to be trusted to have a counter-balancing moral voice in a sea of self
interest. Greenpeace was the most commonly named and supported of the NGOs, its role being
seen as the more significant given the perceived void created by government inadequacy:
F
M
Because they're looking at the overall picture. The whole environmental issue and
everything. Not just making money, making things grow bigger, faster and
everything ... They're our voice aren't they?
(Lancashire Non- Working Mothers)
I respect their views I think. I mean, /like to think they care. They don't have an axe to
grind in these things.
Appendix 1
Centre for the Study of Environmental Change
The Centre for the Study of Environmental Change (CSEC) is an inter-disciplinary Research Centre at Lancaster
University, focusing on problems of contemporary environmental knowledge and policy development. Created in
1991, the Centre has an extensive research programme, with funding not only from the Economic and Social
Research Council, but also from the British Academy, the Health and Safety Executive, the European Union
(DGXII), the US Department of Energy, and an expanding range of public agencies, private foundations, local
authorities and NGO's.
Recent studies have concerned:
Tensions between 'expert' and 'lay' understandings of environmental risk
The institutional and scientific dynamics of global climate modelling
Standardisation of 'the local' in environmental classification systems (EU & UK)
New social and political issues in modern leisure trends
Problems in environmental ethics and economics
Models of science and public attitudes towards the environment
Grass roots social and cultural movements on the UK
'Qualitative' research approaches to public opinion and public participation
Problems and patterns of Environmental R & D in the UK
Implications of public understandings of 'sustainability'
Social dimensions and 'meanings' of nature and nature conservation
Cross-disciplinary issues in environmental research and knowledge development
Through these and other studies, CSEC is involved in a growing range of international research networks in the
EU, North America and Australasia, and publishes books and articales in the research literature. In the 1996 UK
Research Assessment Exercise, it was given the highest five * rating. In addition, CSEC is expecially committed to
developing effective relationships with users. It interacts with such bodies as the European Environment Agency,
the Forestry Commission, Greenpeace, World Wide Fund for Nature, the Department of the Environment, the
Health and Safety Executive, and a variety of other industrial, political, and non-government organisations on
environment and risk issues in the UK and Internationally.
Currently CSEC has a staff of 20 including a Director (Robin Grove-White), a Research Director (Professor Brian
Wynne), a Deputy Director (Dr Elizabeth Shove), and 12 Research Fellows in a variety of mainly social scientific
disciplines. Central to this work are new forms of close and continuous intellectual collaboration with natural
science and humanities colleagues, at Lancaster and elsewhere.
Research Group for the present study
Robin Grove-White has been Director of Lancaster University's Centre for the Study of Environmental Change
(CSEC) since its creation in 1991. A political scientist, he has been Director of the Council for the Protection of
Rural England (1981-1987), and a member of MAFF's Northern Regional Panel (1993-1996). He is currently a
statutory Forestry Commissioner, a Board Member of the Green Alliance and Common Ground, and (since
January 1997) Board Chairman of Greenpeace UK.
Dr Phil Macnaghten is a Research Fellow at CSEC. A social psychologist, he holds a British Academy Post-
Doctoral Fellowship, and was lead author of the 1995 CSEC study, 'Public Perceptions of Sustainability in
Lancashire'. He is co-author (with John Urry) of a forthcoming book, 'Contested Natures'.
Dr Sue Mayer is an environmental consultant and an Honorary Research Fellow of CSEC. A biologist and trained
veterinarian, she was Director of Science for Greenpeace UK from 1991 - 1996.
Professor Brian Wynne is Research Director of CSEC and a sociologist of science who has published and
broadcast widely on risk issues involving conflict between scientific and public perspectives. He is a Board
Member of the European Environment Agency, a member of BBSRC's 'Responses to Public Concern' Expert
Group, and a consultant to the European Commission, the UK Department of Health, and ESRC.
60 Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Group Specification
The first group were Non-Working Mothers, aged between 30 and 40, living in north London. They were in
socio-economic class B, all married or co-habiting and had at least one child under 16. They all 'read the labels'
when they went shopping and half the women had children with food allergies or sensitivities.
The second group were Working Mothers, aged between 25 and 35, living in north London. They were in
socio-economic class C2 or D, all married or co-habiting and had at least one child under 10. When they went
shopping they chose food according to 'what the children wanted'.
The third group were Working Fathers, aged between 35 and 45, living in North London. They were in
socio-economic class C 1 or C2, all married or co-habiting, and had at least one child under 16.
The fourth group were Green Consumers as defined using the MORI typology. They were a mixed group of 4
men and 4 women, aged between 40 and 50 and living in north London. They were all married or co-habiting
and in socio-economic class B or C 1 .
The fifth group were Working Women, aged between 20 and 30, living in Lancashire. They were all married or
co-habiting, had no children and were in socio-economic class B or C 1. They all 'read the labels' when they went
shopping
The sixth group were Non-Working Mothers, aged between 35 and 45, living in Lancashire. They were all
married of cohabiting, had at least one child between 5-16 years old and were in socio-economic class C2 or D.
When they went shopping they chose food according to 'what the children wanted'.
The seventh group were regular Church Goers, living in Lancashire. They were a mixed group of 4 men and 4
women, aged between 50-65, married and in socio-economic class A,B or C 1.
The eighth group were men, living in Lancashire who voluntarily engaged in risky leisure activities. This group of
Risk Takers were aged between 25-40, had no children, and were in socio-economic class C 1/C2.
The ninth group were School Girls, aged between 16 and 19 living in Lancashire. Four of the girls were from
public school, four from sixth form college.
Appendix 2 61
Topic Guide
1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION
Have you been to one of these before?
Explain that sponsor will be revealed at end, and any questions will be answered
Explain moderator is social researcher who works for a variety of organisations
Explain that they should be free to express their opinions, that their opinions matter, that there are no right
or wrong answers, and that this should be enjoyable
(5 minutes)
2. FOOD
So what has happened about food recently- in the last 5-10 years?
There is much more ..... (write list on flip chart)
What things have changed in the world of food?
What have you gained I lost? (write list on flip chart)
(20 minutes)
3. CONCEPT OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOs)
In this research we are going to talk about one particular change in food production, that involving
biotechnology.
What does biotechnology mean to you?
Brainstorm list ...
What we want to talk about in particular is biotechnology using what are known as genetically modified
organisms or GMOs. If you looked up a definition in an encyclopaedia it might say something like .
Concept Board
"Biotechnology is the name given to a wide range of agricultural, industrial and medical technologies that use
living things (e.g. microbes, plants or animals) to provide goods. Traditional products of biotechnology include
beer, wine, yoghurt or bread. Recent scientific developments now enable food producers to change the genetic
composition of food stuffs, including the transfer of genes between species. Some hope such developments may
improve food products in terms of shelf life, appearance, flavour and ease of processing."
Have people heard about such developments? Where? What have they heard!
Have they discussed them? With whom? Why?
Would you buy/use such products?
What shops would be first to sell them -why?
What companies would be first to make them -why?
What sort of people would buy/use them? not buy them I not use them? Why?
In what ways are these people like/unlike you?
How do these developments make you feel?
(20 minutes)
4. SHOW GMO PRODUCTS
Show existing products, using agreed protocols:
a) These tomatoes have been genetically modified to soften more slowly. This makes processing into tomato
paste easier.
b) These biological washing powders contain enzymes that are produced by genetically modified bacteria to
improve stain removal at low temperatures;
c) This vegetarian cheese is made using an enzyme from genetically modified yeast. This enzyme replaces rennet
taken from calves' stomachs;
Are these developments generally a good/bad thing and in what way? (write list on flip chart)
Explore differences/commonalities in above products
Ask people to group goods and bads into categories.
62 Appendix 2
Show products currently being proposed:
a) Chocolate bars and some baby food may contain soybean products using soybeans genetically modified to be
resistant to herbicides;
b) A medicine is being developed to treat lung disease using a drug extracted from the milk of sheep genetically
modified with a human gene.
c) Pork could come from pigs which have been genetically modified with a human gene to grow more quickly.
Are these developments generally a good/bad thing and in what way? (write list on flip chart)-
Are proposed products different from current products?
get people to expand on similarities and differences between products and then to group these into categories.
Are they like/unlike concerns about other issues
Which issues (list) and in what way?
(20 minutes)
5. SCENARIO
We would now like to talk about another proposed product. This is what Americans call Corn and we call Maize or
Sweet Corn .. This is how some people are likely to discuss such a development.
Board depicting field of Corn and a bowl of cornflakes with caption 'Corn could be genetically modified with a
gene from a bacterium so it is more resistant to insects, and cheaper to grow'.
Tape of three commentators
a) Government /regulator
"The safety of the corn has been assessed by a group of experts. There is no scientific evidence that the toxin in
the corn can cause harm to humans. The toxin is found in very low levels in edible parts of the corn and
disappears during processing. Therefore consumers need have no concerns about eating the genetically
modified corn."
b) Business/retailers
"Crops with their own in built insecticides mean less chemicals will need to be used. We have done feeding trials
with animals and looked for any changes in the corn that could be dangerous. Based on this we conclude
genetically modified corn is just like any other corn and just as safe. This new technology is essential to increase
the world food supply without having to plough up the entire planet. "
c) Environmental/consumer groups
"With genetic engineering the species barrier has been broken - allowing scientists to fashion new organisms
that are not found in nature or in traditionally bred crops. The long term effects of this corn are unpredictable. It
may accelerate the development of resistance in pests and unbalance natural controls."
First introduce quotes unattributed -
What do you think when you hear such comments?
What do they make you think?
Why do people say such things?
Which of above are you likely to believe?
(15 minutes)
6. RESPONSIBILITY +TRUST
Now we want to talk more generally about biotechnology and about how it should be applied in developing new
food and cosmetic products.
Who do you imagine should have a responsibility or interest in the above? (list on flip chart)
What kind of role do each of above play?
What role should each of the above play? (rank in importance)
Are organisations likely to act in such ways? Why/Why not?
What would each of above have to do to improve your confidence and sense of trust in above developments?
(list)
What else needs to happen to make each of above deliver their responsibilities? (list)
(15 minutes)
Appendix 2 63
7. ROLE PLAY
Lots of organisations are now very keen to ensure that we avoid making mistakes in using biotechnology to
develop new food and other products. What could all parties do with GMOs to help prevent the kind of crisis we
had with BSE or mad cow disease.
Imagine I (the moderator) am the Government regulator in charge of regulating the development of GMOs.
Should I become more I less involved? In what way? What should I do? (list)
I am business or manufacturer developing new products .What should I do?
I am the retailer selling new products. What should I do? (list)
I am an environmental or consumer group with responsibilities to safeguard consumers. What should I do7
(list)
Here are some pictures.
Could you very quickly select two pictures that best summarise your feelings about this whole issue.
To finish I would like you to put into single words your feelings of
A future with new technologies of genetic modification (list);
A future without new technologies of genetic modification (list).
(20 minutes)
8. FEEDBACK
This is a joint study between Unilever, the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change at Lancaster University,
and a number of environmental and consumer organisations. We all want to know how people feel about
biotechnology relating to food.
(5 minutes)
64 Appendix 2

Uncertain World

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Uncertain World

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Uncertain World

Genetically Modified Organisms,

S-ar putea să vă placă și