Survey Shows Americans Want Labels on Genetically Altered
Foods
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Feb. 25'97 (ENS)
Most Americans want foods that are genetically altered to be clearly identified
with labels. Ninety-three percent of Americans who responded to a recent
survey by the world's largest agribusiness company agree that bioengineered
food should be labeled as such, including 73% who strongly agree with this
position.
Bioengineering is viewed by many people surveyed as a desirable alternative
to increased use of chemical pesticides, but more than half (54%) prefer
organic farming to either of the other choices.
Dr. Wolfgang Samo, head of agribusiness at the Swiss-based firm Novartis,
commissioned the study. He offered some of the "key top-line results"
of this survey Monday at the first International Conference on Regulation
of Crop Protection and its Implication for the Food Supply, sponsored by
Tufts University and the Foundation for Nutritional Advancement. The full
report will be released at a later date.
* One-third (32%) of the respondents say they are familiar with the bioengineering
of food; one third (35%) say they know little about it and another third
(33%) claim to know nothing at all about the subject.
* Regardless of levels of awareness, one quarter (25%) say they have a
positive feeling about bioengineering of food while 17% have negative feelings
on the subject. 58% are either neutral (37%) or unsure (21%).
* A majority (61%) believe that the use of bioengineering in agriculture
is very common (14%) or somewhat common (47%).
* Seven in ten (71%) feel that bioengineered food is very safe (21%) or
somewhat safe (50%) while just 15% think such food is unsafe. In contrast,
a majority (54%) feel that food produced with the use of chemical pesticides
is unsafe.
* Only one quarter (25%) would be less likely to buy a food product because
it is bioengineered while 13% would be more likely to buy such a product
and 56% say it would make no difference.
* Nearly all (93%) agree that bioengineered food should be labeled as such,
including 73% who strongly agree with this position.
* Given the choice of greater reliance on bioengineering, pesticides or
organic farming to produce an adequate food supply in the future, a majority
(54%) prefer organic farming, compared with 25% who would prefer more bioengineering
and 10% who think we should rely more on the use of pesticides.
* Assuming equal levels of effectiveness, Americans prefer the use of bioengineering
over the use of pesticides to increase crop production and protection by
a margin of seven to one (73% to 11%).
* While 69% think pesticides are overused in agriculture,only2% feel that
way about bioengineering.
* Just one in four (25%) knows that the government regulates bioengineering
in agriculture, and among those a majority (62%) think that the amount
of federal regulation is about right (34%) or too much (28%).
* Asked to choose among various groups that might regulate the bioengineering
of food, 30% prefer consumer groups for this role, followed by 19% who
prefer "university scientists". About equal numbers prefer regulation
by the "agricultural industry" (16%), company scientists (15%)
and the federal government (15%).
In general, to me as a European, these results were far more favorable
to bioengineering than I had anticipated even in the United States,"
Dr. Samo commented. "It is axiomatic in the field of public opinion
that ignorance breeds skepticism and negativity. This survey shows familiarity
with bioengineering to be higher than might be expected and, even among
those unfamiliar with it, a high degree of open-mindedness."
Dr. Samo did not identify the company that conducted the questioning, the
number of people sampled or the date the survey was done.
Based in Basel, Switzerland, Novartis is the world's largest agribusiness,
chemical and pharmaceutical firm. It was formed in December 1996 through
the merger of Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz.
In the survey, as previously posted, Novartis tried to confuse and obfuscate
the difference between crossbreeding and hybridization by using the term
"bioengineering."
This is a vague artificial category whereby the chemical companies are
trying to blur the clear distinction between traditional reproductive crossbreeding
and the new radical techniques of cross-species genetic engineering. This
is very intentional on their part.
They want to argue that cross species genetic engineering of food is the
same thing as traditional reproductive crossbreeding that has been going
on since time immemorial.
Genetic engineering is actually a new and radical technology of dubious
"benefit" for consumers.
The EnviroNews Service | E-Mail: newsdesk@envirolink.org
A Project of the EnviroLink Network | Phone : (412) 683-6400
General Info: info@envirolink.org | Fax : (412) 683-8460
To un/subscribe, send an e-mail message to: listproc@envirolink.org with
the word: HELP as the body of the message, and then follow the directions.
EnviroLink is a member supported non-profit organization, for membership
information, visit: http://www.envirolink.org/membership or call (800)
328-7211