|
Archives
April 16-30, 2000
Biotechnology strives to
gain popularity, social acceptance
The debate on biotechnology has gone
beyond the ricefields, scientific laboratories and government
halls.
Society and consumers have jumped into
the fray. At the dawn of the new millennium, majority
of the consuming public is still in the dark as to the
benefits of biotechnology. This is the conclusion of
a 10-year study titled "Social Acceptance of Agricultural
Biotechnology" conducted by Dr. Thomas Hobar, a
professor of Sociology in North Carolina State University.
It mapped the social acceptance of biotechnology in
the US and some countries in Europe.
Among its findings, the study found that
social acceptance varies according to the application
of biotechnology. Consumers in some countries are nearly
as receptive to the role of biotechnology in agricultural
crops and medicine. In the US, 87% of respondents favor
biotechnology in modified medicine, 78% in crop improvement.
Successful genetic modification has been
conducted on agricultural crops, such as corn and soybean.
Insulin, prescribed for diabetics, is actually produced
by a genetically modified bacterium. At the same time,
consumers are more likely to accept biotechnology applied
to agricultural crops than to food products. In France,
for example, 67% of respondents favor biotechnology
applied to agricultural products, while only 36% are
for food processing. In the US, the study found out
that farmers believe agricultural biotechnology benefits
them in terms of improved quality and quantity of production
(35%). Consumers are not as optimistic (17%). Likewise,
76% of farmers surveyed believe there are beneficial
effects of technology on health, while only 41% of consumers
believe the same way. Farmers are more receptive to
agricultural biotechnology than consumers.
Demographics show that gender plays a
hand on the acceptance of biotechnology. Men are more
receptive than women, at 75% to 67%. Furthermore, educational
attainment makes a difference. Eighty percent (80%)
of colege graduates support biotechnology, while 63%
of those without high school education support biotechnology.
On the whole, figures show that more people
are against and even fearful of genetic modification
of food (47% negative sentiments, 41% positive). The
study traces the causes of this non-acceptance of biotechnology.
Largely, it is caused by a lack of awareness, knowledge
and understanding. A mere 39% of US consumers is aware
of biotechnology. Respondents from Switzerland rate
the highest at 78% in terms of knowledge; Italy lags
behind by 41%. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of respondents
in Austria actually believe that eating gnetically modified
food could alter a person's genes.
But given the right dissemination of information
on biotechnology, confidence and trust are the key influences
in th eacceptance of biotechnology in society.
There are several sources of information
on biotechnology. But study says, environmental organizations
are the most trusted to tell the truth about food technology.
In Europe, media surprisingly rate low at 1% in consumer
confidence and trust. In the US, the American Medical
Association rates a high 35%, followed by other institutions
and university findings. Food Manufacturers register
a mere 4% in consumer trust.
Labeling as a tool in information campaign...
Labeling foods as biotech products has been devised
as a form of information campaign to let people in on
what constitutes the fod they buy. This strategy is
believed to help in the dissemination of knowledge in
biotechnology. At the same time, labelling is hoped
to be able to allay fears consumers have on over genetically
modified foods.
This tactic could be tricky though. The
survey shows that consumers are adverse to the mere
use of words "genetically engineered animals/plants",
"transgenic animals/plants", and "genetically
modified organisms (GMOs)."
Terminology alone is critical.
Furthermore, segregation and certification
of products that are to be labeled present logistical
and expenditure problems for eveyone. These are but
peripheral problems encountered in the campaign to promote
social acceptance of bioechnology.
Future prospects in Europe look dim. Complex
issues involving diverse cultural, economic and politics
scenarios hinder wide social acceptance.
The study acknowledges these factors.
It has looked into the platform and propaganda tactics
of groups in opposition to the spread of biotechnology.
It recommends educating the public on biotechnology's
benefits and scope. It stresses that building public
confidence and trust is still the key.
Adapted from the study titled "Social
Acceptance of Agricultural Biotechnology" by Thomas
Hoban, Ph. D., a professor of Sociology in North Carolina
State University. 
April 16-30 2000 Articles: ::
R&D
agencies reorient to increase effectiveness
::
Info
made available in real time through IT
::
Decrease
in paddy soil: a threat to food security
::
Biotechnology strives to gain popularity, social acceptance
::
Severe water scarcity to strike one-third of world's
population by 2025
::
Natural remedy for prostate disorders threatened to
extinction
::
Rockefeller okay's biotech, but...
::: More April 2000 articles :::
|
