Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Vol. 21, No. 90003, 174S-177S (2002)
Published by the American College of Nutrition
The Impact of Consumer Food Biotechnology Training on Knowledge and Attitude
Charles R. Santerre, PhD and
Krisanna L. Machtmes, PhD
Foods and Nutrition (C.R.S.), Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
4-H Program (K.L.M.), Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Address correspondence to: Charles R. Santerre, PhD, Associate Professor, Foods and Nutrition, Purdue University, 1264 Stone Hall, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1264. E-mail: santerre{at}purdue.edu
 |
ABSTRACT
|
|---|
Objective: Consumer education is an important aspect in the adoption of any new technology. The objective of this work was to determine whether consumer’s knowledge and attitudes would be influenced by a face-to-face presentation involving food biotechnology.
Materials and Methods: Participants (576) were requested to complete a pre-test prior to receiving a 45–80 minute presentation, which was then followed by a post-test. Participants included members from a community organization, undergraduate and graduate college students and cooperative extension educators (county agents).
Results: Following training, 98% to 99% correctly indicated that fruits and vegetables contain chromosomes and that foods from biotech crops were currently sold in grocery stores. Prior to training, only 31% felt that these crops were properly regulated by federal agencies, and only 25% were confident that bioengineering was unlikely to make an existing food allergenic. Following training, 83% felt that these crops were properly regulated, and 63% believed that biotechnology was unlikely to add new allergens to our food supply. In addition, 90% of those trained would eat or serve genetically-modified foods to their family, and 90% believed that they or their family would benefit from genetically-modified foods within the next five years.
Conclusions: It is apparent from these results that when provided sound, science-based information, participants are more accepting of this technology and the regulatory process.
Key words: agriculture, food biotechnology, consumer acceptance, consumer education, genetically-modified organisms
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|---|
American consumers are receiving more and more information relating to food biotechnology. This information is coming from many sources with differing agendas. Without a fundamental understanding of food biotechnology, it is likely that consumers will be confused and unable to discern between credible and false information.
A September 2001 stratified telephone survey conducted by Cogent Research involving 1,000 subjects was reported by the food industry-supported International Food Information Council [1]. Only 33% of respondents were aware that foods produced through biotechnology were currently sold in supermarkets. Fifty-seven percent either strongly supported (35%) or somewhat supported (22%) the current FDA policy of not requiring special labeling on foods derived from biotech crops unless an allergen was introduced into the crop or there were substantial changes to the food’s nutritional content and/or its composition. Sixty-one percent felt that food biotechnology would provide benefits for them or their family within the next five years.
The objective of this study was to determine if the knowledge or attitudes of consumers in regard to food biotechnology could be influenced by a training program.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS
|
|---|
Pre- and post-tests were completed by 576 subjects who attended one of seven face-to-face training sessions involving food biotechnology between February 2000 and May 2001 [2]. The pre- and post-tests were not matched. Trainings ranged from 45 to 80 minutes in length, and content technical level was tailored for each group; however, every presentation contained similar information that was highlighted in the evaluation instrument. The participants in each audience were as follows: cooperative extension educators (county agents) who specialize in foods and nutrition issues (n = 28); junior, senior and graduate college students in an upper-level food laws and regulations course (n = 14); junior and senior college students in an upper-level nutrition course (n = 42); freshman and sophomore college students enrolled in a general nutrition course for non-majors (n = 363); Indiana Extension Homemakers (female consumers ranging from 55 to 75 years of age and of varying educational background) attending a state-wide annual meeting at Purdue University (n = 69); members of a Kappa Omicron Nu, a consumer and family sciences society—Purdue University Chapter (n = 6); and family and consumer science high school teachers attending a state-wide conference (n = 54).
Presentations included information involving an historical perspective of agriculture and classical breeding, techniques for genetic modification of food crops, a listing of commercially available crops that have been evaluated by FDA-CFSAN, regulatory policies pertaining to transgenic crops, food safety, consumer acceptance, food labeling, environmental safety and controversies surrounding food biotechnology. Collection of test data was approved by the Purdue University Human Subjects Institutional Review Board (Ref. No. 01-557E).
Pre- and post-test questions included two questions to assess knowledge and six questions to assess attitudes before and after the presentation. For each question, subjects were asked to answer "yes," "no" or "not sure." A category of "not sure" was included to prevent subjects from responding with a desired answer. Tests were collected and hand tabulated for a specific response for each question. The evaluation instrument included the following questions:
- Do fruits and vegetables that you buy in grocery stores contain chromosomes?
- Are genetically-modified foods currently in grocery stores?
- Do you believe that genetically-modified foods are inferior to conventional foods?
- Do you believe that food labels should indicate whether a food contains genetically-modified ingredients?
- Do you believe that genetically-modified foods are properly regulated by governmental agencies?
- Would you eat or serve genetically-modified foods to your family?
- Do you believe that bioengineering is likely to make an existing food allergenic?
- Do you believe that you or your family will benefit from genetically-modified foods within the next five years?
|
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
|
|---|
Selected responses to the eight questions are provided in Tables 1 and 2. For questions 1 and 2, which were intended to measure basic knowledge before training, 60% were aware that fruits and vegetables contain chromosomes and 85% were aware that foods from genetically-modified crops were currently in grocery stores. Following training, 98% and 99%, respectively, answered these questions correctly. The 2001 IFIC survey [1] found that only 33% of respondents were aware that "foods produced through biotechnology [were] in supermarkets." Since our experimental design did not include randomly selected subjects as the IFIC survey did, one can predict that our subjects were individuals who had an increased interest in and knowledge of this subject. As expected, most subjects correctly answered the first two questions following training.
Questions 3 through 8 were intended to measure attitudinal changes as a result of training (Table 1). Before training, a majority (65%) of subjects did not believe that food from biotech crops were inferior to conventional foods. Following training, this increased to 86%, representing a change of 21%.
One of the more contentious issues surrounding the debate over biotech crops involves mandatory labeling. During the shorter, 45-minute presentation, we were unable to cover this topic in sufficient detail; this may explain the smaller change between the pre- and post-tests. Prior to training, only 10% believed that foods should not be labeled to indicate the presence of a genetically-modified ingredient. Following training, this increased to 26% (a change of 16%).
A dramatic change was observed in pre- and post-training responses when subjects were asked whether they believed that genetically-modified foods were properly regulated by governmental agencies. Before training, only 31% believed that these products were properly regulated. Following training, 83% believed that they were properly regulated. The difference between the pre- and post-tests was 52%. This suggests that lack of understanding in the regulatory process causes consumers to be skeptical of those food products that receive regulatory approval.
When asked if they would eat or serve genetically-modified foods to their family, 56% answered in the affirmative before training, and 90% gave a positive response after training. This represents a change of 34% as a result of training.
Due to the emergence of the StarLinkTM allergy issue, we asked subjects if they believed that bioengineering was likely to make an existing food allergenic. As with the presentation on labeling, it was difficult to give a comprehensive training on food allergies in the limited time formats. Before training, 25% answered that they believed that bioengineering was unlikely to add an allergen to a food. After training, 63% responded in a similar manner with a 38% change in pre- and post-training responses.
Finally, we asked subjects if they believed that they or their family would benefit from genetically-modified foods within the next five years. Before training, 61% believed that they would benefit from this new technology. Following training, 90% responded that they believed that they or their family would benefit.
Because of the lack of time between the pre- and post-tests there is a possibility that some of the change from the pre- to the post-test could be attributed to the exposure to the pretest. The reliability of the data gathered by the tests was not obtained for this instrument. There was no attempt to measure whether the change in attitude was long lasting or just a temporary program outcome. Future research needs to examine whether or not this increased acceptability of food biotechnology continues as new issues arise in the media.
|
CONCLUSION
|
|---|
For this study, the data indicate that when subjects are provided science-based information concerning food biotechnology, they are more knowledgeable and accepting of the technology, the end products of this technology and its regulatory oversight. Efforts to inform consumers should therefore be extended if adoption of this technology is to progress smoothly.
|
FOOTNOTES
|
|---|
Disclosure: Funds and artwork to support this work were provided as an unrestricted gift to Purdue University from Monsanto Co.
Received February 5, 2002.
|
REFERENCES
|
|---|
- IFIC.Most Americans can articulate expected benefits of food biotechnology
. http://www.ific.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=19801. Website accessed April, 2002.
- Taylor-Powell E:"Questionnaire Design: Asking Questions with a Purpose. G3658-2 Program Development and Evaluation."
Madison: University of Wisconsin-Extension,1998
.
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
