Food Biotechnology Understanding the Consumer for Effective Communication Cheryl Toner, MS, RD Director, Health Communications International Food Information Council and Foundation

1
Food BiotechnologyUnderstanding the Consumer
for Effective CommunicationCheryl Toner, MS,
RDDirector, Health CommunicationsInternational
Food Information Council and Foundation
2
International Food InformationCouncil (IFIC) and
IFIC Foundation

• Mission To communicate science-based
  information on food safety and nutrition issues
  to health professionals, journalists, educators
  and government officials.
• Primarily supported by the broad-based food,
  beverage and agricultural industries.

3
IFIC IFIC Foundation Partners

• American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and
  Immunology
• National Foundation for Integrated Pest
  Management Education
• American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation
• National Policy and Resource Center on Nutrition
  and Aging, Florida Intl University
• American College of Obstetricians and
  Gynecologists
• Presidents Council on Physical Fitness and
  Sports American College of Sports Medicine
• The American Dietetic Association
• Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation
• Council for Agricultural Science and Technology

• University of Illinois Functional Foods for
  Health Program
• Association of Women's Health, Obstetric, and
  Neonatal Nurses
• U.S. Department of Agriculture
• Consumer Federation of America
• The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration
• Food Marketing Institute
• National Association of Pediatric Nurse
  Practitioners, Inc.
• Institute of Food Technologists
• University of Hawaii College of Tropical
  Agriculture and Human Resources

4
Food Biotechnology Enhancing Our Food Supply
Brochure
Partnership with IFIC Foundation and The
American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP)
Foundation
5
IFIC Foundation Web Site
ific.org

• 1.5 million hits/ month
• 20 users are international

6
IFIC Foundations Food Insight

• 45,000 Circulation
• 7 International
• 6,000 Media

7
Goal Effective Communication

• Communicate Food-Related Science in Ways that
  Serve Both Public Understanding and the
  Objectives of the Communicators

8
Harvard / IFIC Foundation Guidelines

• Journal of the National Cancer InstituteFebruary
  4, 1998
• Journal of the American MedicalAssociationFebrua
  ry 11, 1998

9
General Guidelines for ALL PARTIES in the
Communications Process

• 1. Will your communication enhance public
  understanding of diet and health?
• 2. Have you put the study findings into context?
• 3. Have the study or findings been peer-reviewed?
• 4. Have you disclosed the important facts about
  the study?
• 5. Have you disclosed all key information about
  the studys funding?

Harvard/IFIC, 1998
10
IFIC Food Biotechnology Consumer Focus Groups -
1992

• 10 U.S. Cities

11
IFICs Food BiotechnologyConsumer Research
12
U.S. Consumer Attitudes TowardFood Biotechnology

• Wirthlin Group Quorum Surveys
• March 1997
• February 1999
• October 1999
• Cogent Research
• September 2001
• August 2002
• Each based on 1,000 Telephone Interviews of U.S.
  Adults
• Nationally Projectable

• May 2000
• January 2001

• April 2003
• January 2004

13
Are there any foods or ingredients that you have
avoided or eaten less of?
IFIC 2004
14
If yes, what foods or ingredients did you avoid
or eat less of?
(Multiple responses allowed)
IFIC 2004
15
Any info not currently on food labels that you
would like to see?

• (Multiple responses allowed, n 1000)

IFIC 2004
16
What, if anything, are you most concerned about
when it comes to food safety?

• (Multiple responses allowed, n 1000)

IFIC 2004
17
How much have you read orheard about
biotechnology?
IFIC 2004
18
Are there any foods produced through
biotechnology in the supermarket today?
IFIC 2004
19
Which foods produced through biotech are
currently in the supermarket?
(multiple answers allowed, n357)
Top 5 1/04 Vegetables 44 Meats 22 Corn
20 Fruits 18 Tomatoes 14
IFIC 2004
20
Likelihood of purchase if modified by
biotechnology to taste better or fresher
IFIC 2004
21
. . . if modified by biotechnology to be
protected from insect damage and require fewer
pesticides
IFIC 2004
22
Effect on purchasing decision if biotechnology
produced cooking oil lower in saturated fat
IFIC 2004
23
Will biotechnology provide benefits for you or
your family within the next 5 years?
IFIC 2004
24
What benefits do you expect from biotechnology?
(Multiple responses allowed)
IFIC 2004
25
Support for FDA Labeling Policy
IFIC 2004
26
During the past few months, have you taken any
action due to concerns about biotech foods?
IFIC 2004
27
How much have you read or heard about animal
biotechnology?

• A lot 8
• Some 21
• A little 31
• Nothing at all 39
• Dont know 1

IFIC 2004
28
What have you read or heard about animal
biotechnology?

• (Multiple responses allowed)
• Cloning 17
• Faster growth/Bigger animals/More meat, milk,
  eggs 9
• Hormones 8
• Genetic engineering 5
• Disease resistance/ Animal health/ Safer food
  4
• Changes to animal feed 4
• Better food quality 3
• Concerns about effects/ Testing needed 3
• Steroids 3
• Other 19
• (Includes Mad Cow 2)
• --------------------------
• Nothing specific 6
• Dont know/ Refused 39

IFIC 2004
29
Impression of using animal biotechnology to
produce meat, milk, and eggs

• Total Favorable 28
• Very Favorable 7
• Somewhat Favorable 21
• Neither 11
• Total Not Favorable 29
• Not Very Favorable 11
• Not at all Favorable 18
• Dont Know 32

IFIC 2004
30
Animal biotechnology can

• Positive Negative No Effect DK
• increase farm 39 21 34 6
• efficiency by increasing
• the amount of food
• produced or decreasing
• the amount of feed
• needed by the animals.

IFIC 2004
31
Animal biotechnology can
Positive Negative No Effect DK improve the
quality 58 14 23 5 and safety of food
IFIC 2004
32
Animal biotechnology can
Positive Negative No Effect DK reduce
the 52 13 26 9 environmental impact of
animal waste

IFIC 2004
33
GENOMICSuses knowledge about genetics to
improve overall animal care and nutrition

• Total Favorable 55 Very Favorable 17
• Somewhat Favorable 38
• Neither 15
• Total Not Favorable 23
• Somewhat Unfavorable 9
• Very Unfavorable 14
• Dont Know 8

IFIC 2004
34
GENETIC ENGINEERINGallows us to move beneficial
traits from one animal to another in a precise way

• Total Favorable 36
• Very Favorable 11
• Somewhat Favorable 25
• Neither 12
• Total Not Favorable 48
• Somewhat Unfavorable 16
• Very Unfavorable 32
• Dont Know 4

IFIC 2004
35
CLONINGretains desirable traits by producing
animals that are biologically identical to the
parent

• Total Favorable 18
• Very Favorable 4
• Somewhat Favorable 14
• Neither 9
• Total Not Favorable 71
• Somewhat Unfavorable 15
• Very Unfavorable 56
• Dont Know 2

IFIC 2004
36
Impact of FDA safety determination on intent to
purchase meat, milk, and eggs from GENETICALLY
ENGINEERED animals

• Total Likely 59
• Very Likely 20
• Somewhat Likely 39
• Total Unlikely 38
• Not too Likely 18
• Not at all Likely 20
• Dont Know 4

IFIC 2004
37
Impact of FDA safety determination on intent to
purchase meat, milk, and eggs fromCLONED animals

• Total Likely 34
• Very Likely 12
• Somewhat Likely 22
• Total Unlikely 62
• Not too Likely 19
• Not at all Likely 43
• Dont Know 4

IFIC 2004
38
Factors Affecting Consumer Attitudes Toward Food
Biotechnology

• Awareness
• Information Sources
• Education
• Trust
• Perceptions on Food Safety
• Terminology
• Biotechnology Not GMO

39
Potential Factors Influencing 2004 Attitudes

• High overall awareness, but knowledge not deep
• Biotechnology is not a food safety concern
• Mad Cow in U.S.
• Overall support for FDA labeling policy holding
• Support associated with higher awareness and
  education (? lt .05)
• Consumer expect benefits from biotechnology
• Animal biotechnology The jury is still out
• Higher awareness associated with likelihood to
  purchase (? lt .05)

40
Communicating with Consumers

• Place biotechnology in context
• Explain goals and benefits
• Give accurate view of safety
• Speak in familiar terms
• Tell stories about real foods, products, and
  applications

41
The Weight of the Evidence