Food technology is a largely unfamiliar concept to most consumers. And, as with anything unfamiliar, there is an element of fear that factors in for many people. Typically, once we learn how something works, and how it could make our lives easier or better, we are more comfortable with the idea, and may decide to adopt it. Traditionally, many consumers have been reluctant to accept the concept of utilizing technology in food production because they lack important information about the technologies and their benefits. However, in a new International Food Information Council (IFIC) survey, Consumer Perceptions of Food Technology, conducted this year, we found consumers are open to different types of food technology, including plant and animal biotechnology, as well as emerging technologies such as nanotechnology. When they are provided with information about what a particular technology is, or does, consumers may identify with important benefits of the technology that matter to them.
Consumers are largely familiar with the term “biotechnology”. More than two-thirds of consumers (69%) have read or heard at least “a little” about biotechnology. However, favorability is lukewarm before benefits are understood– only about one-third (32%) are somewhat or very favorable toward plant biotechnology, with about two in ten consumers (19%) somewhat or very unfavorable and about three in ten (29%) neither favorable nor unfavorable. Additionally, only about one-quarter of Americans (28%) believe foods produced through biotechnology are available in the supermarket today. In reality, since most corn and soy are grown using biotechnology, the percentage is much higher.
It seems familiarity with a concept alone does not necessarily translate to knowledge or acceptance. Interestingly, however, when the concept of plant biotechnology is presented to consumers through a lens that includes benefits, consumer favorability improves. When Americans were asked about their overall impression of farmers using biotechnology to grow more crops that would help meet food demand, half (51%) of consumers say they are favorable toward this use of biotechnology.
In addition, when biotechnology is put into the context of personal benefits, such as improved health or better tasting food, favorability is stronger than when this type of information is not provided. For example, the majority of consumers say they are somewhat or very likely to purchase foods produced through biotechnology to provide more healthful fats like omega-3s (76%), to avoid trans fat (74%), and to make them taste better/fresher (67%). Additionally, more than three-quarters (77%) of consumers would be likely to purchase foods produced through biotechnology for their ability to reduce pesticide use, and 80% of consumers said they would be likely to purchase bread, crackers, cookies, cereal, or pasta products containing wheat that was grown using plant biotechnology if they were produced using sustainable practices to feed more people using fewer resources (such as land and pesticides). While products containing wheat grown using biotechnology are still up to a decade away from being commercially available, these data indicate a receptive audience to such products if they are produced through sustainable practices.
And with increasing awareness by consumers of issues pertaining to the environment and sustainability – half of consumers (50%) say they have heard or read at least “a little” about sustainability in food production, a significant increase from 2008, when 41% reported hearing or reading anything about the concept – information about sustainability benefits of biotechnology will continue to resonate with consumers. Regarding the most important aspects of sustainability, consumers cite those aspects that relate to protecting and preserving the environment: two-thirds (66%) rank “Land and water use and efficiency” in their top three important aspects of sustainability, followed by “Ensuring a sufficient food supply for the growing global population” (63%) and “Maximum output with minimal use of natural resources” (59%). Interestingly, such terms as “lower carbon footprint” and “fewer food miles” ranked relatively low in importance to consumers, with one-quarter (24%) and 14% of Americans ranking them in their top three, respectively. Similarly, more than two-thirds (69%) of consumers rank “Growing more food on less land so valuable land like rain forests is not destroyed/used as growing space for increased food production” are the top three important factors of sustainable crop production, and 65% ranked “Reducing the amount of pesticides needed to produce food” in the top three. “Growing more food to help feed the growing global population” rounded out the top three with 57 percent. These findings clearly show that those factors having an emotional component are top of mind for consumers as benefits of producing sustainable crops.
Another interesting finding in this year’s survey was regarding favorability toward animal biotechnology. About three in ten (29%) Americans are somewhat or very favorable toward animal biotechnology, while slightly more than one-quarter (27%) are somewhat or very unfavorable, and about one-quarter (24%) are neither favorable nor unfavorable. However, some specific reasons consumers give for being not favorable (either unfavorable or neutral) toward animal biotechnology relate to lack of information or not understanding the benefits of animal biotechnology: More than half (55%) of “not favorable” consumers chose “I don’t have enough information” about animal biotechnology as their primary reason for having this impression, while 39 percent cited “I don’t understand the benefits of using biotechnology with animals.” This indicates that additional education/information could help improve consumer understanding of animal biotechnology, enabling them to make more informed decisions regarding their acceptance of the technology.
In addition, consumers reported a positive impact on their impression of animal technology from several statements about benefits of the technology. For example, when consumers were told that “Animal biotechnology can increase farm efficiency; that is, increase the amount of food produced while decreasing the amount of resources needed, such as animal feed (i.e., corn, water, etc.),” more than half of consumers (53%) reported a positive impact on their impressions. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of consumers reacted positively to the statement that “Animal biotechnology can improve the quality and safety of our food (for example, through improved animal health or improved nutritional quality of the food produced).” And again, when a benefit for the environment was provided – “Animal biotechnology can reduce the impact of livestock, such as animal waste, on the environment” – more than half (53%) of consumers said it had a positive impact on their impression of animal biotechnology.
Another example of information leading to a higher favorability result was in our questions regarding nanotechnology. When consumers were asked to share their knowledge of nanotechnology for food applications without being given any other information, nearly two-thirds (66%) said they had heard or read “Nothing at all” about the technology. However, when provided with a definition of nanotechnology [“a science that involves the design and application of structures, devices and systems on an extremely small scale, called the nanoscale (i.e. billionths of a meter, or about 1-millionth the size of a pinhead)”], and potential benefits of the technology in food applications (such as in food packaging and processing to improve food safety and quality, and better nutrient and ingredient profiles to improve health), almost half of consumers (49%) were favorable toward the technology. Once again, this demonstrates that information empowers consumers to make an informed choice, and that many would be favorable to the use of the technology to improve the safety and quality of their food.
Information provided on the food label can also empower people to make informed food choices, and IFIC research indicates consumers are generally satisfied with information currently provided on labels. Eighty-two percent say they cannot think of anything additional they would like to see on the label. Of the 18% who would like to see additional information on the label, only 3% mentioned biotechnology. In addition, more than six in ten (63%) consumers are satisfied with the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) labeling policy for biotech foods, which includes labeling changes to the nutritional content or composition of a food, or identifying a food safety issue, should biotechology’s use introduce such changes. Further evidence that consumers are confident in FDA’s recommendations includes the finding that more than two-thirds (68%) of consumers would be likely to purchase meat, milk, and eggs from animals enhanced through genetic engineering, since FDA has determined that they are safe. And, nearly seven in ten consumers (69%) say they are confident in the safety of the U.S. food supply.
These findings offer compelling examples of how education and science-based information, provided in consumer-friendly terms and framed in terms of benefits that matter to consumers, can lead to a more informed public. Then consumers can appreciate the many ways food is produced and how food technology can contribute to a safe, healthful and abundant food supply.
Based on these findings, here are some recommendations for communicating about food technology:
- State the science: Biotechnology has been studied extensively and deemed safe by researchers, regulatory agencies, and other authoritative bodies in many parts of the world. It is important to ground messages in science, in order for the message to be perceived as credible and reliable.
- Use consumer-friendly language: It isn’t always easy to explain food technology in consumer-friendly terms. Visit the Web sites listed at the end of this article for some good explanatory information regarding biotechnology and nanotechnology.
- Use examples: Visualizing a concept and associating real people to particular issues can be very helpful in improving comprehension.
- Explain the benefits, especially those that resonate with consumers, such as improved health, nutrition and food safety, greater affordability, better taste, and positive impact on issues of interest such as the environment and sustainability.
Survey Methodology:
The “Consumer Perceptions of Food Technology” Survey was fielded by Cogent Research of Cambridge, Massachusetts between April 5 and April 26, 2010. Seven hundred fifty U.S. adults were polled using an online survey tool. Results were weighted on marital status and education level to be nationally representative. The survey, formerly the “IFIC Survey of Consumer Attitudinal Trends toward Food Biotechnology,” has been conducted since 1997.
For more information about the Food Technology Survey and to view an Executive Summary of the findings, visit:
http://www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=Consumer_Insights_Regarding_Food_Biotechnology.
For more information about plant and animal biotechnology, nanotechnology, and sustainability, visit: