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

International Food Information Council (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.

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 Int’l University American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists President’s 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

“Food Biotechnology: Enhancing Our Food Supply” Brochure Partnership with IFIC Foundation and The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) Foundation

IFIC Foundation Web Site ific.org 1.5 million hits/ month 20% users are international

IFIC Foundation’s Food Insight 45,000 Circulation 7% International 6,000 Media

Goal: Effective Communication Communicate Food-Related Science in Ways that Serve Both Public Understanding and the Objectives of the Communicators

Journal of the National Cancer Institute—February 4, 1998 Journal of the American Medical Association—February 11, 1998 Harvard / IFIC Foundation Guidelines

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 study’s funding? General Guidelines for ALL PARTIES in the Communications Process Harvard/IFIC, 1998

IFIC Food Biotechnology Consumer Focus Groups U.S. Cities

IFIC’s Food Biotechnology Consumer Research IDENTITYSCOPETIME ENERGYRESULTS Who we are, values and deeds Respect for nature and limits Ties to past, commitment to future We work hard, have a vision Benefits must be worthy, not frivolous

U.S. Consumer Attitudes Toward Food 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 –April 2003 –January 2004 –May 2000 –January 2001

Are there any foods or ingredients that you have avoided or eaten less of? IFIC 2004

If yes, what foods or ingredients did you avoid or eat less of? (Multiple responses allowed) IFIC 2004

Any info not currently on food labels that you would like to see? (Multiple responses allowed, n = 1000) IFIC 2004

What, if anything, are you most concerned about when it comes to food safety? (Multiple responses allowed, n = 1000) IFIC 2004

How much have you read or heard about biotechnology? IFIC 2004

Are there any foods produced through biotechnology in the supermarket today? IFIC 2004

Which foods produced through biotech are currently in the supermarket? (multiple answers allowed, n=357) Top 51/04 Vegetables44% Meats22% Corn20% Fruits18% Tomatoes14% IFIC 2004

Likelihood of purchase if modified by biotechnology to taste better or fresher IFIC 2004

... if modified by biotechnology to be protected from insect damage and require fewer pesticides IFIC 2004

Effect on purchasing decision if biotechnology produced cooking oil Effect on purchasing decision if biotechnology produced cooking oil lower in saturated fat IFIC 2004

Will biotechnology provide benefits for you or your family within the next 5 years? IFIC 2004

What benefits do you expect from biotechnology? (Multiple responses allowed) IFIC 2004

Support for FDA Labeling Policy IFIC 2004

During the past few months, have you taken any action due to concerns about biotech foods? IFIC 2004

How much have you read or heard about animal biotechnology? A lot8% Some21% A little31% Nothing at all39% Don’t know1% IFIC 2004

What have you read or heard about animal biotechnology? (Multiple responses allowed) Cloning17% 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% Don’t know/ Refused39% IFIC 2004

Impression of using animal biotechnology to produce meat, milk, and eggs Total Favorable28% Very Favorable7% Somewhat Favorable21% Neither11% Total Not Favorable29% Not Very Favorable11% Not at all Favorable18% Don’t Know32% IFIC 2004

Animal biotechnology can… Positive Negative No EffectDK …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

Animal biotechnology can… Positive Negative No Effect DK …improve the quality58%14%23%5% and safety of food IFIC 2004

Animal biotechnology can… Positive Negative No Effect DK …reduce the52%13%26%9% environmental impact of animal waste IFIC 2004

GENOMICS …uses knowledge about genetics to improve overall animal care and nutrition Total Favorable55% Very Favorable17% Somewhat Favorable38% Neither15% Total Not Favorable23% Somewhat Unfavorable9% Very Unfavorable14% Don’t Know8% IFIC 2004

GENETIC ENGINEERING …allows us to move beneficial traits from one animal to another in a precise way Total Favorable36% Very Favorable11% Somewhat Favorable25% Neither12% Total Not Favorable48% Somewhat Unfavorable16% Very Unfavorable32% Don’t Know4% IFIC 2004

CLONING …retains desirable traits by producing animals that are biologically identical to the parent Total Favorable18% Very Favorable4% Somewhat Favorable14% Neither9% Total Not Favorable71% Somewhat Unfavorable15% Very Unfavorable56% Don’t Know2% IFIC 2004

Impact of FDA safety determination on intent to purchase meat, milk, and eggs from GENETICALLY ENGINEERED animals Total Likely59% Very Likely20% Somewhat Likely39% Total Unlikely38% Not too Likely18% Not at all Likely20% Don’t Know4% IFIC 2004

Impact of FDA safety determination on intent to purchase meat, milk, and eggs from CLONED animals Total Likely34% Very Likely12% Somewhat Likely22% Total Unlikely62% Not too Likely19% Not at all Likely43% Don’t Know4% IFIC 2004

Factors Affecting Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Biotechnology Awareness Information Sources Education Trust Perceptions on Food Safety Terminology – “Biotechnology”; Not “GMO”

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 (  <.05) Consumer expect benefits from biotechnology Animal biotechnology: The jury is still out Higher awareness associated with likelihood to purchase (  <.05)

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

FDA NAS House Science Subcommittee IFT ADA OECD The Weight of the Evidence