Consumer and Ethical Issues
Fear Factor Why are some technologies welcomed and others shunned? by Heather Filby
14
AFMNet – ADVANCE 2005/ 06
The writing is on the label
From left David Castle, Anthony Vander Schaaf, Vinay Kanetkar, Chris Norman and Karen Finlay are looking at the processes that go into food labeling.
Less could be more when it comes to labelling genetically modified foods
Consumers weigh the perceived risks and rewards of certain food technologies — such as genetic modification, irradiation and additives — before buying the affected food products, according to a University of Guelph survey.
by Alicia Roberts
Martin Schwalbe
Most consumers don’t think twice about buying milk that’s been pasteurized. But other technologies — such as genetic modification — often raise red flags. University of Guelph researchers are leading a multidisciplinary study to determine why some food technologies are more acceptable than others, and what the agriculture and food industry can do to boost consumer acceptance. Prof. Spencer Henson, Department of Agricultural Economics and Business, says preliminary results suggest the trade-off between perceived risks and benefits is one of the most important influences on how consumers receive new food technologies. “Consumers are willing to take a risk if they receive greater benefits such as improved health, better quality or lower price,” says Henson. “If the benefits outweigh the perceived risks, consumers are more likely to buy into the product.” Consumers are influenced by what he calls “the dread factor.” For example, cancer is such a feared disease that consumers won’t accept any food technology that’s been associated with it, no matter how tenuous the connection. Other significant factors, says Henson, include whether consumers believe they can control exposure to the new technology, how well they themselves understand the technology and whether they think the technology is understood by scientists. His research team is using a unique respondent-designed survey that allows consumers to articulate their food technology concerns in their own words. Participants are presented with existing food technologies such as food additives, genetic modification, irradiation, vacuum packing, pasteurization, microwave ovens and canning, as well as non-food technologies such
as X-rays, nuclear power, cell phones, computers and aircraft. The survey then asks participants to indicate, in their own words, which technologies concern them and why. Henson says the survey results will help determine what values drive consumer choices, which in turn can help industries and the government promote their products in a way that maximizes consumer acceptance. That could boost companies’ sales and give them a competitive edge in national and international markets, while addressing consumer concerns about new food technologies. In the future, Henson and his research group will conduct in-depth case studies on specific food technologies and see how the food industry manages consumer concerns. By the end of the summer, he also hopes to create a tool to predict how a new food technology will be perceived by consumers. “Industries have to build up consumer acceptance of a product right from the start, not when it’s about to hit the market,” he says. U of G members of his interdisciplinary research team are Profs. John Cranfield and David Sparling and post-doctoral researchers Mamane Annou and Deepananda Herath, Department of Agricultural Economics and Business; Prof. Rickey Yada, Department of Food Science; and Prof. Valerie Davidson, School of Engineering. Also on the team are University of Saskatchewan agricultural economics professor Jill Hobbs and Timothy Beattie, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of British Columbia. This research is sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the Advanced Foods and Materials Network.
Canadian consumers are curious customers, but how much information do they really want? That’s the question philosophy professor David Castle of the University of Guelph is trying to answer. He’s leading a study that’s investigating whether or not food labels should include information about genetically modified (GM) foods. “Genetic modification means different things to different people,” says Castle. “We’re investigating from an ethical standpoint and trying to determine more than just whether or not people want the information, but also why they want the information and how they can use it. We ultimately want answers to these questions so we can develop recommendations for labelling policies that accurately reflect Canadian values.” When asked, a majority of Canadians say they would prefer to have labels on GM foods and would like more information as opposed to less. But consumers don’t specify what type of information they would prefer and, more important, why they want that information. This makes it difficult to determine what and how much information is appropriate. And currently, the Canadian General Standards Board says labelling is a voluntary standard, which means the industry creating the product can decide to use labels or not. Castle is working with Prof. Conrad Brunk of the University of Victoria’s Department of Philosophy, Prof. Karen Finlay and Vinay Kanetkar of Guelph’s Department of Marketing and Consumer Studies and Guelph graduate students Chris Norman and Anthony Vander Schaaf. The team is analyzing existing studies and conducting focus-group exercises to help determine whether labelling GM foods would be useful to consumers and what motivates them to buy GM or non-GM products. “The scope of what people worry about with genetic modification is wide, and it always will be,” says Castle. “The cause for concern might arise from a different background of information than what industries expect, so we need to know why the information is needed and how it will help the consumer.” This is a two-year study. The first year will focus on the consumer surveys and data collection; the second year will focus on the development of a policy statement. AFMNet – ADVANCE 2005/ 06
15