Factors underlying support or opposition to biotechnology among Australian food consumers and implications for retailer-led food regulation

Despite current findings that consumers, on average, have negative attitudes to biotechnologies such as cloning and genetic engineering, considerable variability can be found in the direction and strength of these attitudes. This paper presents a path analysis of attitudinal, motivational, demographic and behavioural variables that influence consumer dispositions towards biotechnology. Among these variables, those found to be most important were: consumers' level of motivation to find natural foods; the extent to which they were motivated by convenience; whether they did the shopping for their household on a regular basis; and their sex. In terms of direct effects on dispositions to biotechnology, motivation to find natural foods had a very strong negative effect while convenience had a very strong positive effect. Sex had a moderate direct effect with women less likely to be positively disposed towards biotechnology than men. In an apparent contradiction, taking responsibility for household shopping had an equally strong positive effect on both naturalness and convenience. However, sex also played a crucial role here with a very strong effect on motivation to find natural foods (women more motivated), a minor effect on convenience (women less motivated) and a strong effect on responsibility for household shopping (women more likely to shop). The policy implications of these findings are important, given the apparent oppositional trends of some sections of the food industry to endorse biotechnology, and of the supermarkets to deliver `clean and green' non-GM foods to consumers. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Crisis management and risk communication: Why the food industry must get it right

There is public unease about food-related issues including food additives, food poisoning bacteria and GM ingredients. The public wants evidence of no risks, but all regulators can ever offer is no evidence of risk or evidence of a very small risk. The situation is complex because experts and non-experts can perceive the same risk in vastly different ways. The way in which the food industry manages crises and communicates risks will determine the public acceptance and success of new technologies such as GM foods and nanomaterials. There is a need for the food industry (including regulators and scientific experts) to sharpen up their risk communication skills to ensure that technical innovations are accepted by consumers, and crises such as food recalls do not undermine the public's confidence in the food industry. The AIFST has a key role to play in driving the risk communication process and allaying public unease about food-related issues.