Comentario a la definición del programa de actuación político-administrativo

The marketing and sociological literature provides additional information on consumer reactions to GMF. Specifically, it suggests that there is significant heterogeneity in consumer reactions, so that different consumers react differently to GMF. Analysis of consumer

segments or differences amongst opinion groups recognises that ‘…there can be no simple description of “the public’s opinion about biotechnology”’ (Fischhoff & Fischhoff, 2001). Research on this issue has used opinion polls, psychometric surveying, and statistical techniques to identify groups who vary in their perceptions of GMF or biotechnology. Analyses differ in the number of groups identified and the issues that determine the segmentation. The following discusses several examples of this research.

A non-representative survey of Singaporeans divided respondents simply into those Worried about eating GMF and those Not Worried (Subrahmanyan & Cheng, 2000). The two groups of respondents had significantly different responses on all the survey questions, which addressed such issues as ethics, beliefs, perceived knowledge of biotechnology, and the desirability of GMF.

There have also been studies that have attempted to categorise respondents by their reactions to GMF, and these have identified three respondent groups. Cluster analysis on results of the GM Nation survey in the U.K., for example, found that 47 per cent of the sample were

‘Implacably Opposed to GM’, 32 per cent were ‘Somewhat Opposed to GM’, and 12 per cent had ‘No Fixed Position on GM’ (Heller, 2003). Reporting on their review of literature on consumer reactions, Bredahl, et al. (1998) found that consumers tended to fall into three categories: refusers, undecideds, and triers. Finally, a large survey in Europe and the U.S. divided respondents according to patterns of response (Gaskell, Bauer, Durant, & Allum, 1999). ‘Supporters’ felt that biotechnology was useful, not risky, and acceptable. ‘Risk-

tolerant supporters’ felt that it was useful but risky, as well as morally acceptable; they also thought it should be encouraged. ‘Opponents’ felt that biotechnology was not useful, that it was risky and unacceptable, and consequently that it should not be encouraged. These examples all agree that one group is opposed to GM, but present different pictures of the rest of consumers.

More detailed pictures of consumer segments are available from research identifying four or more groups of consumers. Results of a large European survey were used to identify four opinion groups (Gaskell et al., 2004): Tradeoff respondents (18 per cent) saw risks and benefits from GMF, Relaxed respondents (14 per cent) saw benefits and no risks, Sceptical respondents (62 per cent) saw risks and no benefits, and Uninterested respondents saw neither risks nor benefits. U.K. respondents to the Eurobarometer had a similar pattern of responses (Gaskell et al., 2003). Of those who were not classed as Uninterested, Sceptical consumers made up 27 per cent, Relaxed respondents were 31 per cent, and Tradeoff respondents were 43 per cent. Psychometric surveying of Belgian food shoppers used factor analysis to identify five consumer groups (Verdurme, Viaene, & Gellynck, 2003): Food Neophobics (30.8 per cent), Enthusiasts (17.5 per cent), Balancers (21.8 per cent), Cautious (13.3 per cent), and Green Opponents (16.8 per cent). The authors note that about 45 per cent of respondents held negative attitudes towards GMF, but the Food Neophobics are negative about new food products in general whereas Green Opponents are opposed to GMF as a result of environmental and ethical attitudes. Finally, a review of research for the Canadian

government identified ‘five groups of which 44 per cent, in all, were characterised as positive towards biotechnology (true believers, 21 per cent, and fearful supporters, 23 per cent), 32 per cent were characterised as indecisive, 6 per cent as disinterested, and 18 per cent as avid opponents’ (Sheehy, Legault, & Ireland, 1998).

Research into attitudes and opinion regarding GM has found a number of factors that correlate with or underlie respondents’ reactions to GM.

• Increased knowledge of GM may increase consumers’ acceptance of the technology (Zechendorf, 1994), but it has been shown to lead to a hardening of pre-existing attitudes (Heller, 2003).

• Broadly speaking, biotechnology focussed on plants is more acceptable than animal biotechnology or plant-animal genetic transfers. This hierarchy of acceptability appears in Australia, New Zealand, North America, and Europe (Campbell et al., 2003).

• Lower acceptance of GM has been linked to greater risk perceptions. One specific concern that has been raised is concern for the unintended consequences of the technology (Campbell et al., 2003; Heller, 2003).

• Acceptance of biotechnology has been shown to be affected by respondents’ trust in government and industry trust. A lack of confidence in regulatory bodies leads to more sceptical attitudes towards GM (Campbell et al., 2003; Hoban, 1997).

• Acceptance of GM technology appears to be linked to more general attitudes, such as attitudes toward science and technology and general ethical concerns (Campbell et al., 2003; Hoban, 1997; Zechendorf, 1994).

• Environmental concerns seem to have both positive and negative effects on attitudes towards GM. Respondents tend not to agree that GM is environmentally friendly

(Small, Wilson, & Parminter, 2002), and ecocentric respondents (those that value nature intrinsically) tend not to support GM (Siegrist, 1998). On the other hand, surveys that attribute environmental benefits to GM in agriculture have found that respondents react positively to the technology (IFIC, 2002; Sheehy et al., 1998).

Attitudes and perceptions of New Zealanders appear quite similar to those found in other industrialised countries (Macer, 1992, 1998). A majority of people studied seem to be willing to support GMF in some circumstances (Small, Wilson, Pedersen, & Parminter, 2001), and some GM products are more acceptable than others (Gamble & Gunson, 2002). For example, a product that is itself modified is less acceptable than a non-modified product produced using GM (such as beef fed with GM clover) (Gamble & Gunson, 2002). Acceptance of GM

appears to be lower when there is greater environmental risk (Macer, 1992; Small et al., 2002) and higher when the GM product offers an environmental benefit (Macer, 1994). Generally, women are less sanguine about GM food than men, and are more likely to have changed their food purchasing behaviour due to concerns about GM (Gamble & Gunson, 2002).