Consumers and biotechnology in The Netherlands

Abstract

Reports on studies conducted in The Netherlands on consumer attitudes to food products which involve the use of biotechnology. Finds that transgenic animals were not acceptable whereas genetically modified plants or micro‐organisms were likely to be accepted, especially when there are clear benefits for consumers. Also discovers that there is a strong demand for information to be provided, but this does not necessarily always have to appear on the label.

Consumers’ images regarding genomics as a tomato breeding technology: “maybe it can provide a more tasty tomato”

“…The public perception of biotechnology applications has been characterized generally as negative (Pardo et al 2002;Marris et al 2001;European Commission 2006;Moses 1999). This negative perception of biotechnology and its applications is not based on objective knowledge, as the knowledge of the public about biotechnology is very limited (Pardo et al 2002;Gaskell et al 1999;Hamstra and Smink 1996). Nonetheless, this lack of knowledge and understanding does not appear to prevent attitude formation regarding perceived risks and benefits associated with biotechnology (Frewer et al 1994).…”

Irish consumer acceptance of a hypothetical second-generation GM yogurt product

“…Correspondingly, a number of studies illustrate that consumers may be more receptive to GM foods where there are tangible consumer benefits associated with the individual products (Frewer et al, 1996;Frewer, Howard, Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1997;Hamstra & Smink, 1996), for example, where these foods are more nutritious or offer specific health-oriented benefits (Burton & Pearse, 2002;Frewer et al, 1996Frewer et al, , 1997Lähteenmäki et al, 2002;Verdurme, Gellynck, & Viaene, 2001;West, Gendron, Larue, & Lambert, 2001 among others).…”

Understanding public responses to genetic engineering through exploring intentions to purchase a hypothetical functional food derived from genetically modified dairy cattle

“…Yet despite this negative stance, and in keeping with other surveys Hamstra & Smink 1996) respondents also gave overwhelming conditional support for food and medical applications of genetic engineering, with the latter application being significantly more acceptable. The reason for this apparent paradoxical result may be due to a relatively sophisticated public attitude to genetic engineering-conditional support for food and medicine reflecting a general unease about the technology, but which, dependent on a particular product's attributes, may be outweighed by its perceived benefits.…”

“…Despite mixed reactions to genetic engineering (GE) (e.g., Couchman & Fink-Jensen 1990;Hamstra & Smink 1996;Macer et al 1997; European Commission 2000; Royal Commission on Genetic Modification 2001) considerable resources are being invested with the expectation that it will lead to substantial benefits. The commercial success of food and medicines derived from genetically modified organisms will ultimately depend on being market-led rather than science-driven (Frewer 1998).…”