Widespread reporting of
the outcome and write up of this exercise in public consultation over the
issue of GM crops and foods, that took place in the summer of 2003,
suggested that the UK population is overwhelmingly against the adoption,
use and consumption of GM crops and food. Furthermore Green lobby groups,
many with commercial interests in non GM and organic production systems,
have cited this ‘research’ as vindicating their vociferous anti GM
lobbying activities.
However, just how
representative were the findings of the GM Nation debate of UK public
opinion and sentiment towards GM crops and the consumption of GM foods?
Drawing on the evidence
of independent and objective evaluation and assessment of the GM debate
(see Campbell S & Townsend E (2003) Some analysis of the GM Nation Debate,
Institute for the Study of Genetics, Bio-risks and Society (IGBiS),
University of Nottingham and an Independent Evaluation of the GM Debate
(2004) Understanding Risk, Working Paper 04-02, University of East Anglia
www.uea.ac.uk/env/pur/latest_news.html, the
answer is not a lot. More specifically:
a) The
methodology was fundamentally flawed. The sample of the population
providing views on the subject was self selecting (ie, was not random);
b) The
data not only failed to support the report’s conclusions, but undermined
them (see d) below);
c) Although
the authors of the GM Nation Debate report were aware of these flaws,
there attempts to counter them were also flawed:
Ø Firstly,
a random sample of responses was checked to see if there were any
standardised replies being sent in by activist groups. There did not
appear to be any but that did not overcome the biased nature of the
sample;
Ø Second,
a 'narrow-but-deep' study was commissioned, ‘as a control on the
self-selecting participants in the open debate’. In effect this involved
asking 78 people 13 questions from the open debate. This sample was
randomly chosen and stratified so that it roughly matched the general
population. This group was also re-tested after two weeks of group
discussion and personal research to see if their attitudes to GM had
changed. The authors of the narrow-but-deep section conceded that their
results were not statistically robust, because of the small numbers
involved.
d) Despite
the flaws referred to above, the authors of the report on the ‘Narrow but
Deep’ part of the research believed it was an accurate reflection of the
general public. The initial responses of the ‘Narrow but Deep (random)
group were, however, noticeably different from the results of the open
debate (even after the two week period of personal research), even though
the GM Nation debate report claimed that, apart from some minor
differences, the two groups agreed. The Nottingham
research details these differences (http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/philosophy/staff/Campbell/Table1.htm.
e) Questions
asked were often vague and leading. A more rigorously complied list of
questions would have avoided most of these inadequacies, including
embedding questions about GM among questions about other current food
concerns, so that the participants would have been less aware that GM food
was the focus of all questions.
Overall, the key
conclusions that can be drawn from the GM Nation Debate were that, whilst
a number of (mostly negative) views were expressed strongly about the
subject, the findings cannot be considered to be reasonably representative
of views of the public in general. They more accurately reflect the views
of a small, but focused minority that have strong negative views about the
technology. This tends to contrast with the ‘largely indifferent’ views
of most citizens about the issue of GM technology – see for example
findings from consumer surveys of consumer views by the Institute of
Grocery Distribution, summarised on the separate paper relating to the
demand for Non GM products.
