Case study: impact of media reporting on public attitudes towards genetically modified foods

Genetic modification of food has been associated with a great deal of media attention in the UK and Europe, particularly in the spring of 1999 (Frewer, Miles, and Marsh, in press). In late 1998, articles written about Dr Arpad Pusztai of the Rowett Research Institute reported his (at the time, unpublished) research as providing support for the potential of negative health effects for humans as a result of consuming genetically modified potatoes (which contained chemicals designed to protect against pests). Later that year, the media reported the findings of an independent analysis, conducted by the Royal Society, which criticised the research as flawed and argued that no conclusions should be drawn from the work (The Royal Society, 1999). Spring of 1999 was associated with extensive media reporting about the potential risks of genetically modified foods, with much debate about risk and benefit proffered by different actors in the whole debate.

1998 also saw reports of over a thousand UK schools taking genetically modified foods off their menus, and the banning of genetically modified food from restaurants and bars in the House of Commons. Beginning in 1998, and continuing in 1999, Prince Charles expressed his concerns about genetic modification, questioning the necessity of the technology and calling for a public debate on the issue. Additionally, numerous genetically modified crop trial sites were destroyed around the country. A particularly well-reported case involved the destruction of a crop site in Norfolk, where Lord Peter Melchett, executive director of Greenpeace UK, was remanded in custody. The 1999 summer crop trial destructions led to discussions about the possible secrecy of locations of future crop trials. Crop trial sites were also destroyed in the US and France in 1999. Debates about the threat of cross-contamination to non-GM crops, including organic crops, were also reported.

Another area of public debate was linked to the quality of scientific advice offered to the government by scientific advisory committees. Specifically, the potential for a conflict of interest for scientific advisors to the government about the safety of genetically modified foods was seen to be an issue of concern, as there was potential for individual advisors profiting from the development and application of this technology through industrial interests. There was also an impact on food processing and food manufacturing. Since 1998 most of the major UK supermarket shave eliminated genetically modified ingredients from their own brand products in response to consumer concern. It was paralleled by similar moves by food manufacturers and restaurant chains in the latter part of 1999.

The question remains as to whether there was any impact of increased media reporting on people’s attitudes towards genetic modification and its application in food production, and if there was an effect, whether this was a permanent shift in attitude or rather a temporary change linked to the extent and duration of media reporting (Frewer, Miles, and Marsh, in press).

Attitudinal data regarding people’s attitudes towards genetically modified crops were collected in spring 1998 (before the media reporting had increased) and one year later, in March 1999 when reporting was peaking. The third wave of data collection was conducted in July 2000, when the levels of media attention had considerably subsided. Whilst the experimental design was somewhat opportunistic rather than the result of planning, it was possible to analyse whether the high levels of media reporting had an impact on people’s attitudes associated with genetically modified foods. Just over three hundred participants took part in each phase of the experiment, new participants being recruited for each phase. Participants were asked to rate their agreement, on a seven-point scale anchored by completely agree and completely disagree, with fifty-three attitude statements. Nineteen of these statements were based on the public’s own concerns (Miles and Frewer, 2001), the remaining thirty-three items being developed from attitudinal themes identified in previous studies investigating attitudes to various hazards (e.g. Sparks and Shepherd, 1994; Fife- Schaw and Rowe, 1996; Frewer et al., 1997).

Principal component analysis indicated that three factors were explaining people’s attitudes. The first was composed of items associated with the risk potential of genetically modified foods, and was labelled ‘Risks and Negative Effects’. The second was labelled ‘Trust and Choice’, as it included items relating to trust in regulators and information sources, and whether or not people thought they could avoid the risks associated with genetically modified foods. The third described the potential benefits associated with genetically modified food and was labelled ‘Benefits’.

The analysis showed that perceptions of risk (and other negative potential consequences) associated with genetically modified food increased during the highest levels of reporting, but these subsequently reduced as reporting levels diminished. The increase in perceptions of risk were accompanied by decreased perceptions of benefit. However, unlike perceptions of risk, perceptions of benefit remained depressed a year after the volume of reporting had declined. This was possibly because the media debate provided the public with information about what benefits associated with genetically modified foods were currently available; and at the time of reporting, these were primarily associated with industrial or producer profitability, rather than being specifically focused on desirable advantages to consumers.

In terms of attitudes, it would seem that people’s risk attitudes were reinforced – people became temporarily more concerned about the risks of genetically modified foods, but this effect subsequently declined. In terms of attitude-consistent information, one might posit that the messages about risk that people received were not inconsistent with views they already held – thus messages were not persuasive and processed in an effortful and in-depth way, and did not result in long-term attitude change. However, the media debate probably provided information about consumer benefit. If we can assume that people’s attitudes were not firmly developed regarding consumer benefits of genetically modified foods, then it is possible that the messages provided resulted in long-term attitude change as a result of persuasive argumentation.

The results can also be interpreted as a ‘social amplification effect’. The framework was proposed to explain why ‘risk events with minor physical consequences often elicit strong public concern and produce extraordinarily severe social impacts’ (Kasperson et al., 1998, p. 177). Very basically, the model proposes that risk information is ‘amplified’ through different channels (for example, the media or different social networks) that operate in such as way as to increases peoples risk perceptions. Similarly, peoples risk perceptions are ‘attenuated’ or decreased through similar channels. The media reporting of 1999 might have been said to amplify and, subsequently, attenuate, risk perceptions associated with genetically modified foods although only amplification was observed for perceptions of benefit associated with the same products. If perceptions of benefit are driving food acceptance, than one might surmise that people would be unlikely to accept genetically modified foods, at least in the short term.