Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (A11a)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As stated in our first submission abc welcomed
the government initiative to hold a debate with three strands,
including the public consultation process called GM Nation?
The concerns we expressed prior to the report
being published were:
— The terms of reference of the
overall programme were not accurately interpreted or followed
— The general public was not ultimately
or effectively engaged
— The stimulus material was not
accurate or adequate
— The timing did not allow for the
Economic and Science Reviews to fully feed into the process.
Now that we have seen the final report and have
had time to considering its findings and conclusions, we offer
the below supplementary information. That, in brief, concludes
that:
— The report itself recognises that
those people that attended the meetings were self-selecting (paragraph
79)
— The method used to "determine"
the actual number of debates that took place was flawed
— Public meetings were dominated
by those opposed to the technology
— The Narrow but Deep groups are
the only methodologically sound results from the GM Nation process,
underlined by the fact that these seem more aligned to other surveys
— The process did not fulfill its
wider remit of reaching a wider grass roots audience
— The vast majority of those that
returned feedback forms already had fixed views on GM.
VALIDITY OF
THE REPORT
FINDINGS
It is interesting to note that media coverage
focused on the feedback form responses submitted to the debate.
At first sight, the fact that some 37,000-feedback
forms were received appears to give the process credibility that
it reached a wide range of people. This was not accurate.
Any attempt to gauge public opinion on a controversial
issue by asking people to write in with their views is bound to
be questionable. This "petition signing" approach inevitably
encourages people with strong and hostile views to respond, and
others for whom the issue is less salient, not to do so. It also
encourages an approach based on organised opposition. We believe
that the public consultation should have been discussed with an
appropriate professional body (eg the Market Research Society)
to agree a methodologically sound process. Quantitative as well
as qualitative research should have been commissioned.
Cluster Analysis of the Feedback forms show
that only 12% of those received could be considered to be from
people with no fixed views on GM (paragraph 132). Indeed this
provides even more evidence of a lack of success of the process
to reach grass roots general public either through feedback forms
on the web-site or in public meetings.
The report clearly states that those people
who attended the meetings were self-selecting (paragraph 79) and
may have been encouraged by family, friends or pressure groups.
Of the 6 regional meetings attended by members of abc, we estimate
that 70% to 80% of all attendees were opposed to the technology
and of these, many were members of organised campaign groups.
It would appear from all of the independent reports that we have
seen, that this analysis of the attendees is universal. It is
also clear that the cascading to second and third tier meetings
was largely organised by environmental groups, which by default
means that the attendees were even more self-selecting.
The report suggests that working back from the
number of feedback forms that were requested, that some 20,000
people attended the meetings (paragraph 82). Whilst we question
this figure, even if true, it represents a very small minority
of the UK population—especially if as all estimates suggest
fewer than 25% of the attendees (5,000) could be considered to
be from the general public with no fixed opinion on the subject.
It is also interesting to note that given the estimates of attendance,
and the self-selection of the attendees, that, at best, the attendees
represented only 10% of the UK Greenpeace membership.
The report described the number of people who
attended the meetings as being some 20,000. This figure is an
extrapolation from the number of feedback forms that were requested
(a request for more than 30 forms were considered to be a meeting:
paragraph 82). This is a somewhat arbitrary way of calculating
the number of meetings—as there is no way that this figure
can be validated. abc was a primary source of speakers for these
meetings but received only 60 requests. Therefore, we seriously
question whether this number of meetings actually took place.
This leaves us with a more serious question.
If the number of meetings was significantly lower than suggested
in the report—say perhaps 300—then the actual number
of attendees that represented the "general public" was
probably less than 2,000 people. This in no way could be considered
the have fulfilled the Secretary of State's wishes that the debate
should reach grass roots public.
We draw the committee's attention to the scientific
appraisal of the process published in Nature (1) and the report
itself, that states that 51% of the feedback forms were in hard
copy form and 49% on the website (paragraph 108). This suggests
that some of the feedback forms were in fact double counted. Given
that those who attended the meetings were highly motivated this
conclusion seems very probable. For this reason, these results
should be considered with caution.
Clearly if a number of these "meetings"
did not take place, but provided the opportunity for those highly
motivated individuals to "vote" several times—then
the results of the wider feedback form analysis are even less
representative of the general public.
We do not feel as suggested in paragraph 29
of GM Nation? that the report "provides evidence about
what the public thinks and feels about GM issues".
We would also like to draw the committee's attention
to two recent surveys, the Eurobarometer and the IGD's Consumer
Watch GM Foods (2 & 3) which are methodologically sound and
show that the UK public has ambivalent views and are not in principle
opposed to the technology; and as many people would welcome GM
back onto shelves as would actively avoid it.
This view is reiterated by Prof Gaskell in his
paper "Ambivalent GM nation? Public attitudes to biotechnology
in the UK, 1991-2002," published at the height of GM Nation?
and attached as (4).
NARROW BUT
DEEP FOCUS
GROUP
Our analysis of the results disputes the widely
reported view that as people discovered more about the technology,
the more sceptical they became. The results (page 45) show that
following discussion more people felt GM could:
— help British farmers compete with
those abroad
— help developing countries
In addition, most people still believed that
GM could help the environment by reducing inputs such as chemicals
and fossil fuels.
Paragraph 209 of the report states "the
general public have a lower degree of outright opposition to GM
than the self-selecting component who involved themselves in the
debate". It is therefore disappointing that campaign groups
and the media have perpetuated the misperception of the results.
In Conclusion we would State that:
— Narrow but Deep (ie focus groups)
were the only methodologically valid results from the GM Nation
process and these seem more aligned to other surveys
— Wider public consultation was
hi-jacked by those opposed to the technology
— It did not fulfill its remit of
reaching a wider grass roots audience or take the debate the away
from the stale polemics that have typified the debate so far.
REFERENCES
(1) Flaws undermine results of UK biotech debate
Scott Campbell & Ellen Townsend Institute for the Study of
Genetics, Biorisks and Society (IGBiS), University of Nottingham,
University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK As published in NATURE—VOL
425—9 OCTOBER 2003 www.nature.com/nature
(2) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002 Eurobarometer
58.0 A report to the EC Directorate General for Research from
the project "Life Sciences in European Society" QLG7-CT-1999-00286
George Gaskell, Nick Allum and Sally Stares (London School of
Economics, UK)
(3) Consumer Watch GM Food, August 2003, Angela
Groves, IGD www.igd.com Grange Lane, Letchmore Heath,Watford,
Herts WD25 8GD, UK, Tel: +44 (0) 1923 857 141, Fax: +44 (0) 1923
852 531, Email: igd@igd.com
(4) Ambivalent GM nation? Public attitudes
to biotechnology in the UK, 1991-2002 George Gaskell, Nick Allum,
Martin Bauer, Jonathan Jackson, Susan Howard and Nicola Lindsey;
July 2003. Methodology Institute: London School of Economics.
London WC2A 2AE, Research from the project "Life Sciences
in European Society" supported by the EC Directorate General
for Research (QLG7-CT-1999-00286), Contact: George Gaskell (g.gaskell@lse.ac.uk)
21 October 2003
| 
