Myth 1: the public is ‘for’ or ‘against’ GMOs

According to this myth, the public either accepts or rejects GMOs, with most Europeans being increasingly against them.

PABE findings: overall, focus group participants expressed a rather ambivalent attitude. They did not reject or accept GMOs out of hand, and discriminated between different types of GMOs. Participants discussed arguments both for and against GMOs, and were aware of contradictions within these arguments. A key finding was that participants did not react so much to genetic modification as a specific technology, but rather to the institutional context in which GMOs have been developed, evaluated and promoted (see sidebar).

Myth 2: the public is ‘irrational and unscientific’

According to this myth, there are facts on one side of the debate and emotions on the other. Rational facts are founded on scientific evidence and demonstrate, to the best of our knowledge, that GMOs are safe. Thus, people who oppose GMOs are irrational; if only they understood the science better, they would accept GMOs. Reference is frequently made to results from Eurobarometer surveys in order to support this view; in particular that ‘70% of the population thinks that ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes, whereas genetically engineered tomatoes do’ (Hoban, 1998; Marchant, 2001).

PABE findings: indeed, understanding the nature of genetic modification, although varied between individuals and countries, was often rather limited. In particular, participants tended to be unsure about the technical distinction between conventional breeding methods and recombinant DNA techniques. But this would be better described as a lack of knowledge, rather than firmly held false beliefs about this technology. Participants were conscious of this technical ignorance, and admitted it readily. More importantly, the principal concerns expressed about GMOs were not based on erroneous information and would, therefore, not be addressed by more science education. Thus, even if we could wave a magic wand and create a world tomorrow where all citizens knew that all tomatoes contain genes, the basic questions (in sidebar) would remain unanswered, and the controversy would be unlikely to abate. Indeed, there is evidence that more knowledge about GMOs makes people more sceptical or polarised, not less (Martin and Tait, 1992; Gaskell et al., 1998).

Myth 3: people are obsessed with the idea that GMOs are ‘unnatural’

According to this myth, members of the public are concerned about GMOs because they think that genetic modification is ‘unnatural’. They do not realise that humans, through breeding, have been manipulating the genetic makeup of crops and farm animals for 10 000 years.

PABE findings: GMOs were indeed frequently characterised as ‘unnatural’ by focus group participants. They expressed the feeling that directly modifying the genome was qualitatively different from any previously used technique. A common viewpoint was that we have previously only been crossing already existing organisms, while we are now also creating novel life-forms that would not have existed otherwise. Thus, genetic engineering techniques were described as ‘pushing Nature beyond its limits’, and were thought to ‘upset the equilibrium of Nature’. This was related to the idea that scientists do not know or understand the full extent of their work, and cannot anticipate the long-term consequences of their actions on ecosystems, human health and social relations. It was in this sense that participants spoke of ‘playing God’, describing those involved in the creation and management of GMOs as ‘sorcerers’ apprentices’.

Furthermore—and contrary to popular belief—many of the concerns expressed about GMOs, including those about ‘unnaturalness’, were also expressed in relation to other agricultural innovations, such as the use of pesticides, animal-derived animal feed and antibiotics in animal feed. Participants felt that such developments were driven by the need or desire for increased productivity, regardless of health and environmental considerations, thus leading to uniform and tasteless food. The concept of organic agriculture was perceived as reversing or opposing this development, whereas GMOs were perceived as the ultimate incarnation of this trend.

Myth 4: agricultural versus medical use of GMOs

According to this myth, people are concerned about the use of GMOs in agriculture, but not about their use for the production of pharmaceuticals. The underlying argument is that people only accept new products or technologies when they are perceived to provide direct personal benefits. Thus, people can see direct benefits of medical GMOs, whereas for agricultural GMOs—at least for those produced so far—consumers do not detect any personal advantage. Following this logic, proponents and opponents of GMOs believe that if the ‘next generation’ of agricultural GMOs provide direct benefits for consumers, public acceptance will increase.

PABE findings: participants did make a distinction between food and medical applications of GMOs, and were, on the whole, more willing to accept the latter. The perceived benefits associated with medical applications provided a clear argument in their favour. But this was not the only or even the dominant argument.

Rather, those questioned felt that matters of choice, transparency and information are very differently treated in the two sectors. Indeed, drugs were seen as typically being taken upon consultation with a doctor, who explains the pros and cons of the prescription, and patients are supplied with extensive safety notices detailing any potential side-effects. Furthermore, this information is adapted to the particular individual who can decide whether he or she will take the medicine. In addition, participants were aware that medicines are rigorously tested prior to commercialisation and monitored even after approval. In this context, thalidomide was frequently cited as a positive example demonstrating that a product can be withdrawn when harmful effects occur, despite prior testing.

In addition to these arguments, a dominant theme was that medicines are administered to a small, targeted portion of the population who need it at a precise point in time and for a particular defined period. This was contrasted with food, which everybody has to eat, including vulnerable people, such as the very young, old, or those with allergies.

Myth 5: BSE ‘amalgam’

According to this myth, virulent reactions against GMOs are due to an unfortunate series of previous and ongoing food scandals in Europe. People have been ‘over-sensitised’ and now react in a disproportionate and irrational way to any new story about food risks, however small. An extreme version of this myth argues that people erroneously amalgamate BSE with GMOs: they do not understand the science well enough to understand that there is no link between the two, since prions contain no DNA.

PABE findings: the focus group participants indeed linked GMOs to other ‘affairs’—most notably BSE. Food-related scandals, such as Coca-Cola contamination, dioxins in animal feed and the use of pesticides, were often cited. But the association between such ‘affairs’ was not based on confusion about the biological processes involved but rather on the daily encounters participants had with the institutions involved (see list of lessons). From their own personal experience about human fallibility and previous institutional failures, they felt that corruption, fraud and lack of resources is nothing unusual within control authorities.

Myth 6: demand for ‘zero risk’

According to this myth, people demand ‘zero risk’, which is not realistic as we all face risks in our daily activities. If we had applied a zero risk policy in the past, we would not have developed technologies such as the steam engine, electricity or the motorcar.

PABE findings: focus group participants never demanded ‘zero risk’. They were perfectly aware that their lives are full of risks that need to be counter-balanced against each other and against the potential benefits. Rather than zero risk, what they demanded was a more realistic assessment of risks by regulatory authorities and GMO producers. The participants found expert statements—asserting that there are no risks—disconcerting and untrustworthy.