September 13

C. Manly Molpus, president and CEO, Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc., believes progress has been made in gaining consumer acceptance of bioengineered foods. Biotech opponents are losing ground to consumers who are paying attention to new information about the benefits of biotech and expressing continued confidence in the safety of the foods they eat.

"While the industry still has a long struggle ahead, recent activities suggest there's a brighter outlook for biotech than anticipated just a year ago," Molpus said. Consumer education "is taking shape," for one thing.

The newly created Council for Biotechnology Information launched a broad-based communications program including print and broadcast advertising, aggressive media outreach, and creative events designed to inform consumers in the United States and Canada about the benefits of biotech, Molpus points out.

"We're confident this three-to-five year program, supported with $50 million for this year alone, will help bring favorable attention to the issue and encourage fact-based discussion about biotech among consumers. It's a welcome program, if for no other reason than it will enable advocates of biotechnology to shape the public debate (and the news headlines) and force opponents of biotech to defend against pro-biotech statements," he said.

Even more encouraging, he added, are early indications that consumer education efforts are indeed working. "Consumer concern about biotech, as measured by monthly tracking surveys and by calls coming into the consumer hotlines of GMA member companies, remains relatively low," he said. The latest survey data show that about 20 % of consumers are concerned about biotech to any extent. By comparison, 71% are concerned about education, 52% about tax issues, and 36% about obesity in children.

"In addition, not a single GMA member company has reported a volume of biotech calls that comprise as much as even a half-percent in calls about biotech for any time period, whether it's a month or a year. And companies report that many of the biotech callers use nearly identical language and seem to be part of an anti-biotech effort orchestrated by activists," according to Molpus.

Officials at the Food and Drug Administration, USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency have held to their position that while firm federal oversight of biotechnology remains necessary, no substantial changes are needed in the current science-based U.S. regulatory structure for biotech foods. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded that all evidence indicates that biotech foods are safe for consumption and pose no threat to the environment. Likewise, the Clinton administration recently stated it considers biotech foods to be safe, Molpus pointed out.

However, he warned that while all of these developments are favorable, the food and biotech industries should not be "lulled into overconfidence. An unforeseen media event, a clever publicity stunt from anti-biotech activists, or a strategic blunder on the part of biotech advocates could reverse the current momentum," he cautioned. "And proponents of biotechnology must seriously address the concerns of biotech opponents who sincerely believe the technology is harmful."