GM food opinions not just about the science

And if the GM debate is to progress within SA, then more sophisticated and broader engagement needs to occur, with considerations of modern consumer values.

That’s according to a University of Adelaide study, which has looked into how women perceive GM technology and its use within food production.

Authors Rachel Ankeny and Heather Bray, from the university’s School of Humanities, said the study focused on women because previous research into GM perceptions showed they were often more opposed to GM foods than men. 

“This was attributed to women having less science education and that women were often looking after others, including providing food for them, which made them more risk averse, while men were less cautious about their food,” Dr Bray said.

“We wanted to test these hypotheses by looking at all types of women and how any interaction with science knowledge affected their food choices.”

SA women from a range of educational backgrounds, including those involved in plant and agricultural science, and others in health science, as well as women with lower levels of education, were researched in focus groups.

They were asked to describe their food choices and the factors that were important when shopping.

Dr Bray said all of the women with science backgrounds used evidence to support their stance, but in different ways.

"Women who had backgrounds in plant science felt the lack of evidence of harm meant that GM food was safe to eat,” she said. 

“They knew they were regularly consuming foods that contained GM ingredients with no adverse effects and therefore were not concerned.

“But the women in health sciences said it was a lack of evidence of safety that made them cautious about consuming GM food. 

“These perceptions are based on two very different concepts of risk, despite both groups being highly-educated in science.

"While for the women without science training, GM food presented 'unknown' risks, and they avoided GM foods because they considered them ‘unnatural’.”

One of the common themes in the GM study was that all of the women preferred nutritious, healthy, homegrown food – values that needed to be incorporated into any future GM discussions, Dr Bray said.

“This included locally-produced food, which is a big tick for SA producers,” she said.

“Their focus was on natural foods with no processing, pesticides and minimal additives.

“The women working in GM science felt GM foods fit into all of those categories. But those not into eating GM foods felt GM couldn’t fit into any of those categories.

“So how do we (as a state) produce enough safe, affordable, nutritious and healthy food in a sustainable way that is also ethical in terms of being humane and meeting community expectations, while also being culturally appropriate?

“This highlighted that we need to have better conversations about what all those food terms mean to us and what we are we prepared to say is ‘good’ food.

“And it’s important scientists realise that if people are presented with ‘just the science’, the discussion leaves out critical topics and values regardless of education.”

The SA government declined to comment on the study.

Grain Producers SA chairman Wade Dabinett said the study highlighted consumer choice.

“It’s great there is a study out there that talks about different perceptions on different products but GPSA’s focus is about giving people and farmers the choice if they want to grow or eat GM foods,” he said. 

“Fair enough people want to consume non-GM foods, but there is also a market for GM foods and we (graingrowers) want to grow them.

“GM foods, such as canola oil, are available to consume in SA, and GM livestock feed is being imported into this state, yet our farmers aren’t allowed to grow GM crops because of the moratorium in place.”