Al Skogen would have people believe that surveys conducted by the International Food Information Council offer a superior source of information on consumer opinions about GM food.

James Beniger, a communications professor at the University of Southern California and past president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, was asked to review just such an IFIC survey and concluded it was so biased with leading questions favouring positive responses that any results were meaningless!

UCLA communications professor Michael Suman agreed, adding that the questions "only talk about the food tasting better, being fresher, protecting food from insect damage, reducing saturated fat and providing benefits. It's like saying 'Here's biotechnology, it does these great things for you, do you like it?'" http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=64

---

Biotech food advocate's claims don't square with Pew findings
By Dean Hulse
The Forum, January 10 2007 http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=152440&section=Opinion&forumcomm_check_return&freebie_check&CFID=14469031&CFTOKEN=16654939&jsessionid=883011b4f34e28218c1f

It's a new year and once again Al Skogen is trying to build a biotech bandwagon (column, Forum, Jan. 7). This time, he's citing a survey commissioned by the International Food Information Council. The "recent press" Skogen acknowledges likely reflects results from a 2006 poll conducted for the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (http://pewagbiotech.org/newsroom/releases/120606.php3).

The latest Pew survey reaches these conclusions:

- Americans hold mixed attitudes toward genetically modified foods.

- Awareness of GM food has declined during the last five years.

- Although Americans are not well informed about animal cloning, they are overwhelmingly uncomfortable with it.

- Americans support regulation of GM foods.

- Friends and family are the most trusted sources of information about GM foods.

Skogen states, "Overwhelming research has concluded that this technology is absolutely safe for consumers and the environment."

Please provide the overwhelming, peer-reviewed, third-party research to support your claim. And while you're at it, kindly answer these questions:

Why do so many consumers feel compelled to rely on friends and family for information about GM foods? Wouldn't food labels be the best way to educate consumers about what they're eating? If food labels work for trans fats, why not GM ingredients?

Ultimately, it's up to readers - i.e. consumers - to decide what to believe. To that end, here are some additional points to consider: One, on its Web site, the IFIC states it is primarily a U.S. communications organization.

And two, an article titled "Liquid Truth: Advice from the Spinmeisters" appearing in PR Watch (www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q4/truth.html) offers the following: "In 1992, the food industry's International Food Information Council (IFIC) retained Dr. G. Clotaire Rapaille, international market research expert, to research "how Americans relate to food biotechnology and genetic engineering." IFIC, an ardent enthusiast for the use of biotechnology in agriculture, wanted to know how it could overcome consumer apprehensions about the new technology.

"A "core team" was assembled to aid in the research, consisting of representatives from the Monsanto Agricultural Company, NutraSweet, Kraft General Foods, Ajinomoto, Du Pont and Calgene. Other research sponsors included Frito-Lay, Coca-Cola, Nestle, Procter & Gamble, and the M&M/Mars candy company. The goal of the research team was to "develop actionable strategies, messages, and language that will express information positively about the process and products" without stirring fears or negative connotations.

Hulse lives in Fargo.
E-mail [email protected]

Go to a Print friendly Page

Email this Article to a Friend

Back to the Archive