Re: GMW: Engineering acceptance of GM - Oz, U.S. and Canada

Comment from Louis Sales: Yep - what a complete joke! Before being asked how willing they were to eat GE food, survey participants were asked the following questions:

Q4. Now I’m going to ask you about different objectives of genetically modifying plants to produce food. I’d like you to tell me how valuable you feel these objectives are to individuals or society. Please tell me whether you think these objectives are very valuable, somewhat valuable, not very valuable or not at all valuable. So what about genetically modifying plants…

(i) to make the food healthier

(ii) to make the food last longer

(iii) to make the plants herbicide tolerant

(iv) to make the plants pest resistant

(v) to make the plants frost resistant

(vi) to make the plants mature more quickly

(vii) to make plants drought resistant

(viii) to make the food cheaper

Q6. Thinking about the environmental problems that society currently faces, would you be in favour of…

1) Using only natural or traditional methods of agriculture and environmental management OR

2) Pursuing only technologies made available through advances in gene technology OR

3) Pursuing all avenues available

Unbelievable! - well actually all too believable unfortunately...

Lou

---

Engineering acceptance of GM - Oz, U.S. and Canada (22/7/2007)
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8127

1.Oz: Government Push Polls on GM crops and foods

2.USA: Engineering acceptance of GM foods

3.Canada: Controversy over claims in favour of GM corn

NOTE: Here's the latest bit of dishonesty from the pro-GM putsch underway in Australia (item 1). Similar efforts to skew attitudinal research studies have taken place elsewhere, for instance in the case of the widely reported annual consumer surveys of the International Food Information Council (item 2). And then, of course, there's the infamous "Would you eat wormy sweet corn" research (item 3).

EXTRACTS: "It was unethical to falsely imply in the questionnaire that GM has solutions to key environmental problems when they do not exist now and are ten years from commercial reality, if ever." (item 1)

The results might be different, Suman offers, if [the survey] contained questions biased in the other direction such as: "Some people contend that some foods produced from biotechnology cause higher rates of cancer. If that is so, what effect would that have on your buying decision?" (item 2)

---

Government Push Polls on GM crops and foods
Gene Ethics Media Release, July 23 2007

"The Australian government push-polled Australians on genetically manipulated (GM) crops and foods to dishonestly inflate support for GM in its latest survey," says Gene Ethics Director, Bob Phelps.

"It was unethical to falsely imply in the questionnaire that GM has solutions to key environmental problems when they do not exist now and are ten years from commercial reality, if ever," he says.

"Most citizens support genuine solutions to air and water pollution, climate change and salinity on farms, but GM food crops are not the answer to these problems and probably never will be," he says.

"Gene Ethics saw the draft questionnaire but Biotechnology Australia rejected our proposal that people be asked their opinions on the costs, risks and hazards of GM foods and crops, as well as their claimed benefits," he said,

"Biotech Australia again showed itself to be a government-funded pro-GM lobbyist that promotes the interests of foreign GM giants ahead of Australian farmers and shoppers," he says.

"Industry Minister Ian MacFarlane's comments were also designed to mislead the public by cherry-picking the survey results and ignoring their inconvenient truths," Mr Phelps says.

"For instance, the Minister ignored Figure 25 on 'willingness to eat GM foods' that shows an average rating of 8.2 out of 10 for organic foods and 6.1 for non-organic," he says.

"Food containing preservatives rated 5.2, with GM foods lower, depending on the kind of genetic manipulation involved," he says.

"Food from GM crops was 5.1 and meat from cloned animals was last, at 3.6," he says.

"Shifts in public acceptance of GM foods were the result of revised wording from the last survey two years ago," he says.

"It's undemocratic and unfair to mould public opinion using biased surveys to justify GM policies that are nothing short of mad," Mr Phelps concludes.

More comment: Bob Phelps 03 9347 4500 or 0408 195 099

Minister's statement at:
http://minister.industry.gov.au/index.cfm?event=search.showForm

Reports at:
http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/index.cfm?event=object.showContent&objectID=DCE82A65-EBEE-A004-F1F274EB7E4B2577

---

2.Engineering acceptance of GM foods
International Food Information Council - profile
http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=64

Go to a Print friendly Page