PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF SOCIAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES AROUND GM FOODS
INTERVIEWEE: Focus Group B (Teenagers)(GM002)
INTERVIEW HELD ON: 17/2/2000
I: Well, the next one I'm going to do, which I've covered a little bit of, but these are some statements that people have made about the issue of GM foods, and I just wondered, is this an argument that you've heard, and do you agree or disagree? So I'll just take this one. Well, the first one is, "Quite soon, people in Africa and Asia will starve, unless we allow farmers to use genetically engineered crops when they need to". What do you think? Is this something that you've heard? We've talked a little bit about it when
you saw that picture, but …
M: Mmm.
I: You need to think about that, how you … is it a debate that you think is around?
M: Yes, I think …
M: But … because, again, on Radio 4, you hear two sides of it, and they were saying how the terminator gene in genetically modified crops, meant that after you've harvested a crop, then you can't reproduce that, so you have to then buy in new grain again. So, in actual fact, they say it's going to help benefit the farmers, but the farmers are going to have to spend money on getting a new crop every year, instead of just harvesting and reproducing from their old crop. That was the debate, but against that sort of comment.
F: Well, I think media groups have been more interested in our own country, rather than that. You know, they're saying, "Well, how is it going to damage us?" and they don't really kind of see this. They're more interested in our own country, than actually looking at Africa, basically.
I: Is that something that you've noticed just looking at the media generally?
F: Mmm. Well, you don't really get anything like that, do you, about Africa, you know. You just talk about how it's going to affect us, which seems a bit selfish.
I: What about this one, "With GM crops in the fields, it's only a matter of time before some kind of environmental disaster happens"? Agree? Or have you heard that?
F: Well, it's happening anyway.
I: You think it's happening.
M: I think the word "environmental disaster" is a little bit harsh.
F: Mmm.
M: You think of an environmental disaster, you think of, like, Chernobyl or something.
I: So you wouldn't see it on a scale of things to worry about?
M: It's not a new thing, is it. It's not something that someone might have said last Wednesday, "Oh yeah, GM crops …" they've been happening for a while, and then someone suddenly thought, "Hello, what's this?" And then people got upset about it, and there's people suddenly saying, "Oh, there's this new thing", but it's not. And it hasn't happened yet. And so if you give people the time to learn more about it, then you'll steer clear of something like that.
I: Can you remember what the first thing was you heard about it?
M: I remember it was something bad! (laugh)
M: Surely the anti side would have hit first, wouldn't it? Hit the media first, because it's got a more hard-line approach.
F: Mmm. In Farmers' Weekly they've been writing about it, saying they'd had problems. It wasn't until a few weeks fter … no …
[GENERAL DISCUSSION – can't hear anyone]
I: Right. So that's something that you would have known about, because …
F: Yeah, they were writing about that before, and … because they were demonstrating, anyway, for quite a while.
M: I can't remember …
F: The newspapers.
I: Right. The next one is, "We should leave decisions about GM technology to the experts like scientists.
Politicians and pressure groups should keep out of it".
M: Oh yeah.
I: You think so?
M: Mmm. Absolutely.
F: Yeah.
F: Yeah, I think so.
I: What do you think?
F: Yes. But I don't think scientists would get involved without the pressure groups starting it off, I don't think.
M: Oh no, of course they would. They would, because they did it in the first place. You know, they're going to …
M: You think that the pressure groups and politicians got involved because scientists have done this?
M: There would have to be a motive though, wouldn't there.
M: Look at scientists …
M: You need a demand for something.
F: They'd be in there already, wouldn't they.
M: Yeah, but if scientists can find a way to make something better, they will. Because then they can market it as something better, as well as always "new improved this", and "new improved that", it would be the same idea. That they'd say, "Oh, we've …" you know, they've eradicated the terminator gene or something so we can … thingy! And people go, "That's great!" Then they could make more money. Which is why scientists are doing it, because someone, at the end of the day, is paying them to do it.
I: So what do you think? Do you think this group's brought it into the …
F: I think so, yeah. I don't think the scientists would have done, test GM foods without pressure groups bringing it to attention.
M: But there were …
F: I know, I know but pressure groups have a
M: A difference of opinion.
I: And pressure groups are going to get involved, I mean, where do you think the scientists fit in, in that kind of whole line of people who are interested in this? Would you see them as being …
M: Very much a sort of political football, I reckon.
I: How do you mean?
M: Well, they just make it. They just produce things, and then the politicians, or whoever, sort of says, "And then that's good for this reason", or the media will say, "It's bad for that reason", so …
I: So you see them more as producing independent research, and then it's used however …
M: Yeah.
I: What about the rest of you? What do you think?
M: They were doing it anyway! GM crops didn't appear, they didn't just grow. Scientists did it. Therefore they had the primary interest, and they had fields, they didn't have fields, they didn't just, say, invent one thing and put it everywhere. They had specific fields where they were continuously testing it, and those are the fields these demonstrator people attempted to go and destroy. They were there for research, which means the scientists were already working on it. They were already there.
F: Trying to make it safer.
M: Doing stuff. And then it got highlighted by the antis, and then the politicians got involved, and it became, like, the public then got involved. And the public will be swayed by the politicians, right. In general, the public will be swayed by the politicians or the antis. The tabloids sell the most papers, and the tabloids are the most inflammatory, and whichever side a tabloid goes with, its readers will probably decide with that paper. So the politicians … if the politicians and the antis got out of it, and let the
scientists just get on with it, then it would probably get resolved quicker than pictures of Tony Blair. It doesn't do a lot, does it. It doesn't do a lot for the cause. It doesn't aim to solve the problem.
M: No, but that's assuming that scientists are always doing things for the good, for the better. If they do something for the worse, then everyone …
M: I think they'd probably get found out quite quickly.
M: Accidents can happen, though, can't they.
M: Yeah, accidents happen all the time. I mean, the nuclear power stations, they're regulated. You have
scientists and regulators. You have something that happens, you have someone who keeps an eye on it. And that would be the most sensible way to do it, in my opinion.
F: I agree!
F: Very good!
I: The next one is, it is a little bit like what you've said already. "Genetic engineering of crops is just like
plant breeding. People have been doing that for years without any problems". What do you think?
F: Mmm.
F: Yes. I mean, all our crops now have been kind of … you know, modified, you know, to produce better yields, quality and quantity. So, you know, it's been going on for years. And … you know, it's been going on for absolutely years. I mean, how are crops are now, it's all been modified to be
like they are.
I: Do you think that this is something that you've seen in the media, though, generally? That type of debate or that sort of statement?
F: Oh God, no! No, you wouldn't. I mean, you'd get …
I: Do you think it's because it has become very kind of contentious …
F: Yeah. They're just kind of seeing GM foods now. They're just looking at now. I mean, they haven't gone back into the history to look, you know, and all that kind of stuff, it's just all now, it's focusing on nowadays and stuff like that.
M: I'm not actually aware of the difference between, say, breeding a plant, a rose or something, to be pink, and breeding something like a crop to be different. I think there's probably a difference, but I'm not sure about it. I mean, because cross-pollinating is quite a simple thing, and it can happen naturally, but I don't know about this … about modifying soya and things like that. I don't know how it works. Probably through lack of reading the media!
M: I doubt it!
I: Well, the last one is actually, "It's impossible to get good information about GM foods and any risks, so it's impossible to have a sensible opinion". I mean, what do you think about the amount of information? I know you might not be especially interested in it or anything, but do you think, at the moment, there's …
F: There's not much on it at the moment, is there. And it's all against, anyway.
M: The media's here and now, isn't it. That story was last week. That sold papers last week. "We need something this week". It's like Iraq, you know, there was bombing going on in Iraq, and it was really a fun story. It was like selling papers for a week, and it's still happening, and it's not in the papers. So it's the same …
I: So where would you have said that the story had peaked, then?
M: Probably when these guys were … destroying the crops.
M: Probably when everyone was getting really upset, and they pounced on that, and jumped on like … you know, this was something that was getting people going, and they decided to make a quick buck on it.
F: It's just a front page story, really, isn't it, it's just papers making money.
M: But it's possible to be strong. I think if you're really that bothered, you could probably find some fairly unbiased information.
I: Well, I was going to say … if you didn't go to the media, where would you start looking for information? Or would you just choose a particular part of the media, like maybe trust Radio 4 and The Guardian, compared to other …
M: The Government produces a report on everything it does, and the scientists produce reports, which are available. They have to be, because
F: Maybe you should get the media …
M: … that Company is a Public Company, so they have to publish them at the legal price of £8.95.
I: How do you know that!
M: Because I've studied it! So you could actually, you could actually go and see that Company's Records, and read it's Report.
M: But you have to wait for, like, some time before you …
M: No, that's different things.
I: So you would be talking about seeking out your own information …
M: Yeah. You'd have to be, you'd have to be quite bothered about it.
F: Yeah.
I: To go out of your way to …
M: Yeah. If you didn't care, you'd just read the papers, and think, "Oh, that must be true".
F: What if you go to the Internet? More access on the Internet … would be better, wouldn't it.
M: Yeah, but the Internet's a bit …
M: Just got more …
I: Do you all use the Internet? I mean …
F: No.
I: Right, so you don't, but … you do?
F: Yeah.
M: What, as a source of news?
F: Oh no, not for news, no. Just for … well, information.
M: I wouldn't trust the Internet.
I: Would you not?
M: You can look up a story on the Internet, and you'll get six different stories, and they'll all be the same story, and it's back to which paper you read, basically, isn't it. The Internet is not a good place for getting information. I mean, certain information, if you want to look up what a car's like, you'd find that. But if you were wanting something like that …
I: But, say, for good scientific information, you wouldn't?
M: No, I wouldn't.
I: Anywhere else that anyone can think of, that you would try to get information … that you would trust, obviously.
M: A friend who knew about it.
I: Yeah, yeah, that's a good point. And presumably …Presumably you know people who do know something about GM?
F: Yeah. Yeah. I think … someone who I know, manages a farm, which is near to where they're having all these tests, and they were, like, attacking fields which were not … you know, were not really GM foods. And so they just lost the farmer a hell of a lot of money, which he can't get back and stuff. And it's a bit pointless really.
I: So were you actually watching the news story, and thinking, "I know what's going on here"?
F: Yeah, I mean, I know the farmer had got in contact with other farmers to say that, "We're having these problems", and they were just attacking any old field. I mean, that one might not be the right one, for all they know. They could be just a field with some crops on it.
M: Yeah, but they can, because they've got the photo … the photo … the photo in the paper.
F: Exactly. But they haven't done anything, have they, to help get rid of GM food.
M: Don your red coat, get your rifle out … try and have the ground covered and go after them!
I: Has there been anything in the media coverage of GM foods that's surprised you, or changed your mind about anything? Anything that sticks in your mind?
F: No.
F: No.
I: Not at all? Do you think that … I mean, to what extent do you think the public should be involved with making a decision about genetically modified products? And how might we go about that? What do you think?
M: They should be involved to a large extent, because they have to eat it. At the end of the day, if people decided they weren't going to eat GM foods, then they wouldn't.
M: But people don't even know what is GM foods or not.
M: Yeah. But papers always … there was quite a few lists in the papers, "Don't eat this", and if people believe their papers, then they'll stop eating certain things.
I: So it would just be like consumer pressure?
M: Yeah. Yeah.
I: Because of lack of demand really?
M: Yeah. But I wouldn't say that was the right way to go about it.
F: I'll eat it, whatever, because I think it's been in our food for years, so … what the hell! If we've been eating for years so far, it doesn't …
M: But have we, or not?
M: Nothing quite like it.
F: We don't know, do we. You know, we … I mean, we could have been eating GM foods for absolutely years, but we've had no idea about it until now. You don't know, really, do you.
M: Yeah, but you don't really want to be going saying that to people, because they'll get quite upset!
F: Oh God, I'm not going to, but I'm just saying, you know, that could happen.
I: Do you see it in relation to other health scares, I'm just wondering?
M: BSE.
M: Yeah, the BSE crisis. It actually came out in a line of anti things, didn't it.
I: Right. What other things?
M: Like, I think … well, they're not that recent, but there was like the live lamb export thing, and then there was GM crops, and there was the fox-hunting, and there was the farmers walking down Oxford Street! It was … it all sort of came fairly close together.
M: I think people just kind of … I don't know really.
I: So you were suspicious that this might be more of the media agenda, that they were trawling for stories?
M: Yeah, it was a run of things, wasn't it. Like, if something happens in, say, the farming community, then the chances are, people will stick around for another thing. So I personally believe things happen in threes!
I: What do you think? I mean, because that's true, actually, there was a whole …
F: They're just buggering up farming, aren't they!
I: Do you see the GM one as just, like, "Get another attack on …"
F: Oh God, yeah! Definitely!
M: Farmers … aren't rash people, who go on demonstrations.
F: No, I'm just … you know.
I: And the other thing I wondered was, I mean, your thoughts about genetically modified foods, do you see how you feel, and what you think about GM foods, really, is how you think about genetics in general, or do you think of it as different? What do you think?
F: No opinion.
F: I think it's completely different, you know, choosing … making someone, because they can make different people, you know, choose bits of you, and stuff like that, can't they. But that's completely different from doing plants, really. You're talking about human beings, you know, instead of plants.