Executive
Summary
Survey of
Perception, Understanding and Acceptance of Genetically Modified Plants and
Animals in Thailand
This summary is based on an English language translation of the original
complete Thai language report. This executive summary has been approved by
BIOTEC. However, AS the author of this summary, AFIC accepts responsibility for
any errors, or omissions.
Background
The study was commissioned by the National Centre for Genetic Engineering and
Biotechnology (BIOTEC) and carried out by Thaitopic.com. A total of 2,454
respondents were surveyed in six provinces throughout five regions of Thailand,
namely Ubon Rachathani, Chiang Mai, Nakhon Sawan, Nakhon Sri Thammarat, Sa Kaew
and Metropolitan Bangkok within a two-month period in 2004.
The study was carried out with the following objectives:
-
to survey the
perceptions, understanding and acceptance of biotechnology-derived plants and
animals
-
to analyse
the relationship between the educational and occupational background of survey
respondents and their views.
Respondents were approximately equal in the number of men and women and were
categorised according to their age groups, educational levels, marital status,
occupation, income and religion.
Awareness of Production and Consumption
When asked about the hypothetical criteria for selecting crops or livestock for
production and sale, respondents gave largely pragmatic criteria in determining
choice, stating high yields, good price and good production characteristics
(ease of cultivation, high resistance to diseases, etc) as the most important
criteria. Respondents did not report that breeding methods (i.e. traditional or
biotechnology-derived) was a factor they would consider in choice of crop or
breed variety.
Similarly, selection of fresh and packaged food was based on pragmatic and
visible or tangible criteria. Respondents cited freshness, cleanliness and
absence of chemical residues as the most important criteria for fresh food and
expiration date and endorsement from the FDA as additional criteria for
processed and packaged foods. Respondents did not report that the presence or
absence of biotechnology products was an important selection criterion.
Awareness and Understanding of Knowledge of Biotechnology:
The mass media appears to play a significant role in educating the public on
biotechnology as 3 of 4 of respondents had heard of biotechnology via television
or the newspapers.
Understanding of biotechnology was generally low and positively correlated with
the respondents’ level of education. Those with at least a Bachelor’s degree
were more likely to answer correctly, at least one of three questions designed
to test basic knowledge of genetics and biology. The higher the level of
education, the higher the proportion of respondents who answered all questions
correctly. Overall, only 12% of respondents were able to answer all three
questions correctly.
Those who worked in related fields (non-governmental organisation (NGO) workers,
academics and researchers and medical professionals) also had a better
understanding and knowledge of the technology, with the highest percentage of
all correct answers coming from academics and those who were employed by NGOs.
Awareness and Acceptance of Biotechnology
Respondents exhibited a wide variety of views about the impact that
biotechnology may have on Thailand. Both positive and negative views were
expressed. However, overall assessment of respondents was that biotechnology
currently has no significant impact on Thailand.
Perhaps as a result of better knowledge and awareness, those who were better
educated tended to have stronger positive and negative opinions as well. Those
with lower educational levels tended to be more neutral in their comments.
For example, doctorate holders were also more strongly in support of labelling;
which is already mandated under Thai law for products that contain more than 5%
of biotechnology-derived products.
Nevertheless most of the respondents, regardless of educational levels, strongly
supported research into biotechnology products with potential benefits, e.g.
foods with enhanced nutritional value, the development of vaccines and
medicines, crops with increased resistance to disease and flowers with novel
colours..
There was also strong support amongst all respondent categories for rigorous
biosafety measures and labelling of biotechnology products.
Respondents, cited lack of knowledge and understanding regarding biotechnology
as their main concern related to development of biotechnology in Thailand.
Respondents also cited lack of information, data and scientific proof and lack
of a clear government policy and direction as concerns. Respondents of all
educational levels felt that the lack of knowledge and understanding of
biotechnology was an important issue.
Perceptions of Preparedness for Development of Biotechnology Applications in
Thailand
Of the respondents who had an opinion on Thailand’s level of preparedness for
biotechnology, about 1 in 3 thought that Thailand had a low level of
preparedness and approximately 1 in 3 felt that Thailand was moderately
well-prepared, and 1 in 3 did not express a view point, a small group (just over
8%) assessed preparedness levels as high.
When the data was analysed according to occupational groups farmers felt that
Thailand was moderately prepared, and NGO workers rated Thailand’s level of
preparedness as low.
Respondents who rated Thailand’s national level of preparedness as high,
moderate or low cited similar criteria in assessing national preparedness, but
clearly differed in their interpretation of current status, given the difference
in their conclusions.
Common factors mentioned as important for national preparedness were –
-
National
resources base (skills, knowledge, technological capacity)
-
Appropriate
environmental protection measures
-
Legal
framework for seed supply
-
Levels of
knowledge/understanding of general population
-
Clear,
visible government position and policy.
-
Register of
research activities
Those who were unsure, highlighted the following factors as the reason for
inability to assess levels of preparedness –
-
Lack of clear
government policy
-
Polarisation
of debate driven by advocates and opponents of biotechnology
-
Poor
presentation of news and facts on biotechnology
-
Apparent lack
of scientific evidence of the impact of biotechnology.
Conclusions
Most
of the survey respondents reported they had heard of biotechnology. Most common
source of information was TV, followed by newspapers. However, the levels of
understanding were low, corresponding positively with educational achievement
levels.
A majority of survey respondents indicated a desire for more relevant and
appropriate information in order to participate in discussions and
decision-making. Those with highest educational attainment were more
knowledgeable about the technology were able to articulate specific potential
benefits of biotechnology and concerns that they may have about the technology.
Respondents were in favour of rigorous biosafety policy and labelling of
products containing biotechnology ingredients.
Overall, the
sample group anticipated that development of biotechnology would have neither
negative nor positive impact on Thailand. However, some respondents highlighted
potential negative impact in four areas: export trade, domestic trade, consumer
health, and the natural ecology of areas surrounding biotechnology crops.
Opinions on
Thailand’s national preparedness for development of biotechnology as were spread
fairly evenly from high to low, and 1 in 3 had no opinion or were unsure.
Survey
respondents expressed a demand for well presented, balanced and factual
information
on
-
government
policy and capacity;
-
on the
technology
-
on in-country
research and development progress
-
legal and
policy framework regarding seed supply
AFIC’s Recommendations in Light of Survey Results
As the majority of the population depended on the mass media for information, it
is imperative that the mass media disseminate accurate and unbiased information
on biotechnology to facilitate the discussion and decisions on development of
biotechnology in Thailand.
Demonstration of national government competence in biotechnology-related policy,
research and development capacity is essential to public confidence in the
technology. A proactive and comprehensive communications plan of current status
and future plans for national regulatory framework and of national research
programmes is required.
