Even as awareness of genetically modified (GM) foods remains low among US consumers, general support for GM crops is falling, according to a survey released today (October 15) by the Food Policy Institute at Rutgers University. However, "Public perceptions of genetically modified foods: A national study of American knowledge and opinion" also noted that merely mentioning the potential benefits of GM crops during the survey often increased approval ratings significantly.

"What we're seeing is an increase in uncertainty. The number of people who disapprove isn't growing. You have an increase of people who don't know taking away from the approval rating instead," said William Hallman, associate director of the Food Biotechnology Program at the Food Policy Institute.

"They're still in a place where their opinions are malleable. It suggests an opportunity to talk with them before they've made up their minds," he said.

Hallman led the telephone survey of 1200 randomly selected Americans and found that only 26% of respondents believed they had ever eaten GM foods, even though as much as 80% of processed food in the United States contains ingredients from genetically modified crops.

In September, the nonprofit Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology published a similar telephone survey of 1000 Americans. It, too, found that only a quarter of those interviewed believed they had eaten such foods.

"These two studies go very well with each other and together give a very comprehensive and consistent snapshot of where American consumer opinion is right now," said Michael Rodemeyer, executive director of the Pew Initiative.

Still, there were differences between results of the two polls. The Rutgers study found that approval of plant-based GM foods declined to 49%, from 58% in a 2001 survey, while approval of animal-based GM foods remained unchanged at 27%. However, the Pew study had the opposite results, finding that opposition to GM foods had declined from 58% in 2001 to 48% today.

"When people don't know much about something, the way you frame the questions is extremely important," Hallman said. "When you phrase it in a negative way—do you agree or disagree with a negative statement—people will assume the negative statement is the norm if they don't know much about it."

Hallman and his team found that American opinion about GM foods is not firmly held. Of those who disapproved of plant-based GM food products, 30% still said they would buy such foods if they had less fat than ordinary versions, 24% would do so if they tasted better, and 44% would buy them if they contained less pesticide residue. In comparison, the United Kingdom's "GM Nation?" opinion survey published in September found that Britons are far more certain in their negative responses to GM foods.

On the subject of regulation, the Pew study found that while public awareness of GM food remained low, 64% opposed a ban of GM foods if the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) believed them to be safe.

"The FDA is key to consumer acceptance," Rodemeyer noted, with 89% of respondents agreeing that companies should be required to submit safety data to the FDA for review and that no genetically modified food should be allowed on the market until the FDA determines it is safe. (The FDA plans to publish data on meat from cloned animals next week.)

The Rutgers survey found that roughly half of all those interviewed failed a simple, 11-item, true–false quiz, with less than 70% correct responses to statements such as, "Tomatoes genetically modified with genes from catfish would probably taste 'fishy,'" and "Ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes, while genetically modified tomatoes do."

Still, while American performance is low, overall it is better than Europe's when compared with results from a recent Eurobarometer survey of knowledge about biotechnology in general, Hallman noted. "We used parallel questions with Eurobarometer," he said.

Controversial British crop trial results to be released tomorrow (October 16) are sure to renew European debate over GM crops. "The experiences with mad cow disease in Europe is, I think, responsible for much distrust of government and the food supply, and fundamentally shaped much of the difference in public reaction between Europeans and Americans," Rodemeyer said.