December 2003
Volume 41 Number 6

County Agent Views About Facilitating Public Education and Discussion of Genetic Engineering Use in Agriculture

J. Lynne Brown
Associate Professor, Department of Food Science
Penn State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
Internet Address: f9a@psu.edu

Nancy Ellen Kiernan
Evaluation Specialist, College of Agricultural Sciences
Penn State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
Internet Address: nekiernan@psu.edu

Elaine S. Smith
Nutrition Programs Manager
Senior Connections Area Agency on Aging
Richmond, Virginia
Internet Address: essmithrd@hotmail.com

Luanne Hughes
Family and Consumer Science Educator and Assistant Professor
Rutgers Cooperative Extension
Clayton, New Jersey
Internet Address: Hughes@aesop.rutgers.edu

Introduction

Genetic engineering (GE) will have enormous impact on our food system (Reiners & Roth, 1989; Wilkinson, 1997; IFT, 2000b). GE uses laboratory techniques to insert a gene(s) from one organism into another, often with no need for sexual compatibility. Currently, GE soybeans, canola, corn and cotton that are herbicide and/or insect resistant; virus-resistant squash and papaya; and fruit or tomatoes with altered ripening are available (IFT, 2000b). Crops with clearer consumer benefits (altered fatty acid content or vitamin content) are in development (Liu, 1999).

Debate about GE's impact on food, human health, and the environment has been fueled by reports of effects on Monarch butterflies, of pollen drift, and of StarLink-contaminated corn products (Demetrakakes, 2000; IFT, 2000a; Wolfenbarger & Phifer, 2000; Taylor & Tick, 2001). Despite new legal agreements, planting rules and uncertainty about markets (Hamilton, 2001), many farmers grow GE crops.

By 2001, 7 years after introduction, over 60% of soybeans and about 25% of corn planted in the U.S. were GE (Osvath, 2001). Because soybeans and corn are converted to ingredients used in manufactured foods, nearly 70% of our food contains GE ingredients (Eichenwald, Kolata, & Petersen, 2001). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ruled that GE foods (e.g., virus resistant papaya) and foods with GE ingredients (e.g., hydrolyzed soy protein) need not be labeled unless chemical content changes significantly (IFT, 2000b). The majority of polls in the last decade, however, have found that Americans want GE foods labeled (PIPA, 2001; Shanahan, Scheufele & Lee, 2001; PEW, 2001; Lazenby, 2001).

Given the impact GE will have on the food supply and the diversity of stakeholder opinions, Extension agents could play critical roles in fostering the grass roots discussion necessary for equitable public policy about GE applications. The Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES) supports the role of Extension agents because it funds research examining the social and economic effects of Ag biotechnology that requires Extension involvement (CSREES, 2003).

In 1999, no information existed about the ability of Extension agents to provide information about GE to farmers or consumers. Through a Kellogg Foundation Keystone 21 mini-grant, we used focus groups to examine Extension agent perspectives in three Mid-Atlantic States. Focus groups are recommended to explore the range of perspectives about an issue among people with diverse perspectives.

Objectives

The objectives of our focus groups were to learn what agents:

• Knew about GE, its agricultural applications and their consequences,
• Believed Extension's role should be in public education and discussion about GE, and
• Needed as training to assume a role in this discussion.

 Methods 

Subjects

Under project leader guidance, a multi-state Extension team recruited subjects in Winter 2000. Each state team representative sent a standardized recruitment message to all county Extension agents and directors via email asking for volunteer participants. The message explained the purpose of the focus groups, scheduling, and travel reimbursement. All agents responding to the recruitment message (N = 57) became potential participants. Focus groups were held over 3 months in Spring 2000 for agents in agriculture and in family & consumer science/4-H within each state to ensure groups with similar expertise and subject matter backgrounds (Krueger, 1988). Those attending (N=46) became the study sample.

Focus Groups

Based on the objectives, the project leader and focus group moderator developed a script of open-ended questions and probes to elicit discussion. For consistency, one moderator conducted all seven focus groups: three with agricultural agents in each state and four with family & consumer science/4-H agents (two in PA and one each in MD and NJ).

Each focus group had two parts. First, agents gave informed consent and completed a quantitative questionnaire, which included both demographic questions and three questions that provided a systematic self-assessment of knowledge of GE, its use in agriculture and level of concern about GE applications. Second, the moderator conducted the discussion, which an assistant tape-recorded while taking back-up notes.

Data Analyses

Means were compiled for the quantitative data and significant differences determined using t-tests. Qualitative data tapes were transcribed and entered into a software program for thematic analysis. Using two print transcripts, one from each agent group, we developed an initial thematic coding list that represented concepts emerging from the data. Themes and sub themes were categorized under the umbrella constructs of knowledge, perceptions and needs. Two coders then independently coded each remaining printed transcript.

Coded data were compared and differences resolved so that thematic coding categories did not overlap. New and combined coding categories were applied to previously coded, print transcripts. The final coding categories were applied to the electronic transcripts in the computer database and analyzed using Boolean key word searches organized under major themes. For each theme, we summarized and compared the findings for two groups of agents (agricultural vs. family & consumer science/4-H).

Results

Agent Demographic Characteristics and Systematic Self Assessment

Equal numbers of agriculture (Ag) and family & consumer science/4-H (FCS/4-H) agents participated (Table 1). The Ag agents represented horticulture, IPM, dairy science, agronomy, natural resources, livestock, and farm management. Family and consumer science agents represented nutrition, Expanded Food and Nutrition Program (EFNEP), food safety, and family resource management. Two participants represented 4-H. The predominately male Ag agents and predominately female FCS/4-H agents had similar educational attainment. However, in the self-assessment, Ag agents rated their knowledge of GE and of its applications significantly higher than did FCS/4-H agents. Both groups were "not sure" if they had concerns about GE applications.

Focus Group Discussion Results

Objective 1: Agent Knowledge of GE, Its Applications, and Its Consequences

Each agent group's responses fell into three sub themes, including "opinions about GE." Sometimes the two groups of agents (Ag and FCS/4-H) expressed the theme in the same way, and sometimes they differed.

What Agents Knew About GE and Its Applications

• Both groups knew that GE crops could reduce pesticide use, produce resistant pests, help meet expanding food needs, and endanger Monarch butterflies.
  
  
• Ag agents knew the perspectives of conventional farmers, who generally favored GE but were concerned about consumer acceptance, European reactions, cost of GE seeds, and pollen drift liability. Some reported hearing concern about regulatory sufficiency.
  
  
• FCS/4-H agents knew of concerns about biotechnology company motives and ethics, negative environmental impacts, and impacts on organic farmers. These agents knew consumers' concerns about allergies, long-term health effects, sufficiency of government regulation, and lack of labeling and consumer choice.

Consequences of GE

• Both groups discussed the consequences of current GE applications for various food system stakeholders, for less-developed countries, and for colleges of agriculture.
  
  
• Ag agents described the impacts on farmers, the farm supply industry, biotechnology companies, and the food industry. Only Ag agents mentioned positive environmental consequences, saw consumer reaction as normal resistance to change, and felt that consumers would ultimately pay more for food if GE were not accepted.
  
  
• FCS/4-H agents focused more on farmers' dilemma about adoption of GE, possible limitations to GE plants, and impacts of GE on community food systems. They expressed concern about the impact of no labeling of GE foods on consumer fears about long-term health effects and allergies. Although they felt that GE might increase the variety and nutrient content of foods, they saw the potential for higher prices and decreased food access.

Agent Opinions of GE

• Both groups expressed opinions about GE technology, its need, and consumer reactions. Regardless of discipline, some agents felt that concerns about GE and sufficiency of government regulations were legitimate and that more unbiased studies were needed.
  
  
• Many Ag agents expressed comfort with GE, felt it was both less risky than traditional breeding and needed as more pesticides were banned, and argued that the potential good for agriculture and medicine should be sufficient for acceptance. While some felt that poorly planned marketing campaigns had contributed to poor consumer acceptance, many believed that the negatives were exaggerated and discussions had become emotional and political. Most felt consumers did not consider GE a hot issue.
  
  
• FCS/4-H agents were divided about the need for GE foods to solve world hunger but felt it was needed to alter nutritional content, produce functional foods, and deliver vaccines via food. Many expressed discomfort with the science, seeing this technique as unnatural. They disagreed about the motives of scientists, private industry, lobbyists, and politicians involved in developing GE. They were skeptical of consumer acceptance unless more evidence of safety and GE applications with direct consumer benefit were produced. Finally, they disagreed about whether GE was a hot consumer topic.

Objective 2: Extension's Role in Public Education and Discussion

Agents' views fell into two sub themes, the challenges and their desired role.

Challenges

Agents enumerated challenges in the form of questions about implementing public education/discussion about GE. These challenges (Table 2) reflected the current situation in the US and characteristics of their target audience and of agents themselves.

Faced with these challenges, some agents expressed frustration, citing a lack of direction from Extension administration that was critical to any educational efforts.

Role in Public Education/Discussion

When asked what role Extension agents should play, if any, in public education/discussion about GE, a consensus emerged about Extension's educational philosophy and preferred methods for reaching the public. However, discomfort with public issues education emerged (Table 3).

Despite this consensus, some Ag agents wanted to be advocates while FCS/4-H agents wanted to present all sides of the issue.

Objective 3: Agents' Perceived Training Needs 

Assuming Extension was to facilitate public education/discussion of GE applications in agriculture, agents indicated they would need knowledge upgrade, backup support and group skills training (Table 4).

Most agents felt this training would require multiple days. Disagreement emerged about the utility of satellite vs. face-to-face and regional vs. statewide training.

Conclusions and Recommendations

We assessed agent knowledge (objective 1) using both self-assessment questions and focus group discussion. In the focus group discussions, a few agents were more informed about GE applications in agriculture than the mean self-assessment response suggested. Reflecting their self-assessments of knowledge of the "technique of GE," Ag agents knew more about the science than FCS/4-H agents, but few Ag agents exhibited in-depth knowledge in the focus groups.

Although, in the self-assessment question, agents indicated being "not sure" if they were concerned about GE applications in agriculture, the focus groups revealed specific concerns about this technology, especially among FCS/4-H agents. Generally, Ag agents appeared more positive about GE use, but FCS/4-H agents were acutely aware of consumers' concerns, expressing their need for information to decrease these concerns.

Our qualitative assessment of agent knowledge helped us understand the viewpoints expressed in the focus groups about Extension's role (objective 2). The challenges these agents enumerated to informing a public with low science literacy about GE reflected:

• Concern about dealing with unbalanced information,
• Limited research on impacts,
• Questions of regulatory sufficiency, distrust of government, and
• Balancing values vs. facts.

Regardless of discipline, agents felt personally unprepared in scientific background and group skills to take a pro-active part in fostering public discussion. Not surprisingly, they wanted to introduce information through the "back door" to familiar audiences in familiar program settings. While many wanted to deliver factual information, Ag agents wrestled with "selling" the technology and its applications vs. providing balanced information.

Public issues education (PIE), in which an agent would facilitate discussions to raise public awareness and group decision-making, was seen as risky, because an agent's credibility could be tested, an agent's information and opinions might not be accepted, and values could be as important as facts. The agents' requested training needs (objective 3) reflected the basis of their discomfort. These agents clearly felt they were not ready to engage in public education about GE.

Our findings indicate a need for training to increase agents' science background and their confidence in using it, ability to provide credible, balanced information to multiple stakeholders with differing views, and ability to facilitate PIE. We used these findings to plan a statewide training session on GE. We invite other Extension specialists to use our findings as the basis for investigating the needs of agents in their state. Agents are key to facilitating public discussion of the implications for the food system.

References

Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES). (2003). CSREES IFAFS research initiatives. Retrieved July 19, 2003 at: http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/programs/IFAFS/IFAFS.htm

Demetrakakes, P. (2000). The GMO balance. Food processing, 61(3), 18-29.

Eichenwald, K., Kolata, G., & Petersen, M. (2001). Biotechnology food: From the lab to a debacle. The New York Times, January 25, A1, C5-6.

Hamilton, N. D. (2001). Legal issues shaping society's acceptance of biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, 6, 81-117.

Krueger, R. A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

IFT Expert Panel. (2000a). IFT expert report on biotechnology and foods: Introduction. Food Technology, 54 (8), 124-136.

IFT Expert Panel. (2000b). IFT expert report on biotechnology and foods: Benefits and concerns associated with recombinant DNA biotechnology-derived foods. Food Technology, 54(10), 61-80.

Lazenby, E. (2001). US consumers know little about GM food: survey. Food Chemical News, 43 (41), 3.

Liu, K. (1999). Biotech crops: Products, properties and prospects. Food Technology, 53(5), 42-48.

Osvath, R. (2001). US farmers planting fewer GM crops. Food Chemical News, 43(23), 13-14.

Pew Initiative on food and biotechnology (PEW). (2001). Public sentiment about genetically modified food. Retrieved July 19, 2003 at: http://pewagbiotech.org/research/gmfood

Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA). (2001). Global issues: Biotechnology. Retrieved July 19, 2003 at: http://www.americans-world.org/digest/global_ issues/biotechnology/bio_summary.cfm

Reiners, N. M., & Roth, D. (1989). Biotechnology: What is it and is it safe? Journal of Extension [On-line], 27(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1989fall/a6.html

Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D., & Lee, E. (2001). The polls trends: Attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 267-281.

Taylor, M. R., & Tick, J. S. (2001). The StarLink case: Issues for the future. Retrieved July 19, 2003 at: http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/issuebriefs/starlink/

Wilkinson, J.Q. (1997). Biotech plants: From lab bench to supermarket shelf. Food Technology, 51(12), 37-42).

Wolfenbarger, L. L., & Phifer, P. R. (2000). The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science, 290, 2088-2093.

This article is online at http://www.joe.org/joe/2003december/rb5.shtml.

Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org.

If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support.