Second Generation GM Foods: Perspectives on Likely Future Acceptance by Irish Consumers

1. Summary

Two hypothetical second-generation genetically-modified (GM) products, a yogurt and a dairy spread, were evaluated by consumers. Second-generation GM food products offer specific consumer benefits - in the case of this study, health benefits.

The purpose of this research was threefold. Firstly, to determine the level of acceptance of second-generation GM products by Irish consumers. Secondly, it sought to establish whether different segments of consumers existed on the basis of acceptance. Thirdly, it set out to profile any segments identified on the basis of various demographic, behaviour and food choice attitude variables.

Yogurt

In terms of overall acceptance, the majority of Irish yogurt consumers surveyed were not in favour of a GM yogurt and rejected a GM yogurt even when it offered the ultimate consumer health benefit, an anti-cancer benefit. Four attributes were tested and their ideal yogurt was one with no GM ingredients, a low fat content, the respondent’s normal brand of yogurt, and a European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) seal of approval. In regard to preference, the GM attribute was the dominating influence on acceptance.

In terms of acceptance, four different segments were found to exist. Segmentation analysis found about one-third of the sample, “2nd generation rejecters”, specifically rejected the second-generation GM yogurt. A further 25%, “anti-GM”, were outright rejecters of the product. Nonetheless, a GM yogurt offering specific consumer benefits was acceptable to 21% of the sample (“conditional accepters”), which implies that such a food could represent a niche market within the overall food market in the future. The remaining 21% of the sample, called “2nd generation accepters”, were receptive to the concept of a second-generation GM yogurt. Irish consumers of yogurt would also have confidence in a European seal of approval.

Thus, two segments comprising 59.3% of the sample rejected the GM yogurt. On the other hand, the remainder, 41.7 %, were receptive to a GM yogurt offering the anti-cancer benefit.

There was a greater percentage of “2nd generation accepters” in the Dublin area and the lowest percentage of respondents from the AB socio-economic group. There were greater proportions of “2nd generation rejecter” respondents in the AB socio-economic group and in Munster. The “anti-GM” cluster contained the highest percentage of respondents who claimed that they were the chief income earner in their household.

The “conditional accepters” were the most regular consumers of yogurt while the “2nd generation accepters” were the least regular.

Profiling on attitudes to food choice provided further insight into differences between the segments. The “conditional accepters” were more health-oriented and more receptive of products with natural ingredients than the “2ndgeneration rejecters”. The “anti-GM” group has a stronger preference for products with natural ingredients compared to the above “2nd generation accepters”. Concern about animal welfare was a more important food choice factor for “conditional accepters” and the “anti-GM” cluster compared to the “2nd generation rejecters”. Environmental protection was a more influential food choice factor for the “anti-GM” group compared to “2nd generation rejecters” and “conditional accepters”.

Dairy spread

Similar to yogurt consumers, Irish dairy spread consumers remain wary of GM foods even when these foods offer specific consumer benefits. Overall they rejected such a product. Of four attributes tested, their ideal combination was one with no GM ingredients, a price of €1.85 a tub, a low fat content and the respondent’s normal brand of dairy spread. Although the GM factor had most influence on acceptance, price was almost equally important.

Correspondingly, segmentation analysis of the results in this study identified a segment, “anti-GM”, some 24% of the sample, who were outright rejecters of a GM spread. A further 32%, “2nd generation rejecters”, did not accept a second-generation GM spread. About 30% of the sample, “pro 2nd generation”, were positively inclined towards the second-generation spread with a further 14%, the “2nd generation accepters”, accepting the product. The “2nd generation accepters” had reservations about GM foods which they discounted on the basis of the health benefit offered by the product. They would also be particularly receptive of a second-generation GM spread offered at a competitive price.

Thus two segments, some 58.2% of the sample, rejected the GM product while 43.8 %, from the other two segments were receptive.

A greater percentage of the “anti-GM” group had their cholesterol level tested and had a higher third level education qualification. The “2nd generation rejecters” were more likely to be the chief income earner in their household.

The segments also differed in terms of their food choice attitudes. The “anti-GM” group had a greater preference for food with natural ingredients and which did not contain additives or artificial ingredients compared to the “pro 2nd generation” cluster. The familiarity of the food they consume and the fact that it is part of their normal routine is more important to the “2nd generation accepters” compared to the “anti-GM” group. The “anti-GM” group in turn are more influenced by issues of environmental protection when choosing food than the “2nd generation rejecters”.

Overall

The results for both questionnaires suggest that GM foods are not widely accepted by Irish yogurt and dairy spread consumers. However, the results of the segmentation analysis imply that clearly-labelled, second-generation GM dairy products with proven health benefits could attain a share of the Irish food market. As a majority reject such products, it raises the question of whether the food industry is prepared to develop them and allow consumer choice take its course.