Public Expectations, Fears Reflect Biotech's Diversity

Consumers distrust some of the field's developments and put too much hope in other, well-publicized studies. CALLING ALL SCIENTISTS: The best source of information on biotech, says Carl Feldbaum of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, is the scientist, who can really help educate the press and the public. The public's fears when modern biotechnology began two decades ago have both diminished and evolved. Surveys indicate that today, many people accept that biotechnology will increasingly supply everyday products such as food, fibers, and pharmaceuticals. But the wide range of public knowledge-and misperceptions-about biotech reflects the diversity of the field. Consumers show concern over not-yet-feasible human cloning and, while they are somewhat unaware of the many drugs already available courtesy of biotechnology, they have unrealistic expectations for gene therapy, which is still far from clinical reality. "We're seeing a whole new awareness over the last 10 years," observes James Chamberlain, president and chief executive officer of Biosource International, a Camarillo, Calif.-based diagnostics company. "People are now more aware of the benefits of biotechnology than the inherent dangers. Fifteen years ago, everyone worried about recombinant organisms being released into the air, producing three-armed, one-legged people. Now we don't have those worries, but we do see public fear over the prospect of human cloning." Thomas Hoban, a professor of sociology at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, has tracked public attitudes toward biotechnology since the early 1990s. Dolly, the Scottish sheep whose cloning was announced in February 1997, coupled with a growing concern among Europeans about agricultural biotechnology, inspired his most recent survey (T.J. Hoban, L.D. Katic, Cereal Foods World, 43:20-2, 1998). Sponsored by the Washington, D.C.-based International Food Information Council, the telephone survey of 1,004 adults, conducted in March 1997, hit a cross-section of the United States population. Hoban and Katic's results indicated an increase in support for biotechnology generally, as compared with the findings of previous surveys. In 1992 and 1994, one-third of respondents had read or heard about the field; by 1997, that percentage was nearly one-half. "We still found that a majority of people were positive about biotechnology," Hoban says. "Most felt that they either had benefited or would benefit in the near future [through biotech], and a majority also continued to express a willingness to buy produce that had been developed through biotechnology." FOODS BETTER KNOWN: Consumers are now more aware and accepting of biotech foods, says Christine Bruhn, consumer research center director at the University of California, Davis. Surveys conducted in 1995 and 1996 by the Washington, D.C.-based Food Marketing Institute support Hoban's findings, says Christine Bruhn, director of the center for consumer research at the University of California, Davis, whose own surveys do the same (Trends in the United States: Consumer Attitudes and the Supermarket. Food Marketing Institute, Washington, D.C., 1995; and T. Hoban, Journal of Food Distribution Research, 3[1]:1-10, February 1996). Although these surveys show consumer acceptance of plant biotechnology, shoppers are often unaware of genetically manipulated fruits and vegetables on the market because the alteration is usually pest or herbicide resistance-characteristics not visible to the consumer. For example, St. Louis-based Monsanto Corp.'s NewLeaf potatoes look like ordinary potatoes, but they manufacture a bacterial insecticide. CRITIC: The public is becoming more concerned about biotech foods, according to Ronnie Cummins of the Pure Food Campaign. One anti-biotech crusader, however, disagrees with the findings of Hoban's survey. "The public is becoming more and more concerned about food safety, and they perceive that something shady is going on with genetic engineering," contends Ronnie Cummins, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Pure Food Campaign, affiliated with activist Jeremy Rifkin's Foundation for Economic Trends. Cummins's comments raise an important issue: whether food labels should indicate if a fruit or vegetable has been genetically manipulated. "If companies are doing things that are good for the consumer and the environment, they should label their products and say what they do," he asserts. "The technology is troubling to people because they are not being treated as responsible adults who can decide whether or not to buy genetically altered food." Biotechnology can quickly change such plant traits as pest and pesticide resistance, nutritional qualities, appearance, and habitat requirements. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires labeling only if the product is altered significantly, and consumers seem to accept this policy. "Among the most important new findings in our survey is that over 75 percent of consumers support the FDA policy regarding labeling of foods developed through biotechnology," Hoban says. But because of this FDA policy, people may buy foods that come from genetically altered organisms without knowing it. "People purchase things modified by biotechnology, even items of the most potential concern, such as BST [bovine somatotropin] in milk. Very little milk is labeled 'free of recombinant BST,' " notes Bruhn. Recombinant BST, FDA-approved in 1994, boosts milk production in dairy cattle by 10 percent to 20 percent. Consumer fears centered on giving a hormone to cows-but consumers drink the milk, not the hormone. A food ripe for labeling is transgenic soybean with brazil nut DNA. Researchers funded by Pioneer Hi-Bred International Corp. of Johnston, Iowa, discovered that the nut gene, added to boost the bean's methionine level to make the protein more complete, also triggered an allergic response in people allergic to brazil nuts. Swapping characteristics from different species therefore can also transfer allergens, which can be dangerous if a label does not indicate the source of the added nutrient (J.A. Nordlee et al., New England Journal of Medicine, 334:688-92, 1996). LABELING CONTROVERSIES: Labeling can doom a genetically altered food, declares Susan Tellem, president of a public relations firm that represents biotech companies. However, labeling a product to announce biotechnological modifications can doom it in the marketplace, according to Susan Tellem, president and CEO of Tellem Worldwide Inc., a public relations firm in Los Angeles that represents several biotech firms. As an example, she cites the FlavrSavr tomato, which had a blocked ripening gene that extended its shelf life. The tomato, developed by Calgene LLC of Davis, Calif., a wholly owned subsidiary of St. Louis-based Monsanto Corp., was labeled as "grown from genetically modified seed." "FlavrSavr was introduced as one of the best new discoveries and [one that] would taste better," notes Tellem. "But the public did not accept it, even though they probably couldn't tell it from another tomato. Media stories indicated very strong objections. People were afraid that eating such a tomato would alter their own genes. Chefs throughout the state [California] put on menus that they did not use FlavrSavr tomatoes." William Hiatt, vice president of produce research at Calgene, contends that the company took FlavrSavr off the market in March 1997 because traits other than the extended shelf life made it too costly to grow. "Consumer acceptance was very good, and the demand was always greater than our supply," he says. The company has gone back to the drawing board and is trying to engineer longer shelf life into different tomato varieties. "We will take the time to do the necessary testing to make sure it is ready this time," Hiatt maintains. In addition to further tomato work, Calgene is now developing specialty oils from genetically modified canola seed, for use in foods, cosmetics, and lubricants. If consumers are quick to notice labels on brave new tomatoes, they are less attuned to the biotechnological origins of new medical products. Says Mark Brand, who as the first director of corporate communications at Amgen Inc. of Thousand Oaks, Calif., helped launch two of its biggest drugs before becoming a private consultant in Boulder, Colo., in 1992: "My parents are cancer survivors. They don't care if a drug comes from a recombinant protein or a combination of chemicals. They care if it will work, and if they can afford it." It's been nearly two decades since the FDA approved the first recombinant drugs. According to the Washington, D.C.-based Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), in 1997, 10 of 49 newly approved drugs were biologics: three vaccines; recombinant drugs to treat hemophilia B, hepatitis C, and diabetic ulcers; monoclonal antibodies against kidney transplant rejection and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; cultured cartilage cells; and a drug to increase platelets in people undergoing chemotherapy. And biotech's contribution to new pharmaceuticals is expected to jump. "About 5 percent of approved drugs result from biotechnology. We anticipate that this figure will go up because researchers have more drug targets to work with from cloning more genes," says Gillian Woollett, assistant vice president for biologics and biotechnology at PhRMA. In contrast to the public's unawareness of biotech's contribution to drug research, preliminary gene therapy efforts sometimes receive too much consumer attention. Doris Zallen, a professor of science and technology studies at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, blames the media. From 1993 to 1997, she served on the National Institutes of Health's Recombinant Advisory Committee (RAC), which evaluated research proposing to use recombinant DNA. "We would grant grudging approval for a simple Phase I trial, and the next morning, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post would run articles based on press releases announcing a groundbreaking new gene therapy for cystic fibrosis or cancer," she recalls. "We felt this was truly irresponsible. Everybody involved knew that these studies were very preliminary, yet they were promoted in an exaggerated way. The fact is, gene therapy has not panned out yet." Scientists must place new developments in perspective, agrees Jay Flatley, president and CEO of Molecular Dynamics Inc. of Sunnyvale, Calif. "So many discoveries are announced by scientists who want the press and notoriety. But the discoveries are put forth 10 years before they will enter into practical use, before scientists understand what has been learned about molecular pathways and how the discovery will impact on human health," he says. Fledgling firms sometimes must overstate research progress and commercialization potential to attract prospective investors. "Biotech companies are under pressure to disclose results to raise money. They are caught between a rock and a hard place," says Brand. The problem with expecting too much too soon for medical biotechnologies is that people can make life-or-death decisions on the basis of the perceived status of the field. Zallen recalls a tragic case she encountered while researching her book, A Consumer's Guide to DNA Testing (Rutgers University Press, 1997). "A couple had a male fetus with a risk of inheriting hemophilia. They were convinced there was gene therapy available for everything." The couple continued the pregnancy because they believed that gene therapy after the birth would treat the hemophilia if he inherited it. "The boy was born with hemophilia, but there was no gene therapy," she says. For tips on how to weather public scrutiny, biotechnologists can consult chemists, who have a decade's jump on facing public fear. David Patti, president of the Harrisburg, Pa.-based Pennsylvania Chemical Industry Council, offers a historical perspective. "Science was great in the 1960s. We had [the science television show] 'Mr. Wizard' and the space program, and we trusted science. In the 1970s, things began to change. We saw industrial accidents at Lov e Canal, Three Mile Island, and then Bhopal. This progression of events contributed to the fear of chemicals that has developed in parallel to distrust of industry and government." Today the association of "chemical" with "danger" transcends disasters. Ads deplore unpronounceable chemicals in a slew of products as diverse as ice cream and cleansers. Stephen Safe, a professor of toxicology in the department of veterinary physiology and pharmacology at Texas A&M University in College Station, explains. "People just don't equate chemicals with foods, drugs that extend our lives, paper, or polymers." To improve public image, chemists advise biotechnologists to include the community. "Let the people in, early and often, to see what you do. Put people from communities on inspection teams, and on community advisory panels to hear what's going on at manufacturing facilities," says Patti. He adds that people want to know if a chemical or product will harm them or their families-not scientific specifics. And public involvement in the chemical industry has been helpful, according to Andrew Baum, a professor of psychology and psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center who studies technophobia. "Increased public awareness has led to safer containment for chemicals in landfills, lowered discharge of chemicals into the environment, and decreased use of chemical additives in foods," he says. Facing activist groups is another challenge. "One group of diehards suspect everything having to do with biotechnology-seeds, vaccines, anything. In many ways it is good to have such skepticism, but people should be more informed. Is biotechnology dangerous? Yes. Does it have pluses? Yes . . . .There are a lot of good things we can generate with biotechnology and chemistry. Let's get those good things, and be careful about the ones with adverse effects," says Safe.-R.L. Scientists can help inform and educate the press and the public about biotechnology and its implications, states Carl Feldbaum, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). "One of the most valuable things the industry can do is to hold focus groups. We speak with folks who have college and graduate degrees, and with people who have not earned a high school diploma," he says. "People all over the globe have heard about Dolly [in Scotland] and Richard Seed [the unaffiliated Chicago physicist who has announced his intention to clone humans] and xenotransplantation, genetic privacy, and discrimination. We have to tell the public what we do, and why we do it. There can't be science behind closed doors." But being open with John Q. Citizen doesn't mean explaining the precise genetic tinkering done to build a better tomato. Hoban and Katic concluded from their survey that consumer education should include information on uses of particular products, risks and benefits of technologies, government policies and regulations, and ethics-notably excluding technical details. Hoban explains why: "It would be nice if the public wanted to learn about the science of biotechnology. But people have little time [for] or interest in complexity, especially when it comes to the vast proliferation of high-tech tools, including biotechnology. Most people are really only asking, 'What can this technology do for me?' " Scientists also should take a broader perspective, advises Vivian Weil, director of the center for the study of ethics in the professions at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. "Scientists should think about the significance of what they are doing, what it could and should be used for. There are choices. Certain things can only happen if scientists agree to do the work," she says. Biotech's visibility can be a plus, maintains Feldbaum. "We have discovered that developments in biotechnology are so dramatic that they give us a natural platform. If we are credible and accurate in discussing our work with the public, we will benefit enormously." Ricki Lewis, a freelance science writer based in Scotia, N.Y., is the author of several biology textbooks. She can be reached online at rickilewis@nasw.org.

Public Expectations, Fears Reflect Biotech's Diversity

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of