The Food Standards Agency research findings that consumers do not support animal cloning for food have been widely reported, (apart from in the farming press, bizarrely), and both the findings themselves and consumer reactions to the reports merit pause for thought. The research is thorough, and the reports on it were confined to the facts, with no hysterical headlines. Media commentators reactions were also well balanced, with a couple of commentators coming out in support and one asking for a reasoned debate on the subject. The facts are though that consumers are unlikely to buy food from cloned animals.
In the research itself, people were worried about the animal welfare implications of cloning for both the mother who, because of the high failure rate risked becoming a breeding machine, and for offspring who in most instances are born with disease and deformity. People vividly remember BSE and CJD, and so were concerned about whether the food would be safe to eat; and they doubt whether those involved can be trusted, be they biotech companies, breeders, farmers, or retailers. All the worries were compounded by an inability to see any benefits from cloning apart from more profit to those in the cloning chain.
I don't think that this research can be dismissed as the views of a tiny number of people who may have particularly strong views about animal welfare or food safety or the ethics of cloning.Those taking part were screened to ensure they had no extreme ideas about any aspect of food, and findings are in fact very similar to those from America where they have carried out extensive research on the topic.
Reaction to media commentators columns also showed resistance from the public, but with a sizable minority being open minded. Melanie Reid in the Times came out strongly in favour of cloned food. 29 people were moved to respond to her views, of whom 8 said it sounded ok to them. The rest were strongly against, with some saying her piece was an illogical and factually incorrect piece of journalism. The Observer's Tim Haywood sat on the liberal fence saying that whilst he did not like the idea himself, there should be a reasoned debate about it, a point of view endorsed by 6 out of nine people commenting on his article. Hannah Strange also of the Times concluded that the animal welfare issues associated with cloning would mean that UK consumers would not support it.She drew one response saying that cloning needed the same animal welfare safeguards as ant other animal related activity, and one feeling that there was no cause for concern.Many of those reponding to articles, whether for or against,called for clear labelling so that consumers knew what they were buying and could avoid if they wished. The Mail, mouthpiece of middle England, reported the research and of the people who commented half were open minded, particularly if cloning would help feed the world.
At first sight therefore, public response seems more favourable than the FSA research might indicate. However there are two major findings which lead to the conclusion that UK consumers just will not buy cloned food.First, the research shows clearly that the more consumers know about cloning the more alarmed they get. As yet the cloning debate is still in its infancy in the UK, but anxiety will grow with more publicity. Second, there is a striking attitude difference between men and women. 60% of women reject outright the idea of buying cloned food, compared with one third of men. Conversely, about a third of men are prepared to buy cloned food, but only 14% of women.The key point here is that its still women who do most of the food shopping.
So, there are major drawbacks in consumers minds already about cloned meat, and as the debate unfolds there will be alot who will not accept it.
But this consumer unease won't come as a surprise to farmers, many of whom instinctively understand the public's feelings.
No comments:
Post a Comment