BioWorld International Correspondent

TORONTO - Policy makers in Europe must restore trust in the regulatory institutions if they are to turn the tide of public opinion in favor of biotechnology, Ann Van Gysel, communications manager at VIB-Flanders Interuniversity Institute for Biotechnology, told delegates at BIO 2002 in Toronto last week.

There are two keys to changing public opinion, she said. "There should be more information which is sound and well balanced, not a public relations strategy on how biotechnology will save the world. But the real turning point is with the policy makers. It is time they realized the main issue is trust in the regulatory authorities, not just better PR," Van Gysel told a session on "The Public Debate in Europe: at a Turning Point?"

Van Gysel's views are based on a study of public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology across Europe published last month.* That showed that policy makers' conceptions of the public's views were wrong. There was no evidence to support the popular prejudice that public resistance is due to a mixture of ignorance and a drive to a zero-risk society. Rather, respondents' concerns were based on dissatisfaction with the institutions responsible for the development and regulation of technological innovations and risks.

"The public doesn't have specialist knowledge [of gene technology]," Van Gysel said. "But they do have knowledge of the past behavior of those responsible for regulation, and they always bring up a lack of trust [in regulatory institutions.]"

The public wants institutions that are transparent, independent from political influence and capable of adequate risk management. Overall, the public reaction to agricultural biotechnology is ambivalent and trust is a big issue in increasing acceptance. "The public does recognize there are benefits, but they are worried about loss of control over foodstuffs," Van Gysel concluded.

Philippe Jacobs, technology protection manager at the VIB-Flanders Interuniversity Institute, told delegates the sources of information about biotechnology are polarizing the debate. "Some people in Europe are against biotechnology, but it is a small group. Some are pro. But most people are in the middle," he said. "But the information comes either from the pros or the antis, so it isn't very balanced."

Jacobs described a school project he directed for 14- to 16-year-olds, which aimed to explain biotechnology in relation to organic and conventional farming. "We involved organizations involved in organic and traditional farming, to give balanced information," he said.

In subsequent project work, students presented balanced and integrated views. "They said, We would use this [type of farming] in this situation, and this in another.' The future looks bright, if you inform people well," he said.

But Barbara Streicher, coordinator for public relations, Platform Genetechnik & Wir (gene technology and ourselves), based in Vienna, Austria, said opinion polls show that Austria has higher opposition to agricultural biotechnology than any other country in Europe, and the evidence is that, rather than turning in favor of genetically modified foods, the rest of Europe is shifting toward the Austrian position.

For example, Austria has a policy of no release of genetically modified crops, an import ban on GM foodstuffs, and is opposed to gene patents. "Across Europe, the number of releases of GM crops has been cut and there is a de facto moratorium on imports, while patenting is under debate," Streicher said. "The European view is shifting toward extreme views first represented in Austria."

Supporting the anti-GM platform in Austria are two of the main political parties, the tabloid press, the Catholic Church, farmers and environmental groups. Streicher said her organization was set up by scientific societies in Austria in an attempt to balance the debate. "We aim not to lobby, but to offer information and dialogue. Dialogue will be the turning point," she concluded.

At the other extreme, the Netherlands has the lowest level of public opposition to GM food in Europe, but public acceptance is conditional on proper regulation, said Rutger Schilpzand, strategic consultant on biotechnology and genomics at the PR consultancy Schuttelaar and Partners in The Hague.

He said a large-scale public debate initiated by the Dutch government demanded strict and uniform safety evaluation, labeling of GM foodstuffs to give consumers choice on whether or not to consume them, a guarantee there would be no gene flow from GM crops to nonmodified crops, a weighing of risk/benefits, and an acknowledgement that if the public takes the risks they should be rewarded with the benefits.

Schilpzand noted that the European Union has recently set the objective of becoming the most knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. "The EU has to resolve the stalemate in agricultural biotechnology to realize any part of this aim," he concluded.

* Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe, May 2002, available at www.pabe.net. n