Potential damage of GM crops to the country image of the producing country

Abstract

Frequently heard within New Zealand are arguments that release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment will harm the “clean green” image of the country, and therefore do irreparable harm to export markets for food products and also to the New Zealand tourism industry. But where is the evidence? To investigate the likelihood of harmful effects on New Zealand’s clean green image in relation to food exports, we have previously used face-to-face interviews with gatekeepers in the food distribution channel in five countries in Europe, in China, and in India. To investigate potential impacts on the New Zealand tourism sector, we have surveyed first-time visitors to New Zealand at Auckland International Airport soon after arrival. We conclude that it is highly unlikely that introduction of GM plants into New Zealand would have any long-term deleterious effect on perceptions in overseas markets of food products sourced from New Zealand. Furthermore it is highly unlikely that New Zealand’s image as a tourist destination would suffer if GM plants were introduced.

Keywords: :

• GM crops
• country image
• New Zealand
• Australia
• consumers

Introduction

Genetic Modification (GM) has continued to be one of the most controversial new technologies of recent decades.^1,2 This is particularly true in New Zealand, which has so far not allowed commercial release of any GM organisms (GMOs). As discussed in an influential paper published in Science four decades ago, every technological advance carries some risk of adverse effects, and it becomes a balancing act for governments and for society to weigh up the risks and benefits in order to decide: “How safe is safe enough?”³ Genetic Modification is one such technological advance that has generated intense public debate in certain countries over the right balance regarding its introduction.

Despite the absence of documented harmful effects of GM technology,^4-6 the public in many countries remain sceptical and concerns are amplified by fear appeals in the media.⁷ Public opposition to GM foods has been widely interpreted as reflecting the public’s misperception of risk, and ample research indicates that technical risk estimates by experts differ greatly from perceptions of risk by the public.^8,9 However, others have argued that the issue is not so much the misperception of scientific risk but the perceived absence of benefit for the consumer.^2,10 Worldwide, the consumption of foods derived from GM crops is rising rapidly. On the one hand, scientists, biotechnology companies, and 17.3 million farmers in 28 countries¹¹ have collectively voted by their actions that the benefits outweigh the risks. On the other hand, in several developed countries, particularly in Europe, consumers have not seen what benefits might accrue to them, and have resisted introduction of GM foods.¹ Mark Lynas, who claims to be one of the leaders of the anti-GMO campaign in Europe, and an activist who led campaigns to destroy experimental GM crops, has recently expressed the view that the movement was essentially anti-science, and took no cognisance of the vast scientific literature indicating the safety of this technology.¹²

The debate has been particularly intense and long-lasting in New Zealand, which has no commercial releases of GMOs to date. In contrast, its near neighbor Australia has adopted this technology, with Bt cotton (a source of fiber, but also cotton seed oil—a food ingredient) grown since 1996. GM carnations have also been grown since 1996. GM canola was approved in 2003 and first grown in 2008; several other food crops have been approved by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.¹³ Despite this, adoption in Australia has not been uniform, with South Australia and Tasmania still continuing to ban GM crops. In New Zealand, the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification¹⁴ concluded that: “New Zealand should keep its options open. It would be unwise to turn our back on the potential advantages on offer, but we should proceed carefully, minimising and managing risks.” This measured conclusion did little to defuse the debate; the GM issue has proven to be highly controversial and long-lasting as a focal issue for the Green Party and for several environmental organizations and special interest groups.

Potential Impact on Country Image

Often expressed in the New Zealand news media is the view (typically without any evidence) that release of GMOs into the environment would do irreparable damage to New Zealand’s country image in foreign markets, and would harm New Zealand’s image as a tourist destination. This was a recurrent theme in many of the more than 10,000 submissions to the Royal Commission (p.6, Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification¹⁴), the great majority of which were opposed to release of GM crops in New Zealand. Furthermore, such views have kept reappearing in the media. For example, according to an internet news report quoting Dr William Kaye-Blake, formerly of Lincoln University and now with the NZ Institute of Economic Research: “If NZ produces genetically engineered products, it will not be able to maintain its reputation. After nearly eight years of research and surveys with thousands of consumers and food suppliers, he can say with certainty that NZ's image could not be upheld if involved with commercial production of GE products. “You simply cannot convince people that a country is clean and green when it has genetic modification; these things exist as polar opposites in the consumers mind.” This could have a dramatic effect on NZ’s economy which, he says, trades on its image.”¹⁵ (Note: it appears that most of Kaye-Blake’s respondents were domestic consumers and suppliers, rather than respondents in overseas markets^16,17). Similar claims have been made in regard to potential impacts of nuclear power generation. New Zealanders are generally proud of their country’s “Nuclear Free New Zealand” brand and it is widely believed that this political position forms an important part of the country image for New Zealand. For example, according to Professor Tom Brooking of Otago University: “supplementing New Zealand’s energy sources with nuclear power would fatally damage the country’s “clean green” image abroad on which much of New Zealand’s export trade and tourism depended.”¹⁸

These concerns held by members of the public do have some basis within the academic literature. Images that consumers have of particular countries have been widely regarded as having a major impact on consumer evaluations of products sourced from those countries and, by implication, on propensity to purchase products originating in particular countries.¹⁹ Country image has been defined as “the total of all descriptive, inferential and informational beliefs one has about a particular country.”²⁰ A great deal of research has been conducted on country images in relation to their putative impact on consumer evaluations of products, termed the product-country image (PCI) effect.²¹ In fact, country-of-origin effects (including PCI effects, have been one of the most studied topics in international marketing, generating more than a thousand academic papers.²² According to Samiee, 2010, p.442: “Insatiable interest in the country-of-origin inquiry for nearly half a century … examines a long list of country-related issues (including country image) with the overwhelming conclusion that consumers and industrial buyers are indeed sensitive to country-of-origin cues and that country image may influence choice.”²³ However, the great majority of country-of-origin studies have investigated attitudes and/or stated intentions, rather than actual purchasing behavior. Usunier²⁴ argued that country-of-origin research is ivory tower research that has little relevance to consumers or companies because intentions are a poor indicator of actual behavior—an argument that provoked some intense debate among academics.

In view of these uncertainties in the academic literature, coupled with the claims by members of the public regarding potential negative impacts of GM technology, we have undertaken a series of studies to test whether the claims about GM are likely to be true. We have previously reported results of interviews with gatekeepers in the food distribution channel in five countries in Europe, in China, and in India.^25-28 Our studies reveal that gatekeepers in the food distribution channels of diverse countries make their purchasing decisions based on rational criteria centered around trust;²⁵ they do not regard whether or not a country produces GM crops as an important consideration when making food purchase decisions on behalf of millions of consumers.^27-29 In addition, our choice modeling studies involving 4,536 consumers making actual choices (not just giving opinions) in real shopping situations in five countries in Europe and in New Zealand revealed that, despite consumer negative sentiment regarding GM technology, a substantial percentage of consumers show willingness to actually purchase GM food products provided there is a consumer benefit (absence of spray residues) and lower price.^30,31 Our results complement findings that a significant proportion of European consumers are willing to purchase GM food products provided there is a consumer benefit and/or cost advantage, and they are given the opportunity.^32,33 We interpret these findings as indicating that it is unlikely that growing GM crops in New Zealand would have a large negative impact on perceptions in foreign markets of food products sourced from New Zealand. This view is strengthened by the observation that New Zealand consumers seem perfectly happy to purchase large quantities of food products sourced from Australia, USA, and other GM-growing countries despite the antipathy toward the technology supposedly existing within New Zealand. Australia is New Zealand’s largest source of food imports and the USA is second.³⁴ As shown in Figure 1, it does not appear that New Zealand imports of food from either country slowed after they adopted GM crops—in fact quite the converse.

Figure 1. New Zealand food imports from Australia and the USA ($NZ 000s) in relation to the introduction of GM crops in those countries.

This paper reports results of surveys of inbound tourists visiting New Zealand for the first time. This study was conducted in order to examine the claim voiced within New Zealand that the county’s tourism industry could be damaged by growing of GM crops—despite the tourism industries of countries such as Australia and Brazil continuing to thrive in the face of having adopted this technology (Fig. 2). The study was designed to determine the likely impact that GM crops (and other controversial technologies) might have on future travel intentions. Seldom researched are the views of tourists who have just arrived in a country—partly because it is difficult to access such respondents who are typically in a hurry to find their way out of the airport and begin their tourist experience. We considered it critical to undertake research in this setting in order to determine views of people who have recently “purchased” New Zealand and are about to “consume” it, so that they might reflect on their purchase decision while it was still top-of-mind—and before their views have been influenced as a result of experiencing the country.

Figure 2. Annual inbound tourist numbers (in 000s) for Australia and Brazil in relation to the introduction of GM crops.

Method

A face-to-face survey was conducted on 515 overseas tourists arriving at Auckland International Airport, which is the gateway for approximately 70% of tourists visiting New Zealand. Foreign tourists seeking information from the i-SITE information center were approached, and invited to participate in a survey taking a few minutes. The i-SITE location was designated by the management of the airport on the basis that people visiting the information center might be less likely to feel pestered than people who were rushing to catch local transportation, or otherwise go about their business. Furthermore, people visiting the i-SITE are likely to comprise a high proportion of first-time visitors to New Zealand and, being information seekers, they are likely to be particularly interested in anything and everything to do with their recently-chosen experience. Under-represented will be tourists who are being shepherded on group tours. Care was taken to approach the next tourist in line after each completion, to minimize risk of selection bias. A pictorial fridge magnet was offered as a token of appreciation for their time.

The interviewer first confirmed that the respondent was a first-time visitor to New Zealand. A survey based on the principles developed by Liefeld³⁵ for country of origin research was then administered. The interviewer asked what factors the tourist considered when choosing to visit New Zealand, and probed until the respondent could not suggest any additional reasons for visiting New Zealand. Tourists were then asked to nominate a country that they considered was “most similar” to New Zealand, based on whatever criteria the tourist chose to use. Then followed prompted questions designed to elicit specific information regarding knowledge about certain controversial technologies that might be used in that country. Tourists were asked to rate on 6-pt Likert scales the likelihood that introduction of a given technology in the country they deemed most similar to New Zealand would affect their future travel intentions regarding that country. Then followed questions to determine what they knew about certain methods of electricity generation, crop production, and farming practices in New Zealand. Respondents were then asked to evaluate on 6-pt Likert scales the likely impact that introduction of a given technology would have on their future intentions to visit New Zealand. The reference to three types of technology was intended to lessen the risk that the GMO issue would be given unrealistic salience. Finally, respondents were asked to rate on 6-pt scales their level of agreement that each of these technologies is/is not “acceptable.” In this way, we set out to test whether there is concordance between a person’s beliefs about a technology and their (re-)purchase intentions regarding the country using that technology.

Results and Discussion

Australia and Canada were nominated by a large proportion of tourists as “most similar” to New Zealand (29% and 25% respectively)—based on whatever criteria the tourist considered relevant when making this assessment. Switzerland (8%) and the UK (7.5%) were the next most frequently perceived as “most similar” to New Zealand. The interviewer used the answer given to this question as the basis for asking about likely changes in travel intentions to that country, given the information that the country they had nominated uses nuclear electricity generation, and/or GM methods in crop production and/or “factory farming” methods (results not shown here for this technology). Table 1 lists countries that use nuclear generation and/or GM crops. The reason for using a country that the tourist themselves deemed “most similar” to New Zealand was to minimize social desirability bias, the basic human tendency to cast oneself in the best light in the eyes of the interviewer.³⁶

Table 1. Countries using nuclear electricity generation and/or growing GM crops

Nuclear power	GM crops	Crop type
Argentina	Argentina	soybean, maize, cotton
Armenia	Australia	cotton, canola, carnations
Belgium	Bolivia	soybean
Brazil	Brazil	soybean, maize, cotton
Bulgaria	Burkina Faso	cotton
Canada	Canada	canola, maize, soybean, sugar beet
China	Chile	maize, soybean, canola
Czech Republic	China	cotton, tomato, poplar, papaya, sweet pepper
Finland	Colombia	cotton
France	Costa Rica	cotton, soybean
Germany	Cuba	maize
Hungary	Czech Republic	maize
India	Egypt	maize
Japan	Honduras	maize
Korea (South)	India	cotton
Mexico	Mexico	cotton, soybean
Netherlands	Myanmar	cotton
Pakistan	Pakistan	cotton
Romania	Paraguay	soybean, maize, cotton
Russia	Philippines	maize
Slovakia	Portugal	maize
Slovenia	Romania	maize
South Africa	Slovakia	maize
Spain	South Africa	maize, soybean, cotton
Sweden	Spain	maize
Switzerland	Sudan	cotton
Ukraine	Sweden	potato
UK	Uruguay	soybean, maize
USA	USA	soybean, maize, cotton, canola, squash, papaya, alfalfa, sugar beet

Countries in bold have both nuclear power and GM crops. Data from World Nuclear Association (http://www.worldnuclear.org/) and ISAAA¹¹

The percentage of respondents who “definitely agree” that their travel intentions to that country would now change, given this “new” information, is extremely tiny, less than 1.5% for either GM or nuclear (Table 2). Furthermore, even when the net is widened to include those who “somewhat” or “slightly” agree that their travel intentions to such a country would alter, only approximately 10% claim this.

Table 2. Impact of controversial technologies on deterring tourists from revisiting a destination they deem “most similar to NZ”

	Definitely agree	Somewhat agree	Slightly agree	Slightly disagree	Somewhat disagree	Definitely disagree	Total
Nuclear Power	6 1.3%	23 4.9%	19 4.1%	25 5.4%	90 19.3%	303 65.0%	466
	Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly agree would deter from revisiting: 10.3%			Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly disagree would deter from revisiting: 89.7%
GM	3 0.6%	17 3.6%	28 5.9%	37 7.9%	100 21.2%	286 60.7%	471
	Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly agree would deter from revisiting: 10.1%			Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly disagree would deter from revisiting: 89.9%

The tourists were questioned regarding their knowledge of the methods used to generate electricity in New Zealand, and about whether or not the country uses GM methods in crop production. If a tourist does not know whether or not New Zealand (or any other country for that matter) uses nuclear generation, or GM crop production, etc, then it seems most unlikely that this technology enters into their tourist destination decision-making. Indeed, how can it, if they do not know of it? Five percent of tourists “definitely” agreed that New Zealand already uses GM technology in food production, and 29% “definitely,” “somewhat” or “slightly” agreed that this is the case. Although New Zealand does not have any commercial GM crops, in a sense they may be correct, given that recombinant chymosin is widely used in cheese production (and particularly in vegetarian cheese production) – although that fact would perhaps not be generally known.

The respondents were asked to rate the likelihood that introduction of various controversial technologies would alter their intentions to travel to New Zealand in future. GM pine trees were used as an example of GM technology that would not involve food production. As shown in Table 3, 0.8% of respondents indicated that this technology would “definitely” stop them visiting. The total who “definitely, somewhat or slightly” indicated they would no longer visit was 7.2%. Tourists were then asked to evaluate various potential applications of GM technology, primarily to determine whether use in food production would have greater effect than use for bioremediation or pest control, for example. As shown in Table 4, applications that involve GM feed for animals to be used in food production did not appear to be any more (or less) off-putting than GM technologies for environmental benefit. Only a tiny number of tourists say that introduction of a particular technology would “definitely” stop them from choosing to visit New Zealand as a tourist. Furthermore, if we include those who “somewhat” or “slightly” disagree that they would still visit New Zealand if a particular technology were introduced, the percentage who indicate this is still only 10% or less.

Table 3. Impact of introduction of certain technologies on future travel to NZ

	Definitely agree	Somewhat agree	Slightly agree	Slightly disagree	Somewhat disagree	Definitely disagree	Total
Still visit NZ if Nuclear Power used	250 67.0%	66 17.7%	28 7.5%	8 2.1%	17 4.6%	4 1.1%	373
	Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly agree would still visit NZ: 92.2%			Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly disagree would still visit NZ: 7.8%
Still visit NZ if disease resistant GM Pines Grown	309 60.2%	120 23.4%	47 9.2%	15 2.9%	18 3.5%	4 0.8%	513
	Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly agree would still visit NZ: 92.8%			Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly disagree would still visit NZ: 7.2%

Table 4. Impact of introduction of certain GMO applications on future travel to NZ

	Definitely agree	Somewhat agree	Slightly agree	Slightly disagree	Somewhat disagree	Definitely disagree	Total
Still visit NZ if GM rye grass grown for animal welfare	128 68.4%	31 16.6%	12 6.4%	3 1.6%	8 4.3%	5 2.7%	187
	Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly agree would still visit NZ: 91.4%			Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly disagree would still visit NZ: 8.6%
Still visit NZ if GM rye grass grown	119 64.7%	35 19.0%	17 9.2%	7 3.8%	4 2.2%	2 1.1%	184
	Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly agree would still visit NZ: 92.9%			Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly disagree would still visit NZ: 7.1%
Still visit NZ if GM bacterium used to clean up DDT	228 56.4%	116 22.7%	57 11.2%	24 4.7%	15 2.9%	11 2.2%	511
	Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly agree would still visit NZ: 90.3%			Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly disagree would still visit NZ: 9.7%
Still visit NZ if GM bacteria used to reduce methane	201 54.6%	82 22.3%	46 12.5%	15 4.1%	15 4.1%	9 2.4%	368
	Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly agree would still visit NZ: 89.4%			Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly disagree would still visit NZ: 10.6%

Respondents were then asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with statements regarding the acceptability of nuclear generation or GM methods of food production/environmental protection. As shown in Table 5, 45% “definitely, somewhat or slightly” disagreed that nuclear generation is acceptable, and 51% “definitely, somewhat, or slightly” disagreed that GM technology is acceptable. Thus, there is a clear disconnect between views regarding the acceptability of the technology and views regarding future travel intentions if that technology were implemented.

Table 5. Beliefs regarding acceptability of forms of technology

	Definitely agree	Somewhat agree	Slightly agree	Slightly disagree	Somewhat disagree	Definitely disagree	Total
Nuclear power is an acceptable form of electricity generation	74 19.9%	80 21.5%	51 13.7%	38 10.2%	68 18.3%	61 16.4%	372
	Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly agree is acceptable: 55.1%			Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly disagree is acceptable: 44.9%
Genetic Modification is an acceptable form of technology for food production/environmental protection	42 11.3%	76 20.4%	65 17.5%	57 15.3%	75 20.2%	57 15.3%	372
	Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly agree is acceptable: 49.2%			Total who definitely, somewhat, slightly disagree is acceptable: 50.8%

At a time when GM methods are being considered in the horticulture sector for solving intractable problems, such as Pseudomonas syringae pv actinidiae (Psa) in kiwifruit, it becomes important for policy makers to know what impact—if any—introduction of such technology might have on other industry sectors. An example of the power of a GM approach in solving a potentially disastrous problem involving a plant pathogen is the rescuing of the Hawaiian papaya industry from ringspot virus.³⁷ The New Zealand kiwifruit industry is acutely aware of this precedent, but has been deterred from adopting GM methods because of a fear of adverse consumer reaction in export markets. The results presented here indicate that introduction of GM plants into New Zealand is most unlikely to have a significant impact on either export markets for New Zealand food products or on the tourism industry.

Conclusions

Results from in-bound tourist surveys provide clear evidence that tourist destination choice is scarcely affected at all by controversial technologies that are in use in a particular country, even if the individual tourist may hold very negative views of that type of technology. This is perhaps already intuitively obvious, given that many of the countries from where tourists come do themselves use one or more of the three controversial technologies that we have investigated in this study. There is a certain irony in France being the number one tourist destination country in the world,³⁸ but generating 80% of its electricity from nuclear power stations. Furthermore, New Zealanders flock to Australia despite that country producing GM crops, and also purchase large amounts of Australian-grown fresh produce and other food products. The data in this report provide evidence from which it can be inferred that introduction of GM crops into New Zealand is highly unlikely to do lasting damage to perceptions in overseas markets of the image of New Zealand as a source of high quality food products or as a highly desirable scenic and “clean green” tourist destination.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the University of Otago for financial support.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflict of interest was disclosed.