Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs?
Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe

A strong movement of opposition to genetic engineering in agriculture has developed throughout the world, particularly in some countries of the European Union (EU). The movement has led to a moratorium in the EU and hostility towards imported genetically modified (GM) products, as well as to acts of open opposition. How can this strong hostility be explained when from the outset many institutions have presented biotechnology, including genetic engineering, in a highly positive light and still consider it highly promising? A better understanding of this opposition movement is useful, along with understanding its determinants, its grounds and its implications, especially since this hostility is sometimes misinterpreted.

The aim of this article is to present various factors and processes in the emergence and development of this opposition in France, a country in which the movement is particularly strong. We look at the French case, which is fairly representative of various European countries, though differences exist between them. Regarding quantitative data on attitudes towards GMOs, we drew on the results of a set of surveys, particularly the Eurobarometer surveys (organized and supervised by European Commission), which have been carried out several times in the 15 EU countries.

The results of some detailed public opinion surveys on GMOs in the USA and in the countries of the EU are set out because the USA and the EU are often considered to have opposing views on this issue.

In the USA, the IFIC (International Food Information Council) commissioned surveys on a sample of about 1,000 people in 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. The IFIC surveys enabled a follow-up of opinion several years in a row because their surveys asked the same questions. With the examples of genetic modification proposed in the IFIC questionnaire, people showed more propensity to buy GM foods than reluctance, but that attitude declined a little between 1997 and 2002. The belief that biotechnology would be beneficial also diminished between 1997 and 2000, particularly in 1999, but tended to stabilize in 2001 and 2002.

In the EU, Eurobarometer surveys reveal growing skepticism regarding biotechnology. The most recent Eurobarometer survey on biotechnology was taken in spring 2001, on a sample of approximately 16,000 people. Its results showed a high level of mistrust of GMOs. Outright rejection ("I do not want this kind of food") was the attitude of 71%. As to whether "GMO-based food is dangerous", a majority (56%) believed that this proposition was true, as opposed to 17% who did not; however, more than a quarter of Europeans were uncertain (26.5% "don't know"). Certain variations appeared; variations according to typical socio-demographic criteria (i.e., gender, age, education level, profession, income, etc.) appeared smaller than variations between countries where there was noticeable diversity in the EU. A few countries (Greece, France, Austria) appeared particularly hostile to GMOs, and some others (Netherlands, UK, Belgium) appeared more favorable, or less hostile.

One cause of European opposition to GMOs is that the advantage to agriculture and food production is often considered weak or non-existent, while the risks are considered substantial.

Advantages of GMOs judged weak by many

Opponents of genetic engineering presented it as a technology with high potential risks and no advantages except to the few firms that developed it. Consumers' and society's safety appeared to be sacrificed. On the other hand, arguments that tried to present the potential advantages of GMOs were often rejected because they were perceived as hypocritical. GMOs thus lacked supporters and allies in many European countries.

Factors involved in the perception of risk/benefit assessment

Concern about GMOs cannot simply be imputed to a lack of knowledge in biology. Various studies have enabled us to better understand how risk perception is determined. Research has shown that known or avoidable risks, such as smoking and driving, are more acceptable to the public than poorly known and unavoidable risks, such as radioactivity. The newness and associated uncertainties of GMOs, and the inability for the individual to avoid GMOs once adopted, put public skepticism squarely in the latter category. In addition, as far as biotech and transgenesis are concerned, usefulness, riskyness and moral acceptability must also be taken into account, as well as trust in the involved actors and institutions.

Limited trust in the institutions and firms involved

Public debate about genetic engineering continued throughout the period of worry about food safety, Ag pollution and Ag productivism, which increased concern about GMOs. The public perceived GMOs as another indication of deterioration in the agricultural sector, in terms of health and environmental hazards. The principle of precaution, therefore, became an omnipresent reference in the opponent's words, the media and the public debate.

GMOs - symbol of negatively perceived trends

Now, the opponents and a large part of the public perceive that GMOs strengthen the highly industrialized agriculture that is a target of much criticism in western Europe today, particularly in France. Industrialized agriculture is blamed for deteriorating food quality, damage to the environment, accelerated decrease of farms, and more. For some people, especially many activists, biotechnology also symbolizes the negative aspects of globalization and economic liberalism: destruction of local cultures and economies, growing trend of commodifying everything, and aggravated competition that is often seen as disloyal. For the general public, GMOs are perceived above all as hardly useful, unnatural and risky. This suspicion, along with limited trust in the institutions and firms concerned, often leads to the suggestion that greater participation of citizens in scientific and technological choices would be desirable.

GMOs are the subject of strong hostility in France and in other European countries, particularly because their risk/benefit balance is perceived as very unfavorable and because the general public often lacks confidence in their promoters and the regulatory process. While many risks are suspected, the general public, and particularly consumers, consider any benefits nearly nonexistent, especially from the transgenic plants most commonly grown today. This suspicion is partly related to the context of their publicization. For a certain amount of people, GMOs seem to have become a symbol of many negative aspects of agricultural change and of global economic development, when in fact they are by no means the only forms or embodiment of that development. In other words, the criticism of GMOs could apply to many other products, which are spared the same opprobrium. GMOs therefore seem sometimes to play the role of the scapegoat. They are accused because they are perceived as having little utility, unlike many other products with identical characteristics. In addition their relationship to food and nature gives them a special place in human culture. Finally, GMOs are suspected in and of themselves, and not sufficiently in relation to the way in which they are used. Critics do not sufficiently take into account the fact that the impact of techniques depends on the way and conditions in which they are used, the purpose given to them, the orientation of their applications, and so on. In this context of high opposition, a change of attitude towards GMOs seems rather difficult to achieve in the EU, notably in France.