Contrasting the beliefs of Australian agricultural professionals about the benefits and costs of genetic engineering and organic agriculture
Sarah Ann WheelerCentre for Regulation and Market Analysis, University of South Australia, City West Campus, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia. Email: sarah.wheeler@unisa.edu.au
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 47(12) 1389-1396 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA06294
Submitted: 2 November 2006 Accepted: 21 June 2007 Published: 16 November 2007
Abstract
Most research about genetic engineering and organic agriculture has concentrated on the views of consumers and farmers. Given the important role that scientists, extension officers and academics play in creating innovations, influencing farmer adoption and informing the public, a telephone survey targeting these individuals (n = 185) was conducted in mid 2004. The purpose of this survey was to identify the beliefs of agricultural professionals employed in the Australian public sector towards organic agriculture and genetic engineering. The beliefs of agricultural professionals about the benefits and costs of organic agriculture and genetic engineering are compared and contrasted, providing an important benchmark on their views towards these innovations. More professionals believe in the positive net benefits of genetic engineering than those who believe in the positive net benefits of organic agriculture. They believe that genetic engineering will play a vital role in influencing the sustainability of Australian agriculture in the future, namely by increasing production and improving pest and disease management. However, many professionals voiced concerns about the potential costs of genetic engineering, with many citing risk and uncertainty issues and the lack of long-term testing. At the same time, beliefs towards organic agriculture in Australia by agricultural professionals seem to be changing, with nearly two-fifths of those surveyed saying that their beliefs had become more positive towards organic agriculture in the past 5 years. The main benefit of organic agriculture is seen to be a reduction in chemicals. The main limitations are seen to be economic and production difficulties.
Acknowledgements
The insightful comments of three referees and Dr Chris Anderson are gratefully acknowledged. Thanks must also be extended to Professor David Round and Dr John Wilson for their support in the above study. Finally, the author sincerely thanks all the agricultural professionals who graciously gave up their valuable time to be involved in the study and who were so open and generous with their responses.
Avery A,
Prakash C,
McHughen A,
Trewavas A, DeGregori T
(2005) What kind of farming works best? Science 307, 1410–1411.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[Verified 23 September 2007]
James S, Burton M
(2003) Consumer preferences for GM food and other attributes of the food system. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47, 501–518.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kuiper H,
Noteborn H, Peijnenburg A
(1999) Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods. Lancet 354, 1315–1316.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
Lawrence G, Norton J
(1994) Industry involvement in Australian agrobiotechnology: the views of scientists. Australasian Biotechnology 4, 62–368.
Lewis I,
French A,
Tecirlioglu R,
Vajta G,
McClintock A,
Nicholas K,
Zuelke K,
Holland M, Trounson A
(2004) Commercial aspects of cloning and genetic modification in cattle. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 1105–1111.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Macilwain C
(2004) Organic: is it the future of farming? Nature 428, 792–793.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
McNeil S, Williams G
(2002) Animal biotechnology: a study of opinions among stakeholder groups in the academic, pharmaceutical and agrifood sectors. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology 8, 325–338.
Nelson L,
Giles J,
Macilwain C, Gewin V
(2004) Organic FAQs. Nature 428, 796–798.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
Pannell D,
Marshall G,
Barr N,
Curtis A,
Vanclay F, Wilkinson R
(2006) Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46, 1407–1424.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Penfold C,
Miyan M,
Reeves T, Grierson I
(1995) Biological farming for sustainable agricultural production. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 35, 849–856.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pryme I, Lembcke R
(2003) In vivo studies on possible health consequences of genetically modified food and feed – with particular regard to ingredients consisting of genetically modified plant materials. Nutrition and Health (Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire) 17, 1–8.
| PubMed |
Quist D, Chapela I
(2001) Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414, 541–543.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
Raadsma H, Tammen I
(2005) Biotechnologies and their potential impact on animal breeding and production: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45, 1021–1032.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rabino I
(1998) Ethical debates in genetic engineering: US scientists’ attitudes on patenting, germ-line research, food labelling, and agri-biotech issues. Politics and the Life Sciences 17, 147–164.
| PubMed |
Robinson S,
Scott N, Gackle A
(2000) Gene technology and future foods. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition 9, S113–S118.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Trewavas A
(2001) Urban myths of organic farming. Nature 410, 409–410.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
Wheeler S
(2007) What influences agricultural professionals’ views towards organic agriculture? Ecological Economics in press ,
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
