Transparent communication strategy on GMOs: Will it change public opinion?

Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 1141–1146 DOI 10.1002/biot.200700133 www.biotechnology-journal.com
Review
<strong>Transparent</strong> <strong>communication</strong> <strong>strategy</strong> on GMOs:
Will it change public opinion?
Kristina Sinemus and Marc Egelhofer
Genius Gmbh, Darmstadt, Germany
Innovations are central for the economic growth; however, the use of new technologies needs to
be widely accepted in the general public and the society as a whole. Biotechnology in general, and
the use of genetic engineering in food production in particular are seen critically by the European
public and perceived as “risky”, and a transatlantic divide between European and US citizens has
been observed. This review investigates the reasons for those differing perceptions and proposes
new strategies to communicate the benefits of biotechnology in agriculture to a broader public.
When analyzing the dialogue process that has taken place between public, scientists, governmental
organizations and industry, questions arise on what has been done differently in Europe,
in order to propose new, more successful and efficient <strong>communication</strong> strategies for the future.
Keywords: Agricultural biotechnology · Communicating science · Consumer acceptance
1 Introduction
Science-based innovations are a central drive to economic
prosperity and have contributed enormously in improving
the quality of life and health. 90% of the economic
growth is resulting from innovations and 25% of today’s
economic transaction volume has been caused by innovation
[1]. To secure future wealth and to increase employment,
the leading position in important technology
areas needs to be defended, regained or created [2]. In this
respect, emerging technologies such as biotechnology offer
a great potential for economic growth, may improve
public health and the sustainability of food production.
Scientific progress, though, doesn’t take place in an ivory
tower, but develops within a societal environment, and is
highly dependent on a receptive and appreciative society.
Therefore, the success of new technologies requires
the acceptance by the public at large.
Correspondence: Dr. Kristina Sinemus, Genius Gmbh,
Robert-Bosch-Str. 7, D-64293 Darmstadt, Germany
E-mail: Kristina.Sinemus@genius.de
Fax: +49 -6151 872 40 41
Abbreviation: GMO, genetically modified organism
Received 3 July 2007
Accepted 20 July 2007
Despite intense discussions, biotechnology innovations
have made their way and proved their utility. Whereas
green biotechnology is still negatively perceived, applications
in red biotech, such as the genetically produced
insulin, have lost their frightening image. However,
this was not the case in the early 90s.
Scientists inserted the human insulin gene into bacteria,
enabling the efficient and fast microbial production
of the protein essential for diabetes patients. When the
company Hoechst requested approval for its production,
intense discussions among public, science, and politics
delayed the project significantly. It took the German company
Hoechst over 13 years from its application until its
approval by German authorities in 1998, when already
some of the genetically engineered insulin was imported
[3]. The political and public discussions around “ethical
issues” and potential risks of genetic engineering harmed
the German image as a European country with great innovative
potential. Despite of being the first genetically
modified organism (GMO) used for food production, chymosin
did not produce such a great public debate. Chymosin
is a natural enzyme used in cheese production, and
was generally obtained from the stomach of milk-fed
calves. Biotechnology has simplified the production of
chymosin by transferring its gene into bacteria, yeast or
fungi that subsequently produce the protein. It was the
first biotechnologically produced enzyme approved for
© 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 1141

Biotechnology
Journal
food use by the FDA in the early 90s and is now widely
used in the cheese production [4].
The higher acceptance of genetically modified foods
and feeds in North America compared to Europe [5] is
demonstrated by the fact, that two thirds of GM corn cultivations
in this region are genetically modified plants,
whereas in Europe, GM plants make a minor proportion
only. The public needs to be placed in a position to make
qualified decisions, and politicians must take the lead in
the societal discourse and assume their responsibility.
One milestone towards acceptance is to reach a better
level of public “trust and understanding”, however, for obtaining
this goal it is necessary to provide a broad basis of
transparency on all possible levels, including politics, governments
and industry.
In this review, we will analyze the origin of the transatlantic
divide and propose appropriate <strong>communication</strong>
strategies to enhance the public understanding of the
facts on genetic engineering and the dependency on
biotechnological innovations in Europe.
2 More information = higher acceptance?
It has been often assumed, that the low acceptance in Europe
correlates with a low amount of knowledge on
biotechnology and genetic engineering, suggesting that
education programs would change the publics’ perception.
Therefore, past <strong>communication</strong> programs were often
conducted as an “educational approach”. However, recent
experiences and studies contradict this hypothesis.
In fact, it appears that factual knowledge of science has
little influence on the attitudes [6], and campaigns to educate
an apparently ignorant public did not significantly
change attitudes. Evidence also comes from a recent Eurobarometer
survey [7] showing that a majority is still worried
about genetically modified products in food and
drinks (Fig.1).
Figure 1. When EU-citizens were asked to what extent they are worried
about genetically modified products in food or drinks, 63% answered
“very worried” or “fairly worried” (Data taken from [7]).
1142 © 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 1141–1146
Using results from a 1999 Eurobarometer survey, and
a parallel telephone survey in the US in 2000, a study [8]
also explored the relationship between levels of knowledge,
education and perception for biotechnology across
a number of medical and agricultural applications. This
study found only a weak relationship among these factors,
questioning the common assumption, that higher scientific
literacy produces greater acceptance. The authors
found, that the differences between EU and US reactions
to biotechnology appear to be a result of different trust
and especially trust gap patterns, rather than knowledge
or education. Findings from Young et al. [9] confirmed this
by identifying European suspicion and distrust towards
large multinational companies being reverse to the USA.
But is there such a great difference between US and
EU citizens in approving genetically modified foods as often
assumed? A study by a research group for the “Pew
Initiative On Food and Biotechnology” concluded [10] that
Americans, similar to Europeans, also hold mixed attitudes
towards genetically modified foods and are generally
uncertain about their safety. When asked in 2001, only
29% of Americans thought GM foods are safe. Over the
course of the study, however, the number of Americans
with this believe slightly increased to 34% in 2006. These
data were confirmed in a different study, where the “unsure”
response was the most common answer respondents
gave when asked for their opinion of plant-based
GM food products [11]. Americans remain unaware and
not very knowledgeable about GM foods. The majority
does not know that around 70% of the food ingredients are
GM modified, and is unsure about this issue, but at least
shows interest in the topic.
This raises our hypothesis 1: uncrystallized opinions
remain open to manipulation, however, there is also still
an opportunity to have a dialogue, offering a great opportunity
to communicate and inform on genetically engineered
food. This can be generally undertaken by several
means, including a science-driven or emotionally-driven
approach, or a mix of both. A lot of effort has been undertaken
to educate about the science behind many of these
technologies, but with limited success only. The <strong>strategy</strong>
overestimated the level of public understanding of basic
science and the level of interest most laypeople have in
scientific details that underlie emerging technologies. In
contrast, emotional-driven campaigns proved to be quite
successful for many NGOs, especially in the European
countries (Fig. 2).
There is most likely no “standardized” perfect <strong>strategy</strong>,
and, as we will discuss below, some subgroups in the
public are more emotionally-driven and also cannot be approached
by educational <strong>communication</strong> strategies. Other
less educational approaches might be the way forward.
Cultural aspects are also important and need to be considered,
as they influence the way of <strong>communication</strong> and
the overall perception in the public on new technologies,
such as agricultural biotechnology.

Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 1141–1146 www.biotechnology-journal.com
Figure 2. Most anti-GMO campaigns are purely emotional and do not take
an informative or educational approach. Greenpeace activists dress as
mice protesting outside the Council of Ministers building in Brussels (image:
Greenpeace).
3 Cultural differences and the lack of trust
The differences in the EU and US on public concerns and
perceptions towards modern biotechnology in general,
and GM foods in particular, are not driven solely by concerns
about the technology itself, but are also affected by
cultural influences [12]. One example can be found by the
fact that Europeans and Americans are generally differing
in their the relationship with foods. The European food
culture has a strong emphasis on the origins of foods, and
therefore many Europeans buy their fruits and vegetables
on local markets. This is much less the case in the US. Europeans
also tend to be more aware of how their food is
produced, whereas Americans place more faith in science
and regulatory bodies, that are monitoring the food and
feed chain. This was confirmed by survey data [13], which
showed that the overall awareness of GM food seemed to
be greater for German participants than for Americans.
These differences about food have been further enhanced
by different attitudes towards authorities and regulations.
British and European handling of several food issues in
the 80s including the BSE outbreak lead to a significant
lack of confidence. In contrast, Americans have a reasonably
strong faith in federal food regulation and science in
general, which has not been affected by any past food
crises.
These culturally derived concerns play an important
role in Europe, that make the public more sensitive for
risks relating to the food safety, whereas US citizens don’t
pay too much attention to those issues. This is also making
EU citizens more receptive for often emotionally-driven,
public relations campaigns from anti-GMO non-governmental
organizations, which gained much less attention
in the US. To overcome the publics’ negative reception
for agricultural biotech, we raise our second
hypothesis, that relevant actors, such as governmental
institutions as well as industry, may need to focus on gaining
sustainable trust in a proactive, open, transparent and
honest long-term <strong>communication</strong> <strong>strategy</strong>.
4 Risks versus benefits
The claim that Europeans are generally less innovationoriented
has been proven not to be correct. Many technologies,
such as nanotechnology and pharmacogenetics
are perceived more positively than green biotech and are
supported by the European Public. Even gene therapy –
seen as risky – seems to outweigh the risks through the
medical and pharmaceutical benefits (Fig. 3).
Surveys have demonstrated, that Europeans are concerned
about the fragility of nature and about the impact
of human actions and technology upon nature [6]. Unless
new crops and products are perceived as providing major
consumer benefits, the controversies may continue. Biomedical
applications underline the importance of benefits
in the public’s response to biotechnologies and suggest
that the public adopts a more utilitarian approach than
many politicians believe. Attitude research found, that
risk perception is not the only factor for the acceptance,
what also plays a role is the perception of potential benefits
[12]. A majority of people in Europe see risks related to
GM crops, and reject it due to an absence of benefits. So,
consumer concerns are not whether the risk is low compared
with other activities, rather, the concerns are what
the public gets in exchange for accepting those risks.
Therefore, proactive <strong>communication</strong> has to emphasize
on the benefits, rather than “simply” defending certain
risks as being low. However, <strong>communication</strong> seems
to be consistent with the currently established risk assessments
of GMOs, which also focuses on the risks, underestimating
the benefits [14].
Scientists tend to misjudge the public to be irrational
when it comes to making decisions about biotechnology.
This believe is dangerous, as it may lead to the conclu-
Figure 3. EU citizens find all new technologies morally acceptable that
have either no perceived risks or risks that are outweigh by their benefits
[7].
© 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 1143

Biotechnology
Journal
sion, that, since the public is irrational, efforts to provide
information and education are a waste of time and money,
or that the public cannot make “appropriate” decisions
about biotechnology. The public has a much wider scope
and is able to evaluate risks versus benefits. This raises or
hypothesis 3: It can be concluded, that Europeans are
not less innovation-friendly, however, risks are not communicated
appropriately and EU-citizens react oversensitively
to them.
5 Target-oriented <strong>communication</strong>s
As described above, some of the main reasons for the low
acceptance of GM foods in Europe are to be found in a
trust gap into institutions and larger multinational companies,
as well as in a low level of awareness on the perceived
benefits of this new technology. In this respect,
politicians play a significant role in supporting pessimistic
and emotional-driven debates instead of taking
an informative and educative approach, thereby fulfilling
the social conscience they possess.
Therefore, new <strong>communication</strong> strategies may be developed,
which do address those issues. Communication
experience has shown that the following factors are of significant
importance:
– Credibility
– Translation of complex technical information into easily
understandable language
– Attractive, target-oriented “conditioning” of the information
with options for interactive feedback
– Value-free reporting – the public is capable to assess
information
Choosing and employing the most appropriate <strong>communication</strong>
tools for a specific target group requires a clear picture
of “the public”. It is, however, a rather complex entity,
influenced by various factors, such as differing values,
wishes, fears, social rankings, the cultural environment,
ethics, buying behaviors and more. In other words: the
broad “public” as such doesn’t exist, and can be divided
into specific subgroups. This is an important <strong>communication</strong>
issue, as some consumers actively seek information
and make trade-off between risks and benefits, and
others inherit attitudes or opinions passively from the environment
[15].
In a specific cultural environment certain fundamental
values, perceptions, preferences and behaviors are
adopted, transferred to the next generation, and do evolve
over time. Because of the complexity and timely alteration
of these factors, market research developed various approaches
for a clearer segmentation of consumers and
several models based on statistical information do exist.
Starting from the sociological described target groups,
psychological and also recently neurobiological based differentiations
are being made, leading to target group ty-
1144 © 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 1141–1146
pologies [16]. A market-research based and simplified
classification is offered by Herbst [17], a scheme that discriminates
the “public” into three types:
Type 1. Martin, the avoider
Martin, the avoider is characterized by not pro-actively
searching for information and without undertaking critical
analyses. He avoids theoretical controversies. Typical
are pessimistic thoughts and views, such as „What can
we generally eat safely nowadays?”
Type 2. Svenja, the passive
Hedonistic views and attitudes are characteristic for
Svenja, the passive. Being 22, student and single, she
wants to subsist healthy. She looks at pictures and has
strong emotional reactions. She is – similar to Martin – not
actively seeking information and is not greatly willing or
able to estimate risks on her own.
Type 3. Dörte, the active

Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 1141–1146 www.biotechnology-journal.com
Competent in questions on foods, she is typically 32 years,
mother of 2 children and is committed to feed the family
the best way possible. She is well informed and is proactively
seeking for information. She is interested, active
and critical, and wants to assess risks independently.
The different behaviors of these stereotypes lead to a
distinct acquisition of information with varying depths of
complexity and to a use of different media channels. This
has a strong impact when developing a <strong>communication</strong>
<strong>strategy</strong> towards the “general public”. For each of the
three stereotypes, specific media channels need to be employed.
The Dörte-type can be accessed by pull media,
such as websites, and intensive consultation (dialogue).
On GM foods and feeds, internet sites such as gmo-compass.org
are appropriate and proven <strong>communication</strong>
channels. The internet also offers a broad spectrum of additional
options, including weblogs, podcasts or wikis, as
suitable formats for this “<strong>communication</strong> stereotype”.
By far more difficult targets are Martin and Svenja, as
they do have a more passive media behavior and feel more
attracted by push media and more imagery-heavy <strong>communication</strong>
tools, such as TV or other advertising campaigns.
We conclude from that, that more emotionallydriven
outreach programs, such as “science events”
might be more appropriate than pull media. This needs to
be taken into account, if successful <strong>communication</strong>
strategies aim at targeting Martin and Svenja (see Fig.4 ).
6 Conclusions
Communications are an integral and critical step in innovation.
New genetically modified plants do not possess
any value, if they are rejected by the majority of the public.
Past <strong>communication</strong> activities were often perceived
as a one-way <strong>communication</strong> by which scientists tell
“their truth” in simple educational approaches. However,
this has been proved to be not appropriate and unsuccessful
to inform and “convince” the general public. As
described here, several factors need to be taken in consideration,
when applying new <strong>communication</strong>s strategies,
which include:
Figure 4. Successful <strong>communication</strong>
strategies need to
consider the various subgroups
of “the public” and
should be based on the four
characteristics of credibility,
trust, plainness and tailored.
6.1 Increased engagement of industry and governmental
organizations on issues regarding GM foods and feeds
Information on biotechnology in the media are rarely
proactive, rather, they usually appear in response to highly
visible reports. Increased trust should be one key objective
for <strong>communication</strong>s by governmental and industrial
<strong>communication</strong> partners.
6.2 Focus on the benefits, rather than defending
“acceptable” risks
Key to acceptance is to take public concerns seriously, but
at the same time communicating the benefits of the new
technologies for the consumers themselves. It is therefore
important to foster a “consumer benefits <strong>communication</strong>
<strong>strategy</strong>”, rather than a “classical” risk <strong>communication</strong>
approach.
6.3 Better definition of the target audience for a more
target-oriented <strong>communication</strong> approach
The general “public” is a complex entity of sub-populations,
with each of them responding to different formats
and styles of <strong>communication</strong>, and with varying access of
information. Therefore, part of the <strong>communication</strong> <strong>strategy</strong>
is to capitalize the knowledge on the audiences’ preferences
and to use “tailored” <strong>communication</strong> tools.
Scientists and biotechnology developers have often
assumed, that the public would embrace the new technology
as “obviously positive” and dismissed public concerns
as irrelevant or even “incompetent”. However, it is
important to seriously consider the public needs and address
their concerns. It is therefore important, that industry
and governmental bodies proactively seek trust and
confidence from the public. Green biotech offers a
tremendous amount of potential benefits, including a better
sustainability of modern food production. New GM
plant traits and sustainable technologies might increase
the efficiency of agriculture, for example with a decreased
use of herbicides or chemicals, thereby lowering CO2
emissions. This provides communicators on all levels a
second chance to lift this technology towards a greater
acceptance globally. If important and useful innovations
are not adopted in practice, societies might experience
severe disadvantages.
© 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 1145

Biotechnology
Journal
7 References
[1] Siemens Science Board, Financial Times Deutschland 10/2004
[2] Boston Consulting Group, Innovationsstandort Deutschland – quo
vadis?. http://www.bcg.com/publications/files/BCG_Studie_Innovationsstandort_Deutschland_–_quo_vadis_03Jan07.pdf.
[3] Peerenboom, E., Hoechst production of recombinant human insulin
finally begins after 14-year battle. Nat. Biotech. 1998, 16, 409.
[4] Johnson, M. E., Lucey, J. A., Major technological advances and
trends in cheese. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 1174–1178.
[5] Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., Allum, N. C., Worlds Apart?
The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US.
Science 1999, 285, 384–387.
[6] Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Stares, S., Europeans and Biotechnology in
2002, Eurobarometer 58.0, A report to the EC Directorate General
for Research from the project ‘Life Sciences in European Society
QLG7-CT-1999-00286’, 2003 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/
archives/ebs/ebs_177_en.pdf
[7] Gaskell, G., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Corchero, C. et al., Europeans
and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends. Eurobarometer
64.3 – A report to the European Commission’s Directorate-General
for Research 2006. www.ec.europa.eu/research/
press/2006/pdf/pr/906_eb_64_3_final_report-mag2006_en.pdf
[8] Priest, S. H., Bonfadelli, H., Rusanen, M., The “trust gap” hypothesis:
predicting support for biotechnology across national culture as
a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis 2003, 23, 751–766.
[9] Young, J., Cormick, C., Public concerns towards GM food are not
driven solely by concerns about the technology, but more strongly
by cultural differences. PCST Conference 2004. Barcelona, Spain.
[10] The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, “Public sentiment
about genetically modified food”, Memorandum November 2006,
USA; http//pewagbiotech.org
[11] Hallman, W. K., Hebden, W. C., Cuite, C. L., Aquino, H. L., Lang, J.
T., Americans and GM food: knowledge, opinion and interesting in
2004. Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers – the State University
of New Jersey, Publication No. RR-1104-007, New Jersey
2004.
[12] Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Kronberger, N. et al., GM foods
and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Anal. 2004, 24,
185–194.
[13] Aquino, H. L., Hallman, W. K., Differences in the perceptions of
agricultural biotechnology: a comparison study between Germany
and the United States. PCST Conference 2004, Barcelona, Spain;
www.pcst2004.org/epp/pdf/pcst_book.pdf
1146 © 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 1141–1146
Dr. Kristina Sinemus studied Biology,
German and Pedagogic at the universities
of Münster and Kassel. 1995 she
obtained her ph. D. on “Biological risks
in field release of transgene plants“at
the Institute for Biochemistry at the
Technical University of Darmstadt. From
1991-1995 she was Scientific collaborator
at the Interdisciplinary Engineering
Research centre (Zentrum für interdisziplinäre
Technikforschung - ZIT) at the Technical University of
Darmstadt, project: “Ethical criteria bearing upon decisions taken in
the field of biotechnology“. From 1995-1998 Dr. Sinemus led the Public
Relations Working Group at the Institute of Biochemistry at the
Technical University in Darmstadt, which became „CLS - Communication
in Life Sciences“ in 1997 and took part in the German-wide BioRegio-competition.
Since1997 she organizes the “Gesprächskreis Grüne
Gentechnik”, a round table of political work in the food chain. She is
CEO of Genius Ltd. (Biotech-scientific consulting and <strong>communication</strong>),
which she founded 1998. Dr. Sinemus holds various part-time
lectureships on Bioethics and Genetic Engineering and is very active in
the field of biosafety research where she manages different European
projects.
[14] Report of the ACRE sub-group on wider issues raised by the farmscale
evaluations of herbicide tolerant GM crops. “Managing the
footprint of agriculture: towards a comparative assessment of risks
and benefits for novel agricultural systems”, 2007, UK; www.
defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/fsewiderissues/pdf/acre-wi-final.pdf
[15] Wansink, B., Kim, Junyong, The marketing battle over genetically
modified foods : consumer acceptance of biotechnology, American
Behavioral Scientist 2001, 44, 1405–1417.
[16] http://www.sinus-sociovision.de/2/2-3-1-1.htm
[17] Herbst, D., „Praxishandbuch Unternehmenskommunikation“, Cornelsen
Verlag, Berlin, Germany 2003.