Dutch show reluctance towards biotechnology

In January 2001, in order to broaden the discussions on biotechnology and food to include the general public, the Dutch Government instructed the independent Terlouw Commission to hold a public debate. The Commission was made up of nine members, experts in the field of food and health, public communication, agriculture, nature and development cooperation, and also included a novelist.

The public was asked to give its opinion on the pros and cons of gene technology on the basis of nine actual or hypothetical examples. Contact  with the public was made via a series of advertisements in national and regional newspapers, a special website and a brochure in the in-house magazines of the largest supermarket chains. The Commission also called on schools and other organisations to set up their own debates. It created a tool pack containing information material, debating aids and forms on which participants could make their views known. Finally the Commission set up six discussion groups of 25 people each. Assisted by experts in the field, these groups considered the pros and cons of gene technology in depth during two debating sessions. They were also asked to formulate what they felt to be acceptable conditions for the application of gene technology.

Many of those responding were doubtful about the value of biotechnology in food production, were afraid of the risks entailed and looked for alternatives. Very few of the people raising objections appeared to be doing so for reasons of principle or ethics. Most people started by asking what the use of a particular application would be. This was directly aligned to the question of risk, both to public health and the natural environment.  Reservations were greater when there was the suggestion that this technology be applied to animals. Ethical objections raised questions about the need to find alternatives. The public stipulated that the guarantee of individual freedom of choice is an essential condition for allowing the use of biotechnology in food production.

It seems that there would be little support for the nine hypothetical examples used. Only 16 per cent of respondents from schools and organisations felt that these could be carried out unconditionally, 48 per cent attached conditions and 36 per cent were completely opposed to them. Least resistance was generated by the example of rennet production using GMOs, the most resistance was generated by transgenic salmon and terminator seed.

The Commission discovered that the more informed people were, the easier it was for them to formulate clear conditions for what they thought was the acceptable application of biotechnology in food preparation. This was particularly true of the debating groups. Their attitude to biotechnology was not more positive, but they did come to realise what was most important to them. The most important condition is that the public have confidence in the bodies dealing with these issues: the government, scientists and private business. Not enough has been done to meet this condition. The more closely these conditions are met, the more prepared the public is to accept the application of biotechnology.

Restoring confidence in the government is the most important factor, because the government lays down the terms of operation for science and the private sector. The Commission addressed this in its recommendations:

• A National or European Food Authority should be set up which will operate with absolute independence. This authority should be given the competence to authorise food products. It should be funded by the government. There should be no government interference in the working of this body.  
• The government should develop better methods of initiating public discussion at an early stage on the application of knowledge in the area of life sciences. There has to be public support for the application of new technology. It is therefore essential that the public is given objective, balanced and understandable information in time, in order to be able to form an opinion about the conditions which would make application acceptable. It was recommended that the Government commission a study in the near future to find the most suitable ways of communicating information on the application of biotechnology to the public.  
• The public's freedom of choice has to be guaranteed by making accessible, detailed product information compulsory. 
  
• The public also voiced its expectations regarding:  
• An open and honest attitude from the private sector, which means transparency regarding the interests and risks involved in the applications they are working on;  
• A critical role for consumer organisations and  
• An independent stance by the scientific community, having regard to the wider public interest.
  

Over the past year debates have been conducted on a large scale by numerous organisations, often on their own initiative. Approximately 80 organisations and 200 schools carried out debating activities using the information provided by the Commission and the play Met of Zonder (with or without) was performed in 50 of these. It is estimated that during the year approximately 2,000 people took part in the debate at the invitation of a public organisation as well as at least 10,000 in schools. In the period March to December 2001 there were more than 44,000 visitors to the website. Approximately 26,000 people reacted to newspaper advertisements asking the public for its opinion.