Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe

Introduction

Until 1996, the groundwork for agricultural biotechnologies and genetically modified foods appeared to be firmly established in Europe and globally, with regulatory policies developed by national and European bodies by 1990 to manage the pre-market authorisation, field-testing, and market introduction of GMOs These regulations aimed to harmonise EU legislation and promote a seamless internal market, while industry stakeholders and the European Commission hoped they would alleviate public concerns and mitigate potential opposition However, despite these efforts, public policies and industrial strategies failed to avert the controversy that arose in Europe with the arrival of the first shipments of genetically modified soya and maize from the USA.

In response to public concerns, European Union governments and the European Commission have revised their policies on genetically modified (GM) products, imposing a de facto moratorium on new marketing authorizations since April 1998 Major food companies have shifted their strategies, with large distributors pledging to avoid selling GM products under their own brands, prompting food manufacturers to reformulate their products to eliminate GM ingredients This shift has significant implications for food production and trade, as the controversy surrounding GM crops is viewed as a threat to the development of a technology deemed economically vital for Europe, while critics warn of potential ecological risks Additionally, current EU GMO policies may lead to trade conflicts with the United States.

Since the inception of the PABE project in December 1996, agricultural biotechnologies have rapidly evolved, becoming a focal point for significant political, legislative, and legal developments across Europe In recent years, the topic has sparked numerous inquiries, consultations, and public debates, highlighting the urgent need to comprehend public perceptions of biotechnology Additionally, understanding policymakers' reactions to public concerns is crucial Thus, the PABE research project and its inquiries are particularly pertinent to the current policy landscape.

1 European Commission Directives 90/219 and 90/220 For a thorough analysis of the implementation of theseDirectives, see the results of successive European research projects co-ordinated by the Open UniversityBiotechnology Policy Group (http://technology.open.ac.uk/cts/bpg.htm) See Table 4 for evolutions in the EU regulatory framework for GMOs during the period 1996-2000.

Framing the project

Objectives of the PABE study

Three objectives were stated as follows in our research proposal (Marris and Wynne, 1997, page 4):

1 To explore and describe the factors shaping the diversity of viewpoints about agricultural biotechnologies and related food-products within five different European Member States (UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain).

2 To compare these factors and their influence on the diverse viewpoints about agricultural biotechnologies between these five Member States.

3 To describe the implications of these factors for policy making at national and European levels.

What did we do?

In order to address these objectives, the empirical research for this study consisted of two inter- linked components of fieldwork:

1 Perceptions of agricultural GMOs among members of the public were investigated using focus groups.

2 Perceptions, discourses and strategies of key stakeholders in the GMO debate were investigated through interviews, analysis of documents, and participant observation at GMO events This analysis focused in particular on the stakeholders' perceptions of public perceptions of GMOs.

In conducting our research, the team established specific epistemological and methodological commitments This section outlines our foundational assumptions before detailing the practical aspects of our methods.

Clarifying motivations for research on public perceptions

As public controversy over GMOs intensifies, both public and private sector decision-makers are increasingly focused on funding social science research to understand public attitudes and perceptions Notably, the European Commission has supported projects like the PABE initiative to explore these issues This context is essential to consider when reviewing the research framing outlined in the project proposal call we responded to.

Box 1: Call for ELSA research proposals from the European Commission

"Research on ethical, legal and social aspects of the areas included in this programme will have the objectives to:

To enhance the rationality and balance of public dialogue, it is crucial to acknowledge and consider the diverse viewpoints and attitudes within the community, including those of producers, users, social partners, environmentalists, welfare groups, and consumer organizations.

Anticipate and address emerging ethical, legal, and social issues related to new experiments, technologies, production systems, and products By fulfilling a proactive role, it is essential to provide early warnings to decision-makers and the public, ensuring informed choices and responsible innovation.

- Investigate factors (cultural, economic, historic, religious, etc.) affecting public response and varying perceptions of ethical issues."

This report contends that the prevalent framing of motivations behind promoting such research ironically contributes to the issue at hand This perspective carries significant policy implications, as it highlights the need for a reevaluation of how research motivations are perceived and addressed.

2 For information on all projects funded under this call, see http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/life/elsa/proj.html framings are often taken up or shared by social science researchers and/or (b) they influence the way in which the results of such research are interpreted and utilised by decision-makers.

To effectively address the nuances of public perception research and its role in policy-making, it is crucial to clarify our foundational assumptions, distinguishing them from prevailing beliefs in policy circles This report will explicitly outline what it does not cover, as we frequently encounter entrenched expectations from policymakers and research authorities regarding the contributions of such research, which we are unable to meet.

List of things which will not be found in this report:

(i) Insights into how to simplistically improve the "social acceptability" of GMOs (or of any other technology, product, or decision) - without changing the nature of that which is

(ii) Accurate predictions of the rise and fall of public controversies on GMOs (or other technologies).

(iii) Accurate predictions of public behaviour, such as, in the case of GMOs, purchasing of GM- foods.

(iv) An analysis of public perceptions of risk, as if risk (as defined by experts) were the only object public perceptions.

Below, we attempt to clarify why we cannot fulfil these commonly found expectations, and describe how we believe our research can contribute positively to policy making.

Improving "social acceptability"?

Enhancing the social acceptability of technology often involves either promoting public acceptance of a finished product or altering the technology's development process While the former approach is prevalent among funders and some social scientists, we argue that social science research should not merely aim to facilitate uncontroversial technology adoption Instead, it should assist decision-makers in addressing public opposition by acknowledging that the focus should be on reforming institutional practices and the technologies themselves, rather than attempting to change the public's perception alone.

Controversies surrounding technological innovations are not inherently negative and can be viewed as a form of societal technology assessment, revealing fundamental limitations in institutional processes By acknowledging the value of controversies, we can harness them to improve the development and promotion of new technologies Moreover, incorporating public perception research into the development process can help mitigate potential controversies, but this requires early implementation of societal technology appraisal.

Technology is not merely a finished product emerging from laboratories for society to accept or reject; rather, its development is shaped by various actors involved in research and development, including suppliers, financial sponsors, policymakers, and users Additionally, those impacted by the technology, such as consumers and environmental organizations, play a crucial role, albeit often in a more passive manner The European GM controversy exemplifies a situation where these stakeholders took a proactive stance, influencing the trajectory of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) Engaging all relevant parties in technology appraisal procedures early in the process could have fostered a more constructive dialogue, potentially avoiding the current stalemate that leaves stakeholders unsatisfied.

When evaluating the "social acceptability of technology," it is crucial to recognize all stakeholders, not just the disengaged public, as vital participants This study's research plan included analyzing both stakeholder and public perceptions, with the public defined as ordinary citizens not actively involved in technological development Additionally, these stakeholders were considered key users of the research and were invited to engage in workshops to collaboratively discuss the implications of the findings for their organizations.

Clarifying the relationship between public perceptions and public controversies

Decision-makers primarily engage with the public through media coverage, consumer behavior, voter behavior, and NGO activities, which often define issues as public problems or controversies in policy and commercial sectors While these indicators are crucial for short-term decision-making, empirical studies indicate that the intensity of a controversy is not solely determined by negative opinions or media attention Instead, the key factor is the potential for mobilization, which hinges on the number of individuals willing and able to take action, the presence of institutional arrangements for dissent, and the support from organized groups.

Public perception studies often face scrutiny from decision-makers who expect research findings to directly align with media portrayals and NGO activism regarding public controversies However, the relationship between public concerns and the intensity of these controversies is complex It is crucial to understand that the primary goal of most public perception research is to analyze the viewpoints of ordinary citizens who are not actively involved in ongoing debates Therefore, results from these studies should not be anticipated to closely match the framing of issues presented in media coverage and lobbying efforts.

When the PABE project was developed between December 1996 and March 1997, public controversies surrounding GMOs were not as intense as they are today in most EU Member States In fact, the level of public debate and concern over GMOs was minimal at that time, and this was not widely anticipated by policymakers.

Our hypothesis suggests that heightened public concern regarding technological, health, and environmental risks stems from a perceived lack of agency within the national political system When individuals feel powerless to instigate change, they may experience increased anxiety, even if they do not overtly express it This has significant policy implications, particularly in the context of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe The absence of visible opposition may misleadingly suggest public contentment, but insights from UK workshops reveal that many activists are deeply worried about the associated environmental, social, economic, and ethical issues They feel that the current regulatory framework fails to represent their views or concerns adequately.

Research indicates that public silence regarding issues like agricultural biotechnologies does not equate to a lack of concern; instead, it may stem from feelings of fatalism and a perceived lack of agency in influencing expert decision-makers (Macnaghten et al., 1995; Wynne, 1992) This sense of powerlessness discourages public protest and contributes to a broader alienation from political institutions Consequently, the muted public responses observed in Europe may be attributed to institutional barriers and an absence of clear avenues for expressing opinions, rather than genuine indifference.

Public controversies arise from collective resentment towards specific issues, yet not all public concerns evolve into controversies that attract policy maker attention The transformation of a public concern into a recognized public problem is influenced by complex agenda-setting processes, highlighting that public interest alone is insufficient for an issue to gain prominence.

Some sociologists, including Cambrioso and Limoges, argue that viewing the public as a pre-existing, undifferentiated entity in social science research is problematic They advocate for focusing analyses of socio-technical controversies on the actors involved, examining how these actors construct and represent the public to claim representation While we concur with this approach for understanding mobilization dynamics, we contend that public perceptions are real and exist, even if they cannot be attributed to a singular public entity Instead, public perceptions are formed through an interactive process involving various actors and their representations of both the public and the issues at hand, which also encompasses the influence of social scientists' interpretations.

Actors who effectively align their actions and statements with widely recognized public narratives are more likely to engage the public, assert representation, and influence public discourse Contrary to popular belief, consumer and environmental NGOs, like Greenpeace, cannot arbitrarily create sustained controversies; they often face criticism for allegedly misrepresenting the views of disengaged citizens to further their agendas, with claims that sensationalist media support them However, NGOs cannot solely drive media attention, as there are numerous instances where they have struggled to ignite discussions on issues they deem crucial.

Public perception studies can uncover existing viewpoints on issues not yet widely debated in the media or by NGOs, highlighting pre-existing public framings among populations that may not actively engage with specific topics, such as GMOs Conducting research in contexts lacking significant public discourse can help outline potential contours of future debates when they arise However, it is important to note that such studies cannot predict the emergence or timing of upcoming controversies.

Research conducted in a context of significant public controversy can reveal important differences between the concerns of ordinary citizens and the framing of the debate in public forums This research helps to uncover misconceptions and misrepresentations about the public, often perpetuated by various stakeholders, including NGOs, the media, public policymakers, and company representatives Consequently, a stakeholder analysis was included in the PABE research project, specifically examining stakeholder perspectives on the public, as detailed in section 6.

In conclusion, while studies on public perceptions enhance our understanding of controversies, they must be paired with research on the social and institutional processes of agenda setting Conversely, findings from the social dynamics of public controversies should not be interpreted as accurate reflections of public perceptions This principle also extends to media content analyses, which, although valuable for grasping the cultural context of public opinion and the evolution of debates, should not be equated with or serve as substitutes for actual public views.

The intensity of public controversy surrounding GMOs, measured through NGO activity, media coverage, and policy responses, varied significantly across five countries during the project from 1998 to 2000 This fluctuation in public debate allowed for the collection of data on public perceptions at different times and regions, revealing insights into the interaction, or lack thereof, between public perceptions and controversies surrounding GMOs.

Perceptions and behaviour

The PABE project did not seek to analyze or predict behaviors such as the purchasing of GM foods or anti-GMO activism However, there is a common expectation among research users that public perception studies should reflect actual public behavior When discrepancies arise, it is often assumed that behavior reveals true attitudes, leading to claims that public perception studies need validation against real-world actions Despite these assertions, attempts to validate such correlations have consistently shown that public perceptions and actual behaviors are not directly related.

Social science research has shown that discrepancies between perceptions and behavior are often dismissed as irrational public responses This viewpoint stems from the assumption that a rational and well-informed individual’s behavior should align directly with their opinions, highlighting the complexities of human behavior and decision-making.

Research on public perceptions may not always align with consumer or political rejection, but this does not invalidate the findings or indicate inconsistencies in respondents' belief systems It is overly simplistic to attribute perceived dissonance between attitudes and behaviors to inconsistent public responses Authentic interpretations of public attitudes cannot be solely validated against presumed objective responses Contradictory research results may be clarified by employing diverse methods, particularly those that encourage respondents to articulate their frames of meaning Focus groups, for instance, foster an interactive environment where participants can challenge each other and reflect on the discrepancies between their stated beliefs and actual behaviors.

It is crucial to recognize that a lack of visible opposition to technology, such as GM foods, does not equate to public satisfaction or acceptance Research into public perception can uncover underlying concerns that persist even when consumers engage with such technologies These unexpressed worries can accumulate from various life experiences and may be overlooked or misrepresented by official policies Consequently, these hidden concerns can significantly influence public behavior towards socio-technological innovations, shaping perceptions of innovation and risk management However, it is important to note that the relationship between public perception studies and the development of public controversies is not always direct or linear.

In today's market, companies focused on immediate sales and governments seeking short-term public support may overlook the importance of understanding underlying public concerns However, these invisible sentiments can manifest into significant behaviors over time, leading to unpredictable controversies that may seem disproportionate to the initial issue, particularly for those promoting the relevant technology or policy As public reactions stem from accumulated resentment due to past experiences, they become increasingly difficult to address Conducting public perception research can enable decision-makers to identify potential concerns before they escalate into negative responses Yet, for this approach to be effective, it is crucial that organizations are willing to adapt their policies and technologies rather than solely enhancing their risk communication or marketing strategies.

Perceptions of risk?

Researchers studying public perceptions should not assume they understand how individuals interpret issues, as these interpretations may differ significantly from those of experts It is essential to investigate the meanings that the public assigns to various topics, rather than imposing predefined definitions, such as categorizing GMOs solely as "risk issues." By doing so, researchers can avoid inserting specific frameworks into public discourse without first exploring the public's actual perceptions, ensuring a more accurate and open-minded understanding of the issues at hand.

Researchers must avoid presuming to understand public responses when analyzing them, as this often overlooked principle is crucial for both methodological and theoretical approaches Recognizing that perceptions are multidimensional and interactive guided our decision to investigate the underlying factors influencing viewpoints rather than the viewpoints themselves Additionally, we aimed to explore the nature of the perception's object and employed methods that facilitate open-ended exploration of independent framings and meanings.

Previous research on public perceptions of risk has revealed that the object of public responses can be any or all of the following (see for example Krimsky and Golding, 1992):

• Risk magnitudes, as described by scientific authorities, for example as death frequencies

• Risk qualities, eg psychometric attributes described by Slovic et al such as voluntariness, risk/benefit distribution, catastrophic potential, risk-trend, familiarity, visibility etc (Slovic, 2000)

• Institutional (mis)management of those risks

• Dominant institutional definitions of the issue as imposed in official approaches (e.g neglect of dimensions and variables which are salient to the public)

The prevailing definitions of the public often depict it as a homogenous and stereotypical entity, characterized by traits such as ignorance, hysteria, and individualism These perceptions are frequently reflected in expert discourses and certain research methodologies, which tend to overlook the complexities and diversity within the public.

• The technology as a whole social experience and projection

This underlines the reasons for our commitment to understanding public perceptions in relation to expert-institutional behaviour, including how those expert institutions understand public responses.

The research questions and methodological design for the PABE project were informed by a previous study conducted by CSEC, entitled Uncertain World: Genetically Modified Organisms,

The study "Food and Public Attitudes in Britain" by Grove-White et al (1997) analyzed focus groups conducted in the UK in 1996, prior to the significant rise of the genetically modified (GM) food debate in the country.

While there was no visible public controversy regarding GMOs at the time, focus group participants in the UK demonstrated significant knowledge about the subject, rooted in personal experience They expressed concerns about the overconfidence of regulatory and promotional actors and contemplated the potential social impacts of GM innovations on agriculture and the global food chain The key takeaway is not whether the public's views on GMOs are correct, as they can be debated, but rather that participants were able to make meaningful connections and assessments regarding GM agriculture and food.

The report emphasized the importance of expert institutions acknowledging and addressing the diverse meanings surrounding public perceptions, rather than misunderstanding or dismissing them as irrational Initially overlooked by policymakers, the study has since gained recognition as a pivotal analysis of public attitudes toward GM food, described as "the study which has provided the deepest insights" (ENDS Report 283, August 1998) In March 1999, UK Government Chief Scientist Sir Robert May acknowledged its significance, stating, "I wish I had indeed read 'Uncertain World' earlier; it is a remarkably prescient document" (cited in ESRC, 1999, page 2).

Why use focus groups?

This section outlines the benefits and drawbacks of using focus group methods to examine public perceptions, with a detailed description of the methodological design employed in the PABE focus groups provided in section 4.

Focus groups, also known as "group depth interviews" or "focused group discussions," are structured yet flexible discussions that delve into specific research topics Typically consisting of 3 to 12 participants, these sessions are guided by a moderator who facilitates interaction, encourages in-depth exploration of relevant questions, and keeps the conversation centered on the subject matter.

Originally designed for market research to gauge public reactions to policies and products, this method has gained traction in social science research However, Kitzinger and Barbour (1999) caution that social scientists risk uncritically adopting market researchers' approaches instead of adapting them to fit their own objectives and theoretical frameworks.

The authors provide essential guidelines for a flexible and reflexive approach to research practices These principles were adapted to align with the specific objectives of the PABE research project.

Focus groups are an effective method for exploring individuals' experiences, opinions, and concerns, as they allow participants to express their own questions and priorities in their own language This approach enables researchers to gain insights into diverse perspectives within a social network and understand how interactions shape and transform participants' narratives Additionally, focus groups highlight the influence of peer communication and group norms on the articulation and evolution of ideas.

Stewart and Shamdasani (1990) highlight that focus groups offer a unique advantage over traditional survey data and experimental methods by generating information in a more natural and authentic manner This approach enables participants to express themselves in their own words, utilizing their personal categorizations and associations, which enriches the data collected.

Focus groups are increasingly utilized by social science researchers to explore the perspectives and language of the general public Many studies focus on public perceptions of risk and related issues, as highlighted in Table 1.

Researchers from PABE have actively engaged in various studies examining public risk perceptions, employing diverse methodologies such as questionnaire surveys and mixed-method designs Notable studies include those by Pellizzoni and Ungaro (2000), De Marchi (1991), and others, which integrated qualitative and quantitative approaches Additionally, several focus group studies referenced in Table 1 utilized questionnaire surveys and in-depth interviews, including projects like ULYSES, VALSE, and PRISP, highlighting the comprehensive nature of PABE's research efforts.

Table 1 Some focus group studies on public perceptions of risk

Topic References EC- funded project?

Children's views of accidents Green, 1997; Green and Hart, 1998 No No

Energy technologies Keck and Lattewitz, 1999 No Yes

Environmental valuation O'Connor and Tsang King Sang, 1998, http://alba.jrc.it/valse/ VALSE Yes

Global climate change Darier et al., 1999; De Marchi et al.,

1998, http://alba.jrc.it/ulysses.html ULYSSES Yes

Hazardous installations De Marchi and Functowicz, 1997;

Horlick-Jones et al., 1998 PRISP Yes

Hazardous installations Irwin et al., 1999; Walker et al., 1998 No Yes

New genetics (in health) Kerr and Cunningham-Burley, 2000;

Kerr et al., 1998a and b No No

Noise abatement Keck, 2000 No Yes

Nuclear technologies Waterton and Wynne, 1999; Wynne et al., 1993 No Yes

Sustainable development Macnaghten et al., 1995 No Yes

The research team determined that focus groups were the most suitable method for their study due to their effectiveness in uncovering how participants categorize their experiences Unlike quantitative surveys that may impose researchers' interpretations of key terms like "risk," "trust," and "knowledge," focus groups facilitate a deeper understanding of participants' perspectives, especially on topics that are not widely discussed While individual interviews offer similar insights, focus groups enhance the interactive aspect of qualitative research, allowing for exploration of not only what people think but also how and why they think that way This interaction encourages participants to articulate previously unexpressed views and reveals the complex, interconnected nature of public perceptions, thus providing a richer, multi-layered understanding of the issues at hand.

Box 3: The importance of interaction in the focus group method

The group process extends beyond mere consensus and the establishment of shared norms; it also encompasses the significant differences among individuals These variations are always present and cannot be overlooked Research participants within any group are inherently diverse, leading to not only agreement but also misunderstandings, questioning, and attempts to persuade one another regarding their perspectives Disagreements can arise passionately, highlighting the complexity of group dynamics.

In group discussions, facilitators can delve into differing opinions and encourage participants to theorize the reasons behind this diversity Participants often express surprise at the varying perspectives within seemingly homogeneous groups, such as those defined by gender, race, or class This unexpected dissent prompts individuals to articulate their reasoning, often revealing personal experiences or specific events that have influenced their viewpoints Unlike interviews, which might lead to speculative theorizing, focus groups allow for real-time exploration of these differences, enhancing the understanding of underlying causes with the active involvement of participants.

The diversity among participants enables the observation of how individuals articulate their viewpoints in relation to others, effectively putting their ideas into action This dynamic process clarifies their statements and compels them to explain the reasoning behind their thoughts, fostering deeper understanding within the group.

Careful observation of how participants share their stories helps researchers avoid assuming they understand the meaning behind any specific anecdote Throughout the group session, researchers can see how these narratives function within a social context, how they are used in interactions, and the ideological purposes they serve.

The diverse assumptions of individuals become apparent through their challenges to one another, the inquiries they pose, the evidence they present, the sources they reference, and the arguments that effectively influence the opinions of other group members.

We are inherently interconnected individuals, embedded within intricate social, familial, and professional networks Our behaviors are influenced by public discourses, and our actions are shaped by cultural contexts We acquire meanings through interactions and observations with others, whether in personal or professional settings, and we respond to this knowledge within a social framework Therefore, when researchers seek to understand or influence people's perceptions, it is essential to utilize methods that actively engage with these social dynamics.

Some limitations of focus group methods

The choice of research method significantly impacts the results obtained, particularly in understanding the frameworks of meaning and interconnections that shape public perceptions of GMOs Our findings emphasize these public meanings and the connections respondents make between various issues, which are often overlooked in traditional research methods A key insight from the sociology of science is that researchers can only observe and measure what their instruments allow, a principle that applies to both natural and social sciences Consequently, focus group studies on public perceptions often uncover insights that remain hidden when relying solely on quantitative questionnaire surveys.

Researchers and users of research must acknowledge that the public is partially shaped by the research process, a phenomenon evident in focus groups as well as surveys and experimental methods For instance, Davison et al (1997) illustrate how public opinion on biotechnologies is constructed through surveys The crucial aspect is recognizing and addressing this dimension in research practices.

Qualitative research studies, such as focus groups and interviews, often face criticism for their limited participant numbers, which can hinder generalization of results However, a balance exists between statistical representativity and the in-depth insights provided by focus groups To address this limitation, researchers can enhance participant diversity and conduct multiple focus groups until reaching a saturation point, typically achieved after 10 to 20 sessions, where new information becomes minimal Despite the small sample sizes, prior research indicates that these methods can yield valuable insights into the social dynamics surrounding various pressing social issues.

Critics often argue that focus group methods negatively influence individual viewpoints due to the dynamics of group work While it is true that group interactions can shape responses, this should not be viewed as a drawback Research indicates that data from one-on-one interviews may differ from group settings; however, understanding expressions within a group context can yield insights that are more reflective of real-life experiences As Kitzinger (1994) notes, recognizing both what is shared and what remains unexpressed in group discussions enhances the relevance of the findings.

It is essential to understand that group data is not inherently 'natural' simply because it is collected from a group setting; it is artificially created for a specific purpose While focus groups may resemble participant observation in some respects, they are structured environments that do not occur spontaneously.

The PABE study uniquely focused on agricultural biotechnologies, engaging participants who typically had no prior interest in the topic Participants were carefully selected to ensure they were not directly involved in or influenced by the GM controversy In contrast, Kitzinger's focus groups consisted of pre-existing participants who were familiar with each other and directly impacted by the discussion topic While this difference could be seen as a limitation, the interactive nature of focus groups allows researchers to effectively capture how individuals utilize their existing knowledge and experiences to understand new issues before they enter public discourse.

A key critique of focus group methods is the potential for researcher bias, particularly when the researcher facilitates discussions, which can lead to steering the conversation towards desired outcomes This interaction between researchers and participants is inevitable, and it is crucial for researchers to acknowledge and address it Since the 1920s, it has been understood that observation in natural sciences interferes with the subjects being studied, a phenomenon that is even more pronounced in social sciences The framing of questions and the manner in which they are posed can significantly influence participants' responses and their subsequent behavior Additionally, social research involves human participants who are actively constructing their own meanings and relationships throughout the process, often utilizing the concepts and language of social science This dynamic has been termed "the double hermeneutic" by sociologist Anthony Giddens.

Qualitative research, including in-depth interviews and focus groups, faces criticism for allowing researchers significant freedom in data interpretation, which can lead to biased conclusions that confirm personal beliefs In contrast, quantitative results, particularly from representative samples, often appear more credible to users, as "numbers speak louder than words." However, it is crucial to recognize that all research methods require interpretation of findings, a reality often overlooked by research users despite being acknowledged by researchers The key issue lies in how well researchers acknowledge their interpretative responsibility, make it transparent, and address potential biases through independent validation This challenge is heightened in public perception studies, where results cannot be independently verified by observable behaviors, creating additional hurdles for qualitative researchers in persuading policy users of their findings' validity.

Testing and validation of research findings

Subjective bias is an inherent possibility in all research, including social sciences, yet its implications are often overlooked To enhance the integrity of research findings, it is crucial to address specific methodological and research-policy considerations.

(i) Acknowledge the interpretative element of all research

All research involves interpretation, raising the crucial question of when and how these interpretative commitments are articulated during the research process In quantitative surveys, these interpretations are often embedded in the formulation of survey questions, while in qualitative research, they become particularly significant during the data analysis phase.

(ii) Acknowledge the interactive dimension of all research

In all research, particularly in social sciences and public perception studies, the interaction between researchers and their subjects is unavoidable, influencing the responses being measured Researchers must recognize their interventionist role and the accompanying responsibilities, regardless of the methods employed This highlights the importance of extended peer review in ensuring the integrity of research findings.

Researchers must validate their interpretative commitments, ensuring they accurately represent the public they aim to reflect These commitments cannot solely arise from data; instead, they require peer review, which can occur through discussions within research teams and critiques from independent experts Additionally, extended peer review is essential, involving members of the populations represented in the findings and stakeholders who utilize the research.

Testing and validation can be achieved by comparing results from various methods This comparison can occur within a single research team through mixed methods in the same study, or between different research teams by evaluating findings published using similar or diverse methodologies.

The methods used for testing and validation of the PABE focus group results are described in section 4.5.

Conclusions

The PABE project is grounded in the past experiences of its team members in risk perception studies, providing essential context for its development Drawing from earlier research, particularly a 1996 study on public perceptions of GMOs conducted at CSEC, the PABE researchers identified key elements to integrate into their study design.

To effectively study public perceptions of risk, it is essential to enable respondents to share their viewpoints on the issues at hand This consideration significantly influenced our decision to utilize focus groups as the primary research method (refer to section 2.8).

Research on public perceptions must be paired with an analysis of how institutions construct risk and related issues This approach underpinned the inclusion of both public perceptions of GMOs and stakeholder perceptions of the public in the PABE study, particularly highlighted in section 6 of the results.

To ensure the reliability of research findings, it is essential to conduct testing and validation through both intra- and inter-research group confrontations, along with comprehensive peer reviews The PABE study's design includes specific methods and procedures to facilitate this rigorous evaluation process (refer to section 4.5).

Researchers must acknowledge and reflect on the various dimensions of their work This section aims to transparently convey our research commitments to the reader.

Public perception studies can be enhanced by incorporating research that examines the engagement of stakeholders in socio-technical controversies While this aspect was not part of the original project design, several researchers involved in the PABE project contributed to such studies either prior to or during the project's timeline.

The public response to biotechnology highlights the need for further research that utilizes diverse methodologies and fosters collaboration among researchers to compare foundational assumptions and outcomes While the PABE study did not initially incorporate this aspect, the findings presented here serve to complement existing research conducted through various approaches It is essential to juxtapose these results with those obtained by other researchers, regardless of the methods employed However, merging different approaches across disciplines poses significant challenges, as it necessitates the identification and analysis of each project's underlying assumptions and frameworks To assist readers, we have made our own prior assumptions explicit in section 2 of this report.

Methods used for the stakeholder analysis

Interviews

In-depth interviews were conducted with at least 20 stakeholders across five countries, including biotechnology and seed companies, food manufacturers, large food distributors, civil servants from relevant ministries and regulatory bodies, members of expert advisory committees, research scientists, farmers' unions, and representatives from environmental and consumer organizations For detailed insights, please refer to the National Reports.

Participant observation

The research was enhanced by participant observation, where researchers attended meetings and events related to the GM debate Their involvement ranged from passive audience members to active speakers or organizers Regardless of their role, researchers meticulously documented their observations, adhering to the same thematic protocol used in interviews.

This method complements interviews by enabling researchers to observe the mobilization of discourses and positions in public spaces It allows for easier identification of disagreements when diverse actors convene, while also facilitating the recognition of shared cultures among groups with similar viewpoints.

Participant observation events vary significantly based on the specific activities within each studied country or region These events can include governmental advisory committees, public consultations organized by governments or industries, NGO-led debates and meetings, mass demonstrations, direct actions, and court trials For more detailed information, refer to the National Reports.

3 Note that although the Spanish and German teams conducted their focus groups in Catalonia and the State of BadenWürttemberg, the stakeholder analysis was conducted at the national level.

Our research, particularly the PABE project, has received funding and collaboration from various external organizations, including national governments, the European Commission, industry partners, and NGOs This collaboration offers valuable insights into the perspectives of these stakeholders regarding the goals of public perception research and their understanding of public opinion.

Analysis of documents

A comprehensive analysis was conducted on various documents from stakeholder organizations, including press releases, websites, annual reports, public relations materials, research proposal calls, and articles from magazines and newspapers This examination focused on understanding the public's perspectives as conveyed by the authors in these documents.

Implicit and explicit visions of the public

These three methods (interviews, participant observation and analysis of documents) enabled us to collect explicit declarations about the public (described alternatively as "citizens", "consumers",

In our interviews, we directly explored perceptions of the public during GMO events, where participants frequently shared their views on the audience, often without it being the main focus of the discussion Additionally, official documents frequently include explicit representations of the public, particularly through findings from opinion surveys and research on public perceptions.

Our analysis incorporates both explicit declarations and implicit public perceptions, focusing on key questions such as the protagonist's primary message, the target audience for communication, and anticipated changes resulting from the communication This comprehensive examination of content and communication strategies uncovers significant insights into the implicit views held by the protagonists regarding their audience.

Focus group method for the analysis of public perceptions

Staged design

The research was conducted in 3 stages:

• Pilot phase: 2 focus groups held in September-October 1998

• Phase I: 6 focus groups held in January-February 1999

• Phase II: 6 focus groups held in September-October 1999

The staged design aimed to facilitate the method's development throughout the study Pilot groups were employed to evaluate the effectiveness of the discussion protocol, leading to minor adjustments by the PABE team prior to the Phase I focus groups.

Following the preliminary analysis of the Phase I focus groups, the PABE partners identified key questions for further exploration and modified the discussion protocol To facilitate a deeper investigation of these themes in Phase II, it was decided to extend the engagement with participants In Phase I, six groups participated in a single 2-hour session each, while in Phase II, three groups were recruited to meet twice for 2-hour sessions, either on consecutive days or with a week-long interval between sessions.

Each team recruited 11 participant groups and held 14 discussion sessions, resulting in a total of 55 groups and 70 sessions throughout the study, amounting to 140 hours of group discussions.

Discussion protocols

The discussion protocols were designed to emphasize key themes while allowing for an open-ended structure that encourages participants to address issues significant to them All five teams agreed to use an English-language version as a foundational framework, which each national team would adapt to fit their local contexts, including language, public discourse on GMOs, and pertinent local examples The English versions of these protocols can be found in Annexes 3 and 4.

A key decision made by the partners was to provide minimal information about GMOs to participants, gradually introducing this information throughout the session During the preparatory stages in the summer of 1998, the viability of this approach was questioned across the five countries involved, as the intensity of the GM public debate varied significantly Consequently, it was anticipated that pre-existing awareness of GMOs would be particularly low in countries like Spain and Italy.

Our approach was guided by the understanding that public perceptions can exist independently of controversies, as discussed in section 2.5 We aimed to explore pre-existing perceptions of GMOs, allowing participants to reflect on their own knowledge and experiences before joining the focus group Rather than focusing on specific information, we encouraged participants to utilize any relevant knowledge they had In analyzing the data, we specifically examined the frames of reference, associations, and experiences that participants used to articulate and support their viewpoints.

During the focus group period in September, public controversy escalated across all five countries, with Germany experiencing significantly less intensity in comparison.

Between 1998 and November 1999, awareness of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) differed significantly across three phases of focus groups and five countries, as defined by scientists and policymakers.

The pilot groups concluded that the proposed approach was effective, requiring only minor adjustments to the Phase I focus group protocol Consequently, the Phase I protocol was structured accordingly, with detailed information available in Annex 3.

In the initial 30 minutes of the session, participants engaged in a discussion about the advancements in agriculture and food without any mention of GMOs or agricultural biotechnologies by the facilitator Although some attendees did raise the topic of GMOs, it was acknowledged but not delved into at that point in the conversation.

(ii) The facilitator introduced the term "GMO" (or an appropriate local term) and asked the participants for their immediate images (approximately 10 minutes).

(iii) A short "dictionary definition" of GMOs was presented and used to promote discussion (approximately 10 minutes).

(iv) A number of specific examples of agricultural GMOs were progressively presented (approximately 40 minutes).

In the final half-hour of the discussion, three typical arguments regarding GMOs were presented, representing the perspectives of a regulator, a GMO-producing company, and an environmental organization This segment aimed to delve into participants' opinions on the various stakeholders involved, rather than to foster a debate on the arguments themselves.

During recruitment, potential participants were only vaguely informed that the discussion would focus on their feelings about recent changes in food production and consumption, deliberately omitting terms like biotechnology and genetic engineering to avoid deterring those who might find the topic too technical This approach aimed to prevent bias from individuals with a strong interest in the subject and to gauge whether biotechnology would arise spontaneously in conversation before being introduced by the facilitator Although there was a concern that participants might feel misled upon discovering the focus on agricultural biotechnologies, there was no indication that this perception occurred during the discussion.

During the recruitment process, participants were informed that the study was conducted by a recognized public sector research institute or university, clearly stating its academic nature rather than a market research initiative This distinction was reiterated at the start of the discussion session, along with the disclosure that the study was funded by the institute.

4 In Italy, the initial definition of GMOs was a little more detailed.

The German team expressed significant concern regarding GMOs, given their controversial status in Germany Consequently, they opted to inform participants during the recruitment phase that the discussion would focus on genetically modified organisms.

European Commission At the end of the sessions, participants were given a leaflet with brief details of the PABE study.

Analytical framework

The PABE researchers developed a common analytical framework that guided independent analyses of focus groups by local teams in each country Following these individual assessments, the entire PABE team engaged in discussions to compare and synthesize the results The analytical framework utilized in this process is detailed below.

The research team identified key analytical themes crucial for understanding public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology, which served as a framework for analyzing Phase I focus groups These themes represent factors hypothesized to influence views on agricultural GMOs, drawn from prior work by the PABE team and other researchers, as detailed in the PABE research proposal (Marris and Wynne, 1997, p 2).

1 Agency, identity, and public participation in decision-making

Risk perceptions in decision-making are influenced by individuals' sense of agency within national processes This feeling of agency varies across different countries, reflecting diverse public participation cultures Understanding these dynamics is crucial for enhancing engagement and addressing risk perceptions effectively.

2 Social psychological factors on perceptions

Are factors such as novelty, unfamiliarity, and felt lack of choice important in shaping risk perceptions in this field? And does this vary between countries?

Risk perceptions in the field of environmental ethics are significantly influenced by images of nature and moral standards, particularly concerning the concept of 'playing God' and the ethical treatment of animals These perceptions can vary widely between countries, reflecting differing cultural values and beliefs about the relationship between humans and the natural world.

4 Perceptions of the agriculture-food system

Do varying perceptions of the domestic agriculture-food system affect individuals' identification with it and their sense of risk? For instance, how does the perceived intensification of agriculture or its integration into global trade impact these feelings? Additionally, are current risk perceptions shaped by the anticipated future trajectory of the food system, leading to a sentiment of having reached a critical point in its development?

Risk perceptions regarding genetic manipulation are shaped by its scientific nature and are closely linked to broader attitudes toward science and technology Additionally, trust in scientific experts plays a crucial role in these perceptions Furthermore, the relationship between science, technology, and national identity may also impact how risks are perceived in this domain.

Scientific knowledge in risk assessment often relies on social assumptions, particularly regarding the real-world contexts in which risks are encountered, as opposed to purely analytical models and controlled experiments This raises the question of whether risk perceptions in this area are shaped by how national risk assessment procedures for GMOs recognize and incorporate the social aspects of regulatory science.

Laypeople's perceptions of national regulatory systems vary, with some viewing them as autonomous and impermeable, while others see them as interconnected and porous regarding risk Additionally, the influence of European institutions on these regulations may shape individuals' risk perceptions differently than those stemming from national governments.

8 Experience of untrustworthy behaviour in related fields

Risk perceptions in the agriculture-food system are shaped by previous public experiences with trustworthy or untrustworthy behavior from those managing these risks Historical events, such as the BSE crisis, play a significant role in influencing how the public views risk management in this sector.

At the project's inception and during preliminary analysis, six key themes were refined, as detailed in the PABE working documents from November 1998 and March 1999 To maintain transparency, we present the original formulations from the research proposal, which guided our research questions for the sponsors These questions were significantly influenced by findings from the "Uncertain World" study conducted by Grove-White et al in 1997.

The Phase I focus groups revealed seven key themes that significantly shaped participants' perspectives, highlighting both commonalities across national studies and areas warranting further investigation among the five countries These themes guided the discussion protocol and analysis for the Phase II groups, as well as the reevaluation of findings from the Pilot and Phase I groups.

1 Lifestyle orientations, including related food cultures

2 Speed of change associated with food technologies

5 Perceived tension between social need and private interests

7 Sense of alienation, lack of agency, lack of control of the life-world

Recruitment

The selection criteria for each group, outlined in Table 3, were collaboratively developed by the PABE research team These criteria were consistently applied across all participating countries, with only minor regional variations noted, as detailed in the National Reports.

In focus group research, it's crucial to note that the samples are not statistically representative of the studied populations, as this was not the goal of the recruitment method Instead, the aim was to achieve maximum diversity among participants by employing selection criteria that included demographic characteristics for social diversity and topic-specific criteria deemed relevant for public perceptions of GMOs.

All participant groups aimed for gender balance, featuring equal numbers of females and males, with the exception of the two pilot groups in Germany and Groups 5 and 8 in the UK Minor discrepancies arose in some instances due to recruitment challenges, as detailed in the National Reports.

The groups were primarily structured to be homogenous based on specific pre-determined variables, as outlined in Table 3, while aiming for maximum diversity in other aspects Conversely, two of the Phase groups deviated from this approach.

Groups n°9 and n°10 were designed to be heterogeneous based on predetermined variables, acknowledging that individuals within these categories can vary significantly in other uncontrollable aspects As Kitzinger and Barbour (1999, p.8) highlight, researchers cannot fully manage all relevant characteristics, and this limitation should not be viewed as a drawback.

Recognizing the importance of regional diversity, focus groups were conducted across various regions in France, Italy, and the UK to mitigate potential biases linked to geographical location While this approach could not capture the full spectrum of regional differences, it aimed to minimize unrecognized variables affecting the results In contrast, Spain and Germany adopted a localized strategy due to the strong ties of participating research institutions to their regions, with focus groups in Spain held exclusively in Catalonia and in Germany within Baden-Württemberg, making the findings relevant only to those specific areas.

Participants in the study were carefully selected to exclude individuals employed in agriculture, agro-industries, or biotechnology, including farmers and those with backgrounds in agricultural or biological sciences Additionally, professionals in marketing, publicity, and media were not included Efforts were made to avoid including participants who were familiar with one another, although this was sometimes challenging in small towns and among church communities.

7 For further details about the construction of these themes, see PABE working document "Phase II focus groups - key analytical questions" (September 1999).

Specific pre-set recruitment criteria were as follows:

In the pilot phase, the primary criterion for distinguishing between the two groups was their level of education, as it is commonly believed that formal education influences risk perceptions This factor also acts as a proxy for various other socio-demographic characteristics.

In Phase I, a diverse array of socio-demographic factors, including education level, age, and type of residence (small city, large city, or rural), were considered to recruit participants from various social backgrounds Additionally, factors such as having young children at home, religious beliefs, and rural living conditions were examined for their potential impact on perceptions of food and agriculture.

In Phase II, participants for two groups were chosen based on two key criteria identified in the analysis of Phase I: food consumption habits and the sense of agency.

The study on food consumption habits revealed a clear divide among participants: half preferred shopping at local markets and purchasing organic products, while the other half prioritized convenience by mainly shopping at large supermarkets, showing little concern for the quality of their food choices and minimal dedication to cooking and eating.

The study on the "feeling of agency" included a balanced group of politically active and passive citizens, with political engagement defined by participation in activities such as political parties, parent-teacher associations, NGOs, local community groups, or volunteer organizations, while excluding purely social or sports-related involvement.

Phase II's third group consisted of individuals with advanced scientific education to explore the hypothesis that negative views on GMOs and technological risks stem from low scientific literacy Notably, participants with direct training or experience in fields related to GM research were excluded from this group.

Logistics

Recruitment for the study was conducted either by professional agencies experienced in academic research or by the researchers themselves, particularly in Italy, where local non-professional sources were utilized to avoid bias from existing databases used by market research agencies This approach minimized the risk of recruiting professional focus group participants In Phase II, recruitment criteria were more specific and distinct from traditional socio-demographic metrics, which allowed for greater flexibility even when professional agencies were involved Consequently, adaptations were made in France and Catalonia, where an independent recruiter was employed in France, while the researchers in Catalonia replicated the Italian team's recruitment strategy.

Participants were paid for their participation (30-40 Euro for 2 hours in Phase I and 60-80 Euros for

4 hours in Phase II) Light refreshments were provided.

Focus groups were primarily conducted in the evening from 19:00 to 21:00, with some sessions scheduled during the day for unemployed or retired participants These discussions took place in a variety of formal settings, including universities, research centers, local hotels, city halls, and market research company offices, which likely influenced the outcomes of the research.

Each discussion was audio- and/or video-recorded, with prior agreement of the participants One or two PABE researchers facilitated the discussion In some instances, another researcher acted an

In Italy, a private residence, not owned by any participants, served as the venue for a discussion An observer was present, seated quietly in the back, where they took notes and occasionally contributed to the conversation at the conclusion of the meeting.

Table 2 Number of participants per focus group

Phase Group n° UK France Germany Italy Catalonia

Table 3 Recruitment criteria for focus groups

Pilot a 1 Low level of education Sept/Oct 1998

2 High level of education Sept/Oct 1998

Phase I 3 Young, single urban professionals with high level of education Jan./Feb 1999

5 Socially excluded (unemployed with low income and low education) c Jan./Feb 1999

7 Parents of young children e Jan./Feb 1999

Phase II 9 Food habits (split between 'natural' and 'convenience' food user) Sept./Oct 1999

10 Feeling of agency (split between active and passive citizenship) f, g Sept./Oct 1999

11 High level of scientific education Sept./Oct 1999

In the study, various demographic criteria were employed to differentiate pilot groups across countries In Germany, gender was the distinguishing factor, with Group 1 consisting of 8 men and Group 2 of 8 women Group 4 included regular churchgoers, comprising Protestants in Germany and mainstream Christians, including Protestants and one Catholic, in the UK, while participants in France, Italy, and Catalonia were all Catholics Group 5 in the UK was exclusively male, and Group 6 was substituted in Italy with a group of unemployed or public employees Group 7 in the UK consisted solely of women, and notably, Group 10 in the UK included participants with a high sense of agency Additionally, in Italy, all participants—regardless of agency level—shared a low level of education and social status.

The study aimed to ensure gender balance in participant groups, striving for equal representation of females and males However, minor discrepancies arose in some cases, notably in the two pilot groups in Germany and groups 5 and 8 in the UK, primarily due to recruitment challenges For further details, please refer to the National Reports.

In Italy, France, and the UK, various groups were recruited and organized across different regions, as detailed in the National Reports In Spain, all groups were specifically held in Catalonia, while in Germany, the groups were exclusively conducted in the State of Baden-Württemberg.

Testing and validation of PABE focus group results

For this project, techniques for testing and validating the interpretation of data included:

The PABE team employed an iterative and interactive design for their analysis, involving intra-group testing Focus group transcripts were independently analyzed by at least two researchers from each national team, followed by discussions to reconcile different interpretations before finalizing the analysis Each national team initially elaborated on their results independently, then engaged in discussions with other PABE teams to address areas of disagreement, which were either resolved through further examination or provisionally explained by national differences Additionally, the three-phase research design facilitated the re-exploration of questions that emerged in earlier phases during later stages of the study.

Extended peer review involved presenting preliminary results to focus group participants for feedback, particularly during two discussion sessions in Phase II Workshops at both national and EU levels were organized to engage key stakeholders and users in discussions about these findings The research benefited from the active participation of researchers in policy debates and advisory roles over many years, ensuring that their insights were relevant and applicable to stakeholders This ongoing interaction allowed for the testing of interpretations against the understandings of other actors in the GMO debate Additionally, preliminary findings were shared at relevant conferences and seminars, fostering connections between academic peers and policy stakeholders.

(iii) Inter-research group peer review

A valuable testing and validation method is the comparison and triangulation of results from various research approaches Although not initially designed for the PABE study, this research complements findings from other studies employing different methodologies PABE researchers are actively working on comparing their results with those from other studies, but these efforts are not detailed in this report It is crucial to compare the findings presented here with those from other researchers using similar or alternative methods However, merging different approaches across disciplines poses challenges, as it requires careful examination of the underlying assumptions of each research project To aid the reader, we have outlined our own prior assumptions in section 2.

In Italy, participants were requested to reach a consensus on a summary crafted either by themselves or by a researcher at the conclusion of each discussion session across all phases.

Evolution of the GM controversy in the five countries studied

Intensity of the GM controversies

The PABE study included stakeholder interviews, participant observation and analysis of documents (methods described in section 3) This component of the study had two objectives:

(i) To investigate representations of the public among stakeholders, in order to compare these with the results from our focus groups with ordinary citizens These results are presented in section 8.

This analysis examines the controversy in each country where public perception data was gathered, aiming to highlight key factors that influence public responses The findings are summarized in this section.

The temporal profile of the intensity of GMOs controversies in each of the five countries between

Figure 1 illustrates the analysis of media coverage, the intensity of anti-GMO actions by NGOs, and the responses from national policymakers and the private sector between 1985 and 2000 This temporal profile is based on research conducted for the EC-funded ADAPTA project, which involved several researchers from PABE.

The portrayal of the GM controversy is overly simplistic when reduced to a single quantitative measure, failing to capture the complex, multi-faceted nature of the analysis involved For a more nuanced understanding of the GM debate in these five countries, readers are encouraged to consult the comprehensive studies published by PABE researchers A summary and additional references can be found in section 5.2.

Figure 1 highlights the varying intensity of the GM controversy across five countries in 1996, coinciding with the development of the PABE project It also demonstrates the differing evolution of this controversy in each country throughout the research period Two key observations emerge from this analysis.

Between 1997 and 2000, the GM debate was most intense in France and the UK, while Germany experienced relatively low controversy This disparity influenced the PABE study, which aimed to explore France's lack of public controversy despite its active GM research and regulation However, the study had to pivot to address the unexpected rise of controversy in France In contrast, Germany, initially selected for its intense public debate on GM, did not exhibit this intensity during the study period.

Spain and Italy were selected as examples of countries with minimal public controversy surrounding GMOs, unlike France, where GM-related research and regulations are more prominent In Spain, public debate over GMOs has remained relatively subdued, while Italy experienced significant controversy, particularly during 1999 and 2000.

Box 4: The arena framework for analysis of socio-technical controversies

The framework for Figure 1 was developed during the EC-funded ADAPTA project, where PABE researchers explored the complexities of public controversies beyond mere opinion polls and media coverage They sought to define the essence of public debates and assess their intensity, proposing that such debates occur within specialized "arenas" including economic, scientific, regulatory, legal, political, and media contexts This research framework is summarized in the accompanying materials, with additional details available in the works of Joly and Assouline (2001) and Joly et al (2000, 2001).

When an issue lacks public discussion, it results in minimal debate, often limited to specialized fields like science and law In this scenario, referred to as Situation B, the matter is addressed through established norms and procedures unique to those arenas, relying on a shared symbolic framework among a small group of specialized actors Consequently, any negotiation of conflicts tends to remain isolated within these individual arenas, with little interaction occurring between them.

A "public controversy" emerges when debates proliferate across various arenas, leading to increased interactions among them The involvement of new actors in these discussions can disrupt established norms and networks within specialized fields As the debate escalates, unconventional forms of public expression may surface, transcending traditional boundaries and rules Examples include direct actions like the destruction of GM fields, high-profile court cases involving activists, large-scale public demonstrations, school canteen lobbying, and food industry monitoring, such as Greenpeace's "black list."

This analytical framework examines the number of relevant arenas, the interactions among specialized arenas, the impact of new actors on established norms and procedures, and the emergence of public responses that transcend these arenas, highlighting the expansion of public controversy into the wider public sphere.

The characterization of public debates as arenas highlights the intensity of controversy, as illustrated in Figure 1 It is important to note that this representation should not be viewed as a purely quantitative assessment; the graphs must be interpreted alongside the qualitative narratives in section 5.2 In this framework, a score of "0" signifies no debate, while "1 to 2" indicates a limited discussion confined to a few specialized arenas, primarily involving professionals and largely unnoticed by the media and public A score of "3 to 4" reflects a broader debate across multiple arenas, with increased media interest and interaction among stakeholders, driven by NGOs and organized social movements Finally, a score of "5" reveals that the public debate significantly influences the characteristics of the arenas, with high media coverage and widespread public engagement, indicating that the issue has become widely recognized and discussed.

Figure 1 Evolution of national GM controversies

For the key to the scale used, see Box 4.

Figure 2 The arena framework for analysis of public controversies

Source: Joly and Assouline (2001, page 29)

MEDIA POLITICAL ô Ecoterrorists ằ in Court,

Table 4 Key events at EU level

March 1996 (First) BSE crisis, following announcement by UK Minister of Health about the possible transfer of the disease from cows to humans.

On April 3, 1996, the European Commission granted authorization for the importation of Monsanto's genetically modified Roundup Ready soybeans, marking the first official approval for the commercialization of a GM product within the European Union (Decision 96/281/EC).

February 1997 Birth of Dolly the cloned sheep, accompanied by extensive media coverage.

1996 First imports of GM soya from the United Sates into the European Union, accompanied by the launch of a European-wide anti-GMO campaign by Greenpeace.

1996 European Commission announces decision to authorise the commercialisation of pest- resistant GM maize Bt176, despite the fact that at Council of Ministers' meeting of 26 June

1996, France had been the only Member State prepared to vote in favour of this authorisation (decision formalised on 23/01/97, Decision 97/98/EC) 10

1997 Adoption of "Novel foods Regulation" 258/97 (enters into force in May 1997), which establishes labelling requirements for novel GM foods and ingredients, including GM Modified by Regulation 50/2000 on 10 January 2000.

1997 Governments of Austria, Luxembourg and Italy invoke the "safeguard clause" of Directive

The French government has opted not to authorize the cultivation of GM hybrids derived from Bt176 maize, while Austria and Luxembourg maintain their bans on its commercialization In contrast, the Italian government swiftly revoked its ban on Bt176 maize, highlighting a varied approach to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) across Europe.

18 June 1997 Adoption of Directive 97/35 which modifies Directive 90/220 and introduces obligatory labelling of some GM products.

In 1997, the adoption of Commission Regulation 97/1813 mandated the labeling of products derived from genetically modified (GM) soya and maize that were authorized before the implementation of the Novel Food Regulation, effective from November 1, 1997 This regulation was repealed and replaced by Regulation 1139/98 on May 2, 1998, and subsequently modified by Regulation 49/2000 on January 10, 2000.

1997 (New) French government announces decision to authorise the cultivation of Bt176 maize hybrids in France (formalised on 05/02/97), and to organise a public debate on GMOs.

6 July 1998 Adoption of directive 98/44 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions

Appeal against this Directive by the government of the Netherlands (supported by Italy and Norway), rejected by the European Court of Justice in October 2001 (aff C-377/98).

1998 Following an appeal launched by Environmental NGOs (Ecoropa and Greenpeace) French

The Supreme Court (Conseil d'Etat) has ruled against the French government, suspending the authorization for the cultivation of Bt176 maize Subsequently, the case was referred to the European Court of Justice, which, in March 2000, issued a ruling in favor of the French government.

25 June 1999 De facto European moratorium: at the European Council of Ministers, representatives from

Outline of the GM controversy in each of the five countries studied

The evolution of the GM controversy in each of the 5 countries studied in summarised below Table

4 outlines some key events which affected all EU Member States.

At the end of 1996, when the PABE project was initiated, public discourse on genetically modified (GM) food was minimal, with only a few key interest groups engaged in the conversation A GM product, tomato paste made from Zeneca's GM tomato, was available in two major British supermarkets and was selling well, although it was clearly labeled Meanwhile, the public remained largely unaware of the importation of GM soya from the US, which was mixed with conventional soya, despite Greenpeace's efforts to block these shipments The ongoing discussions were primarily limited to food retailers, nature conservation organizations like English Nature, and specialized NGOs such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Genetics Forum, GeneWatch UK, and GenetiX Snowball.

In October 1998, pilot focus groups revealed a lack of widespread public debate regarding environmental concerns, despite English Nature's ongoing requests for a moratorium on field trials since July of that year.

In August 1998, research scientist Arpad Pusztai participated in a national television documentary, revealing that animal tests on a genetically modified vegetable indicated potentially harmful health effects This marked a significant moment as it showcased an expert stepping outside his usual domain Following his claims, media interest surged, although the first comprehensive focus group discussions took place in January 1999 amid a relatively calm environment.

In February 1999, a Greenpeace-organized event featuring a joint statement from international scientists criticizing Pusztạ's treatment reignited media interest and prompted parliamentary inquiries This incident exemplified how controversies can transcend their original contexts, fostering new alliances among diverse stakeholders and shifting discussions to broader platforms Following this, the media campaign surrounding GM food gained momentum, keeping the topic in the UK media spotlight for several months During this period, various coalitions emerged both supporting and opposing GM products, including the Five Year Freeze campaign, which united a diverse group of participants, from radical environmental NGOs to the traditional Townswomen's Guild.

In the second phase of focus groups conducted from September to November 1999, the controversy surrounding the issue was significant, as media coverage had reached a peak and public awareness was widespread This situation allowed for an unintentional examination of how media influence and public debate shape perceptions, by comparing findings from these focus groups with earlier ones Additionally, traditional conflict resolution norms were challenged; for instance, the House of Commons Select Committee on Environmental Audit advocated for a more strategic approach to risk assessment for the emerging technology in May 1999 Furthermore, in July 1999, the Government announced plans to create two new biotechnology commissions, including the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC), which would specifically oversee agricultural biotechnology and streamline existing committee frameworks.

On June 1, 1999, amidst escalating public debate in the UK, the Prince of Wales made a significant intervention by publishing an article in a major daily newspaper, expressing his concerns about genetically modified (GM) food through ten thought-provoking questions aimed at sparking discussion.

Prince Charles initiated a discussion on genetically modified (GM) food on his personal website, posing the question, "What sort of world do we want to live in?" This inquiry garnered significant engagement, attracting approximately 10,000 responses.

By mid-July 1999, it became clear that supermarkets were responding to consumer concerns, as three major British chains removed their own label products and eliminated all items containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients from their shelves This action prompted most major food retailers in Britain to adopt similar measures.

In 1999, Prime Minister Tony Blair's unwavering support for field trials of genetically modified (GM) food sparked significant public debate, as many believed his stance conflicted with prevailing public opinion Despite his accusations against the media for inciting hysteria, a pivotal moment occurred in February 2000 during an OECD international conference in Edinburgh, where Blair ultimately acknowledged that there were valid reasons for public concern regarding GM food safety.

For further details see: PABE National Reports; Weldon and Wynne (2001); Simmons and Weldon (2000).

Until 1996 and between June 1998 and May 1999, public discourse on GM food in Italy was minimal, with limited media attention primarily focused on notable NGO actions, such as Greenpeace's protests against Monsanto Despite the lack of widespread debate, pressure from commercial sectors and scientists was increasing against government licensing restrictions, although this discourse remained largely within specialized circles In February 1997, the Italian government took action regarding this issue.

"safeguard clause" (Article 16) of Directive 90/220 in order to ban the commercialisation of GM pest-resistant maize Bt176 in Italy, but revoked this ban rapidly.

By late 1999, public debate surrounding GMOs was increasingly polarized, extending beyond specialized discussions New alliances formed, notably between farmers' unions and environmental and consumer NGOs, united in their opposition to GMOs However, the situation had not yet reached the critical state depicted in Figure 2.

2000, after the last focus groups had been conducted.

In the early 2000s, regional governments in Italy took independent actions regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs), with some, like Lazio, banning cultivation and others, such as Friuli-Venezia Giulia, implementing controls to monitor local production This marked the involvement of new actors in GMO regulation A pivotal moment occurred at the end of May during a biotechnology conference in Genoa, dubbed "the Italian Seattle," when anti-GM demonstrations led by NGOs and the public disrupted the event, highlighting widespread public concern beyond specialized discussions By the summer of 2000, GMOs had transitioned into a common topic of public discourse, reflecting a significant shift in societal attitudes.

During the summer of 2000, government positions on agricultural policies became increasingly defined, with the Ministry of Agriculture opposing 'green' applications, while the Ministry of Health expressed less resistance due to concerns about potential negative impacts on medical research As the debate evolved, stakeholders, including food producers, retailers, and consumer organizations, began to shift their positions, with concerned scientists gaining visibility in media discussions A significant theme emerged around consumer perceptions of Italian food quality, emphasizing the importance of preserving traditions and high standards, although food safety issues remained less prominent in the conversation.

For further details, see: PABE National Reports; De Marchi and Pellizzoni (2001).

Until 1996, French public policy largely favored the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture and food, with minimal public controversy surrounding the issue in France.

The PABE analysis of the French GM controversy was enhanced by a project funded by the French Ministry of Agriculture, involving Claire Marris and collaboration with the ADAPTA team Initially, conflicts were managed within specialized arenas, but from winter 1996-1997, anti-GMO NGO activities surged, coinciding with the first imports of transgenic soya and maize from the USA This shift was amplified by Greenpeace's campaign questioning consumer choice regarding GM products, leading to media associations with BSE, notably highlighted by Libération's front-page article "Beware of mad soya!" on November 1, 1996 The situation was further complicated by inconsistent governmental decisions regarding the commercialization of the pest-resistant transgenic maize Bt176 developed by Novartis.

Public perceptions of GMOs: focus group results

Overwhelming similarity of results between all the groups

The research aimed to explore and compare the factors influencing public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies and related food products across five European Member States, ultimately evaluating the implications for policy Focus group results were initially analyzed independently by PABE partners from each country, followed by collective discussions among the entire PABE team to compare findings The project concluded with an assessment of the similarities and differences in results across the participating countries.

Despite varying levels of public controversy across the five participating countries, our comparison revealed a significant similarity in the arguments presented by focus group participants While there were national differences in the emphasis and examples used to support specific views, the overarching themes and arguments remained consistent This section highlights the key findings relevant to all focus groups, and section 7 will explore the reasons behind this unexpected similarity, as well as note the few observed differences.

The focus groups conducted across five countries showed minimal differences in results, despite efforts to ensure diversity in recruitment While variations in language were noted among participants from different socio-economic backgrounds, the fundamental factors influencing public opinions remained largely consistent Any minor differences between groups are highlighted in the National Reports, but overall, the findings apply uniformly to all focus groups across the countries involved.

The unexpected similarity of findings across countries prompted an investigation into potential methodological issues Although the preliminary analysis of focus group results was conducted independently by PABE partners, it followed a collectively designed analytical framework This shared protocol may have influenced the uniformity of analyses among national partners While the project team considered this possibility, they ultimately rejected it, acknowledging that such methodological challenges are inherent in all research, regardless of whether it is qualitative or quantitative Recognizing and addressing these issues is crucial, as they do not diminish the value of the research.

PABE researchers observed that the focus group method somewhat alleviated the potential impacts of a standardized protocol Although a common analytical framework was employed, the non-directive facilitation style allowed participants the freedom to introduce unexpected topics This flexibility led to surprisingly similar results, demonstrating that the open-ended nature of focus groups can effectively counterbalance any convergence effects arising from a standardized approach, fostering a richer expression of diverse views.

In response to initial findings, PABE researchers opted to revise the discussion protocol and recruitment criteria for Phase II focus groups, aiming to investigate anticipated differences highlighted in the Pilot and Phase I results.

(i) The protocol aimed to allow more in-depth discussion of views of nature and the environment; and of public participation in decision-making.

(ii) Participants with very different attitudes towards food shopping and consumption were recruited for Group n°9.

The Phase II focus groups revealed a striking consistency in results across all five countries, reinforcing the similarities among participants in each group despite various modifications and additional explorations of potential differences.

Researchers at PABE engaged in extensive discussions regarding an unexpected similarity in their findings, which indicates a trend towards globalization, particularly a Europeanization of public discourse This convergence raises important questions that we aim to address in section 7.

This section outlines the common findings from focus groups across five countries, structured around two sets of themes to minimize overlap and repetition, although some redundancy is inevitable due to the interconnected nature of the themes New themes have been incorporated to reflect broader insights based on stakeholder feedback received during the PABE workshops The presentation of results is tailored to enable comparison with stakeholder perspectives discussed in section 8.

Ambivalence

Focus group participants displayed ambivalence towards GMOs, presenting arguments both in favor of and against them Notably, individuals did not fit neatly into 'pro' or 'anti' categories, as their statements often contained a mix of support and criticism regarding GMO development Participants generally avoided rigid stances, showing a nuanced understanding of GMOs and differentiating between various types, which extended beyond just medical and agricultural distinctions.

Participants raised numerous questions reflecting their concerns about agricultural biotechnologies, which remained open-ended rather than leading to fixed negative opinions The lack of satisfactory answers contributed to a growing sense of hostility towards these technologies as the discussions evolved.

The focus group participants expressed strong opposition, not primarily to GMOs as a technology, but to the institutional context surrounding their development, evaluation, and promotion.

The initial introduction of GM-food products into the market was subtle, as they appeared in everyday items containing ingredients from genetically modified soya or maize These ingredients, such as soya lecithin or protein, often went unlabelled or were challenging for consumers to identify.

 The introduction of GM-foods on the market without adequate labelling.

 Formal declarations about the safety of these products, which do not acknowledge potential unforeseen impacts.

Our experience shows that when we present PABE results to stakeholders, they tend to find it easier to accept differences between countries than to acknowledge similarities.

The disparity between the commitments made by genetically modified (GM) sponsors, such as the promise to alleviate hunger in the Third World, and the initial products introduced to the market, which primarily consist of pest- and herbicide-resistant GM crops utilized mainly in affluent nations, highlights a significant gap in addressing global food security.

The focus group participants highlighted that their concerns were primarily about institutional processes rather than GMOs as mere technological objects, challenging the common distinction between 'science' and its societal applications This indicates that significant societal decisions are being made within scientific laboratories, as emphasized by one participant.

"When they decided to create GMOs, what vision of the world did they have for later?"

Box 5: Key questions raised by the focus group participants

♦ Why do we need GMOs? What are the benefits?

♦ Who will benefit from their use?

♦ Who decided that they should be developed and how?

♦ Why were we not better informed about their use in our food, before their arrival on the market?

♦ Why are we not given an effective choice about whether or not to buy and consume these products?

♦ Do regulatory authorities have sufficient powers and resources to effectively counter-balance large companies who wish to develop these products?

♦ Can controls imposed by regulatory authorities be applied effectively?

♦ Have the risks been seriously assessed? By whom? How?

♦ Have potential long-term consequences been assessed? How?

♦ How have irreducible uncertainties and unavoidable domains of ignorance been taken into account in decision-making?

♦ What plans exist for remedial action if and when unforeseen harmful impacts occur?

♦ Who will be responsible in case of unforeseen harm? How will they be held to account?

Knowledge mobilised by focus group participants

Relative ignorance of recombinant DNA techniques

Many individuals, regardless of their country, have a limited understanding of the techniques employed by scientists for genetic modification of living organisms This lack of knowledge is particularly evident in their confusion regarding the technical differences between conventional breeding and genetic modification methods.

Participants in group n°11, despite having post-school scientific training unrelated to GM technologies, demonstrated a lack of accurate technical knowledge regarding recombinant DNA techniques Their understanding of GM research, regulations, and existing market applications was notably low and often confused Some participants mistakenly believed that GM food products had been available in stores for many years, even prior to 1996, and that they had consumed them without proper information A frequently cited example was the notion of "tasteless tomatoes," which many assumed to be genetically modified, illustrating a broader misunderstanding of developments in the agri-food sector.

The participants demonstrated a lack of knowledge about genetics rather than holding firmly established false beliefs, as they were aware of their own technical ignorance and openly acknowledged it Throughout the discussion sessions, they frequently expressed sentiments reflecting this self-awareness.

What distinguishes GMOs from traditional gardening practices like grafting? Additionally, how do genetically uniform tomatoes, selectively bred for size and color, differ from GMOs? Furthermore, what is the relationship between the crossbreeding of peaches and other fruits to create nectarines and GMO technology?

The group often acknowledged their lack of understanding regarding complex questions about GMOs, expressing a sense of frustration that this ignorance was largely due to the failure of GMO promoters to effectively communicate the technology in accessible terms for the general public.

The primary concerns surrounding GMOs, contrary to the common misconception discussed in section 8.3, stem from participants' empirical knowledge rather than deeply rooted misunderstandings about genetics These concerns are informed by observations of the behavior of insects, plants, animals, and humans in natural settings, rather than laboratory contexts.

Lay knowledge about human fallibility and the behaviour of institutions

Focus group participants drew on their empirical knowledge of past institutional behaviors to address the questions posed, often referencing significant food-related scandals like BSE, e-coli outbreaks in Scotland, and various contaminations They cited issues related to agriculture, including pesticide and fertilizer management, particularly highlighting water pollution from pig farms in Brittany, France Additionally, participants mentioned environmental pollution from motor vehicles and concerns surrounding nuclear technologies The examples provided were often localized, reflecting the specific experiences and contexts of the participants based on their country or region.

Our analysis revealed that participants from all five countries shared similar insights from their experiences, indicating a universal understanding of the lessons learned from the BSE affair and other incidents These common conclusions are summarized in Box 6.

Focus group participants did not view the BSE affair as exceptional or surprising; instead, they considered it a typical example of institutional behavior regarding risk management They shared personal experiences that highlighted a pattern of human fallibility and institutional failures, including lack of rigor, corruption, and insufficient resources within control authorities Furthermore, they expressed skepticism about whether decision-makers learned from the BSE crisis, suggesting that meaningful reforms were unlikely.

They therefore naturally considered that the same kinds of behaviour - and mistakes - could be expected with respect to GMOs.

Box 6: Lessons focus group participants had learnt from BSE and many other affairs

♦ It is impossible to anticipate all harmful or beneficial impacts of a new product or technology, especially in the long term (irreducible uncertainty).

♦ This irreducible uncertainty is not admitted and is not taken into account by decision- makers: they just keep telling us that "it is safe".

♦ Preventative action is delayed even when risks become apparent: decision-makers only act when they no longer have any choice, usually when NGOs or the media expose a scandal.

Despite the establishment of regulations aimed at minimizing risks, compliance remains a challenge due to factors such as incompetence, fraud, insufficient resources, and the impracticality of these regulations in relation to the actual conditions faced by operators responsible for their implementation.

Decision-makers often face challenging choices that affect various interest groups, including economic sectors, consumer health, and environmental protection While it's common for these decisions to have differing impacts, the lack of transparency in the decision-making process raises concerns Stakeholders seek not only to understand the outcomes of these decisions but also the reasoning and methodology behind them, as well as the anticipated or potential consequences.

Significant decisions that affect our lives are often made by distant, unaccountable institutions beyond our control These entities operate without direct accountability to the public, relying on elections as a limited means of influence.

Economic interests often overshadow the protection of human health and the environment in risk decision-making processes It appears that those with the most financial resources, such as large corporations and influential economic sectors, exert the most significant influence, prioritizing their interests over smaller firms and broader societal concerns.

♦ New innovations in the food and agricultural sector all tend to encourage and be part of a more intensive and industrialised system.

Lay knowledge about non-human living organisms

Focus group participants utilized their practical understanding of non-human living organisms to assess the potential impacts of widespread GMO use in food and agriculture This knowledge stemmed from personal experiences rather than academic sources, reflecting a form of common sense informed by their everyday lives.

Participants demonstrated an understanding of the interdependence of living organisms within complex ecological chains, expressing concerns about the potential consequences of removing or altering specific organisms, such as GMOs or their targets in pest-resistant crops For instance, in discussions about Bt-maize, questions arose regarding its impact on beneficial insects and the broader food web, including birds that rely on pests for sustenance Notably, these concerns emerged even in regions where such topics had not yet sparked intense public debate, though the specificity of examples varied In France, earlier discussions featured more general terms, while later groups incorporated specific references, such as Monarch butterflies, reflecting a deeper engagement with media narratives Despite these differences, the core reasoning remained consistent across all focus groups.

Perceptions of agricultural and medical applications

Focus group participants highlighted significant differences in their perceptions of various GMOs, showing a more favorable attitude towards medical applications compared to those in food and agriculture Contrary to previous analyses, this distinction was not primarily based on perceived personal benefits Instead, the discussions revealed that the predominant concern among participants was the broader issue of need, encompassing multiple dimensions beyond individual risks and benefits Additionally, participants expressed some apprehensions regarding medical GM applications, indicating a complex landscape of opinions on GMOs.

Participants frequently compared agricultural and medical applications of GMOs during discussions, with deeper investigations occurring later in the sessions through specific examples.

The examples utilized in this article primarily focus on products currently available in the market, as well as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that have been identified by stakeholders as "near-market" applications and are already in laboratory settings.

- Yeast used for bread making 15

- Tomato used for the production of paste

- Fish with faster growth rates

- Pigs with faster growth rates

- Tobacco plants which produce haemoglobin

- Sheep that produce a medicine in their milk

- Potatoes that absorb less oil during cooking

- Maize or soya with higher protein content

- Fruit and vegetables with more flavour

- Golden rice (higher vitamin A content)

- Crops resistant to harsh climatic or soil conditions

The following themes emerged from the comparative discussions of these different applications of agricultural biotechnologies, and in particular with respect to the comparison of medical and food applications.

The necessity of agricultural biotechnology emerged as a significant topic among all groups, highlighting a key distinction between its food and medical applications Participants consistently contrasted the decision-making processes involved in purchasing food with those in selecting medications or undergoing medical treatments While medicines are often essential for curing diseases or saving lives, with few alternatives available, the stakes in food choices differ markedly.

In the pilot focus groups, participants emphasized the abundance and diversity of food products in their country, as well as the food surpluses in wealthier nations that could potentially address hunger in less fortunate regions Consequently, they did not perceive an urgent necessity for genetically modified (GM) foods.

If tomatoes were at risk of extinction and genetic modification was the only solution to preserve them, many would likely support the idea This highlights the willingness to embrace innovative solutions for food sustainability.

The question of need extends beyond personal benefits, as focus group participants prioritized the potential collective advantages for deserving parties, such as specific patient groups or impoverished communities in developing countries Their inquiries reflected a concern for societal benefits rather than individual gain, challenging the misconceptions surrounding stakeholder motivations.

Participants in focus groups across five countries expressed skepticism about the realization of benefits from pest-resistant crops for farmers and the environment, despite acknowledging their potential This skepticism varied with the intensity of local public controversy over GM crops, with more forceful arguments emerging in regions with heightened debate Even in calmer contexts, participants doubted the promised reduction in pesticide use would be achieved sustainably Their lay knowledge led them to believe that pests and pathogens would likely develop resistance to any human-made pest control strategies over time.

A similar scepticism was expressed about the potential contribution of GM-crop to alleviating third World poverty and hunger (see section 6.5).

Distribution and targeting of benefits and risks (equity issues)

Focus group participants highlighted the importance of evaluating both risks and benefits related to GM crops and food products They noted that while the advantages primarily benefit producers, such as biotech companies and food manufacturers, the potential risks are largely borne by consumers and the environment.

Focus group participants highlighted the distinction between the risks of medicines and food, noting that while medicines are specifically targeted to benefit certain patient populations, the risks of GM-food ingredients are broadly distributed across the entire population, including vulnerable groups like children, the elderly, and those with allergies They emphasized that the risks associated with medicines are temporary, as patients only face them during specific treatment periods, whereas food consumption is a daily necessity that exposes everyone to potential risks multiple times a day, with benefits primarily accruing to food manufacturers and biotech firms.

Medicines and medical therapies are usually accompanied by comprehensive information from healthcare providers and safety documentation, unlike genetically modified (GM) foods, which often lack sufficient consumer information Additionally, the details provided for medical treatments possess several key characteristics that are not present in the information related to GM foods.

 Direct provision of information from a trusted individual, via consultation with a doctor.

 Doctors and other information sources explain the pros and cons of the prescription.

 Information provided about the conditions for safe use of the product.

 The information is adapted to the particular individual, taking into account for example age, prior health condition, and other simultaneous medical treatments.

The article acknowledges the possibility of harmful side effects and outlines the necessary steps to take if they occur, avoiding any generalizations about the absence of evidence for risk.

Despite extensive safety testing, there are still areas of uncertainty regarding potential side effects, prompting users to report any unexpected reactions to their healthcare providers This ongoing vigilance allows for effective monitoring and potential product recalls.

Patients retain the right to make informed choices regarding their treatment options, even when facing critical decisions that may involve life-or-death scenarios While the stakes may limit the extent of their choices, individuals can still refuse treatment, fully aware of the potential severe consequences, including death Importantly, patients maintain control over their exposure to risks and have the option to discontinue treatment at any time, particularly if they encounter unexpected adverse effects.

Different perceived standards of testing and regulation

Perceptions of regulation in the medical and food sectors differ significantly, with the medical field viewed as having stricter safety testing and more effective regulations compared to the agricultural and food sector This has led to a belief that biomedical products undergo extensive risk assessments and multiple phases of clinical trials before reaching the market Conversely, agri-food genetically modified (GM) applications are seen as having transitioned too quickly from laboratory development to widespread use, resulting in concerns over lower regulatory standards in the food sector.

Perceptions of GM crops for Third World agriculture

Participants recognized the potential of agricultural GMOs to enhance living conditions in developing countries, although the frequency of this discussion varied by country For instance, this point was mentioned only once in the Italian focus groups Nonetheless, the facilitator introduced the argument, supported by examples, to encourage further dialogue (see Annexes 3 and 4 for details).

Focus group participants expressed mixed feelings about using GMOs to address poverty and hunger in Third World agriculture While they acknowledged the noble goal of alleviating these issues, there was significant skepticism regarding the feasibility of achieving this aim In particular, participants in the UK questioned whether relying on this "technological fix" was the best solution for the challenges faced in agriculture.

Participants expressed skepticism about the likelihood of research on GMOs being conducted and its practical application They viewed the messaging from GMO-producing companies as hypocritical attempts to manipulate public perception Many questioned why Europe, which overproduces food, is inundated with GMOs from the USA if the primary benefits of agricultural GMOs were genuine Additionally, they believed that the development of GM crops for developing countries would be more effectively pursued through public-funded research institutions, rather than being dominated by private companies.

Perceptions of uncertainty about future consequences of GMOs

Uncertainty emerged as a central theme in focus group discussions, overshadowing other topics Rather than merely exploring "public perceptions of risk," this research more accurately investigates "public perceptions of uncertainty." Participants believed that short-term, acute impacts, or known risks, could be managed through standard scientific evaluations and regulatory measures However, the discussions predominantly focused on the assessment of long-term and chronic impacts, which were viewed as inherently uncertain.

Focus group participants took uncertainty for granted

The key finding here was that the focus group participants largely took uncertainty about the long term consequences of GMOs for granted Thus, they expressed the following views:

 Nobody knows and nobody can know the full impacts of GMOs in the long term

 Unintended effects will necessarily occur (both harmful and beneficial)

 These will only become apparent later, when consequences "which had not been imagined" become apparent.

 The technology is "too young", "too recent": we do not have enough "backsight" 18

Participants in the focus group did not view the situation as unusual or a failure of scientific knowledge; rather, they accepted it as a reality of life This perspective was reinforced by their previous experiences with issues like BSE, asbestos, and pesticides.

Public reaction to official denial of uncertainties - no demand for "zero risk"

Historical instances of institutional behavior, such as those related to BSE, asbestos, and DDT, reveal a common belief: regulatory institutions often lack the foresight to fully understand the long-term impacts of the risks they assess and manage.

In French focus groups, participants expressed concerns about the limitations of scientific knowledge in predicting the future consequences of GMOs, encapsulated in the phrase "nous n'avons pas assez de recul." They questioned the adequacy of current testing procedures, arguing that even long-term studies are insufficient compared to the extensive time scales of ecological interactions and effects Many participants voiced skepticism about the claims made by regulators and innovators, highlighting a lack of mechanisms for monitoring unforeseen impacts and addressing them when they arise, ultimately questioning how experts can assert knowledge about effects when they appear to understand so little.

Focus group participants observed that uncertainties are often overlooked in decision-making processes They emphasized that this disregard for uncertainty is central to the issues at hand, rather than the mere existence of uncertainty itself, which they accepted as a given.

Contrary to the common misconception that stakeholders seek "zero risk," focus group participants acknowledged the inherent risks in their lives They understood the necessity of balancing these risks with potential benefits while navigating various competing constraints and motivations.

Experts' claims of "no evidence of risk" were perceived as arrogant and untrustworthy, leading to a sense of discontent during discussions This skepticism was especially pronounced when the typical safety statement was presented, highlighting concerns about credibility and reliability.

Participants criticized the phrase "there is no scientific evidence [of harm]" as misleading, arguing that "no evidence of harm" does not equate to "evidence of no harm." They expressed concerns that official risk communication often relies on this phrasing as an unconditional endorsement for proceeding with innovations, which they found unconvincing and untrustworthy.

Public skepticism towards regulatory bodies stems from their tendency to deny uncertainty, rather than the experts' inability to eliminate all risk Focus group participants emphasized the need for a realistic and humble evaluation of risks from regulatory authorities and GMO producers They seek an acknowledgment of uncertainty and the complexities of real-life conditions, rather than an unattainable promise of zero risk.

"Doubt is constructive because if one did not ask questions there would be no test, no safety, therefore it is a good thing that there should be doubts."

How to monitor and identify long-term chronic consequences?

Focus group participants expressed concerns about the challenges of identifying harmful effects of GM crops without large-scale official post-market monitoring, especially when compared to medicines They noted that while adverse effects from medicines are usually short-term and health-related, the environmental impacts of GMOs are perceived to be long-term and widespread, making detection more complex Participants questioned whether local observers, such as farmers, would be able to recognize these subtle and delayed harmful effects at the farm level.

The accuracy of scientific predictions hinges on the unpredictable behaviors of human actors, who often deviate from the assumptions made by scientists and regulators This discrepancy arises because such assumptions frequently overlook human fallibility, the potential for fraud, profit-driven competition, and the inherent complexity of real-life situations Numerous examples of impractical safety regulations in office settings illustrate this perspective.

The absence of labeling and user information for GMOs has intensified concerns about their unforeseen impacts, hindering effective monitoring and contributing to increased uncertainty.

- Will farmers know that they are using GMOs? Will they know what precautions to take and what kind of effects to look out for?

- Will consumers know what precautions to take? Will they be able to identify the source of a health effect if it occurs?

Acknowledgement of uncertainty leads to the question of need

Focus group participants expressed concerns about the long-term uncertainties associated with innovations like GMOs, emphasizing the need for clear, justifiable reasons for their development They repeatedly questioned the purpose and necessity of such advancements, seeking assurance that the potential benefits outweighed the risks, especially given the irreversible environmental and social consequences Participants felt that the discussion surrounding GMOs should extend beyond experts to include broader public debate, as these innovations could significantly impact society and alter living organisms Past experiences led them to doubt that adequate consideration had been given to these issues, prompting many to conclude that there was no urgent need for GMOs or a hasty introduction into the market.

The focus group participants emphasized that the key factor in assessing the development of GMOs lies not in weighing risks against benefits, but rather in navigating the uncertainty surrounding them in relation to their necessity and intended purpose.

"What is the urgency for this life-scale experiment?"

GMOs are unnecessary, as their long-term impacts remain uncertain While these products undergo testing, the potential consequences may only become clear in 20 to 30 years, or perhaps never fully understood.

Public perceptions of science

Public perceptions of science are intricate and multifaceted, with participants often expressing varying and sometimes contradictory views within the same group or even as individuals These statements can generally be categorized into two distinct perspectives on science.

(i) Science as neutral and autonomous from society

Science is often depicted as an independent endeavor governed by its own cultural norms and methodologies, which aim to produce neutral knowledge for use by society Scientists, driven by curiosity and a passion for knowledge, are likened to renowned figures such as Einstein, Pasteur, and Marie Curie Their discoveries have led to both beneficial and detrimental applications, often in the hands of non-scientists, exemplified by the contrast between the development of nuclear bombs and the medical uses of X-rays and radiation therapies.

The prevailing view of science has been largely optimistic, portraying scientists as neutral or benevolent figures, while attributing the misuse of scientific knowledge to non-scientists The primary concern raised was the potential for rogue scientists to deviate from established ethical standards, leading to harmful applications of their expertise, often likened to the tale of Frankenstein.

"pure scientist" was associated with the problem that scientists were "in a world of their own" and detached from the real world outside their laboratory.

(ii) Science as part of society and influenced by contingent factors

Scientific research is depicted as an endeavor conducted by ordinary individuals within institutions that face the same challenges as others Scientists are portrayed as relatable figures who can exhibit honesty or dishonesty, be driven by profit motives, and struggle to keep pace with rapid changes, all while being unable to influence the social and institutional factors that shape their work environment Furthermore, participants in focus groups highlighted various institutional realities within the scientific community, reflecting broader societal trends related to the agri-food sector and society at large.

Scientists have evolved from being solitary artisans to integral components of intricate systems, relying heavily on collaboration with fellow researchers, access to costly and sophisticated equipment, and the support of the institutions that employ them.

- Scientists need large sums of money to conduct their experiments and therefore even public sector scientists increasingly depend on from the private sector.

- This leads to research with more targeted aims, which must fulfil the short-term profit motives of their industrial sponsors.

This vision of science led to more ambivalent opinions about scientists.

The initial perspective of science as neutral and independent from societal influences is often linked to broader discussions about science overall In contrast, the perspective that views science as intertwined with society and shaped by various factors tends to emerge in more focused discussions about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) To validate this distinction between "science in general" and "science in particular," further in-depth analysis of focus group data is necessary.

In Catalonia, participants predominantly expressed an autonomous vision of science, suggesting potential regional variations in perspectives However, the complexity of these views necessitates a more thorough comparative analysis of the focus group data Additional fieldwork with a larger respondent pool is essential to determine whether these findings reflect cross-national differences or are specific to the particular groups involved in this study.

Focus group participants recognized the contingent and conditional nature of scientific knowledge, a perspective shaped by their personal experiences They highlighted the limitations of laboratory findings in predicting real-life outcomes, particularly over extended periods, demonstrating that this understanding transcends specific scientific viewpoints.

Public perceptions of other key actors

Regulatory institutions often lack clarity regarding existing arrangements for the assessment and regulation of GMOs, leading to a perceived regulatory vacuum There is a prevailing belief that the effectiveness of the regulatory system hinges on compliance, with sentiments expressing that regulations are frequently abused and rules are meant to be broken Additionally, many feel that the regulatory system is being overshadowed by rapid scientific advancements and economic interests Regulators are frequently viewed as laypersons without specialized scientific knowledge, relying heavily on external advice and being vulnerable to industry lobbying.

Public perceptions of consumer and environmental NGOs

Focus group participants did not unconditionally identify with the organizations surveyed, indicating that the high "trust scores" from Eurobarometer and similar surveys regarding "trust in institutions" may require reevaluation While stakeholders often interpret these scores as a sign that the public finds these organizations highly trustworthy, our focus group findings challenge this assumption Instead, they suggest alternative explanations for the survey results, highlighting the need for a more nuanced understanding of public trust in these institutions.

In our focus groups, participants noted that consumer and environmental NGOs were not prominent in their daily lives or considered key information sources, yet they acknowledged these organizations as important stakeholders capable of influencing public and private sector decision-making Many expressed appreciation for NGOs as a necessary counterbalance to profit-driven firms, valuing their ability to pose challenging questions and highlight overlooked issues However, participants also recognized that NGOs, like other entities, have biases and vested interests, such as fundraising and membership growth, which can affect their impartiality.

Focus group participants demonstrated an impressive ability to assess various information sources and recognize their inherent biases When presented with a typical statement from an NGO, they characterized it as extreme, acknowledging the tendency of such organizations to emphasize disaster scenarios They noted, "Of course they present the worst-case scenario; that's their role—they often exaggerate, but at least they raise important questions."

In countries like Germany and France, direct actions by environmental NGOs and farming activists, such as the destruction of genetically modified (GM) fields, have been criticized as overly violent and extreme However, some participants argue that such measures may be the only effective way for groups with dissenting views to gain attention in today's society.

Public perceptions of commercial firms

Commercial interests were identified as a primary driving force in the sector, with large multinational companies seen as the rule-makers While these firms were often viewed as profit-driven, this pursuit was considered acceptable if regulated by governments to balance financial goals with health, environmental, and societal concerns Participants in the focus group expressed skepticism towards corporate messaging that downplayed profit motives and instead emphasized humanitarian objectives, such as aiding the impoverished in developing countries.

Public perceptions of the media

Focus group participants identified mass media, particularly daily television news, as their primary source of information on GMOs, yet expressed dissatisfaction with its sensationalist coverage that emphasized scandals over balanced reporting They criticized the typical format of opposing views clashing, feeling it was insufficient for informed understanding Participants desired neutral, objective information alongside diverse arguments, and emphasized the importance of knowing the backgrounds and biases of those presenting information They sought insights into how individuals arrived at their positions rather than just conclusions, and clearly wanted more information on the societal implications of GMOs beyond the technical aspects of genetic manipulation.

Focus group participants were surprised by the lack of media coverage on GMOs, even in regions with a robust press presence They felt that the information provided was neither satisfactory nor helpful for forming informed opinions Additionally, they noted that television coverage was minimal, often relegated to late-night programs that few people watch.

Perceived lack of information

A pervasive theme identified in the focus group discussions was the lack of information, which significantly impacted participants' understanding of various issues The consensus among participants was a strong sentiment of being uninformed, highlighting their limited awareness of recent advancements in biotechnology, including research, regulatory measures, and commercial applications Additionally, there was a noticeable gap in knowledge regarding the technical aspects of genetic manipulation.

Despite extensive media coverage of GMOs in countries like Germany, the UK, and France during Phase II, a notable perception of insufficient information persisted among the public.

In France, focus groups held in September-October 1999 revealed significant public engagement with the 'José Bové story', driven by extensive coverage in the written press and television news Similarly, in the UK, groups conducted in February and September 1999 showed heightened awareness following the 'Pusztạ affair', coinciding with prominent public consultation initiatives and Monsanto's extensive advertising campaign launched in 1998.

At first glance, participants' claims about being uninformed might seem unfounded when contrasted with objective measures of accessible information However, a focus group approach allows for a nuanced understanding of their perspective Rather than expressing a dissatisfaction with the sheer volume of information available, participants appear to be concerned about its quality Their discussions suggest that the phrase "we are not informed" should be reinterpreted as "we are not adequately informed." Key dimensions regarding the quality of information emerge as significant in their conversations.

The demand for comprehensive labeling of products containing GMOs or GMO-derived ingredients has been consistently emphasized; however, this requirement has not been met by EU or national legislation Furthermore, labeling food products as "GM-free" is deemed insufficient to address consumer concerns.

The absence of labeling was viewed as a violation of personal choice and control, as consumers sought transparency not only to protect themselves from potential health risks associated with GMOs but also to express their concerns to manufacturers through product boycotts Labeling is crucial for enabling post-market monitoring of any unintended harmful effects, allowing for the removal of products if necessary A common concern raised was how long-term chronic impacts could be assessed without proper labeling, highlighting the importance of transparency in consumer products.

"they [the promoters] have nothing to hide".

The absence of proper labeling and information sources significantly contributed to participants' feelings of helplessness in their lives and limited influence over institutions Consequently, they expressed a strong desire for accessible information that would empower them to gain greater control and agency over their circumstances.

(iv) Concerns about lack of labelling were exacerbated by the fact that the first GM-food products on the market were

Many everyday food products contain "hidden" ingredients such as soya and maize derivatives, which are often genetically modified organisms (GMOs) This covert inclusion of GMOs in the food supply raises suspicions, leading consumers to believe that companies utilizing these ingredients may have something to conceal.

The comparison with ideal medical applications reveals key insights into the information users seek: it should come from a trusted human source based on past experiences, be tailored to individual needs, and recognize potential harmful effects and uncertainties instead of dismissing them.

In section 6.8, the media's perceptions highlight the importance of seeking neutral and objective information sources When such sources are unavailable, it is essential to consider a diverse range of information, providing enough detail for audiences to recognize specific vested interests Additionally, presenting both the pros and cons, along with insights into how conclusions or opinions are formed, is crucial, rather than relying solely on technical data.

Many individuals felt that the limited availability of information regarding GMOs was deliberate, leading to a perception that their lack of knowledge was imposed by GMO promoters This sentiment was intensified by a widespread belief, rooted in past experiences such as the BSE crisis, that institutions often withhold information to safeguard their own interests.

Participants in the focus group expressed a shared belief that the institutions managing various affairs were aware of the harmful effects long before they chose to disclose this information, suggesting an intention to conceal it from the public.

"They kept assuring us that there was no risk… until the harmful effects were so obvious or scandalous that they could no longer be ignored - or hidden."

Regulatory and commercial bodies were not anticipated to be transparent regarding the potential dangers of GMOs, with BSE serving as a significant example of this distrust This skepticism, however, was not viewed as an isolated incident; rather, it was considered typical behavior among institutions.

Perceptions of Nature

Participants in focus groups across various countries often labeled GMOs as "unnatural," although this sentiment was notably absent in Italy Even when the term was not explicitly mentioned, there was a shared perception that directly altering genomes represented a significant departure from traditional methods of crossbreeding existing organisms within natural species boundaries Many expressed the belief that previous techniques merely assisted nature, while genetic modification actively changes it, creating new life forms that would not naturally occur This led to the view that genetic engineering pushes the boundaries of nature, raising concerns about its implications.

"upset the equilibrium of Nature".

Scientists often grapple with the limitations of their understanding regarding the full impact of their work, particularly in relation to ecosystems, human health, and social dynamics beyond laboratory settings Participants from the UK and Germany expressed concerns about "playing God," while those in France likened individuals involved in the development and management of GMOs to "sorcerers' apprentices," highlighting the uncertainty and ethical dilemmas surrounding genetic engineering.

Contrary to the common misconception that GMOs are uniquely unnatural, concerns about their use are also applicable to other agricultural innovations, such as pesticides, animal-derived feed, and antibiotics in livestock feed Participants in the focus group did not perceive non-GM agricultural technologies as inherently natural or free from similar issues associated with GMOs.

Participants noted that innovations in agricultural production often prioritize increased productivity, economies of scale, and profit, resulting in uniform and tasteless food A prime example cited was the year-round availability of visually appealing tomatoes with a long shelf life, which were widely regarded as lacking flavor This perception of "tasteless tomatoes" emerged consistently in focus groups across developed countries, highlighting a significant qualitative shift in food production.

GM technologies were seen by many participants as the next logical step in a long-established trend of manipulating Nature.

GMOs were in this way perceived as the ultimate incarnation of an ongoing longer-term trajectory in agricultural production which they felt ambivalent about.

In several countries, including the UK and France, organic agriculture is viewed as a counter to the industrialization of food production, while Italy differs in this perspective Nonetheless, participants across all nations agree that there exists an alternative to the hyper-technology and hyper-industrialization of food systems, advocating for a paradigm shift towards more sustainable practices.

- focusing on prevention rather than cure

- changes in lifestyles (slow down, pay more attention to social relations)

- closer connection with the "natural environment", meaning other living organisms, the climate, seasonal cycles, soil types…

- more equitable distribution of profits

The definition of "natural" among focus group participants encompasses various dimensions, which contradicts stakeholder myth n°6 outlined in section 8.3 This myth suggests that public concerns about the "unnatural" traits of GMOs stem solely from a misunderstanding of the similarities between conventional breeding and rDNA methods.

Perceived relationships between health and environmental impacts

Many individuals concerned about agricultural biotechnology primarily emphasize potential risks to human health, while environmental issues are less frequently addressed and often linked to the necessity for a healthy ecosystem.

The emphasis on health in the study may have stemmed from the protocol design, which focused on food production and labeling while drawing parallels to agro-pharmaceuticals, potentially leading participants to primarily consider health implications This concern was addressed in the Phase II protocol design to ensure that environmental issues and broader concerns were sufficiently examined Nevertheless, the inclination towards health remained Additionally, official narratives often highlighted food health risks for consumers, reinforcing the perception that these were the sole risk factors.

Concerns regarding the environmental impacts of agricultural biotechnology emerged prominently in focus group discussions Interestingly, participants seldom viewed the introduction of such technologies as beneficial to the environment, despite the industry's optimism about their potential advantages, particularly in relation to pest-resistant crop plants.

Health and environmental impacts are interconnected, as focus group participants noted that environmental changes ultimately affect human health.

Focus group discussions revealed a deep cultural connection between perceptions of food technology and health concerns Research indicates that individuals have mixed feelings about food; it serves as both a source of nourishment and enjoyment, fostering social interactions, while simultaneously posing potential risks and dangers when consumed.

Perceived speed of social and technological change

One issue that was widespread was a concern about the speed of change This related to:

- Increasing rate of scientific discoveries and technological innovations.

- The short time span between the creation of GMOs in scientific laboratories and their widespread introduction into the environment and onto global markets.

- Rapid speed of change in the food sector more generally.

- Rapid speed of change of ways of life.

Focus group participants reported feelings of cultural disorientation due to rapid changes in their life-world, raising concerns about the insufficient time allocated to assess the social desirability and potential consequences—social, environmental, and human—of these developments The recurring theme of excessive speed in the innovation of GM crops and food highlights a critical aspect of modernization processes, particularly in the context of high uncertainty and risk.

Perceptions of evolutions in the agri-food system and society

In the initial phase of focus groups across five countries, participants examined the evolution of food and agriculture, highlighting both positive and negative changes They identified cultural practices in food production, processing, retailing, and consumption, linking these to broader societal shifts Concerns emerged regarding an undesirable trajectory characterized by unnaturalness, excessive reliance on technology, and increased vulnerability, resulting in a decline of essential life skills such as food growing and cooking Discussions often centered on the desire to reclaim lost traditions or to counteract a perceived movement towards anonymity and a diminished sense of identity.

Focus group participants acknowledged positive changes in the agri-food sector, including improved hygiene, greater product variety, and the convenience of supermarkets and processed foods However, they also noted that these developments presented both advantages and disadvantages, making it challenging to weigh the benefits of quality, taste, and social aspects of food against the convenience of quantity and availability While many participants highlighted these positive aspects, a significant number expressed the need to slow down or even reverse the pace of these changes, indicating a desire for a more balanced approach.

Cultural concerns surrounding food often highlight the contrast between traditional and modern lifestyles, where modernity brings both satisfaction and anxiety Focus group discussions revealed widespread anxieties about declining quality of life, with participants frequently citing changes across six key areas.

(i) Lack of time, for example: "we no longer have enough time to shop/cook/eat proper meals"; "we only do so on special occasions and at week-ends".

(ii) Eating as a social activity, with participants arguing, for example, that "people/families don't eat together anymore" or that "people eat in front of the television").

Cooking has shifted from a communal activity to a more solitary one, leading to a decline in social rituals associated with food preparation This change has contributed to a loss of essential culinary and dietetic skills, as people no longer cook for friends and family.

Shopping at small shops, local markets, or directly from small producers offers a more personal experience compared to large supermarkets These smaller retailers are often linked to geographical and social closeness, providing high-quality, authentic food Customers appreciate the opportunity to engage in conversation, seek information, and build trust in the expertise of local shopkeepers.

The modern food landscape offers a wide variety of choices, yet many consumers perceive that these options are becoming increasingly homogenized, exemplified by the proliferation of different apple varieties that lack flavor or the prevalence of processed foods that taste similar This phenomenon is often attributed to marketing strategies that "trick" consumers by emphasizing the visual appeal of food products As a result, consumers are drawn to aesthetically pleasing items, highlighting the effectiveness of such marketing tactics in influencing purchasing decisions.

The rise in availability of tasteless out-of-season fruits and vegetables, particularly tomatoes, has led to a decline in the enjoyment of good-tasting produce This shift has created cultural disorientation, disrupting traditional associations between specific foods and their respective seasons.

The six categories identified were consistently present across five countries, although the specific examples varied, such as the emphasis on supermarkets in the UK Additionally, participants had differing perceptions regarding the timing of changes, reflecting feelings of loss that were either past, present, or impending Notably, no significant differences were observed among participants from Group 5, who were recruited for their traditional food preferences, nor between diverse age groups or lifestyles in terms of self-reported shopping habits.

Participants aged 25 to 65 expressed similar concerns about "lost times" related to food production systems, while a small number showed indifference towards food quality, spanning both younger and older demographics Older participants often criticized younger generations for their perceived lack of care regarding food choices, claiming they spend less time shopping and cooking However, younger participants contested this stereotype, asserting that they did not fit that narrative Further analysis revealed no significant differences in food perceptions between groups, prompting the recruitment of a diverse group with varying food habits in Phase II Despite this, distinct attitudes towards the evolution of food production systems and GMOs were not evident among participants Overall, the majority shared common viewpoints on these issues.

Participants in Group 5, identified as 'traditional' or 'natural' eaters, were recruited through a pre-recruitment questionnaire and networks linked to organic and health food shops Regardless of their classification as "natural" or "convenience" eaters, and irrespective of age, they expressed ambivalence and anxiety regarding ongoing developments The primary difference among participants lay in their personal choices and their ability, influenced by income and time, to navigate these changes in their lives.

Participants expressed concerns about broader societal changes, such as uniformity, profit-driven competition, and diminishing social connections, which mirrored their apprehensions regarding the agri-food sector GMOs were seen as a symbol of this unsettling worldview and lifestyle Their worries intensified due to a perceived lack of influence over these developments, coupled with the feeling that the pace of change was accelerating rapidly.

Participants in the focus group highlighted that commercial profit was the primary motivator behind changes in the food industry, often overshadowing health and environmental considerations They recognized their own influence as consumers, noting that demand drives supply, such as the continued availability of winter tomatoes However, they felt overwhelmed by market forces, including advertising, and the rapid pace of change, which made it challenging to resist these trends, especially amid broader societal shifts affecting their social and work lives.

Sense of alienation, lack of agency, lack of control of the life-world

Focus group participants expressed concerns that significant decisions impacting their lives were made by distant institutions beyond their influence and accountability While they acknowledged the ability to change governments during elections, they felt this mechanism was insufficient to address the issues discussed in their sessions.

Focus group participants reported a significant sense of lack of influence and control over institutional processes affecting their lives, particularly regarding GM food ingredients and their potential effects This feeling of diminished agency extended beyond GMOs, reflecting broader concerns about the food sector's innovation processes, which were viewed as opaque and primarily motivated by corporate interests and profit.

Public concerns are frequently seen as a novel distrust in government, regulatory bodies, and science However, the analysis of focus group results indicates that this sentiment may reflect a realistic attitude towards institutional behavior and a sense of skepticism rather than outright distrust Furthermore, this phenomenon should not be viewed as a direct result of the BSE crisis, which is viewed more as a notable example than an isolated incident.

Despite varying national perspectives, individuals primarily identify with the food distribution system as consumers rather than as citizens exercising their democratic rights This consumer identity often limits their ability to engage with political issues surrounding food production and agricultural biotechnology Many see boycotting genetically modified (GM) products, provided they are properly labeled, as the most effective means to influence GMO developers This behavior highlights a broader disillusionment with political systems and reflects the deep-rooted market ideologies that emerged in the 1980s and 90s While people acknowledge the limitations of market responses to social concerns, they often feel there are no credible alternatives, leading them to rely on consumer actions to express their views.

The concept of "citizen" was seldom recognized as a means of expressing individual agency; instead, it was viewed as a collective effort, primarily through participation in groups like consumer organizations rather than traditional parliamentary democracy Individuals were depicted as isolated and powerless, lacking the means to make their voices heard This sense of diminished agency extended to various other groups, including farmers, small shopkeepers, and individual scientists, who were seen as reliant on larger institutions for support.

Ambivalence, anxiety and socio-technical change

The analysis of focus group data reveals two overarching themes that significantly shape critical views on societal modernisation Firstly, there is a notable ambivalence towards the process of modernisation, which is evident across various specific themes Secondly, the concept of ontological insecurity emerges, highlighting a sense of instability regarding established social identities amidst rapid social change, leading to widespread anxiety These themes extend beyond perceptions of individual institutions or technologies, reflecting fundamental aspects of the human experience in modern European societies Consequently, they profoundly influence public responses to new agricultural biotechnology, suggesting that the underlying conditions affecting these responses are more complex and deeply rooted than what studies focusing solely on public perceptions and trust in specific technologies might indicate Thus, it becomes clear that both the characteristics of the technology and the broader socio-cultural context play crucial roles in shaping public perceptions and reactions.

22 Bauman (1991) develops an extended treatment, highly relevant to the analysis offered here, of the place of ambivalence in human experience of contemporary consumer society.

23 This concept deriving from psychoanalytical theory has become associated with discussions of risk and technological change through the work of sociologist Anthony Giddens (1991).

Our growing reliance on external institutions beyond our control is reshaping various aspects of our daily lives, previously influenced by social interactions This shift, as analyzed by Michalis Lianos (2001), represents a significant transformation in modern societies, resulting in new perceptions of danger and heightened feelings of vulnerability.

National comparisons of focus group results

Expected differences?

National differences in public opinion survey results, such as those from the Eurobarometer, are often attributed to various factors, yet these explanations have not been rigorously tested by social science researchers The mobilization of these factors as justifications can sometimes be questionable Nonetheless, to ensure a comprehensive analysis, careful consideration was given to selecting project partners from diverse countries that reflect these dimensions.

Intensity of public debate on GMOs Including media coverage and anti-GMO NGO activity

Cultural factors North/South (Mediterranean) culture

Protestant/catholic culture Relationship to food Relationship to the environment/nature Relationship to animal welfare issues

Political factors Activity and influence environmental and consumer NGOs

Presence of Green parties in Government

GMO innovation policy Level of R&D activity in public and private sectors

Culture of public participation in risk decision making

The salience of recent national crises in the management of risk both in relation to the food chain

(e.g BSE, contaminated cooking oil in Spain, e-coli and salmonella in UK) and in other areas (e.g. HIV-contaminated blood in France).

Level of intensification and industrialisation of agri-food system

Thus, the five selected countries could be characterised as follows when the project was designed, in December 1996:

France has a well-established regulatory framework for GMOs, characterized by a high level of research and development in the biotechnology sector compared to other European nations Despite numerous field tests, there is a notable absence of public debate, even among NGOs, largely due to a technocratic political culture that limits public participation Additionally, the French population maintains a strong attachment to indigenous food culture, with little public interest in animal welfare, favoring both intensive agriculture and small-scale farming practices.

In Germany, the late 1980s and early 1990s witnessed a vigorous public debate surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs), prompting significant governmental actions such as the introduction of the Gene Act in 1990 This period led to the establishment of a comprehensive regulatory framework for GMOs, reflecting the country's political culture that emphasizes public participation in risk-related decision-making The political influence of the Green Party and the broader environmental movement, along with the impact of Protestant cultural values, contributed to heightened public concern regarding the human applications of genetic technologies.

Italy exhibits a lack of public debate regarding agricultural practices, resulting in less intensive farming methods The country maintains a strong attachment to its indigenous food culture, heavily influenced by Catholic traditions Additionally, Italy has a less established regulatory framework for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), coupled with a low level of biotechnology research and development Consequently, there are very few field tests conducted in this area.

Spain: No public debate; less intensive agriculture; regulatory system for GMOs less well established; strong attachment to indigenous culture; low level domestic biotech industry and R&D; very few field tests.

Since the late 1980s, public debate in the UK regarding biotechnology has largely been limited to NGOs, despite a well-established regulatory framework for GMOs The country boasts a significant level of research and development in the biotechnology sector, accompanied by numerous field tests Additionally, there is a marked intensification in agricultural practices and food production, alongside a growing public interest in animal welfare issues.

It should be emphasised that this rough classification of the five partner-countries was elaborated in

1996, which is considered by most commentators as a watershed year for the GMO debate in

Europe As described in section 5, the GM controversy evolved in most of these countries during the period of the project (especially in France, UK and Italy).

Accounting for the similarity of results between the countries

The focus groups conducted across five countries yielded surprisingly similar results, as noted in section 6.1 While the shared protocol, analytical framework, and research framing among PABE researchers were considered as potential reasons for this similarity, section 6.1 ultimately provided arguments against this being the sole explanation for the observed outcomes.

The second methodological issue pertains to the level of analysis, where initial expectations of diverse outcomes across different national contexts were tempered by the recognition that the PABE analysis focused on underlying factors Despite varying intensities and natures of public debate in the five countries studied, the socio-cultural factors influencing public views were found to be largely common across many EU Member States Conversely, the observed inter-country differences primarily reflected superficial descriptive aspects rather than fundamental divergences.

The focus group data highlights that common themes are influenced by the broader social-institutional context, positioning media as secondary actors In this framework, industries and governments, supported by communications consultants, are the primary forces shaping the management and promotion of GMOs Consequently, public responses and media coverage tend to be reactive rather than proactive, following the agenda set by these key players.

The alignment of industry practices, national governments, and EU regulations within the framework of international trade and global economic competition has led to notable similarities in public responses across five studied EU Member States Focus group discussions reveal that participants' sentiments reflect the intertwined social, political, and economic processes at play These globally-standardized processes influence individual experiences and shape responses to agricultural biotechnology Consequently, the research aims to contextualize and explain public perceptions of this technology within the relevant socio-cultural conditions of modern European societies.

Our findings indicate that shared responses across various national contexts genuinely represent the real experiences of ordinary individuals This insight highlights key dimensions of public experience that significantly influence perceptions.

The question of whether the shared public responses across various EU partner countries indicate the rise of a common European public culture regarding scientific and technological advancements is intriguing Recent developments, such as the EU's unified stance on global trade disputes with the USA and differing interpretations of the precautionary principle, may contribute to a more cohesive European public identity However, this hypothesis requires further examination, similar to the analysis of the relationship between public perceptions and controversies Political identities are shaped by diverse interests and representations, which may not always align with public perceptions Nonetheless, as political positions become more established and articulated, public responses are likely to align, either positively or negatively, with these recognized stances.

Differences between the focus group results in the five countries

While public responses exhibited a general pattern of similarity, notable national differences emerged, necessitating further research with larger, more statistically representative samples to validate these provisional findings Variations may stem from the specific groups recruited rather than consistent cross-national differences Additionally, the qualitative nature of focus group data can lead to diverse interpretations among PABE researchers across countries To address this, the PABE team engaged in collective discussions and explored specific themes in Phase II groups, such as environmental perceptions in Germany and Spain, as well as public participation procedures However, in certain areas, like views on science, the multifaceted perceptions within individual groups complicated the attribution of specific views to particular populations.

Awareness of agricultural biotechnology, particularly regarding GM-product research, regulation, and commercialization, varied significantly among focus groups, making cross-national comparisons challenging Notably, Catalonia exhibited the lowest awareness levels, while overall knowledge was generally low across all five countries, including Germany, despite its extensive media coverage since the late 1980s Additionally, the reasoning patterns of focus group participants were strikingly similar across different countries and phases of the discussions, regardless of varying media coverage levels.

Animal welfare and rights were discussed in some German focus groups, highlighting a surprising lack of similar concerns in British groups despite the UK's reputation as a nation of animal lovers and recent controversies surrounding live veal transport This discrepancy may stem from the exclusion of environmental group members from the British focus groups; a larger participant pool might have revealed more concerns Nonetheless, across all five countries, there was a clear opposition to crossing species boundaries.

Perceptions of national and EU policies on food

Participants across various countries indicated that national policies, particularly risk-related regulations, are largely influenced by EU directives In France and Catalonia, there was a perception that environmental protection regulations lag behind those of more environmentally conscious EU member states like Germany Conversely, participants from the UK and Italy viewed other EU nations as having less stringent safety regulations Additionally, in the agro-food sector, focus group discussions revealed that participants in France and Catalonia had more confidence in EU regulations compared to those in Germany and the UK Overall, EU institutions were often perceived as remote, and EU regulations were criticized for being excessively bureaucratic.

UK focus group participants highlighted the significant impact of major supermarket chains on the food distribution system, more so than participants from other countries This observation likely stems from the public's recognition of the dominant role these companies play within the UK's food sector.

Perceptions of agricultural farming and production systems

National differences in farming practices influence perceptions of changes related to traditional methods and the shift towards industrial and organic farming In Italy, organic farming is viewed as another form of agricultural industrialization, while in the UK and France, it is seen as a revival of traditional practices and values However, attitudes towards the organic sector diverge significantly between France and the UK; in France, it is viewed as an extreme development that may not be desirable.

In the UK, the shift towards natural produce was largely driven by consumer demand However, changes in farming practices were primarily influenced by external factors, such as EU regulations and supermarket control, which often left farmers and consumers feeling powerless.

Public agency and public participation in decision-making about technological choices

While there is a widespread perception of limited agency in agriculture and food issues, opinions on public involvement in decision-making vary significantly across five countries Most participants framed their sense of agency around "consumer choice" rather than "citizen action." German participants expressed the strongest belief in their ability to influence the commercialization of technology through consumer behavior and had clearer ideas about public participation In contrast, participants from Catalonia and France lacked clarity on citizen involvement, viewing decision-making primarily as an expert domain, a perspective echoed by many Spanish and Italian participants Although there was a general disapproval of direct citizen protests against genetically modified crops, this sentiment was particularly strong in Germany Conversely, some participants in France and the UK suggested that high-profile direct actions might be necessary for citizens to voice their critical opinions effectively.

In 1998, France hosted a government-led consensus conference on agricultural GMOs; however, this event is rarely referenced by French groups For more insights into the conference and public perceptions surrounding it, refer to the studies by Joly et al (2000) and Marris and Joly (1999).

Views of the public held by stakeholders

A dominant view of the public emerges

Our stakeholder analysis, which included interviews, participant observation, and document analysis across five countries, revealed a dominant public perspective regarding GMOs This viewpoint, frequently echoed by key policy actors such as government officials, regulatory bodies, scientific institutions, and biotechnology firms, underscores their significant influence on GMO-related decision-making Interestingly, a similar perspective is also shared by representatives of anti-GMO organizations, including environmental and consumer NGOs, as well as farmers' unions, highlighting a complex landscape of opinions surrounding GMOs.

While the prevailing perspective may not be universally accepted by all employees within these institutions, many express similar ideas in interviews and public discussions This influence is evident in numerous official documents, indicating that these views are not only widespread but also significantly shape the strategies and policies of the organizations involved.

We refer to these beliefs as "myths" or "received ideas" because they are widely accepted within certain circles without the need for empirical evidence These ideas circulate unchallenged, supported by repeated anecdotes that reinforce their validity They form a shared culture among these actors, creating established thought patterns that define reality without explicit discussion or testing of hypotheses Even when individuals within these institutions disagree, they often choose to remain silent, leading to a lack of consideration for alternative viewpoints in policy discussions.

We refer to these misconceptions as "myths" to highlight that our analysis of the PABE focus groups indicates these beliefs are not substantiated by empirical evidence regarding public perceptions While some stakeholder views may align with public sentiment at a surface level, the rationale provided by these stakeholders is often refuted by our focus group findings This discrepancy reveals that stakeholders frequently make unverified assumptions about public reasoning, which are contradicted by our research Such misunderstandings carry significant policy implications, as decision-makers often rely on these unfounded explanations when making choices.

We deliberately emphasize the conflicting aspects of stakeholder perspectives revealed by our focus group results, acknowledging that this creates a polarized view of public opinion and simplifies a more intricate reality Nonetheless, we believe that the divide between "stakeholder myths" and actual public perceptions, as evidenced by this PABE study and others, is both real and significant, warranting attention from researchers and policymakers Our intention in highlighting these discrepancies is not to criticize stakeholder thinking for its own sake, but to constructively inform policy-making and institutional practices.

26 Note that although the Spanish and German teams conducted their focus groups in Catalonia and the State of Baden Württemberg, the stakeholder analysis was conducted at the national level.

27 In a separate study, we also identified similar views among stakeholders in the USA (Joly et al., 2001, pp 85- 143).

Notable exceptions exist in the GMO controversy in France, highlighted by experts such as Bernard Chevassus and Pierre-Henri Gouyon, who have contributed to important discussions on the topic For more comprehensive analyses of stakeholder perspectives, including the varied opinions among different actors and organizations, refer to the National Reports, which also address the prevalence of certain "myths" across five countries.

This section references publicly accessible documents from stakeholders that illustrate prevalent myths surrounding the GM controversy It is important to note that these references serve merely as examples; the following description is based on extensive empirical data, primarily gathered through interviews, participant observation, and long-term engagement with policy stakeholders For more detailed information and specific examples, please refer to the National Reports and the publications listed in Annex 1.

Box 8: Dominant stakeholder myths about public responses to GMOs

Myth 1: The primordial cause of the problem is that lay people are ignorant about scientific facts Myth 2: People are either 'for' or 'against' GMOs

Myth 3: Consumers accept medical GMOs but refuse GMOs used in food and agriculture

Myth 4: European consumers are behaving selfishly towards the poor in the Third World

Myth 5: Consumers want labelling in order to exercise their freedom of choice

Myth 6: The public thinks - wrongly - that GMOs are unnatural

Myth 7: It's the fault of the BSE crisis: since then, citizens no longer trust regulatory institutions Myth 8: The public demands "zero risk" - and this is not reasonable

Myth 9: Public opposition to GMOs is due to "other" - ethical or political - factors

Myth 10: The public is a malleable victim of distorting sensationalist media

Objective versus subjective risk

The prevailing public perception and the myths highlighted in Box 8 are based on a key distinction: objective risks are assessed rationally by scientific experts, while subjective risks are viewed as irrational perceptions held by the general public.

Anecdotes about public resistance to new technologies, such as trains, cars, and vaccines, are often used by stakeholders to illustrate the irrational thinking of laypeople These narratives suggest that initial fears are unfounded and that the public will eventually adapt to new technologies, including GMOs However, this perspective overlooks the fact that these technologies underwent significant regulatory and technological changes before gaining acceptance It also fails to recognize that many concerns raised by the public have materialized, such as pedestrian deaths from cars, plane accidents, and health issues linked to vaccinations, as well as unforeseen negative consequences like environmental damage from motor vehicle use.

The impact of technological advancements, such as motor vehicles, varies by country due to unique historical experiences In France, notable examples include Pasteurisation and Parmentier's introduction of potatoes These innovations reflect public concerns and anticipations about how such technologies would transform society The arrival of motor cars was a pivotal moment, reshaping urban landscapes and daily routines, accelerating life’s pace, and enabling lifestyles that were previously unimaginable.

Stakeholder anecdotes consistently follow a similar narrative, leading to the marginalization of public concerns through a shared storytelling approach This phenomenon is why we refer to these beliefs about the public as "myths," akin to fairy tales designed to shape a collective worldview Such narratives aim to prepare stakeholders for engaging with the outside world by instilling fear or offering coping strategies to navigate perceived irrational public reactions.

Stakeholders often use anecdotes to highlight the perceived irrationality of laypeople's risk acceptance, citing examples where individuals willingly take high risks in certain domains, such as smoking or mountain climbing, yet vehemently object to smaller risks associated with GMOs or nuclear technologies These comparisons imply that laypeople's behavior is incoherent, hindering rational risk management based on scientific foundations However, research, including Slovic's seminal work, has shown that laypeople's estimates of mortality rates are not significantly different from those of experts, suggesting they are aware of the risks associated with their chosen activities Despite this, stakeholders often portray laypeople's behavior as irrational, using their willingness to accept higher risks in voluntary activities as evidence.

The construction of a supposed opposition between objective and perceived risk, along with the belief that perceived risk is subjective and unpredictable, has been critiqued by social scientists (e.g., Callon et al., 2001; Slovic, 2000; Wynne, 1995) Despite these critiques, our stakeholder analysis reveals that this perspective on public risk perception remains deeply entrenched in certain circles The PABE study further illustrates how this overarching myth manifests in specific myths regarding public responses to GMOs While many arguments echo those from other controversies, such as nuclear technologies, new dimensions have emerged in the ongoing GM debate, particularly the attribution of individualistic behavior to citizens and the false dichotomy of natural versus unnatural distinctions made by laypeople We emphasize these aspects in this report for a more comprehensive understanding.

Research indicates that both low and high-level risks exhibit consistent minor biases, including an 'optimistic bias' among individuals engaged in risky behaviors, such as smoking Despite these biases, the general ranking of risks by the public aligns closely with that of experts in terms of annual mortality rates Additionally, experts making risk assessments beyond their area of expertise are also susceptible to the same biases as the general population (Slovic, 2000).

The primordial cause of the problem is that lay people are ignorant about scientific facts

The myth surrounding GMOs posits a clear divide between rational scientific facts and the emotional ignorance of opponents Proponents argue that scientific evidence confirms the safety of GMOs, suggesting that those who resist them lack understanding and are influenced by misconceptions rooted in sensationalist media or historical events like eugenics in WWII Germany The central issue is not the public's knowledge of genetics, but rather the belief among stakeholders that scientific ignorance poses a significant barrier to fostering a calm and rational discussion about GMOs with the general public.

The Eurobarometer survey, commissioned by the European Commission and conducted in 1991, 1993, 1996, and 1999, is a significant reference point for understanding public opinion in Europe A notable aspect of this survey is its "knowledge quiz," which features a specific "true or false" question that highlights the survey's role in gauging the European population's awareness and knowledge.

Genetically modified (GM) tomatoes contain genes, while ordinary tomatoes do not, leading to misconceptions among the public regarding GMOs Stakeholders often cite survey results indicating that 70% of the population believes only GM tomatoes have genes, suggesting that this misunderstanding contributes to public opposition to GMOs This lack of knowledge is seen as a barrier to forming informed opinions and engaging in constructive dialogue about genetically modified organisms.

Question: " Ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes, while genetically modified tomatoes do True or false?"

"correct" answer "wrong" answer Don't know

Source: Eurobarometer 52.1 "The Europeans and Biotechnology" conducted in 1999 (INRA, 2000)

How myth 1 was challenged by the PABE focus group results:

Focus group findings revealed that stakeholders believe ordinary citizens possess limited understanding of genetics and the differences between genetic modification via recombinant DNA and other methods However, these results also contested the notion that such ignorance is the primary barrier to dialogue and the main cause of public opposition to GMOs.

(i) Focus group participants did not have firmly entrenched erroneous beliefs about genetics On the contrary, they acknowledged and were humble about their lack of knowledge (section 6.3) 31

According to the Eurobarometer survey on transgenic tomatoes, 30% of the EU population is uncertain about whether 'ordinary tomatoes' contain genes, highlighting a significant gap in public knowledge This notable statistic is often overlooked by stakeholders and social science researchers who analyze Eurobarometer data.

Focus group participants raised significant concerns about GMOs, grounded in their own empirical observations of insects, plants, animals, and human behavior in real-world settings, rather than misconceptions about genetics.

Even if a world were created where everyone understood that all tomatoes contain genes, the fundamental questions raised in the PABE focus groups would still remain unanswered, and the controversy surrounding GMOs is unlikely to diminish Research indicates that increased knowledge about GMOs can actually lead to greater skepticism and polarization among the public (Martin and Tait, 1992; Gaskell et al., 1998) Contrary to the beliefs of many stakeholders, there is minimal direct correlation between the knowledge assessed in "science quizzes" and public perceptions of risk or opinions on GMOs More advanced analyses of Eurobarometer data show no linear relationship between knowledge levels and attitudes toward GMOs (Gaskell et al., 1999).

People are either 'for' or 'against' GMOs

Stakeholder discourses often categorize individuals as either 'for' or 'against' GMOs, with a significant number of European citizens opposing them between 1998 and 2000 This simplistic view is reinforced by key policy actors and consumer NGOs, which frequently highlight the figure of the consumer who rejects GMOs through opinion surveys Those who have not formed a definitive stance are typically labeled as 'undecided' or unable to engage in the complex debate surrounding GMOs, suggesting a lack of interest or understanding Consequently, while some proponents of GMOs express frustration over the widespread opposition, the prevailing sentiment among various stakeholders is that one must take a clear position, leaving the undecided in a state of perceived immaturity in the discourse.

How myth 2 was challenged by the PABE focus group results:

Focus group participants did not, overall, express entrenched opinions 'for' or 'against' GMOs The same participants expressed, often with the same statement, arguments for and against their development (section 6.2).

Focus group participants discriminated, in very sophisticated ways, between different types ofGMOs, which went beyond a simple distinction between agricultural and medical GMOs (section6.4).

Consumers accept medical GMOs but refuse GMOs used in food and agriculture

Many stakeholders believe that there is a significant public concern regarding the use of GMOs in agriculture, often referred to as "green" GMOs, while showing less apprehension about their application in pharmaceuticals and medical therapies, known as "red" GMOs This perception is frequently viewed as inconsistent, especially since the same recombinant DNA techniques are employed in both agricultural and medical contexts.

Stakeholders and social scientists suggest that the acceptability of medical GMOs stems from the belief that individuals embrace new technologies when they recognize direct personal benefits This perspective highlights that people can identify clear advantages associated with medical GMOs, unlike agricultural GMOs, which have not demonstrated noticeable benefits to consumers in terms of price or health.

The coordinators of the Eurobarometer survey indicate that the science quiz, especially the question on transgenic tomatoes, was designed to assess "negative images" of GMOs rather than "objective knowledge." This perspective simplifies the complex issue to a mere risk-benefit analysis from the viewpoint of individual consumers and their families, a notion that our focus group results effectively challenge.

Stakeholders believe that medical GMOs, including GM crops used for pharmaceuticals, will continue to gain acceptance They argue that if the next generation of GM foods offers direct benefits to consumers, such as improved nutrition, it could enhance overall public acceptance of GMOs The first generation of GMOs primarily benefited farmers, leading to consumer reluctance However, proponents assert that upcoming generations of GMOs will deliver direct consumer advantages, potentially resolving the ongoing controversy surrounding their use.

The public is depicted in a paradoxical manner; while laypersons are often seen as irrational, relying on unscientific and subjective perceptions, they are simultaneously viewed as hyper-rational decision-makers This duality suggests that individuals meticulously weigh personal risks and benefits when choosing the option that optimally utilizes their resources.

Stakeholders, particularly proponents of GMOs, often criticize the public for indiscriminately rejecting all genetically modified organisms without considering individual cases However, when the public does differentiate between types of GMOs, such as medical versus food applications, they are labeled as irrational, despite the fact that the same scientific techniques underpin both categories.

The perception of the individualistic consumer is not limited to policy actors or GMO promoters; it also significantly influences consumer and environmental NGOs, shaping their lobbying and communication strategies These organizations often highlight potential health risks associated with GM foods and express concern over the introduction of more acceptable pharmaceutical GMOs, fearing it could undermine their anti-GMO efforts For instance, Greenpeace's investment in a pan-European campaign against GM foods indicates a shift towards consumer protection strategies typically reserved for consumer organizations This dynamic is evident in the ongoing controversy surrounding Golden Rice, where GMO promoters leverage it to enhance the social acceptability of GMOs, while anti-GMO NGOs vigorously oppose this narrative, fearing its effectiveness Ultimately, both sides appear to overlook the complexity of public responses to these issues.

How myth 3 was challenged by the PABE focus group results:

The focus group results largely affirmed the observed trend of more favorable public opinion towards medical GMOs compared to agricultural GMOs However, the explanations provided for this disparity were called into question by the findings from the focus group discussions.

Between 1998 and 2000, promoters of medical GMOs expressed concerns that the ongoing controversy surrounding agricultural GMOs could negatively impact perceptions of their own field In an effort to counter this perceived threat, these advocates frequently echoed criticisms from anti-GMO groups, particularly regarding the potential environmental risks linked to 'green' GMOs.

The concept of 'generations' of genetically modified (GM) products is defined in various ways by stakeholders, often leading to conflicting interpretations While some definitions focus on technical aspects, such as the use of tissue-specific or inducible promoters in future generations, the prevailing definition emphasizes the direct benefits to consumers This shift is evident in the European Commission's recent consultation document, which defines "2nd generation crops" as new GM plant varieties that offer traits like enhanced nutritional properties, catering directly to consumer preferences, unlike 1st generation crops that primarily benefit producers.

While initial observations suggest a linear relationship between public perceptions and controversies surrounding medical GMOs, this assumption is challenged, revealing that there is minimal public controversy in this area However, public concerns about medical GMOs still exist The definitions of "red" and "green" GMOs can vary, with stakeholders often referencing medicines produced by genetically modified microorganisms, such as insulin and human growth hormone The distinction between these products and GM crops is not only based on their applications but also on the type of organism modified, their environmental release status, and their established history of use Participants in the PABE focus groups highlighted these factors, indicating that not all potential medical applications of GMOs are viewed as universally acceptable.

The presentation of Eurobarometer results contributes to a widespread misconception by oversimplifying complex issues For instance, a survey question about "introducing human genes into bacteria to produce medicines or vaccines, such as insulin for diabetics" is often summarized simply as "medicines" by researchers analyzing the data This reductionist approach contrasts with more nuanced interpretations from other studies, such as the PABE focus group results, highlighting the need for a more comprehensive understanding of public perceptions on biotechnology and genetic research.

Simplistic interpretations of Eurobarometer results lead stakeholders to prioritize the medical characteristics of products, overshadowing other important factors This misinterpretation has significant policy implications, as it fosters the belief that genetically modified (GM) crops producing pharmaceutical products will be socially acceptable, resulting in their continued development without adequate public consultation.

The PABE focus groups revealed a clear distinction made by participants between food and medical applications of GMOs, with a greater willingness to accept medical uses While the perceived benefits of medical GMOs were a significant factor, participants also considered various dimensions beyond benefits, highlighting a nuanced perspective Additionally, distinctions were made between different types of medical and food GMOs, indicating that certain medical GMOs, such as GM crops producing novel pharmaceuticals, may face social acceptance challenges.

Public perceptions of medical GMOs often assume that people are aware of the existing GMO-derived medicines available in the market However, our focus group findings indicate that this assumption may not reflect the reality of public knowledge.

European consumers are behaving selfishly towards the poor in the Third World

The portrayal of individualistic consumers, primarily in affluent northern nations, suggests that their concerns about the implications of GMOs for themselves and their families are egotistical This perspective argues that such resistance to GMOs hinders the advancement and distribution of agricultural biotechnologies essential for alleviating hunger and poverty in developing countries Proponents of GMOs assert that these technologies are crucial for improving food production in these regions, implying that the general public may not fully understand their potential benefits.

How myth 4 was challenged by the PABE focus group results:

Many participants viewed the use of GMOs as a potentially beneficial solution for addressing hunger and poverty in developing countries, acknowledging the objective as commendable However, there was significant skepticism regarding the actual implementation of such research and its practical outcomes This skepticism largely stemmed from concerns that biotechnology companies might be using the idea as a manipulative marketing strategy, rather than genuinely committing to the development of these GMOs.

Consumers want labelling in order to exercise their freedom of choice

The concept of the "individualistic consumer" is closely linked to discussions surrounding food labeling policies Policymakers believe that consumers desire labeling to exercise their right to choose whether to consume genetically modified (GM) foods This viewpoint is widely accepted, acknowledging that many consumers have health concerns or ethical objections—such as vegetarians or those adhering to religious dietary restrictions—prompting them to avoid GM products.

How myth 5 was challenged by the PABE focus group results:

Focus group participants expressed a clear desire for the labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods However, their motivations for this preference were more complex than initially assumed While some participants cited the need for labeling as a means to safeguard against potential health risks, this was just one of several arguments presented in support of GM food labeling.

The public thinks - wrongly - that GMOs are unnatural

The discussion surrounding public responses to GMOs often centers on the perception of what is deemed "natural." Proponents of GMOs argue that the general public views these organisms as unnatural, contrasting them with traditional agricultural methods, which are seen as natural This perception is viewed by GMO advocates as a reflection of public misunderstanding of scientific principles, creating barriers to rational dialogue Conversely, anti-GMO activists emphasize the unnatural aspects of GMOs to galvanize their supporters The ongoing debate among stakeholders regarding whether GMOs signify a revolutionary change or a continuation of past genetic modification techniques, particularly conventional breeding, is intricately linked to the discourse on their naturalness.

Proponents of GMOs, particularly molecular biologists, argue that the general public is unaware that humans have been altering the genetic makeup of organisms for thousands of years through traditional breeding methods They emphasize that recombinant DNA techniques are not fundamentally different from these methods and assert that they are more precise and predictable, making them, in their view, inherently safer.

Biotechnology firms often produce public relations materials that reveal implicit perceptions about public opinion While these documents may not directly state that "the public views GMOs as unnatural and a departure from traditional methods," their primary messages consistently convey this underlying sentiment.

In the European Union, the debate surrounding Novel Food regulations was contentious during the 1990s; however, by the period from 1997 to 2000, a growing consensus emerged among policy stakeholders, including public sector regulators and industry representatives In contrast, this issue did not gain similar traction in the United States.

The early promotion of recombinant DNA techniques significantly shaped the regulatory framework for GMOs, particularly through OECD documents in 1986 However, the implementation of these techniques varied between the EU and the USA, which our analysis (Joly et al., 2001) identifies as a primary factor influencing the current differences in the GM debate across these regions, rather than variations in public perceptions This distinction highlights the importance of communicating the continuum between "old biotechnologies" and "new biotechnologies" to the general public.

The Nestlé Foundation's exhibition aimed to "de-dramatise the debate" surrounding agriculture and technology, posing the intriguing question: "What is the connection between Neolithic agriculture and genetic engineering?" This inquiry highlights the evolution of agricultural practices over time.

Biotechnology has significantly advanced over millennia to enhance human food production, particularly through the breakthroughs of genetic engineering Humans have long observed, selected, and modified food plants and domesticated animals to create more resilient and productive species The technical advancements of the 19th and 20th centuries have unveiled new possibilities in previously unexplored areas, particularly with the discovery of DNA, which has deepened our understanding of cellular biological processes Utilizing molecular tools derived from Nature allows for precise interventions at the cellular level, paving the way for improved agricultural practices and livestock quality.

(Schọrer-Zỹblin, 1998, p 4, translated from French)

How myth 6 was challenged by the PABE focus group results:

GMOs were often described as "unnatural" by focus group participants But many pre-existing non-

GM agricultural technologies, including conventional breeding and substances like pesticides and fertilizers, are often perceived as "unnatural." The distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" does not solely depend on the use of GM technologies Focus group discussions revealed that many participants view GMOs as a continuation of humanity's long history of altering nature However, when GMOs are specifically scrutinized, it reflects deeper concerns about the broader implications of this technological advancement and its impact on lifestyle and worldview.

Stakeholders and social science research have framed GMOs as a significant issue, highlighting rDNA techniques as a crucial factor influencing public perception This is exemplified by initiatives like the Eurobarometer, which specifically examines these technologies.

The analysis reveals that it is misleading to categorize individuals who express concerns about GMOs as supporters of pesticides, a viewpoint frequently encountered in stakeholder interviews.

It's the fault of the BSE crisis: since then, citizens no longer trust regulatory institutions

The myth surrounding the virulent reactions against GMOs is rooted in a series of food scandals in Europe, with the BSE crisis being the most significant precursor This event has led to a widespread loss of trust in regulatory institutions, as dominant stakeholder discourses suggest that citizens no longer have confidence in their oversight While opinions differ on the legitimacy of this distrust, it is commonly acknowledged that European regulatory authorities made mistakes in managing BSE risks Consequently, the primary goal is to "restore trust" through reforms in institutional procedures, such as restructuring EU expert committees and establishing the European Food Authority, alongside enhancing risk communication strategies.

37 The BSE scandal first exploded in March 1996, and the European GM controversy developed essentially from the end of 1996 (see section 5).

The prevailing stakeholder perspective suggests that consumers have become overly sensitive to food risks, reacting disproportionately and irrationally to even minor news stories This heightened response is exacerbated by the media's tendency to exaggerate food-related risks, further inflating public concern.

A common misconception conflates BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) with GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), stemming from a lack of understanding of the science behind both It is important to clarify that there is no scientific connection between BSE and GMOs, as the prion responsible for BSE does not contain DNA.

How myth 7 was challenged by the PABE focus group results:

Participants in the focus group frequently referenced the BSE affair to shape their perceptions of GMOs, but they also cited various other incidents, indicating that the actions of regulatory institutions were viewed as ordinary rather than exceptional This suggests that the public's skepticism toward these institutions did not stem from a loss of trust following BSE, but rather from a realistic evaluation of their past behaviors The participants felt that regulatory bodies had not learned the appropriate lessons from the BSE crisis, leading them to expect similar conduct in the future, particularly concerning GMOs.

The public demands "zero risk" - and this is not reasonable

Policymakers argue that the demand for "zero risk" regarding GMOs is unrealistic, as risk is an inherent part of daily life and technological advancement, citing historical innovations like the steam engine and electricity as examples of progress achieved despite risks Conversely, anti-GMO advocates often interpret the precautionary principle to mean that any uncertainty about risks should prevent the approval of new products, as highlighted in Greenpeace's campaign materials.

How myth 8 was challenged by the PABE focus group results:

Focus group findings significantly challenge the prevailing myth about public risk perception, revealing that participants do not seek "zero risk" but understand the balance of risks and benefits in their daily lives They expect expert institutions to acknowledge and incorporate inherent uncertainties into decision-making processes, as it is the denial of these uncertainties that undermines their trust in these institutions.

Public opposition to GMOs is due to "other" - ethical or political - factors

As already mentioned, overall, policy makers - and sponsors of social science on public perceptions

Public perceptions of risk are often viewed through the lens of scientific definitions and regulations; however, when these perspectives fail to address public concerns, policymakers and scientists tend to attribute opposition to GMOs to "other factors," such as political, ethical, or socio-economic issues This notion that public resistance stems from non-scientific influences is also reflected in the policy discussions at the EU level (Levidow and Marris, 2001).

In interviews, policymakers emphasized ethical considerations over political or socio-economic factors, primarily citing the crossing of barriers between species or kingdoms This approach simplifies a wide array of issues discussed in focus groups to a singular ethical viewpoint, which often gets further narrowed down to a religious context, despite not being the main focus of the discussions.

Anti-GMO activists highlight the significance of ethical, political, and socio-economic impacts, viewing these factors as essential to the discussion In contrast, scientists and officials often regard these issues as outside their scope, focusing primarily on the scientific aspects of GMOs.

Some proponents of GMOs argue that anti-GMO activists exploit the genetic modification debate to promote broader political agendas, such as anti-capitalism and anti-globalization This phenomenon is particularly noticeable in countries like France, where anti-GMO movements are linked to anti-globalization organizations like Confédération Paysanne and ATTAC These proponents believe that the critiques of GMOs often extend beyond the scientific discussion and should be addressed through established democratic processes, such as voting Consequently, biotechnology firms feel that they are unfairly targeted, as the criticisms they face are not exclusive to GMOs and are difficult to counter effectively.

These views were apparent in interviews, but were also demonstrated by participant observation at

At scientific meetings organized by policymakers and industry leaders, audience members who pose broader political questions are frequently interrupted by organizers, who assert that such discussions are inappropriate for the setting.

With respect to the research presented in this report, two key points need to be emphasised:

Policymakers and scientists often view "other factors" as personal and devoid of intellectual substance, leading to the belief that individual value judgments create a multitude of positions This perspective renders the issues at hand intractable and resistant to societal discussion, with religious leaders and philosophers being the only recognized authorities on the matter.

(ii) Stakeholders of all types tend to consider that these "other factors" are totally unrelated to risk or scientific dimensions.

How myth 9 was challenged by the PABE focus group results:

The focus group participants expressed various concerns and issues that extended beyond the traditional definitions of risk established by scientific experts and regulations However, these broader concerns were not the primary focus of the discussion.

Broader concerns, often viewed as "ethical" or "political," cannot be easily separated from risk assessment and research and development policies, highlighting the interconnectedness of these issues.

Concerns regarding the crossing of species boundaries were noted, yet they were not the primary focus, even among practicing Catholics When this topic was discussed, it was closely linked to the challenges of predicting the behavior and impacts of newly created organisms that had never existed before.

Moral and ethical objections have emerged regarding how official policies, influenced by expert knowledge, often overlook the broader concerns of the public This is especially evident in criticisms of the limited scientific framing of risk assessment related to GMOs, where claims of "no evidence of risk" raise significant concerns about the failure to address more comprehensive questions Such judgments highlight the limitations of scientific risk assessment and the dangers of ignoring the complexities of ignorance and unpredictability in these discussions Key themes in this debate are explored in sections 6.3, 6.6, and 6.7.

The public is a malleable victim of distorting sensationalist media

Misconceptions about Trust

A critical issue highlighted by policymakers in the context of public responses to GMOs is the lack of trust, which has emerged as a significant challenge for institutions engaged in risk management Addressing this trust deficit is essential for effective communication and management of GMO-related risks.

The findings from the focus group indicate that trust plays a crucial role in public reactions to new technologies and policies, significantly influencing various socio-cultural factors discussed Notably, mistrust emerged as a key concern linked to these factors.

- failure to acknowledge past errors and to learn from past mistakes

- lack of sanctions for those responsible past mismanagement or fraud

- denial of inherent uncertainties, especially about long term or chronic impacts

- apparent failure to take into account common sense knowledge about the behaviour of plants, animals and institutions in real life

- reliance on limited types of expertise

- lack of transparency about how different interests, risks and benefits are balanced against one another

- failure to take into account equity issues (distribution of risks and benefits), and societal need

- lack of any means to influence inter-linked societal and technological trajectories

Official institutions exhibit a lack of trust in the public by failing to acknowledge that ordinary citizens can engage thoughtfully in complex decisions and navigate the uncertainties that accompany them.

Restoring public trust in regulatory institutions requires more than improved communication strategies; it necessitates significant changes in institutional culture and practice Trust is built through consistent behavior and effective risk management over time and across various fields, not solely through public relations efforts To foster public trust and legitimacy, institutions must demonstrate their commitment to transparency and accountability, showcasing their ability to manage risks effectively.

- Admitting that they don't always necessarily know best.

- Admitting uncertainty, and explaining how this has been taken into account in decision-making.

- Utilising input from all relevant sources (not just scientific experts).

- Being transparent about how decisions are made, including explaining how different interests, risks and benefits have been balanced against one another.

- Imposing heavy sanctions in cases where mismanagement or fraud is identified.

- Overall, demonstrating that views of the public are understood, valued, respected, and taken into account by decision-makers - even if they cannot all be satisfied.

How can one explain the persistence of such mistaken views about the public?

The findings from the PABE focus groups contradict the prevalent stakeholder perspective of the public, which is often defined by the ten "myths" outlined in Box 8 Additionally, earlier studies on public perceptions have already questioned these dominant narratives (e.g., Callon et al., 2001; Slovic, 2000; Wynne).

Despite numerous independent studies revealing that stakeholders' views about the public often misrepresent ordinary citizens' opinions, these misconceptions persist This is particularly concerning because such entrenched beliefs lead to ineffective policy strategies in areas like R&D, commercialization, regulations, and communication, failing to meet public demands adequately Consequently, the ongoing stalemate in the European GM debate can be largely attributed to these inaccurate perceptions of the public.

Stakeholders involved in decision-making, such as civil servants, scientists, regulators, and biotechnology firm representatives, often rely on specific sources of information to understand public responses to GMOs Our interviews revealed three primary sources: opinion surveys, media coverage, and insights from anti-GMO activists These references play a significant role in shaping their perspectives and decisions regarding biotechnology.

Opinion surveys, particularly the Eurobarometer, often rely on closed questions with unidimensional scales, limiting respondents to expressing simple support or rejection regarding GMOs This binary representation fails to capture the more nuanced and conditional attitudes of the public, which can manifest as "don't knows," as seen in the Eurobarometer's question on transgenic tomatoes Such responses are frequently overlooked in analyses, leading to a superficial interpretation of public opinion Consequently, this can portray the public as irrational when their responses appear inconsistent or incoherent to researchers or stakeholders utilizing the survey data.

Stakeholders often rely on primary raw data from quantitative surveys, believing it accurately represents the situation, as seen with the "Eurobarometer tomatoes." However, this reliance can overlook the value of more advanced secondary analyses conducted by researchers, such as those by Gaskell et al (1998) and Hampel and Renn.

1999) Moreover, the way in which Eurobarometer researchers themselves present the synthesis of the survey results obscures more complex dimensions For example, as discussed earlier (section 6.4 and myth n°3 in section 8.3):

(i) The translation of the item on recombinant insulin to "medical GMOs" feeds the "red is good green is bad" myth; and

The lack of attention to the significant "don't know" responses in surveys indicates that many Europeans may not have strong opinions on GMOs or may disagree with the way the questions are framed.

Stakeholders primarily referenced Eurobarometer articles published in Science or Nature, rather than the more detailed books by the same authors They often relied on raw data available in Commission reports, which were released prior to the nuanced analysis found in the books Additionally, stakeholders looked to the press releases that accompanied these reports, as they provided a specific interpretation of the survey's key findings, though this interpretation is inherently subjective.

Qualitative methods, such as focus groups, enable the expression of complex public responses and can clarify inconsistent quantitative findings By minimizing researcher bias in framing issues, these methods contribute to a more nuanced understanding of public perceptions Therefore, integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches in public perception research is essential for informing effective policy insights.

Media coverage is frequently referenced by stakeholders to gauge public responses, as journalists often assert they represent the public interest However, the myths perpetuated in the media do not always accurately reflect public opinions Instead, media representations are just one of many platforms where controversies unfold, with various stakeholders mobilizing different portrayals of the public, highlighting the complex social dynamics inherent in public debates.

Interactions between public sector decision-makers and civil society are often confined to meetings with trade union representatives and environmental or consumer NGOs These organizations currently play a significant role in holding policymakers accountable, leading decision-makers to prioritize their views However, this focus can obscure the fact that these groups may not truly reflect the opinions of the general public Additionally, during negotiations, activists frequently adopt extreme positions to further their agendas and influence public policy.

The interconnection between opinion surveys, media coverage, and activist actions creates a feedback loop that can distort decision-makers' perceptions of public opinion Journalists often report on surveys highlighting negative sentiments and activist arguments, which may reinforce skewed views among policymakers Conversely, some decision-makers argue that there is a significant divide between the general public and the narratives presented by journalists and activists, suggesting that the media manipulates public opinion and portrays citizens as incapable of independent thought Interestingly, both perspectives can be held by the same individuals, reflecting the complexity of public discourse.

Stakeholder perspectives on the public and the involvement of laypeople in risk evaluation and science policy appraisal are deeply influenced by foundational views of scientific knowledge A prevalent perception among stakeholders in the GM debate portrays science as an independent entity, governed by its own norms and procedures, which ensures the generation of neutral, objective, and universal knowledge This dominant view reflects the ongoing efforts of decision-makers to shape or maintain public perception.

Activists often express varying attitudes and discourses depending on the context of their confrontation, which may not fully represent their true perspectives (Dodier and Barbot, 2000; Epstein, 1996; Joly et al., 2001) Additionally, there is a critical boundary that distinguishes legitimate science from non-science, which is essential for maintaining the credibility of scientific knowledge in decision-making processes (Gieryn, 1983; Jasanoff, 1987).

40 This point is further developed in Marris, 2001.

Key policy implications

Need for broad based cultural change among institutions

To address the crisis surrounding GM agriculture and foods in Europe, it is essential to focus on revised policy commitments and practical changes rather than solely relying on traditional methods of risk communication and representation.

To restore public confidence in the EU and other institutions, it is essential for scientific and policy organizations to critically assess their actions and thought processes They must adapt their cultural habits regarding scientific knowledge and public perceptions to effectively address the crisis of trust.

Changing institutional culture is less about immediate practical challenges and more about transforming conventional ideas and thought patterns that shape our responses to events This shift cannot be simplified into typical policy tools; instead, it requires a focus on abstract concepts that highlight the underlying issues needing change Consequently, the recommendations presented are not straightforward actions but rather a series of interconnected ideas that serve as guiding principles It is essential to view this as a long-term process rather than a singular policy action or decision.

Recent EU policy documents, particularly the White Paper on Governance, indicate that momentum is building for a significant cultural change in governance, though challenges remain The ongoing discussions initiated by the EC President regarding "science and governance" exemplify a proactive approach to addressing broader policy and cultural issues that extend beyond just GM policies.

Science does not have all the answers – nor all the salient questions

To foster a positive cultural shift, it is essential to create an environment where science is not expected to predict all outcomes of new technologies or address every critical question The general public understands and accepts this uncertainty, making it counterproductive for scientific and policy institutions to ignore this reality, as it can erode public trust These insights aim to support robust scientific discourse and encourage informed policy discussions, a goal that even critics of GM science can appreciate.

Need to be open about uncertainty and ignorance

Acknowledging uncertainty and ignorance is essential, as our findings reveal that the public generally accepts the necessity of uncertainty, particularly regarding the inability to predict long-term outcomes.

Many believe that the public demands absolute certainty and zero risk from scientists and policymakers before accepting technological innovations However, our findings align with other studies, showing that the general populace understands and acknowledges the inherent uncertainties and limitations in predicting outcomes related to innovation and regulation.

Our focus group results challenge the assumption that the public expects scientists to demonstrate zero-risk before allowing innovation Instead, participants acknowledge that unanticipated consequences are likely and do not blame science for this uncertainty They emphasize the importance of transparency from scientists and institutions regarding these realities, while also seeking assurance that the motivations behind innovations, such as GM food, are sound This concern is reflected in their repeated inquiries about the purpose of such innovations.

The public often grapples with significant questions regarding the purpose of various initiatives, questioning whether they serve private interests for those with minimal needs or if they address critical public issues, such as alleviating hunger or providing essential medical treatments unavailable elsewhere These pressing inquiries highlight gaps in scientific understanding and are frequently overlooked in policy-making processes.

Need for societal deliberation about the purpose and need for innovations

It is essential to engage in a comprehensive debate regarding the purposes and social visions that influence research and innovation, ensuring this discussion is integrated into the accountable decision-making process Furthermore, this dialogue should extend beyond the final stages of research and development (R&D) and should not be restricted to merely ethical or social concerns.

Understanding the link between public concern over the motivations behind technology and the acknowledgment of our own ignorance is crucial The public recognizes that due to the inherent limitations of science in predicting future outcomes, it is essential to critically evaluate the necessity of technological advancements.

Addressing the challenges of genetic modification (GM) research extends beyond publicly funded initiatives to encompass private corporate R&D programs, which often face confidentiality issues It is essential to confront these problems head-on rather than oversimplifying them, as doing so can erode public trust and acceptance By fostering informed debates and practical responses, scientists and stakeholders can become more attuned to public concerns and priorities, ensuring that the involvement of non-experts in technical decisions remains minimal while still protecting legitimate commercial interests.

Recognise the relationship between ethical concerns and risk-knowledge issues

Ethical concerns are deeply intertwined with scientific issues and must be acknowledged by scientists, stakeholders, and policymakers These concerns are not merely peripheral or insignificant; they highlight the limitations and denial of broader issues within the policy process, particularly in the scientific assessment of risk Understanding the connections between traditional categories of analysis and policy discussions is essential for addressing the complexities of science and risk management.

"other" factors) need to be recognised, otherwise the role of existing institutional behaviour as a central part of the problems will continue to be obscured.

Public discourse reveals significant moral and ethical frustrations regarding official policies shaped by expert knowledge, which often overlook critical issues of public concern This is especially evident in critiques of the narrow scientific framing of risk and risk assessment, where claims of "no evidence of risk" raise ethical questions about the broader implications of such assertions The widespread ethical judgments stem from an intellectual critique of scientific risk assessment, particularly when it fails to acknowledge the inherent ignorance and unpredictability of complex issues These objections to institutional framing and issue selection should be recognized as ethical concerns that warrant rational debate, rather than being dismissed as private grievances.

Objectives of public participation

Public participation should challenge the framing assumptions of expert deliberations and decision-making processes, ensuring that technical aspects are open to scrutiny and accountable responses It goes beyond merely incorporating "extra-scientific" elements into decision-making, as it recognizes that not all scientific issues are resolved This perspective significantly differs from traditional views on public participation.

In response to the public's opposition to GMOs and related scientific policies, there has been a push to enhance public participation in expert discussions, with the belief that this will lead to more legitimate and trusted outcomes While we endorse this initiative, we highlight important considerations Research into public perceptions reveals the factors that laypeople may contribute to these deliberations and clarifies their potential role alongside expert knowledge in addressing the issues at hand.

Participatory initiatives should not assume that laypeople possess superior knowledge to experts regarding relevant processes In fact, lay individuals often recognize their limitations and are willing to defer to expert knowledge, especially when it is legitimized through credible sources or evidence.

- existing institutional relations and channels;

- practical experience of trustworthy past performance;

- experience of acceptable institutional "body-language", e.g consistency between stated and apparent motives;

- evidence that the experts are listening to people's own definitions of what the issues are, and are taking these into account.

Public participation should aim to critically examine expert knowledge by questioning its framing and the reasons behind focusing on a specific problem definition It is essential to explore alternative perspectives and the deliberation process that led to the chosen approach, as well as to identify any overlooked questions This inquiry also raises the issue of what types of knowledge are pertinent to the topic at hand Engaging participants beyond established expert sub-cultures, including lay publics and critical experts, is often the most effective way to foster this reflexivity and broaden the discussion.

Public participation introduces valuable lay knowledge that has often been overlooked, such as practical insights into workplace efficiencies While this knowledge is not superior, it is essential as a complementary resource that should be considered in the decision-making process.

Science and Gouvernance, and the precautionary principle

Our findings have important implications for current EU debates on "Science and Governance" and the application of the Precautionary Principle

Our findings align with the suggestions made by Stirling et al (1999), emphasizing that to adhere to the precautionary principle, policy discussions regarding the evaluation of GMOs and similar technologies must intentionally incorporate thorough considerations.

Innovations in agriculture aim to achieve sustainable domestic practices, promote globally equitable food production and distribution, ensure competitive pricing in the global market, and maximize the value derived from land use These objectives are essential for creating a resilient food system that meets the needs of both local communities and international markets.

 systematic accountable appraisal of a range of alternatives;

 as diverse-as-possible a portfolio of alternative options;

 the broadest possible inclusive deliberation about the issues, possible consequences and the conditions under which any chosen technology would be implemented.

Recent discussions and statements within the EU have focused on enhancing the inclusivity and accountability of the policy-making process by actively engaging citizens The White Paper on Governance (EC, 2001a) has prompted a deeper examination of legitimacy issues related to science and technology Our recommendations align with those presented in the related report.

"Democratising Expertise", which emphasised the inherent, normal conflicts around scientific knowledge in policymaking:

Experts play a crucial role in governance, yet their authority is increasingly challenged As scientific expertise interacts with and sometimes conflicts with other forms of knowledge, it faces the dynamics of academic debate within its own disciplines Many stakeholders, including parliaments, media, and civil society organizations, argue that the lack of transparency in how expertise is selected, utilized, and disseminated by governments undermines the legitimacy of the policy-making process.

This account attributes the legitimacy problem to unacknowledged choices in constituting official expertise and evaluating scientific knowledge To remedy that problem, it proposes various measures such as the following:

"Democratising expertise" means broadening the traditional methods of quality assessment without compromising on standards It encompasses not just scientific excellence, but also the capacity to address policy and social issues effectively.

Policy decisions should be informed by published evidence that outlines its application Instead of delivering oversimplified messages that may mislead, the strategy must clearly communicate any existing uncertainties and controversies.

For effective policy-making and public discourse, knowledge must not only be scientifically sound but also 'socially robust,' addressing the relevant policy, social, and economic needs This requires incorporating expertise from beyond the traditional peer community, including individuals with practical experience and diverse perspectives on the issues at hand.

The report emphasizes that decision-making processes must recognize the choices and uncertainties often obscured by scientific advice, indicating a shift towards the cultural change we advocate However, the recommendations outlined in "Democratising Expertise" conflict with the existing EU policy language and the current institutional framework surrounding expertise (Levidow and Marris, 2001).

The contribution of qualitative social research

Qualitative and interactive methods like focus groups, competently used, are a useful resource which can enlighten institutions in important ways to improve their policy effectiveness.

When utilized thoughtfully, alternative methods can provide deeper insights into public perceptions compared to traditional survey techniques These insights are crucial for developing practical policies, as they can lead to the creation of more resilient and sophisticated policy frameworks, actors, and processes than those currently existing in the field.

Focus groups are a valuable tool for researching public perceptions, as they effectively mirror real social situations where debate and reflection shape authentic attitudes While they have limitations, focus group discussions provide insights into how ordinary people form their views in relation to others These processes are influenced by various authoritative sources of information and societal opinions, highlighting the complexity of public attitude formation.

The public should not be seen as the sole source of the problem

Policymakers must recognize that the challenges surrounding agricultural biotechnologies in Europe stem not only from public behavior but also from the actions of institutions tasked with innovation and risk management Addressing this dual perspective is crucial for fostering a more constructive and productive dialogue on the subject.

Public perception research should focus on enhancing overall understanding and developing effective policies, rather than solely aiming to improve trust in science and institutions Viewing trust as an instrumental goal can be counterproductive Instead, fostering better policies—such as those for risk reduction and socially beneficial innovations—should be the primary objective, leading to trust as a natural outcome rather than a direct aim.

Public acceptance and trust should not be viewed as the primary issues; instead, it is essential to acknowledge that the real problems may lie elsewhere By recognizing these underlying issues rather than attributing blame to the public or influential agencies like the media and NGOs, we can foster a more constructive dialogue This shift in perspective could lead to a significant improvement in public confidence and facilitate positive change.

For public policy to gain legitimacy, institutions must show a genuine commitment to self-reflection and understanding, reducing the need for conventional solutions that seek complete control over issues While debates may remain complex, if the public perceives that genuine concerns are being addressed with the right intentions, the overall atmosphere of discussions surrounding genetic modification (GM) could improve significantly.

Barbour, R S and Kitzinger, J (1999) (Eds.) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and

Bauman, Z (1991) Modernity and Ambivalence Polity, Cambridge.

Cáceres, J., Lemkow, L., Sentmartí, R (2001) "Percepción de la biotecnología agroalimentaria en Europa"

Ciencia, Medicina, Comunicación y Cultura, XXI, July-Decembre 2001.

Cambriosio, A and Limoges, C (1991) "Controversies as governing processes in technology assessment"

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, n°3:377-396.

Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., Barthe, Y (2001) Agir dans un monde incertain Seuil, Paris.

Callon, M (1998) "Des différentes formes de démocratie technique" Risque et Démocratie: savoirs, pouvoir, participation… vers un nouvel arbitrage ? Cahiers de la sécurité intérieure n°38:37-54.

Callon, M (1981) "Pour une sociologie des controverses technologiques" Fondamenta Scientiae, 2(3/4):381-

Chevassus, B (2000) "Prevention, precaution, consumer involvement: which model for food safety in the future?" Speech at the OECD Edinburgh Conference on the Scientific and Health Aspects of

Genetically Modified Foods, 28 February-1 March 2000 (www.oecd.org/subject/biotech/edinburgh) Cobb, R and Ross, M (1997) "Agenda setting and the denial of agenda access: key concepts" John Hopkins

Darier, E., Gough, C., De Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S., Grove-White, R., Kitchener, D., Guimarães Pereira, Â.,

Shackley, S., Wynne, B (1999) "Between Democracy and Expertise? Citizens' Participation and Environmental Integrated Assessment in Venice (Italy) and St Helens (UK)" Journal of

Davison, A., Barns, I., Schibeci, R (1997) "Problematic Publics: a critical review of surveys of public attitudes to biotechnology" Science, Technology and Human Values, 22(3):317-348.

De Marchi B and Pellizzoni, L (2001) "Public Perception of agricultural biotechnologies in Italy" Quaderno

01-1, Programma Emergenze di Massa, Istituto di Sociologia Internazionale, Gorizia.

De Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S., Lo Cascio, S., Munda, G (2000) "Combining participative and institutional approaches with multicriteria evaluation An empirical study for water issues in Troina, Sicily."

De Marchi B., Funtowicz, S., Gough, C., Guimarães Pereira, Â, Rota, E (1998) "The ULYSSES Voyage The

ULYSSES Project at the JRC" Report EUR 17760EN, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Systems, Informatics and Safety, Ispra http://alba.jrc.it/ulysses.html

De Marchi, B and Functowicz, S (1997) "Proposta per un modulo comunicativo sperimentale sul rischio chimico a Porto Marghera" Quaderno 97-6, Programma Emergenze di Massa, Istituto di Sociologia Internazionale, Gorizia.

De Marchi, B (1991) "The Seveso Directive: an Italian pilot study in enabling communication" Risk Analysis,

Dodier, N and Barbot, J (2000) "Le temps des tensions ộpistộmiques" Revue Franỗaise de Sociologie,

Durant, J., Bauer, M W., Gaskell, G (Eds.) (1998) Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European

EC (2001a) "European Governance: a White Paper" COM(2001) 428, Brussels, 25/7/2001.

EC (2001b) "Towards a strategic vision of life sciences and biotechnology: consultation document"

Communication from the Commission COM(2001)454 final, 04/09/01.

EC (1994) European Community Framework Programme IV (1994-1998) for Research and Technological

Development Section on "Ethical Legal and Social Aspects" (ESLA) in both the Biotechnologies

Programme and the Agriculture and Fisheries Programme.

Epstein, S (1996) Impure science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge University of California

ESRC (1999) The politics of GM food: risk, science and public trust ESRC Global Environmental Change

Programme Special Briefing, No 5 (http://www.gecko.ac.uk)

Fischler, C (1990) L'homnivore Odile Jacob, Paris.

Gaskell, G and Bauer, M (Eds.) (2001) Biotechnology 1996 to 2000 The Years of Controversy Science

Gaskell, G., Bauer, M., Durant, J., Allum, N (1999) "Worlds apart The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US" Science, 285 (16 July):384-387.

Gaskell, G., Bauer, M., Durant, J (1998) "Public perceptions of biotechnology in 1996: Eurobarometer 46.1"

In J Durant, J., M Bauer and G Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: a European

Sourcebook Science Museum, London, pp 189–214.

Gaskell, G et al (European Biotechnology and the Public Concerted Action Group) (1997) "Europe

Ambivalent on Biotechnology" Nature, vol.387(June 26th):845-847.

Giddens (1991) The consequences of modernity Polity, Cambridge.

Gieryn, T (1983) "Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains of interests in professional ideologies of scientists" American Sociological Review, 48:781-795.

In his 2001 work, Gilbert C explores the dichotomy between risk analysis through perception and the framing of public issues, questioning whether this apparent contradiction can be resolved Featured in the edited volume "Les effets d'information en politique" by J Gerstlé, this chapter delves into the complexities of how information influences political discourse and public understanding Gilbert's insights contribute to a deeper comprehension of the interplay between risk perception and the formulation of public problems, highlighting the importance of effective communication in political contexts.

Green, J and Hart, L (1998) "Children's Views of Accident Risks: An Exploratory Study" South Bank

Green, J (1997) "Risk and the construction of social identity: chidren's talk about accidents" Sociology of

Greenbaum, T (1998) The Handbook for Focus Group Research 2nd edition Sage, London.

Grin, J., van de Graaf, H., Hope, R (1997) Technology Assessment through Interaction Working Document

Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Mayer, S., Wynne, B (1997) Uncertain World: GMOs, Food and Public

Attitudes in Britain CSEC, Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Hacking, I (1983) Representing and Intervening CUP, Cambridge.

Hargreaves, I and Ferguson, G (2000) Who's misunderstanding whom? ESRC, Swindon.

Hampel, J., Pfenning, U., Kohring, M., Goerke, A and Ruhrmann, G (2001) "National profile Germany

Between biotech-boom and market failure: the two sides of the German medal" In G Gaskell and

M Bauer (Eds.) Biotechnology 1996 to 2000 The Years of Controversy Science Museum, London Hampel, J., Klinke, A., Renn, O (2000) "Beyond 'red' hope and 'green' disrust Public perception of genetic engineering in Germany" Politeia (special issue), n°60:68-82.

Hampel, J and Renn, O (Eds.) (1999) Gentechnik in der ệffentichkeit Wahrnehmung und Bewertung einer umstrittenen Technologie Campus, Frankfurt.

Hampel, J., Ruhrmann, G., Kohring, M., Goerke, A (1998) "National profile Germany" In J Durant, M

Bauer and G Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: a European Sourcebook Science Museum, London, pp 63-76.

Herrera-Estrella, L and Alvarez-Morales, A (2001) "Genetically modified crops: hope for developing countries?" EMBO Reports, 2(4):256–258.

Hilgartner, S and Bosk, C (1988) "The rise and fall of social problems: a public arenas model" American

Horlick-Jones, T., De Marchi, B., Prades Lopez, A., Pidgeon, N., Del Zotto, M., Diaz Hidalgo, M., Pellizzoni,

L., Sime, J., Ungaro, D (1998) "The Social Dynamics of Environmental Risk Perception: A Cross- Cultural Study" Final Report of the PRISP Project, European Union 4th Framework Programme on Environment & Climate, Contract ENV4-CT96-0265.

International Research Associates (INRA) (2000) "Eurobarometer 52.1: The Europeans and Biotechnology"

Report by INRA(Europe)-ECOSA on behalf of EC DG12 (Research), Brussels.

Irwin, A., Simmons, P., Walker, G (1999) "Faulty environmental environments and risk reasoning: the local understanding of industrial hazards" Environment and Planning, 31,1311-1326.

In the realm of policy-relevant science, Jasanoff (1987) explores the complexities and contested boundaries that shape scientific discourse and its implications for public policy Meanwhile, Joly (2001) examines the relationship between genetically modified organisms (GMOs), science, and public perception, proposing four governance models to effectively manage innovation and associated risks Together, these works highlight the critical intersection of science, policy, and public engagement in addressing contemporary challenges in biotechnology and environmental management.

Joly, P.-B and Assouline, G (2001) "ADAPTA project: Assessing Public Debate and Participation in

Technology Assessment in Europe" Final Report, INRA, Grenoble (http://www.inra.fr/Internet/ Directions/SED/science-gouvernance)

Joly, P.-B., Marris, C., Marcant, O (2001) "La constitution d'un 'problème public' : la controverse sur les

OGM et ses incidences sur la politique publique aux Etats-Unis" INRA, Grenoble

Internet/Directions/SED/science-gouvernance)

Joly, P.-B., Assouline, G., Kréziak, D., Lemarié, J., Marris, C (2000) "L'innovation controversée : le débat public sur les OGM en France".INRA, Grenoble

(http://www.inra.fr/Internet/Directions/SED/science-gouvernance)

Keck, G (2000) "Lọrmminderungsplan Ravensburg Prọsentation." Report of the Center of Technology

Keck, G and Lattewitz, F (1999) "Bürgermeinungen und –einstellungen zur Zukunft der Energieversorgung".

Report of the Center of Technology Assessment, Stuttgart.

Kerr, A and Cunningham-Burley, S (2000) "On ambivalence and risk: Reflexive modernity and the new human genetics." Sociology, 34(2):283-304.

Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S., Amos, A (1998a) "Drawing the line: an analysis of lay people's discussions about the new genetics." Public Understanding of Science, 7(2):113-133.

Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S., Amos, A (1998b) "The new genetics and health: mobilizing lay expertise."

Kitzinger, J and Barbour, R S (1999) "Introduction: the challenge and promise of focus groups" In R S

Barbour and J Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice Sage, London, pp.1-20.

Kitzinger, J (1994) "The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants" Sociology of Health and Illness, 16(1):103-121.

Krimsky, S and Golding D (Eds.) (1992) Social Theories of Risk Praeger, New York.

Le Déaut, J.-Y (1998) L'utilisation des organismes génétiquement modifiés dans l'agriculture et dans l'alimentation Rapport 545, Tome 1, Office Parlementaire d'Evaluation des Choix Scientifiques et

Lemkow, L and Cỏceres J (2000) "La biotecnologớa en Espaủa" La situaciún del mundo 2000 Informe anual del Worldwatch Institute Icaria Editorial, Barcelona.

Lemkow, L (1991) "Public Attitudes to Genetic Engineering - a summary Report" European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin.

Levidow, L., and Marris, C (2001) "Science and Governance in Europe: lessons from the case of agbiotech"

Levidow, L (2000) "Sound science or ideology?" Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, Fall:44-49. Levidow, L (1999) "Britain's biotechnolgoy controversy: elusive science, contested expertise" New Genetics and Society, 18(1):47-64.

Levidow, L and Carr, S (1997) "How Biotechnology sets a Risk/Ethics Boundary" Agriculture and Human

Levidow, L., Carr., S, von Schomberg, R., Wield, D (1996) "Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology in

Europe" Science and Public Policy, 23(3):135-157.

Lianos, M (2001) Le nouveau contrôle social: Toile institutionnelle, normativité et lien social Harmattan,

Liberatore, A (2001) (rapporteur ) "Democratising Expertise and Establishing Scientific Reference Systems".

Report of the Working Group 1b, Broadening and enriching the public debate on European matters,

Limoges, C Cambriosio, A., Anderson, F., Pronovost, D., Francoeur, E., Hoffman, E (1993) "Les risques associés au largage dans l'environnement d'organismes génétiquement modifiés: analyse d'une controverse" Cahiers de recherche sociologique, n°21:17-52.

Macnagthen, P., Grove-White, R., Jacobs, M., Wynne, B (1995) Public Perceptions and Sustainability in

Lancashire CSEC, Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Marchant, R (2001) "From the test tube to the table Public perception of GM crops and how to overcome the public mistrust of biotechnology in food production" EMBO Reports, 2(5):354-357.

Marris, C (2001) "La perception des OGM par le public : remise en cause de quelques idộes reỗues"

Marris, C (2000) "Swings and roundabouts: French public policy on agricultural GMOs since 1996" Politeia

Marris, C and P.-B Joly (1999) "Between consensus and citizens: public participation in technological decision-making in France" Science Studies, 12(2):3-32.

Marris, C., Langford, I., O'Riordan, T (1998) "A quantitative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: comparison with the psychometric paradigm" Risk Analysis, 18:635-647.

Marris and Wynne (1997) conducted a research proposal titled "Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe," which was submitted to the European Commission's DG12 This proposal focuses on the ethical, legal, and social implications of agricultural biotechnologies within the Food and Agro-Industries Research (FAIR) Programme.

Martin, S and Tait, J (1992) "Attitudes of selected public groups in the UK to biotechnology" In J Durant

(Ed.), Biotechnology in Public: a Review of Recent Research Science Museum, London, pp 28–41. Mayer, S., Hill, J., Grove-White, R., Wynne, B (1996) "Uncertainty, Precaution and Decision Making" ESRC

Morgan, D and Krueger, R (1997) Focus Group Kit Vols 1-6 London, Sage.

Morgan, D (1988) Focus groups as Qualitative Research London, Sage.

Noiville, C and Gouyon, P.-H (1999) "Principe de précaution et organismes génétiquement modifiés Le cas du mạs transgénique" In P Kourilsky et G Viney, Le Principe de Précaution, Odile Jacob, Paris, Annexe 2, pp 277-340.

OCDE (1986) Recombinant Safety Considerations: safety considerations for industrial, agricultural and environmental applications of organisms derived by recombinant DNA techniques OECD, Paris.

O'Connor, M and Tsang King Sang, J (Eds.) (1998) "Social Processes for Environmental Valuation: The

VALSE Project Full final Report to the DGXII, European Commission, for contract ENV4-CT96- 0226" C3ED, Université de Versailles-Saint Quentin en Yvelines (http://alba.jrc.it/valse/)

Pawson, R (1989) A Measure for Measures: a Manifesto for Empirical Sociology Routledge, London.

Pellizzoni, L and Ungaro, D (2000) "Technological risk, participation and deliberation Some results from three Italian case studies" Journal of Hazardous Materials, 78:261-280.

Philo, G (Ed.) (1999) Mesage Received Glasgow Media Group Research 1993-1998 Longman, London. Reilly, J (1999) "'Just another food scare?' Public understanding and the BSE crisis" In G Philo (Ed.)

Message Received, Glasgow Media Group Research 1993-1998 Longman, London, pp 128-145.

Renn, O and Zwick, M (1997) Risiko- und Technikakzeptanz Springer, Berlin.

Rip, A (1986) "Controversies as informal technology assessment" Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion,

Rosa, E and Dunlap, R (1994) "The polls-poll trends Nuclear power: three decades of public opinion"

Schọrer-Zỹblin, E (Ed.) (1998) L'alimentation au fil du gốne Fondation Alimentarium de Nestlộ, Vevey. Sentmartí, R., Cáceres, J., Lemkow, L (2000) "GMOs in Spain: Information versus trust in shaping public opinion" Politeia (special issue), n°60:38-52.

Simmons, P and Weldon, S (2000) "The GM Food Controversy in Britain: Actors, Arenas and Institutional

Slovic, P (2000) The Perception of Risk Earthscan, London.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S (1979) Rating the risks Environment, 21(3):14-20 and 36-39.

Stewart, D W and Shamdasani, P N (1990) Focus Groups: Theory and Practice Sage, London.

Stirling, A (1999) "On science and precaution in the management of technological risk" Final report to the

EC Forward Studies Unit, under the auspices of ESTO network SPRU, University of Sussex, Brighton.

Walker, G Simmons, P., Irwin, A., Wynne, B (1998) "Public Perception of Risk Associated with Major

Accident Hazards" Contract Research Report 194/1998 HSE Books, Sudbury.

Waterton, C and Wynne, B (1999) "Can focus groups access community views?" In R Barbour and J

Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice Sage, London, pp 27-143.

Weldon, S and Wynne, B (2001) "Assessing Debate and Participative Technology Assessment" ADAPTA project The UK National Report CSEC, Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Wynne, B (2001) "Expert discourses of risk and ethics on genetically manipulated organisms: the weawing of public alienation" Politeia, n° 62:51-76.

Wynne, B (1995) "Public understanding of science" In S Jasanoff, G E Markle, J C Petersen, T Pinch,

Handbook of Science and Technology Studies London, Sage, pp 361-388.

Wynne, B., Grove-White, R., Waterton, C (1993) "Public perceptions of the nuclear industry in West

Cumbria" Report to Cumbria County Council CSEC, Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Wynne, B (1992) "Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public uptake of science" Public

Publications issued from PABE study to date

"EC study reveals an informed public", Nature Biotechnology 19(1):15-16 (2001) By Sabine Louet.

"BSE Lọsst grỹòen", Sỹddeutsche Zeitung, 21 November 2000 By Holger Wormer.

Cáceres, J., Lemkow, L., Sentmartí, R (2001) "Percepción de la biotecnología agroalimentaria en Europa"

Ciencia, Medicina, Comunicación y Cultura, XXI, July-December.

Colombo, M (2000) "Cittadini consumatori di OGM: a cosa serve una maggiore educazione?" Politeia

De Marchi (2002) Kéiron, (review of Farmindustria), article in preparation.

De Marchi, B (guest editor) (2001) "Risk and Governance" Issue Journal of Hazardous Materials (special issue), 86:1-3.

De Marchi, B and L Pellizzoni (2001) "The complexity of public perception of transgenic food", In M

Pasquali et al Preprints of Eursafe 2001, Third Congress of the European Society for Agricolture and

Food Ethics, Florence, 3-5 October 2001 A&Q, Polo per la qualificazione del sistema agroalimentare, University of Milano.

De Marchi B and Pellizzoni, L (2001) "Public Perception of agricultural biotechnologies in Italy" Quaderno

01-1 Programma Emergenze di Massa, Istituto di Sociologia Internazionale, Gorizia.

De Marchi, B (guest editor) (2000) "Genetic Technologies applied to Agriculture in Europe: Between

Technocracy and Participation" Politeia (special issue) n°60.

De Marchi, B.(2000) "Introduzione" Politeia (special issue), n°60:7-9.

De Marchi, B (2000),"Opinione pubblica e nuove biotecnologie applicate all'agricoltura: il caso italiano ed alcuni confronti con altri paesi" Politeia (special issue), n°60:10-21.

De Marchi B and Pellizzoni, L (2000) "Ascoltare il pubblico: il caso delle tecnologie genetiche in agricoltura." Quaderno 00-1, Programma Emergenze di Massa, Istituto di Sociologia Internazionale, Gorizia.

De Marchi B and Pellizzoni, L (2000) "Confronto fra stakeholders sul caso delle tecnologie genetiche in agricoltura" Quaderno 00-4, Programma Emergenze di Massa, Istituto di Sociologia Internazionale, Gorizia.

Hampel, J., Klinke, A., Renn, O (2000) "Beyond 'red' hope and 'green' disrust Public perception of genetic engineering in Germany" Politeia (special issue), n°60:68-82.

Lemkow, L and Cỏceres, J (2000) "La biotecnologớa en Espaủa" La situaciún del mundo 2000 Informe anual del Worldwatch Institute Icaria Editorial, Barcelona.

Levidow, L., and Marris, C (2001) "Science and Governance in Europe: lessons from the case of agbiotech"

Marris, C (2001) "La perception des OGM par le public : remise en cause de quelques idộes reỗues"

Marris, C (2001) "Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths" (Viewpoint) EMBO Reports 2(7):545-

548 (http://embo-reports.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/2/7/545)

Marris, C (2001) "Public perceptions of transgenic products: the influence of the behaviour of laboratory scientists" In J.-P Toutant and E Balàzs (Eds.) Molecular Farming : Proceedings of the OECD

Workshop held in La Grande Motte (France) September 3-6, 2000 INRA editions, Versailles pp

Marris, C (2000) "Swings and roundabouts: French public policy on agricultural GMOs since 1996" Politeia

Marris, C and P.-B Joly (1999) "Participation des citoyens franỗais dans l'ộvaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques" Risque et Démocratie: savoirs, pouvoir, participation… vers un nouvel arbitrage ? Cahiers de la sécurité intérieure, n°38:97-124

Marris, C and P.-B Joly (1999) "Between consensus and citizens: public participation in technological decision-making in France" Science Studies, 12(2):3-32.

Pellizzoni, L (2001) "Democracy and the governance of uncertainty The case of agricultural gene technologies" Journal of Hazardous Materials, 86:1-3:205-222.

Pellizzoni, L and De Marchi, B (2001) "Rischio e democrazia nella questione delle tecnologie genetiche"

Pellizzoni, L (2000) "Le tecnologie genetiche e la governance dela scienza e della tecnologica" Politeia

Pellizzoni, L and De Marchi, B (2000) "Gestire l'incertezza Il caso delle tecnologie genetiche alimentari"

Sentmartí, R (forthcoming) "From agri-culture to agri-business The anthropological consequences of transgenic organisms" Philosophy East and West A Quarterly of Comparative Philosophy.

Sentmartí, R., Cáceres, J., Lemkow L (2000) "GMOs in Spain: Information versus trust in shaping public opinion" Politeia (special issue), n°60:38-52.

Simmons, P and Weldon, S (2000) "The GM Food Controversy in Britain: Actors, Arenas and Institutional

Wynne, B (2001) "Expert discourses of risk and ethics on genetically manipulated organisms: the weawing of public alienation" Politeia, n° 62:51-76.

Protocol for Phase I focus groups

(10 minutes – N.B timings are approximate and only included as a rough guide)

The discussion will be facilitated by a moderator, a social researcher from [Name University], who will guide the conversation effectively A colleague will assist by taking notes and managing the tape recorder to ensure all important points are captured during the session.

• Explain what use will be made of audio recordings: the recordings will only used by the researchers, and the identity of the participants will not be revealed.

• Explain that this research has European Commission funding.

• Repeat that the group will be discussing food and new developments in food production.

• Explain that participants should be free to express their opinions, that their opinions matter, that there are no right or wrong answers.

1.2 Warm-up question to participants

"Will you each introduce yourself and say a little about who is responsible for buying and preparing food in your household." (Go around the room)

Reflecting on the evolution of food production, it's essential to recognize both the positive advancements and the concerning aspects One significant improvement is the increased efficiency and sustainability in farming practices, which have led to higher yields and reduced environmental impact However, a notable concern is the prevalence of processed foods, which often contain unhealthy additives and contribute to rising health issues Balancing these changes is crucial for a healthier future.

Probes: What changes do participants view as significant in relation to:

• The food processing and distribution chain – processing, distribution, retailing, packaging

• Related health standards and issues

• Related environmental standards and issues

• Regulation of the food industry (is it strong/transparent/effective enough?)

• Food quality (e.g consistency, flavour, safety, convenience, variety, etc.)

"What do you feel has been gained and what has been lost as a result of these changes?"

Probes: do participants make any distinction between past and recent developments?

• Perceived differences in pace of change;

• Perceptions of qualitative differences in change; and

• Judgements about good as opposed to bad changes

Compare more historical changes with changes in the past ten years or so

• Who or what are the main drivers of change in the food supply chain?

E.g consumers, retailers, food manufacturers, farmers, agro-companies, regulators (including local/regional, national and European government)

• How responsive to public demands are these different actors?

Probe: Look out for and follow up any international comparisons

If none are made spontaneously, prompt participants for their views on how things are/might be done differently in other countries.

"Where do you see these changes heading? Where do you think the food industry will be in ten years time?"

(Don't go round the table)

Part 3 –GM CROPS AND FOODS (15 mins)

"What images or associations does the term 'genetically modified food' raise for you?"

Make a list and probe to find out what associations and meanings images have.

Genetically modified foods, defined as organisms altered through genetic engineering, are increasingly being utilized in agriculture and food production.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are bacteria, plants or animals which have had some of their characteristics changed by manipulating their genetic make-up

• Have you heard about such developments?

• Where did you hear/see that?

• Have they encountered different or conflicting points of view?

• Who do you/would you believe?

• How do you feel about these developments?

Part 4 –EXAMPLES OF GM FOODS (35-40 minutes)

"We have talked generally about genetically modified foods What I would like to do now is to give you a few specific examples and hear your views about them."

Probe questions for all examples:

• Is such a development generally a good or bad thing? In what way?

• What companies would be the first to make them – why?

• Which shops would be the first to sell them – why?

• Who would buy/use a product made in this way?

• In what ways do you think these people are like/unlike you?

"Here are two examples of genetically modified plant crops"

Show statements on display board or OHP

Genetically modified soya beans have been engineered for resistance to a specific weed-killer, allowing farmers to effectively eliminate weeds without harming the crop Similarly, corn has been altered by incorporating a gene from a bacterium, granting it protection against insect pests, which results in the death of the pests upon consumption of the maize.

• Are these developments generally a good or bad thing? In what way?

• Who would make and sell them?

• What kind of farmers might grow them?

"Let's look at some of the food products that might use these genetically modified crops."

Utilize a display board or overhead projector to showcase examples, opting for a collage of photographs featuring typical products This visual approach minimizes text while effectively conveying the diversity of products involved.

Soya beans may not be commonly consumed on their own, but their derivatives play a significant role in many everyday foods Soya protein is frequently incorporated into pre-cooked meals like cannelloni, shepherd's pie, and lasagna, while soy sauce is a staple in cooking Additionally, soya oil serves as a cooking oil and is an ingredient in various foods, including margarine Soya flour is utilized in bakery products, and lecithin, derived from soya bean oil, acts as an emulsifier in processed foods such as margarine, sliced bread, fruit tarts, chocolate, and biscuits Furthermore, soya flour is also an important component in cattle feed.

Maize, commonly known as corn, is a versatile food that can be enjoyed as sweet corn or corn-on-the-cob It is a key ingredient in products like corn flour, which is used to make corn flakes and corn chips Additionally, corn flour, modified starch, and gluten from maize are present in various everyday foods, including packet soups, chocolate desserts, frozen meals, tomato sauce, biscuits, baby food, crackers, and custard powder Beyond human consumption, corn is extensively used as animal feed for pigs and poultry Furthermore, corn derivatives such as starch and sugars serve important roles in non-food applications, including the production of paper, glues, pharmaceuticals, and plastics.

Tomatoes: "Another example is tomato paste, made from tomatoes that have been genetically modified so that they soften more slowly This makes processing into tomato paste easier."

• What do you think about the use of genetically modified ingredients in these foods?

• What benefits do you think they may have?

Probe: If labelling not raised spontaneously move onto labelling by asking:

• Do you think such products should be labelled?

Probe to see why they want product labelling: e.g health and safety, ethical or environmental reasons for labelling and food-choice.

• Do you read food labels?

• What kind of people read labels?

• Do you think the food producers will want to label such foods?

Move on to GM animals and pharmaceutical applications

"We have talked about genetically modified plants There are also experiments with animals Let's look at some types of genetically modified animals that might soon be used in agriculture."

Show statements on display board or OHP

A trout gene has been inserted into carp to make the fish grow quicker.

An animal gene has been inserted into salmon to make the fish grow quicker.

A human gene has been introduced into pigs to make them grow quicker.

• What do you feel about these developments?

• What benefits do you see them bringing?

• Who will benefit? (e.g consumer or producer)

• Are they (all) desirable…or is it needed?

"This same technology can also be used to produce pharmaceutical products, although none have been commercialised as yet Here are two examples of experimental developments."

Show statements on display board or OHP

A human gene has been inserted into tobacco plants to produce haemoglobin, that it is hoped could be used to treat human patients.

Scientists have genetically modified sheep by inserting a human gene, enabling the extraction of a potential medicinal treatment from their milk for serious human diseases.

Genetically modified maize, specifically engineered for resistance to insect pests, is a topic of renewed discussion This innovative product showcases advancements in agricultural biotechnology aimed at enhancing crop resilience and sustainability.

Show each statement in succession (use boards or OHP):

Experts have evaluated the safety of genetically modified corn and found no scientific evidence linking the insect toxin present in the corn to harm in humans This toxin exists only in minimal amounts in the edible parts and is eliminated during processing Consequently, consumers can confidently enjoy genetically modified corn without any safety concerns.

Genetically modified crops with natural insecticides reduce the need for chemical pesticides, promoting safer agricultural practices Our feeding trials on animals indicate that genetically modified corn is comparable in safety to conventional corn This innovative technology is crucial for enhancing global food production without the necessity of extensive land cultivation.

Company that produces genetically modified plants

Genetic engineering has transcended species boundaries, creating novel organisms that do not exist in nature or through conventional breeding methods Some scientists express concerns about the unpredictable long-term effects of genetically modified corn, suggesting it could lead to increased pest resistance and disrupt natural ecological balances.

• What do you think when you read such statements?

• Which of the above are you likely to believe – and why?

• What would each of these groups have to do to improve your confidence in the use of genetic modification in the agricultural and food industries?

• What role or responsibility do you think each of these organisations should have in relation to these developments?

• Are these organisations likely to behave in such ways?

Part 6 – PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND AGENCY (10 minutes)

"Do you feel that, at present, members of the public have any role or influence in making decisions about these new developments?"

• What role do the mass media play in informing and orienting public opinion and your own views?

• Should the public have a role?

• If so, what form do you think that it should take (at national/European level)?

• Probe further on question of information (rights), etc.

Some individuals opposing these developments have resorted to direct action, including uprooting crops at test sites What are your thoughts on these actions?

Part 7 – FEEDBACK AND CLOSE (5 minutes)

The project seeks to influence public policy by highlighting critical issues and underscores the significant contributions made by participants We sincerely appreciate your attendance and engagement, and we are here to address any additional questions you may have regarding the research.

Protocol for Phase II focus groups

Outline of main sections/ themes and s uggested timings

2 Lifestyle orientations (including food-related cultures) (30 minutes)

3 Speed of change associated with food technologies (20 minutes)

4 Views on social need (and private interest) (30 minutes)

5 Food, health and nature/environment (30 minutes)

6 Summary of main points raised in the first session (10 minutes)

7 Perceived long-term uncertainties (30 minutes)

8 Views of key institutions (40 minutes)

9 Views on public agency (30 minutes)

10 Concluding statements and debriefing (10 minutes)

When utilizing this protocol, it's essential to recognize that the analytical themes are not sustainable as isolated discussion topics, as participants may naturally traverse these boundaries during group discussions For instance, in the final hour of session 1, conversations about social needs and private interests will likely intertwine with discussions on environmental and health risks due to their close interrelation Therefore, the protocol should serve as a guide for the analytical issues to be addressed rather than a rigid framework to follow While the bold prompts should be presented in a logical order, flexibility is encouraged to adapt to the flow of discussion, and the italicized probe questions are not constrained by any specific sequence.

In the later stages of session 2, you may choose not to utilize all suggested statements or stimulus materials, especially if participants have already addressed the key issues, as doing so might disrupt the discussion flow It’s important to ensure that all relevant topics are covered, even if not every quote is used Remember that the provided timings for each section are approximate and should be adapted as needed, particularly since some topics may overlap.

The primary goal of these groups is to delve into the analytical themes and issues raised during our discussions in Venice To support this effort, a separate note has been distributed, summarizing key points from those discussions that require further investigation It is essential to regard this note as equally important as the protocol to ensure that all relevant issues are considered while conducting the groups.

Explain that the research is being carried out by university researchers and is funded by the European Commission - reiterate (if necessary) that it is not market research

Explain that we are talking to several groups of people in different parts of the country/Europe.

We have already spoken to a few groups of people and want to take this opportunity to follow up on some of the issues that were raised.

Remind them that we want to hear their views on some aspects of developments in food production and agriculture.

Give a brief explanation of how the two meetings will run.

Promise a full debriefing at the end, when any questions that they may have about the research will be answered.

Ask the participants to introduce themselves (go around in turn)

2 LIFESTYLE ORIENTATIONS AND FOOD CULTURES (30-35 minutes)

Food production has evolved significantly, with one positive change being the increased emphasis on sustainable farming practices that prioritize environmental health and reduce chemical usage Conversely, a negative aspect of this evolution is the rise of industrial agriculture, which often prioritizes efficiency over quality, leading to concerns about food safety and the loss of biodiversity.

Use probe questions to explore these responses as appropriate

Many individuals we've consulted have expressed similar concerns regarding food consumption Before revisiting the topic of food production, let's briefly explore some specific points raised about food consumption and gather your thoughts on them.

There isn't enough time to prepare proper meals Nowadays we only do that on special occasions or at weekends

People don't sit down and eat together anymore as a family Most of the time they tend to eat in front of the television.

Cooking for friends and family is a valuable tradition that is fading in today's fast-paced world, with many people lacking basic cooking skills.

Shopping at small shops and local markets often ensures high-quality food products The knowledgeable staff are always available to answer your questions, providing a level of trust and expertise that is often lacking in supermarkets.

In today's food landscape, consumers enjoy a wider variety of choices; however, many products often lack distinct flavors, leaving them tasting bland despite their appealing appearance.

In today's market, a wide variety of fruits and vegetables are available year-round, eliminating the traditional seasonal anticipation However, this shift diminishes the joy of eagerly awaiting seasonal produce, making it feel unnatural to enjoy fresh peaches in January.

"So what do you think about these statements?"

• For links between these issues

• For ways in which participants feel that these issues have affected them.

Recent discussions highlight a prevailing sentiment that the evolution of food production has led to a loss of essential qualities Many express concern that amidst these changes, something valuable has been sacrificed What are your thoughts on this perception?

"What is it that you feel we have lost?

What could we do to regain it" ( i.e whatever is identified as being lost )?

"How do you see these things developing in the future?"

One significant development in food production is the rise of genetically modified crops and foods This topic has garnered considerable attention recently, especially with ongoing media coverage highlighting the implications and benefits of GMOs.

"What associations does that have for you? "

Quote or show the brief definition used in phase 1:

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are bacteria, plants, or animals whose genetic makeup has been altered to enhance specific traits These organisms are increasingly being utilized in agriculture and food production to improve crop yields and resilience.

If participants do not make the link themselves, ask:

"How does genetically modified food fit in or relate to the other changes that we have been talking about?"

In our earlier discussions, there were mixed reactions to the rapid pace of change; some individuals expressed concern, while others remained unfazed What are your thoughts on this matter?

• Do they feel that the pace of change has been getting faster?

• If so, what implications does that have?

"Some people have said: 'You can't stop progress!' On the other hand, some people have told us that progress needs to be controlled What do you think?"

• What do people mean/understand by 'progress'?

• Do they see it as a good/bad thing - or are they more ambivalent?

• Is 'progress' seen as being inevitable?

If they have not already included GMOs in this discussion:

"How do genetically modified crops and foods fit in here?"

Probe for links between GMOs and notions of progress; also for concerns about speed of introduction of the technology and its products, e.g.

The debate surrounding genetically modified foods centers on the pace of their benefits; some individuals argue that advancements are not being realized quickly enough, while others advocate for a more cautious approach This divergence in opinion highlights the need for a balanced discussion on the implications of GMOs in our food systems.

Watch out for and probe any links made between GMOs and other technologies.

4 PERCEIVED TENSION BETWEEN SOCIAL NEED AND PRIVATE INTERESTS (30 minutes)

I am interested in your thoughts on the potential applications of genetic modification in plant crops Notably, several existing methods have already demonstrated their impact on enhancing crop production.