DIALOGUE

Moving from Debate to DialogueAbout Genetically Engineered Foods

and Crops:Insights from a Land Grant University

Jennifer L. WilkinsVivica Kraak

David PelletierChristine McCullum

Ulla Uusitalo

ABSTRACT. Land Grant Universities (LGUs) are major centers of re-search on genetically engineered foods and crops. Cooperative extensionplays an important role in planting decisions at the farm level and foodacceptance at the consumer level. Using Q methodology, this study ex-

Jennifer L. Wilkins, David Pelletier, and Ulla Uusitalo are affiliated with the Divi-sion of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-4401.

Vivica Kraak is Nutrition Consultant, Ithaca, NY 14850.Christine McCullum is Chair, Committee on Bioengineering in Food and Agricul-

ture, Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, a Dietetic Practice Group of the AmericanDietetic Association, 9348 Cherry Hill Road, Apartment 108, College Park, MD20740.

Address correspondence to Jennifer L. Wilkins, Division of Nutritional Sciences,MVR Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-4401 (E-mail: jlw15@cornell.edu).

Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Vol. 18(2/3) 2001 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 167

plored how LGU faculty and extension educators view complex and in-terrelated issues related to GE food crops. Three distinct viewpointsemerged: Precautionary, Promoting, and a minor viewpoint, CautiouslySupportive. With the exception of the role of LGUs, the two dominantviewpoints diverged in response to eight issue areas explored: publichealth, environmental sustainability, consumer choice, the food and ag-ricultural system, food security, animal welfare, LGU responsibilities,and regulatory and policy processes. These findings have implicationsfor the ways in which university faculty and cooperative extension stake-holders might engage in a meaningful and productive dialogue about ag-ricultural genetic engineering. [Article copies available for a fee from TheHaworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address:<getinfo@haworthpressinc.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Genetically engineered food, genetically engineeredcrops, land grant universities, cooperative extension, outlook on geneti-cally engineered food crops

INTRODUCTION

The Debate

In recent years, agricultural genetic engineering has emerged as a highlycomplex issue eliciting contentious debate among stakeholders within the ag-riculture community, the government, industry, and the public at large. Manysee genetic engineering as a logical progression in a series of advances in agri-cultural science. According to this view, genetic engineering constitutes themajor revolution that progressively follows the mechanical revolution in the1920s and the chemical revolution in the 1950s. Others, particularly those inthe sustainable agriculture movement, view genetic engineering as a qualita-tively different and highly uncertain application of agriculture science.

As the debate has intensified, genetically engineered crops and foods havebecome increasingly present in farmers’ fields and consumers’ shopping carts.In 1990, the first genetically engineered plants were grown for commercial usein the United States under USDA supervision. By 1996, six million acres ofgenetically engineered crops were grown in the United States. This figure in-creased sharply to 58 million acres by 1998 (Teitel and Wilson, 1999), with aworldwide total of 98.6 million acres (James, 1999). The first genetically engi-neered food product to reach the market in October of 1994 was the FlavrSavr

168 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

tomato, designed by Calgene. Other genetically engineered foods soon fol-lowed and are currently available on supermarket shelves, often without con-sumer knowledge of their novel features–most notably, Roundup Readysoybeans, Bt corn1 and potatoes. Several other Bt crops have been approvedfor field trials.

Proponents of agricultural genetic engineering point to the potential of thistechnology to address persistent social, health and environmental problems.For example, genetic engineering is promoted as an essential means to meetgrowing food demands and alleviate nutrient deficiencies worldwide. With aglobal population now exceeding six billion, and more nearly 800 million esti-mated to be malnourished in developing countries (FAO, 1999), hopes arehigh that this technical solution will alleviate the threat of persistent hungerand chronic malnutrition. By altering the nutritional components of foodcrops, advocates suggest that genetic engineering will improve yields and canalso potentially mitigate nutrient deficiencies common in developing coun-tries. For example, it is proposed that vitamin A and iron deficiency may be ad-dressed by increasing the nutrient content and/or bioavailability of nutrients incertain foods. By genetically engineering pest resistance into crops, the needfor pesticides is expected to decline thereby affording considerable environ-ment benefit.

Critics of agricultural genetic engineering argue that the use of the technol-ogy will actually threaten environmental quality and human health, amplify re-cent negative trends and economic setbacks for farmers, exacerbate socialinequity, and lead to more concentrated and corporate control of the food sys-tem. Some of the predicted environmental threats include: an increased use ofcertain herbicides, a loss of biodiversity, and enhanced pesticide resistanceamong target organisms. Another major concern articulated in Europe, Japan,and increasingly in the United States relates to the timetable to market geneti-cally engineered foods before the potential long-term impacts on the environ-ment, human health, and community food systems are more fully identifiedand understood.

Science and Values

The disagreements over the benefits and drawbacks of agricultural geneticengineering exist within a much larger debate that calls into question how weview the nature of science. The dominant view on this contested terrain is thatscience is an objective, well-ordered and progressive system of knowledge(Barker, Anthony and Peters, 1993). Research institutions rely on the beliefthat knowledge generated by the scientific method is objective, rational, andcapable of revealing nature “as it actually is” (Middendorf and Busch, 1997).Acceptance of this view of science is built on a clear dichotomy between facts

Dialogue 169

and values, exemplified by the following perspective: “It is assumed that sci-ence can determine a fact, that facts represent an objective reality, and that val-ues or beliefs play no role in the determination of facts. In addition, sciencepresents its practitioners with the puzzles that need to be solved; science is not(and should not be) concerned with changing social, economic and politicalfashions” (Barker, Anthony and Peters, 1993:5).

However, it should be recognized that there are many types and ways ofgenerating knowledge that depart from the conventionally recognized meth-ods and different conclusions that can be drawn from the results. There are al-ternatives to the reductionist dissection of problems which results in a loss oftheir social, political and biological contexts and increases the risk of unantici-pated consequences. These alternatives have the potential to foster unorthodoxbut potentially productive research initiatives, illuminate important connec-tions between organisms and phenomena, and achieve a holistic understandingof ecological systems (Kloppenburg, 1991). Barrett and Raffensperger (1999)suggest that the “mechanistic ideal” of science is inappropriate and inadequateto account for the complexities of current environmental and health issues.Mechanistic science is described as reductionistic–ignoring the larger contextof the research subject–and embodying many assumptions of positivist science“in which methods are based primarily on deduction, experiments are replicable,theories are predictive, and the scientific endeavor is considered to be valuefree” (Barrett and Raffensperger, 1999:109-110). “Precautionary science” isoffered as a viable alternative to mechanistic science, in which scientists act ascollaborative problem solvers in a broad community of peers (i.e., other stake-holders).

Land Grant Universities and Agricultural Research

These contrasting options for generating knowledge through scientific in-quiry have tremendous relevance to centers of agricultural research, in general,and land grant universities (LGUs), in particular. Since their inception, LGUshave made enormous contributions to agricultural research and technologicaldevelopments that are accepted as indicators of successful agricultural re-search advancements. These include: improving agricultural production whichhas contributed to the abundance of choices in our food supply, enhancing effi-ciency of the global and U.S. food system, and providing relatively inexpen-sive and safe food that consumers enjoy.

While undeniable benefits have come from the research and extension pro-grams of LGUs, concerns regarding the safety and potential unanticipated oradverse impacts of newly emerging technologies are long standing. As a casein point, in 1979 the newly founded California Agrarian Action Project(CAAP) of Yolo County, California, filed a landmark suit against the Univer-

170 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

sity of California for using taxpayer dollars in the creation of technologies thatbenefit large farms, and hurt small farms and farm workers.2 Concern over thepotential long-term impacts of technologies used to genetically modify foodcrops on the environment, human health, and the food system is intensifying.Kloppenberg (1991) stresses the need to deconstruct agriculture science,claiming that it provides neither a complete, nor an adequate, and not even abest possible account of the sphere of agricultural production (p. 520).

After World War II, the primary influences on agricultural research deci-sion-making shifted in relative terms from farmers and general farm organiza-tions to powerful commodity organizations, agri-food industries, and in thelast few decades, consumer and environmental organizations (Middendorf andBusch, 1997). This shift in influence and accountability has played a role in thenature of the research questions pursued by agricultural researchers and theframing of the problems the research sought to address. A growing constitu-ency questions the extent to which LGUs are upholding their original missionto improve the lives of rural people and to bring benefits to a broad constitu-ency of common citizens. Agricultural research programs, when established atthese public institutions, were expected to serve the “public good” and respondto the needs of the common man. Criticism has been leveled against LGUs,particularly over the past three decades, related to the level of consistency be-tween an evolving research agenda and public versus private interests.

Agricultural biotechnology exemplifies a scientific development that repre-sents multiple issues, affects a diverse set of parties, and creates significantchallenges in the area of policy development and regulation. As genetic engi-neering of food crops becomes a more prominent feature of the LGU researchagenda, consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the existence of thesenew food products and are forming judgments based on information that ishighly variable in quality, accuracy and completeness. Likewise, as the com-plexity of issues related to agricultural biotechnology is more clearly articu-lated, university faculty and extension educators at LGUs engaged in advancingthe science are forming views on the potential benefits, hazards, and risks as-sociated with the various scientific applications.

Through the cooperative extension system, LGUs influence technologyadoption, facilitate public issues education related to agriculture and food sys-tems, and interpret the implications of research findings for a broad range ofpublic constituents. Thus, the system also has the potential to shape publicopinion with respect to new agriculture technologies. LGUs exert significantinfluence not only on the use of genetically engineered seeds by farmers, butalso the acceptance of genetically engineered food products by the consumingpublic. Given this potential impact on technology adoption by growers andproduct acceptance by consumers, how the land grant community views thisnew technological development is a relevant consideration.

Dialogue 171

A number of questions need to be addressed: Is there a common understand-ing of the potential risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology within theLGU research and extension system? Is there a consistent voice to guide publicunderstanding of the issues surrounding genetic engineering? If so, what is thatvoice? While it may be reasonable to assume that a consensus exists amonguniversity faculty, researchers and county-based extension educators, this isnot known. Even within these groups of stakeholders, opinions and viewpointsmay vary.

With these questions in mind, the purpose of this paper is to shed light onhow faculty and extension educators at one LGU respond to the complex andinterrelated issues that surround the development and research application ofgenetic engineering. We examine how on-campus faculty and county-basedextension educators vary in their view of agricultural genetic engineering bydiscipline and area of responsibility. The study was conducted with the fullsupport of extension administration, the College of Agriculture and Life Sci-ences (CALS), and the Division of Nutritional Sciences (DNS) at Cornell Uni-versity in Ithaca, New York.

METHODOLOGY

Q Methodology

This study employed Q methodology to characterize the major viewpointson genetically engineered foods and crops among selected faculty at a LGUand county-based extension educators. Q methodology provides insight intothe various ways that people understand an issue based on their expressed feel-ings and opinions. It can be used to identify emergent viewpoints for a specificarea of interest and reveal how they converge and diverge. Of particular rele-vance to the topic at hand, Q methodology is capable of revealing the existenceand nature of multiple viewpoints on an issue and the main features of eachviewpoint. It can also help to identify central issues in contention and clarifypossible directions for action (Brown, 1980; Gargan and Brown, 1993). Sinceits development in the 1930s, Q methodology has been used to study a range ofhuman phenomena such as opinions, attitudes, perceptions, and values as theyrelate to pertinent issues.

One of the advantages of Q methodology over most attitude survey method-ologies is that it can assess the major areas of agreement and disagreement, in-cluding their relative significance in selected groups by analyzing how subjectssort a set of statements that express a range of viewpoints on the issue beingstudied (Brown, 1980). Moreover, it does not focus on responses to individualstatements in isolation, but patterns of responses across all statements for eachindividual study participant. The primary strength of Q methodology is dis-

172 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

covery, not verification, and the emergent factors are inductive rather than de-ductive.

For the present study, over 100 statements were generated which reflecteddifferent viewpoints on a diverse set of issues related to agricultural geneticengineering. This “Q concourse” was generated from a variety of sources in-cluding published scientific papers, books, newspaper articles, Internet discus-sions, and conversations with colleagues. The issues that were the mostprominent were: public health, environmental sustainability, consumer choice,agriculture and the food system, food security, animal welfare, LGU responsi-bilities, and regulatory and policy processes. From the Q concourse, a “Q sam-ple” consisting of 48 statements was selected through two review processesinvolving representatives of the study population and the research team.

The Q study packets included a cover letter, an overview of the study, a con-sent form, instructions on completing the Q sort, a response recording sheet,one set of statement cards, seven sorting envelopes, and an addressed stampedreturn envelope. On the bottom of the consent form, study participants wereasked to indicate how they would generally characterize their view toward ag-ricultural genetic engineering (i.e., “generally cautious,” “generally positive,”“undecided” or “other”) before reading the study overview and proceedingwith the statement sorting.

Respondents were instructed to sort the 48 statements into levels of agree-ment and disagreement, on a seven point scale from �3 for strongly disagree,to + 3 for strongly agree and then to record the statement numbers in the appro-priate response columns on the recording sheet. Additionally, respondentswere asked to sort the statements according to a predetermined distributiontypical of the Q methodology: four statements in each of the “strongly agree”and “strongly disagree” columns, six in each of the “disagree” and “agree” col-umns, eight each in the “somewhat agree” and “somewhat disagree” columnsand twelve statements in the “no opinion or mixed feelings” column.3 Once thesorting was complete, respondents were asked to indicate any change in theirgeneral view toward genetically engineered food crops after considering thestatements.

Study Sample

On-campus faculty and county-based extension educators were recruited toparticipate in the study. The campus-based participants were sought from de-partments for which genetically engineered foods and crops would logicallyhave some disciplinary relevance. Therefore, virtually all the disciplineswithin the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences were included in the re-cruitment of study participants, as was the Division of Nutritional Scienceswithin the College of Human Ecology. All county-based extension educators

Dialogue 173

with responsibilities in nutrition and/or agriculture were asked to participate inthe study.

County-based extension personnel consisted of three primary subgroups–executive directors, nutrition educators, and agriculture educators. Study packetmailings were sent to the following subsamples (the number of packets mailedto each subsample is indicated in parentheses): County Extension AssociationExecutive Directors (37); County-Based Nutrition Educators (60); County-Based Agriculture Educators (74); Agriculture Program Leaders (56); ProDairy (12); Department Extension Leaders (24); Division of Nutritional Sci-ences Faculty (60); College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Faculty (373).

Study packets were sent to 469 on-campus faculty and 227 off-campus ex-tension educators for a total distribution of 696. Announcements about thestudy along with official requests to participate were sent from college and de-partmental administration to potential participants via campus and extensionsystem electronic listservs and paper newsletters. Once the study packets weresent, no follow-up reminders, requests or mailings were sent.

The data were factor-analyzed using the centroid method and varimax rota-tion with the Q software (PQ Method, version 2.09, 1999). Preliminary analy-sis with solutions ranging from two to four factors pointed to the presence ofthree distinct factors.

Q factor analysis bears important distinctions from R factor analysis that isbased on a data matrix of people (rows) and variables (columns). In contrast, Qmethodology is based on a data matrix of statements (rows) and people (col-umns). This data matrix generates a correlation matrix that shows the degree ofsimilarity in statement sorting between any two individuals with coefficientsranging from �1 to +1. The factors generated from such a matrix representgroups of people that sort the statements in a similar way, as opposed to thefactors emerging from R factor analysis, which refer to latent variables associ-ated with clusters of the measured variables.

Several steps are involved in the characterization of the viewpoints eachfactor represents. First, the average score that people in the factor gave to eachof the 48 statements (ranging from �3 for strongly disagree to +3 for stronglyagree) is calculated. Next, each person’s score for each statement is convertedto a Z-score in order to standardize the distribution across all 48 statements.The statements are then arranged from those with the highest degree of agree-ment (positive Z-scores) to greatest disagreement (negative Z-scores). Finally,a qualitative analysis is conducted of those statements with the highest degreeof agreement and disagreement. In the present study, as in others conducted bymembers of this research team (Pelletier et al., 1999), inductive qualitativeanalysis was performed on the top ten agree, top ten disagree and the most dis-tinguishing statements associated with each factor. A total of 25-30 statements(roughly half of the Q sample) was either in the top ten agree and disagree cate-

174 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

gories and/or among the most distinguishing statements making them appro-priate for the narrative for each factor. The most dominant and interrelatedthemes were described and interpreted in relation to each other, as well as tothose in the other factors. The narrative describing each factor highlights thedominant issue categories and the salient themes that are compared and con-trasted across each of the three factors.

Respondents

A total of 239 Q sorts were returned. Of these, 15 were not usable due tomissing data and one respondent requested that his returned Q sort be removedfrom the data analysis. The remaining 223 Q sorts, representing 32% of the en-tire mailing, were analyzed. In Q methodology, representativeness does notdepend on a large sample size of respondents or a high response rate as it doesin R methodology. Instead, representativeness of statements for the topic un-der study that comprise the concourse, from which the smaller Q sample isdrawn for sorting, is essential. The Q technique does not study the distributionof beliefs within a population. Rather, it is an inductive method used to explorewhat the beliefs are in an in-depth way. Ninety-eight Q-sorts represented fac-ulty from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 105 were from off-campus extension educators and association executive directors, and 20 repre-sented faculty from the Division of Nutritional Sciences.

The request to sort the statement in accordance with the pre-established nor-mal distribution (which is consistent with but not imperative to complete the Qanalysis) was one of the most common complaints received from study partici-pants. While study participants were strongly encouraged to comply, theywere also advised in the instructions, “. . . if you strongly believe that your trueviewpoints would be seriously misrepresented by doing this, then you may cat-egorize the statements accordingly.”

Overall, 66% of the total sample complied with the request to follow theforced distribution. This rate varied among the subsamples as follows: 60% ofthe College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) sample, 72% of theoff-campus sample, and 67% of the Division of Nutritional Sciences (DNS) re-spondents adhering to the forced distribution. The Q literature provides exten-sive evidence that variation in compliance with instruction does not materiallyaffect the factor analytic results (Bolland, 1985; Brown, 1971; Cottle andMcKeown, 1980).

The recording grid form included a short demographic section that partici-pants were asked to complete on a voluntary basis. The demographic data col-lection included: professional category (CCE Association Executive Director,CCE Association Extension Educator, Administrator, Campus Faculty), per-

Dialogue 175

cent appointment by LGU mission (extension, research, or teaching), depart-ment, field or discipline, age, gender, and educational attainment.

Two hundred fifteen (96%) of the respondents provided the requested de-mographic data. Respondents ranged in age from 30 to 70 years in the CALSsubsample, from 22 to 61 years in the off-campus sample, and 30 to 77 years inthe DNS sample. The gender distribution was 7 males, 13 females, and 1non-respondent in the DNS sample; 79 males, 13 females and 6 non-respon-dents in the CALS sample; and 4 males, 99 females and 2 non-respondents inthe off-campus sample.

RESULTS

This section contains the narrative descriptions of each of three distinctviewpoints that emerged from the data. The descriptions emphasize the issuecategories most salient to each of the viewpoints, and are based primarily onthe top ten agree and disagree statements. The top ten agree and disagree state-ments for the three factors in shown in Table 1. The numbers in parentheses af-ter these statements refer to the statement number followed by the roundedfactor scores in the order of factors 1, 2, and 3. The signs preceding each factorscore indicate agreement (+) or disagreement (�).

The “Precautionary” Viewpoint

The precautionary viewpoint is characterized by a cautious orientation tothe development and application of genetically engineered food crops. Table 2indicates the salience and character of the issues in the three viewpoints byproviding the number of the statement for each category represented and thetotal number of statements from each issue category. Readers can locate thestatements by number in Appendix A which provides a listing by issue cate-gory of all 48 statements used in the study.

The issue areas most salient to the precautionary viewpoint are implicationsfor consumer choice, global food security, and the structure of the agricultureand food system (Table 2). One of the most prominent concerns expressed bythose associated with this viewpoint relates to consumers’ right to know andthe need for labeling of food products. There was strong agreement, for exam-ple, with the statement, “Consumers have the right to know if the foods theybuy have been genetically engineered or if they contain genetically engineeredingredients regardless of whether or not such foods pose any known risk to hu-man health and/or the environment.” Moreover, this right to know extended to“religious, ethical or philosophical beliefs.” Likewise, there was disagreementwith the statement, “I don’t think there is any need for food manufacturers toidentify genetically engineered ingredients on food product labels.”

176 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

TABLE 1. Top Ten Ranked Agree and Disagree Statements by Factor for All ofthe Data Sets (NOTE: bolded statements are distinguishing for that factor andones with an * are statistically significant at P < .01).

Top Ten Agree Statements by Factor for All of the Data Sets

Factor 1Precautionary Viewpoint

Factor 2Promoting Viewpoint

Factor 3Cautiously Supportive Viewpoint

43. Consumers have the right toknow if the foods they buy havebeen genetically engineered or ifthey contain genetically engineeredingredients regardless of whetheror not such foods pose any knownrisk to human health and/or theenvironment. (C�) (+3, 0, +3)

31. Land Grant Universities shouldfacilitate an open dialogue aboutthe use of genetic engineering aswell as other major changes in theagriculture and food system.(LGU�) (+3, +3, +3)

47. The role of Land GrantUniversities should be to lead athoughtful dialogue and criticalthinking related to the social,environmental, economic,ethical and technical aspects ofincorporating geneticallyengineered foods and crops inthe food system.* (LGU�)(+3, +3, +3)

31. Land Grant Universitiesshould facilitate an opendialogue about the use ofgenetic engineering as well asother major changes in theagriculture and food system.(LGU�) (+3, +3, +3)

47. The role of Land GrantUniversities should be to lead athoughtful dialogue and criticalthinking related to the social,environmental, economic, ethicaland technical aspects ofincorporating geneticallyengineered foods and crops in thefood system. (LGU�) (+3, +3, +3)

31. Land Grant Universities shouldfacilitate an open dialogue aboutthe use of genetic engineering aswell as other major changes in theagriculture and food system.(LGU�) (+3, +3, +3)

13. Genetic engineering is notlikely to be an effective tool forending world hunger becausethe underlying causes of hungerstem from other fundamentalproblems (such as faultygovernmental policies, poorfood distribution systems,poverty, and inequity) ratherthan inadequate foodproduction.* (FS�) (+3, 0, 0)

17. I am satisfied that milk anddairy products from cowsreceiving Posilac (rBST) are safefor human consumption.* (H+)(0, +3, +1)

43. Consumers have the right toknow if the foods they buy havebeen genetically engineered or ifthey contain genetically engineeredingredients regardless of whetheror not such foods pose any knownrisk to human health and/or theenvironment.* (C�) (+3, 0, +3)

47. The role of Land GrantUniversities should be to lead athoughtful dialogue and criticalthinking related to the social,environmental, economic, ethicaland technical aspects ofincorporating geneticallyengineered foods and crops in thefood system. (LGU�) (+3, +3, +3)

14. The potential benefits ofgenetic engineering in medicineand agriculture far outweigh anypotential threats to animalwelfare.* (AW+) (�1, +3, -1)

27. I feel that consumers withcertain religious, ethical orphilosophical beliefs should havethe right to know if the foods theyare eating contain geneticallyengineered ingredients.* (C�)(+2, 0, +3)

27. I feel that consumers withcertain religious, ethical orphilosophical beliefs should havethe right to know if the foods theyare eating contain geneticallyengineered ingredients.* (C�)(+2, 0, +3)

23. Land Grant Universities andextension educators should play akey role in maintaining (and insome cases restoring) consumerconfidence in the safety of the foodsupply including foods that havebeen genetically engineered.(LGU+) (�1, +2, +2)

7. It is not the role of Land GrantUniversities and extensioneducators to take a position withrespect to geneticallyengineered foods and crops butrather to educate constituentsregarding their safety,availability, application, andadvances in the science.*(LGU+) (+1, +1, +2)

Dialogue 177

TABLE 1 (continued)

4. Individual countries should beable to require the labeling ofproducts containing geneticallyengineered foods and enforcethat requirement on foodsimported from other countries,regardless of World TradeOrganization rulings.* (AFS�)(+2, �1, +1)

33. The potential health benefitsof genetic crop improvementssuch as improved nutrition andfood quality far outweighperceived public health risks.*(H+) (�1, +2, +1)

23. Land Grant Universities andextension educators should play akey role in maintaining (and insome cases restoring) consumerconfidence in the safety of the foodsupply including foods that havebeen genetically engineered.(LGU+) (�1, +2, +2)

9. I believe that the risks ofgenetically engineered foods tohuman health (such as novelproteins with potentialallergenicity) are largelyunknown. (H�) (+2, �1, +1)

39. I feel quite comfortableexpressing my views regardinggenetically engineered foodsand crops issues with mycolleagues and/or constituents.*(LGU+) (0, +2, �1)

5. Genetically engineered foodsand crops are necessary toassure an adequate food supplyfor a growing human population.(FS+) (�1, +1, +2)

34. I’m worried that theincreased use of geneticallyengineered crops in agriculturewill lead to further loss ofbio-diversity in our food andagriculture system.* (E�)(+2, �2, �1)

42. The potential environmentalbenefits of geneticallyengineered crop improvements,such as reduced need forfertilizers, irrigation, andpesticides, far outweigh anypossible risks.* (E+) (�1, +2, 0)

21. Since crop yields have ceasedto keep pace with populationgrowth, and land available forcultivation is dwindling, newgenetically engineered crops willbe needed to fight hunger in thedeveloping world. (FS+)(�2, +1, +2)

20. Genetic engineeringtechnologies generally favorlarge-scale and monocropproduction systems oversmaller-scale diversified farms.*(AFS�) (+2, �1, �2)

10. Engineering traits thatenhance resistance to certainherbicides will benefit theenvironment by decreasing theneed for chemicals.* (E+)(0, +2, 0)

37. The development of newgenetically engineered foods isessential to alleviatingmicronutrient deficiencyworldwide.* (FS+) (�2, 0, +2)

45. Developing geneticallyengineered crops will do little toalleviate hunger because theywill not increase the foodself-reliance of poor peopleworldwide.* (FS�) (+2, �1, �3)

35. When people oppose theintroduction of geneticallyengineered crops, it is areflection of pervasive publicignorance about the science andthe benefits this technology canyield.* (C+) (�1, +2, +1)

6. Use of transgenic animalspresents ethical problemsbecause, unlike bacteria orplants, animals are sentientbeings.* (AW�) (0, �2, +2)

Top Ten Disagree Statements by Factor for All of the Data Sets

Factor 1Precautionary Viewpoint

Factor 2Promoting Viewpoint

Factor 3Cautiously Supportive Viewpoint

48. The federal governmentneedn’t spend much taxpayermoney on developing regulatorypolicies related to geneticallyengineered foods and cropsbecause the corporations will usethem responsibly. (PP+)(�3, �3, �3)

38. It is morally or ethicallyunacceptable to turn animalsinto “biomachines” for themanufacture of proteins or otherbiological materials.* (AW�)(0, �3, +1)

48. The federal governmentneedn’t spend much taxpayermoney on developing regulatorypolicies related to geneticallyengineered foods and cropsbecause the corporations will usethem responsibly. (PP+)(�3, �3, �3)

44. Recent decisions on the partof some food companies (suchas Gerber and Heinz) to excludegenetically engineeredingredients from their products,should be overturned bygovernmental authoritiesbecause such actions interferewith international commerce andfree trade.* (AFS+) (�3, �2, �2)

29. Far from being a solution tothe world’s hunger problem therapid introduction of geneticallyengineered crops may actuallythreaten agricultural systemsand food security.* (FS�)(+1, �3, �2)

3. I don’t think there is any needfor food manufacturers toidentify genetically engineeredingredients on food productlabels. (C+) (�3, +1, �3)

178 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

1. I am confident that thepossible health effects ofgenetically engineered foodshave been adequately studied.*(H+) (�3, 0, �2)

11. Consumers stand to gain littlefrom genetically engineered foodswhile biotech corporations andfarmers who plant geneticallyengineered seeds stand to reapthe most benefit. (C�) (0, �3, �2)

24. I think that public researchdollars should not be used tofurther develop the “terminator”technology because it is adangerous anti-farmertechnology designed primarilyto increase seed industryprofits.* (PP�) (+1, 0, �3)

3. I don’t think there is any needfor food manufacturers toidentify genetically engineeredingredients on food productlabels. (C+) (�3, +1, �3)

48. The federal governmentneedn’t spend much taxpayermoney on developing regulatorypolicies related to geneticallyengineered foods and cropsbecause the corporations willuse them responsibly.* (PP+)(�3, �3, �3)

45. Developing geneticallyengineered crops will do little toalleviate hunger because theywill not increase the foodself-reliance of poor peopleworldwide.* (FS�) (+2, �1, �3)

26. Any negative environmentalconsequences that may arisefrom growing geneticallyengineered crops will beadequately addressed by futuredevelopments in geneticengineering or othertechnologies.* (E+) (�2, 0, �1)

6. Use of transgenic animalspresents ethical problemsbecause, unlike bacteria orplants, animals are sentientbeings.* (AW�) (0, �2, +2)

11. Consumers stand to gain littlefrom genetically engineered foodswhile biotech corporations andfarmers who plant geneticallyengineered seeds stand to reapthe most benefit. (C�) (0, �3, �2)

28. Basically, there is nodifference between the geneticengineering of today andtraditional plant breedingtechniques that have beencarried out for centuries.*(AFS+) (�2, 0, 0)

41. I believe that because cowsinjected with Posilac (rBST)experience an increasedincidence of mastitis, peoplewho drink this milk willinevitably consume higher levelsof antibiotic residues.* (H�)(0, �2, �1)

44. Recent decisions on the part ofsome food companies (such asGerber and Heinz) to excludegenetically engineered ingredientsfrom their products, should beoverturned by governmentalauthorities because such actionsinterfere with internationalcommerce and free trade. (AFS+)(�3, �2, �2)

16. If genetically engineeredfoods were unsafe for people toeat, the government would notallow them in the marketplace.*(PP+) (�2, 0, �1)

44. Recent decisions on the part ofsome food companies (such asGerber and Heinz) to excludegenetically engineered ingredientsfrom their products, should beoverturned by governmentalauthorities because such actionsinterfere with internationalcommerce and free trade. (AFS+)(�3, �2, �2)

40. It concerns me greatly that thesources of funding for agriculturalresearch at universities is directingthe research agenda increasinglytoward genetic engineering. (PP�)(+1, �2, �2)

19. Genetically engineeredingredients should be allowed infood products that bear acertified organically grown labelif the products meet all the othercriteria for organic certification.*(C+) (�2, +1, �1)

34. I’m worried that theincreased use of geneticallyengineered crops in agriculturewill lead to further loss ofbio-diversity in our food andagriculture system.* (E�)(+2, �2, �1)

1. I am confident that thepossible health effects ofgenetically engineered foodshave been adequately studied.*(H+) (�3, 0, �2)

37. The development of newgenetically engineered foods isessential to alleviatingmicronutrient deficiencyworldwide.* (FS+) (�2, 0, +2)

40. It concerns me greatly that thesources of funding for agriculturalresearch at universities is directingthe research agenda increasinglytoward genetic engineering. (PP�)(+1, �2, �2)

29. Far from being a solution tothe world’s hunger problem therapid introduction of geneticallyengineered crops may actuallythreaten agricultural systemsand food security.* (FS�)(+1, �3, �2)

Dialogue 179

TABLE 1 (continued)

21. Since crop yields haveceased to keep pace withpopulation growth, and landavailable for cultivation isdwindling, new geneticallyengineered crops will be neededto fight hunger in the developingworld.* (FS+) (�2, +1, +2)

8. Intense industry lobbying ofCongress and regulatoryagencies has shieldedgenetically engineered foodsfrom more intensivepre-approval testing and stricterregulations.* (PP�) (+1, �2, 0)

20. Genetic engineeringtechnologies generally favorlarge-scale and monocropproduction systems oversmaller-scale diversified farms.(AFS�) (+2, �1, �2)

People associated with the precautionary viewpoint do not view geneticallyengineered food crops as a viable solution to address global food security suchas alleviating hunger and micronutrient deficiencies. There was strong agree-ment that, “genetic engineering is not likely to be an effective tool for endingworld hunger because the underlying causes of hunger stem from other funda-mental problems (such as faulty governmental policies, poor food distributionsystems, poverty, and inequity) rather than inadequate food production,” anddisagreement with the notion that, “the development of new genetically engi-neered foods is essential to alleviating micronutrient deficiency worldwide.”

People who held the precautionary viewpoint believe that “genetic engi-neering technologies generally favor large-scale monocrop production sys-tems over smaller-scale diversified farms.” They disagree with the statement,“genetic engineering of today is no different from traditional plant breedingtechniques that have been carried out for centuries.”

The environmental concerns that are important to those associated with thisviewpoint include the further loss of biodiversity, and they doubt that futuretechnological developments will be able to address or reverse any negative en-vironmental consequences. Those with this viewpoint express uncertaintyabout the long-term effects of genetically engineered foods on human health,which remain largely unknown, and reveals a marked lack of confidence con-cerning the adequacy of testing for identifying possible health risks.

The precautionary viewpoint supports some form of federal involvementand action related to genetically engineered food crops, particularly the use oftaxpayer dollars to develop regulatory policies related to genetically engi-neered food crops. They also are reluctant to fully trust the government bydisagreeing that, “If genetically engineered foods were unsafe to eat, the gov-ernment would not allow them in the marketplace.”

Finally, this viewpoint supports the principle that LGUs should facilitateand lead a thoughtful and open dialogue about genetically engineered foodcrops. In fact all three viewpoints agreed that “Land Grant Universities shouldfacilitate an open dialogue about the use of genetic engineering as well as othermajor changes in the agriculture and food system” and “the role of Land Grant

180 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Dialogue 181

TABLE 2. Salience of Issues for Each Viewpoint as Indicated by StatementNumber and Issue Category.

Precautionary Viewpoint

Issue Category Agree Statements Disagree Statements Total #

precautionary supportive precautionary supportive Statements

Consumers 43, 27 3,19 4

Land Grant Universities 31, 47 2

Food Security 13, 45 37, 21 4

Agriculture and Food Systems 4, 20 44, 28 4

Health 9 1 2

Environment 34 26 2

Policy Process 48, 16 2

Animal Welfare 0

Promoting Viewpoint

Issue Category Agree Statements Disagree Statements Total #

precautionary supportive precautionary supportive Statements

Consumers 35 11 2

Land Grant Universities 31, 47 23, 39 4

Food Security 29 1

Agriculture and Food Systems 44 1

Health 17, 33 41 3

Environment 42, 10 34 3

Policy Process 40, 8 48 3

Animal Welfare 14 38, 6 3

Cautiously Supportive Viewpoint

Issue Category Agree Statements Disagree Statements Total #

precautionary supportive precautionary supportive Statements

Consumers 43, 27 11 3 4

Land Grant Universities 47, 31 7, 23 4

Food Security 5, 21, 37 45, 29 5

Agriculture and Food Systems 20 44 2

Health 1 1

Environment 0

Policy Process 24, 40 48 3

Animal Welfare 6 1

Universities should be to lead a thoughtful dialogue and critical thinking re-lated to the social, environmental, economic, ethical and technical aspects ofincorporating genetically engineered foods and crops in the food system.”

The “Promoting” Viewpoint

People associated with the promoting viewpoint are very positive about thedevelopments and technological applications of genetically engineered foodcrops and tend to want these to continue. The importance of each of the issueareas in the promoting viewpoint is indicated in Table 2 and can be comparedwith those in the precautionary viewpoint.

Those associated with the promoting viewpoint tend to have a high degreeof confidence in the science underlying genetic engineering, especially in ref-erence to human health, animal welfare, the environment, and consumer bene-fits. Those adhering to this viewpoint feel that the health benefits of GE foodcrops far outweigh the perceived health risks in general, and are confident thatfoods containing genetically engineered ingredients are safe for human con-sumption. This confidence in the safety of the food supply includes milk anddairy products derived from cows receiving Posilac (rBST). The promotingviewpoint asserts that the benefits of applied genetic engineering technologiesoutweigh the risks not only to human health but also to animal health. Further,those who hold this viewpoint downplay or deny any ethical concerns relatedto the use of animals for producing genetic engineering foods. This viewpointalso holds that the potential environmental benefits of genetically engineeredcrop improvements, such as reduced need for fertilizers, irrigation, and pesti-cides, far outweigh any possible risks. Further, there is a belief that engineer-ing traits which enhance resistance to certain herbicides will benefit theenvironment by decreasing the need for chemicals, and little concern about thepotential for increased use of genetically engineered crops in agriculture thatmay lead to further loss of biodiversity.

People with the promoting viewpoint strongly disagree that GE crops maythreaten agricultural systems and food security. For example they strongly dis-agree with the statement, “Far from being a solution to the world’s hungerproblem the rapid introduction of genetically engineered crops may actuallythreaten agricultural systems and food security.” This viewpoint holds thatconsumers benefit from GE foods, and that current opposition is reflective ofpublic ignorance of the potential benefits.

Like the precautionary viewpoint, subscribers to the promoting viewpointdisagree that corporate decisions to exclude GE ingredients from their prod-ucts should be overturned by higher authorities because such actions interferewith international commerce and free trade. They disagree that industry lobby-ing of Congress and regulatory agencies have shielded GE foods from more in-

182 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

tensive pre-approval testing and stricter regulations. However, they supportsome form of federal involvement and action related to GE foods and crops be-cause they disagree that “the federal government does not need to use taxpayerdollars to develop regulatory policies.” However, at the same time, there is lit-tle concern that the funding sources for agricultural research at universities isdirecting the research agenda increasingly toward genetic engineering.

People associated with promoting viewpoint are generally comfortable ex-pressing their views regarding genetically engineered food crops with theircolleagues and/or constituents. Finally, similar to the precautionary viewpoint,the promoting viewpoint strongly supports a facilitating role for LGUs in athoughtful and open dialogue about GE food crops. In contrast to the precau-tionary viewpoint, however, they feel that LGUs and extension educatorsshould not only facilitate an open dialogue about GE food crops, but also playa key role in maintaining and/or restoring consumer confidence in their safety.

The “Cautiously Supportive” Viewpoint

People associated with this viewpoint share some of the features of both theprecautionary and promoting viewpoints. Table 2 indicates the importance andcharacter of the issues in the cautiously supportive viewpoint by the statementnumber and the total number of statements from each issue category. Thesepositions are revealed by the statements below:

Like the precautionary viewpoint, the cautiously supportive perspectivestrongly supports consumers’ “right to know” if the foods they buy have beengenetically engineered, food product labeling, and the rights of food manufac-turers to exclude GE ingredients from their products. Adherents to this view-point are not confident that the possible health effects of genetically engineeredfoods have been adequately studied and are concerned about the lack of cur-rent knowledge about the possible and long-term health effects.

At the same time, those associated with to this viewpoint share some per-spectives with the promoting viewpoint. They disagree that, “consumers standto gain little from genetically engineered foods while biotech corporations andfarmers who plant genetically engineered seeds stand to reap the most bene-fit.” In addition, they are in favor of using genetically engineered food crops toimprove global food security and they disagree that genetically engineeredcrops may threaten agricultural systems and food security.

The cautiously supportive distinguish themselves from the other two view-points by strongly disagreeing that “developing genetically engineered cropswill do little to alleviate hunger because they will not increase the food self-re-liance of poor people worldwide.” Adherents to this viewpoint also feel thatGE crops are necessary to assure an adequate food supply for a growing humanpopulation, especially since crop yields have ceased to keep pace with popula-

Dialogue 183

tion growth and land available for cultivation has been dwindling. (These sen-timents were consistent with the promoting viewpoint, but contrary to theprecautionary viewpoint.) Moreover, people associated with this third view-point feel that development of new GE foods is essential to alleviatingmicronutrient deficiency worldwide.

Respondents who held a cautiously supportive viewpoint disagree that ge-netic engineering technologies generally favor large-scale monocrop produc-tion systems over smaller-scale diversified farms. They also oppose the use ofanimals in genetic engineering.

Similar to the other two viewpoints, the cautiously supportive feel thatsome form of federal involvement and action related to genetically engineeredfood crops is needed because they strongly disagree that corporations will usethem responsibly. Like those associated with the precautionary viewpoint,people associated with this viewpoint are not concerned about the sources offunding at universities directing the research agendas toward genetic engineer-ing. However, this perspective is unique in that members strongly disagree thatpublic research dollars should not be used to further develop the “terminator”technology.

The cautiously supportive share the feeling with members of the precau-tionary and the promoting viewpoints that LGUs should facilitate and lead athoughtful and open dialogue about genetically engineered food crops. In linewith those associated with promoting viewpoint, the cautiously supportivealso feel that LGUs and extension educators should not only facilitate an opendialogue about GE foods and crops, but also play a key role in maintainingand/or restoring consumer confidence in their food system. However, whatdistinguishes the cautiously supportive from the other two major viewpoints isthe strength of their opinion that LGUs and Extension educators should nottake a position with respect to genetically engineered food crops but rather,should “educate constituents about the various aspects of their use includingtheir safety, availability, application, and advances in the science.”

Salience of Issues Related to Genetically Engineered Food Crops

People associated with the precautionary viewpoint were generally cau-tious about GE crops and dubious of the claimed benefits. The issues of great-est concern to people with this viewpoint were consumer issues, food security,and agriculture and food system structure issues. The role of the LGUs was im-portant but less so than for the other two groups and the animal welfare issuewas absent as a salient concern. The promoting viewpoint was generally sup-portive of agricultural genetic engineering developments and confident thatthe benefits outweigh suggested risks. The most important issues for peoplewith this viewpoint related to the role of LGUs, animal welfare, health, policy

184 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

processes, and environment issues. The most salient issues for the cautiouslysupportive viewpoint were food security, consumers, the role of LGUs, andpolicy processes. Environmental issues were absent as a key concern for thisviewpoint.

Relationship Between the Factors

As long as people subscribing to different viewpoints have fundamentallydivergent values driving their feelings and opinions about this new technol-ogy, a productive dialogue is difficult and unlikely to replace a polarized de-bate. In the present study, each of the two dominant viewpoints feels verystrongly about issues that the other does not deem critical. This is confirmed inTable 3 which shows the correlation between factors. These data show that theissues of greatest concern to the promoting and the precautionary groups havelittle to do with each other (r = �.073). This non-correlation reveals that thesetwo groups do not have opposing views on the same issues; rather, they feelstrongly about different issues related to agricultural genetic engineering.

Thus, a first step toward a productive dialogue is for each group to considerthe scientific and normative basis for each other’s interests and concerns. Assuggested above in the narrative descriptions of the viewpoints, factor 3 (thecautiously supportive) has some commonality with factors 1 and 2 (r = .40 and.45, respectively). It appears that the cautiously supportive have some con-cerns in common with both of the other groups. Put another way, they ac-knowledge some of the same risks and benefits as do the other two groupsdisplaying a less strident and perhaps more ambivalent view toward the issues,stopping short of articulating what might appear to be an ideological positiondisplayed by the other two groups.

Adherence to the Viewpoints

The greatest proportion of the total sample (49.3%) held the precautionaryviewpoint, 37.2% held the promoting viewpoint, and 7.6% of the sample ad-hered to the cautiously supportive viewpoint (Table 4). Among the subsamples,the precautionary viewpoint was held by 50% of the CALS sample, 45.3% of

Dialogue 185

TABLE 3. Correlations Between Factors

Factor 1 2 3

1 1.000 �0.0730 0.4021

2 �0.0730 1.000 0.4484

3 0.4021 0.4484 1.000

the off-campus, county-based extension educators, and 68.4% of the DNSsample. A smaller proportion of each subgroup adhered to the promotingviewpoint: 41.8% from CALS, 34.9% from off-campus, and 26.3% fromDNS. Most of those associated with the cautiously supporting viewpoint (14 of17 total) were from the off-campus county-based extension educator groupwith only 2 respondents from CALS and 1 from DNS loading onto this factor.

Influence of Study Participation on General ViewToward Genetic Engineering

At the time of the study, debates related to the issues surrounding geneticengineering food crops were generally confined to interested stakeholdergroups and had not yet widely penetrated the general media. We were inter-ested in what effects, if any, engaging in a Q-sort related to genetic engineeringwould have on their general views toward these issues. On the consent form(pre-sorting) and also on the sorting grid (post-sorting), study participantswere asked to indicate their general viewpoints on genetically engineeredfoods and crops (either “generally positive,” “generally cautious,” “unde-cided,” or “other”).

A total of 186 people completed these questions related to their generalview about genetically engineered food crops. The results (Table 5) indicatethe potential for exposure to statements to influence ones general viewpoint.Within the DNS sample, 9 out of 20 who answered these questions claimed tohold a generally cautious view prior to the statement sorting, 5 held a generallypositive view, and 6 were undecided. After the sorting, four of the nine with acautious view claimed to have become more cautious, and 5 remained thesame. Of the five with generally positive views, one indicated a more cautiousview, one a more positive, and 3 remained the same. Of the six who were unde-cided before, one indicated being more cautious, and 5 remained undecided af-ter sorting the statements.

A total of 94 study participants from the CALS subsample provided data re-lated to pre- and post-sorting viewpoints. Thirty-two indicated a generally cau-tious view of genetically engineered foods and crops, 41 held a promotingview, 7 were undecided, 6 indicated “other,” and 11 did not fill in a category on

186 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

TABLE 4. Percent and Frequency of Association with Each Viewpoint AmongSubsamples

Precautionary Viewpoint Promoting Viewpoint Cautiously Supportive ViewpointTotal 49.3% (110) 37.2% (83) 7.6% (17)CALS 50% (49) 41.8% (41) 2% (2)DNS 68.4% (13) 26.3% (5) 5.3% (1)OFF 45.3% (48) 34.9% (37) 13.2% (14)

the pre-sorting questionnaire. After the sorting, 17 of the 32 with a cautiousview claimed to have become more cautious, ten remained the same, 2 wereundecided, 1 marked “other” and 2 did not respond. Of the 41 with generallypositive views, two claimed to have become more cautious, seventeen morepositive, 1 was undecided, 17 held the same views, 2 marked “other,” and 2didn’t respond. Of the eleven who didn’t complete the pre-sort questions, butdid indicate views after the sorting, 4 indicated a more cautious view, 2 a morepositive, and 2 indicated their general view remained the same.

A total of 73 study participants from the off-campus extension educatorsubsample provided data related to pre- and post-sorting viewpoints. Twenty-three indicated a generally cautious view of genetically engineered foods andcrops, 28 held a promoting view, 21 were undecided, and 1 indicated “other.”After the sorting, 18 of the 23 with a cautious view claimed to have become

Dialogue 187

TABLE 5. Effect of Q Sorting on General Views on Genetically EngineeredFoods and Crops.

DNSPre-Q Sorting: Precautionary Promoting Undecided Other Non-Response

9 5 6 0

More Cautionary 4 1 1Post- More Promoting 0 1 0Q-sorting Same 5 3 0

Undecided 0 0 5

CALSPre-Q Sorting: Precautionary Promoting Undecided Other Non-Response

32 41 7 6 8

More Cautionary 17 2 4Post- More Promoting 0 17 2Q-sorting Same 10 17 2

Undecided 2 1Other 1 2Non-Response 2 2

COUNTYPre-Q Sorting: Precautionary Promoting Undecided Other Non-Response

23 28 21 1

More Cautionary 18 5Post- More Promoting 0 12Q-sorting Same 1 2

Undecided 2 0Other 2 8Non-Response 1

TOTAL Pre-Q Sorting: Precautionary Promoting64 74

More Cautionary 39 (61%) 8 (11%)More Promoting 0 (0%) 30 (41%)Same 16 (25%) 22 (30%)Undecided 4 1Other

more cautious, 1 remained the same, 2 were undecided, 2 marked “other.” Ofthe 28 with generally positive views, five indicated becoming more cautious,twelve more positive, 2 held the same views, 8 marked “other,” and 1 didn’t re-spond. For the sample as a whole, the sorting exercise led 61% of those adher-ing to the precautionary viewpoint to report becoming more precautionary and25% to stay the same; it led 41% of those with a promoting viewpoint to reportbecoming more positive and 30% to stay the same. None of the participants as-sociated with the precautionary viewpoint changed, but 11% of those with apromoting viewpoint moved in the direction opposite to their initial view.

DISCUSSION

This study characterizes two dominant viewpoints and a third minor view-point on genetically engineered food crops held by campus faculty and county-based extension educators at the land grant university in New York State. Thestatements used in the Q-sort process were inherently and intentionally value-laden. The statements may be controversial, and were often stated in form of apronouncement as if they were factual. Each statement is self-referential andmay mean something different to each person who sorts it. Therefore, theviewpoints held by the study participants are, in part, a reflection of their valuesystem. Given that the state of the science related to the health, environmentaland social impacts of genetically engineered foods is incomplete at best, theviewpoints also are constructed out of incomplete or fragmented knowledge.Because the facts related to the issues represented in the statements are incom-plete, respondents cannot know entirely about these issues and thus, are left tomake judgements based on partial scientific knowledge, their values, andpre-existing beliefs about these issues. This is not particular to the participantsin this study; on the contrary, it is the way each of these stakeholder groups ar-rive at judgements and decisions related to agricultural genetic engineeringand other complex technologies (Stern and Fineberg, 1996; Hammond, 1996;Majone, 1989). For this reason, the present results are particularly informativeat this relatively early stage of experience with agricultural genetic engineer-ing.

Overall Findings

This study reveals the presence of three distinct viewpoints on GE foodsand crops among relatively well-educated and scientifically-literate membersof a land-grant university. One group expresses a precautionary viewpoint, asecond group expresses a promoting viewpoint, and a much smaller group ex-presses a cautiously supportive viewpoint and bears similarity to each of theother two groups.

188 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

The two major viewpoints (precautionary and promoting) reveal somestriking features. First, they are internally very consistent in either their sup-port of or their concerns related to GE food crops. This is not a necessary out-come of the research methodology: the existence of a third but smaller groupof participants (cautiously supporting) reveals that complex viewpoints thatdiffer on subtle points can and do express themselves on this issue. However,the majority of respondents in this sample (93.4%) responded to the 48 state-ments in one of these two highly consistent and oppositional patterns. Second,and related to the above, the two major viewpoints do not appear to take oppo-site sides on the same set of statements, but rather, they reflect strong reactionsto different sets of statements. Indeed, the correlation between these two fac-tors is essentially zero (�.073).

It is interesting to note that some of the statements eliciting strongest reac-tions relate to judgements about the degree of tangible risk or benefit thatmight be forthcoming from the technology. Such judgements depend in largepart on the projected hazards (theoretical unknown effects) and the knownrisks (which can be scientifically assessed with some frequency or probabil-ity). In other words, what is known (or not known) scientifically or what a re-spondent believes is known (or not known) scientifically. However, some ofthe statements are more normative as seen in the labeling, right-to-know andanimal welfare statements. These latter statements are largely public policyand/or moral questions. For instance, labeling is tied to individual autonomy ina moral democratic sense and to consumer sovereignty in the economic (socialwelfare) sense. In like fashion, animal welfare questions are tied to moral orethical beliefs. In neither case are these strictly or primarily scientific ques-tions (although decisions on these matters certainly impinge upon how scienceis conducted and influence the interests of scientists and research institutions).Yet, the precautionary group strongly favors labeling (while those with thepromoting viewpoint appear neutral on it) and the promoting viewpoint stronglyrejects animal welfare concerns (while those with the precautionary viewpointappear neutral on it). Thus it appears that these two groups not only differ intheir assessment of the tangible risks or benefits of GE technology, but theirmoral and public policy positions also are in alignment with their overall viewtoward agricultural genetic engineering. These patterns suggest that these twoviewpoints may represent ideologically diametric positions concerning GEfood crops, not just disagreements about the science.4

The suggestion that these may represent ideologically different viewpointsis further supported by participants’ own assessment of the extent to whichtheir views may have changed as a result of sorting the 48 statements. Asnoted, 61% of those who initially declared having a precautionary viewpointreported becoming even more precautionary while 25% reported staying thesame, and 41% of those who declared a promoting viewpoint reported becom-

Dialogue 189

ing even more positively inclined toward GE food crops while 30% reportedstaying the same. None of those with an initial precautionary viewpoint re-ported having changed their views in the opposite direction while 11% of thosewith an initial promoting viewpoint becoming “more cautious” in their view asa result of sorting the 48 statements. These results, in which initial views staythe same or become further entrenched, are characteristic of issues that havehigh ideological content (Rogers, 1988; Margolis, 1996; NRC, 1989). To theextent that issues surrounding agricultural GE also have high ideological con-tent, these findings are reminiscent of the experience with other novel technol-ogies (e.g., food irradiation and nuclear power) in which repeated assurancesof safety from scientists and government authorities have failed to persuadethe public and have even intensified public opposition and halted or postponedapplication of the technology. In contrast, the small shift in viewpoint amongthose initially claiming a position suggests that exposure to the range of com-plex issues involved with this new technology has the potential to influenceand moderate a strongly promoting perspective.

Apart from these overall findings, this study sheds light on a number ofother issues related to LGUs and agricultural GE technology, as discussed inthe following sections.

Approaches to Science

The viewpoints characterized in this research suggest divergent perspec-tives about science–the types of questions that should be explored, the natureof problems science can resolve, the level of expectations about what sciencecan achieve, the extent to which science can assess and characterize risk, andthe relative importance of science to values and ethics in regulation and policydevelopment. Given their level of skepticism about the benefits of GE foodcrops, concern over potential hazards (what is currently not known in terms oflong-term human health and environmental effects) and probable risks (effectsthat can be assessed with some certainty), we can expect those associated withthe precautionary viewpoint to question the objective authority and complete-ness of scientific findings related to agricultural GE technology. Researchersand educators with this viewpoint would most likely support efforts such asthose recommended by the National Research Council to improve the charac-terization of risk so as to better inform decision-making and resolution of con-troversies over risks. “Risk characterization involves complex, value-ladenjudgements and a need for effective dialogue between technical experts and in-terested and affected citizens who may lack technical expertise yet have essen-tial information and often hold strong views and substantial power in ourdemocratic society” (Stern and Fineberg, 1996:11).

190 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

It should be noted that much of the philosophical underpinning of the estab-lished Precautionary Principle (as discussed and developed elsewhere) was ap-plied to our understanding and description of the precautionary viewpoint inthis study since it very much supports this viewpoint. As Barrett and Raffen-sperger (1999) claim, national and international regulations for the release ofGE food crops are often explicitly defended through claims that they are basedon sound science or science-based frameworks. The precautionary approach(and those adhering to the precautionary viewpoint in this study) might beskeptical of the ability of science to adequately understand and address thelong-term health and environmental concerns surrounding the technology. In-stead of considering some types of uncertainty beyond the boundaries of scien-tific activity and responsibility, those with a precautionary viewpoint wouldseek development of procedures–scientific and otherwise–to resolve such un-certainty and/or make sound public decisions in the face of uncertainty. Scien-tific evidence used in decision-making about technical questions is often bynecessity restricted in its temporal and geographic scope (Barrett and Raffen-sperger, 1999). Thus, broad and complex questions (that appear to be of con-cern in the precautionary viewpoint) concerning the effects of geneticallyengineered food crops on future generations, its inherent value, and impact onother cultures, often remain subordinate to short-term goals of technology de-velopment, economic efficiency and productivity. “These problems are exem-plified by current procedures to conduct genetically engineered organism(GEO) field trials. Field trials are limited in geography and time and in thetypes of harm they aim to test. In many cases, field trials are designed to exam-ine the efficiency of the genetically modified trait rather than ecological haz-ards per se. Through limited frames of reference and use of confinementmeasures that prevent gene escape, it becomes relatively easy to support thehypothesis that GEO are safe. Major assumptions have not been challenged inthe technological leap between controlled small-scale trials and uncontrolledcommercial releases in different ecological settings ”(Barrett and Raffensperger,1999:113).

Those associated with the promoting viewpoint would tend to believe thatconventional scientific methods can adequately address, and indeed have ad-dressed, issues relevant to decisions about the release and marketing of GEfood crops. This perspective indicates that because science can separate factsand values, and science yields facts that experts provide to decision-makers forpolicy development and regulation, then these science-based decisions arebest and inevitable. Further, scientific evidence in this viewpoint should pro-vide the basis for decision-making thereby subordinating peoples’ values andethical considerations. This viewpoint would disagree with the assessment ofscientific facts as being quite fragile and largely determined by theory and by theparticular measurements of the observer (Barker and Peters, 1993). Middendorf

Dialogue 191

and Busch (1997) describe that there are “people who do not view elitism inscience and technology as problematic because they see the scientific elite asthe only appropriate group to make scientific and technological decisionsgiven an increasingly complex world. Democratizing science is viewed as apopulist notion that is untenable because of the assumption that the public isunable to participate in highly technical decisions.”

Developments in agricultural genetic engineering touch upon every aspectof the food system from production, marketing and trade, health and nutrition,consumer education, natural resource management, and policymaking. Thelong-term environmental effects of agricultural application of the technologyas well as effects on human and animal health are at this stage unknown.Values held by scientists, regulators and citizens will influence the kind of re-search questions that are posed, the weight assigned to scientific findingsyielded from the research, how the information is used in the policymakingprocess, the attention paid to various outcomes, and decisions made by con-sumers in the marketplace. In this study, the viewpoints held by researchersand extension educators at one land grant university in New York State reflectan interplay of values, beliefs, experience, and knowledge.

Disciplinary Distinctions in Viewpoints

Previous research suggests that people working in the academic arena tendto share common perceptions on issues relevant to science and that disciplineshave distinct cultures (Busch and Lacy, 1983; Beus and Dunlap, 1992; Lyson,1998). A shared perception about what is and what is not important influencesthe types of scientific pursuits emphasized in individual departments, such asadvanced agricultural biotechnology in preference to rotational grazing in ani-mal sciences departments or emphasis on chemical or genetically engineeredcontrols rather than biological controls in weed science programs (Lyson,1998). Q methodology provides a technique for the scientific study of subjec-tivity and therefore it can illuminate some elements of these “subjective cul-tures” and what they emphasize as important.

There are two sources of information obtained from this study that can pro-vide evidence of these disciplinary differences. The first derives from the indi-vidual associations (“loadings” in the Q lexicon) with each viewpoint (“factor”)that may be identified by department or program area. The second can be as-sessed from the pre- and post-Q sort questions regarding general viewpointsabout GE food crops. In the current study, caution must be exercised whendrawing conclusions with respect to the extent of intra-disciplinary differencesand variations between extension program areas in the three viewpoints. Forthis sort of judgement to be at all accurate, a representative sample from each

192 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

department would be required. This was not sought in this study nor was it ob-tained because this study was exploratory in nature.

With these caveats in mind, a few generalizations can be permitted for dis-ciplines that had more than a few respondents. Respondents from Plant Sci-ence, Animal Science, Agricultural Resource Management and Economics(ARME) were associated predominantly with the promoting viewpoint. Re-spondents from Natural Resources, Entomology, Soil, Crop and AtmosphericSciences (SCAS), Rural Sociology, and the Division of Nutritional Sciences(DNS) were more often associated with the precautionary viewpoint. It must tobe noted, however, that with the exception of Natural Resources from whichall respondents were associated with the precautionary viewpoint, every de-partment had respondents that associated with both the precautionary and thepromoting viewpoints. In some departments all three factors were represented.One possible explanation for a prevalence of the precautionary viewpoint inthe DNS is that this academic discipline has interests primarily geared towardconsumer food-related behaviors and human health. This viewpoint is typifiedby concern over the uncertainties related to health risks, a strong support forproduct labeling, and a belief that the benefits derived from agricultural GE ac-crue primarily to farmers, the GE industry and investors but not to consumers.

Differences in viewpoints are not purely discipline-based. It stands to rea-son that given the nature of agricultural GE–characterized by a high degree ofcomplexity, uncertainty and the potential for catastrophic consequences–thosequite close to this area of basic research, as well as those far removed from it,would have diverse views (Durig, 1993). The development of nuclear technol-ogies in the 1950s and 1960s and the controversy surrounding the rapid com-mercialization of nuclear reactors in the 1960s bears some resemblance to thecurrent situation with agricultural GE (Morone and Woodhouse, 1989). Giventhe strong economic, political and professional pressures in favor of rapid scal-ing-up, the pro-technology coalition in both cases was put in a position of mak-ing safety assurances that went beyond current scientific knowledge in aneffort to meet this goal. However, these assurances failed to convince morecautious scientists or placate concerned members of the public. Both examplesreveal that the controversy stems from deeper values, beliefs, and interestsabout how to balance real or perceived risks and benefits, rather than a dispute(or debate) over scientific issues. Thus, as revealed in this study, access to ex-pert knowledge on the subject is not a strong predictor of one’s viewpoints.

Land Grant Universities as a Forum for Open Dialogue

All three of the major viewpoints revealed in this study express that LGUsshould facilitate and lead a thoughtful and open dialogue about GE food crops.The promoting viewpoint and the cautiously supportive viewpoint went fur-

Dialogue 193

ther by agreeing that “extension educators should also play a key role in main-taining and/or restoring consumer confidence in their safety.” A distinguishingfeature of the cautiously supportive viewpoint is their agreement that “LGUsand Extension educators should not take a position with respect to geneticallyengineered food crops but rather educate constituents about the various aspectsof their use including their safety, availability, application, and advances in thescience.” One possible explanation of this distinction from the other two view-points is that a large proportion of people associated with the cautiously sup-portive viewpoint (14 of the total 17) represented the off-campus subsample.The role of extension educators as facilitators of dialogue and conveyors ofscience-based information is fairly well understood within the extension sys-tem. Further, county-based extension educators might have felt compelled toagree with this statement as a demonstration of this understanding.

While consumer issues, global food security, and the food and agriculturesystem structural issues were most salient to people associated with the pre-cautionary viewpoint (factor 1), these issue categories were the least relevantto the promoting viewpoint (factor 2). Another distinct difference betweenthese two factors is the absence of animal welfare as a salient issue for the pre-cautionary viewpoint and its relative prominence in the promoting viewpointrepresented by 3 statements. This finding sheds some light on the intensity ofthe positions held and expressed in the public. Achieving a constructive dia-logue and informed decision-making will be problematic when salient issuesof deliberating parties diverge.

The promoting viewpoint was the only one for which the following state-ment salient was among the most important: “I feel quite comfortable express-ing my views regarding genetically engineered foods and crops issues with mycolleagues and/or constituents.” The absence of this statement from the othertwo viewpoints can be interpreted to mean that they were not certain or hadmixed feelings about their level of comfort in expressing their views. Anotherinterpretation is that they were uncomfortable admitting to the researchers anydiscomfort expressing their opinions, representing a potential positive re-sponse bias. The factor score for this statement in the precautionary viewpointwas 0.23 (in a range of 1.0 to �1.0) indicating that the statement was sortedclose to the neutral or middle category (“no opinion/mixed feelings”) most fre-quently. The factor score for the cautiously supportive viewpoint was �0.52,revealing a slight disagreement. The factor arrays indicate the general view to-ward this statement for the three viewpoints (0, +3, �1). While those associ-ated with the promoting viewpoint definitely felt comfortable expressing theirviews, the cautiously supportive actually indicated some discomfort in sharingtheir perspective. Another interpretation of these results may be that relative tothe other issues represented in the statements, this particular aspect was notconsidered as important. It would be unwise to conclude, for example that

194 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

those associated with the precautionary viewpoint do or do not feel comfort-able expressing their views.

If, however, we allow a qualified conclusion that members of this particularLGU and extension system who are associated with the promoting viewpointare more comfortable expressing their views relative to those with a precau-tionary or cautiously supportive viewpoint, this has serious implications forthe LGU as a forum for an open dialogue. This also raises questions about howthe agricultural research agenda is formulated and provides further evidencethat an enhanced participation (both within and outside the LGU) is needed toestablish research priorities (as elaborated in Browne et al., 1992; Busch et al.,1991; Busch and Lacy 1983; Kloppenburg, 1991; Lacy, 1996). Middendorfand Busch contend that the public agricultural research system and its constit-uents would benefit by encouraging “the participation of the fullest range pos-sible of constituents as a integral part of the process of setting researchpriorities” (Middendorf and Busch, 1996). Such an approach to shaping agri-cultural science and technology priorities is more compatible with the demo-cratic principles that are part of the LGU tradition. The results from this studysuggest that broader participation among those with diverse knowledge in es-tablishing research priorities for agricultural science and technological devel-opment needs to be fostered within the LGU system as well. Broader publicparticipation and multi-disciplinary involvement is critical to create researchprograms that are more responsive to public interests and maximize the “pub-lic good” that comes from publicly funded agricultural extension research(Middendorf and Busch, 1996).

While the role of the LGU in facilitating an open dialogue important to allthe three viewpoints described in this paper, there were significant distinctionsthat should be noted. Given the positions held on other issue categories, themotivations for thoughtful and open dialogue will likely vary among the view-points as would the substance of the dialogue if developed by any particularviewpoint group. For those adhering to the precautionary viewpoint, it appearsthat the need for thoughtful and open dialogue about agricultural GE technol-ogy relates to the concern that critical issues are not adequately understood, re-searched, or even discussed. From the promoting viewpoint, the need for sucha forum may be motivated out of a perceived need to quell concerns about atechnology that is presently deemed safe and promises benefits to consumersand farmers alike. One interpretation of statements number 23 and 7 appearingtogether in the cautiously supportive viewpoint may be that members share asupportive but more discriminating orientation toward GE technologies thanthe promoting viewpoint. Another interpretation may be that this viewpointdoes not feel that maintaining and/or restoring consumer confidence in thesafety of these food crops constitutes “taking a position” but rather fulfills un-derstood professional responsibilities. This makes a certain amount of sense if

Dialogue 195

we look at the subsample representation in Factor 3. The cautiously supportivewere primarily comprised of off-campus extension educators who most likelywork directly with public constituents.

Finally, if the conclusions drawn in the write out (CSARE) report on the ac-ademic reward process in agricultural colleges are taken into account (Barrettet al., 1998), those associated with the precautionary viewpoint may very wellnot feel free to express their views openly. This will be particularly true forfaculty seeking tenure or extension educators seeking reappointment. “The ar-gument for rewarding public interest research and scientific public serviceflows from the fact that the public supports the research and should derive thebenefits. Whether research is conducted in a government laboratory or on auniversity campus, it is funded at least partly by the public. A large percentageof all research is paid for by industry. In those cases, industry partakes in re-search benefits. Publicly funded science should target problems that are un-likely to be taken up by private industries. The kind of problems that fitsquarely with this domain include public health, food security, sustainable ag-riculture and environmental integrity” (CSARE, year: 10-11).

CONCLUSIONS

Dominant viewpoints among LGU faculty and county extension educatorsregarding several social, political, economic, environmental, ethical and healthaspects of agricultural genetic engineering can be divergent and display little,if any, common ground. Issues related to the development and application ofthis technology need further clarification in order to move from a polarized de-bate to a thoughtful and effective dialogue that the LGU system acknowledgesas being critical to sound decision-making. Scientific inquiry in the area of GEfoods and crops can be enriched by a commitment to focus research on areas ofuncertainty that have not been explored. Such an expanded research agendahas the potential to lead to greater understanding between issues held to be im-portant by stakeholders associated with different viewpoints, and lead to aclearer mutual agreement on how to move forward with agricultural geneticengineering.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported by funding from the Cornell Cooperative Exten-sion Agriculture Administration. The authors would like to thank members ofthe Division of Nutritional Sciences and the College of Agriculture and Lifesciences who carefully reviewed the statements in the development phase ofthe Q concourse and the Q sample. The authors would also like to thank themanuscript reviewers for their helpful and thought-provoking comments.

196 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

NOTES

1. Bt is a common notation for Bacillus thuringiensis, a naturally occurring soil bac-terium that, when applied in a spray on crops, is toxic to insects in their larval stage.Formulations of this bacterium are used by almost all organic farmers and by many“conventional” farmers as well, especially on fruits and vegetables. Recently, wholeplants (cotton, corn, and potatoes) have been genetically engineered to deliver acti-vated Bt toxin throughout their lifecycle in the harvested crop and in field residues.

2. Known as the Research Priorities (or “Tomato Harvester” or “Mechanization”)Lawsuit.

3. A forced distribution induces an operant response from sorters that is independentof the shape of the distribution. The scores from the distribution can be transformedinto standard scores with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 1.00 regardless ofthe shape of the distribution. It is the factor analysis that registers what is operant in agiven situation, and which provides the continuity of feeling from the top to the bottomof the factor array. Operance refers to describing phenomena as they exist naturally asopposed to the way in which they are lobically defined or categorized.

4. Ideology as used here is defined in a relatively limited sense as “an integrated set ofassumptions, assertions and aims” without making any necessary claims that it is partof an explicit socio-political program.

REFERENCES

Barker, Anthony, and B. Guy Peters. “Science, Policy and Government.” In The Poli-tics of Expert Advice: Creating, Using and Manipulating Scientific Knowledge forPublic Policy, edited by A Barker and B. Guy Peters, 129. Pittsburgh, PA: Univer-sity of Pittsburgh Press, 1993.

Barrett, K. J., E. Bartlett, E. A. Bird, L. Bull, L. M. Butler, D. R. Keeney, R. M.Klemme, L. L. Kengrick, J. P. Madden, and C. Raffensperger. “Incentives and Bar-riers to Public Interest Research and Scientific Public Service.” Consortium forSustainable Agriculture, Research and Education (CSARE) and the Science andEnvironmental Health Network (SEHN), 1998.

Barrett K. and Raffensperger C. “Precautionary Science.” In Raffensperger C. andTickner J. (Eds). Protecting Public Health and the Environment-Implementing thePrecautionary Principle. Island Press, Washington, DC, 1999.

Beus, Curtis E., and Riley E. Dunlap. “The Alternative-Conventional Agriculture De-bate: Where Do Agricultural Faculty Stand?” Rural Sociology, no. 57: 363-80, 1992.

Bolland, J. M. “The Search for Structure: An Alternative to the Forced Q-Sort Tech-nique.” Political Methodology, no. 11: 91-107, 1985.

Brown, S. “The Forced-Free Distinction in Q Technique.” Journal of EducationalMeasurement, no. 8: 283-87. 1971.

Brown, S. Political Subjectivity. New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1980.Busch, Lawrence, and William B. Lacy. Science, Agriculture, and the Politics of Re-

search. Boulder CO: Westview Press, 1983.

Dialogue 197

Cottle, C. E., and B. F. McKeown. “The Forced-Free Distinction in Q Technique: ANote on Unused Categories in the Q Sort Continuum.” Operant Subjectivity, no. 3:58-63, 1980.

Durig, Wolfgang. “Sources of Technological Controversy Proximity to or Alienationfrom the Technology?” In The Politics of Expert Advice: Creating, Using and Ma-nipulating Scientific Knowledge for Public Policy, edited by A. Barker and B. GuyPeters. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press, 1993.

FAO. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 1999. Food and Agricultural Organi-zation of the United Nations, 1999.

Gargan, John J., and Steven R. Brown. “What Is to Be Done? Anticipating the Futureand Mobilizing Prudence.” Policy Sciences 26: 347-59, 1993.

Hammond, Kenneth R. Human Judgment and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty,Inevitable Error, Unavoidable Injustice. New York: Oxford University Press,1996.

James, C. “Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 1999.” Paper pre-sented at the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications(ISAAA), Ithaca. NY, 1999.

Kloppenburg, Jack Jr. “Social Theory and the De/Reconstruction of Agricultural Sci-ence: Local Knowledge for an Alternative Agriculture.” Rural Sociology 56, no. 4:519-48, 1991.

Lacy, William B. “Research, Extension, and User Partnerships: Models for Collabora-tion and Strategies for Change.” Agriculture and Human Values 13, no. 2: 33-41,1996.

Lyson, Thomas A. “Environmental, Economic and Social Aspects of Sustainable Ag-riculture in American Land Grant Universities.” Journal of Sustainable Agriculture12, no. 2/3: 119-30, 1998.

Majone, Giandomenico. Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989.

Margolis, Howard. Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on En-vironmental Issues. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Middendorf, Gerald, and Lawrence Busch. “Inquiry for the Public Good: DemocraticParticipation in Agricultural Research.” Agriculture and Human Values, no. 14:45-57, 1997.

Morone, Joseph G., and Edward J. Woodhouse. The Demise of Nuclear Energy? Les-sons for Democratic Control of Technology. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress, 1989.

National Research Council. Improving Risk Communication. Edited by Committee onRisk Perception and Communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press,1989.

Pelletier, David L., Vivica Kraak, C. McCullum, U. Uusitalo, and R. Rich. “TheShaping of Collective Values through Deliberative Democracy: An EmpiricalStudy from New York’s North Country.” Policy Sciences, no. 32: 103-31, 1999.

Rogers, James M. The Impact of Policy Analysis. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pitts-burgh Press, 1988.

Stern, Paul C., and Harvey V. Fineberg. Understanding Risk Informing Decision in aDemocratic Society. Edited by Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and

198 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Education Committee on Risk Characterization, National Research Council. Wash-ington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996.

Teitel, M., and K.A. Wilson. Genetically Engineered Food: Changing the Nature ofNature. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press, 1999.

RECEIVED: 07/07/00REVISED: 12/13/00

ACCEPTED: 12/18/00

APPENDIX A. Statements by Issue Category with Factor Arrays.

IssueCategory

Positive view on GE foods and crops Precautionary view on GE foods and crops

Health 1. I am confident that the possible healtheffects of genetically engineered foods havebeen adequately studied. (�3, 0, �2)17. I am satisfied that milk and dairy productsfrom cows receiving Posilac (rBST) are safefor human consumption. (0, +3, +1)33. The potential health benefits of geneticcrop improvements such as improvednutrition and food quality far outweighperceived public health risks. (�1, +2, +1)

9. I believe that the risks of geneticallyengineered foods to human health (such asnovel proteins with potential allergenicity) arelargely unknown. (+2, �1, +1)25. The potential health effects of geneticallyengineered foods that will be consumed byhumans should be tested on humans beforesuch products are allowed into themarketplace. (0, 0, +1)41. I believe that because cows injected withPosilac (rBST) experience an increasedincidence of mastitis, people who drink thismilk will inevitably consume higher levels ofantibiotic residues. (0, �2, �1)

Environment 10. Engineering traits that enhanceresistance to certain herbicides will benefitthe environment by decreasing the need forchemicals. (0, +2, 0)26. Any negative environmentalconsequences that may arise from growinggenetically engineered crops will beadequately addressed by futuredevelopments in genetic engineering or othertechnologies. (�2, 0, �1)42. The potential environmental benefits ofgenetically engineered crop improvements,such as reduced need for fertilizers, irrigation,and pesticides, far outweigh any possiblerisks. (�1, +2, 0)

2. The unintentional spread of herbicideresistance from genetically engineered cropsto weeds and other plant life is likely andraises real ecological concerns. (+1, 0, 0,)18. I am worried that engineering pesticidalproperties into food crops–such asintroducing the bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)toxin gene into corn and soybeans–will leadto a more rapid resistance to pesticides thanwould occur from the kinds of Bt applicationscommon in organic farming. (+1, �1, 0)34. I'm worried that the increased use ofgenetically engineered crops in agriculturewill lead to further loss of bio-diversity in ourfood and agriculture system. (+2, �2, �1)

Consumers 3. I don't think there is any need for foodmanufacturers to identify geneticallyengineered ingredients on food productlabels. (�3, +1, �3)19. Genetically engineered ingredientsshould be allowed in food products that beara certified organically grown label if theproducts meet all the other criteria for organiccertification. (�2, +1, �1)35. When people oppose the introduction ofgenetically engineered crops, it is a reflectionof pervasive public ignorance about thescience and the benefits this technology canyield. (�1, +2, +1)

11. Consumers stand to gain little fromgenetically engineered foods while biotechcorporations and farmers who plantgenetically engineered seeds stand to reapthe most benefit. (0, �3, �2)27. I feel that consumers with certainreligious, ethical or philosophical beliefsshould have the right to know if the foodsthey are eating contain geneticallyengineered ingredients. (+2, 0, +3)43. Consumers have the right to know if thefoods they buy have been geneticallyengineered or if they contain geneticallyengineered ingredients regardless of whetheror not such foods pose any known risk tohuman health and/or the environment. (+3, 0,+3)

Dialogue 199

APPENDIX A (continued)

Agricultureand the FoodSystem

12. Requiring segregation of geneticallyengineered crops from others will do littlemore than increase costs for farmers andprices for consumers. (�1, +1, 0)28. Basically, there is no difference betweenthe genetic engineering of today andtraditional plant breeding techniques thathave been carried out for centuries. (�2, 0, 0)44. Recent decisions on the part of somefood companies (such as Gerber and Heinz)to exclude genetically engineered ingredientsfrom their products, should be overturned bygovernmental authorities because suchactions interfere with international commerceand free trade. (�3, �2, �2)

4. Individual countries should be able torequire the labeling of products containinggenetically engineered foods and enforce thatrequirement on foods imported from othercountries, regardless of World TradeOrganization rulings. (+2, �1, +1)20. Genetic engineering technologiesgenerally favor large-scale and monocropproduction systems over smaller-scalediversified farms. (+2, �1, �2)36. Patenting of the genetically engineeredseeds tends to favor U.S. and Europeanproducers and corporations and presentspotentially serious social and economicdisadvantages for developing countries.(+1, 0, 0)

Food Security 5. Genetically engineered foods and cropsare necessary to assure an adequate foodsupply for a growing human population. (�1,+1, +2)21. Since crop yields have ceased to keeppace with population growth, and landavailable for cultivation is dwindling, newgenetically engineered crops will be neededto fight hunger in the developing world. (�2,+1, +2)37. The development of new geneticallyengineered foods is essential to alleviatingmicronutrient deficiency worldwide. (�2, 0,+2)

13. Genetic engineering is not likely to be aneffective tool for ending world hungerbecause the underlying causes of hungerstem from other fundamental problems (suchas faulty governmental policies, poor fooddistribution systems, poverty, and inequity)rather than inadequate food production. (+3,0, 0)29. Far from being a solution to the world'shunger problem the rapid introduction ofgenetically engineered crops may actuallythreaten agricultural systems and foodsecurity. (+1, �3, �2)45. Developing genetically engineered cropswill do little to alleviate hunger because theywill not increase the food self-reliance of poorpeople worldwide. (+2, �1, �3)

AnimalWelfare

14. The potential benefits of geneticengineering in medicine and agriculture faroutweigh any potential threats to animalwelfare. (�1, +3, �1)22. With better herd-health management anyanimal health problems associated with theuse of Posilac (rBST) such as mastitis will bemitigated. (0, +1, 0)30. I am confident that any increasedincidence of mastitis in dairy cows receivingPosilac (rBST) injections results fromincreased productivity rather than to the useof the Posilac (rBST) per se. (0, +1, 0)

6. Use of transgenic animals presentsethical problems because, unlike bacteria orplants, animals are sentient beings. (0, �2,+2)38. It is morally or ethically unacceptable toturn animals into "biomachines" for themanufacture of proteins or other biologicalmaterials. (0, �3, +1)46. Cows injected with Posilac (rBST)experience higher rates of serious illness andinfertility than cows that are not injected. (0,�1, 0)

LGU Role 7. It is not the role of Land GrantUniversities and extension educators to takea position with respect to geneticallyengineered foods and crops but rather toeducate constituents regarding their safety,availability, application, and advances in thescience. (+1, +1, +2)23. Land Grant Universities and extensioneducators should play a key role inmaintaining (and in some cases restoring)consumer confidence in the safety of the foodsupply including foods that have beengenetically engineered. (�1, +2, +2)39. I feel quite comfortable expressing myviews regarding genetically engineered foodsand crops issues with my colleagues and/orconstituents. (0, +2, �1)

15. I think that the broader societal issuesrelated to genetically engineered foods andcrops are not discussed candidly amonguniversity researchers. (0, �1, +1)31. Land Grant Universities should facilitatean open dialogue about the use of geneticengineering as well as other major changesin the agriculture and food system. (+3, +3,+3)47. The role of Land Grant Universitiesshould be to lead a thoughtful dialogue andcritical thinking related to the social,environmental, economic, ethical andtechnical aspects of incorporating geneticallyengineered foods and crops in the foodsystem. (+3, +3, +3)

200 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

PolicyProcesses

16. If genetically engineered foods wereunsafe for people to eat, the governmentwould not allow them in the marketplace.(�2, 0, �1)32. Health implications alone are sufficientcriteria upon which to base approval ofgenetically engineered foods for sale in themarketplace. (�1, �1, �1)48. The federal government needn't spendmuch taxpayer money on developingregulatory policies related to geneticallyengineered foods and crops because thecorporations will use them responsibly. (�3,�3, �3)

8. Intense industry lobbying of Congressand regulatory agencies has shieldedgenetically engineered foods from moreintensive pre-approval testing and stricterregulations. (+1, �2, 0)24. I think that public research dollars shouldnot be used to further develop the"terminator" technology because it is adangerous anti-farmer technology designedprimarily to increase seed industry profits.(+1, 0, �3)40. It concerns me greatly that the sources offunding for agricultural research atuniversities is directing the research agendaincreasingly toward genetic engineering. (+1,�2, �2)

* Q Methodology has several advantage over that of most attitude surveys because it can assess the major areas ofagreement and disagreement–including their relative significance in a selected group by analyzing their responses,which represent the major perspectives on an issue, to a set of statements chosen to cover a wide range of view-points on the issue being studied (the Q-sample). (Brown, S. 1980–also can cite Q method web page)

Dialogue 201