Farmer views on the use of genetic engineering in agriculture

(1)

Farlner Views on the Use of Genetic Engineering in Agriculture

u

John R. Fairweather Crystal Maslin Peter Gossman and Hugh R. Campbell

Research Report No. 258

May 2003

(2)

Research to improve decisions and outcomes in agribusiness, resource, environmental, and social issues.

The Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit (AERU) operates from Lincoln University providing research expertise for a wide range of organisations. AERU research focuses on agribusiness, resource, environment, and social issues.

Founded as the Agricultural Economics Research Unit in 1962 the AERU has evolved to become an independent, major source of business and economic research expertise.

The Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit (AERU) has five main areas of focus.

These areas are trade and environment; economic development; business and sustainability, non- market valuation, and social research.

Research clients include Government Departments, both within New Zealand and from other countries, international agencies, New Zealand companies and organisations, individuals and farmers.

Two publication series are supported from the AERU Research Reports and Discussion Papers.

DISCLAIMER

While every effort has been made to ensure that the information herein is accurate, the AERU does not accept any liability for error of fact or opinion which may be present, nor for the consequences of any decision based on this information.

A summary of AERU Research Reports, beginning with #242, are available at the AERU website www.lincoln.ac.nz/aeru/

Printed copies of AERU Research Reports are available from the Secretary.

Information contained in AERU Research Reports may be reproduced, providing credit is given and a copy of the reproduced text is sent to the AERU.

(3)

Farm Surveys and Rural Monitoring

Farmer Views on the Use of Genetic Engineering in Agriculture

John R. Fairweather Crystal Maslin Peter Gossman

and

Hugh R. Campbell

May 2003

Research Report No. 258

Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit P O Box 84

Lincoln University Canterbury New Zealand Ph: (64) (3) 325 2811 Fax: (64) (3) 325 3847

http://www.lincoln.ac.New Zealand/AERU/

ISSN 1170-7682 ISBN 0-909042-39-X

(4)

(5)

Table 23 Attitudes towards New Zealand’s use of GMO by Intention Group 28 Table 24 Attitudes Towards GMO use on Farms and in the Lab by Intention Group 29 Table 25 Attitudes towards the Potential Affects of GMO use by Intention Group 30 Table 26 Attitudes towards the Necessity and Principle of GMO use by Intention Group 32 Table 27 Compatibility of Organic and GMOs in New Zealand by Intention Group 33 Table 28 Beliefs About GMO Crops and Foods by Intention Group 34 Table 29 Attitudes towards Farming Practises to Improve Biodiversity and Soil Condition by

Intention Group 34

Table 30 Farm Sustainability by Intention Group 35

Table 31 Attitudes about New Zealand’s Environment by Intention Group 36 Table 32 Farmers’ Environmental Attitudes by Intention Group 37 Table 33 Role for Type of Agriculture in NZ Farming by Intention Group 38 Table 34 Opinions of Federated Farmer Representation by Intention Group 41 Table 35 Attitudes about Technology by Intention Group 42 Table 36 Attitudes about General Social Issues by Intention Group 44 Table 37 Attitudes Towards Trust and Influence by Intention Group 45

Table 38 Summary of Attitudes by Intention Group 47

(7)

List of Tables

Table 1 Population and Sample Characteristics 6

Table 2 Demographic Information 8

Table 3 Income ($) 9

Table 4 Predominant Farming Activity by Farm Size (hectares) 10 Table 5 Farmers’ Attitudes towards GMO and New Zealand’s Environment (%) 11

Table 6 Intention to use GMOs 12

Table 7 Intention to use Organic Methods 13

Table 8 Farmers’ Attitudes Towards Differing Types of GMO (%) 13

Table 9 Farmers’ beliefs about GMOs (%) 15

Table 10 Level of Agreement with GE Free New Zealand, 2000 and 2002 17

Table 11 Intention to use GMOs, 2000 and 2002 18

Table 12 Intention to use Organic Methods, 2000 and 2002 (%) 19

Table 13 Derivation of Farming Intention Groupings 21

Table 14 Farmer Age by Intention Group 22

Table 15 Gender by Farmer Intention Group 22

Table 16 Educational Levels by Intention Group 23

Table 17 Farm Type by Intention Group 24

Table 18 Self-reported Financial Intensity of Farm Operation 24

Table 19 Income by Intention Group ($) 25

Table 20 Farming Activities by Intention Group 26

Table 21 Definitions of Organic Farming 27

Table 22 Profile for Each Intention Group 27

Table 23 Attitudes towards New Zealand’s use of GMO by Intention Group 28 Table 24 Attitudes Towards GMO use on Farms and in the Lab by Intention Group 29 Table 25 Attitudes towards the Potential Affects of GMO use by Intention Group 30 Table 26 Attitudes towards the Necessity and Principle of GMO use by Intention Group 32 Table 27 Compatibility of Organic and GMOs in New Zealand by Intention Group 33 Table 28 Beliefs About GMO Crops and Foods by Intention Group 34 Table 29 Attitudes towards Farming Practises to Improve Biodiversity and Soil Condition by

Intention Group 34

Table 30 Farm Sustainability by Intention Group 35

Table 31 Attitudes about New Zealand’s Environment by Intention Group 36 Table 32 Farmers’ Environmental Attitudes by Intention Group 37 Table 33 Role for Type of Agriculture in NZ Farming by Intention Group 38 Table 34 Opinions of Federated Farmer Representation by Intention Group 41 Table 35 Attitudes about Technology by Intention Group 42 Table 36 Attitudes about General Social Issues by Intention Group 44 Table 37 Attitudes Towards Trust and Influence by Intention Group 45

Table 38 Summary of Attitudes by Intention Group 47

(8)

(9)

Preface

The results of the survey reported here continue the ongoing surveys of farmer opinion that have been a longstanding feature of research conducted by the AERU. The current topic is of considerable importance to the current debate about genetic engineering. Promoters of genetic engineering point out the advantages to New Zealand in adopting this technology and detractors argue against its use pointing out there are many disadvantages. What is often not considered in this debate is the viewpoint of farmers who may or may not adopt the products of genetic engineering (GMOs). It is vital that farmer viewpoints are considered since their reaction to the new technology will drive what will actually happen on the ground. This report presents responses to a carefully prepared questionnaire and gives both an overview of farmers’ responses as a whole and then analyses these responses in terms of intention to use either GMOs, organic methods or conventional methods of production. The results will be of interest to farmers, policy makers and those concerned about the use, or lack of use, of GMOs.

Professor Caroline Saunders Director

(10)

(11)

Acknowledgements

We thank all those farmers and growers who took time to reply to the questionnaire.

Funding for this research was provided by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology under contract number UOO X007, Greening Food: Social and Industry Dynamics.

(12)

(13)

Summary

The objective of the research reported here was to determine farmers’ views about genetic engineering, including their intentions to use GMOs, and their views about GMOs, environment attitudes and sustainability. Questionnaires were posted to a random sample of 2,240 farmers from which 805 usable responses were received giving a response rate of 38 per cent.

Half of the farmers believe the GMO moratorium should be extended beyond October 2003 and 62 per cent of farmers think that New Zealand’s environment is ‘clean and green.’

Farmers indicated fairly consistent support for the development of GMOs for medical applications and there was strong support for GM activities that could be contained in laboratories. Only around 33 per cent per cent of farmers support the use of GMOs for human or animal food production. Farmers are clearly split into thirds (agree/disagree/neither) on the issues of the environmental friendliness of GMOs and the effect on the quality of life of animals. Half of the farmers surveyed believed that the spread of farm GMOs cannot be controlled. More than 40 per cent of farmers believe that GMOs may cure the world’s major diseases and solve the world’s food problems. Finally, 43 per cent of farms believe that GMOs can be used in New Zealand without adversely affecting organic farming.

Comparisons of farmers’ responses from 2000 and 2002 indicate that farmers’ attitudes towards keeping New Zealand GE free changed between 2000 and 2002 so that, while still a majority viewpoint, fewer now disagree (down from 50 to 46 per cent) and more agree (up from 32 to 38 per cent). There was a change in farmers’ intentions to use GMOs with fewer farmers, down from 45 to 35 per cent, now indicating an intention not to use GMOs while the proportion intending to use GMOs remains constant at 22 per cent. The majority (up from 35 to 43 per cent) now have no intention to use GMOs. There are now more farmers with an intention not to use organic methods (up from 19 to 29 per cent) and fewer farmers indicating an intention to use organic methods (down from 38 to 23 per cent).

Environmental attitude questions showed that most New Zealand farmers are moderately supportive of the ideas of co-operating with nature in production, and general intentions of agroecological production. However, despite holding these views, the great majority of farmers considered that their own farms were sustainable into the medium term. Thus, the main finding of this survey is that while there has been some shifting in the composition and intensity of the minority alternative groups to conventional farming (organic or GMO intending), most farmers do not foresee that they have significant problems on their farms that require these alternative solutions. Put simply, when faced with the possibility of GMOs, the majority of farmers are neither strongly opposed to GMOs nor keen to adopt them.

The sample of farmers was split into three groups based on their intentions to use conventional, GMOs or organic methods. The profile of each intention group is shown below, followed by a summary of attitudes for each group.

(14)

Profile for Each Intention Group GMO

Intenders

Organic Intenders

Conventional Intenders

Proportion of Sample 18% 19% 58%

Age 54 49 51

Male 92% 77% 77%

Post Secondary

Qualifications 33% 53% 38%

Type of farm Pastoral 38%

Dairy 40% Pastoral 50%

Horticulture 22% Pastoral 58%

Dairy 23%

Farm financial

intensity Top ten 19%

Above Average 51% Top ten 9%

Above Average 36% Top ten 12%

Above Average 46%

Income from farm $63,000 $35,000 $43,000

Gross income $640,000 $250,000 $332,000

Activity Not organic Some organic Not organic

Summary of Attitudes by Intention group GMO

Intenders

Organic Intenders

Conventional Intenders

GE Free NZ No Yes Neither

Moratorium extension No Yes Moderate yes

NZ ‘clean and green’ Yes Moderate Yes Yes

GMOs for food production Yes No Moderate No

GMO development for medical

applications Yes Depends if

lab/farm Yes

GMO environmentally friendly Yes No Neither

The spread of farm GMOs is

controllable Yes No Moderate No

GMOs will cure diseases / solve

food problems Yes No Neither

GMOs improve the quality of

life for animal Yes No Neither

I would use GMOs if caused harm to animals/ people/

environment

No No No GMO fits with my principles

and beliefs Moderate Yes No No

GMO can be used without harm

to organic farming Yes No Moderate No

GMOs will have negative

environmental consequences Moderate No Yes Yes

Quality of NZ environments Good Moderate Good Good Improving biodiversity and soil

conditions is important Yes Yes Yes

Farm is sustainable Yes Yes Yes

(15)

Attitude towards social issues Conservative Liberal Moderate Conservative

I trust government Neither No No

I trust biotech companies Moderate No No No

I trust policy based on research Yes Moderate No Moderate yes The typical GMO Intending farmer expresses conservative social views, is male, and is optimistic about the potential for GMOs to solve the world’s food problems and cure diseases.

As a result he is in favour of GMO development for medical applications and for food production. He feels that New Zealand should not strive for GE free status and that the GMO moratorium should not be extended.

The typical Organic Intending farmer expresses liberal/centrist social views and is in opposition to almost every application for GMOs. This group is still strongly represented by men but has some female representation. They feel that there may be negative environmental consequences of GMO use. As a result they think that New Zealand should try to achieve GE free status and extend the moratorium on GMOs. They do not believe that the spread of GMOs can be controlled and believe that the use of GMOs will adversely affect organic farming.

The typical Conventional Intending farmer expresses moderately conservative social views and occupies the middle ground between the GMO and Organic Intention farmers. In most cases this farmer expresses a cautious attitude towards GMO use, and this group is still strongly represented by men but has some female representation. They express no support for or against GE Free status but indicate moderate agreement with extending the moratorium on GMOs. They do not support the development of GMOs for human or animal food but do support the idea of GMO development for medical applications or in lab containment. They express neutral opinions on the issues of the environmental friendliness of GMOs, the ability of GMOs to cure diseases and food problems and the potential for GMOs to improve the quality of life for animals.

Despite the majority of farmers (78 per cent) having either no intention or a negative intention towards GMOs, there is a small minority (five per cent) who have a strong or very strong intention to use GMOs, and they will provide a first group of enthusiastic adopters should the technology become available.

Similarly, despite an apparent slackening of overall level of support for organic production, the organic industry is still faced with around eight per cent of farmers who state either strong or very strong intention to use organic methods. The current size of the organic sector is one per cent of all farmers so this level of interest is enough to enable an eight fold increase in the size of the organic sector should that level of intention be carried into actual organic conversion.

(16)

(17)

Chapter 1 Introduction: Background, Research Objectives and Definitions

The AERU has surveyed farmers over many years and the results from these surveys have been useful for improving our understanding of farmers and farming. Often, these survey results form an important basis for policy formulation or help farming and related organizations better deliver their policies and plans. Cook et al., (2000) and Fairweather et al.

(2002) are the latest reports of this kind of survey. The former reported on New Zealand farmer intentions to use genetic engineering technology and organic production methods, and the latter analysed the data from the same survey in terms of organic, conventional and GE intending farmers. Consequently, the two reports establish a baseline understanding of New Zealand farmers and their responses to novel technologies. It is timely to again consider farmers responses to new technologies.

The main objective of the research reported here was to determine farmers’¹ views about genetic engineering. In particular, we wanted to assess farmers’ intentions to use the products of genetic engineering, identified in this study as GMOs, and compare these intentions with results to the same question asked in our survey conducted in 2000. Further, we sought to clarify their views generally about genetic engineering, including their level of support for different uses of genetic engineering and their responses to issues associated with genetic engineering. The questionnaire included other questions that measured environment attitudes, opinions about farming sustainability and worldviews. Constructs based on these variables could be useful in developing a better understanding of why farmers think the way they do about genetic engineering.

The rationale for the survey was, first, the need to monitor farmers’ attitudes on a regular basis in order to see if they change. Careful attention to farmers’ attitudes is important because they will be important players in any developments of genetic engineering use in New Zealand. It is likely that attitudes may have changed since the Royal Commission on genetic engineering report was made public in 2001. Since that time the Commission’s findings have been considered by the public generally and farmers in particular, so that it is possible that it has had an effect. Second, having established a good understanding of intentions in the 2000 survey we wanted to move on to consider why particular intentions are held.

For the purpose of this study we have assumed that plants and animals or other farm inputs produced using genetic engineering may be available to farmers in the future. We define

‘Genetically modified organisms’ (GMOs), following the Environment Risk Management Authority (ERMA), to include any plant, animal or micro organism developed through genetic modification. A GMO is any organism in which the genes have been modified by using in vitro (recombinant DNA) techniques, i.e., created in the lab.

This report comprises three subsequent chapters, the first outlining the methods used, the second presenting the results and the third presenting a discussion and a conclusion.

(18)

(19)

Chapter 2 Survey Method

2.1 Introduction

A postal questionnaire was developed to gather information about farmer views on genetic engineering. The postal questionnaire was selected as the best method of gathering this information because it allowed for a large number of farmers from various parts of New Zealand to sampled within the time period available for the study. The questionnaire was designed to record farmer intentions, their level of support for different uses of genetic engineering and their responses to issues associated with genetic engineering. The questionnaire included other questions that measured environment attitudes, opinions about farming sustainability and worldviews (Slovic, 2000).

2.2 The Questionnaire

The questionnaire comprised a twelve page A4 booklet, printed on both sides of each page (see appendix 1). A total of 28 separate questions were asked yielding approximately 100 data items, or variables, per completed questionnaire.

A separate covering letter introduced the questionnaire and it outlined the purpose of the study. The front page of the questionnaire defined and explained terms used within the questionnaire. This section also gave respondent the instructions to assume that the products of genetic engineering would be available to them in the future.

Briefly outlined below are the main sections of the questionnaire.

Future farming intention

Future farming intentions were measured by asking farmers about their intentions to use GMOs and/or organic methods on their farms within the next ten years. Response was measured using a seven-point scale ranging from (1)“I have very strong intentions to use …”

to (7) I have very strong intention not to use ...” The mid point of this scale was described as

“no intention to either use or not use…” meaning respondents were not able to select positive or negative intention. The format and wording for the GMO intention and the organic intention was identical to that of an AERU survey conducted in 2000 (Cook et al., 2000) to allow a comparison of results to be undertaken. The same was true of the agreement / disagreement statements relating to New Zealand’s GE free status.

Attitude towards Genetic Engineering

Farmers were asked a series of five questions, each with a number of statements, to measure their attitudes towards genetic engineering either specifically on the farm, in relation to New Zealand or more generally. A majority of the questions were asked using a seven-point scale to measure the responses ranging from (1) “very strongly disagree” to (7) “very strongly agree.” One question asking about the farmer’s support or opposition to 4 types of on-farm GMO use used a five-point scale from (1) “totally opposed” to (5) “totally supportive”.

(20)

Attitudes towards the environment

Farmers were asked two questions, one of which investigating the respondent’s anthropocentric / bio centric values. This question had farmers rate eight statements about the environment using a seven-point scale from (1) “very strongly disagree to “very strongly agree.” The second question in the section used a five point scale ranging from (1) “very bad to (5) “very good” to measure farmers opinions of the state of New Zealand’s environment.

Attitudes towards sustainability

In this section farmers were asked three questions about the sustainability of farming in New Zealand. The first question uses a five point scale ranging from (1) “very unimportant” to (5)

“very important” to measure farmers attitudes towards the importance of four farming practices. The second question asked farmers to rate the sustainability of their own farms using a five-point scale from (1) “completely unsustainable” to (5) “completely sustainable.”

The final question in the section asked farmers about the role of different systems of production in New Zealand agriculture. The farmers were asked to rate the systems of production on a four-point scale from (1) “no role” to (4) “dominant role.”

Attitudes towards general farming related items

Farmers were asked to rate the representation that they received from Federated Farmers using a seven-point scale from (1) “very poorly” to (7) “very well.” Additionally farmers were asked three more sets of questions about technology, social issues and trust or influence.

Farmers used a seven-point scale ranging from (1) “very strongly disagree” to (7) very strongly agree” to rate each of the statements.

Factual farm information

The questions in this section collected factual farm information, for example farm size, certification registration, etc.

Demographic information

Information was collected about the individual completing the questionnaire, this included:

their position on the farm, age, income and highest level of completed formal education. As with the factual farm information this was collected to examine possible relationships with other survey information.

2.3 Pre-testing, Sample Size and Questionnaire Distribution

Six people from farming families formed the pre-test group. Each person provided comments about the ease of completion of the questionnaire and how other farmers might react to the questions. Revisions were made to the questionnaire, in the light of those comments, prior to its implementation.

A random sample of 2000 farms was supplied by Quotable Value New Zealand. The 2000 questionnaires were mailed out on the 11^th October 2002. The original sample was meant to include all farm types, however an error in the sample supplied by Quotable Value New Zealand meant that horticultural farms were accidentally omitted. Quotable Value New Zealand then supplied a supplementary sample of 240 horticultural farms, or a two per cent sample of all horticultural farms, and additional questionnaires were mailed out on 18^th

(21)

The survey was mentioned in radio interviews on National Radio on the midday rural news segment on Monday 21^st October and subsequently, in a separate interview, on the weekly Country Life programme on Friday 25^th and Saturday 26^th October. A reminder card was mailed on 31^st October and for the horticultural farms on 29^th of November.

2.4 Response Rates and Sample Representativeness

From October 11^th to December 16^th 2002 of the 2240 circulated questionnaires 934 were returned giving a crude response rate of 42 per cent. Of these, 129 were either returned undelivered or the addressee was no longer farming or had died. Consequently, there were 805 questionnaires suitable for analysis giving an adjusted response rate of 38 per cent.

The sample was tested against data supplied by Quotable Value New Zealand on farm type, farm size and farm value for all farms in New Zealand in order to test for sample representativeness. The data for the population and the sample are shown in Table 1. The results of chi-squared tests showed that there were significant differences only for farm capital value (chi = 65, 8 dof) and no significant differences was found between farm type (chi = 7.45, 4 dof, NS) and farm size (chi = 9.44, 6 dof, NS). The table shows that for capital value there were fewer sample farms in the smallest value range ($0-$99,999) and more sample farms in the $250,000-$499,999 and the $500,000-$999,999 ranges. Thus, fewer smaller-scale farmers replied to the questionnaire. It is unlikely that this discrepancy is likely to have any bearing on the characteristics of the sample. If it does have any influence then it is likely that the bias is in favour of full time farmers. Overall the sample matched the population on two important and objective characteristics.

2.5 Conclusion

The response rate for this survey at 38 per cent compares favourably with the 2000 survey at 35 per cent. The sample is representative of the farming population

(22)

Table 1

Population and Sample Characteristics

Population Sample

Farm Type n % n %

Specialist 4,599 4 44 5

Dairy 28,489 26 201 25

Arable 3,818 3 23 3

Pastoral 61,601 56 450 56

Horticulture 11,623 11 86 11

Total 110,130 100 804 100

Area

0 to 99 80,557 74 558 70

100 to 499 24,308 22 208 26

500 to 999 2,548 2 22 3

1,000 to 4,999 1,640 2 14 2

5,000 to 9,999 161 0 - -

10,000 to 49,999 76 0 - -

50,000 plus 2 0 - -

Total 109,292 100 802 100

Capital Value

0 - 99,999 23,275 21 84 10

100,000 - 249,999 17,680 16 125 16

250,000 - 499,999 26,193 24 231 29

500,000 - 999,999 27,043 25 241 30

1,000,000 - 1,499,999 9,641 9 78 10

1,500,000 - 1,999,999 3,242 3 22 3

2,000,000 - 2,499,999 1,240 1 11 1

2,500,000 - 2,999,999 539 0 7 1

3,000,000 plus 908 1 5 1

Total 109,761 100 804 100

(23)

Chapter 3 Results

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the results from the survey. It includes cross tabulations and statistical analysis for the questions asked, mostly focusing on farmer intention and how this influences other responses. The first section covers basic demographic data in order to build up an understanding of the nature of the sample of farmers. The second section then reviews the results from the general attitude questions, which indicate attitudes to GMOs and intention to use either GMOs or organic methods. The next section compares these results from the 2002 farmer survey with a similar survey in 2000. This comparison is useful for assessing any changes in farmer attitudes or intentions. These three sections form a coherent whole which gives a detailed account of respondent characteristics and attitudes as a whole. Readers interested in this more general picture will find these sections most relevant. Readers more interested in variations within the sample will find the subsequent sections relevant. These sections analyse the survey results in terms of subgroups of farmers, and we find that the different intentions relating to the use of technology proves to be useful in showing how there are marked differences between groups of farmers.

3.2 Farmer Profile

This section will provide a snapshot profile of New Zealand farmers who responded to this survey including information on six characteristics: gender, age, level of education, predominant farming activity, income, and farm size.

Table 2 shows the demographic profile of the farmers who responded to this survey. In overview it can be observed that 83 per cent of respondents were males. The majority of farmers, 58 per cent, were between the ages of 41 and 60 years of age. Thirty-nine per cent of farmers indicated that they held a post-secondary qualification. Fifty-two per cent of farmers indicated that their predominant farming activity was pastoral, a category comprised of fattening, grazing, high-country and stud operations. Ninety-one per cent of respondents indicated that they were either the owner or joint owner of the farm. In summary then, the typical respondent was a mature man, the owner of the farm, and operating a pastoral farm.

Table 3 reports the results of three questions about the farmers’ income: personal income from the farm, personal income from other sources and the annual gross income of the farm.

The first results in the table are for farmers reporting their personal income from the farm.

The majority of farmers (60 per cent) reported earning less than $40,001 annually from their farms. Twenty-six percent of farmers indicated that they earned between $1 and $20,000 from their farm and a further 27 per cent reported earning between $20,001 and $40,000 from their farms. Seven per cent of these farmers indicated that they had no personal income from their farm or that their income from the farm was negative. Meanwhile two per cent of farmers reported earning more than $200,000 from their farm in the previous 12-month period. It should be noted 214 farmers (27 per cent) did not answer the question about their personal income from their farm

(24)

Table 2

Demographic Information

n %

Sex

Male 644 83

Female 137 18

Total 781 100*

Age

≤ 20 6 1

21-30 19 3

31-40 110 14

41-50 207 27

51-60 251 31

61-70 122 16

>70 52 7

Total 767 100

Highest Level of Education

Primary 24 3

High school without qualifications 185 24 School Certificate 120 15 Sixth form certificate 102 13 High School Certificate / Bursary 42 5

Diploma 176 22

Bachelors degree 82 10 Postgraduate qualification 55 7

Total 786 100

Predominant Farming activity

Dairy – factory ^{187 24}

Dairy - town supply 8 1 Pastoral – fattening 229 30 Pastoral – grazing 143 19 Pastoral - high country 18 2 Pastoral – stud 7 1 Specialist livestock 38 5

Forestry 7 1

Arable 17 2

Horticulture 91 12

Other 20 3

Total 765 100

Position in relation to the farm

Owner 387 49

Joint Owner 330 42 Share Farmer 11 1 Paid Manager 14 2 Paid Farm Worker 2 0 Member of a farming family 25 3 Unpaid Spouse 6 1

Other 11 1

Total 786 100

* Sums may not equal 100 due to rounding. This applies to all tables in this report.

(25)

Table 3 Income ($)

Personal income ($) from farm n %

0 or negative 44 7 1 to 20,000 155 26 20,001 to 40,000 157 27 40,001 to 60,000 106 18 60,001 to 80,000 40 7 80,000 to 100,000 32 5 100,001 to 120,000 16 3 120,001 to 140,000 3 1 140,001 to 160,000 14 2 160,001 to 180,000 1 0 180,001 to 200,000 11 2 200,000 plus 12 2

Total 591 100

Personal income ($) from other sources n %

0 65 16

1 to 20,000 176 42 20,001 to 40,000 64 15 40,001 to 60,000 47 11 60,001 to 80,000 19 5 80,000 to 100,000 22 5 100,001 to 120,000 6 1 120,001 to 140,000 2 1 140,001 to 160,000 5 1 180,001 to 200,000 3 1 200,000 plus 8 2

Total 417 100

Annual gross income ($) from the farm n %

0 14 2

1 to 50,000 111 18 50,001 to 100,000 59 10 100,001 to 150,000 61 10 150,001 to 200,000 51 8 200,001 to 250,000 49 8 250,001 to 300,000 38 6 300,001 to 350,000 27 4 350,001 to 400,000 34 6 400,001 to 450,000 13 2 450,001 to 500,000 26 4 500,001 to 550,000 9 2 550,001 to 600,000 15 3 600,001 to 650,000 4 1 650,001 to 700,000 10 2 700,001 to 750,000 15 3 750,001 to 800,000 10 2 800,001 to 850,000 3 1 850,001 to 900,000 8 1 950,001 to 1,000,000 15 3 1,000,000 plus 40 7

Total 612 100

(26)

The table then reports data for personal incomes from other sources. Sixteen per cent of farmers reported no income from other sources and a further 42 per cent reported a modest income from other sources of less than $20,000. Fifteen per cent of farmers reported incomes between $20,001 and $40,000 and an additional 11 per cent reported earning between $40,001 and $60,000 from other sources. Collectively then, 26 per cent of farmers earn between

$20,000 and $60,000 annually from other sources. A small proportion (two per cent) of farmers reported earning in excess of $200,000 from other sources in the previous 12-month period. Three hundred and eighty-eight farmers did not respond to this question.

The table finally presents the results for the annual gross income. Two per cent of farmers reported no annual gross incomes from their farms. Eighteen per cent of farmers reported annual gross incomes of between $1 and $50,000. An additional 20 per cent of farmers indicated that they earned between $50,001 and $150,000. The reported gross incomes ranged up to 10 million dollars with seven per cent of farmers indicating that the annual gross income of their farm was more than a million dollars.

Table 4 reports the mean farm sizes for each of the farm types and the range of sizes listed by farmers indicating that farm type. Farmers were asked to indicate their farm size and predominant farming activity. The size range for each of the farm types has also been included to give an idea of the breadth of the sample, showing that it included large-scale farms and small-scale farms (down to one hectare). It should be noted that the pastoral farmers (excluding the stud farmers) have huge ranges in their reported farm size resulting in very large standard deviations for the sizes of those farms. On average, high country farmers report the largest farms with a mean size of nearly 3,000 hectares. The smallest average farm size was reported by horticulturalists who reported a mean farm size of roughly 24 hectares.

Table 4

Predominant Farming Activity by Farm Size (hectares)

n Mean Farm Size Standard

Deviation Size Range

Dairy - factory 187 195.80 308.33 3 – 3,500

Dairy - town supply 8 65.43 87.71 1 – 250

Pastoral - fattening 229 519.07 1,741.58 2 – 23,000

Pastoral - grazing 143 741.24 3,933.51 2 – 45,000

Pastoral - high country 18 2,931.89 2,948.13 160 – 10,000

Pastoral - stud 7 267.57 295.35 30 – 720

Specialist livestock 38 268.76 392.26 8 – 2,000

Forestry 7 370.29 769.12 15 – 2,100

Arable 17 246.12 179.25 11 – 654

Horticulture 91 23.96 48.37 1 – 295

Other 20 109.16 181.08 1 – 680

Total 765 434.63 1998.86 1 – 45,000

In summary then we can say that the typical farmer in New Zealand who has responded to this survey is a male, over 40 years of age, who owns his farm. He farms pastorally on

(27)

3.3 Results from the General Attitudinal Questions

Results from several general questions have been selected to illustrate the attitudes of farmers as a whole to issues surrounding the GMO debate.

Farmers were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with two statements concerning New Zealand’s GMO use and one statement about New Zealand’s environment using a seven-point scale from very strongly disagree to very strongly agree. Their responses are presented in Table 5. The table shows responses for each of the seven point scales and also for the sum of the disagree and the agree scales. For all three statements there is a consistent 14 to 15 per cent of farmers who were neutral, that is, unwilling or unable to commit to a definite position. Later results show that this is a low proportion – on other perhaps more contentious issues, the neutral position can be up to 24 per cent. First, farmers were asked to respond to the statement: “New Zealand should try and achieve GE free status.”

In general terms, 46 per cent of farmers disagreed, 38 percent agreed and 15 per cent indicated they neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. More specifically, 29 per cent of farmers indicated that they disagreed nearly doubling the number of farmers who agreed at 16 per cent. The proportion of farmers selecting the more extreme ends of the scale are similar with 17 per cent strongly or very strongly disagreeing and 22 per cent strongly or very strongly agreeing. Overall then, farmers tend not to support GE free status, but opinion is divided with a significant group in strong support.

In the second item farmers were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with the statement: “The GMO moratorium should be extended beyond October 2003.”

Collectively 50 per cent of farmers agreed that the GMO moratorium should be extended beyond October 2003, while 36 per cent felt that the moratorium should not be extended and 14 percent neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. The responses to this statement show a clear increase in the numbers of farmers selecting the very strongly agree category with no comparable increase in the very strongly disagree category.

Table 5

Farmers’ Attitudes towards GMO and New Zealand’s Environment (%)

Very strongly disagree Strongly disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree Very Strongly Agree Total

10 7 29 16 7 15

New Zealand should try and achieve GE free status (n=786)

46 15

38

100

9 7 20 23 9 18

The GMO Moratorium should be extended beyond October 2003

(n=784) 36 14

50

100

2 3 19 43 13 6

New Zealand’s environment is

‘clean and green’ (n=783)

24 14

62

100

(28)

Comparison of results from the first two statements suggest that while 46 per cent of farmers disagreed with the statement that New Zealand should try to achieve GE free status only 36 percent of the respondents indicated that the moratorium should not extend beyond October 2003. This difference perhaps indicates a degree of caution about the use of GMO by some farmers who have not outright rejected the use of the technology.

Finally, farmers were asked to indicate their level of agreement and disagreement with the statement: “New Zealand’s environment is ‘clean and green.’” Collectively 62 per cent of farmers indicated that they agreed with the statement about New Zealand’s environment while 24 per cent disagreed.

Respondents were asked about their intention to use GMOs on their farms within the next ten years and the results are presented in Table 6. Forty-three per cent of farmers indicated no intention to use or not use GMOs on their farms. Cumulatively, 35 per cent of farmers indicated some degree of intention not to use GMOs in the future, with 15 per cent of farmers indicating a very strong intention not to use GMO. Twenty-two per cent of farmers indicated that they had some intention to use GMOs on their farm in the future, but only two per cent indicated a very strong intention to use GMOs. Overall, nearly one half of farmers indicated no GMO intention, and of those who have an intention about one third intend not to use GMOs and one fifth intend to use GMOs. Importantly there is a core of 15 per cent of farmers who have a very strong intention not to use GMOs whereas only two per cent with a very strong intention to use GMOs. Putting it another way, most of the farmers intending to use GMOs state only a modest level of intention while most of those farmers not intending to use GMOs state a very strong intention.

Table 6

Intention to use GMOs

Intention to use GMOs within the next ten years n %

Very strong intention to use GMOs 17 2

Strong intention to use GMOs 24 3

Intention to use GMOs 135 17

22 No intention to use or not use GMOs 341 43 43

Intention not to use GMOs 104 13

Strong intention not to use GMOs 59 7

Very strong intention not to use GMOs 116 15

35

Total 796 100

Table 7 indicates the responses of farmers to a question about their intentions to use organic methods on their farms within the next ten years. Forty-eight per cent of farmers indicated no intention to use or not use organic methods on their farms within the next ten years.

Cumulatively, 29 per cent of farmers indicated some degree of intention not to use organic methods in the future, while four per cent indicated a very strong intention not to use organic methods on their farms. Twenty three per cent of farmers indicated that they had some intention to use organic methods on their farms, with five per cent having a very strong intention to do so. The proportion of farmers indicating either a strong or very strong intention to use or not to use organic methods is nearly equivalent at eight and nine per cent

(29)

of farmers have no intention to use organic methods, about one quarter do, and about one quarter do not.

Table 7

Intention to use Organic Methods Intention to use organic methods within the next ten years

n % Very strong intention to use organic methods 39 5

Strong intention to use organic methods 23 3

Intention to use organic methods 123 15

23 No intention to use or not use organic methods 383 48 48 Intention not to use organic methods 158 20

Strong intention not to use organic methods 40 5 Very strong intention not to use organic methods 32 4

29

Total 798 100

Table 8 presents the attitudes of farmers towards four general types of GMO products. The table shows percentage scores for each scale and also accumulates responses to show the sum for opposition and for support. The first item indicates the responses of farmers to a question about their support or opposition for the “on-farm use of GMOs for human food production.”

Collectively, 45 percent of farmers oppose the idea of on-farm use of GMOs for human food production with the proportion evenly split between those opposed and totally opposed.

Meanwhile 32 per cent of farmers indicated support for the idea with five per cent of those farmers indicating that they were totally supportive of the idea. Twenty-three per cent of farmers indicated that they were neither supportive nor opposed to the idea of on-farm use of GMOs for human food production. Generally, farmers oppose this type of GMO.

Table 8

Farmers’ Attitudes Towards Differing Types of GMO (%)

Totally opposed Opposed Neither Supportive Totally supportive Total Overall Attitude

22 23 27 5

On-farm use of GMOs for human food production

(n=796) 45 23 32

100 - ve

5 3 45 36

The development of GMO products in the laboratory for

medical applications (n=797) 8 11

81

100 + ve

20 24 28 6

On-farm use of GMOs for animal feed production

(n=794) 44 22 34

100 - ve

11 12 40 24

The harvesting of GMO products on the farm for medical

applications (n=796) 23 13 64

100 + ve

(30)

The second item in the table indicates the responses of farmers to a question about their support or opposition for “the development of GMO products in the laboratory for medical applications.” Collectively 81 per cent of farmers indicated some degree of support for the idea with 45 per cent of farmers indicting they were supportive and 36 per cent totally supportive of the idea of developing GMO medical products in the laboratory for medical use.

Eight per cent of farmers indicated some degree of opposition for the idea and 11 per cent of farmers indicated that they neither supported nor opposed the idea of development of GMO products in the laboratory for medical applications. Generally, farmers strongly support this type of GMO.

The third item in the table presents the response of farmers to a question about their support or opposition for “the on-farm use of GMOs for animal feed production.” Forty-four per cent of farmers indicated that they were either opposed or totally opposed to the idea with 20 per cent of those farmers indicated that they were totally opposed to the idea. Thirty-four per cent of farmers indicated some degree of support for the idea with 6 per cent of those farmers indicating that they were totally supportive of the idea. Nearly a quarter of the farmers surveyed indicated that they were neither supportive nor opposed to the idea of the use of on- farm use of GMOs for animal feed production. Generally, farmers oppose this type of GMO.

The fourth item in the table reports the responses of farmers to the harvesting of GMO products on the farm for medical applications. Forty per cent of farmers indicated that they were supportive of the idea of harvesting GMO products on the farm for medical applications, combined with those farmers that are totally supportive results in 64 per cent of farmers indicating some level of support for the idea. Collectively 23 per cent of farmers were opposed to the idea with those farmers equally split between opposition and total opposition.

Thirteen per cent of farmers indicated that they were neither supportive nor opposed to the idea of harvesting GMO products on the farm for medical applications. Generally, farmers support this type of GMO.

Comparison of items from Table 8 suggests that farmers demonstrate a consistent degree of support for the use of laboratory or on-farm GMO products for medical applications and opposition to on-farm use of GMOs for either human or animal food. The proportion of farmers supporting GMO medical developments drops from 81 to 64 per cent when the process is shifted from the laboratory to the farm.

Analysis of these results also suggests that farmers as a whole are more receptive to the idea of GMO development for medical applications either in the laboratory or on the farm than for any type of food production. The support for the development of GMO products drops from a high of 81 per cent for laboratory-based medical development to a low of 32 per cent for the on-farm use of GMOs for human food production.

Table 9 reports the attitudes of farmers towards several scenarios resulting from GMO use.

The farmers were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement on a seven-point scale from very strongly disagree to very strongly agree. This table shows a large proportion of farmers in the neutral category, ranging from 16 to 28 per cent. Clearly, many farmers are undecided on these issues and presumably lack information with which to make a decision.

The table also shows for five out of the six questions, relatively high proportions at the extreme ends of the scale. This again reflects the polarized views of farmers about GMOs.

(31)

or 28 per cent of farmers responded that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement that farm GMO products are environmentally friendly. Twenty per cent of farmers very strongly agreed with the statement about the environmental friendliness of GMO products, and cumulatively 38 per cent of farmers expressed some degree of agreement with the statement. Twelve per cent of farmers indicated they very strongly disagreed with the statement that farm GMO products are environmentally friendly and collectively 34 per cent of farmers disagreed with the statement to some degree. Generally, farmers are split three ways on these issues about one third are neutral, one third agree and one third disagree.

The second question asked farmers for their opinion on the following statement: “the spread of farm GMOs can be controlled.” Collectively 51 per cent of farmers disagreed to some degree that the spread of farm GMOs can be controlled, with 17 per cent of those farmers indicating very strong disagreement. Thirty-three per cent of farmers felt that the spread of farm GMOs could be controlled, with 15 percent of those farmers indicating that they very strongly agreed. Sixteen per cent of farmers surveyed indicated that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.

Table 9

Farmers’ Beliefs About GMOs (%)

Very strongly disagree Strongly disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree Very Strongly Agree Total Overall Belief

12 6 16 16 2 20

Farm GMO products are

environmentally friendly (n=795) 34 28

38 100 0

17 9 25 16 2 15

The spread of farm GMOs can be controlled

(n=796) 51 16

33 100 -ve

14 7 22 17 6 13

Farm GMO technology will solve the world’s food problems

(n=798) 43 21

36 100 -ve

7 5 16 20 5 20

Other GMOs will cure the World’s major diseases

(n=795) 28 27 45 100 +ve

11 7 19 17 4 16

Farm GMOs will improve the quality of life for animals

(n=798) 37 26 37 100 0

16 6 19 26 4 4

GMOs can be used in NZ without adversely affecting

organic farming (n=796) 41 24

34 100 -ve

The third question asked farmers for their opinion on the following statement: “farm GMO technology will solve the world’s food problems.” Twenty-two per cent of farmers indicated that they disagreed with the statement while a further seven per cent strongly disagreed and

(32)

world’s food problems. Cumulatively forty-three per cent of farmers indicted some level of disagreement with the statement. Seventeen per cent of farmers indicated that they agreed with the statement while a further 6 per cent strongly agreed and 13 per cent very strongly agreed with the idea that GMO technology will solve the world’s food problems. Twenty-one per cent of farmers indicated that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.

The fourth question asked farmers about their level of agreement or disagreement with the statement “other GMOs will cure the world’s major diseases.” Twenty per cent of farmers surveyed indicated that they very strongly agreed that GMOs will cure the world’s major diseases cumulatively 45 per cent of farmers agree with that statement. Sixteen per cent of farmers indicated that they disagreed that GMOs will cure the World’s major diseases and cumulatively 28 per cent of farmers disagreed to some degree with the idea. Twenty-seven per cent of farmers indicated that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.

The fifth question asked farmers about their attitude towards the statement: “farm GMOs will improve the quality of lives for animals.” Twenty-six per cent of respondents indicated that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement about GMOs improving the quality of life for animals. The proportion of farmers agreeing and disagreeing with this statement is equal at 37 per cent with near equivalent intensities at each increment of the scale.

The final question asked farmers about their level of agreement or disagreement with the statement “GMOs can be used in New Zealand without adversely affecting organic farming.”

A total of 34 per cent of farmers indicated agreement with the statement. Collectively 41 per cent of farmers disagreed with the statement with 16 per cent very strongly disagreeing that that GMOs can be used in New Zealand without adversely affecting organic farming.

Twenty-four per cent of farmers indicated that they neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement.

The results to these statements about GMO use show variable responses with some statements receiving support and others not. As noted earlier, farmers are ambivalent about GMO products being environmentally friendly, and they are ambivalent about farm GMOs improving quality of life for farm animals. However, in overview, farmers disagree with the idea that the spread of farm GMOs can be controlled, that they will solve world food problems, and that they can be used in New Zealand without adversely affecting organic farming. They agreed that other GMOs will cure the world’s major diseases.

3.4 Comparison of Data from 2000 and 2002 Surveys

Several questions from the 2000 survey were repeated in the 2002 survey to allow for the measurement of attitudinal shifts over time. The same wording was used each time.

In 2000 and 2002 farmers indicated their level of agreement or disagreement with the statement “New Zealand should try to achieve GE free status.” Table 10 shows some shifts in the attitudes of farmers to the idea of keeping New Zealand GE free and a difference of means test indicates that the change in the mean score is statistically significant. In 2000, 50 per cent of farmers indicated disagreement with GE free status in New Zealand while in 2002 that proportion decreased slightly to 46 per cent. Perhaps more importantly there is a notable

(33)

and achieve GE free status, with 32 per cent of farmers indicated support for the statement in 2000 and 38 per cent indicating support in 2002, with an increase in the intensity of agreement (from seven to 15 per cent who very strongly agreed). Finally, the proportion of respondents who indicated that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement decreased from 19 to 15 per cent between 2000 and 2002, a decrease that indicates that farmers in 2002 have more definite ideas about the prospect of a GE free New Zealand.

Table 10

Level of Agreement with GE Free New Zealand, 2000 and 2002

2000

%

2002

%

Very strongly disagree 18 10

Strongly disagree 11 7

Disagree 21 50

29

46

Neither 19 15

Agree 20 16

Strongly agree 5 7

Very strongly agree 7

32

15

38

Total 100 100

n 644 786

Mean 0.49 -0.0025

Std Dev. 1.81 1.81

Notes: 1. Range = –3 to 3

2. p <0.001, t = 5.14, significant.

In 2000, farmers were asked about their intentions to use gene technology on their farms in the next ten years, this question was replicated in the 2002 survey with a slight wording change. In 2002 farmers were asked about their intentions to use GMO, not gene technology.

This change was made for the following reason. The 2000 survey had not included any definitions about what was meant by gene technology and in 2002 a definition was included on the front cover of the survey. In 2002 the definition read as follows and was intended to be inclusive of the concepts of gene technology.

Genetically modified organism’ (GMOs), defined by ERMA, include any plant, animal or micro-organism developed through genetic modification. A GMO is any organism in which the genes have been modified by using in vitro (recombinant DNA) techniques, i.e., created in the lab. In this questionnaire, we are referring to GMOs, and offspring or products derived from them, for on-farm use. They do not include the use of genetic information to aid in breeding programmes.

The statements from 2000 and 2002 are compared here on the understanding that the same concept was intended to be measured with the terms ‘gene technology’ and ‘GMOs’.

Table 11 shows the proportions of farmers intending to use GMOs. The comparison of data from 2000 and 2002 indicates a ten per cent decrease in the proportion of farmers, from 45 percent in 2000 to 35 per cent in 2002, reporting an overall intention not to use GMOs with the largest decrease of five per cent in farmers who had very strong intention not to use

(34)

GMOs. The proportion of farmers who in general indicated an intention to use GMOs was consistent at 22 per cent in 2000 and 2002. However closer inspection of these proportions shows that there is a notable decrease in 2002 in the proportion of farmers with very strong intentions to use GMOs, dropping from 16 per cent in 2000 to two per cent in 2002. There was a comparable increase in the proportion of farmers who indicated that they had an intention to use GMOs, increasing from two per cent in 2000 to 17 per cent in 2002. These results perhaps indicate that while many farmers still do not intend to use GMO themselves some are becoming less adamantly opposed to its use. The proportion of farmers who indicated no intention to use or not use GMO increased from 35 per cent in 2000 to 43 per cent in 2002. These findings are statistically significant and suggest that farmers have become less negative and more neutral about their intentions to use GMOs. Part of this shift might be accounted for by the change in wording from the 2000 wording which included all gene technology compared to the more specific demarcation of GMOs in 2002.

Table 11

Intention to use GMOs, 2000 and 2002

2000

%

2002

% Very strong intention not to use 20 15

Strong intention not to use 9 7

Intention not to use 16

45

13

35 No intention to use or not use 35 43

Intention to use 2 17

Strong intention to use 4 3

Very strong intention to use 16

22

2

22

Total 100 100

n 649 796

Mean -0.64 -0.13

Std Dev. 1.53 1.84

Notes: 1. Range = –3 to 3

2. p < 0.001, t = -5.43, significant.

In 2000 and 2002 farmers were asked to indicate their intention to either use or not use organic methods on their farms in the next ten years. A difference of means t-test was not statistically significant, however, the chi-square is significant at 280 showing that the differences between the individual intention categories are significant. Comparison of these data shows a shift towards the intention not to use organic methods with the proportion of farms indicating a negative intention increasing from 19 per cent in 2000 to 29 per cent in 2002. Most of this increase is in the intention not to use category, that is, not strong intention.

(35)

Table 12

Intention to use Organic Methods, 2000 and 2002 (%)

2000 2002

Very strong intention not to use 4 4

Strong intention not to use 2 5

Intention not to use 13

19

20

29

No intention to use or not use 44 48

Intention to use 7 15

Strong intention to use 7 3

Very strong intention to use 24

38

5

23

Total 100 100

n 650 798

Mean 0.29 0.15

Std Dev. 1.25 1.51

Notes: 1. Range = –3 to 3.

2. Mean p > 0.05, t = 1.89, NS.

3. Chi-square = 280, significant.

There is comparable drop in the proportion of farmers who indicated a very strong intention to use organic methods, from 38 per cent in 2000 to 23 per cent in 2002 and most of this decrease is in the very strong intention category going from 24 per cent in 2000 to five per cent in 2002. The proportion of farmers who indicated that they had no intention to either use or not use organic methods increased slightly between 2000 and 2002 from 44 to 48 per cent of farmers. Overall, there appears to be less intention to use organic methods. Part of this shift might be accounted for by the 2002 questionnaire using a clear definition of organic farming.

This may have excluded farmers who might claim that all or any farming techniques (including their own) were ‘organic’.

3.5 Summary of Results for the Whole Sample

In overview, then we can say a number of general things about farmers in New Zealand.

Nearly one half of New Zealand farmers disagree with the idea that New Zealand should try to achieve GE free status. Half of the farmers believe the GMO moratorium should be extended beyond October 2003 and 62 per cent of farmers think that New Zealand’s environment is ‘clean and green.’

Nearly one half of the farmers reported they had no intention to use or not use organic methods and just over 40 per cent of farmers reported no intention to use or not use GMOs.

Clearly then over half of the farmers plan to farm conventionally in the next ten years.

Farmers indicated fairly consistent support for the development of GMOs for medical applications but over 40 per cent of farmers oppose the use of GMOs for human or animal food production. Farmers are clearly split into thirds (agree/disagree/neither) on the issues of the environmental friendliness of GMOs and the effect on the quality of life of animals. Half of the farmers surveyed believed that the spread of farm GMOs cannot be controlled and more than 40 per cent of farmers believe that GMOs may cure the world’s major diseases and solve the world’s food problems. Finally, 43 per cent of farms believe that GMOs can be used in New Zealand without adversely affecting organic farming.