PR Watch <www.prwatch.org/> Volume 6 #4 Fourth Quarter 1999
The Professor Who Can Read Your Mind
by Karen Charman
Tom Hoban is a man with a mission: to convince people to embrace genetically
engineered food. I had the opportunity to experience this firsthand at the
Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) annual conference in New York City in
June 1998 while we were lining up for lunch. Seeing the press pass dangling
around my neck, he made a beeline for me and proceeded to attempt to
educate me about the wonders of food biotechnology.
That might not seem strange--plenty of people push biotech--but Hoban is
not a public relations flack or salesman at a company peddling biotech
food. He is a
professor in the sociology department at North Carolina State University
(NCSU).
Hoban specializes in consumer behavior and the psychology of conflict, a
position that gives him a veneer (but only a thin veneer) of objectivity.
Industry promoters widely regard Hoban as the pre-eminent expert in consumer
attitudes on gene-altered food, and he is listed in several industry source
guides for journalists. Over the last ten years, he has conducted a number
of government-and industry-funded surveys, which he says consistently show
"two-thirds to three-quarters of U.S. consumers are positive about food
biotechnology." Considering the controversy swirling around biotech food
overseas and the likelihood that it will erupt on these shores, such a
finding must be comforting to industry. His data, however, is questionable.
Hoban says he helped design the questions in a much-touted consumer survey
conducted for the International Food Information Council (IFIC) but carried
out by the Republican political and polling firm, the Wirthlin Group. The
survey was first done in March 1997 and then repeated in February 1999,
ostensibly so that a trend could be established. Besides trumpeting strong
support for genetically engineered food, the nine-question survey indicates
that consumer awareness of biotech food is low. It also claims there is
little support for labeling biotech foods.
The problem with the survey, however, is that the questions it asked are loaded
with language designed to bias the answers. Examples include:
"How likely would you be to buy a variety of produce, like tomatoes or
potatoes, if it had been modified by biotechnology to taste better or
"fresher?"
"How likely would you be to buy a variety of produce . . . if it had been
modified by biotechnology to be protected from insect damage and required
fewer pesticide applications?"
"Biotechnology has also been used to enhance plants that yield foods like
cooking oils. . . . Would this have a positive effect, a negative effect, or no
effect on your purchase decision?"
"Some critics . . . say that any food produced through biotechnology should be
labeled even if the food has the same safety and nutritional content as other
foods. However, others, including the FDA, believe such a labeling
requirement has no scientific basis, and would be costly and confusing to
consumers. Are you more likely to agree with the labeling position of the FDA
or with its critics?"
James Beniger, a communications professor at the University of Southern
California and past president of the American Association for Public Opinion
Research, reviewed the IFIC survey and said it is so biased with leading
questions favoring positive responses that any results are meaningless.
UCLA communications professor Michael Suman agreed, adding that the
questions "only talk about the food tasting better, being fresher,
protecting food from insect damage, reducing saturated fat and providing
benefits. It's like saying 'Here's biotechnology, it does these great
things for you, do you like it?'" The results might be different, Suman
offers, if it contained questions biased in the other direction such as:
"Some people contend that some foods produced from biotechnology cause
higher rates of cancer. If that is so, what effect would that have on your
buying decision?"
Ignorance is bliss
Hoban's rap, either while presenting a paper at a biotech industry
conference or
in a one-on-one interview, is equally questionable. It goes something like
this (my paraphrase): "The public is much more positive about food
biotechnology than the activists would have you believe. Most people don't
know much about
biotechnology, but that's because it is not important to them.
Americans--unlike
Europeans who have been through traumatizing food scares--have great trust
in the public agencies that regulate our food supply. Since the FDA says
genetically modified food is safe, that is good enough for most. The FDA
position on labeling is sensible because a label for biotech food would
only confuse consumers and hike the cost. Activist types are suspicious of
biotechnology, but they are probably technophobic and only represent a
minority view. Biotechnology is no different than what crop breeders have
been doing all along--it's just more sophisticated and more precise, so
what's the big deal? People support biotechnology in food because it will
benefit them. People's views on food are based on whether they think it
will bring them a tangible benefit--fresher, better taste, convenience,
higher nutrition, and
price. Environmental and food safety concerns only surface if there is
irresponsible and sensational media attention that stirs up fear. Besides,
biotechnology is good for farmers, and Americans--unlike Europeans--like to
support their farmers."
At industry gatherings, Hoban emphasizes--and pokes fun at--the scientific
illiteracy of the general public. At the BIO meeting, after telling his
audience that consumers decide what food to buy based on taste, value, and
convenience, not on how the seed was produced, he quipped: "Lots of
American consumers probably don't know seeds are involved in
agriculture--they don't even know farms are involved in agriculture."
"Everybody's going to be
using biotech foods
pretty soon, so there
won't be a lot of alternatives."
--Professor-cum-Pollster Tom Hoban
In a recent telephone interview, he said that when he asks people about
concerns critics have been raising about the technology, most respondents only
express a vague sense that biotech may result in some unwanted and
unanticipated
consequences somewhere down the line. But again, ignorance shapes their
response. "People tend to think the positive is going to outweigh the
negative when we describe it for them. In general, they don't know enough
about it to get into all the details--that a plant is going to somehow have
its genes transferred to another plant," he said. "When you present that to
people in a focus group, they will scratch their head and not really know
what you are talking about."
Comfort Food
Hoban sees such public ignorance as a great opportunity for industry to
"proactively educate" consumers to gain trust in biotechnology. At the BIO
meeting, he complimented biotech companies and industry groups like IFIC
and BIO for "paving the way for biotechnology in the U.S." and making the
public "comfortable" to the point that he predicted genetically engineered
food "will not be an issue for the vast majority of consumers."
Hoban miscalculated the extent to which genetically engineered food has
become an issue in Europe. At the June 1998 BIO meeting, he said activist
groups
like Greenpeace had gotten all the media attention but they didn't really
represent the average European consumer. Today he concedes the biotech
industry made some mistakes in being too aggressive about pushing the
technology and not
labeling the products so that European consumers could make their own choices.
However, he blames most of Europe's reaction on an out-of-control media that
"terrorized" European citizens with daily headlines of Frankenfood,
combined with the aftershocks of betrayal over mad cow disease in England
and dioxin
contamination in Belgium.
European controversy or not, Hoban doesn't seem to be too worried about the
future prospects of the industry. He says non-GMO products are becoming
difficult to find, and "everybody's going to be using biotech foods pretty
soon, so there won't be a lot of alternatives."
Expert for Hire--Attorney Included
A short biography of Hoban precedes an interview with him that appeared in the
May 1996 issue of PBI Bulletin, a publication of the Canadian National Research
Council. It describes him as an Associate Professor and Extension Sociology
Specialist at NCSU whose "main responsibilities involve working with government
agencies, industry and others to improve the assessment and transfer of new
technologies." Much of his work "focuses on how people accept new products and
respond to change," including "ethical and educational implications of
biotechnology." Besides a PhD in rural sociology, Hoban has master's degrees in
agricultural journalism and water resource management, plus a BS in biology.
Hoban advertises his social research consultant services on his own web page
(sasw.chass.ncsu.edu/~tom/). The page says he has "unique and interdisciplinary
perspectives" and "provides a practical focus for managing change." It also
says, "Dr. Hoban provides timely advice and expert assistance in a number
of areas including: consumer response to new products; public perceptions
of food
biotechnology; management of innovation and change; public opinion about
technology and the environment; and issue and crisis management." Specific
skills listed include: "survey and focus group research; team building and
partnering; strategic planning; policy analysis; needs assessment; and
technology forecasting."
Hoban was out of the country when I called to ask who his clients are, so I
called NCSU to request the "External Professional Activities For Pay" forms
that the university requires its faculty to file when they take on outside
work. The university replied that the forms were "confidential personnel
information" and refused to provide them. When I called Hoban later to
request the information, he refused and was furious that I had contacted
the university. He added that he had checked out PR Watch, found it to be
very biased, and threatened that his attorney would look closely at
anything we wrote.