Agribusiness Review - Vol. 3 - 1995

Paper 7
ISSN 1442-6951

Prospects for the commercial use of transgenic plants:
Attitudes of crop protection professionals

John Foster ¹ and Sue Ghonim ²

1 - Research Officer, Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Pest Management, 
The University of Queensland.
2 - Vacation Scholar, Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Pest Management. 
The University of Queensland.

We thank colleagues at the CRC for Tropical Pest Management and others who had an interest in this work. Discussions with David Adamison, Elaine Brough, Dave Holdom, George McLean, Geoff Norton, Ken Reed, John Rogers and Larissa Wilson were very fruitful. Larissa also helped with some of the telephone interviewing. Many thanks also go to the survey respondents who gave freely of their time.

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Diffusion-of-innovations
• The Australian Scene
• Literature Review
• Australian surveys on biotechnology
• Emerging non-technical issues for trans genic plants
  • Table 1: Key issues categorised by innovation attribute
  • Table 2: Responses to demographic and situational questions (N=46)
  • Table 3:Use of information sources about transgenic plants
• Attitudes towards herbicide-tolerant plants
  • Table 4: Attitudes towards herbicide-tolerant plants
  • Table 5: Attitudes towards herbicide-tolerant plants by gender
• Attitudes towards insect-resistant plants
  • Table 6: Attitudes towards insect-resistant plants
  • Table 7: Attitudes towards insect-resistant plants by gender
• Innovation attributes and factor analysis
  • Table 8: Summary of factor analysis results for insect-resistant plants
• Comparison of attitudes about herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant plants
• Discussion
• References

Abstract

Several biotechnological products will provide near- term opportunities for Australian agribusiness. These include transgenic plants, which have been genetically modified to confer insect resistance or herbicide tolerance. A survey of crop protection professionals showed that personal communication, usually with colleagues and researchers, is the most important source of information about transgenics. Results suggested that attitudes towards the use of herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant transgenic plants are mostly, but not uniformly, positive. A key finding is that both herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant plants are seen to be highly compatible with integrated pest management There is clearly a challenge for agribusiness and other stakeholders to promote the wise and integrated use of transgenics. Further use of favoured interpersonal communication channels (perhaps through participatory workshops) will be needed in order to develop, achieve, and sustain such an integrated approach.

Introduction

'Biotechnology' has been defined by the US Office of Technology Assessment (1989) as "any technique that uses living organisms, or substances from those organisms, to make or modify a product, to improve plants or animals, or to develop micro-organisms for specific uses." Genetic engineering (potentially the most significant biotechnology) opens up the possibility of creating modified life forms tailored to meet specific needs ( Tait 1990). It has the potential to create a revolution which could dwarf the previous green revolution' and new biotechnologies are seen by some theorists as the harbinger of the long-wave economic cycle being entered by western societies ( Tait 1990). Future markets for biotechnological products relate mainly to plant production but also to specialty chemicals, human medicine, food ingredients, animal husbandry and aquaculture ( Gotsch and Rieder 1995).

Many transnational corporations, such as American Cyanimid, Dow, Dupont, Rhone-Poulenc, Monsanto, Shell, ICI, Hoechst, Bayer and Syntex have invested heavily in biotechnology ( Tait 1990). Western governments have generally taken a pro-active approach to regulation on the basis that genetically engineered organisms may present unique hazards to the environment which would not be expected to occur with non-genetically manipulated products. Public opinion appears to be led by public interest groups, mostly environmental groups, who oppose biotechnology in principle ( Tait 1990). However, with the backing of powerful corporations, and with governments who generally do not question the need to support biotechnology, its development and commercialisation seems assured.

McLean (1993) explained that in most developed countries biotechnology has been identified as a "key emerging technology that will have significant social and economic impacts in the coming decades". Healy (1991), through face-to-face interviews with fifty of Australia's leading research scientists, identified the genetic modification of organisms as one of eleven strategic technologies likely to have the largest effect on the future of Australian agriculture.

This paper deals with one major application of genetic engineering in Australian agriculture that of transgenic plants for crop protection. With the advent of molecular breeding technologies, new crop cultivars are being genetically modified to increase the expression of traits important in the defence of crops to pests and disease. Over 1 000 field tests of such plants have been carried our since the first field release of a genetically modified transgenic plant in Belgium in 1986 ( OECD 1993a), and seeds for several transgenic crop plants are scheduled to become available for sale in the US in 1996 ( Schmidt 1995). Several transgenic crop plants in Australia are also on the brink of commercial application.

This paper focuses on prospects for Australia and explores the knowledge and attitudes of selected pest management professionals about a range of topical issues associated with the use of transgenic plants. It briefly reviews the Australian biotechnology scene, reviews previous research of relevance, discusses the survey design, details survey results, and explores implications for managing the effective implementation of transgenics.

The Australian scene

Young (1995) pointed out that in June 1994 some 3300 biotechnology experiments were registered with Australia's Genetic Manipulation Advisory Council (GMAC), and that during 1992/93 Australian rural research and development corporations spent approximately $11 million on biotechnology projects. Both of these figures attest to the size of the research effort being put into biotechnology development in Australia.

An Australian parliamentary inquiry initiated in 1990 received many submissions from organisations and individuals with differing perspectives on the future for new biotechnologies. A major outcome of this review process was a proposal to establish a Gene Technology Authority to regulate the release of genetically manipulated organisms (Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia 1992). Also, a new genetic manipulation research committee will replace GMAC which has administered non-statutory guidelines for research and development of gene technology for eighteen years (Prime Minister's Science and Engineering Council 1993).

As this new regulatory regime is being established it is clear that agro-biotechnologies will provide new commercial opportunities for Australian agribusiness and several Australian companies are poised to capitalise on these new opportunities in agriculture. These companies include Bio-care Technology, Biochem Pacific, Bresatec Australia, Florigene Pacific, Deltapine Australia, Monsanto Australia, Pacific Seeds and Unifoods ( Schibeci et al 1994). Several other dedicated biotechnology companies operate in the area of agriculture ( Fayle and Payne 1994).

Several companies have developed biotechnological products, which are nearing commercial application in Australian agriculture. A major thrust has been to develop crop plants, which are more resistant to disease, pests and environmental extremes. Of special interest here are transgenic plants which have been genetically modified to confer insect resistance or herbicide tolerance. Transgenic herbicide-tolerant crops flourish even when levels of herbicides lethal to weeds are applied. A concern, however, is that related weeds, or neighbouring wild plants, may become resistant to the herbicide by gene transfer or extensive use of the herbicide. Transgenic insect-resistant crops contain a gene responsible for producing a toxin, often from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), to provide resistance to insect attack. Unlike other insect control agents, the known Bt toxins to date have no known toxic or deleterious effects on organisms outside the range of affected insects, although some cases of insect resistance to Bt have been reported (QECD 1993b, p.23).

Many trials to test the technical efficacy of transgenic crop plants have been carried out in Australia. The most publicised of these is probably the 'insect-proof cotton trials ( CSIRO 1992). Cotton plants, which are resistant to the herbicide 'Roundup (glyphosate) ( Mussared 1994), and cotton and tobacco plants which can withstand very high concentrations of the herbicide 2,4-D have also been trialed ( Hindmarsh 1991; Lawrence and Vanclay 1993b).

Literature review

Literature reviewed for this study falls into two main areas; surveys about the acceptance of biotechnology, and theories about the acceptance of new technology in general. In terms of this second area, the diffusion-of-innovations work of Everett M Rogers and other researchers is important.
Literature reviewed for this study falls into two main areas; surveys about the acceptance of biotechnology, and theories about the acceptance of new technology in general. In terms of this second area, the diffusion-of-innovations work of Everett M Rogers and other researchers is important.

Diffusion-of-innovations

The diffusion-of-innovations approach advocated by Rogers (1983) represents a synthesis of some 2400 research publications, many in the area of agricultural extension. This approach has been used as the base for several rural sociological studies exploring the acceptance of new agricultural technologies ( Fliegel , 1993). Underpinning this approach is general agreement on the importance of social context and networks. Diffusion is seen as a social process involving adopters and others who are significantly influenced by cultural setting, social norms, government institutions, and industry. Emphasis has been placed on four key elements of the diffusion process:

(1) an innovation, (2) communicated via certain channels, (3) to members of a social system, (4) who adopt it over a period of time ( Rogers 1983).

Some aspects of the classical diffusion-of-innovations theory have been quite rightly criticised, and Rogers (1983) and Fliegel (1993) discuss these at some length. Rogers (1983), for example, explained that the adoption process is not a linear series of stages, but involves skipped stages and other irregularities. No such criticisms, however, appear to have been levelled at the idealised innovation attributes mentioned and there have been some suggestions that these deserve further investigation. It is clear, however, that not all of the idealised attributes are involved for all innovations ( O'Keeffe and Manifold 1995).

In terms of the innovation itself, Rogers (1983) suggested that five general attributes might influence acceptance behaviour: relative advantage. compatibility complexity. trialability and observability. Ostlund (1974) explained that risk is also an important innovation attribute and this dimension has also been evaluated in many diffusion studies. Risk is the expected probability of economic or non-economic problems resulting from innovation adoption. Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is seen as superior to prior innovations fulfilling the same needs. Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation appears consistent with existing values, past experiences and needs of the potential adopter. Complexity is the degree to which an innovation appears difficult to understand and use. Trialability is the perceived degree to which an innovation may be tried on a limited basis. Observability is the perceived degree to which the results of innovating are visible to others. Relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, and observability are positively related to adoption while risk and complexity are negatively related.

Australian surveys on biotechnology

The Australian Science and Technology Council (1993) stated that "no broadly based survey of public attitudes to genetic engineering has been undertaken in Australia". Since then, however, the Institute of Advanced Studies at the Australian National University, in conjunction with the Australian Department of Industry, Science, and Technology (DIST), developed a module on gene technology which was included in the 1994 Social Science Survey ( Kelley 1995 a). This survey covered 1378 adults around Australia ( Kelley 1995a), but some aspects of the questionnaire design and survey results have been subject to public debate ( Hindmarsh , Lawrence & Norton 1995; Kelley 1995b). Another major study ( Schibeci et al 1994) into the "public perceptions of biotechnology" is under way, funded by the Australian Research Council, but final results were unavailable at the time of writing.

Geoffrey Lawrence has led several Australian research teams, which have surveyed attitudes of selected stakeholders towards agro-biotechnology. Lawrence , McKenzie and Vanclay (1993) discussed the views of farmer organisations, and found that organic farming organisations were opposed to the further development of biotechnology while conventional farming organisations gave it "uncritical support". Lawrence and Norton (1994) explored views of scientists about government policy and the potential impacts of genetically modified organisms. The survey showed that scientists remained "somewhat unconvinced about the virtues of a commercially-driven biotechnology industry" and felt that needs for confidentiality and patenting had resulted in less information exchange and publication delays.

To date no Australian surveys appear to have specifically explored the attitudes of pest management professionals to agro-biotechnology. Given that pest managers represent an important group of end-users for transgenic plants their views are important and need to be taken into account when marketing management and policy strategies are designed. Without an understanding of these attitudes such strategies may be less effective than they otherwise could be, or indeed counterproductive.

Emerging non-technical issues for trans genic plants

Many topical issues, relevant to the acceptance of biotechnology in general and transgenic plants in particular, emerged from the literature reviewed. Considerable debate about the broad advantages and disadvantages of agro-biotechnologies is occurring. Lawrence and Vanclay (1993b), for example, suggested:

It has been generally claimed that agro-biotechnologies will increase production levels, decrease production costs and, thereby, contribute to a resurgence of Australia's international competitiveness in agriculture in the global economy. It will allow this to be achieved at the same time as the environment is improved through the biotechnologically induced reduction of pesticides and synthetic fertilisers.

Lawrence and Vanclay (1993b) went on to articulate some counter-claims made by various groups; for example, some ecologists have claimed that the use of herbicide-resistant plants will actually increase chemical use. Schmidt (1995) argued that transgenic seeds would cost more than standard hybrid seeds and so agricultural production costs may not necessarily be reduced. Schmidt (1995) also suggested that cultivating transgenic crops over vast acreages is unlikely to be more sustainable than today's high input systems of food production. Hindmarsh (1991) stated that "there are hidden costs which undermine the environmental promise" of some transgenics. In short, there is a general perception in some quarters that the promises of agro biotechnology are unlikely to be fully realised, and the debate over the use, and likely impacts, of transgenic plants has also been the subject of considerable media attention ( Mussared 1994; Australian Gen-Ethics Network 1992, 1994). CSIRO has recently produced a wide-ranging Genetic Engineering Education Kit, which includes two videos, an activities and resources booklet, and a teachers supplement booklet.

Non-technical issues of interest in the present study span social, environmental, economic, and managerial dimensions. Specific issues to be explored were assigned by the authors to the innovation attribute categories as shown in Table 1. Some of these issues reflect earlier discussion and many are discussed in Mannion (1995) and McLean , Evans & Rowland (1995). However, several issues in Table 1 deserve further clarification. The threat to family farm survival issue, for example, relates to the transfer of important production decisions from small farms to agribusiness corporations, as explained by Lawrence (1984), which may leave some small farms un-viable. The threat to biodiversity issue revolves around the likelihood of more land being used for agriculture ( Mannion 1995) and that "biotechnological applications ~l reinforce patterns of monovarietal production" ( Lawrence & Vanclay 1993). The obsolescence due to resistance issue reflects the ability of pest populations to adapt to genetically-modified plant defences, as they do to chemicals in the field so transgenic crops may have to be continually re-engineered to cope with the adaptive resistance potential of pests (Gould 1988). As Hindmarsh (1991) explains, this may result in a biotechnological treadmill (that parallels the present chemical one) where one substitute product is used after another.

The compatible with integrated pest management (IPM) issue derives from uncertainty as to whether transgenics are likely to be used as a 'magic bullet' solution, displacing existing pest management practices, or whether transgenics will be used as merely one option which will usefully complement others ( Brough , Foster & Norton, in press). McLean and Nicholls (1992) argued strongly for the IPM approach as it is likely to be more sustainable, due in part to reduced pest resistance problems. IPM involves the combined use of several techniques or practices to manage pests (Foster, Brough and Norton 1994).

Table 1 : Key issues categorised by innovation attribute

Source: Constructed.

The considerable extent of debate over transgenics, which is occurring, reflects the potentially dramatic impact of this technology. It seems most appropriate that these sometimes contentious issues are considered pro-actively rather than relying solely on a reactive approach following any problems, which may occur. This pro-active and anticipatory approach is in line with the precautionary principle, as described in the 1992 Australian Inter-Governmental Agreement on the Environment.

Survey design

Since the pioneering work of Dillman (1978) telephone surveys have become an important social science research tool. A telephone survey approach was chosen as it allowed a cost-effective way of achieving a high response rate from a geographically dispersed sample in a limited time. The sample chosen comprised participants in a series of workshops, facilitated by the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Pest Management, on topics associated with issues related to insects and weeds. About two-thirds of the sample were interested primarily in insects and the remainder were primarily interested in weeds. The sample was mainly located in Queensland, but also extended to New South Wales and Victoria. Telephone contact numbers for this sample were readily available, and it was decided that up to five calls would be made to each number in an effort to secure a response.

The survey questionnaire included an introductory paragraph explaining the meaning of the term 'transgenic plant'. In the context of the survey a transgenic plant was defined as "a crop plant which has been genetically-engineered to give either insect-resistance or herbicide-tolerance". Following this, respondents were asked to evaluate their own level of knowledge about transgenics on a scale from 'none/very low' to 'very high'. Responses to this question served to filter out those considered to have insufficient (none/very low) knowledge to answer further questions about transgenics. Respondents who gave an indication of having adequate knowledge were then asked several open-ended questions about sources of knowledge about transgenics. One of these questions asked about knowledge of current field trials in Australia. For each of the open-ended questions the interviewer probed for comprehensive information but did not prompt the respondent with possible answers. Respondents were given every opportunity to say "don't know" to questions which they were simply unable to answer.

Other questionnaire items mainly explored attitudes to the issues shown in Table 1 about the wider use of transgenic plants. These key issues were framed in terms of 16 statements using a six point agree/disagree (Linkert) response format. The statements were phrased so that a similar number were positively worded and negatively worded to avoid bias. This series of statements was repeated by the interviewer for both herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant plants in turn.

Finally, the questionnaire contained demographic questions about occupation educational level and gender of the respondent. Several supplementary questions related to the future role to be played by the CRC for Tropical Pest Management, the number of years working in pest management, and any further comments which the respondent wished to make. Preliminary data analysis was carried out using the Microsoft Access database, and the SAS software package was used for statistical calculations.

Basic results

In December 1994 and January 1995 a total of 259 telephone calls were made to 103 different work contact numbers. In five cases the telephone was disconnected or engaged, in eight cases there was no answer, and in 27 cases the person sought was not available (usually because that person was away on leave). Only three people contacted refused to be interviewed, and only one interviewee broke off the interview part way through. Fifty-nine interviews were completed. The effective survey response rate was calculated as the total number of completed interviews, divided by the total number plus refusals and incomplete interviews. This worked out to be 93.7 per cent (59/63 multiplied by 100) and was considered to be a very high response rate, thus minimising bias due to non-response.

In December 1994 and January 1995 a total of 259 telephone calls were made to 103 different work contact numbers. In five cases the telephone was disconnected or engaged, in eight cases there was no answer, and in 27 cases the person sought was not available (usually because that person was away on leave). Only three people contacted refused to be interviewed, and only one interviewee broke off the interview part way through. Fifty-nine interviews were completed. The effective survey response rate was calculated as the total number of completed interviews, divided by the total number plus refusals and incomplete interviews. This worked out to be 93.7 per cent (59/63 multiplied by 100) and was considered to be a very high response rate, thus minimising bias due to non-response.

Table 2 : Responses to demographic and situational questions (N=46)

(a): Percentages in this and other tables may not total 100 due to rounding.

Thirteen of the 59 respondents, as a result of the filter question on knowledge levels were not taken through the complete questionnaire. Five of these thirteen had not heard about the development of transgenic plants for pest management and the other eight assessed their level of knowledge on the subject to be "very low". Interestingly, all of these 13 had had an interest in the pest management area for more than five years and so their self-assessed very low knowledge level could not be attributed to general inexperience. However, most were farmers or other field personnel who did not focus solely on pest management issues and had an education level of grade 10 or less.

Table 2 shows a demographic breakdown (by occupation, educational level, gender) and situation breakdown (by knowledge level, years in pest management) for the 46 respondents who completed the full questionnaire. As shown, most of these respondents had tertiary education and more than ten years experience in pest management. Only eight of the 46, however, assessed their knowledge levels about transgenics to be high' or 'very high'. The 46 were quite evenly distributed across the occupational categories of researcher/scientist, farmer/consultant (which also included a few other non-research industry people), and extension/advisory (which also included miscellaneous other personnel). Despite conscientious efforts to interview as many females as possible this proved to be difficult due to the preponderance of males working in pest management and only eight females completed the full questionnaire.

Table 3 : Use of information sources about transgenic plants

All 46 respondents who completed the full questionnaire were asked about their main sources of information about transgenic plants and an average of slightly less than three answers per respondent was received. Responses (from more to less frequent) included contact with researchers/colleagues, academic journals, conferences/meetings, seminars/courses and others as detailed in column one of Table 3. Column two of Table 3 refers to information sources seen as the single most important. Again contact with researchers/colleagues was by far the most important, this time followed by conferences/meetings, academic journals, and others as shown.

One interesting finding here was that no respondents nominated mass media information sources (newspapers, TV, radio, etc.) as their single most important. The general trend is clearly toward word-of-mouth sources and away from mass media. This is in line with many other studies, which have shown that mass media are good for raising awareness about new technologies but interpersonal communication is much more salient and better at changing attitudes ( Rogers 1983).

Each of the occupational groups reported that talking to researchers/colleagues was the most important source of information. Researchers/scientists also relied heavily on academic journals while farmers also relied on conferences/meetings.

In terms of educational levels, talking to colleagues and researchers was once again seen by all categories as the most important source of information. The second most important source for graduates was conferences and meetings; for postgraduates it was academic journals.

Forty two per cent of males and half of the females cited researchers/colleagues as their most significant source of information about transgenic plants. For females this was followed by academic journals (38 per cent) and for males, conferences and meetings (21 per cent).

By far the most widely known trials of Australian transgenic plants, named by 72 per cent of the sample, were in Bt cotton. This result is attributed to the relatively high proportion of respondents interested in insects and the high profile that these trials have enjoyed. Trials of potatoes with leaf roll virus resistance were the next most widely known with 22 per cent of respondents indicating awareness. Thirteen per cent of respondents were unable to name a specific trial which they had heard of or read about, the majority of these respondents evaluated their level of knowledge as 'low' and this lent some credibility to their self assessment.

Attitudes towards herbicide-tolerant plants

Responses to 16 attitudinal statements, derived from issues identified in Table I. about herbicide-tolerant plants were obtained using a six-point Likert scale. Responses ranged from 'strongly agree 1 (rated one on the scale) to 'strongly disagree' (rated five) with a midpoint of 'neither agree nor disagree'. A response of 'don't know' was also available for those respondents who had no opinion on a specific issue. Analysis mainly involved calculating the mean score and standard deviation based on the first five points of the scale, as shown in columns one and two of Table 4, while column three shows the number of 'don't knows' registered for each statement.

On this basis, respondents as a whole strongly agreed that herbicide-tolerant plants could easily be trialed on a small-scale. There was slight agreement that herbicide-tolerant plants would be suitable for a range of crops, would contribute to sustainable agriculture, had largely unknown associated risks, and would significantly reduce agricultural production costs. There was slight disagreement with the statement that herbicide-tolerant plants were incompatible with 'clean and green' agriculture, and strong disagreement that they were incompatible with 'PM and were a threat to the survival of the family farm.

Table 4 : Attitudes towards herbicide-tolerant plants

(a): Calculated for responses based on a scale of one (strongly agree) to five (strongly disagree).

Three other statements had a high standard deviation, combined with a significant number of 'don't know' responses, indicative of a wide range of views and these statements are categorised in Table 4 as 'mixed opinion'. Closer examination of the difference of the demographic group means (using the t-test) of the mixed opinion classification gave very little indication of possible causes for the wide range of responses. A comparison of mean responses by number of years in pest management and level of knowledge was also scrutinised but again no significant differences were apparent between categories within groups. The variation in responses on the mixed opinion statements therefore seemed to be randomly distributed across the sample and could not be easily explained by variables related to demographics or the respondent's situation.

Table 5 : Attitudes towards herbicide-tolerant plants by gender

a): Calculated for responses based on a scale of one (strongly agree) to five (strongly disagree). (b): Significant difference at the p<0.05 level using the t-test

Five other statements in Table 4 reflected a high proportion of 'don't knows' in conjunction with a high standard deviation and these have been labelled as 'unknown'.

Almost 25 per cent of respondents did not know if the use of transgenics was compatible with a healthy diet or whether transgenics may quickly become obsolete due to resistance of pest populations. These views were not associated with any particular demographic or situational group.

A gender breakdown was done with statements arranged by environmental, economic, managerial, and social grouping (Table 5). Alter studying mean values it was clear that more negative responses from female respondents were evident for all but three statements. A more sceptical attitude from females was most clear for social and environmental issues with statistically significant differences on four of these statements at the p<O.05 level.

Attitudes towards insect-resistant plants

Table 6 : Attitudes towards insect-resistant plants

(a): Calculated for responses based on a scale of one (strongly agree) to five (strongly disagree)

As shown in Table 6, respondents as a whole strongly agreed that insect-resistant plants would reduce pesticide use, contribute to sustainable agriculture and are suitable for many types of crops. They slightly agreed that it would be difficult to observe if insect-resistant plants were in use, that the environmental risks are largely unknown and that a reduction in costs would be a result of use. There was strong disagreement that insect-resistant plants are incompatible with a 'clean and green' image of agriculture, are incompatible with 'PM and represent a threat to the survival of the family farm.

Table 7 : Attitudes towards insect-resistant plants by gender

(a): Calculated for responses based on a scale of one (strongly agree) to five (strongly disagree). (b): Significant difference at the p<0.05 level using the t-test.

Five statements had such a varied response across the sample that they were classified as 'mixed opinion'. This response variation could not be explained by occupation, education or gender. The high number of no 'opinion' responses on compatibility with a healthy diet and development of resistance led to a classification of 'unknown'.

As for herbicide-tolerant plants, a further breakdown by gender of all statements displayed by economic, social, environmental and managerial categories was carried out for insect-resistant plants. Once again there are clear differences in the attitudes of male and female respondents, as illustrated in Table 7. There is a more questioning acceptance of biotechnology by female respondents (evident from more negative responses to the majority of statements) with some statistically significant differences in the environmental, social and economic categories.

Innovation attributes and factor analysis

Table 8 : Summary of factor analysis results for insect-resistant plants

The central purpose of factor analysis is to explore interrelationships among a large number of variables and summarise these in a concise manner as an aid to conceptualisation. Factor analysis of the responses to the 16-attitudinal statements was carried out in an attempt to explore the efficacy of the theoretical innovation attribute dimensions discussed in the literature review section of this paper. 'Varimax' and 'promax' rotations (see Tabachnick and Fidell 1989) were carried out for both herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant plant data. In each case the level of sampling adequacy was calculated to be slightly above the 0.5 minimum value generally considered appropriate for factor analysis ( Child 1990). The 'varimax' rotation results were easiest to interpret and are the only ones reported here.

The insect-resistant plant data factorised reasonably well into the innovation attributes as summarised in Table 8.. Only the most important statements (with higher positive or negative factor loadings) contributing to each factor are shown; statements with factor loadings within the range from -0.40 to +0.40 were considered to be of limited importance and have been discarded from the set. Obviously the distinction between the innovation attributes is in some cases blurred as evidenced by some overlap in most factors. It should also be noted that the Table 7 statement will quickly become obsolete as resistance develops failed to load significantly into any of the factors. The statement will reduce pesticide use loaded into both factors one and three.

The results of the factor analysis for herbicide-tolerant plants provided a similar, but less distinctive pattern, with more blurring between the factors. This result may be related to the limited knowledge that respondents had about herbicide-tolerant plants, discussed in the next section.

Comparison of attitudes about herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant plants

Respondents' level of knowledge about herbicide-tolerant plants was generally much lower than for insect-resistant plants, which is un-surprising given the professional interests and geographical distribution of the sample, mentioned earlier. In all there were 65 'don't know' responses to attitudinal statements about herbicide-tolerant plants compared to 41 'don't know' responses to statements about insect resistance. 'Don't know' responses were markedly higher for herbicide-tolerant plants in the specific areas of suitability for a wide range of crops, increased agricultural productivity, ease of understanding, threat to biodiversity, compatibility with a healthy diet and development of resistance. Clearly, then, there are a substantial number of pest managers who were uncertain about some of the wider impacts of transgenic plants and who are likely to need more information about these issues.

Respondents' level of knowledge about herbicide-tolerant plants was generally much lower than for insect-resistant plants, which is un-surprising given the professional interests and geographical distribution of the sample, mentioned earlier. In all there were 65 'don't know' responses to attitudinal statements about herbicide-tolerant plants compared to 41 'don't know' responses to statements about insect resistance. 'Don't know' responses were markedly higher for herbicide-tolerant plants in the specific areas of suitability for a wide range of crops, increased agricultural productivity, ease of understanding, threat to biodiversity, compatibility with a healthy diet and development of resistance. Clearly, then, there are a substantial number of pest managers who were uncertain about some of the wider impacts of transgenic plants and who are likely to need more information about these issues.

The number of attitudinal statements attracting a strong response from most respondents on herbicide-tolerance (2) was much lower than for insect-resistance (5). The number of statements for herbicide-tolerant plants classified as unknown (5) was higher than for insect-tolerance (2). Again these trends reflect respondents' higher level of familiarity with issues pertaining to insect-resistant plants.

Most respondents felt strongly that herbicide-tolerant plants are easy to trial on a small scale, are no threat to the family farm, and are compatible with IPM. They strongly believed that the use of insect-resistant plants:

• will reduce pesticide use;
• will contribute to sustainable agriculture;
• will suit many different types of crops;
• is compatible with Australia's 'clean and green' image in agriculture;
• is no threat to the family farm; and
• is compatible with 'PM.

Respondents were generally unsure about whether the use of herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant plants for food production would contribute to a healthy diet, or whether pest resistance would lead to early obsolescence. Again these are key areas where pest managers are likely to want more information in the future.

Discussion

This paper represents another step towards better understanding the 'human dimension' associated with the commercialisation of transgenic plants for crop protection in Australia. Interest from pest management professionals in the topic of transgenic plants was found to be very high, and the telephone survey method was quite effective, as shown by the low refusal rate and several requests for a copy of the survey findings. However, only 76 per cent of those contacted appeared to have adequate knowledge about transgenics to complete the full questionnaire. So there is clearly considerable scope for stepping-up marketing and educational activities about transgenic plants, especially for those professionals (such as farmers) who have pest management as one interest among many. Personal communication, especially contact with researchers/colleagues, was the main source of information used by respondents, and the interpersonal approach is likely to be more effective a~ attitude development and change than the mass media. These findings therefore provide general guidance on marketing/educational strategies which may be useful to both agribusiness and other organisations such as the new Gene Technology Information Unit funded by the Australian Government ( Schacht 1995). A follow-up survey could canvass views about (and guide) specific future strategies associated with key variables such as price. promotion, and distribution channels for transgenic plants.

The clear message from respondents is that transgenic plants should be seen as part of an IPM package, and not as a 'magic bullet' solution to pest management problems. There were also some anecdotal comments to the effect that 'PM may become more important with the introduction of transgenic plants. This reflects the general feeling that transgenic plants will not herald a totally new era for agriculture, but rather that they are simply another important tool to be used in the fight against pests and weeds. In this context some respondents expressed concern about the possible indiscriminate use of the Bt gene in transgenic cotton plants which could result in the build-up of pest resistance and the loss of a valuable bio-technological resource. Some of these general findings reflect sentiments recently expressed by the Queensland Agricultural Biotechnology Centre (1995), and hopefully the proposed Gene Technology Authority will give these. Certainly the cotton industry is actively exploring industry-wide technical management options for the commercial release of Bt cotton (see, for example, mart 1995).

Survey results showed that significant gender differences were evident in attitudes towards transgenic plants. Although the proportion of female respondents was small, some statistically significant findings were evident and data suggested that the attitudes of females surveyed were generally more negative and sceptical. Zechendorf 's (1994) summary of biotechnology surveys found that "relatively higher degrees of risk are perceived by women" and cited a 1991 Swiss survey as evidence of this. Gender differences in attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology deserve further exploration, perhaps through more survey work or intensive interviews.

Apart from surveys, participatory workshops may also be used to build on existing survey findings to better understand some of the complex 'people issues' associated with implementing pest management strategies to improve field results. A workshop, which brings together some of the pest managers surveyed and other stakeholders with an interest in the use of transgenics would be useful. A participatory workshop approach would promote the interpersonal and interactive communication, which appears to be central to attitude formation, and coordinated action. Such workshops could be conducted on a regional basis, could focus on particular cropping industries, and a range of stakeholders. A suggested workshop theme could be the use of transgenics in IPM, and some of the non-technical issues highlighted in this paper could be discussed in this context. The process used by The CRC for Tropical Pest Management in facilitating pest management workshops which result in practical action plans for the future ( Foster , Brough & Norton 1994) indicates how these workshops could be conducted. Participatory workshops about agro-biotechnology have also been successfully used overseas (see for example National Agricultural Biotechnology Council 1993).

On a slightly different tack, O'Keeffe and Manifold (1995) explained that the general innovation attributes discussed above give some indication of the likely maximum level and rate of adoption of innovations and so are a useful tool in helping to assess potential market returns. The factor analysis carried out clearly shows that relative advantage, compatibility and risk are important attributes influencing the acceptance of insect resistant plants and gives some indication of the applicability and importance of other attributes. This information, in conjunction with traditional benefit-cost analysis, could provide a sound basis for a comprehensive market analysis for insect resistant plants, which would provide agribusiness corporations with an estimate of potential future returns on funds invested in research and development.

References

Australian Gen-Ethics Network, (1992) The Troubled Helix, Volumes one and two, Australian Conservation Foundation, Melbourne.

Australian Gen-Ethics Network, (1994) The Troubled Helix, Volume three, Australian Conservation Foundation, Melbourne.

Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTC), (1993) Gene Technology:

Issues for Australia, Occasional paper No.27, Canberra: AGPS.

Brough E, Foster J, and Norton G, (in press) 'Transgenic Plants: A Challenge for Integrated Pest Management', Australasian Biotechnology.

Child D, (1990) The Essentials of Factor Analysis, Cassell, London.

CSIRO , (1992) Towards a Cleaner Environment, Division of Plant Industry, Canberra.

Dillman D A, (1978) Mail and Telephone Surveys, John Wiley & Sons, New York

Fayle D, and Payne M, (1994) 'Biotechnology in Australia in 1993', Australasian Biotechnology, 4(6), December, pp.325-332.

Fliege l F C, (1993) Diffusion Research in Rural Sociology: The Record and Future Prospects, Greenwood Press, London.

Foster J, Brough E, and Norton G, (1994) 'Integrated Pest Management in Australia:

Making it Happen', Agricultural Science, September, 7(5), pp. 39- 42 .

Gotsch N, and Rieder P, (1995) 'Biodiversity, Biotechnology, and Institutions among Crops: Situation and Outlook', Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 5(1/2), pp.5-40.

Could F, (1988) 'Genetic Engineering, Integrated Pest Management and the Evolution of Pests', Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 3, pp.515-518.

Healy M P, (1991) Strategic Technologies for Maximising the Competitiveness of Australia's Agriculture-based exports, Information Paper No. lP2/1991, Bureau of Rural Resources, Canberra.

Hindmarsh R, (1991) 'The Flawed "Sustainable" Promise of Genetic Engineering', The Ecologist, 21(5) September/October, pp. 196-205.

Hindmarsh R, (1992) 'Agricultural Biotechnologies: Ecosocial Concerns for a Sustainable Agriculture', in Lawrence, F Vanclay, and B Furze, Agriculture, Environment and Society: Contemporary Issues for Australia, MacMillan, South Melbourne, pp.278-303.

Hindmarsh R, Lawrence G, and Norton J, (1995) 'Manipulating Genes or Public Opinion?', Search, 26(4), pp.117-121.

Kelley J, (1995a) Public Perceptions of Genetic Engineering: Australia, 1994, The Australian National University, Canberra.

Kelley J, (1995b) 'Australian Support for Genetic Engineering', Search, 26(5), pp.141-144.

Lawrence G, (1984) 'Sunrise on the Corporate Farm', Chain Reaction, 36, pp.18-22.

Lawrence G, and Norton J, (1994) 'Industry Involvement in Australian Agro-biotechnology: The Views of Scientists', Australasian Biotechnology, 4(6), pp. 362-368.

Lawrence G, and Vanclay F, (1993a) 'Biotechnology and Globalisation: The Contribution of Biotechnology to Agro-food Restructuring in Australia', presented at the European Congress of Rural Sociology, Wageningen, The Netherlands, August.

Lawrence G, and Vanclay F, (1993b) 'Agro-biotechnologies in Australia: Attitudes of Scientists to Biotechnology's Likely Social/Structural Impacts', presented at the 56th annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Florida, August.

Lawrence G, McKenzie H, and Vanclay F, (1993) 'Biotechnology in Australian Agriculture: The Views of Farmer Representatives', Prometheus, 11(2), December, pp.234-251.

Mannion A M, (1995) 'Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology', Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 53, pp.31-45.

McLean C, (1993) Australian Research on Genetically Modified Organisms for Use in Agriculture, working paper, Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra.

McLean C D, Evans G, and Rowland P (1995) 'Herbicide Resistant Crops and their Place in Australian Agriculture', Agricultural Science, 8(2), pp.4547.

McLean G D, and Nicholls T J, (1992) 'The Use of Genetically Modified Organisms in Australian Agriculture', Australasian Biotechnology, June, 2 (3), pp. 172-174.

Mussared D, (1994) 'Time for politicians to engineer a genetics debate', Canberra Times, September 10.

National Agricultural Biotechnology Council (1993) Agricultural Biotechnology: A Public Conversation about Risk, NAB C, New York.

OECD (1993a) Field Releases of Transgenic Plants, J986-]992: An Analysis, OECD Paris.

OECD (1993b) Safety Considerations for Biotechnology: Scale-up of Crop Plants, OECD, Paris.

O'Keeffe M, and Manifold F, (1995) 'Estimating the Market Potential of Innovations. Agricultural Science, 8(3), May, pp.36-40.

Ostlund L K, (1974) 'Perceived Innovation Attributes as Predictors of Innovativeness Journal of Consumer Research, 1, pp.23-29.

Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, (1992) Genetic Manipulation; The Threat or the Glory, Report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, AGPS, Canberra.

Paterson I, (1994) 'Genetic Engineering: The Next Farm Revolution', Australian Farm Journal, February, pp.16-21.

Prime Minister's Science and Engineering Council, (1993) Gene Technology, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra.

Queensland Agricultural Biotechnology Centre, (1995) 'Pesticides, Herbicides, Genes and 1PM', Just Genes Newsletter, 3(1) p.4.

Rogers E M, (1983) Diffusion of innovations, 3rd edition, Free Press, New York.

Schacht C, (1995) 'Gene Technology Unit will Foster Informed Debate', media release 114/95, Minister for Small Business, Customs and Construction, Canberra.

Schibeci R, Barns I, Davison A, and Kennealy 5, (1994) Public Perceptions of Biotechnology: First Report, Murdoch University, Perth.

Schmidt K, (1995) 'Whatever Happened to the Gene Revolution?', New Scientist, 145(1959), 7th January, pp.21-25.

Tabachnick B G, and Fidell L 5, (1989) Using Multivariate Statistics, second edition, Harper Collins, London.

Tait J, (1990) Biotechnology - Interactions between Technology, Environment and Society, Commission of the European Communities, Belgium.

Tuart L, (1995) 'A Possible Bt Management Strategy', The Australian Cotton Grower, 16(3), May/June, p.36.

US Office of Technology Assessment (1989) New Developments in Biotechnology:

Patenting Life Special Report, OTA-BA-370, US Government printing office, Washington.

Young D, (1995) 'Pay-offs to agricultural genetic engineering research', Outlook '95 Conference Proceedings, Vol.2, pp.51-58.

Zechendorf B, (1994) 'What the Public Thinks About Biotechnology', Biotechnology, 12(9), September, pp.870-875.