Tom A. Vestal, Ph.D.
Extension Specialist

Gary E. Briers, Ph.D.
Professor/Assoc. Head
Texas A&M University

Background

In Megatrends 2000, Naisbitt (1990) asserted that those who develop "high tech" must maintain "high touch" with the end users of the technology. Agriculture is perceived as slow paced and sustaining. What the public may not know is the rapid rate of change that biotechnology, specifically food biotechnology, has brought to agriculture. In 1996, the first year that transgenic row crops were grown in the United States, farmers planted 5 million acres with genetically modified seed. Farmers planted 30 million acres in 1997 (Re, 1997), and the National Agricultural Biotechnology Council (1998) estimates 65 million acres of transgenic seed were planted in 1998. This rapid rate of diffusion of innovations of agricultural technology may some day be documented as "unprecedented" in diffusion of agricultural innovations. Of much concern, as explained by Naisbitt (1990), is meaningful dialog with the end users of agricultural biotechnology. Most agricultural innovations are diffused among the users of the technology, the farmers; thus, there is little effort to influence consumer acceptance. Food biotechnology differs though, quite possibly because these agricultural technologies are perceived to have a direct effect on the food we eat. This "direct effect" launches food biotechnology into a public discourse, a discourse which, for the most part, is played out in print and broadcast media. The International Food Information Council (1997) reminds us that mass media play an important and significant role and serve as gatekeepers of food and health information. The Council says that these gatekeepers in cooperation with health professionals and educators control the written and verbal messages by which consumers base their perceptions, attitudes, and finally, behavior.
Science for many, journalists included, is a complex discipline. Wood (1994) suggested that rational responses are often abs! ! ent when the science is about one's food, health, or environment. So, he recommended that agriculturists go beyond the physical sciences and delve into social and behavioral sciences to address issues that influence affective behavior (values, morals, beliefs) and emotional response in addition to cognitive behavior (rational), that which can be reduced to empirical factual knowledge. Mazur's (1981) study of biotechnology found that, although few consumers voice disapproval of biotechnology research, media coverage that gave the appearance of a dispute benefited the opponents of the technology. He insisted that the public take any suggestion that a technology is risky seriously.
To learn how journalists and scientists felt about one another, Chappell and Hart (1998) sampled 2000 journalists and 2000 scientists. They found that neither group believed it was doing a good job of explaining science to the public. They concluded that those communicating scientific informa! ! tion to the public should engage in a systematic, continuing education activity exposing them to scientists and research processes.
Hallman (1995) examined the public's perception of biotechnology by asking consumers to respond to the term "genetic engineering." More than 20 percent of the consumers responded with negative impressions such as "frightened," "escaping virus," "Nazi/Hitler," "mutants" and "mad scientist." Only four percent of consumers mentioned "medical advances," better food" or "progress" while one-fourth responded with neutral thoughts such as DNA, plants, or people. Fifty-two percent of respondents in a national survey by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA, 1987) replied that genetically engineered products were likely or very likely to present a serious danger. Still, two-thirds of these respondents believed genetic engineering would make life better. ! !
The most important factor in consumer awareness and understanding about science and technology is mass media ( Rogers, 1983; Terry, 1994). But, we do not know journalists' knowledge about biotechnology nor their attitudes toward or perception of biotechnology. Rogers (1983) reiterated that mass media are the primary source to increase people's awareness about agriculture. He continued that mass media have great influence upon public perception, influence that he calls the Hypodermic Needle Model which causes "direct, immediate and powerful effects" (p. 272) by figuratively injecting information into society. Thus, the researchers wanted to know: What knowledge about, attitudes toward, and perception of food biotechnology do metropolitan journalists hold? and; Can these traits be influenced by a publication designed to inform journalists about scientific, environmental, and health issues regarding food biotechnology?
The research objective! ! s of this study were to:
1. Investigate and determine the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions held by metropolitan journalists regarding food biotechnology.
2. Investigate the relationship among knowledge, attitudes/perception regarding food biotechnology, and selected personal and situational characteristics of journalists.
3. Compare the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of journalists who were exposed to a treatment publication, to those of journalists in a control group.

Method

The target population for this study was journalists practicing at the nation's largest newspaper organizations. Ninety-six news organizations were identified for inclusion in the study. These organizations had an accumulated daily circulation of almost 30 million. Their circulations ranged from 105,624 to 1.76 million and the mean circulation was 308,272 (Levins, 1997). From these news organizations a sample of 376 journalists representing the "beats" of business, environment, agribusiness, features, food, health/medical, and science/ technology was identified. These beats were chosen based on research by Duhe' (1994) and Peterson (1996), who suggested that benefits and risks associated with biotechnology cross a variety of disciplines; therefore, public discourse in the news may be framed in many contexts.
To institute the experiment in the study, a posttest-only control group design was used to identify approximately equal representation! ! of journalists in the treatment and control groups. The treatment group was made up of a total of 191 journalists while the control group had 185 journalists.
This study involves descriptive research with correlation elements. The researcher developed a sixty-three item measurement instrument based on related research by Duhe' (1994), Barton (1992), and North Carolina Nationwide Survey on Biotechnology (as cited in Duhe', 1994). The instrument was designed to measure knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions. These three constructs were quantified in nine specific scales to determine 1) journalists' knowledge, 2) journalists' acceptance of genetically modified organisms, 3) journalists' acceptance of specific food biotech practices, 4) journalists' attitudes toward effects of biotechnology, 5) the level of importance journalists place on food biotechnology research, 6) journalists' faith in sources of food biotechnology information, 7) the level of importance jour! ! nalists' place on investigative reporting style when the subject is about food biotechnology, 8) journalists' attitudes toward potential obstacles to acceptance of food biotechnology, and 9) journalists' perceptions regarding adoption/acceptance rate of food biotechnology as a farm practice.
Knowledge was measured using multiple choice items. Attitudes and perceptions were measured from responses on Likert-type scales. Content validity was determined by a panel of twelve experts consisting of scientists from journalism, agricultural education, crop science, entomology, medicine, and biochemistry at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A&M University, and Texas Tech University. A pilot study of journalists in smaller Texas newspapers (20,000-75,000 circulation) established instrument face validity and internal consistency of the scales.
Data collection involved seven contacts with journalists in the s! ! ample during a twelve week period beginning February 5, 1998: 1) an introductory letter was forwarded to the entire sample including a treatment publication enclosed with the treatment group's letters, 2) the original questionnaire and cover letter, 3) a postcard reminder following the original questionnaire, 4) a series of follow-up telephone calls made randomly to one-third of the non-respondents (n=115), 5) a second questionnaire and cover letter, 6) a postcard reminder following the second questionnaire, and 7) a second series of telephone calls made randomly to 50% of the non-respondents (n=169).
Usable questionnaires (88 of 376) received during a 3-month data collection period ending April 30, 1998, served as the data source for this study. Because date of response was not correlated with the attitude/perception scales and because date of response and knowledge yielded a statistically significant but "low" (Davis, 1971) correlation (r=.21, p=.046),! ! the researchers made inferences to the target population based on data from the responding sample. Data were analyzed with SPSSX (SPSS, Inc., 1998).

Results

One hundred-four (28%) journalists representing 62 news organizations returned research instruments. Sixteen journalists returned incomplete instruments, replying: "Our policy does not allow us to participate in surveys." "I admire your persistenceàbut personal views are inappropriate for a journalist to discuss." "I do not do surveys." "I don't know enough about the subject." "I'd rather remain objective regarding topics I may write about." "We do not cover this subject." and "I do not wish to participate." Eighty-eight (23%) journalists representing 54 of 96 news organizations in the sample returned usable questionnaires.
Almost fifty-seven percent (n=50) of the responses were from female journalists; forty-three percent (n=38) were male. Ninety-five percent (n=83) of the respondents had attained Bachelor's degrees, 15.9% (n=14) held Master's degrees, and 2.3% (n=2) had doctorates. ! ! Forty-two of the responding journalists had practiced professional journalism for more than 20 years. Another 34 had practiced professional journalism from eleven to twenty years. The median number of years of professional experience 19.7 years. Half of the journalists identified their primary responsibility as "Editor" and half considered their primary responsibility as "Writer." The median number of years of professional experience of the editors and writers was 19.5 and 20 years, respectively.
In addition to professional experience, journalists are influenced by their backgrounds. Eighteen of the respondents indicated that their families owned agricultural property while 20 indicated that they had lived on a farm or ranch. Eighty-three percent (n=72) of the respondents indicated they had read or studied about biotechnology in the previous six weeks. Ninety-two percent (n=81) of the journalists indicated they were "aware" or "! ! somewhat aware" of how biotechnology will affect their food, health, and environment. Thirty-nine percent of the journalists had contributed to articles on biotechnology. Eight (9%) respondents were agribusiness (i.e., farm, agriculture) journalists while 80 (91%) of the respondents covered other beats.

Results Related to Research Objective One
Nine items measured journalists' knowledge about food biotechnology. The reliability of the knowledge scale was .67. Four multiple-choice answers were available on each knowledge question thus one might expect 25% correct answers by random selection or guessing. Scores revealed a lack of knowledge about food biotechnology; the mean for the sample was 30.2% correct answers. On the other hand, 92% of the journalists indicated they were "aware" or "somewhat aware" of how biotechnology will affect their food, health, and environment and almost 72% of the respondents indicated that their le! ! vel of scientific knowledge was "average," "somewhat high," or "high." Actual measurement of their knowledge (30.2% correct) of biotechnology reveals much lower levels of knowledge than what journalists perceive of themselves.
The instrument contained 40 items designed to assess journalists' attitudes or perceptions regarding food biotechnology. Reliability of the eight attitudinal/perception scales ranged from .72 to .92. The first attitude or perception involved journalists' acceptance of genetic modification of organisms (GMOs). Journalists believed genetic modification of humans to be the least acceptable use of biotechnology (Table 1). Genetic modification of animals followed with nearly 41% (33) selecting "highly unacceptable" or "somewhat unacceptable." Journalists generally accepted genetic modification of forest/landscape plants, food crops, and microorganisms.


Table 1. Descriptive Sta! ! tistics Concerning Journalists' Acceptance of
Genetically Modified Organisms
_____________________________________________ ________________________________

What is your current level of acceptance of genetic modifications of the following organisms?

1=Highly unacceptable, 2 = Somewhat unacceptable,
3 = Somewhat acceptable, 4 = Highly acceptable

................................................Responses.......................Mean< BR>_______________________________________________________ ____________________
..................................................1..........2..... ...3.......4
a....Microorganisms....................5........12......41......21......2. 99
b....Forest/landscape plants........4.........9......38......30......3.16
c....Food Crops.........................4.........9......42......26......3.11
d....Animals......... .....................15........18! ! ......39.......9......2.52
e....Humans..............................30........36......21.. .....5......2.01
____________________________________________ _________________________________
Cronbach's coefficient alpha = .87......................Scale mean =2.77


Next, journalists indicated their levels of acceptance of four food biotechnology practices. A large majority (81%-91%) of the journalists considered biotechniques to create insect resistant corn and cotton, slow vine-ripened tomatoes, and herbicide resistant soybeans as "highly" or "somewhat acceptable." The scale mean was 3.61.
A third scale measured their beliefs regarding effects of biotechnology on world hunger, healthful foods, family farms, and fish and wildlife. Generally, journalists were ambivalent about the effects of food biotechnology on healthful foods, fish and wildlife, and family farms. However, they believed that there would be a positive effec! ! t of biotechnology on world hunger.
Journalists were then asked their opinions of the importance of biotechnology research leading to seven possible outcomes. All seven were rated as important. Most highly rated were research to reduce pesticides, to benefit the environment, and to develop safer foods. Less important was research on adding nutritional value to foods.
A fifth area of inquiry involved journalists' expressed faith in seven selected sources of information on food biotechnology. Journalists' revealed most faith in statements about food biotechnology from university scientists (mean=3.76 on a 5-point scale). Journalists also had high faith in health professionals (mean=3.71). Journalists' faith in statements made by government agencies (mean=3.09) and by farm groups (mean=2.85) was moderate. They held less faith in statements made by biotech companies and food companies. Journalists indicated least faith in statements made by celebrities.
Jour! ! nalists responded next to questions about specific journalistic styles (Bare, 1995). They viewed as most important that journalists investigate claims and statements made by biotech companies, by food companies, or by activist groups, and (to a lesser extent) by university scientists. Too, they believed that journalists should analyze and interpret both undesirable and desirable consequences of food biotechnology. Least important was for journalists to mirror events and avoid interpretation.
Journalists were asked to express the degree to which they believe selected obstacles were to their acceptance of biotechnology in food production. Religious/ethical concerns about "tampering with nature" was rated low as an obstacle to their acceptance (Table 2). On the other hand, fears of genes moving unchecked to other life forms, of food safety consequences, and of environmental harm were moderately high.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics Concerning Potenti! ! al Obstacles to Acceptance of Using Food Biotechnology
___________________________________________ __________________________________
To what degree do you consider each of the following to be obstacles to your acceptance for using biotechnologyin food production?
1 = Very low, 2 = Low, 3 = Neutral,
4 = High, 5 = Very high

Frequencies....................Mean
______________________________ _______________________________________________
............... .....................................................1.....2.......3......4........5
a.......Religio us/ethical concerns about
........"tampering with nature." (this..............25.....18......24......12......6........2.48
........item omitted from scale)
b.......Fear of genes moving unchecked
........to other plants,insects or......................5......9......16......36......19! ! ........3.65
........microorganisms.
c.......Fear of food safety consequences........7.....9......21......31......17........3.49
d.......Fear of environmental harm................2.....12......17......33......20........3.68
______________ __________________________________________________________ _____
Cronbach's coefficient alpha = .86........................Scale mean = 3.61


Finally, journalists indicated their beliefs concerning rate of acceptance of food biotechnology as a farm practice. On average, journalists perceived that farmers would accept food biotechnology as a farm practice within 3.1 years while consumer acceptance will take 7.7 years.

Results Related to Research Objective Two
Knowledge was related to journalists' reported awareness of biotechnology's effect on food, heath, and the environment. A correlation coefficient of .22 (p<.05) indicated that as journalists' awareness of biotech's effects increased,! ! assessed knowledge also increased. Too, as their knowledge increased, journalists believed that it was less important that they use an investigative reporting style (r=-.27, p<.05). None of the personal/background characteristics of journalists were related to knowledge.
Journalists' acceptance of genetically modified organisms was related to their primary responsibility at the news organization (rpbis=.40, p<.01), to whether or not they had contributed to an article on biotechnology (rpbis=.29, p<.05), to their perceived level of scientific knowledge (r=.33, p<.05), and to their perception of the rate of acceptance of food biotechnology as a farm practice (r=-42, p<.01).
No relationships were found between journalists' level of acceptance of biotech practices and personal or situational variables or other attitudes or perceptions. There were two statistically significant relationships between journalists' beliefs concerning the effects of bi! ! otechnology and other variables: Journalists whose families owned agricultural property tended to believe biotechnology would have more positive than negative effects on fish and wildlife, world hunger, family farms, and healthful foods (rpbis=.24, p<.05). Also, as journalists' perceived level of scientific knowledge increased, they were more likely to consider biotechnology to have a positive effect (r=.25, p<.05).
There were no relationships discovered between journalists' ratings of the importance of food biotechnology and any other variables. However, there were two statistically significant relationships between journalists' expressed faith in sources of food biotechnology information and background variables: Their level of faith was related to their primary responsibility at the news organization (rpbis=.27, p<.05) and to whether or not they had lived on a farm or ranch (rpbis=.23, p<.05).
Next, journalists' rating of the importance of an investi! ! gative journalistic style was related to whether or not they were raised on a farm or ranch (rpbis=.26, p<.05), to their expressed awareness of biotechnology's effects on food, health, and the environment (r= -.24, p<.05), and to their recency of study/reading about biotechnology (r=-.25, p<.05). Finally, the degree to which journalists perceived various obstacles to acceptance of biotechnology was related to their level of awareness of biotechnology's effects (r=-.19, p<.05) and their primary responsibility in the news organization (rpbis=.32, p<.01).

Results Related to Research Objective Three
The researchers used t-tests to compare the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions between the treatment and control groups. There was no evidence to support that the knowledge, attitudes, or perceptions were different.

Conclusions

Conclusions Related to Objective One
Journalists' knowledge was low and similar to knowledge levels of consumers (Bruhn,1997). As knowledge of journalists increased, they increasingly considered the effects of biotechnology to be positive. Too, journalists had fears related to human and environmental health that they considered to be obstacles to their acceptance of food biotechnology. If their knowledge of the actual technology was so low, then what are their perceptions based on? They are not based on a thorough knowledge of the technology: thus, they may be based on other experiences with science and technology: "Alar scare," "killer bees," BST in milk, the clone "Dolly".
Real or not, the perceptions consumers hold about the safety of biotech foods are likely to sway regulatory decisions, affect research and develop, and ultimately delay the diffusion of innovations even if they are scientifically proven to be safe! ! (Armstrong, 1991). Journalists confessed that they do not have or desire to have "walking around knowledge" about biotechnology. Thus, they request easy and rapid access to information. Because journalists play a significant role in public education, influence state and national legislative policy, but do not have experiences by which to reference happenings in agriculture and food production, biotechnology education targeting journalists is important.
Genetic modification of microorganisms and plants was considered acceptable while biotechniques in animals and humans were considered unacceptable, supporting the findings of Hoban (1990). Biotechniques that create insect resistant corn and cotton, slow vine ripened tomatoes, and herbicide resistant soybeans were acceptable.
Journalists believed that biotechnology would have a positive effect on world hunger, supporting Benedict's (1998) assertion that biotech crops may increase yield per acre. ! ! Journalists considered food biotechnology research that benefits the environment and reduces the use of pesticides as most important. Hoban (1996) found higher levels of consumer acceptance for agricultural biotechnology that offers relative advantage (e.g., human and environmental health, food quality).
The attitudes of journalists were more positive toward plant biotechnology than animal biotechnology; so, these practices should be dichotomized and identified as individual and different practices, rather than identified by generic nomenclature as simply "biotechnology." Because journalists show support for plant biotechnology innovations and believe that the benefits outweigh the risks related to health, food quality, and the environment, the agricultural and food industry may need to focus on research and commercialization of products that meet these criteria.
Journalists had greatest faith in statements made by university scientists an! ! d health professionals, supporting research by Hoban and Kendall (1993). Journalists, in general, had moderate levels of faith in spokespersons from government agencies and low levels of faith in farm groups, biotech companies, and food companies. Journalists had least faith in celebrity sources. Journalists believed it was most important that they investigate claims and statements made by biotech companies, food companies, or activist groups, and (to a lesser extent) by university scientists. They believed that journalists should analyze and interpret both undesirable and desirable consequences of food biotechnology. Journalists did not believe they should simply mirror events and avoid interpretation. Because journalists have greatest faith in university scientists and health professionals and less faith in biotech companies, private biotechnology companies may seek new and stronger partnerships with universities and health organizations.
Journalists consider! ! ed fears related to genes moving unchecked to other organisms, food safety consequences, and environmental harm, as obstacles to their acceptance of using biotechnology in food production. There is skepticism because industry and government have endorsed technologies without comprehensive analysis and open public dialog regarding the research (Lewis, 1990).
Journalists believed that farmers would accept food biotechnology as a farm practice within three years while consumer acceptance would take almost eight years. This finding supports earlier research that found that about 50% of the consumers in a national survey thought that genetically engineered foods purchased at supermarkets were already providing benefits to them while three-fourths anticipated benefits from biotech foods within the next five years (IFIC, 1997).

Conclusions Related to Objective Two
Correlations indicated that as journalists' awareness of biotechnology's effects on f! ! ood, health, and the environment increased, assessed knowledge also increased. Too, as their knowledge increased, journalists believed that it was less important that they use an investigative reporting style. Journalists' knowledge about biotechnology was relatively low; therefore, although investigative/interpretive reporting may be the most labor-intensive style of reporting (Denton, 1996), most journalists will employ this style. There were no relationships discovered between journalists' level of assessed knowledge about biotechnology and personal or situational variables or other attitudes or perceptions.
Data strongly supported that editors were less accepting of genetically modified organisms than were writers. The level of acceptance of genetically modified organisms increased among journalists with greater perceived levels of scientific knowledge and who had contributed to an article about biotechnology. Also, those journalists who perceived a more ra! ! pid rate of acceptance of food biotechnology as a farm practice had a higher level of acceptance for genetically modified organisms.
There were no relationships discovered between journalists' level of acceptance of specific biotechnology practices and personal or situational variables or other attitudes or perceptions. Journalists whose families owned agricultural property tended to believe biotechnology would have positive effects on fish and wildlife, world hunger, family farms, and healthful foods. Too, as journalists' perceived level of scientific knowledge increased, they were more likely to consider biotechnology to have a positive effect. Fowler, Hodge, Drees, and Trew (1979) support this conclusion with a finding that most journalists do not have experience by which to reference happenings in agriculture.
Journalists' faith in sources was higher among writers than among editors. Schudson (1995) who discovered that the social interaction bet! ! ween reporter (writer) and sources builds confidence in the exchange supports this outcome. Also, journalists' level of faith in sources was greater if they had lived on a farm or ranch. This finding is supported by marketing research of Schoell and Guiltinan (1995) who found that consumer wants, motives, perceptions, attitudes, knowledge, personality, and lifestyle are influenced by family, friends, class, and the culture in which they live.
Journalists with greater awareness of biotechnology's effect on food, health, and the environment and those who had lived on a farm or ranch considered it less important to do further investigation or interpretation of statements made by sources. Also, writers considered specific obstacles to acceptance of biotechnology in food production to a lesser degree than did editors. Often researchers mistakenly consider the relationship between reporter and source as the most important link (Tuchman, 1980). However, Solomon (198! ! 5) believed that the most powerful influence may be relationships between reporters and editors. Too, the greater the journalists' awareness about food biotechnology's effect on food, health, and the environment, the lower the strength of specific obstacles to acceptance of food biotechnology. Bruhn (1997) who concluded that lack of awareness of agricultural practices and little knowledge about biotechnology drove people to oppose products of biotechnology supports this conclusion.
Because almost 5% of the journalists responded that farmers or consumers would never accept food biotechnology as a farm practice, one might expect some continued opposition to biotechnology. This opposition, although small in size, will continue to have a vocal presence in the media due to the marketability (e.g., controversial nature, sensational nature) of the opposing side in the biotechnology debate. Writers perceived that farmers and consumers would accept food biotechnology as! ! a farm practice more rapidly than did editors. This finding was similar to those of Breed (1955) who found that journalists' in editorial and managerial positions, in general, held more conservative views than did writers.
Journalists will continue to employ an "investigative/interpretive" style of reporting. Journalists' knowledge and the complexities of innovations in biotechnology will influence the extent to which journalists employ "investigative/interpretative" style reporting. Because "news" must be marketable and articles about biotechnology must compete with other stories for "play" in the newspaper, editors may be predisposed to choose news with sensational content. Negative consequences of innovations may be featured more often than the benefits or scientific progress resulting from an innovation. Journalists attached a high level of importance to human health, food quality, and environmental enhancements brought by biotechnology. These elements should be the focus of extensive research! ! and of educational messages. Because the acceptance of food biotechnology was greater among writers than among editors and because news editors may control the news by omitting or burying a story, an awareness campaign for editors may be warranted.