February 4, 2002 -- The American public is evenly divided over whether genetically modified food and other agricultural biotechnology products hurt or help
the environment when given basic information on risks and benefits, according to a poll released today by the Pew Initiative on Food and
Biotechnology. “Initially, people tend to feel slightly more strongly about the risks of the technology, but react more positively when
additional information is presented to them," says Michael Rodemeyer, executive director of the Pew Initiative.

Prior to reading a series of informational statements about the possible benefits and risks of biotechnology, respondents nationwide
were more likely to say that the risks of biotechnology outweighed the benefits (40 percent to 33 percent), while 19 percent thought the
benefits and risks were about the same, and nine percent were unsure. However, after being read a series of questions about specific
environmental risks and benefits (without specifically identifying which were risks or benefits), respondents were exactly evenly divided,
with 38 percent saying the risks outweigh the benefits and another 38 percent saying the benefits outweigh the risks. An additional 21
percent now said the risks and benefits were about the same, with the number of “don’t knows” reduced to 3 percent.

Consumers overall are also generally unaware of the environmental risks and benefits of genetic engineering, according to the poll.
Only 15 percent of respondents had heard “a great deal” about the benefits and 17 percent heard “a great deal” about the risks, with 42
percent hearing “some” about benefits and 43 percent hearing “some” about risks. An additional 32 percent heard “not too much” about
benefits and 27 percent heard “not too much” about risks, with the remaining 10 percent hearing nothing about benefits and 13 percent
about risks.

Consumers felt the most important potential environmental benefits of genetic engineering are:

• Creating plants to clean up toxic soils (74 percent).

• Reducing soil erosion (73 percent).

• Reducing fertilizer run-off into streams and lakes (72 percent).

• Reducing the amount of water used to grow crops (68 percent).

• Developing disease-resistant varieties of trees that are threatened or endangered (67 percent).

• Reducing the need to log in native forests (63 percent).

• Reducing the amount of chemical pesticides used (61 percent).
  

In terms of environmental concerns, consumers ranked the possibility that genetically modified plants, fish, or trees could contaminate
ordinary plants, fish and trees not intended to be modified as highest (64 percent), followed by “creating superweeds” (57 percent) and
increasing the number of insects that may develop pesticide-resistance (also 57 percent); reducing genetic diversity (49 percent) and
changing a plant, fish or tree through biotechnology so that it might harm other species (also 49 percent). Changing the ecosystem
ranked lowest of all the risks and benefits listed, at 46 percent.