Biofoods in India: 2. To eat the brand or not

That the green revolution transformed agricultural practices in India is widely acknowledged. The benefits of advanced biotechnology have also been perceived positively amongst the majority. The source of the resistance to bio-foods then originates not in biophilia or politics, but elsewhere. The projected disfavour may actually be directed against those who represent the biotechnology in the minds of people – the multinational companies.

Object attitudes are built on personal perceptions, feelings, and propensity to act. The attitude, says Banytė, is “achieved”, usually by direct or indirect experience. Once formed, it is relatively permanent, it motivates behaviour and resists change. Consumer experiences contribute to cognitive evaluations of goods and services and subsequently, determine the attitudes formed towards them. Emotional satisfaction develops a positive attitude; else negative impressions persist in thought, feeling and action. The object in question and all things associated with it are thence either liked or disliked.

Surveys have shown that people of different cultures react differently to mandatory labels on foods. In USA, for example, many people tend to assume that the products labelled GM (genetic manipulation) are inferior. The French generally overlook GM labels, but if attention is drawn to them, tend to change their choices. People in India prefer to read labels for dates, medicinal qualities, etc., instead. A recent survey study (2008) conducted by the Asian Food Information Centre (AFIC) found that Indians are more concerned about inaccurate labels, hygiene, and the use of low quality ingredients.

Perceptual differences to biotechnology exist in food production countries like India and China, and food importing ones like Japan and South Korea – the former more positive about the benefits of plant biotechnology. Survey results conducted by Environs International in 2000-01 showed that up to 69 percent of people in India felt that improved food quality, health betterment and food sustainability outweighed the possible risks associated with biotechnology.

Over the years the corporate industry has attempted to utilize cultural attitudes for their own profits. In long term, their tactics have backfired. Now, although the majority of Indians have a very favourable opinion about biotechnology, the national perception of Western business practices overseas has been discouraging. Consequently, brand relationship with the multinational firms is minimal.

India has had a long experience of being “dumping ground” for the West. In the first three decades since India’s independence from colonial rule in 1947, all of her food-grain imports including consignments under the “PL-48” food aid programme were found to be little better than “cattlefeed”. As late as the year 2000, despite seller assurances about their safety, a GM soybean consignment was found to contain “15 diseases, seven of which are viral diseases”.

The point is the first generation of GM foods has focused on producer benefits. That is, on immediate profits for the company, grossly overlooking the effects of their actions in the long-term. Banytė et al comment:

Globally it is possible to find not a single brand, successfully applying the means of emotional impact in communication with consumers.

The Indian people have become sensitized against multinational organizations in aggressive search of new markets. They have learnt to mistrust their trade practices, the levels of their knowledge and awareness in new environments. Thenceforth, as a matter of policy, all cultivatable GM bio-foods including 1000-tonne grain consignments arriving as food aid for the poverty-stricken have been systematically rejected.

Next…the patent