**7. Actor interests responding to structural and technological changes**

In this section we turn to the description of how affected actors perceive the legal, structural and technological developments in the aquaculture sector. The aim is to study their views on whether and how these parallel trends are likely to affect sustainable development in aquaculture.

#### **7.1 Public opinion and attitudes to new biotechnologies**

In Europe, surveys have been carried out from 1996 to 2007, to identify Europeans opinion and attitudes to modern biotechnology. Although difficult to draw any conclusion it seems that modern biotechnology used in production for medicines and pharmaceutical products receives highest support while modern biotechnology used in agriculture receives less support (although concern about GM foods have had a small decline since 2001). For example in one recent Eurobarometer poll (GMO compass, 2009), European consumers were asked to identify the environmental themes about which they were most concerned, and on

was turned into a private venture company, who in 2007 decided to sell its shares in Aqua Gen AS. The German EW Group, which is also the holding company of the world's leading poultry genetic companies (Aviagen), concluded an agreement to take majority ownership of the shares in Aqua Gen AS. Thus, the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (FKD) gradually lost control over the material from the originally public supported breeding

Currently, the Norwegian legal system is unclear on regulating genetic material originating in the wild or coming from public breeding programmes and hence a comprehensive management system for aquatic genetic resources is not in place. The sale of Aqua Gen AS to German EW Group is illustrative of the dilemma. This breeding material can now in theory be patented and removed from the public domain. The development has moved from a situation of public control and ownership, via a cooperative situation, to the current situation of increasingly dominating market actors. This raises question about eventual effects of recent Norwegian access regulations in the Nature Diversity Act and the Marine Wild Species Act. The situation has raised questions about the need to regulate access to wild or breeding material in other species, as cod and halibut, because a similar level of international exchange has not taken place for these

Since the early 1990s, public support for Norwegian farm animal breeding has decreased, reflecting a political will to privatize breeding. A counter trend is the initiative from the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs to fund the establishment of a breeding program for cod at the research institute, Nofima in Tromsø. In line with the policy goal of safeguarding rural settlements, this may reflect an intact willingness to finance development of breeding programmes in Norway, at least in the districts of Northern Norway. The current official goal is to retain the cod breeding material and associated competence and knowledge bases that are being built up as a Norwegian public good asset. The end goal may be that cod, like salmon, is intended to become profitable and commercialised at some point down the line, but the legal

process of how to deal with this has only just started (interview NN1).

**7.1 Public opinion and attitudes to new biotechnologies** 

**7. Actor interests responding to structural and technological changes** 

In this section we turn to the description of how affected actors perceive the legal, structural and technological developments in the aquaculture sector. The aim is to study their views on whether and how these parallel trends are likely to affect sustainable development in

In Europe, surveys have been carried out from 1996 to 2007, to identify Europeans opinion and attitudes to modern biotechnology. Although difficult to draw any conclusion it seems that modern biotechnology used in production for medicines and pharmaceutical products receives highest support while modern biotechnology used in agriculture receives less support (although concern about GM foods have had a small decline since 2001). For example in one recent Eurobarometer poll (GMO compass, 2009), European consumers were asked to identify the environmental themes about which they were most concerned, and on

programme for salmon.

other species of fish.

aquaculture.

an average, 20% of respondents cited the topic of 'GMOs in farming'. Although these surveys have been on GM crops and medicines, the aspects related to benefits and environmental issues may have similar support and doubt versus the different possibilities for introduction of modern biotechnology in aquaculture (see also 7.1.1 for results from a survey among Norwegian students).

There are several challenges involved in measuring actor perceptions of GMO. A study of the GM debate in the UK, Australia and New Zealand found that access to decisionmaking and the inability to weigh explicit social value judgements with the broad science consensus were the major obstacles to successful deliberative public debate (Walls et al., 2005). For instance, in the New Zealand experience, non-scientific arguments were implicitly marginalised because the templates (questionnaire) employed for the interest groups made it difficult to use holistic arguments. A 'holistic argument' in this case might imply a consideration of the growing dominance of multinational corporations in the life sciences. These enterprises increasingly decide on options for the development of new medicines and food, they are part and parcel of the GM revolution – but somehow their role seemed to be 'beside the point' in the questionnaire developed to study the public debate (Walls et al., 2005). Most studies on GM plants and products are based on information provided by research laboratories and/or released by industry (Gaskell et al., 2003). It is also important to note that this documentation, along with the GMO applications, is provided by multinational corporations that enjoy little public trust (Gaskell & Bauer, 2001).

### **7.1.1 Students attitudes to the use of GMO in aquaculture**

Knowledge and attitudes regarding the use of GMOs in aquaculture was studied among students at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) that can be considered as future stakeholders in food production and management of biological resources (Unpublished data). The survey result showed that most students were well informed about genetic engineering and/or GMOs. Many students were very concerned about environmental impacts from the use of GMOs. For example it was found that most of the respondents disagreed on the statement on whether the use of GMOs results in no negative environmental effects, this was also confirmed by the question on whether the students would buy transgenic salmon if it was more environmentally friendly (showed by an 40 % increase in willingness to buy transgenic salmon if it was more environmentally friendly). However, many students were not willing to buy transgenic salmon if it was more nutritious or more disease resistant. Only 47% of the respondents would buy transgenic salmon if a relevant authority (e.g. Norwegian Food Safety Authority) has approved it as safe.

Many students were totally agreeing that there is a need to reduce the risk by initiating more research on GMOs, that new knowledge about risks must be taken into account and that we need to seek expert advice to get more understanding about the potential risks to health and the environment. The students were also strongly agreeing on the need to reduce the risk of genetic engineering applications by increasing transparency to the public about research and information about the technology. Moreover, the need for improving communication between scientists and the public was recognized.

Spirituality or religion had little or no influence when it came to ethical issues by GMOs in this survey. Students supported use of GMOs for saving human lives (e.g. by producing medicines and vaccines) followed by production of animal feed (e.g. from plants, algae and microorganisms). Surprisingly, it was not found that production of cheaper food could encourage the students to support the use of GMOs. In general, students requested labelling of GM food as well as of salmon fed with GM plant feed.

#### **7.2 Public attitudes to animal welfare and willingness to support and pay for e.g. improved health and welfare of farmed fish**

In a recent study by Olesen et al. (2010) it was found that a relatively large percentage of Norwegian consumers agreed (at least partially) that Norwegian animal welfare standards were sufficiently strict (78,1%), and that fish welfare was sufficiently protected in Norwegian fish farming (67.9%). In order to estimate a lower bound for the consumers' willingness to pay for improved welfare for farmed salmon, a real choice experiment with eco-labelled salmon was carried out in Norway (Olesen et al., 2010). It was found that the average respondent preferred eco-labelled salmon to conventional salmon when the colour was the same, and was willing to pay additional 2 euro per kg fillet for eco-labelled salmon. The price premium depends on the conventional and organic salmon being the same colour, and an inferior appearance due to lack of pigmentation significantly reduces consumer interest in organic salmon. This is also consistent with the results in other studies investigating consumer preferences toward organic products with inferior appearance (Thompson & Kidwell, 1998; Yue et al., 2009).
