Australian Department of Industry, Science and Technology, July 1995, cited in July 3, 1995 Canberra Times.
A national government survey of consumers in Australia which involved 1,378 people found that 89% said that a genetically engineered tomato (similar to the FlavrSavr) should be labelled so that people could decide whether they wanted to eat it or not; only 4% were against labelling. Interestingly, although many said they would eat various genetically engineered foods, a clear majority would be against unlabelled GEFs. Thus, 65% thought labelled engineered tomatoes would be a "good idea" or "very good idea", while virtually the same percentage, 65%, thought an unlabelled engineered tomato would be a "bad idea" or "very bad idea."

Canada

Industry Canada, 1994, OPTIMA survey.
Survey sponsored by Industry Canada showed that 83 to 94% of Canadians want foods to be specifically labelled when they are produced using biotechnology (depending on how the question was asked).

European Union

European Commission Directorate General XII. European Opinions on Modern Biotechnology. EUROBAROMETER 46.1, 1997.
This survey asked about labelling in an inverse fashion. Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement "It is not worth putting special labels on genetically modified food." The survey found, "Only 18% of Europeans tend to agree that it is not worth putting special labels on genetically modified foods (Figure 20), and only 8%, the lowest percentage of this series of statement, have no opinion. In other words, a large majority of respondents (74%) think these products should be clearly labelled." The results are presented in two tables, Table 17 and 18. On the basis of these tables, the percentage of respondents, by country who think that genetically engineered foods should be labelled is as follows: Belgium - 74%; Denmark - 85%; Germany - 72%; Greece - 81%; Spain - 69%; France - 78%; Ireland - 61%; Italy - 67%; Luxembourg - 67%; Netherlands - 79%; Austria - 73%; Portugal - 62%; Finland - 82%; Sweden - 81%; United Kingdom - 82%.

USA

Hoban, T.J. and P.A. Kendall. 1992. Consumer Attitudes about the Use of Biotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production. Report to Extension Service, USDA.
85% of those polled thought that labelling of products of genetically engineering was "very important."

Maki, D.A. 1995. Food Futurists Predict Trends. Food R&D, February, 1995: pg. 39
One item in the Executive Editor's monthly column in Food R&D discusses a 36,000-consumer survey that found that 92% want genetically engineered foods to be labelled. The piece states, "92 percent of consumers say they think genetically engineered produce should be labelled . . . reports Fresh Trends, a 36,000 consumer survey by Vance Publishing Corp. The survey found that more women than men, 94 percent versus 84 percent, respectively, want to see genetically engineered products such as Calgene Inc.'s Flavr-Savr tomato, identified."

Hallman, William and Metcalfe, Jennifer, "Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology: A survey of New Jersey Residents", USDA Web-site, obtained April 1996. Article based on this study: "Public Perceptions of Agri-Biotechnology," Genetic Engineering News 15 (13) (July 1995).
A USDA funded survey of 604 New Jersey residents' attitudes on agricultural biotechnology, showed that 84% of those polled wanted mandatory labelling of engineered fruits and vegetables. The executive summary stated: "Most of New Jersey's population (84 percent) also thinks that fruits and vegetables created by genetic engineering should have special labels on them. The preference for such labels seems to stem more from the consumer's desire to make an informed buying decision rather than to avoid genetically engineered foods. Sixty percent of the population would consider buying fresh vegetables if they were labelled as having been produced by genetic engineering. Similarly, people are also very much in favour (76 percent) of farmers voluntarily putting labels on their produce that say they were not genetically engineered."

Novartis did a survey of American consumers which they released on February 24, 1997 at the first International Conference on Regulation of Crop Protection and its Implication for the Food Supply, sponsored by Tufts University and the Foundation for Nutritional Advancement.

According to a press release on the results of the survey, "Most Americans want foods that are genetically altered to be clearly identified with labels. Ninety-three percent of Americans who responded to a recent survey by the world's largest agribusiness company agree that bio-engineered food should be labelled as such, including 73% who strongly agree with the position." In an article, "Biotech firm to advocate labels on genetically altered products," by Barnaby Feder in the February 24, 1997 issue of the New York Times, Wolfgang Samo, head of agribusiness at Novartis, states "if we believe in the consumers' right to choose, the industry cannot reasonably argue against labels facilitating this choice."

Henderson, P.C. 1989. "Consumer balk at BST". Dairy Today, Nov./Dec. 1989, pp. 14-16.
Labelling of dairy products from rbGH-treated cows was favoured by a large majority of consumers in all five studies in the United States that raised the question: the University of Wisconsin (68%), Dairy Today (81%), Virginia Polytechnic Institute (85%), University of Missouri (95%), and Johanna Dairy (98%), as well as by respondents to constituent surveys by members of Congress from Vermont and Wisconsin.

Douthitt, R.A. 1990. Wisconsin Consumers' Attitudes toward Bovine Somatotropin (BST) and Dairy Product Labelling. June, 1990. 17 pp.
This survey is from the University of Wisconsin. When asked if they supported the principle of labelling dairy products as to whether they came from treated herds, about 68% of consumers did. Among those respondents aware of the BST controversies, 77% supported such a measure.

McGuirk, A.M., Preston, W.P. and G.M. Jones. 1990. Introducing Food Produced Using Biotechnology: The Case of Bovine Somatotropin. Dept. of Ag. Economics Staff Paper 90-60. Blacksburg, VA: VPI.
This survey is from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute.

Slusher, B.J. 1990. Consumer Acceptance of Food Production Innovations--An Empirical Focus on Biotechnology and BST. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Research in the Consumer Interest, Snowbird, UT, Aug. 9-11, 1990. MO Ag. Expt. Station Journal Series Number 11, 254.
This survey is from the University of Missouri.

Raboy, D.G. and T. Simpson. 1993. The Implications of BST for Consumers, Farmers and Taxpayers--A Survey of the Economic Literature and Additional Analysis. Patton, Boggs & Blow. Feb. 11, 1993.
The Johanna Dairy survey is cited in this article.

Wisconsin Public Radio, 1994 - survey conducted by St. Norbert College and Wisconsin Public Radio.
A total of 446 telephone interviews were conducted with a representative sample of Wisconsin adults 18 and over between Feb. 19 - 27, 1994. The random sample was selected to include both listed and unlisted numbers. Some 88 percent of respondents favoured mandatory labelling of dairy products that come from cows treated with rbGH, while only 9 percent opposed mandatory labelling and 3 percent were unsure. Even among those who felt the hormone is safe, a majority supported mandatory labelling (62 percent). Most of those polled were somewhat familiar (64 percent) or very familiar (19 percent) with the issue.

PRODIGY, posted March 9, 1994.
PRODIGY is an interactive computer information service. A total of 8,000 subscribers responded to this survey. Among those who participated, there was extremely strong support for mandatory labelling. Eighty-one percent of those taking the poll thought milk containers should be labelled to indicate whether or not the milk comes from cows treated with the hormone. When broken down by sex, 92 percent of women and 78 percent of men supported mandatory labelling.

Douthitt, R., L. Zepeda, and D. Grobe. 1996. Comparison of National and Poor Households: Results of a Survey of Consumer Knowledge and Risk Perception of Food-Related Biotechnologies. Special Report No. 68, Institute for Research on Poverty.
This survey, funded by USDA, is based on an extensive new nation-wide survey of over 1,900 primary household food purchasers, from March to June 1995. The study found that 94 percent of consumers believed that milk should be labelled to distinguish milk from rbGH-treated cows. Furthermore, 10 percent of milk drinkers say they buy products from non-treated cows. Perhaps most surprisingly, the study showed that concern over rbGH has increased since approval. More than 74 percent of consumers said they were concerned about the possible discovery of negative long-term effects on human health associated with rbGH.

In 1992, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put out a proposed policy for how they would regulate genetically engineered foods of plant origin and asked for public comment. Over 4,000 consumer comments poured into the agency, with a majority of the comments asking for labelling of genetically- engineered foods. Eight state Attorneys General have asked the FDA to require mandatory labelling of all genetically engineered foods, as has the American Association of Retired Persons. The Pure Food Campaign has statements for over 2,000 chefs supporting mandatory labelling of genetically engineered foods. Chefs in America, which represents 10,000 hotel and restaurant chefs, has urged FDA to adopt stronger regulations, particularly in labelling and pre-market testing, for all genetically-engineered foods.