HORTSCIENCE 41(5):1263–1268. 2006. Master Gardener Perception of Genetically Modified Ornamental Plants Provides Strategies for Promoting Research Products Through Outreach and Marketing William Klingeman 1 and Beth Babbit Plant Sciences Department, University of Tennessee, 2431 Joe Johnson Drive, 252 Ellington PSB, Knoxville, TN 37996-4561 Charles Hall Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Tennessee, 2431 Joe Johnson Drive, 252 Ellington PSB, Knoxville, TN 37996-4561 Additional index words. agribusiness, education, genetic engineering, green industry, perception Abstract. Although genetically modified (GM) ornamental cut flowers are now available commercially, we have no knowledge of consumer perception about GM ornamental plants for landscape use and must make inferences from models drawn for GM foods. If we misjudge the customer, and consumers object to GM ornamental plant products for moral reasons, governmental or scientific mistrust, or limited understanding about GM technology, the market for GM ornamental plant commodities will fail. A survey of Master Gardener volunteers was conducted in 2004 to address this gap. Although Master Gardener perceptions likely differ from those of general U.S. consumers, responses are expected provide insight about beliefs applicable to the gardening public. Results from 607 Tennessee respondents revealed that concerns about GM ornamental plants parallel those expressed in the United States about GM foods. On average, Master Gardeners anticipate slight benefits to both the environment and human health should GM ornamental plants be introduced into the landscape. Male respondents chose perennials to provide the most environmental benefits, whereas females indicated grasses and turf. Genetically modified ornamental plants are also expected to be about the same or less invasive in the landscape than non-GM plants. Of respondents who anticipated more potential for GM ornamental plant invasiveness, women were more likely than men to predict plant escape. Men and women differed in relative acceptance of genes added from different organisms as a method of achieving genetic transformations in plants. This result suggests that outreach and marketing to promote new GM plant products should emphasize attributes of benefit rather than processes used to accomplish the goal. Regardless, although 73% of TN Master Gardener respondents reported interest in buying GM ornamental plants if sold commercially, participants advocated a require- ment that GM plant products be clearly labeled at point-of-sale. Genetically modified (GM) ornamental plants promise economic advantages if they demonstrate superior ornamental character- istics and plant performance. However, global dialogue about genetic engineering and acceptable plant biotechnology has largely focused on GM foods. By any mea- sure, public perception and concern about the application of biotechnology to achieve aes- thetic ends, like ornamental plant manipula- tions, have been overlooked. Indeed, compared with GM foods, proponents of biotechnology appear to anticipate little pub- lic opposition to genetically modified orna- mental plants. Certainly in the United States and Canada, acceptance of GM foods is greater than in Europe and Asia (Cantley et al., 1999; Gaskell et al., 2004; Lapan and Moschini, 2004). Yet nearly all GM products have raised ethical and moral issues among public and environmental interest groups (Gaskell et al., 1999; Lapan and Moschini, 2004; US-FDA, 2000). We expect these issues to be no less relevant for GM ornamental plants. In fact, in 2001, the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) issued a press release calling for a moratorium on experimental field trials of all GM crops until the USDA review process was reformed and an appro- priate review panel is assembled. In the statement, ASLA introduced concerns about GM technology and challenged the suffi- ciency of the USDA review process to assess public and environmental risks (Argust, 2001). Still, GM ornamental plants like the ÔMoonÕ Series carnations from Florigene Inc. are already commercially available as cut flowers and several other commercial ventures are underway (Avise, 2004; CHIRO, 2005). To date, introductions of GM cut flowers have garnered little outward attention of advocates from either side of the debate. Yet, our lack of even fundamental knowledge about consumer perception and acceptance of GM ornamental plants relegates our product development, outreach, and marketing en- ergy to assumptions loosely based on parallel inferences drawn from the body of research exploring public perception about safety, risk, and acceptance of GM foods. It is critical that we understand public perception about genetic alterations of ornamental plants or we risk that newly developed GM orna- mental commodities will not be accepted into this competitive market sector. To address this knowledge gap, we un- dertook a survey of Master Gardener program participants across Tennessee to establish quantifiable benchmarks of perception and expectation about GM technology, as applied to ornamental plants, and identify thematic issues expressed by Master Gardeners about hope and concern for GM ornamental plants to qualify their beliefs. Master Gardener volunteers dependably provide a higher re- sponse rate than general public mailings and are a reliable source of broad-ranging land- scape and gardening interests and experience. Master Gardener participants are expected to convey their knowledge and enthusiasm, through outreach to the general public, on completing their certification program (Rohs et al., 2002; Ruppert et al., 1997). Materials and Methods In March 2003, a survey instrument was developed to assess Master Gardener general perceptions about biotechnology and market- ing implications specific to genetically mod- ified ornamental plants. The validity and reliability of the preliminary questionnaire was examined by a pretest distribution to 130 Memphis-area Master Gardener volunteers in Shelby County, Tenn. Responses from the pretest survey were reviewed and the four- page survey instrument was revised for clarity. In April, 1800 questionnaires were mailed with self-addressed, stamped return enve- lopes (SASE) to participating Tennessee County Extension Agents who coordinated active Master Gardener volunteer programs in 37 of the 95 counties in Tennessee. In- dividual agents received a packet of either 50 or 100 surveys, depending on the size of their regional membership, and a brief, introduc- tory letter explained our interest in Master Gardener’s opinions and encouraged their participation, regardless of any familiarity with the topic. Master Gardeners were pro- vided the opportunity to record 1 h of educational credit toward sustaining Master Received for publication 22 Mar. 2006. Accepted for publication 28 May 2006. 1 To whom reprint requests should be addressed; e-mail wklingem@utk.edu. HORTSCIENCE VOL. 41(5) AUGUST 2006 1263