Public perceptions of biotechnology

Journal of Food Science

Volumn 67, Issue 9, 2002, Pages 3200-3208

  Blaine, K ^a   Kamaldeen, S ^a   Powell, D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

Author keywords

Genetically engineered food; Public perception

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036868146     PISSN: 00221147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb09566.x     Document Type: Review

References (84)

1. Abbott E, Lucht T. 2000. How triggering events affect mass media coverage and source use concerning Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Britain and the United States. Agricultural Communicators in Education, USACC 2000 Congress, July 25, Washington D.C.
2. Albrecht DE. 1992. Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology: An Overview of Research to Date. College Station, TX: Center for Biotechnology Policy and Ethics. Available online at http://www.cals.cornell.edu/extension/nabc/pubs/occ_paper_1/Albrecht.html (accessed May 24, 2002).
3. Angus Reid Group Inc. 1995. The National Angus Reid Poll- Public Opinion on Food Safety and Biotechnology Applications in Agriculture. Winnipeg, MB. 100 p.
4. Angus Reid Group Inc. Nov/Dec, 1999a. International Awareness and Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods. The Economist/Angus Reid Poll. http://www.angusreid.com/media/content/displaypr.cfm?id_to_view=938 (accessed Nov. 1, 2001).
5. Angus Reid Group Inc. Sep, 1999b. Canadian Awareness and Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods. http://www.angusreid.com/media/content/displaypr.cfm?id_to_view=937 (accessed Nov. 1, 2001).
6. Angus Reid Group Inc. 2000. New Thoughts for Food: Consumer Reaction to Biotechnology in Foods. May 1. Winnipeg Manitoba: Global Report. 40 p.
7. Batra LR, Klassen W. 1987. Public Perceptions of Biotechnology. Bethesda, MD: Agricultural Research Institute. 272 p.
8. Bender MM, Derby BM. 1992. Prevalence of reading nutrition and ingredient information on food labels among adult Americans 1982-1988. J Nut Ed 24(6):292-97.
9. Biotechnology and the European Public Concerted Action Group. 1997. Europe Ambivalent on biotechnology. Nature 387:845-847.
10. Braun R. 1999. The Public Perception of Biotechnology in Europe: Between Acceptance and Hysteria. Worb, Switzerland: Biolink, Communication on Biotechnology. August. Available at http://www.biotechknowledge.com/showlib.php3?1924 (accessed Aug. 24, 2001).
11. Bruhn C, Peterson S, Phillips P, Sakovidh N. 1992. Consumer response to information on integrated pest management. J Food Safety 12:315-326.
12. Bruhn CM, Noell J. 1987. Consumer in-store response to irradiated papayas. Food Technol 41(8):83-85.
13. Burke WS, editor. 1993. Symbol, Substance, Science: The Societal Issues of Food Biotechnology. Research Triangle Park, NC: North Carolina Biotechnology Center. June 28-29. 146 p.
14. Cabirac D, Warmbrodt R. 1993. Biotechnology: Public Perception: January 1985-December 1992. Beltsville, MD: U.S. National Agricultural Library. 32 p.
15. Campbell Y, Wheeler H. 1999. Public attitudes toward biotechnology. Biotechnology Austrailia. http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/industry_research/reports/reports.asp (accessed Nov. 1, 2001).
16. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). 1998. 1998 Safe Food Handling Survey. A Report for Canadian Food Inspection Agency. A report by Environics Research Group Ltd. PN 4242. Available at http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/publications/1998environics/ study_texte.shtml (accessed Jan. 10, 2001).
17. Center for Science and the Public Interest (CSPI). 2001. National Opinion Poll on Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods. http://www.cspinet.org/reports/op_poll_labeling.html (accessed Jan. 5, 2002).
18. CMF&Z. 2000. Food Safety Survey. CMF&Z, Inc. Public Relations. http://www.cmfz.com/foodsafety/ (accessed Feb. 24, 2001).
19. Covello VT. 1992. Trust and credibility in risk communication. Health Environ Digest 6:1-5.
20. Decima Research. 1993. Report to the Canadian Institute of Biotechnology on Public Attitudes Toward Genetic Engineering. Ottawa. 46 p.
21. Derbyshire D. 2000. GM Food Can Feed Hungry Millions. Life Sci Knowl Centre. July 12, 2000.
22. Dittus KL and Hillers VN. 1993. Consumer trust and behavior related to pesticides. Food Technol 477:87-89.
23. Earnscliffe Research and Communications. 2001. Presentation to the CFIA Consultation on Plant Molecular Farming. Ottawa Canada. November 1, 2001. 23 p.
24. Einsiedel EF. 1997. Biotechnology and the Canadian Public: Report on a 1997 National Survey and Some International Comparisons. Alberta: University of Calgary. 45 p.
25. Einsiedel EF. 2000. Biotechnology and the Canadian Public: 1997 and 2000. University of Calgary. Calgary Alberta. 52 p.
26. Environics Research Group. 2001. Secondary Analysis of Public Opinion Research Regarding Genetically Modified Food and Related Biotechnology Issues. June. http://cbac.gc.ca/documents/Environics_Published_English.pdf (accessed Dec. 5, 2001).
27. INRA (Europe)-ECOSA. 2000. The Europeans and Biotechnology. Eurobarometer 52.1 European Commission Directorate-General for Research Directorate B-Quality of Life and Management of Living Programme. 94 p.
28. Fazio RH, Powell MC, Williams CJ. 1989. The role of attitude accessibility in the attitude-to-behavior process. J Consumer Res 16:280-288.
29. Fischhoff B. 1989. Risk: A Guide to Controversy. Appendix C in NRC (1989), p 211.
30. Fleising U. 1991. Public perceptions of biotechnology. In: Moses V and Cape RE, editors. Biotechnology: The Science and the Business. Chur, Switzerland: Harwood Academic Publishers. P 89-102.
31. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. 1994. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14(6):1101-1108.
32. Food Marketing Institute (FMI). 1995a. Trends in the United States: Consumer Attitudes and the Supermarket. Washington, DC: Food Marketing Institute. 72 p.
33. Food Marketing Institute (FMI). 1995b. Trends in Europe: Consumer Attitudes and the Supermarket. Washington, DC: Food Marketing Institute. 75 p.
34. Food Marketing Institute (FMI). 1999. Trends in the United States: Consumer Attitudes and the Supermarket. Washington, DC: Food Marketing Institute. 80 p.
35. Food Marketing Institute (FMI). 2000. Shopping for Health 2001: Reaching Out to the Whole Health Consumer. Prevention 10th anniversary edition. 80 p.
36. Frewer L, Hedderley D, Howard C, Shepherd R. 1997. Objection. Mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering. Agric Human Values p 1-13.
37. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Hedderley D and Shepherd R. 1996. What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Anal 16: 473-486.
38. Frewer LJ, Shepherd R and Sparks P. 1994. The interrelationship between perceived knowledge, control and risk associated with a range of food-related hazards targeted at the individual, other people and society. J Food Safety 14:19-40.
39. Frewer LJ and Shepherd R. 1994. Attributing information to different sources: Effects on the perceived qualities of information, on the perceived relevance of information, and on attitude formation. Public Understand Sci 3:385-401.
40. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Hedderley D, and Shepherd R. 1998. Methodological approaches to assessing risk perceptions associated with food-related hazards. Risk Anal 18(1):95-102.
41. Gaskell G, Bauer MW, Durant J, Allum NC. 1999. Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S. Science 285(16):384-387.
42. Gaskell G, Allum N, Bauer M, Durant J, Allansdottir A, Bonfadelli H, Boy D, de Cheveigne S, Fjaestad B, Gutteling JM, Hampel J, Jelsoe E, Jesuino JC, Kohring M, Kronberger N, Midden C, Nielsen TH, Przestalski A, Rusanen T, Sakellaris G, Torgersen H, Twardowski T, Wagner W. 2000. Biotechnology and the European Public. Nature Biotech 18(9):935-938.
43. Greenpeace. Fishtomato.com. Available at http://www.fishtomato.com/. Accessed on October 4, 2001
44. Grobe D, Douthitt R, Zepeda L. 1999. A model of consumer's risk perception toward recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH): The impact of risk characteristics. Risk Anal 19(4):661-673.
45. Groth E. 1991. Communicating with consumers about food safety and risk issues. Food Technol 45(5):248-253.
46. Hallman WK, Metcalfe J. 1994. Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology: A Survey of New Jersey Residents. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers Univ. 50 p. Available from http://www.nalusda.gov/bic/Pubpercep/ (accessed Nov. 1, 2002).
47. Hammitt JK. 1990. Risk perceptions and food choice: An exploratory analysis of organic- versus conventional-produce buyers. Risk Anal 10:367-374.
48. Health Canada. 2000. Canadians Wary of Genetically Modified Foods: Also Against Cloning. Minor Risks are Acceptable in Disease Control. Chris Cobb (editor). National Post. January 02, 2001. http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood. (Agnet January 02, 2001).
49. Hoban TJ. 1990. Agricultural Biotechnology: Public Attitudes and Educational Needs. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State Univ.
50. Hoban TJ, Kendall PA. 1992. Consumer Attitudes About the Use of Biotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State Univ. 103 p.
51. Hoban TJ. May 1996a. Consumers Will Accept Biotech Foods. BT Catalyst.
52. Hoban TJ. 1996b. How Japanese consumers view biotechnology. Food Technol 50(7):85-88.
53. Hoban TJ. 1997. Consumer acceptance of biotechnology: An international perspective. Nature Biotech 15:232-234.
54. Hoban TJ. 1998. Trends in Consumer Attitudes About Agricultural Biotechnology. AgBioForum, Summer. 1:1. Available from http://www.agbioforum.com (accessed Dec. 3, 2001).
55. Hoban TJ. 1999. Public perceptions and understanding of agricultural biotechnology. Econ Perspec (An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Dept. of State) 4(4). http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/1099/ijee/bio-hoban.htm (accessed Dec. 1, 2001).
56. Hornig Priest S. 2000. U.S. public opinion divided over biotechnology? Nature Biotech 18(9):939-942.
57. International Food Information Council (Wirthlin Group Quorum Survey). 2001. U.S. Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Biotechnology. More U.S. Consumers Expect Biotech Benefits. http://ific.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=19241 (accessed Dec. 7, 2001).
58. Ipsos-Reid. 2001. New Thoughts for Food: Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Foods. Final Report. Wave 1, March 30. Winnipeg, Manitoba. 45 p.
59. Kamaldeen S, Blaine K, and Powell DA. 2001. Results of a Survey Regarding Biotechnology in Foods Commissioned by Ontario Agri-food Technologies. http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/gmo/OAFTsurvey.htm (accessed Nov. 30, 2001).
60. Kemp R. 1992. Social implications and public confidence: Risk perception and communication. In: Stewart-Tull DES and Sussman M, editors. The Release of Genetically Modified Microorganisms. New York: Plenum Press. P 99-114.
61. Lacy WB, Busch L, and Lacy LR. 1991. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology. In: Baumgardt BR and Martin MA, editors. Agricultural Biotechnology: Issues and Choices. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Univ., Agricultural Experiment Station. P 139-161.
62. Lee, K. 1989. Food neophobia: Major causes and treatments. Food Technol 12:62-73.
63. MacDonald JF, editor. 1993. Agricultural Biotechnology: A Public Conversation About Risk. Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council (NABC) Report 5. 135 p.
64. Macer D and Ng MAC. 2000. Changing attitudes to biotechnology in Japan. Nature Biotechnol 18(9):945-947.
65. Miller JD. 1992. The Public Understanding of Science and Technology in the United States, 1990. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.
66. Millward Brown Australia. 2001. Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey Final Report. Biotechnology Australia. http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/industry_research/reports/reports.asp (accessed Dec. 7, 2001)
67. National Institute of Nutrition (NIN). April 1999. Report on a Qualitative Study Among Canadian Consumers by the National - Voluntary Labeling of Foods from Biotechnology. Ottawa, Ontario. 53 p.
68. National Science Foundation (NSF). 2000. Science and Engineering Indicators. http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind00/frames.htm (accessed Sept. 1, 2001).
69. Nelkin D. 1987. Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co. 224 p.
70. Optima Consultants. 1994. Understanding the Consumer Interest in the New Biotechnology Industry. Ottawa: Industry Canada. 35 p.
71. Pollara and Earnscliffe Research. 1999. Majority Immune to Biotech Health Scare: Willing to Take Risks. Kathryn May, National Post, July 24, 2000. http://www.nationalpost.com/scrIpts/prInter/prInter.asp?f=/stories/20000724/ 352505.html (accessed Sept. 30, 2001)
72. Pollara and Earnscliffe Research. 2001. Public Opinion Research into Biotechnology Issues. Fourth Wave. Earnscliffe Research and Communications, Ottawa Canada. May. 58 p.
73. Powell DA, Griffiths MW. 1994. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology in Canada. Annual Meeting of the Institute of Food Technologists. Atlanta, June 25-29. 25 p.
74. Powell DA and Leiss W. 1997. Mad Cows and Mother's Milk. Montreal, Quebec: McGill-Queen's Univ. Press. p 123-152.
75. Powell DA. 2000. Food safety and the consumer: Perils of poor risk communication. Canad J Anim Sci 80(3):373-404.
76. Powell DA. 2001. 2000 Nets Report. Food Safety Network, Guelph, ON: University of Guelph. 35 p.
77. Powell DA, Blaine K, Morris S, and Wilson J. 2001. A comparative analysis of the agronomic, economic and consumer considerations regarding genetically engineered Bt and conventional sweet corn and table potatoes on a commercial fruit and vegetable farm in Ontario, Canada. Brit Food J (forthcoming).
78. Russell V, Denny R, Parnett S, Walton F, Merriam D, Barnes K. 1987. The Novo Report: American Attitudes and Beliefs About Genetic Engineering. New York: Research and Forecasts, Inc.
79. Sanbonmatsu DM, and Fazio RH. 1990. The role of attitudes in memory-based decision making. J Personal Soc Psychol 59:614-622.
80. Sheehy H. 1996. Consumers and Biotechnology: A Synopsis of Survey and Focus Group Research. Ottawa: Industry Canada, Office of Consumer Affairs. 29 p.
81. U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. 1987. New Developments in Biotechnology: Public Perceptions of Biotechnology. OTA-BP-BA-45. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 90 p.
82. van Ravenswaay EO. 1995. Public Perceptions of Agrochemical. Ames, Iowa: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology Task Force Report. P 34.
83. Wahlberg AA and Sjoberg L. 2000. Risk perception and the media. J Risk Res 3(1):31-50.
84. Zimmerman L, Kendall P, Stone M, and Hoban T. 1994. Consumer knowledge and concern about biotechnology and food safety. Food Technol 48(11):71-77.