Consumer perception of risk associated with eating genetically engineered soybeans is less in the presence of a perceived consumer benefit

Journal of the American Dietetic Association

Volumn 103, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 208-214

  Brown, J Lynne ^a   Ping, Yanchao ^b  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONSUMER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIETITIAN; EATING; FOOD PACKAGING; FOOD PREFERENCE; GENETIC ENGINEERING; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; NORMAL HUMAN; NUTRIENT CONTENT; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOYBEAN; STUDENT T TEST; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; EDUCATION; FEMALE; GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD; GENETICS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NUTRITION; PERCEPTION; PILOT STUDY; RISK FACTOR; SAFETY; STANDARD; TRANSGENIC PLANT;

GLYCINE MAX;

ADULT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; FOOD LABELING; FOOD, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NUTRITION PHYSIOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PILOT PROJECTS; PLANTS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; RISK FACTORS; SOYBEANS;

EID: 0037313155     PISSN: 00028223     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/jada.2003.50029     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Liu K. Biotech Crops: products, properties and prospects. Food Tech. 53:1999;42-48.
2. Demetrakakes P. The GMO balance. Food Processing. 61:2000;18-29.
3. Expert Panel I.F.T. Labeling of rDNA biotechnology-derived foods. Food Tech. 54:2000;62-74.
4. Eichenwald K., Kolata G., Petersen M. Biotechnology Food: from the lab to a debacle. The New York Times. January 25:2001;A1, C5-6.
5. Hallman W.K., Metcalfe J. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology: a survey of New Jersey residents. 1993;Ecosystem Policy Research Center, Rutgers University, and New Jersey Experiment Station, Cook College, New Brunswick, NJ.
6. Hallman W.K. Public perceptions of biotechnology: another look. Biotechnology. 14:1996;35-38.
7. Hoban T.J., Kendall P. Consumer attitudes about food biotechnology. 1993;North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. Project report to USDA Extension Service, No. 91-EXCA-3-0155.
8. Zimmerman L., Kendall P., Stone M., Hoban T. Consumer knowledge and concern about biotechnology and food safety. Food Tech. 48:1994;71-74. 76-77.
9. Burros M. Trying to get labels on genetically altered foods. The New York Times. May 21:1997;C3.
10. International Food Information Council (IFIC). U.S. consumer attitudes toward biotechnology. March 21-24, 1997;Wirthlin Group Quorum Survey, Washington DC.
11. Center for Rural Studies (CRS). Attitudes towards genetically modified organisms. Crs.uvm.edu/vtrpoll/2000/Gmo/:5/4/2002;. Available at Accessed.
12. International Food Information Council (IFIC). US consumer attitudes toward food biotechnology. www.Ific.org/food/biotechnology.vtml:5/4/2002;. Available at Accessed.
13. Heffernan J.W., Hillers V.N. Attitudes of consumers living in Washington regarding food biotechnology. J Am Diet Assoc. 102:2002;85-88.
14. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (PIFB). Public sentiment about genetically modified food. www.pewagbiotech.org:5/4/2002;. Available at Accessed.
15. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Consumer awareness of genetically modified foods may be taking root. www.pewagbiotech.org:5/4/2002;. Available at Accessed.
16. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Environmental savior or saboteur? Debating the impacts of genetic engineering. www.pewagbiotech.org:5/4/ 2002. Available at.
17. Nestle M. Food biotechnology: labeling will benefit industry as well as consumers. Nutr Today. 33:1998;6-12.
18. Sandman P.M. Risk communication: facing public outrage. EPA J. 13:1987;21-22.
19. National Research Council. Improving Risk Communication. 1989;National Academy Press, Washington DC.
20. Greger J.L. Biotechnology: mobilizing dietitians to be a resource. J Am Diet Assoc. 100:2000;1306-1308.
21. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Shepherd R. Understanding public attitudes to technology. J Risk Res. 1:1998;221-235.
22. Chess C. The public and agricultural biotechnology: Key questions. Agricultural Biotechnology: Novel products and new partnerships. 1996;93-100 National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, Ithaca, NY. NABC Report 8.
23. Alhakami A.S., Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal. 14:1994;1085-1096.
24. Sparks P., Shepherd R., Frewer L.J. Gene technology, food production and public opinion: A UK study. Agriculture and Human Values. 11:1994;19-28.
25. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Shepherd R. Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risks, benefits and ethics. Sci Tech and Human Values. 22:1997;98-124.
26. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Shepherd R. The influence of realistic product exposure on attitudes towards genetic engineering of food. Food Qual Pref. 7:1996;61-67.
27. Food and Drug Administration. Voluntary labeling indicating whether foods have or have not been developed using bioengineering. www.cfsan.fda.gov/ ~dms/biolabgu.html:5/4/2002;. Draft guidance Available at Accessed.
28. National Institute of Nutrition. Voluntary labeling of foods from biotechnology. Report on a qualitative study among Canadian consumers by the National Institute of Nutrition. Office of Biotechnology, Canadian Food Inspection Agency. www.inspection.gc.ca/english/ppc/biotech/labeti/ninintroe. shtml:5/4/2002;. Available at.
29. Levy A.S., Derby B.M. Report on consumer focus groups on biotechnology. Consumer Studies Team, Center for Food Safety and Nutrition. www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/biorpt.html:5/5/2002;. Available at.
30. Katz F. That's using the old bean. Food Tech. 52:1998;42-43.
31. Kris-Etherton P.M., Taylor D.S., Yu-Poth S., Huth P., Moriarty K., Fishell V., Hargrove R.L., Zhao G., Etherton T.D. Polyunsaturated fatty acids in the food chain in the United States. Am J Clin Nutr. 71:(suppl):2000;179S- 188S.
32. Krueger R.A. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 1988;Sage Publications, Inc, Newbury Park, CA.
33. Brown J.L., Ping Y. Comparison of consumer reaction to information about two genetically engineered soybeans that differ in consumer benefit. J International Food & Agribusiness Marketing. 13:2002;. In press.
34. Emmert P. Attitude measurement. Emmert P., Barker L. Measuring Communication Behavior. 1989;134-153 Longman Inc, New York.
35. Bureau of Health Statistics. Pennsylvania Vital Statistics Annual Report 1997 (August). 1999;Pennsylvania Department of Health, Harrisburg, PA.
36. Basch C.E. Focus group interviews: an underutilized research technique for improving theory and practice in health education. Health Ed Quar. 14:1987;411-448.
37. Zepeda L., Douthitt R., You S.Y. Consumer acceptance of agricultural biotechnology: the role of labeling and risk perceptions on food demand. Evenson R., Santaniello V., Zilberman D. Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy. CABI, New York. In press.
38. House of Representatives U.S. Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act. 106th Congress. 1st session. H.R. 3377. Congressional Record, 145. No. 160-162. Daily ed. :H12107:11/16/1999.
39. House of Representatives U.S. Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act. 106th Congres. 2nd sesssion. H.R. 3883. Congressional Record, 146. No. 26. Daily ed. :H920:3/9/2000.
40. Senate U.S. Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act. 106th Congress. 2nd session. S 2080. Congressional Record, 146. No. 16. Daily ed. ):S683-S686:2/22/2000.
41. Beers A. House Democrats pushing for biotech reforms. Food Chemical News. 44:2002;4.
42. McCullum C. Food biotechnology in the new millennium: Promises, realities, and challenges. J Am Diet Assoc. 100:2000;1311-1315.
43. Doyle E. Environmental benefits and sustainable agriculture through biotechnology. Executive Summary of the Ceres Forum at Georgetown University:November 10-11, 1999.
44. Wolfenbarger L.L., Phifer P.R. The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science. 290:2000;2088-2093.
45. Carpenter J. GM crops and patterns of pesticide use. Science. 292:2001;637-638.
46. Benbrook C. Do GM crops mean less pesticide use? Pesticide Outlook. October 2001;204-207.