Societal issues and public attitudes towards genetically modified foods

Trends in Food Science and Technology

Volumn 14, Issue 5-8, 2003, Pages 319-332

  Frewer, Lynn ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037491242     PISSN: 09242244     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0924-2244(03)00064-5     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (85)

1. Alhakmi A.S., Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverse relationships between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis. 1994;1085-1096.
2. Anand P., Forshner C. Of mad cows and marmosets. from rational choice to organisation behaviour in crisis management British Journal of Management. 6:1995;221-233.
3. Aubert, J. E. (2000). NGOs on GMOs: the reasons for resistance. OECD Observer, 220.
4. Barke R.P., Jenkins-Smith H.C. Politics and scientific expertise. scientists, risk perception and nuclear waste policy Risk Analysis. 13:1993;425-439.
5. Braun R. Why are Europeans scared of biotech food. Agro-Food Industry Hi-Tech. 5:2001;32-34.
6. The advisory and regulatory framework for biotechnology: report from the government's review. 1999;The Stationery Office, London.
7. Cvetkovich G., Löfstedt R.E. Social trust and the management of risk. 1999;Earthscan Publications, London.
8. Da Costa M.C., Deliza R., Rosenthal A., Hedderley D., Frewer L.J. Non-conventional technologies and impact on consumer behaviour. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 11:2001;188-193.
9. Doubleday R. Knowledge and the governance of biotechnology. Politeia. 17:2001;22-33.
10. Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1984). Cognitive theories of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 297-359).
11. Eagly A.H., Chaiken S. The psychology of attitudes. 1993;Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch, Forth Worth, TX.
12. EC DG-RTD, & EC-JRC. (2000). Conference conclusions. In science and governance in a knowledge society: the challenge for Europe, 16-17 October, 2000, Brussels. Sevilla, Spain: Institute for Prospective Technology Studies, JRC Sevilla European Commission.
13. Eiser, R.J., Miles, S., & Frewer, L.J. (2002). Trust, perceived risk and attitudes toward food technologies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(11), 2423.
14. Eldridge J., Kitzinger J., Philo G., Reilly J., Macintyre S., Miller D. The re-emergence of BSE. the impact of public beliefs and behaviour Risk and Human Behaviour Newsletter. 3:1998;6-10.
15. How can biotechnology benefit the environment? 1998;European Federation of Biotechnology, The Hague.
16. The application of risk communication to food standards and safety matters. Food and Nutrition Paper 70:1998;Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.
17. Fessenden-Raden J., Fitchen J.M., Heath J.S. Providing risk information in communities. factors influencing what is heard and accepted Science, Technology and Human Values. 12:1987;94-101.
18. Frewer L.J., Shepherd R. Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering. interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology Agriculture and Human Values. 12:1995;48-57.
19. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Hedderley D., Shepherd R. What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis. 16:1996;473-486.
20. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Shepherd R. Public concerns about general and specific applications of genetic engineering. risk, benefit and ethics Science, Technology and Human Values. 22:1997;98-124.
21. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Shepherd R. The importance of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production. Agriculture and Human Values. 15:1998;15-30.
22. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Shepherd R. Understanding public attitudes to technology. Journal of Risk Research. 1:1998;221-237.
23. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Hedderley D., Shepherd R. Reactions to information about genetic engineering. impact of source credibility, perceived risk immediacy and persuasive content Public Understanding of Science. 8:1999;35-50.
24. Frewer L.J. Risk perception, social trust and public participation into strategic decision-making - implications for emerging technologies. Ambio. 28:1999;569-574.
25. Frewer L.J. Risk perception and risk communication about food safety issues. British Nutrition Foundation Nutrition Bulletin. 25:2000;10-14.
26. Frewer, L.J., Scholderer, J., Bredahl, L. (in press). Communicating about the risks, benefits of genetically modified foods: effects of different information strategies. Risk Analysis.
27. Frewer, L.J., Miles, S., & Marsh, R. (2002). The GM foods controversy. A test of the social amplification of risk model. Risk Analysis, 22(4), 713-723.
28. Frewer, L.J., Salter, B. (in press). Public attitudes, scientific advice and the politics of regulating policy: the ease of BSE. Science and Public Policy, 29, 137-145.
29. Haimes Y.Y., Barry T., Lambert J.H. When and how can you specify a probability distribution when you don't know much? Risk Analysis. 14:1994;661-706.
30. Heijs W.J.M., Midden C.J.H., Drabbe R.A.J. Biotechnology: attitudes and influencing factors. 1993;Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven.
31. Hoban T., Woodrum E., Czaja R. Public opposition to genetic engineering. Rural Sociology. 57:1992;476-493.
32. Hovland C.I., Janis I.L., Kelly H.H. Communication and persuasion: psychological studies of opinion change. 1953;Yale University Press, New Haven CT.
33. Hovland C.I. Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change. American Psychologist. 14:1959;8-17.
34. Jasanoff S. The fifth branch: scientific advisors as policy makers. 1993;Harvard University Press, New Haven CT.
35. Jasanoff S. Civilization and madness. the great BSE scare of 1996 Public Understanding of Science. 6:1997;221-232.
36. Johnson B. Exploring dimensionality in the origins of hazard-related trust. Journal of Risk Research. 2:1999;325-354.
37. Johnson B.B., Slovic P. Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment. initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust Risk Analysis. 15:1995;485-494.
38. Johnson B.B., Slovic P. Lay views on uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment. Journal of Risk Research. 1:1998;261-279.
39. Jongebreur A.A. Strategic themes in agricultural and bioresource engineering in the 21st century. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research. 76:2000;227-236.
40. Kasperson R.E., Renn O., Slovic P., Brown S., Emel J., Goble R., Kasperson J.X., Ratick S. The social amplification of risk. a conceptual framework Risk Analysis. 8:1988;177-187.
41. Kraus N., Malmfors T., Slovic P. Intuitive toxicology. expert and lay judgements of chemical risks Risk Analysis. 12:1992;215-232.
42. Kuznesof S. Understanding lay conceptualisations of scientific uncertainty. Report to the UK Food Standards Agency:2001;University of Newcastle, Newcastle.
43. Lazo J.K., Kinnell J.C., Fisher A. Expert and layperson perceptions of ecosystem risk. Risk Analysis. 20:2000;179-193.
44. Levidow L., Marris C. Science and governance in Europe. Lessons from the case of agricultural biotechnology. Science and Public Policy. 2001;345-360.
45. MacCorquodal K., Meehl P.E. On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review. 55:1948;95-107.
46. Macer D., Bezar H., Richardson-Harman N., Kamada H., Macer N. Attitudes to biotechnology in Japan and New Zealand in 1997, with international comparisons. Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics. 7:1997;137-143.
47. McGuire W.J. Attitudes and attitude change. Lindzey G., Aronson E. The handbook of social psychology. 1985;233-346 Random House, New York.
48. Mertz C.K., Slovic P., Purchase I.F.H. Judgements of chemical risks. comparisons among senior managers, toxicologists and the public Risk Analysis. 18:1998;391-404.
49. Miles S., Frewer L.J. Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards - higher and lower order attributes. Food Quality and Preference. 12:2001;47-61.
50. Miles, S., Frewer, L.J. (2002). Traceability of genetically modified ingredients. consumer response in Italy, Norway and the UK (report). Norwich: European Commission, Institute of Food Research.
51. Newholm T. Consumer exit, voice and loyalty. indicative, legitimation and the regulatory role in agricultural and food ethics Journal of Agriculture and Food Ethics. 12:2000;153-164.
52. Biotechnology for a clean environment: prevention, detection, remediation. 1994;Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
53. Memorandum to the scientific advisory system: genetically modified foods inquiry by the Science and Technology Committee. 1998;Office of Science and Technology, London.
54. Peterman R.M., Anderson J.L. Decision analysis. a method for taking uncertainties into account in risk-based decision making Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 5:1999;231-244.
55. Petty R.E., Cacioppo J.T. Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. 1986;Springer, New York.
56. Pidgeon N.F., Beattie J. The psychology of risk and uncertainty. Calow P. The handbook of environmental risk assessment and management. 1997;289-318 Blackwell Science, London.
57. Priest S.H. U.S. public opinion divided over biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology. 18:2000;939-942.
58. Renn O., Levine D. Credibility and trust in risk communication. Kasperson R.E., Stallen P.J.M. Communicating risks to the public. 1991;175-218 Kluwer, Dordrecht.
59. Rowe G., Frewer L.J. Public participation methods. an evaluation review of the literature Science, Technology and Human Values. 25:2000;3-29.
60. Rowe G., Wright G. Differences in expert and lay judgements of risk: myth or reality? Risk Analysis. 21:2001;345-356.
61. Rowe W.D. Understanding uncertainty. Risk Analysis. 14:1994;743-750.
62. Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. 2001;Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, New Zealand.
63. Saba A., Moles A., Frewer L.J. Public concerns about general and specific applications of genetic engineering. a comparative study between the UK and Italy Journal of Nutrition and Food Science. 28:1998;119-129.
64. Scholderer J., Balderjahn I., Will S. Communicating the risks and benefits of genetically modified food products to the public: the view of experts from four European countries (MAPP Working Paper No. 57). 1998;The Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus.
65. Scholderer J., Balderjahn I., Bredahl L., Grunert K.G. The perceived risks and benefits of genetically modified food products. experts versus consumers European Advances in Consumer Research. 4:1999;123-129.
66. Scholderer, J., Frewer, L.J. (in Press). The biotechnology communication paradox: experimental evidence, the need for a new strategy. Journal of Consumer Policy.
67. Siegrist M. A causal model explaining the acceptance and rejection of genetic engineering. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1999;2093-2106.
68. Siegrist M., Cvetkovich G., Roth C. Salient value similarity, social trust and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis. 20:2000;323-361.
69. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis. 20:2000;195-204.
70. Sjöberg L. Risk perception in Western Europe. Ambio. 28:1999;555-568.
71. Sjöberg, L., Truedsson, J., Frewer, L., & Prades, A. (2000). Through a glass darkly: experts' and the public's mutual risk perception. In M.P. Cottam, D.W. Harvey, R.P. Pape, & R.J. Tate (Eds.), Foresight and precaution: proceedings of ESREL 2000, SARS and SRA-Europe Annual Conference, Edinburgh, UK, 14-17 May 2000 (pp. 1157-1162). Rotterdam: Balkerna.
72. Slovic P., Fishhoff B., Lichenstein S. Facts and fears: understanding perceived risk. Schwing R.C., Albers J. Societal risk assessment: how safe is safe enough? 1980;181-216 Plenum, New York.
73. Slovic P. Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Analysis. 13:1993;675-682.
74. Slovic P., Malmfors T., Mertz C.K., Neil N., Purchase I.F.H. Evaluating chemical risks. results of a survey of the British Toxicology Society Human and Experimental Toxicology. 16:1997;289-304.
75. Sparks P., Shepherd R., Frewer L.J. Assessing and structuring attitudes towards the use of gene technology in food production. the role of perceived ethical obligation Journal of Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 16:1995;267-285.
76. Stroebbe W., Lenkert A., Jonas K. Familiarity may breed contempt: the impact of student exchange on national stereotypes and attitudes. Kruglanski A., Bar-Tal D., Hewstone M. The social psychology of intergroup conflict: theory, research and applications. 1998;189-218 Springer, New York.
77. Review of data on possible toxicity of GM potatoes. 1999;Royal Society Press Office, London.
78. Tengerdy R.P., Szakacs G. Perspectives in agrobiotechnology. Journal of Biotechnology. 66:1998;91-99.
79. Uzogara S.G. The impact of genetic modification of human foods in the 21st century. a review Biotechnology Advances. 18:2000;179-206.
80. Viscusi W.K., Magat W.A., Huber J. Communication of ambiguous risk information. Theory and Decision. 31:1991;159-173.
81. Von Avelsleben R. Beliefs Associated with Food Production Methods. Frewer L.J., Risvik E., Schifferstein H. Food, people and society: a European perspective of consumers' food choices. 2001;381-397 Springer Verlag, Munich.
82. Wheale P.R. The social management of modern biotechnology and the new industrial divide. New Genetics and Society. 18:1999;23-44.
83. Woodward R.T., Bishop R.C. How to decide when experts disagree. uncertainty-based choice rules in environmental policy Land Economics. 73:1997;492-507.
84. Wynne B. Uncertainty and environmental learning. reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm Global Environmental Change. 1992;111-127.
85. Zechendorf B. What the public think about biotechnology. Bio-Technology. 12:1994;870-875.