How can genetically modified foods be made publicly acceptable?

Trends in Biotechnology

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 107-109

  Rowe, Gene ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF FOOD RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; GENETIC ENGINEERING; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH HAZARDS;

GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) FOODS;

FOOD PRODUCTS;

GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM;

BIOSAFETY; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; DNA MODIFICATION; FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY; FOOD PROCESSING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SHORT SURVEY;

EID: 1242293045     PISSN: 01677799     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2004.01.007     Document Type: Short Survey

References (19)

1. Lusk J.L. Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness-to-pay for golden rice. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 85:2003;840-856.
2. Gaskell G., Bauer M.W. Biotechnology 1996-2000: the Years of Controversy. 2001;Science Museum.
3. Gaskell J., et al. In the public eye: representations of biotechnology in Europe. Gaskell G., Bauer M.W. Biotechnology 1996-2000: the Years of Controversy. 2001;53-79 Science Museum.
4. Campbell S., Townsend E. Flaws undermine results of UK biotech debate. Nature. 425:2003;559.
5. Gaskell G., et al. Troubled waters: the Atlantic divide on biotechnology policy. Gaskell G., Bauer M.W. Biotechnology 1996-2000: the Years of Controversy. 2001;96-115 Science Museum.
6. Bauer M.W., et al. The dramatisation of biotechnology in elite mass media. Gaskell G., Bauer M.W. Biotechnology 1996-2000: the Years of Controversy. 2001;35-52 Science Museum.
7. Alhakami A.S., Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverse relationships between perceived risks and perceived benefits. Risk Anal. 14:1994;1085-1096.
8. Finucane M.L., et al. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J. Behav. Decis. Making. 13:2000;1-17.
9. Hansen J., et al. Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite. 41:2003;111-121.
10. Slovic P., et al. Facts and fears: understanding perceived risks. Schwing R., Albers W.A. Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? 1980;181-216 Plenum.
11. Sparks P., Shepherd R. Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food-production and food-consumption: An empirical study. Risk Anal. 14:1994;799-806.
12. Fife-Schaw C., Rowe G. Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: a psychometric study. Risk Anal. 16:1996;487-500.
13. Grove-White R., et al. Uncertain world: Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain. 1997;Lancaster University.
14. Miles S., Frewer L.J. Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards. Food Qual. Prefer. 12:2001;47-61.
15. Boulter D. Scientific and public perception of plant genetic manipulation - a critical review. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 16:1997;231-251.
16. Frewer L.J., et al. Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit, and ethics. Sci. Technol. Human Values. 22:1997;98-124.
17. Eiser J.R., et al. Trust, perceived risk, and attitudes toward food technologies. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32:2002;2423-2433.
18. Finucane M.L. Mad cows, mad corn and mad communities: the role of socio-cultural factors in the perceived risk of genetically-modified food. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 61:2002;31-37.
19. Rosati S., Saba A. Factors influencing the acceptance of food biotechnology. Ital. J. Food Sci. 12:2000;425-434.