Factors affecting public attitude toward genetically modified food in Malaysia

Sains Malaysiana

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 51-55

  Latifah, Amin ^a   Jamaluddin, Md Jahi ^a   Abdul Rahim, Md Nor ^a   Mohamad, Osman ^a   Nor, Muhammad Mahadi ^a  

^a UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

Genetically modified food; Public attitude; Risk perception; Structural equation modeling

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548769213     PISSN: 01266039     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Adib A. Rahman 2004. GM food submitted for market approval. Personal communication. 12 Jun.
2. Aerni, P. 1999. Public acceptance of genetically engineered food in developing countries: the case of transgenic rice in the Philippines. AgBiotechNet 1, November. ABN 031
3. Alhakami, M.W. & Slovic, P. 1994. A psychological study of the inverse relationships between perceived risks and perceived benefits. Risk Anaysis 14: 1085-1096.
4. BIOTEK. Biotechnology in Malaysia. http://www.biotek.gov.my. (12.8. 2002)
5. Brathwaite,V. & Ahmed, E. 2004. A threat to tax morale: the case of Australian higher education policy. Journal of Economic Psychology (in press). www.sciencedirect.com (10.2. 2005)
6. Browne, M.W. & Cudeck, R 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen. K.A. & Long, J.S. (EDS). Testing structural equation models: 445-455. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
7. Einsiedel, E.F. 1997. Biotechnology and the Canadian public: Report On A 1997 National Survey And Some International Comparisons. University of Calgary, Alberta.
8. Gaskell et al. 2000. Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology (18): 935-938.
9. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W,C. 1992. Multivariate data analysis with readings. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
10. Hansen, J., Holm, L., Frewer, L., Robinson, P., & Sandoe, P. 2003. Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite 41(2):111-121.
11. Gaskell, G., Alum, N., Baouer, M., Durant, J., Allansdottir, A., Bonfadelli, H., Boy, D. Cheveigne, D.S., Fjaestad, B., Gutteling, J.M., Hampel, J., Jelsoe, E., Jesuino, J.G., Kohring, M., Kronberger, N., Midden, C., Nielsen, T.H., Przestalski, A. Rusanen, T., Sakellaris, G., Torgersen, H., Twardowski, T., & Wagner, W. 2000. Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology (18): 935-938.
12. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W,C. 1992. Multivariate data analysis with readings. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
13. Kamaldeen, S. & Powell, D.A. 2000. Public perceptions of biotechnology. Food Safety Network Technical Report #17, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph.
14. Kline, R.B. 1998. Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York:Guilford Press.
15. Latifah Amin, Jamaluddin Md. Jahi, Abdul Rahim Md. Nor, Mohamad Osman & Nor Muhammad Mahadi. 2004. The development of an instrument for public attitude towards modern biotechnology in Malaysia. Proceedings of 2nd Bangi World Conference on Environmental Management:630-635.
16. Pardo, R., Midden, C & Miller, J.D. 2002. Attitudes towards biotechnology in the European Union. Journal of Biotechnology 98: 9-24.
17. Rohrmann, B.1999. Risk perception research: review and documentation. 1999. Research Center Juelich: RC Studies #68. http:// www.kfa-juelich.de/mut/hefte/heft_69.pdf (24.7.2003)
18. Rowe 2004. How can genetically modified foods be made publicly acceptable?. Trends in Biotechnology 22(3): 107-109.
19. Sagar, A., Demmrich, A. & Ashiya, M. 2000. The tragedy of the commoners: biotechnology and its public. Nature Biotechnology 18, January 2000: 2-4.
20. Sekaran, U. 1992. Research methods for business: a skill building approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.