Public opinion, risk assessment, and biotechnology: Lessons from attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European union

Review of Policy Research

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 59-76

  Legge, Jerome S ^a   Durant, Robert F ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Comparative governance; Disaster and risk management; Environment

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; DISASTER MANAGEMENT; EUROPEAN UNION; FOOD; GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM; INNOVATION; LOGIT ANALYSIS; PERCEPTION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 75149155762     PISSN: 1541132X     EISSN: 15411338     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2009.00427.x     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Alvarez R M, Brehm J. American ambivalence towards abortion policy: Development of a heteroskedastic probit model of competing values. American Journal of Political Science 1995, 39(4):1055-1082.
2. Alvarez R M, Brehm J. Are Americans ambivalent towards racial policies? American Journal of Political Science 1997, 41(2):345-374.
3. Alvarez R M, Brehm J. Speaking in two voices: American equivocation about the Internal Revenue Service? American Journal of Political Science 1998, 42(2):418-452.
4. Alvarez R M, Brehm J. Hard choices, easy answers: Values, information, and American public opinion 2002, http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/alvarez, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, Book description, but see especially Appendix B. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from
5. Bartels L M. Issue voting under uncertainty: An empirical test. American Journal of Political Science 1986, 30(4):709-728.
6. Bartels L M. Informed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science 1996, 40(1):194-230.
7. Bernauer T. Genes, trade, and regulation: The seeds of conflict in food biotechnology 2003, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press
8. Cook G, Robbins P T, Pieri E. Words of mass destruction": British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. Public Understanding of Science 2006, 15(1):5-29.
9. Durant R F. The democratic deficit in America. Political Science Quarterly 1995, 110(1):25-47.
10. Durant R F, Legge J S. Public opinion, risk perceptions, and genetically modified food regulatory policy: Reassessing the calculus of dissent among European citizens. European Union Politics 2005, 6(1):181-200.
11. Ferretti M P. Why public participation in risk regulation? The case of authorizing GMO products in the European Union. Science as Culture 2007, 16(4):377-395.
12. Gaskell G, Allum N, Stares S. Europeans and biotechnology in 2002: A report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project " Life Sciences in European Society. 2003, QLG&-CT-1999-00286, Eurobarometer 58.0, March
13. Gaskell G, Bauer M, Durant J, Durant J, Bauer M, Gaskell G. Public perceptions of biotechnology in 1996: Eurobarometer 46.1. Biotechnology in the public sphere: A European Sourcebook 1998, 189-214. In, Eds., pp., London, Science Museum
14. Greene W H. Econometric analysis 2003, 5th, ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall
15. Groth E. Risk communication in the context of consumer perceptions of risk. 1998, http://www.consumersunion.org, Consumers Union working paper). Retrieved June 15, 2008, from
16. Harvey M. Citizens in defense of something called science. Science as Culture 2007, 16(1):31-48.
17. Heclo H. Modern social politics in Britain and Sweden: From relief to income maintenance 1994, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press
18. Hoban T J. Trends in consumer attitudes about agricultural biotechnology. AgBioForum 1998, 1:3-7. Summer
19. Inglehart R. Culture shift in advanced industrial society 1990, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press
20. Jasanoff S, Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B. Let them eat cake": GM foods and the democratic imagination. Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement 2005, 183-198. In, Eds., pp., London, Zed Books
21. Jasanoff S. Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States 2007, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press
22. Kasperson R, Stallen P. Communicating risks to the public 1991, Dordrecht, Kluwer
23. Kearnes M, Grove-White R, MacNaghten P, Wilsdon J, Wynne B. From bio to nano: Learning lessons from the UK agricultural biotechnology controversy. Science as Culture 2006, 15(4):291-307.
24. Kelly J. Desk research on public attitudes to GM crops: GM Nation. 2003, http://www.gmnation.org.uk/ut_09/ut_9_4.htm, Retrieved March 3, 2008, from
25. Lieberman S, Taylor K. Participatory decision making: A comparative analysis of the public debates on GMOs conducted in France and Britain. 2005, http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/ptb/ejgc/ejgc4/lieberman%20paper.pdf, Retrieved February 22, 2008, from
26. Lupia A. Busy voters, agenda control, and the power of information. American Political Science Review 1992, 86(2):390-403.
27. Lupia A. Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review 1994, 88(1):63-76.
28. Lupia A, McCubbins M D. The democratic dilemma 1998, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
29. Marchant R. From the test tube to the table. EMBO Reports 2001, 2:354-357.
30. Marris C. Public views on GMOs: Deconstructing the myths. EMBO Reports 2001, 2(7):545-548.
31. Marris C, Joly P-B. Between consensus and citizens: Public participation in technology assessment in France. Science Studies 1999, 12(2):3-32.
32. Marris C, Wynne B, Simmons P, Weldon S. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe. 2002, Final Report of the PABE Research Project. Funded by the Commission of European Communities. Contract number: FAIR CT98-3844 (DG12-SSMI
33. Martin S, Tait J, Durant J. Attitudes of selected public groups in the UK to biotechnology. Biotechnology in public: A review of recent research 1992, 28-41. In, Ed., pp., London, Science Museum
34. Mellor F. Between fact and fiction: Demarcating science and non-science in popular physics books. Social Studies of Science 2003, 33(4):509-538.
35. Paarlberg R L. The politics of precaution: Genetically modified crops in developing countries 2001, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press
36. Papacostas A. Eurobarometer 64.3: Foreign languages, biotechnology, organized crime, and health items, November-December 2005. 2007, Computer File], ICPSR04590-v2, Brussels, Belgium: TNS Opinion and Social/EOS Gallup Europe [producers], 2006. Cologne and Ann Arbor, MI: Zentralarchiv für Empirische Socialforschung and Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributors], April 11, 2007
37. Rittel H, Webber M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 1973, 4:155-169.
38. Sampson G P. The environmentalist paradox: The World Trade Organization's challenges. Harvard International Review 2002, 23(4):56-61.
39. Shrader-Frechette K S. Risk and rationality: Philosophical foundations for populist reforms 1991, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press
40. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Gould L, Walker C. How safe is safe enough? Determinants of perceived and acceptable risk. Too hot to handle 1982, 112-150. In, Eds., pp., New Haven, CT, Yale University Press
41. Waterton C, Wynne B, Barbour R, Kitzinger J. Can focus groups access community views? Developing focus group research: Politics, theory, and practice 1999, In, Eds., pp. 127-143, London, Sage Publications
42. Wolpert R M, Gimpel J G. Information, recall, and accountability: The electorate's response to the Clarence Thomas nomination. Legislative Studies Quarterly 1997, 22(4):535-550.
43. Wynne B. Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMO. Science as Culture 2001, 10(4):445-481.
44. Zerbe N. Risking regulation, regulating risk: Lessons from the transatlantic biotech dispute. Review of Policy Research 2007, 24(5):407-423.