Factors influencing U.S. consumer support for genetic modification to prevent crop disease

Appetite

Volumn 78, Issue , 2014, Pages 8-14

  McComas, Katherine A ^a   Besley, John C ^b   Steinhardt, Joseph ^a  

^a Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Fairness; Genetic modification; Late blight; Public opinion

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSUMER; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROP; CROP DISEASE; DECISION MAKING; DNA MODIFICATION; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; GENETIC ENGINEERING; HIGH RISK BEHAVIOR; HOUSEHOLD; LATE BLIGHT; NONHUMAN; PLANT DISEASE; POTATO LATE BLIGHT; RISK ASSESSMENT; SELF EVALUATION; SHOPPING; UNITED STATES; VIGNETTE; AGRICULTURE; ATTITUDE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CATERING SERVICE; GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PERCEPTION; PREVENTION AND CONTROL; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RECOGNITION; TRANSGENIC PLANT;

AGRICULTURE; ATTITUDE; CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; DATA COLLECTION; DECISION MAKING; FOOD SUPPLY; FOOD, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; PERCEPTION; PLANT DISEASES; PLANTS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); UNITED STATES;

EID: 84897057366     PISSN: 01956663     EISSN: 10958304     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.006     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Anunda H.N., Njoka F.M., Shauri S.H. Assessment of Kenyan public perception on genetic engineering of food crops and their products. Journal of Applied Biosciences 2010, 33:2027-2036.
2. Arvai J.L. Using risk communication to disclose the outcome of a participatory decision-making process. Effects on the perceived acceptability of risk-policy decision. Risk Analysis 2003, 23(2):281-289.
3. Batista R., Oliveira M.M. Facts and fiction of genetically engineered food. Trends in Biotechnology 2009, 27:277-286.
4. Bauer M.W. Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology. A cultivation analysis. Public Understanding of Science 2002, 11(2):93-111.
5. Bauer M.W. Distinguishing red and green biotechnology. Cultivation effects of the elite press. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2005, 17(1):63-89.
6. Besley J.C. Public engagement and the impact of fairness perceptions on decision favorability and acceptance. Science Communication 2010, 32(2):256-280.
7. Besley J.C., Shanahan J. Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication 2005, 26(4):347-367.
8. Blaine K., Kamaldeen S., Powell D. Public perceptions of biotechnology. Journal of Food Science 2002, 67(9):3200-3208.
9. Blizzard R. Genetically altered foods. Hazard or harmless? 2003, Gallup Organization, Washington DC.
10. Brossard D., Shanahan J. Do citizens want to have their say? Media, agricultural biotechnology and authoritarian views of democratic processes in science. Mass Communication & Society 2003, 6(3):291-312.
11. Christoph I.B., Bruhn M., Roosen J. Knowledge, attitudes towards and acceptability of genetic modification in Germany. Appetite 2008, 51(1):58-68.
12. Colquitt J.A., Conlon D.E., Wesson M.J., Porter C., Ng K.Y. Justice at the millennium. A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology 2001, 86(3):425-445.
13. Dixelius C., Fagerstrom T., Sundstrom J.F. European agricultural policy goes down the tubers. Nature Biotechnology 2012, 30(6):492-493. (Letter).
14. Donnelly J.S. The great Irish potato famine 2001, Sutton Pub Ltd, Thrupp, Stroud, Gloucestershire.
15. Flair-Flow E. GM foods. Public perceptions. Flair-Flow Reports 2002, FFE 477/02/SME33.
16. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Shepherd R. Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering. Risk, benefit, and ethics. Science Technology & Human Values 1997, 22(1):98-124.
17. Frewer L.J., van der Lans I.A., Fischer A.R.H., Reinders M.J., Menozzi D., Zhang X., et al. Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2013, 30:142-152.
18. Friborg O., Martinussen M., Rosenvinge J.H. Likert-based vs. semantic differential-based scorings of positive psychological constructs: A psychometric comparison of two versions of a scale measuring resilience. Personality and Individual Differences 2006, 40(5):873-884.
19. Fry W.E., Goodwin S.B. Re-emergence of potato and tomato late blight in the United States. Plant Disease 1997, 81:1349-1357.
20. Gaskell G., Allansdottir A., Allum N., Castro P., Esmer Y., Fischler C., et al. The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences. Nature Biotechnology 2011, 29(2):113-114.
21. Gaskell G., Allum N.C., Stares S.R. Europeans and biotechnology in 2002 Eurobarometer 2003, European Commission Directorate General for Research: Life Sciences in European Society, Brussels.
22. Gaskell G., Allum N., Wagner W., Kronberger N., Torgersen H., Hampel J., et al. GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis 2004, 24(1):185-194.
23. Gaskell G., Stares S., Allansdottir A., Allum N., Castro P., Jackson J. Europeans and biotechnology in 2010. Winds of change? 2010, EUR 24537 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
24. Gutteling J., Hanssen L., van der Veer N., Seydel E. Trust in governance and the acceptance of genetically modified food in the Netherlands. Public Understanding of Science 2006, 15(1):103-112.
25. Hampel J., Pfenning U., Peters H.P. Attitudes towards genetic engineering. New Genetics and Society 2000, 19(3):233-249.
26. Haverkort A.J., Boonekamp P.M., Hutten R., Jacobsen E., Lotz L.A.P., Kessel G.J.T., et al. Societal costs of late blight in potato and prospects of durable resistance through cisgenic modification. Potato Research 2008, 51(1):47-57.
27. Haverkort A.J., Struik P.C., Visser R.G.F., Jacobsen E. Applied biotechnology to combat late blight in potato caused by Phytophthora infestans. Potato Research 2009, 52(3):249-264.
28. Higgins A. Genetically modified potatoes are studied, criticized in Ireland. The Washington Post 2013, March 13, Accessed 13.03.06. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/genetically-modified-potatoes-are-studied-criticized-in-ireland/2013/03/16/8035108c-8756-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html.
29. Hossain F., Onyango B., Schilling B., Hallman W., Adelaja A. Product attributes, consumer benefits and public approval of genetically modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies 2003, 27:353-365.
30. Kikulwe E.M., Wesseler J., Falck-Zepeda J. Attitudes, perceptions, and trust. Insights from a consumer survey regarding genetically modified banana in Uganda. Appetite 2011, 57(2):401-413.
31. Knight A. Differential effects of perceived and objective knowledge measures on perceptions of biotechnology. AgBioForum 2005, 8:221-227.
32. Knight A. Does application matter? An examination of public perception of agricultural biotechnology applications. AgBioForum 2006, 9:121-128.
33. Knight A. Intervening effects of knowledge, morality, trust, and benefits on support for animal and plant biotechnology applications. Risk Analysis 2007, 27(6):1553-1563.
34. Knight A.J. Perceptions, knowledge and ethical concerns with GM foods and the GM process. Public Understanding of Science 2009, 18(2):177-188.
35. Ladwig P., Dalrymple K.E., Brossard D., Scheufele D.A., Corley E.A. Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding. Science and Public Policy 2012, 39(6):761-774.
36. Lusk J.L., House L.O., et al. Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food. Evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2004, 31:179-204.
37. Mather D.W., Knight J.G., Insch A., Holdsworth D.K., Ermen D.F., Breitbarth T. Social stigma and consumer benefits. Trade-offs in adoption of genetically modified foods. Science Communication 2012, 34(4):487-519.
38. McComas K.A., Besley J.C., Yang Z. Risky business perceived behavior of local scientists and community support for their research. Risk Analysis 2008, 28(6):1539-1552.
39. Moskin J. Outbreak of fungus threatens tomato crop. New York Times 2009, July 17.
40. Moskin J. Northeast tomatoes lost, and potatoes may follow. New York Times 2009, July 28.
41. Nayga R.M., Fisher M.G., Onyango B. Acceptance of genetically modified food. Comparing consumer perspectives in the United States and South Korea. Agricultural Economics 2006, 34(3):331-342.
42. Priest S.H. US public opinion divided over biotechnology?. Nature Biotechnology 2000, 18(9):939-942.
43. Priest S.H. Misplaced faith. Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication 2001, 23(2):97-110.
44. Priest S.H., Bonfadelli H., Rusanen M. The "trust gap" hypothesis. Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis 2003, 23(4):751-766.
45. Rodríguez-Entrena M., Salazar-Ordóñez M. Influence of scientific-technical literacy on consumers' behavioural intentions regarding new food. Appetite 2013, 60(0):193-202.
46. Savadori L., Savio S., Nicotra E., Rumiati R., Finucane M., Slovic P. Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis 2004, 24(5):1289-1299.
47. Shanahan J., Scheufele D., Lee E. The polls-trends. Attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Public Opinion Quarterly 2001, 65(2):267-281.
48. Shanahan J., Scheufele D., Lee E. The polls-trends. Attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Public Opinion Quarterly 2001, 65(2):267-281.
49. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 2000, 20(2):195-203.
50. Song J.Q., Bradeen J.M., Naess S.K., Raasch J.A., Wielgus S.M., Haberlach G.T., et al. Gene RB cloned from Solanum bulbocastanum confers broad spectrum resistance to potato late blight. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2003, 100(16):9128-9133.
51. Spence A., Townsend E. Implicit attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) foods. A comparison of context-free and context-dependent evaluations. Appetite 2006, 46(1):67-74.
52. Tyler T. Social justice. Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology 2000, 35(2):117-125.
53. Tyler T. Trust and legitimacy. Policing in the USA and Europe. European Journal of Criminology 2011, 8:254-266.
54. Wu F. Explaining public resistance to genetically modified corn. An analysis of the distribution of benefits and risks. Risk Analysis 2004, 24(3):715-726.