Determinants of public attitudes to genetically modified salmon

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Amin, Latifah ^a   Azad, Md Abul Kalam ^a,b   Gausmian, Mohd Hanafy ^a   Zulkifli, Faizah ^a  

^a UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA   (Malaysia)

^b Department of Agricultural Extension ^*  (Bangladesh)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; FEMALE; GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; LIKERT SCALE; MALAYSIA; MALE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIGION; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SALMON;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANIMALS; ATTITUDE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; FEMALE; FOOD LABELING; FOOD, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; HUMANS; MALAYSIA; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATENTS AS TOPIC; QUESTIONNAIRES; SALMON; SOCIAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84900457458     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086174     Document Type: Article

References (144)

1. Srivastava NVK, Gupta RP, Gaur RK (2011) Genetically modified crops: An overview. Biotechnology 10: 136-148.
2. Grunert K, Lahteenmaki L, Nielsen N, Poulsen J, Ueland O, et al. (2000) Consumer perception of food products involving genetic modification: Results from a qualitative study in four nordic countries (Work. Rep. No. 72). MAPP, Aarhus.
3. Qaim M (2009) The economics of genetically modified crops. Annual Review of Resource Economics 1(1): 665-694.
4. Seralini GE, Cellier D, de Vendomois JS (2007) New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 52: 596-602. (Pubitemid 46626285)
5. Margulis C (2006) The hazards of genetically engineered foods. Environ Health Perspect 114: A146-A147.
6. McLeod C, Grice J, Campbell H, Herleth T (2006) Super salmon: The industrialization of fish farming and the drive towards GM technologies in salmon production. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago, Centre for the Study of Agriculture, Food and Environment (CSAFE). pp. 17-21.
7. Cowx IG, Bolland JD, Nunn AD, Kerins G, Stein J, et al. (2010) Defining environmental risk assessment criteria for genetically-modified fishes to be placed on the EU market. Report to European Food Safety Authority. 199p.
8. Hew CL, Fletcher GL (1997) Transgenic fish for aquaculture. Chemistry and Industry 21: 311-314. (Pubitemid 127447818)
9. Aerni P (2004) Risk, regulation and innovation: The Case of Aquaculture and Transgenic Fish. Aquatic Science 66: 327-341.
10. Goos H, Rastogi R, Vaudry H, Pierantoni R (2001) Are transgenic fish for aquaculture doomed to extinction? Proceedings of the International Conference on Perspectives in Comparative Endocrinology: Unity and Diversity. Sorrento, Italy, 26-30 May.
11. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R (1997) Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit and ethics. Science, Technology & Human Values 22(1): 98-124. (Pubitemid 127372512)
12. Fletcher GL, Davies PL (1991) Transgenic fish for aquaculture. In: Set low, J.K. (Ed.), Genetic Engineering, Plenum Press, N.Y. 13: 331-370.
13. Fletcher GL, Hew CL, Davies PL (2001) Antifreeze proteins of teleost fishes. Annu Rev Physiol 63:359-390 (Pubitemid 32304322)
14. Menozzi D, Mora C, Merigo A (2012) Genetically modified salmon for dinner? Transgenic salmon marketing scenarios. AgBioForum. 15(3): 276-293.
15. Kamaldeen S, Powell DA (2000) Public perceptions of biotechnology. Food Safety Network Technical Report #17, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph.
16. Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science - hitting the notes, but missing the music?. Community Genet 9: 211-220.
17. Sandman PM (1987) Risk communication: facing public outrage. EPA Journal 13:21.
18. Aerni P (1999) Public acceptance of transgenic rice and its potential impact of future rice markets in Southeast Asian Countries. A Ph. D dissertation submitted to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich.
19. Bredahl L (2001) Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods: Results of a cross-national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy 24: 23-61.
20. Costa-Font M, Gil JM, Traill WB (2008) Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy 33: 99-111.
21. Amin L, Ahmad J, Jahi MJ, Nor ABM, Osman M, et al. (2011a) Factors influencing Malaysian public attitudes to agro-biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 20(5): 674-689
22. Grunert K, Sondergaard H, Scholderer J (2004) How can we know what we like when we don't understand it? Consumer attitude formation towards complex technical issues. Crossenz QLK1-CT: 2002-02208.
23. Connor M, Siegrist M (2010) Factors influencing people's acceptance of gene technology: the role of knowledge, health expectations, naturalness and social trust. Science communication 32 (4): 514-538.
24. Gaskell G, Allum N, Stares S (2003) Europeans and biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0, 2nd edn. Report to the EC Directorate General for research from the project. Life Sciences in European Society QLG7-CT: 1999-2086
25. Macer DRJ, Azariah J, Srinitives P (2000) Attitudes to Biotechnology in Asia. International Journal of Biotechnology 2: 313-332. (Pubitemid 32365499)
26. Bauer MW (2002) Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology: a cultivation analysis. Public Understanding of Science 11(2): 93-111.
27. Chern WS, Richertsen K, Tsuboi N, Fu TT (2002) Consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for genetically modified vegetables oil and salmon: A multiple country assessment. AgBioForum 5(3): 105-112. (Pubitemid 38783367)
28. Haro MN (2012) Sustainability aspects of applying GMOs in aquaculture. FNI report, 7/2012: 1-71.
29. Lake Research Partners (2010) Attitudes toward the FDA's plan on genetically engineered fish. September 20, 2010.
30. Ganiere P, Chern W, Hahn D (2006) A continuum of consumer attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the United States. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 31(1): 129-149. (Pubitemid 43726675)
31. Kuznesof S, Ritson C (1996) Consumer acceptability of genetically modified foods with special reference to farmed salmon. British Food Journal 98: 39-47. (Pubitemid 126084129)
32. Grimsrud KM, McCluskey JJ, Loureiro ML, Wahl TI (2002) Consumer attitudes toward genetically modified food in Norway. American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, California.
33. Nep S, O'Doherty K (2012) Understanding public calls for labelling of genetically modified foods: Analysis of a public deliberation on genetically modified salmon. Society and Natural Resources, DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2012. 716904, pp.1-16.
34. Qin W, Brown JL (2006) Consumer opinions about genetically engineered salmon and information effect on opinions. A qualitative approach. Science Communication 28: 243-272. (Pubitemid 44655261)
35. Amin L, Jahi JM, Nor ARM, Osman M, Mahadi NM (2006) Comparison of Worldviews related to attitude towards modern biotechnology across religion and races. Journal Pengajian Umum 7: 87-100.
36. The Canadian Trade Commissioner Service (2006) Welcome kit-Malaysia. Available: http://www.infoexport.gc.ca/en/DisplayDocument.jsp?did=9056
37. Singh R (2009) Does my structural model represent the real phenomenon?: A review of the appropriate use of structural equation modelling (SEM) model fit indices. The Marketing Review 9(3): 199-212
38. Harris M, Schaubroeck J (1990) Confirmatory modelling in organizational behaviour/human resource management: issues and applications. Journal of Management 16(2): 337-360
39. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (2012) Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40: 8-34
40. Henseler J (2011) Why generalized structured component analysis is not universally preferable to structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40: 402-413
41. Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, Straub DW (2012) A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly. MIS Quarterly 36 (1): 3-16
42. Amin L, Ahmad Azlan NA, Hashim H, Ahmad J (2011b) Ethical perception of modern biotechnology. African Journal of Biotechnology 10(58): 12435-12447.
43. Amin L, Ahmad Azlan NA, Hashim H (2011c) Ethical perception of cross-species gene transfer in plant. African Journal of Biotechnology 10(58): 12457-12468. ISSN 1684-5315.
44. Amin L, Ahmad Azlan NA, Hashim H, Ahmad J, Samian AL, et al. (2011d) Ethical perception of synthetic biology. African Journal of Biotechnology 10(58): 12469-12480. ISSN 1684-5315.
45. Pardo R, Midden C, Miller JD (2002) Attitudes towards biotechnology in the European Union. Journal of Biotechnology 98: 9-24. (Pubitemid 34786230)
46. Fishbein M (1963) An investigation of the relationship between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations 16: 233-240.
47. Grunert KG, Bredahl L, Scholderer J (2003) Four questions on European consumers' attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 4(4): 435-445. (Pubitemid 37474256)
48. Grunert KG, Lahteenmaki L, Nielsen NA, Poulsen JB, Ueland O, et al. (2001) Consumer perceptions of food products involving genetic modification-results from a qualitative study in four Nordic countries. Food Quality and Preference 12(8): 527-542. (Pubitemid 33633611)
49. Chen MF, Li HL (2007) The consumers' attitude toward genetically modified food in Taiwan. Food Quality and Preference 18(4): 662-674.
50. Campbell A, Converse PE, Rogers WL (1976) The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations and satisfaction. New York. Russel Sage Foundation
51. Sjoberg L (2004) Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology, EMBO Report 5(special issue): S47-S51.
52. Bucchi M, Neresini F (2004) Why are people hostile to biotechnologies?. Science 304(5678):1749 (Pubitemid 38787878)
53. Earle TC, Cvetkovich GT (1995) Social trust towards a cosmopolitan society. London: Praeger.
54. Gaskell G, Allum N, Wagner W, Kronberger N, Torgersen H, et al. (2004) GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis 24(1): 185-194. (Pubitemid 38269379)
55. Einsiedel EF (2000) Cloning and its dimensions: A Canadian perspective. Nature Biotechnology 18(9): 943-944.
56. Rowe (2004) How can genetically modified foods be made publicly acceptable?. Trends in Biotechnology 22(3):107-109.
57. Sparks P, Shepherd R (1994) Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption. Risk Analysis 14: 799-806. (Pubitemid 24362990)
58. 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 (Pubitemid 37188741)
59. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein P, Read S, Combs B (2004) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risk and benefits: In Slovic P. The perception of risk. Risk, Society and Policy Series. London and Sterling: Earthscan.
60. Marlier E (1992) Eurobarometer 35.1: Opinions of Europeans on biotechnology in 1991. In Durant,JK (ED). Biotechnology in public. A review of recent research. London: Science Museum pp. 52-108.
61. INRA (Europe) Marlier E (1993) Eurobarometer 39.1. Biotechnology and genetic engineering: what the Europeans think about it in 1993. Report for the European Comission, DGX11 Science, Research and Development Unit X11/E/1:Biotecxhnologies.
62. Gaskell G, Allum N, Bauer M, Durant J, Allansdottir A, et al. (2000) Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology 18: 935-938. (Pubitemid 32977370)
63. Priest SH (2000) US public opinion divided over biotechnology? Nature Biotechnology 18(9): 939-942.
64. Verdurme A, Viaene F (2003) Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified food. Qualitative Market Research 6(2): 95-111.
65. Frewer LJ, Sheperd R, Sparks P (1994) Biotechnology and food production-knowledge and perceived risk. 1994. British Food Journal 96: 26-33.
66. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Sheperd R (1996) The influence of realistic product exposure on attitudes towards genetic engineering of foodstuffs. Food Quality and Preferences 7: 61-67.
67. Bauer MW (2009) The evolution of public understanding of science- discourse and comparative evidence. Science Technology and Society 14(2): 221-240.
68. Bucchi M, Neresini F (2002) Biotech remains unloved by the more informed. Nature 416: 261.
69. House LO, Lusk JL, Jaeger SR, Traill WB, Moore M, et al. (2004) Objective and subjective knowledge: Impacts on consumer demand for genetically modified foods in the United States and The European Union. AgBioForum 7:113-123. (Pubitemid 40572149)
70. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis 24(2): 311-322. (Pubitemid 38620129)
71. Kirk SFL, Greenwood D, Cade JE, Pearman AD (2002) Public perception of a range of potential food risks in the United Kingdom. Appetite 38(3): 189-197 (Pubitemid 34734853)
72. Bertolini P, Wolf MM, Shikima I, Berger A (2003) Attitudes toward food and biotechnology in the U.S., Japan and Italy: Paper presented at the 7th ICABR (International Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology Research) International Conference on Public Goods and Public Policy for Agricultural Biotechnology, Ravello, Italy, 29 June-3 July.
73. Furedi F (1997) Culture of fear: Risk-taking and the morality of low expectation. London-New York: Continuum.
74. Gott M, Monamy V (2004) Ethics and transgenesis: toward a policy framework incorporating intrinsic objections and societal perceptions. ATLA 32, Supplement 1: 391-396. (Pubitemid 38843544)
75. BABAS (1999) Ethical aspects of agricultural biotechnology. Report of the EFB Task Group on Public Perceptions of Biotechnology. Cambridge Biomedical Consultants, The Hague.
76. Rohrmann B (1999) Risk perception research: Review and documentation. Research Center Juelich RC Studies #69. Available: http://www.kfa-juelich.de/ mut/hefte/heft-69.pdf. Accessed 2003 July 24.
77. Rohrmann B (1994) Risk perception of different societal groups: Australian findings and cross-national comparisons. Australian Journal of Psychology 46(3):150-163.
78. Siegrist M (1999) A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29: 2093-2106.
79. Siegrist M (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 20(2):195-203.
80. Potrykus I (2001) Golden rice and beyond. Plant Physiology 125: 1157-1161
81. Uzogara SG (2000) The impact of genetic modification of human foods in the 21st century: A review. Biotechnology Advances 18(3):179-206.
82. Koch K (1998) Food safety battle: organic vs. biotech. Congressional Quarterly Researcher 9(33): 761-84.
83. Wansink B, Kim J (2001) The marketing battle over genetically modified foods: false assumptions about consumer behaviour. American Behavioral Scientist 44(8): 1405-1417
84. Gath M, Alvensleven RV (1998) The potential effects of labelling GM foods on the consumer decision: Preliminary results of conjoint measurement experiments in Germany. Institute for Agricultural Economics, University of Kiel.
85. Sheehy H, Legault M, Ireland D (1998) Consumer and biotechnology: A synopsis of survey and focus group research. Journal of Consumer Policy 21: 359-386.
86. Monroe Jr JC, Monroe CB (1993) Statistical problem solving in geography. Oxford: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.
87. Kelley J (1995) Public perceptions of genetic engineering: Australia, 1994, Final report to the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.
88. Guidelines for Ethical Review of Clinical Research or Research involving human subjects, Ministry of Health Malaysia, 2006. Available: www.nccr.gov.my/index.cfm?menuid=26&parentid=17. Accessed 2013 April 15.
89. Comstock G (2000) Ethics and genetically modified crops. A brief for the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification of New Zealand, 8 October.
90. Straughan R (2000) Moral and ethical issues in plant biotechnology. Curr Opin Plant Biol 3:163-165
91. Kaiser M (2005) Assessing ethics and animals welfare in animal biotechnology for farm production. Rev Sci Tech Off Intl Epiz 24(1): 75-87.
92. Shrader-Frechette K (2005) Property rights and genetic engineering: Developing nations at risk. Science and Engineering Ethics 11: 137-149.
93. Pollara Research and Earnscliffe Research and Communications (2000) Public opinion research into biotechnology issues: First wave executive summary. Report prepared for the biotechnology, Assistant Deputy Minister Coordinating Committee (BACC). Government of Canada
94. Zimmermann MB, Hurrell RF (2002) Improving iron, zinc and vitamin A nutrition through plant biotechnology. Curr Opin Biotechnol 13:142-145. (Pubitemid 34310374)
95. Taylor SL, Hefle SL (2001) Ingredient and labelling issues associated with allergenic foods. Allergy, 56: 64-69. (Pubitemid 32545241)
96. Singh OV, Ghai S, Paul D, Jain RK (2006) Genetically modified crops: success, safety assessment, and public concern: Mini Review. Appl Microbiol 71: 598-607. (Pubitemid 44114787)
97. Herren RV (2005) Introduction to biotechnology. An agricultural revolution. United States of America, Thomsom Delmar Learning.
98. Glenn LM (2004) Ethical issues in genetic engineering and transgenics. Available: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/glenn.html. Accessed 2013 January 10.
99. Weil V (2002) Making sense of scientists responsibilities at the interface of science and society: Commentary on six domains of research ethics. Sci Eng Ethics 8(2): 223-227.
100. Blume Y, Sorochinsky B (2008) Scientific knowledge as a tools to change the attitude of public perception of GMO-GMo phobia or GMO-bacchanaly in Ukraine. Biotechnology and Biotechnological Equipment 22(2): 641-643. (Pubitemid 351920003)
101. Leisinger KM (2007) Ethical and ecological aspects of industrial property rights in the context of genetic engineering and biotechnology. Annual Review Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture.
102. Persley GJ, Siedow JN (1999) Applications of biotechnology to crops: Benefits and risks. CAST [On-line]. Available: http://www.cast-science.org/ download.cfm?PublicationID=2838&File=1e306362bb1be3b98cc93b5549797c4c2e1fTR. Accessed 2013 February 10.
103. Macer DRJ (2000) Bioethics: Perceptions of biotechnology and policy implications. International Journal of Biotechnology 3: 116-133.
104. Nicholas B (2000) The ethical issues of genetic modification. Background paper for the report of the royal commission on genetic modification, New Zealand. Available: www.gmcommission.govt.nz/publications/Ethics-Barbara- Nicholas.pdf. Accessed 2013 Mac 26.
105. Batiste JM, Coenders G (2000) Modelos de ecuaciones estructurales. La Muralla S.A., Madrid.
106. Luque T (2000) Tecnicas de analisis de datos en investigacion de mercados. Piramide, Madrid.
107. Levy JP, Varela J (2003) Analisis multivariable para las ciencias sociales. Prentice Hall, Madrid.
108. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2010) Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Pearson Prentice Hall: New York. pp. 1-816.
109. Gursory D, Rutherford DG (2004) Host attitudes toward tourism: an improved structural model. Annals of Tourism Research 31(3): 495-516.
110. th ed.). Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 116p.
111. Aiken LR (1994) Psychological testing and assessment. 8th edn. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
112. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RE, Black WC (1998) Multivariate data analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall International, London.
113. Joreskog KG, Sorbom D (1996) LISREL 8 User's Reference Guide. Chicago: Sci. Software Int.
114. Byrne BM (2001) Structural equation modelling with AMOS, basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Publishers
115. Arbuckle JL, Wothe W (1999) AMOS 4.0 Yser's Guide. SPSS, Small Water Corporation. Chicago, IL. 452p.
116. Amin L, Jamaluddin MJ, Abdul Rahim MN (2007) Malaysian public awareness and knowledge on modern biotechnology. Jurnal Pengajian Umum 8:195-2004.
117. Fritz S, Husmann D, Wingenback G, Rutherford D, Egger V, et al. (2003) Awareness and acceptance of biotechnology issues among youth, undergraduates, and adults. AgBioForum 6:178-184.
118. Demirci A (2008) Perceptions and attitudes of geography teachers to biotechnology: A study focusing on genetically modified (GM) foods. Afr J Biotechnol 7(23): 4321-4327.
119. Amin L, Ahmad Azlan NA, Ahmad J (2011e) Public perception of the ethical aspects of golden rice in Malaysia. The International Journal of Science in Society 2: 1-28.
120. Kline RB (2005) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
121. Bentler PM, Bonett DG (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin 88: 588-606.
122. Joreskog KG (1993) Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen &J. S. Lang (Eds.), Testing structural equation models Newbury Park, CA: Sage. pp.294-316.
123. Joreskog KG, Sorbom D (1986). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood and least square methods. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc.
124. Marsh HW, Balla JR, McDonald RP (1988) Goodness of fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin 103:391-410.
125. Bentler PM (2002) EQS 6 Structural Equations Program Manual Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.
126. Tucker LR, Lewis C (1973) A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 38: 1-10.
127. Hu LT, Bentler P (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6: 1-55.
128. MacCallum RC, Austin JT (2000) Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology 51: 201-226.
129. Olesen I, Myhr AI, Rosendal GK (2011) Sustainable aquaculture: Are we getting there? Ethical perspectives on salmon farming. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 24(4): 381-408.
130. Smith MD, Asche F, Guttormsen AG, Wiener JB (2010) Genetically modified salmon and full impact assessment. Science 330(6007): 1052-1053.
131. Amin L, Siti Fairuz S, Samian AL, Haron MS, Mohamad MN, et al. (2012) The permissibility status of plant biotechnology from the Islamic perspectives. The Social Sciences 7(4): 502-509.
132. Bredahl L, Grunert KG, Frewer LJ (1998) Consumer attitudes and decision making with regard to genetically engineered food products a review of the literature and a presentation of models for future research. Journal of Consumer Policy 21: 251-277.
133. Costa-Font J, Mossialos E (2006) Are perceptions of risks and benefits of genetically modified food (in) dependent?. Food Quality and Preference 18(2): 173-182.
134. Traill WB, Yee WMS, Lusk JL, Jaeger SR, House LO, et al. (2006) Perceptions of the risks and benefits of GM foods and their influence on willingness to consume. Food Economics-Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section C 3(1): 12-19.
135. Bredahl L (1999) Consumers' cognitions with regards to genetically modified foods, results of a qualitative study in four countries. Appetite 33: 343-360.
136. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Aaron I (1998) Consumers acceptance of transgenic crops. Pesticide Science 52: 338-393.
137. Gutteling J, Hanssen L, van der Veer N, Seydel E (2006) Trust in governance and the acceptance of genetically modified food in the Netherlands. Public Understand Sci 15:103-112. (Pubitemid 43145527)
138. Hossain F, Onyango B (2004) Product attributes and consumer acceptance of nutritionally enhanced genetically modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies 28(3): 255-267.
139. Ghasemi S, Karami E, Azadi H (2012) Knowledge, attitudes and behavioural intentions of agricultural professional towards genetically modified (GM) foods: A case study in Southwest Iran. Sci Eng Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s11948-012-9383-6
140. Mora C, Menozzi D (2008) Benefits of traceability in food markets: Consumers' perception and action. Food Economics - Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section C 5(2): 92-105.
141. Borcherding K, Rohrmann B, Eppel T (1986) A psychological study on the cognitive structure of risk evaluations: In Brehmer,B., Jungermann, H., Lourens, P, & Sevon,G,(eds). New directions in research on decision making. Amsterdam: North-Holland.D.C. pp. 245-262.
142. Szczurowska T (2005) Poles on biotechnology and genetic engineering. TNS OBOP, Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute, Radzikow. Available: http://www.ihor.edu.pl.
143. Bukraba-Rylska I (2003) Genetically Modified Organisms - Who is Right? In: Foundation for the Development of Polish Agriculture (FDPA). Institute for Sustainable Development (InE), Warsaw.
144. Kiesel K, Buschena D, Smith V (2005) Do voluntary biotechnology labels matter to the consumer? evidence from the fluid milk market. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87: 378-392. (Pubitemid 40687068)