Revisiting GMOs: Are there differences in European consumers' acceptance and valuation for cisgenically vs transgenically bred rice?

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 5, 2015, Pages

  Delwaide, Anne Cécile ^a,b   Nalley, Lawton L ^a   Dixon, Bruce L ^a   Danforth, Diana M ^a   Nayga, Rodolfo M ^a,c,d   Van Loo, Ellen J ^b   Verbeke, Wim ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS   (United States)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^c Korea University   (South Korea)

^d NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE OF BIOECONOMY RESEARCH   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BELGIUM; CISGENIC PLANT; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CULTIVAR; EUROPEAN UNION; FEMALE; FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY; FOOD PACKAGING; FOOD QUALITY; FRANCE; GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; ONLINE SYSTEM; PLANT BREEDING; PLANT GENOME; RICE; SPAIN; TRANSGENIC CROP; TRANSGENIC ORGANISM; UNITED KINGDOM; WILLINGNESS TO PAY; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; ECONOMICS; GENETICS; ORYZA; TRANSGENIC PLANT;

COMMERCE; CONSUMER BEHAVIOR; EUROPEAN UNION; FEMALE; FOOD, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; HUMANS; MALE; ORYZA; PLANTS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED;

EID: 84929483996     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126060     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. FAO. FAO's director-general on how to feed the world in 2050. Popul Dev Rev 2009; 35: 837-839.
2. Mohanty S. Trends in global rice consumption. 2013. Available: http://irri.org/rice-today/trends-in-global-rice-consumption Accessed 2014 May 23.
3. Clive J. Global status of commercialized Biotech/GM crops: ISAAA Brief 2009; 41: 1-290.
4. Fischer T, Byerlee D, Edmeades G. Crop yields and global food security: Will yield increase continue to feed the world? ACIAR Monograph 2014;158. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. Available: http://aciar.gov.au/publication/mn158. Accessed 2014 April 20.
5. Greer CA, Webster RK. Occurrence, distribution, epidemiology, cultivar reaction, and management of rice blast disease in California. Plant Dis 2001; 85: 1096-1102.
6. Flores A. New DNA markers for rice blast-resistance gene. Agricultural Research - USDA-ARS Rice Research Unit: 2008; 22.
7. Schouten HJ, Krens FA, Jacobsen E. Cisgenic plants are similar to traditionally bred plants: International regulations for genetically modified organisms should be altered to exempt cisgenesis. EMBO Rep 2006; 7: 750-753. PMID: 16880817
8. Holme IB, Wendt T, Holm PB. Intragenesis and cisgenesis as alternatives to transgenic crop development. Plant Biotechnol J 2013; 11: 395-407. doi: 10.1111/pbi.12055 PMID: 23421562
9. Telem RS, Wani SH, Singh NB, Nandini R, Sadhukhan R, Bhattacharya S, et al. Cisgenics - a sustainable approach for crop improvement. Curr Genomics 2013; 14: 468-476. doi: 10.2174/13892029113146660013 PMID: 24396278
10. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2013-68004-20378 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Research Project: Novel Strategies For Managing Blast Disease On Rice And Wheat.
11. McIntyre A. European Parliament resolution of 11 March 2014 on the future of Europe's horticulture sector - strategies for growth (2013/2100(INI)). 2014; Available: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang = en&reference=2013/2100(INI).
12. EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms. Scientific opinion addressing the safety assessment of plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis. EFSA Journal 2012; 10(2): 2561.
13. European Commission. New breeding techniques. 2014; Available: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/new-breeding-techniques/index-en.htm. Accessed 2014 Dec 10.
14. Knight JG, Mather DW, Holdsworth DK, Ermen DF. Acceptance of GM food: an experiment in six countries. Nat Biotechnol 2007; 25: 507-508. PMID: 17483829
15. International Research Associates (INRA). 2000; Eurobarometer 52.1: the Europeans and biotechnology. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/research/pdf/eurobarometer-en.pdf. Accessed 2014 April 22.
16. Gaskell G, Stares S, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Corchero C, Fischler C, et al. Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and trends. 2006; Special Eurobarometer 244b Available: http://ec.europa.eu/public-opinion/archives/ebs/ebs-244b-en.pdf. Accessed 2014 April 22.
17. European Commission. 2010; Eurobarometer 341: The European parliament, biotechnology, and science and technology. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/public-opinion/archives/ebs/ebs-341-en.pdf. Accessed 2014 April 22.
18. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Aaron JI. Consumer acceptance of transgenic crops. Pestic Sci 1998; 52: 388-393.
19. Aerni P, Scholderer J, Ermen D. How would Swiss consumers decide if they had freedom of choice? Evidence from a field study with organic, conventional and GM corn bread. Food Pol 2011; 36: 830-838.
20. Myskja BK. The moral difference between intragenic and transgenic modification of plants. J Agric Environ Ethics 2006; 19: 225-238. PMID: 17061380
21. Nielsen KM. Transgenic organisms - time for conceptual diversification? Nat Biotechnol 2003; 21: 227-228. PMID: 12610561
22. Mielby H, Sandøe P, Lassen J. Multiple aspects of unnaturalness: Are cisgenic crops perceived as being more natural and more acceptable than transgenic crops? Agric Human Values 2013; 30: 471-480.
23. Mielby H, Sandøe P, Lassen J. The role of scientific knowledge in shaping public attitudes to GM technologies. Public Underst Sci 2013; 22: 155-168. doi: 10.1177/0963662511430577 PMID: 23833022
24. Kronberger N, Wagner W, Nagata M. How natural is "More natural"? The role of method, type of transfer, and familiarity for public perceptions of cisgenic and transgenic modification. Sci Commun 2014; 36: 106-130.
25. Gaskell G, Stares S, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Castro P, Esmer Y, et al. 2010; EUR 24537 - Europeans and biotechnology in 2010: winds of change? Available: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document-library/pdf-06/europeans-biotechnology-in-2010-en.pdf. Accessed 2014 April 18.
26. Anderson S, Harrison GW, Lau MI, Rutstrom EE. Valuation using multiple price list formats. Appl Econ 2007; 3: 675-682.
27. Bruner DM. Multiple switching behaviour in multiple price lists. Appl Econ Lett 2011; 18: 417-420.
28. Harrison GW, Rutström EE. Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results 1 2008;Part 5: 752-767.
29. Lusk JL. Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness-to-pay for golden rice. Am J Agric Econ 2003; 85: 840-856.
30. Agmon O, Fleisher R, Zilberman D, Heiman A. Attitude and purchasing decisions regarding genetically modified foods based on gender and education. Int J Biotechnol 2011; 12: 50-65.
31. Anonymous. (13 January 2008) Maize MON 810: France triggers safeguard clause. Available: http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/319.maize-mon-810-france-triggers-safeguard-clause.html. Accessed 2014 May 18.
32. Lusk JL, Roosen J, Fox JA. Demand for beef from cattle administered growth hormones or fed genetically modified corn: A comparison of consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Am J Agric Econ 2003; 85: 16-29.
33. European Commission. 2014; Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment - Special Eurobarometer 416. Brussels: European Commission. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/public-opinion/archives/ebs/ebs-416-en.pdf. Accessed 2014 Dec 10.
34. Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 Of The European Parliament And Of The Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labeling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC. Official Journal of the European Union L 268, 18/10/2003.
35. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Official Journal L 106, 17/04/2001 P. 0001-0039
36. Dennis Eriksson D, Stymne S, Schjoerring JK. The slippery slope of cisgenesis. Nat Biotechnol 2014; 32: 727. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2980 PMID: 25101741
37. Editorial. Label without a cause. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014; 32: 1169. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3094 PMID: 25489816