Public attitudes to GM foods. The balancing of risks and gains

Appetite

Volumn 92, Issue , 2015, Pages 303-313

  Hudson, John ^a   Caplanova, Anetta ^b   Novak, Marcel ^b  

^a a joint workplace of Charles University and the Economics Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS IN BRATISLAVA   (Slovakia)

Author keywords

Cisgenesis; Gene transfer; Genetically modified technologies; Scientific background; Transgenesis

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; APPLE; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CHILD; EDUCATION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; FEMALE; FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY; GENE TRANSFER; GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; MALE; PERCEPTION; RELIGION; RISK; SCIENCE; SOCIOECONOMICS; TRANSGENICS; ADVERSE EFFECTS; AGE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BIOMEDICINE; CHEMISTRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; EUROPEAN UNION; FRUIT; GENETICS; MALUS; MIDDLE AGED; NUTRITION; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRANSGENIC PLANT; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE DISCIPLINES; CONSUMER BEHAVIOR; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; EUROPEAN UNION; FEMALE; FOOD, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; FRUIT; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MALE; MALUS; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; NUTRITION SURVEYS; PLANTS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84934971175     PISSN: 01956663     EISSN: 10958304     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.05.031     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Ammann K. Genomic misconception. A fresh look at the biosafety of transgenic and conventional crops. A plea for a process agnostic regulation. New Biotechnology 2014, 31:1-17.
2. Areal F.J., Riesgo L., Rodriguez-Cerezo E. Attitudes of European farmers towards GM crop adoption. Plant Biotechnology Journal 2011, 9:945-957.
3. Baker G.A., Burnham T.A. Consumer response to genetically modified foods. Market segment analysis and implications for producers and policy makers. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2001, 26:387-403.
4. Barrena R., Sanchez M. Differences in consumer abstraction levels as a function of risk perception. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2010, 61:34-59.
5. Biel A., Nilsson A. Religious values and environmental concern. Harmony and detachment. Social Science Quarterly 2005, 86(1):178-191.
6. Boxall C.P., Adamowicz L.W. Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models. A latent class approach. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 23:421-446.
7. Bredahl L. Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods. Results of a cross national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy 2001, 24:23-61.
8. Breustedt G., Muller-Scheeßel J., Latacz-Lohmann U. Forecasting the adoption of GM oilseed rape. Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Germany. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2008, 59:237-256.
9. Brossard D., Scheufele D.A., Kim E., Lewenstein B.V. Religiosity as a perceptual filter. Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 2009, 18:546-558.
10. Burton M., Rigby D., Young T., James S. Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2001, 28:479-498.
11. Cardello A.V. Consumer concerns and expectations about novel food processing technologies. Effects on product liking. Appetite 2003, 40:217-233.
12. Ceccoli S., Hixon W. Explaining attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union. International Political Science Review 2012, 33:301-319.
13. Christoph I.B., Bruhn M., Roosen J. Knowledge, attitudes towards and acceptability of genetic modification in Germany. Appetite 2008, 51:58-68.
14. Costa-Font J., Mossialos E. The public as a limit to technology transfer. The influence of knowledge and beliefs in attitudes towards biotechnology in the UK. The Journal of Technology Transfer 2006, 31:629-645.
15. Costa-Font M., Gil J.M., Traill W. Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food. Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy 2008, 33:99-111.
16. Dannenberg A. The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food. A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:2182-2192.
17. Fenning T., Gershenzon J. Where will the wood come from? Plantation forests and the role of biotechnology. Trends in Biotechnology 2002, 20:291-296.
18. Fife-Schaw C., Rowe G. Public perceptions of everyday food hazards. A psychometric study. Risk Analysis 1996, 16:487-500.
19. Flachowsky H., Le Roux P.-M., Peil A., Patocchi A., Richter K., Hanke M.-V. Application of a high-speed breeding technology to apple (Malus x domestica) based on transgenic early flowering plants and marker-assisted selection. New Phytologist 2011, 192:364-377.
20. Flynn J., Slovic P., Mertz C.K. Gender, race and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis 1994, 14:1101-1108.
21. Frewer L.J., van der Lans I.A., Fischer A.R., 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.
22. Greene W.H. Econometric analysis 2012, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 7th ed.
23. Grimsrud K.M., McCluskey J.J., Loureiro L.M., Wahl I.T. Consumer attitudes toward genetically modified food in Norway. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2004, 55:75-90.
24. Grunert K.G., Lähteenmäki L., Nielsen N.A., Poulsen J.B., Ueland O., Åström A. Consumer perception of food products involving genetic modification. Results from a qualitative study in four Nordic countries 2000, Working Paper no 72. MAPP. - Centre for Market Surveillance, Research and Strategy for the Food Sector, Århus, Denmark.
25. Guehlstorf N.P. Understanding the scope of farmer perceptions of risk. Considering farmer opinion on the use of genetically modified (GM) crops as a stakeholder voice in policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2008, 21:541-558.
26. Holme I.B., Wendt T., Holm P.B. Intragenesis and cisgenesis as alternatives to transgenic crop development. Plant Biotechnology Journal 2013, 11:395-407.
27. Hu W., Hunnemeyer A., Veeman M., Adamowicz W.L., Srivastava L. Trading off health, environmental and genetic modification attributes in food. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2004, 31:389-408.
28. Jochemsen H., Schouten H.J. Ethische beoordeling van genetische modificatie. Toetsen en begrenzen. een ethische en politieke beoordeling van de moderne biotechnologie 2000, 88-95. Buijten and Schipperheijn, Amsterdam, Netherlands. H. Jochemsen (Ed.).
29. Kontoleon A., Yabe M. Market segmentation analysis of preferences for GM derived animal foods in the UK. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organisation 2006, 4:Article 2.
30. Lockie S., Lawrence G., Lyons K., Grice J. Factors underlying support or opposition to biotechnology among Australian food consumers and implications for retailer-led food regulation. Food Policy 2005, 30:399-418.
31. Lusk J.L., Jamal M., Kurlander L., Roucan M., Taulman L. A meta-analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2005, 30:28-44.
32. Mazzocchi M., Lobb A., Traill W.B., Cavicchi A. Food scares and trust. A European study. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2008, 59:2-24.
33. McComas K.A., Besley J.C., Steinhardt J. Factors influencing US consumer support for genetic modification to prevent crop disease. Appetite 2014, 78:8-14.
34. Moon W., Balasubramanian S.K. Public perceptions and willingness-to-pay a premium for non-GM foods in the US and UK. AgBioForum 2001, 4:221-231.
35. Moschini C.G., Bulut H., Cembalo L. On the segregation of genetically modified, conventional and organic products in European agriculture. A multi-market equilibrium analysis. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2005, 56:347-372.
36. Myskja B.K. The moral difference between intragenic and transgenic modification of plants. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2006, 19:225-238.
37. Nistor L. Attitudes toward GM food in Romania. A moral question?. Revista Romania de Bioetica 2012, 10:131-144.
38. Rozin P., Fischler C., Shields-Argeles C. European and American perspectives on the meaning of natural. Appetite 2012, 59:448-455.
39. Schenk M.F., Fischer A.R.H., Frewer L.J., Gilissen L.J.W.J., Jacobsen E., Smulders M.J.M. The influence of perceived benefits on acceptance of GM applications for allergy prevention. Health, Risk and Society 2008, 10:263-282.
40. Schenk M.F., van der Maas M.P., Smulders M.J., Gilissen L.J., Fischer A.R., van der Lans I.A., et al. Consumer attitudes towards hypoallergenic apples that alleviate mild apple allergy. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:83-91.
41. Schläpfer F. Determinants of voter support for a five-year ban on the cultivation of genetically modified crops in Switzerland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2008, 59:421-435.
42. Schoon I., Cheng H. Determinants of political trust. A lifetime learning model. Developmental Psychology 2011, 47:619-631.
43. Schouten H.J., Krens F.A., Jacobsen E. Cisgenic plants are similar to traditionally bred plants. EMBO Reports 2006, 7(8):750-753.
44. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 2000, 20:195-203.
45. Slovic P. Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Analysis 1986, 6:403-415.
46. Umberger W.J., Thilmany McFadden D.D., Smith A.R. Does altruism play a role in determining U.S. consumer preferences and willingness to pay for natural and regionally produced beef?. Agribusiness 2009, 25:268-285.
47. Wilkes R.E., Burnett J.J., Howell R.D. On the meaning and measurement of religiosity in consumer research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 1986, 14:47-56.