Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States

Perspectives on Psychological Science

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 315-324

  Scott, Sydney E ^a   Inbar, Yoel ^b   Rozin, Paul ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Disgust; Genetic engineering; Genetic modification; Moralization; Protected values; Sacred values

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; FEMALE; GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MORALITY; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; FEMALE; FOOD, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MORALS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84971420004     PISSN: 17456916     EISSN: 17456924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1745691615621275     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2012, October20). Labeling of genetically modified foods. Retrieved from http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=464
2. J.BaronS.Leshner (2000). How serious are expressions of protected values?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 183–194.
3. J.BaronI.Ritov (2009). Protected values and omission bias as deontological judgments. In (Eds.), Moral judgment and decision making: The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 50, pp. 133–167). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
4. J.BaronM.Spranca (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 1–16.
5. L.Bredahl (2001). Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified food—Results of a cross-national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24, 23–61.
6. G.BrueningJ.M.Lyons (2000). The case of the FLAVR SAVR tomato. California Agriculture, 54(4), 6–7.
7. J.Costa-FontE.Mossialos (2007). Are perceptions of “risks” and “benefits” of genetically modified food (in)dependent?Food Quality and Preference, 18, 173–182.
8. European Commission’s Directorate General for Health and Consumers. (2009, April30). GMOs in a nutshell. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/qanda/d4_en.htm
9. M.L.FinucaneA.AlhakamiP.SlovicS.M.Johnson (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1–17.
10. L.J.FrewerJ.ScholdererL.Bredahl (2003). Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: The mediating role of trust. Risk Analysis, 23, 1117–1133.
11. L.J.FrewerI.A.van der LansA.R.H.FischerM.J.ReindersD.MenozziX.ZhangK.L.. Zimmermann (2013). Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification—A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 30, 142–152.
12. Y.Ganzach (2000). Judging risk and return of financial assets. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 353–370.
13. G.GaskellM.W.BauerJ.DurantN.C.Allum (1999). Worlds apart? Reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science, 285, 384–397.
14. R.GutierrezR.Giner-Sorolla (2007). Anger, disgust, and presumption of harm as reactions to taboo-breaking behaviors. Emotion, 7, 853–868.
15. J.HaidtM.A.Hersh (2001). Sexual morality: The cultures and emotions of conservatives and liberals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 191–221.
16. J.HaidtS.H.KollerM.G.Dias (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613–628.
17. J.HaidtC.McCauleyP.Rozin (1994). Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 701–713.
18. W.K.HallmanC.L.CuiteX.K.Morin (2013). Public perceptions of labeling genetically modified foods (Working paper). Retrieved from http://humeco.rutgers.edu/documents_pdf/news/gmlabelingperceptions.pdf
19. W.K.HallmanW.C.HebdenH.L.AquinoC.L.CuiteJ.T.Lang (2003). Public perceptions of genetically modified foods: A national study of American knowledge and opinion. New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey. Retrieved from http://core.kmi.open.ac.uk/download/pdf/6435317.pdf
20. A.Harmon (2013, August24). Golden rice: Lifesaver?The New York Times. Available from www.nytimes.com
21. E.J.HorbergC.OveisD.KeltnerA.B.Cohen (2009). Disgust and the moralization of purity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 963–976.
22. Y.InbarD.A.PizarroP.Bloom (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition & Emotion, 23, 714–725.
23. D.M.Kahan (2015). Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Advances in Political Psychology, 36, 1–43.
24. L.Kass (2001, May21). Preventing a brave new world: Why we should ban human cloning now. The New Republic. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/~mvr2j/sfsu09/extra/Kass3.pdf
25. R.Khan (2013, June11). Do liberals oppose genetically modified organisms more than conservatives? Retrieved from http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/06/do-liberals-oppose-genetically-modified-organisms-more-than-conservatives
26. F.S.MayerC.M.Frantz (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.
27. J.McWilliams (2015, April14). Ban GMOs: That shit ain’t food. Pacific Standard. Retrieved from http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/ban-gmos-that-shit-aint-food
28. A.NicoliaA.ManzoF.VeronesiD.Rosellini (2014). An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 34, 77–88.
29. B.O.OlatunjiN.L.WilliamsD.F.TolinJ.S.Abramowitz (2007). The Disgust Scale: Item analysis, factor structure, and suggestions for refinement. Psychological Assessment, 19, 281–297.
30. Pew Research Center. (2015, January28). Public and scientists views on science and society. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/pi_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-01
31. D.PizarroY.InbarC.Helion (2011). On disgust and moral judgment. Emotion Review, 3, 267–268.
32. S.H.Priest (2000). US public opinion divided over biotechnology?Nature Biotechnology, 18, 939–942.
33. I.RitovJ.Baron (1999). Protected values and omission bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 79–94.
34. A.E.Roth (2007). Repugnance as a constraint on markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(3), 37–58.
35. E.RoyzmanP.AtanasovJ.F.LandyA.ParksA.Gepty (2014). CAD or MAD? Anger (not disgust) as the predominant response to pathogen-free violations of the divinity code. Emotion, 14, 892–907.
36. P.Rozin (2005). The meaning of “natural”: Process more important than content. Psychological Science, 16, 652–658.
37. P.RozinC.FischlerC.Shields-Argelès (2012). European and American perspectives on the meaning of natural. Appetite, 59, 448–456.
38. P.RozinB.HaddadC.NemeroffP.Slovic (2015). Psychological aspects of the rejection of recycled water: Contamination, purification and disgust. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 50–63.
39. P.RozinJ.HaidtC.R.McCauley (2008). Disgust. In (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 757–776). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
40. P.RozinL.LoweryS.ImadaJ.Haidt (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 574–586.
41. P.RozinM.MarkwithC.Stoess (1997). Moralization and becoming a vegetarian: The transformation of preferences into values and the recruitment of disgust. Psychological Science, 8, 67–73.
42. M.RubyP.RozinC.Chan (in press). Determinants of willingness to eat insects in the U.S.A. and India. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed.
43. P.S.RussellR.Giner-Sorolla (2011a). Moral anger, but not Moral disgust, responds to intentionality. Emotion, 11, 233–240.
44. P.S.RussellR.Giner-Sorolla (2011b). Moral anger is more flexible than moral disgust. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 2, 360–364.
45. O.SanvidoJ.RomeisF.Bigler (2007). Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops: Ten years of field research and commercial cultivation. In (Eds.), Green gene technology (pp. 235–278). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
46. J.ScholdererL.J.Frewer (2003). The biotechnology communication paradox: Experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26, 125–157.
47. P.W.Schultz (2001). Assessing the structure of environmental concern: Concern for the self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327–339.
48. M.Siegrist (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20, 195–203.
49. N.N.TalebR.ReadR.DouadyJ.NormanY.Bar-Yam (2014). The precautionary principle (with application to genetic modification of organisms) (Extreme Risk Initiative—NYU School of Engineering Working Paper Series). Retrieved from http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf
50. P.TenbültN.K.De VriesE.DreezensC.Martijn (2005). Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite, 45, 47–50.
51. P.E.Tetlock (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 320–324.
52. P.E.TetlockO.V.KristelS.B.ElsonJ.LernerM.C.Green (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 853–870.
53. United States Department of Agriculture. (2015). EU-28: Agricultural biotechnology annual, GAIN report number FR9174. Retrieved from http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Paris_EU-28_7-23-2015.pdf