IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/apstra/250223.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Synthetic Biology Applied In The Agrifood Sector: Societal Priorities And Pitfalls

Author

Listed:
  • Frewer, L.J.
  • Coles, D.
  • Dijkstra, A.M.
  • Kuznesof, S.
  • Kendall, H.
  • Kaptan, G

Abstract

Synthetic biology offers potential for innovation in the agrifood sector, although concerns have been raised consumer rejection of applications will occur similar to that associated with the introduction of genetically modified foods. Risk-benefit assessment should address socio-economic, as well as health and environmental impacts. Ethical issues may be of particular relevance to the application synthetic biology, and may also resonate with societal concerns. A case-by-case analysis of relevant issues may be needed, and innovation must be driven by societal and consumer preferences as well as technological possibilities. Research into consumer and societal priorities is required early in the innovation trajectory.

Suggested Citation

  • Frewer, L.J. & Coles, D. & Dijkstra, A.M. & Kuznesof, S. & Kendall, H. & Kaptan, G, 2016. "Synthetic Biology Applied In The Agrifood Sector: Societal Priorities And Pitfalls," APSTRACT: Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, AGRIMBA, vol. 10(2-3), pages 1-8, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:apstra:250223
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.250223
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/250223/files/Apstract_2016_vol10_2-3_10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.250223?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mora, Cristina & Menozzi, Davide & Kleter, Gijs & Aramyan, Lusine H. & Valeeva, Natasha I. & Zimmermann, Karin L. & Pakki Reddy, Giddalury, 2012. "Factors Affecting the Adoption of Genetically Modified Animals in the Food and Pharmaceutical Chains," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 1(3), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Dannenberg, Astrid, 2009. "The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food -- A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2182-2192, June.
    3. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    4. Lynn J. Frewer & Susan Miles & Roy Marsh, 2002. "The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 701-711, August.
    5. Dae-Kyun Ro & Eric M. Paradise & Mario Ouellet & Karl J. Fisher & Karyn L. Newman & John M. Ndungu & Kimberly A. Ho & Rachel A. Eachus & Timothy S. Ham & James Kirby & Michelle C. Y. Chang & Sydnor T., 2006. "Production of the antimalarial drug precursor artemisinic acid in engineered yeast," Nature, Nature, vol. 440(7086), pages 940-943, April.
    6. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    7. Wendy Kenyon, 2005. "A Critical Review of Citizens' Juries: How Useful are they in Facilitating Public Participation in the EU Water Framework Directive?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(3), pages 431-443.
    8. Lisa M. PytlikZillig & Alan J. Tomkins, 2011. "Public Engagement for Informing Science and Technology Policy: What Do We Know, What Do We Need to Know, and How Will We Get There?," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 28(2), pages 197-217, March.
    9. Gillian Hawkes & Gene Rowe, 2008. "A characterisation of the methodology of qualitative research on the nature of perceived risk: trends and omissions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(5), pages 617-643, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jan Pieter van der Berg & Gijs A. Kleter & Evy Battaglia & Lianne M. S. Bouwman & Esther J. Kok, 2020. "Application of the Safe-by-Design Concept in Crop Breeding Innovation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-14, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    2. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.
    3. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    4. Karen Lewis DeLong & Carola Grebitus, 2018. "Genetically modified labeling: The role of consumers’ trust and personality," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 266-282, March.
    5. Hu, Yang & House, Lisa A. & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "How do consumers respond to labels for crispr (gene-editing)?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    6. Elena Rosculete & Elena Bonciu & Catalin Aurelian Rosculete & Elena Teleanu, 2018. "Detection and Quantification of Genetically Modified Soybean in Some Food and Feed Products. A Case Study on Products Available on Romanian Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, April.
    7. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    8. Ventura, Vera & Frisio, Dario G. & Ferrazzi, Giovanni, 2015. "How Scary! An analysis of visual communication concerning genetically modified organisms in Italy," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211921, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Menozzi, Davide & Kostov, Kaloyan & Sogari, Giovanni & Arpaia, Salvatore & Moyankova, Daniela & Cristina Mora, 2017. "A stakeholder engagement approach for identifying future research directions in the evaluation of current and emerging applications of GMOs," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 6(1), May.
    10. David R. Just & Julie M. Goddard, 2023. "Behavioral framing and consumer acceptance of new food technologies: Factors influencing consumer demand for active packaging," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(1), pages 3-27, January.
    11. Carola Grebitus & Anne O. Peschel & Renée Shaw Hughner, 2018. "Voluntary food labeling: The additive effect of “free from” labels and region of origin," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 714-727, October.
    12. Alexandre Magnier & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes & Jayson Lusk, 2022. "Changes in Consumer Preferences toward Non‐GM Foods within an Information‐Rich Environment: The Case of the Washington State Ballot Initiative," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(1), pages 489-510, March.
    13. Ellison, Brenna & Bernard, John C. & Paukett, Michelle & Toensmeyer, Ulrich C., 2016. "The influence of retail outlet and FSMA information on consumer perceptions of and willingness to pay for organic grape tomatoes," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 109-119.
    14. Raman Kachurka & Michał W. Krawczyk & Joanna Rachubik, 2021. "Persuasive messages will not raise COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Evidence from a nation-wide online experiment," Working Papers 2021-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    15. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    16. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    17. Huaiyuan Zhai & Mengjie Li & Shengyue Hao & Mingli Chen & Lingchen Kong, 2021. "How Does Metro Maintenance Staff’s Risk Perception Influence Safety Citizenship Behavior—The Mediating Role of Safety Attitude," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-20, May.
    18. Scorgie, Fiona & Khoza, Nomhle & Delany-Moretlwe, Sinead & Velloza, Jennifer & Mangxilana, Nomvuyo & Atujuna, Millicent & Chitukuta, Miria & Matambanadzo, Kudzai V. & Hosek, Sybil & Makhale, Lerato & , 2021. "Narrative sexual histories and perceptions of HIV risk among young women taking PrEP in southern Africa: Findings from a novel participatory method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    19. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    20. Edward Royzman & Corey Cusimano & Robert F. Leeman, 2017. "What lies beneath? Fear vs. disgust as affective predictors of absolutist opposition to genetically modified food and other new technologies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 466-480, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:apstra:250223. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.apstract.net/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.