IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i14p8718-d864194.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Freedom of Choice—Organic Consumers’ Discourses on New Plant Breeding Techniques

Author

Listed:
  • Serena Mandolesi

    (Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Alimentari e Ambientali (D3A), Università Politecnica delle Marche, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy)

  • Emilia Cubero Dudinskaya

    (Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Alimentari e Ambientali (D3A), Università Politecnica delle Marche, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy)

  • Simona Naspetti

    (Dipartimento di Scienze e Ingegneria della Materia, dell’Ambiente ed Urbanistica (SIMAU), Università Politecnica delle Marche, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy)

  • Francesco Solfanelli

    (Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Alimentari e Ambientali (D3A), Università Politecnica delle Marche, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy)

  • Raffaele Zanoli

    (Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Alimentari e Ambientali (D3A), Università Politecnica delle Marche, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy)

Abstract

In recent years, there have been significant developments in biotechnology, specifically regarding New Plant Breeding Techniques (NPBTs). Such advancements have been driven by the need to develop improved and more sustainable crops while reducing pesticides and fertilisers. NPBTs include a heterogeneous group of methods that allow performing plant mutations more precisely than in genetically modified (GM) technologies, saving time and effort. Although some experts consider NPBTs an opportunity for organic farming expansion, the European Court of Justice in 2018 pronounced against their use in organic farming since all plants obtained by NPBTs should follow the same regulations as Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). This study aims to understand consumers’ attitudes and viewpoints towards new breeding techniques. Focus groups and Q methodological approach were used to uncover consensus and divergence among organic consumers in seven selected European countries (Germany, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom). Results of qualitative studies suggest that organic consumers are generally hostile towards NPBTs in organic farming. Using Q methodology, three distinct factors were identified: the “Risk Averse”, the “Technological Optimists”, and the “Socially Concerned”. The results highlight that consumers’ subjective knowledge and understanding of NPBTs diverge from the discourse of NPBTs lobbyists and proponents.

Suggested Citation

  • Serena Mandolesi & Emilia Cubero Dudinskaya & Simona Naspetti & Francesco Solfanelli & Raffaele Zanoli, 2022. "Freedom of Choice—Organic Consumers’ Discourses on New Plant Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:14:p:8718-:d:864194
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/14/8718/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/14/8718/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luca Lombardo & Samanta Zelasco, 2016. "Biotech Approaches to Overcome the Limitations of Using Transgenic Plants in Organic Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-7, May.
    2. Gerhart U. Ryffel, 2017. "I Have a Dream: Organic Movements Include Gene Manipulation to Improve Sustainable Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-9, March.
    3. Godelieve Gheysen & René Custers, 2017. "Why Organic Farming Should Embrace Co-Existence with Cisgenic Late Blight–Resistant Potato," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-11, January.
    4. Matin Qaim, 2020. "Role of New Plant Breeding Technologies for Food Security and Sustainable Agricultural Development," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 129-150, June.
    5. Fern Wickson & Rosa Binimelis & Amaranta Herrero, 2016. "Should Organic Agriculture Maintain Its Opposition to GM? New Techniques Writing the Same Old Story," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-19, October.
    6. Dryzek, John S. & Berejikian, Jeffrey, 1993. "Reconstructive Democratic Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(1), pages 48-60, March.
    7. Eden, Sally & Bear, Christopher & Walker, Gordon, 2008. "The sceptical consumer? Exploring views about food assurance," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 624-630, December.
    8. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    9. Daniela Pacifico & Roberta Paris, 2016. "Effect of Organic Potato Farming on Human and Environmental Health and Benefits from New Plant Breeding Techniques. Is It Only a Matter of Public Acceptance?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-17, October.
    10. Henrik Mielby & Peter Sandøe & Jesper Lassen, 2013. "Multiple aspects of unnaturalness: are cisgenic crops perceived as being more natural and more acceptable than transgenic crops?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 30(3), pages 471-480, September.
    11. Zanoli, Raffaele & Naspetti, Simona, 2002. "Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food. A means-end approach," MPRA Paper 32712, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Anna K. Edenbrandt & Christian Gamborg & Bo J. Thorsen, 2018. "Consumers’ Preferences for Bread: Transgenic, Cisgenic, Organic or Pesticide†free?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(1), pages 121-141, February.
    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. David Kühn & Adriano Profeta & Thomas Krikser & Volker Heinz, 2023. "Adaption of the meat attachment scale (MEAS) to Germany: interplay with food neophobia, preference for organic foods, social trust and trust in food technology innovations," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, December.
    2. Serena Mandolesi & Emilia Cubero Dudinskaya & Simona Naspetti & Francesco Solfanelli & Raffaele Zanoli, 2023. "Exploring organic consumer preferences for dried pasta," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2023(3), pages 59-86.
    3. Camille Page & Bradd Witt, 2022. "A Leap of Faith: Regenerative Agriculture as a Contested Worldview Rather Than as a Practice Change Issue," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-20, November.

    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. Gerhart U. Ryffel, 2017. "I Have a Dream: Organic Movements Include Gene Manipulation to Improve Sustainable Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-9, March.
    2. Latvala, Terhi & Mandolesi, Serena & Nicholas, Phillipa & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2013. "Identifying Expectations for Innovations in Management Practices in Dairy Sector by Using Q Methodology," 2013 International European Forum, February 18-22, 2013, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 164734, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    3. John C. Beghin & Christopher R. Gustafson, 2021. "Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    4. Gilles Grolleau & Alain Marciano & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2021. "Scandals : a ‘reset button’ to drive change?," Post-Print hal-02921614, HAL.
    5. Mandolesi, Serena & Nicholas, Philippa & Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2015. "Identifying viewpoints on innovation in low-input and organic dairy supply chains: A Q-methodological study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 25-34.
    6. Stéphan Marette & John Beghin & Anne‐Célia Disdier & Eliza Mojduszka, 2023. "Can foods produced with new plant engineering techniques succeed in the marketplace? A case study of apples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 414-435, March.
    7. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Priya Kurian & Debashish Munshi & Lyn Kathlene & Jeanette Wright, 2016. "Sustainable citizenship as a methodology for engagement: navigating environmental, economic, and technological rationalities," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(3), pages 617-630, September.
    9. Stephan S. Marette & Anne-Célia Disdier & John C Beghin, 2020. "A Comparison of EU and US consumers' willingness to pay for gene-edited food: Evidence from apples," PSE Working Papers halshs-02872222, HAL.
    10. Swedeen, Paula, 2006. "Post-normal science in practice: A Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 190-208, May.
    11. Rizwana Alam & Jon C. Lovett, 2019. "Prospects of Public Participation in the Planning and Management of Urban Green Spaces in Lahore: A Discourse Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-28, June.
    12. Elvis Modikela Nkoana & Aviel Verbruggen & Jean Hugé, 2018. "Climate Change Adaptation Tools at the Community Level: An Integrated Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, March.
    13. Astari, Annisa Joviani & Lovett, Jon C., 2019. "Does the rise of transnational governance ‘hollow-out’ the state? Discourse analysis of the mandatory Indonesian sustainable palm oil policy," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 1-12.
    14. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    15. Katarzyna Gruszka & Annika Scharbert & Michael Soder, 2016. "Changing the world one student at a time? Uncovering subjective understandings of economics instructors' roles," Ecological Economics Papers ieep7, Institute of Ecological Economics.
    16. Marina Masso & Christos Zografos, 2015. "Constructing food sovereignty in Catalonia: different narratives for transformative action," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(2), pages 183-198, June.
    17. Tahereh Zobeidi & Masoud Yazdanpanah & Masoumeh Forouzani & Bahman Khosravipour, 2016. "Climate change discourse among Iranian farmers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 521-535, October.
    18. Eden, Sally & Bear, Christopher & Walker, Gordon, 2008. "The sceptical consumer? Exploring views about food assurance," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 624-630, December.
    19. Jiayuan Li, 2018. "Translating Idea into Reality? A Q-Methodological Investigation of Chinese Local Officials’ Response to the Initiative of a Happiness Index," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 433-452, September.
    20. Gruszka, Katarzyna & Scharbert, Annika Regine & Soder, Michael, 2017. "Leaving the mainstream behind? Uncovering subjective understandings of economics instructors' roles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 485-498.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:14:p:8718-:d:864194. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.