IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v6y2005i2p181-200.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Opinion, Risk Perceptions, and Genetically Modified Food Regulatory Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Robert F. Durant

    (American University, Washington DC, USA, durant@american.edu)

  • Jerome S. Legge Jr

    (University of Georgia, Athens, USA, jlegge@uga.edu)

Abstract

The underlying assumption of multinational corporations and US government campaigns to inform citizens worldwide of the advantages of genetically modified (GM) foods has been straightforward: if citizens better understand GM science and benefits, they will become less wary of GM foods. To test the assumptions of proponents regarding science-based information campaigns, we use heteroskedastic probit analysis to analyze responses to the 1999 Eurobarometer survey. The results suggest that pro-GM food campaigns, directed at enhancing citizens’ understanding of the underlying science and biotechnology of GM food benefits, may not be as effective as GM proponents expect, and may even be counterproductive. The analysis also reveals, however, that support for GM foods is likely to be linked to citizens’ trust in government. Thus, campaigns stressing the regulatory capacity and willingness to protect public health, safety, and the environment, rather than merely leavening citizens’ understanding of the genetic science and biotechnology informing GM foods, may be more effective.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert F. Durant & Jerome S. Legge Jr, 2005. "Public Opinion, Risk Perceptions, and Genetically Modified Food Regulatory Policy," European Union Politics, , vol. 6(2), pages 181-200, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:6:y:2005:i:2:p:181-200
    DOI: 10.1177/1465116505051982
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1465116505051982
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1465116505051982?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. Sunstein,Cass R., 2002. "Risk and Reason," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521791991, January.
    2. Clifford J. Carrubba & Anand Singh, 2004. "A Decision Theoretic Model of Public Opinion: Guns, Butter, and European Common Defense," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(2), pages 218-231, April.
    3. Paarlberg, Robert L., 2001. "The politics of precaution: genetically modified crops in developing countries," Food policy statements 35, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Lupia, Arthur, 1994. "Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(1), pages 63-76, March.
    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. Ulrich Hartung & Simon Schaub, 2018. "The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms on a Local Level: Exploring the Determinants of Cultivation Bans," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-23, 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. Daniele, Gianmarco & Geys, Benny, 2012. "Public support for institutionalised solidarity: Europeans' reaction to the establishment of eurobonds," Discussion Papers, Research Professorship & Project "The Future of Fiscal Federalism" SP II 2012-112, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    2. Alan Blinder & Alan Krueger, 2004. "What Does the Public Know about Economic Policy, and How Does It Know It?," Working Papers 875, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    3. Harald Schoen, 2008. "Identity, Instrumental Self-Interest and Institutional Evaluations," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(1), pages 5-29, March.
    4. Author-Name: Alan S. Blinder & Alan B. Krueger, 2004. "What Does the Public Know about Economic Policy, and How Does It Know It?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 35(1), pages 327-397.
    5. Katjana Gattermann & Claes H De Vreese, 2017. "The role of candidate evaluations in the 2014 European Parliament elections: Towards the personalization of voting behaviour?," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(3), pages 447-468, September.
    6. Kumlin, Staffan, 2000. "Ideology-driven public opinion formation in Europe: The case of third sector attitudes in Sweden," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Institutions and Social Change FS III 00-202, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    7. James Tilley & Christopher Wlezien, 2008. "Does Political Information Matter? An Experimental Test Relating to Party Positions on Europe," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56(1), pages 192-214, March.
    8. Donald Macrae, 2011. "Standards for risk assessment of standards: how the international community is starting to address the risk of the wrong standards," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(8), pages 933-942, September.
    9. Neelke Doorn, 2015. "The Blind Spot in Risk Ethics: Managing Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 354-360, March.
    10. Srinivas C. Parinandi, 2020. "Policy Inventing and Borrowing among State Legislatures," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(4), pages 852-868, October.
    11. Aldashev, Gani, 2010. "Political Information Acquisition for Social Exchange," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 5(1), pages 1-25, April.
    12. Hessami, Zohal & Resnjanskij, Sven, 2019. "Complex ballot propositions, individual voting behavior, and status quo bias," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 82-101.
    13. Schläpfer, Felix, 2016. "Democratic valuation (DV): Using majority voting principles to value public services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 36-42.
    14. Enriqueta Aragonès & Dimitrios Xefteris, 2017. "Imperfectly Informed Voters And Strategic Extremism," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 58(2), pages 439-471, May.
    15. Chun-Fang Chiang & Jason M. Kuo & Megumi Naoi & Jin-Tan Liu, 2020. "What Do Voters Learn from Foreign News? Emulation, Backlash, and Public Support for Trade Agreements," NBER Working Papers 27497, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Friehe, Tim & Langlais, Eric, 2015. "On the political economy of public safety investments," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 7-16.
    17. Tian Sang & Peng Liu & Liang Zhao, 2022. "Judicial Response to Ecological Environment Risk in China—From the Perspective of Social Systems Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, November.
    18. Matthias Benz & Alois Stutzer, 2004. "Are Voters Better Informed When They Have a Larger Say in Politics? -- Evidence for the European Union and Switzerland," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 119(1_2), pages 31-59, April.
    19. Kirchgässner Gebhard, 2001. "Direkte Volksrechte und die Effizienz des demokratischen Staates," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 52(1), pages 155-174, January.
    20. Julia Black & Robert Baldwin, 2012. "When risk‐based regulation aims low: Approaches and challenges," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 2-22, March.

    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:sae:eeupol:v:6:y:2005:i:2:p:181-200. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.