IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v11y2021i3p21582440211046939.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholders’ Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Rice in Malaysia

Author

Listed:
  • Muhammad Adzran Che Mustapa
  • Ahmad Firdhaus Arham
  • Latifah Amin
  • Hasrizul Hashim

Abstract

Rice, as a staple food for a large proportion of the world, is a vitally important food crop. More than 3.5 billion people in the world depend on rice, which provides 20% of human calorific needs per day. This paper aims to analyze several sociodemographic factors that affect stakeholders’ attitudes toward genetically modified (GM) rice in Malaysia. This research involved a total of 509 adult respondents in the Klang Valley. The results of the study showed that Malaysian stakeholders’ attitudes toward GM rice can be classified as positive. They perceived GM rice as having moderate benefits and risks, and they considered the moral aspects to be moderate, as was religious acceptance. One-way MANOVA initially detected a significant difference in attitude toward GM rice across stakeholder groups, educational level, and age. Additionally, univariate as well as post hoc analysis, confirmed significant differences in attitudes across stakeholders (perceived moral concerns, religious acceptance, and encouragement); educational level (perceived benefits, religious acceptance); and age (religious acceptance). These findings are useful for scientists and government regulators in terms of understanding the effects of sociodemographic factors on attitudes toward GM rice in Malaysia.

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad Adzran Che Mustapa & Ahmad Firdhaus Arham & Latifah Amin & Hasrizul Hashim, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Rice in Malaysia," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:11:y:2021:i:3:p:21582440211046939
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440211046939
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440211046939
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440211046939?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. George Gaskell & Nick Allum & Wolfgang Wagner & Nicole Kronberger & Helge Torgersen & Juergen Hampel & Julie Bardes, 2004. "GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 185-194, February.
    2. Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu & Carl Pray & Yanhong Jin, 2019. "Perception and Attitude toward GM Technology among Agribusiness Managers in China as Producers and as Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Martin Fishbein, 2008. "A Reasoned Action Approach to Health Promotion," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(6), pages 834-844, November.
    4. Nugzar Todua & Teona Gogitidze, 2017. "Marketing Research Of Attitudes Towards Genetically Modified Crops By Georgian Farmers," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1, pages 69-76, February.
    5. Kristine M. Grimsrud & Jill J. McCluskey & Maria L. Loureiro & Thomas I. Wahl, 2004. "Consumer Attitudes to Genetically Modified Food in Norway," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 75-90, March.
    6. Shih-Chieh Chuang & Danny Tengti Kao & Yin-Hui Cheng & Chu-An Chou, 2012. "The effect of incomplete information on the compromise effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(2), pages 196-204, March.
    7. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & McBride, William D., 2002. "Adoption Of Bioengineered Crops," Agricultural Economic Reports 33957, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:2:p:196-204 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Areal, Francisco J. & Riesgo, Laura & Gomez-Barbero, Manuel & Rodriguez-Cerezo, Emilio, 2011. "Adoption of GMHT Crops: Coexistence Policy Consequences in the European Union," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114227, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Livingston, Michael J. & Mitchell, Lorraine & Wechsler, Seth, 2014. "Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States," Economic Research Report 164263, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Wechsler, Seth James, 2012. "Fifteen Years Later: Examining the Adoption of Bt Corn Varieties by U.S. Farmers," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124257, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Marilyn Stringer & Tali Averbuch & Pamela Mack Brooks & Loretta Sweet Jemmott, 2012. "Response to Homeless Childbearing Women’s Health Care Learning Needs," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 21(2), pages 195-212, May.
    5. Aultman, Stephen & Hurley, Terrance M. & Mitchell, Paul D. & Frisvold, George B., 2009. "Valuing the Roundup Ready® Soybean Weed Management Program," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49342, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2006. "Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1707-1719, December.
    7. Eric Tollens, 2004. "Biodiversity versus transgenic sugar beet: the one euro question," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(1), pages 1-18, March.
    8. Qiao, Fangbin, 2015. "Fifteen Years of Bt Cotton in China: The Economic Impact and its Dynamics," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 177-185.
    9. Brianne Suldovsky & William K. Hallman, 2022. "The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016: Intersection of Technology and Public Understanding of Science in the United States," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, September.
    10. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Jiyoun Kim & Sara K. Yeo & Dominique Brossard & Dietram A. Scheufele & Michael A. Xenos, 2014. "Disentangling the Influence of Value Predispositions and Risk/Benefit Perceptions on Support for Nanotechnology Among the American Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 965-980, May.
    12. Scherr, Sebastian & Reifegerste, Doreen & Arendt, Florian & van Weert, Julia C.M. & Alden, Dana L., 2022. "Family involvement in medical decision making in Europe and the United States: A replication and extension in five Countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    13. Fausti, Scott W. & Van der Sluis, Evert & Qasmi, Bashir A. & Lundgren, Jonathan, 2014. "The Effect of Biotechnology and Biofuels on U.S. Corn Belt Cropping Systems: Updated Version," Economics Staff Papers 168202, South Dakota State University, Department of Economics.
    14. Čábelková, Inna & Strielkowski, Wadim & Streimikiene, Dalia & Cavallaro, Fausto & Streimikis, Justas, 2021. "The social acceptance of nuclear fusion for decision making towards carbon free circular economy: Evidence from Czech Republic," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    15. Consmuller, Nicola & Beckmann, Volker & Petrick, Martin, 2009. "The Adoption of Bt-Maize - An Econometric Analysis," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51630, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Nugzar Todua, 2019. "Attitude of Georgian Consumers to Healthy Nutrition," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 9111297, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    17. Jonas Kathage & Manuel Gómez-Barbero & Emilio Rodríguez-Cerezo, 2016. "Framework for assessing the socio-economic impacts of Bt maize cultivation," JRC Research Reports JRC103197, Joint Research Centre.
    18. Peter Busse & J Jaime Miranda, 2018. "Perceived behavioral control as a potential precursor of walking three times a week: Patient's perspectives," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-12, February.
    19. Christopher J. Shanahan & Neal H. Hooker & Thomas L. Sporleder, 2008. "The diffusion of organic food products: toward a theory of adoption," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 369-387.
    20. Ueland, Øydis & Langsrud, Solveig & Veflen, Nina, 2023. "Food risk communication to consumers: The scare of antibiotic resistant bacteria in chicken," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 14(02), June.

    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:sagope:v:11:y:2021:i:3:p:21582440211046939. 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.