IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v11y1994i1p19-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: A UK study

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Sparks
  • Richard Shepherd
  • Lynn Frewer

Abstract

In this paper, dimensions of the debate surrounding the application of gene technology to food production are discussed and a study assessing perceptions of the technology among a sample of the UK public (n=1499) is reported. The general picture that emerges from the study is one of people expressing low familiarity with the technology, with more people associating it with high risks than with low risks, and more people expecting it to provide low benefits than high benefits. Attitudes towards different applications vary significantly, as does trust in different potential sources of information about the technology. It is also shown that attitudes can be predicted not only by estimates of risks and benefits but also by perceptions of the involvement of ethical issues, by the perceived need for the technology, and by the perceived likelihood of improvements it is likely to bring to the quality of life in the UK. The results are discussed in the context of the need for greater public information about the technology and the realization that communication of risks takes place within a complex network of societal relationships. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Sparks & Richard Shepherd & Lynn Frewer, 1994. "Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: A UK study," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 11(1), pages 19-28, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:11:y:1994:i:1:p:19-28
    DOI: 10.1007/BF01534445
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF01534445
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF01534445?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. L.J. Frewer & D. Hedderley & C. Howard & R. Shepherd, 1997. "‘Objection’ mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 14(1), pages 67-79, March.
    2. Park, Eunil & Ohm, Jay Y., 2014. "Factors influencing the public intention to use renewable energy technologies in South Korea: Effects of the Fukushima nuclear accident," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 198-211.
    3. Lynn Frewer & Chaya Howard & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 15(1), pages 15-30, March.
    4. Cook, A. J. & Kerr, G. N. & Moore, K., 2002. "Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 557-572, October.
    5. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    6. Klein, A. & Zapilko, M. & Menrad, K. & Gabriel, A., 2010. "Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Rapeseed-Oil – A Discrete-Choice-Experiment," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 45, March.
    7. David Smith & J. Skalnik & Patricia Skalnik, 1997. "The bST debate: The relationship between awareness and acceptance of technological advances," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 14(1), pages 59-66, March.
    8. Chris Fife‐Schaw & Gene Rowe, 1996. "Public Perceptions of Everyday Food Hazards: A Psychometric Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 487-500, August.
    9. Ellen Townsend & David D. Clarke & Betsy Travis, 2004. "Effects of Context and Feelings on Perceptions of Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1369-1384, October.
    10. Louise Heslop, 2006. "If we label it, will they care? The effect of GM-ingredient labelling on consumer responses," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 203-228, June.
    11. Ellen Townsend, 2006. "Affective Influences on Risk Perceptions of, and Attitudes Toward, Genetically Modified Food," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 125-139, March.
    12. Michael Siegrist, 2003. "Perception of gene technology, and food risks: results of a survey in Switzerland," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 45-60, January.
    13. Lynn Frewer & Richard Shepherd, 1995. "Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 12(1), pages 48-57, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:agrhuv:v:11:y:1994:i:1:p:19-28. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.