IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ssefpa/v10y2018i5d10.1007_s12571-018-0832-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why rational argument fails the genetic modification (GM) debate

Author

Listed:
  • Lucy Mallinson

    (University of Sheffield Medical School)

  • Jean Russell

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Duncan D. Cameron

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Jurriaan Ton

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Peter Horton

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Margo E. Barker

    (Sheffield Hallam University)

Abstract

Genetic modification (GM) of crops provides a methodology for the agricultural improvements needed to deliver global food security. However, public opposition to GM-food is great. The debate has tended to risk communication, but here we show through study of a large nationally representative sample of British adults that public acceptance of GM-food has social, cultural and affective contexts. Regression models showed that metaphysical beliefs about the sanctity of food and an emotional dislike of GM-food were primary negative determinants, while belief in the value of science and favourable evaluation of the benefits-to-risks of GM-food were secondary positive determinants. Although institutional trust, general knowledge of the GM-food debate and belief in the eco-friendliness of GM-food were all associated with acceptance, their influence was minor. While a belief in the sanctity of food had a direct inverse effect on GM acceptance, belief in the value of science was largely mediated through favourable perception of benefits-to-risks. Furthermore, segmentation analysis demonstrated that anxiety about GM-food had social and cultural antecedents, with white men being least anxious and older vegetarian women being most anxious. Rational argument alone about the risks and benefits of GM-food is unlikely to change public perceptions of GM-technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucy Mallinson & Jean Russell & Duncan D. Cameron & Jurriaan Ton & Peter Horton & Margo E. Barker, 2018. "Why rational argument fails the genetic modification (GM) debate," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(5), pages 1145-1161, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ssefpa:v:10:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1007_s12571-018-0832-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s12571-018-0832-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12571-018-0832-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12571-018-0832-1?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher J. M. Whitty & Monty Jones & Alan Tollervey & Tim Wheeler, 2013. "Africa and Asia need a rational debate on GM crops," Nature, Nature, vol. 497(7447), pages 31-33, May.
    2. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT)Scale for Adult Populations," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-24, CIRANO.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:33-47 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Finucane, Melissa L. & Holup, Joan L., 2005. "Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified food: an overview of the literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 1603-1612, April.
    5. Baker, Gregory A. & Burnham, Thomas A., 2001. "The Market For Genetically Modified Foods: Consumer Characteristics And Policy Implications," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 4(4), pages 1-10.
    6. Baker, Gregory A. & Burnham, Thomas A., 2001. "Consumer Response To Genetically Modified Foods: Market Segment Analysis And Implications For Producers And Policy Makers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-17, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, 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. Maria Cristina Yunes & Zimbábwe Osório-Santos & Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk & Maria José Hötzel, 2021. "Gene Editing for Improved Animal Welfare and Production Traits in Cattle: Will This Technology Be Embraced or Rejected by the Public?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, April.
    2. Margo E. Barker & Francis Wong & Christopher R. Jones & Jean M. Russell, 2019. "Food Purchasing Decisions and Environmental Ideology: An Exploratory Survey of UK Shoppers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-18, 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. Yan Heng & Sungeun Yoon & Lisa House, 2021. "Explore Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Biotechnology Produced Fruit: An International Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-10, November.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Pesek, John D., Jr. & Bernard, John C. & Gupta, Meeta, 2011. "Consumer Interest in Environmentally Beneficial Chicken Feeds: Comparing High Available Phosphorus Corn and Other Varieties," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(4), pages 1-15, August.
    5. Zhao, Li & Gu, Haiying & Yue, Chengyan & Ahlstrom, David, 2013. "Consumer welfare and GM food labeling: A simulation using an adjusted Kumaraswamy distribution," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 58-70.
    6. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    7. Kontoleon Andreas & Yabe Mitsuyasu, 2006. "Market Segmentation Analysis of Preferences for GM Derived Animal Foods in the UK," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-38, December.
    8. D Rigby & M Burton, 2003. "Capturing Preference Heterogeneity in Stated Choice Models: A Random Parameter Logit Model of the Demand for GM Food," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0319, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    9. Hossain, Ferdaus & Onyango, Benjamin M. & Adelaja, Adesoji O. & Schilling, Brian J. & Hallman, William K., 2002. "Uncovering Factors Influencing Public Perceptions Of Food Biotechnology," Research Reports 18178, Rutgers University, Food Policy Institute.
    10. Luisa Menapace & Gregory Colson & Carola Grebitus & Maria Facendola, 2011. "Consumers' preferences for geographical origin labels: evidence from the Canadian olive oil market," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(2), pages 193-212, June.
    11. Hallman, William K. & Onyango, Benjamin M. & Govindasamy, Ramu & Jang, Ho-Min & Puduri, Venkata S., 2004. "Public Approval Of Plant And Animal Biotechnology In Korea: An Ordered Probit Analysis," Research Reports 18180, Rutgers University, Food Policy Institute.
    12. Kaneko, Naoya & Chern, Wen S., 2006. "Identification of Consumer Segments and Its Implication on the Willingness-to-Pay Distribution: The Case of Demand for Non-Genetically Modified Vegetable Oil in the United States," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21194, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. 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.
    14. Onyango, Benjamin M., 2004. "Consumer Acceptance Of Genetically Modified Foods: The Role Of Product Benefits And Perceived Risks," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 35(1), pages 1-8, March.
    15. Harrison, R. Wes & Han, Jae-Hwan, 2005. "The Effects of Urban Consumer Perceptions on Attitudes for Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 36(2), pages 1-10, July.
    16. Ehmke, Mariah D. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Tyner, Wallace E., 2006. "The Relative Importance of Preferences for Country-of-Origin in China, France, Niger and the United States," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25408, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. 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.
    18. à frica Martínez-Poveda & Margarita Brugarolas Mollá-Bauzá & Francisco José del Campo Gomis & Laura Martínez Carrasco Martínez & Asunción Agulló Torres, 2019. "Consumer Perception of Gm Foods. Profiles of Potential Consumers and Non-Consumers in Spain," Current Investigations in Agriculture and Current Research, Lupine Publishers, LLC, vol. 7(3), pages 942-952, August.
    19. Bindu Paudel & Deepthi E. Kolady & David Just & Evert Van der Sluis, 2023. "Determinants of consumer acceptance of gene‐edited foods and its implications for innovators and policymakers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 623-645, July.
    20. Jayson L. Lusk & Darren Hudson, 2004. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 152-169.

    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:ssefpa:v:10:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1007_s12571-018-0832-1. 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: 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.