Author
Listed:
- Shan Jin
- Beth Clark
- Zinan Liu
- Lynn J. Frewer
Abstract
Synthetic biology (SB) has attracted global interest in recent years due to its potential not only to produce various potentially beneficial applications including within the agri-food sector but also to cause multiple risks. However, public attitudes towards SB food have been infrequently investigated. The focus of this research relates to how Chinese participants respond to different SB agri-food applications, and whether these responses differ from responses to GM foods. Seven categories of factors that shaped participants’ attitudes towards SB agri-food applications were identified based on six focus groups in Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities. These were: 1) perceived benefit, risk and ethical issues associated with specific SB applications, 2) affect/emotions evoked by SB applications, 3) attitudes associated with SB in general, 4) features or traits of applications, 5) personal experience and values, 6) social context, and 7) information to which individuals are exposed. Whilst some participants ‘made sense’ of SB based on existing attitudes towards GM, participants’ attitudes towards SB were less crystallised, resulting in more changes of attitudes towards SB applications after group discussions compared with GM applications. Perceptions of ethical issues associated with SB using synthetic genes also differed from those associated with GM which uses genes from other organisms. The results indicate that it is necessary to establish a more effective mechanism to engage interested stakeholders, including consumers, and co-develop socially acceptable SB agri-food products. It is also important to consider the combined influence of multiple factors in specific cultural or socio-economic contexts when developing targeted communication strategies.
Suggested Citation
Shan Jin & Beth Clark & Zinan Liu & Lynn J. Frewer, 2024.
"Drivers of Chinese public attitudes towards agri-food applications based on synthetic biology: the results of qualitative exploratory research,"
Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(8), pages 951-968, November.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:27:y:2024:i:8:p:951-968
DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2024.2431893
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:taf:jriskr:v:27:y:2024:i:8:p:951-968. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.