IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v6y2003i1p45-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perception of gene technology, and food risks: results of a survey in Switzerland

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Siegrist

Abstract

Perceptions of and attitudes toward genetically engineered food and other food hazards were examined through data from telephone interviews conducted in Switzerland. A random quota sample was used ( N v = v 1001). General attitudes toward technology and political beliefs significantly influenced perceptions of gene technology. Women were more concerned about gene technology and food risks than men were. The term 'gene technology' evoked neutral or negative associations in most people; few people held positive images regarding this technology. Perception and acceptance of gene technology varied according to the type of application; people were less concerned about convenience or processed food. Although it is mandatory to label genetically modified food in Switzerland, relatively few people were familiar with this label. Participants assessed various food risks, and principal components analysis indicated that they distinguished between technological and natural food risks. Implications of these results are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:6:y:2003:i:1:p:45-60
    DOI: 10.1080/1366987032000047798
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/1366987032000047798
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/1366987032000047798?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. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Aerni, Philipp, 2009. "What is sustainable agriculture? Empirical evidence of diverging views in Switzerland and New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1872-1882, April.
    3. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2004. "Gene Technology in the eyes of the public and experts. Moral opinions, attitudes and risk perception," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2004:7, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 11 May 2005.
    4. Marie-Eve Laporte & Géraldine Michel & Sophie Rieunier, 2017. "Towards a better understanding of eating behaviour through the concept of Perception of Nutritional Risk," Post-Print halshs-02923251, HAL.
    5. Marie-Eve Laporte & Géraldine Michel & Sophie Rieunier, 2015. "Toward a better understanding of eating-behaviour through the concept of Perception of Nutritional Risk [Mieux comprendre les comportements alimentaires grâce au concept de perception du risque nut," Post-Print hal-02054434, HAL.
    6. Therese Haller, 2009. "Apples compared to Apples: Attitudes towards cisgenic and transgenic breeds," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 2(1), pages 3-34.
    7. Philipp Aerni, 2011. "Do Political Attitudes Affect Consumer Choice? Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Study with Genetically Modified Bread in Switzerland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-18, September.
    8. Marco Semadeni & Ralf Hansmann & Thomas Flüeler, 2004. "Public Attitudes in Relation to Risk and Novelty of Future Energy Options," Energy & Environment, , vol. 15(5), pages 755-777, September.
    9. Manuel Thiel & Rainer Marggraf, 2009. "Gentechnik oder nicht Gentechnik - Bestimmungsgründe der Wahl von (nicht) gentechnisch veränderten Produkten," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 2(1), pages 35-58.
    10. Gabi Hufschmidt, 2011. "A comparative analysis of several vulnerability concepts," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 58(2), pages 621-643, August.
    11. Bronfman, Nicolás C. & Jiménez, Raquel B. & Arévalo, Pilar C. & Cifuentes, Luis A., 2012. "Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 246-252.
    12. Seda Erdem & Dan Rigby, 2013. "Investigating Heterogeneity in the Characterization of Risks Using Best Worst Scaling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1728-1748, September.
    13. Nathalie Stampfli & Michael Siegrist & Hans Kastenholz, 2010. "Acceptance of nanotechnology in food and food packaging: a path model analysis," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 353-365, April.
    14. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher & Carmen Keller, 2005. "Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1253-1264, October.
    15. Thurner, Thomas & Fursov, Konstantin & Nefedova, Alena, 2022. "Early adopters of new transportation technologies: Attitudes of Russia’s population towards car sharing, the electric car and autonomous driving," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 403-417.
    16. Jihee Hwang & Jihye You & Junghoon Moon & Jaeseok Jeong, 2020. "Factors Affecting Consumers’ Alternative Meats Buying Intentions: Plant-Based Meat Alternative and Cultured Meat," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-16, July.
    17. Aerni, Philipp & Scholderer, Joachim & Ermen, David, 2011. "How would Swiss consumers decide if they had freedom of choice? Evidence from a field study with organic, conventional and GM corn bread," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 830-838.
    18. Nick Allum, 2007. "An Empirical Test of Competing Theories of Hazard‐Related Trust: The Case of GM Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 935-946, August.
    19. Piers Fleming & Ellen Townsend & Kenneth C. Lowe & Eamonn Ferguson, 2007. "Social Desirability Influences on Judgements of Biotechnology Across the Dimensions of Risk, Ethicality and Naturalness," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(7), pages 989-1003, October.
    20. 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.
    21. Qi Qi & Taoyang Cai & Keyu Zhou & Zhitao Hu & Fanjie Hao & Yutong Wei & Shangjie Ge-Zhang & Jingang Cui, 2024. "Consumers’ Risk Perception of Triploid Food: Empirical Research Based on Variance Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-21, May.
    22. Monika Filipsson & Lill Ljunggren & Tomas Öberg, 2014. "Gender differences in risk management of contaminated land at a Swedish authority," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 353-365, March.
    23. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    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. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.

    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:taf:jriskr:v:6:y:2003:i:1:p:45-60. 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: 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.