Towards a More Holistic Understanding of American Support for Genetically Modified Crops: An Examination of Influential Factors Using a Binomial Dependent Variable

Josephine, Faass and Michael, Lahr (2007): Towards a More Holistic Understanding of American Support for Genetically Modified Crops: An Examination of Influential Factors Using a Binomial Dependent Variable.

Abstract

This paper is an investigation into the relative importance of a wide variety of factors in influencing whether members of the American public support or oppose the use of biotechnology in agriculture and food production. To accomplish this end, as well as to facilitate the examination of a large number of independent variables simultaneously, several statistical methods, including factor analyses, instrumental variables analysis, and probit and logistic regressions were performed. It was determined that people’s perceptions of risks and moral acceptability were important contributors to opinion formation in this regard. The effects of expected benefits, feelings of trust in information, and knowledge about biotechnology and genetics, were also investigated and found to exert varying levels of influence depending on the identity of the expected beneficiary or information source, as well as the kind of knowledge under consideration. The roles of religious and political party affiliation were also examined and determined to be significant.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: genetically modified foods, biotechnology, public opinion
• Subjects: H - Public Economics > H0 - General; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q1 - Agriculture > Q18 - Agricultural Policy ; Food Policy

References

Beckwith, Jo Ann, Timothy Hadlock, and Heather Suffron. 2003. Public perceptions of plant biotechnology - a focus on group study. New Genetics and Society 22, (2): 93-109.

Besely, John C., and James Shanahan. 2005. Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication 26, (4): 347-367.

Boholm, Asa. 1998. Comparative studies of risk perception: A review of twenty years of research. Journal of Risk Research 1,(2): 135-163.

Bucchi, Massimiano, and Frederico Neresini. 2002. Biotech remains unloved by the more informed. Nature 416, : 261.

Ervin, David E., Sandra S. Batie, Rick Welsh, Chantal L. Carpentier, Jacquelin I. Fern, Nessa J. Richman, and Mary A. Schulz. 2000. Transgenic crops: An environmental assessment.

Fischhoff, Baruch, Paul Slovic, and Sarah Lichtenstein. 1978. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences 9, : 127-152.

Frewer, Lynn J., Chaya Howard, and Richard Sheperd. 1997. Public concerns in the united kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefits and ethics. Science, Technology and Human Values 22, (1): 98-124.

Gaskell, George, Nick Allum, Wolfgang Wagner, Nicole Kronberger, Helge Torgersen, Juergen Hampel, and Julie Bardes. 2004. GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis 24, (1): 185-194.

Gaskell, George, Martin W. Bauer, John Duant, and Nicholas C. Allum. 1999. Worlds apart? the reception of genetically modified foods in europe and the U.S. Science 285, (5426): 384-387.

Harlander, Susan K. 2002. Safety assessments and public concern for genetically modified food products: The american view. Toxicologic Pathology 30, (1): 132-134.

Hohenemser, H., R. W. Kates, and P. Slovic. 1983. The nature of technological hazard. Science 220, (4595): 378-384.

James Jr., Harvey S. 2003. The effect of trust on public support for biotechnology: Evidence from the U.S. biotechnology study, 1997-1998. Agribusiness 19, (2): 155-167.

Lassen, J., K. H. Madsen, and P. Sandoe. 2002. Ethics and genetic engineering - lessons to be learned from GM foods. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering 24, : 263-271.

Levidow, Les. 2001. Precautionary uncertainty: Regulating GM crops in europe. Social Studies of Science 31, (6): 842-874.

Miller, Jon D. 2000. United states biotechnology study, 1997-1998. Vol. ICPSR Study No. 3030.

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2003. Acerage report. Washington, DC.

Nisbet, Matt, and Bruce V. Lewestein. 2001. A comparison of U.S. media coverage of biotechnology with public perceptions of genetic engineering 1995-1999. Paper presented at Proceedings of the PCST2001 International Conference, Geneva, Switzerland.

Phillips, W. B., and Grant Isaac. 1998. GMO labeling: Threat of opportunity? AgBioForum 1, (1): 25-30.

Poortinga, Wouter, and Nick F. Pidgeon. 2005. Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Analysis 25, (1): 199-209.

Priest, Susanna Hornig. 2000. U.S. public opinion divided over biotechnology? Nature Biotechnology 18, : 939-941.

Sandman, Peter M. 1987. Risk communication: Facing public outrage. EPA Journal 13, : 21-22.

Savadori, Lucia, Stefania Savio, Eraldo Nicotra, Rino Rumianti, Melissa Finucane, and Paul Slovic. 2004. Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis 24, (5): 1289-1299.

Seigrist, M., G. Cvetkovich, and C. Roth. 2000. Salient value similarity, social trust, and Risk/Benefit perception. Risk Analysis 20, (3): 353-362.

Siegrist, M. 2000. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 20, (2): 195-024.

Slovic, Paul. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236, (4799): 280-285.

Slovic, Paul, James H. Flynn, and Mark Layman. 1991. Percieved risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 254, (5038): 1603-1607.

The Mellman Group. 2005. Memorandum to the pew initiative on food and biotechnology.

Vogt, Donna U. 1999. Food biotechnology in the united states: Science, regulation, and issues. Washington, D.C.: U.S Department of State, RL30198.

Walker, B., and M. Lonsdale. 2000. Genetically modified organisms at the crossroads: Comments on "genetically modified crops: Risks and promise" by Gordon Conway. Conservation Ecology 4, (1): 12.

Wilson, Carlene, Greg Evans, Leppard Phil, and Julie Syrette. 2004. Reactions to genetically modified food crops and how perceptions of risks and benefits influences consumers' information gathering. Risk Analysis 24, : 1311-1321.