Mitigating consequence insensitivity for genetically engineered crops.

Abstract

Many opponents of genetically engineered (GE) food say that it ought to be prohibited regardless of the risks and benefits (Scott et al., 2016). If many people are truly unwilling to consider risks and benefits in evaluating GE technology, this poses serious problems for scientists and policymakers. In a large demographically-representative German sample (N = 3,025), we investigate consequence-insensitive beliefs about GE crops among GE supporters and opponents, as well as whether these beliefs can be mitigated. We find that a large majority of opponents and a substantial minority of supporters are consequence-insensitive: They say that risks and benefits are irrelevant to their views. At the same time, the responses of consequence-insensitive participants to subsequent belief probes show substantial flexibility. Participants often gave responses inconsistent with the unconditional prohibition or permission of GE crops. These results suggest that professed consequence insensitivity should be taken as an expression of a strong moral belief rather than as literal endorsement of policy. Public Significance StatementThis study finds that many people in Germany say GMOs should be banned (or allowed) regardless of the risks or benefits of doing so. This is more common among people who are anti-GMO than those who are pro-GMO. However, even people who say that risks and benefits don't matter sometimes take them into account when they are asked to think harder about what might change their minds.