Public attitudes to GM foods. The balancing of risks and gains

Abstract

In the paper we study the variables influencing attitudes to the use of two biotechnologies related to gene transfer within apples. Using Eurobarometer 73.1 survey data on biotechnology, science and technology, with 15,650 respondents, we study the extent these attitudes are determined by socio-economic and other variables. We found that attitudes to the risks and gains are determined by socio-economic variables and also by the individual's knowledge, scientific background, their parent's education in science and their religion. Perceptions of naturalness and of environmental impact combined with perceived risks and gains in determining overall approval, proxied by views on whether the technologies should be encouraged, for GMTs. However there are substantial differences in attitudes to transgenesis and cisgenesis.

What Do We Know About Chain Actors’ Evaluation of New Food Technologies? A Systematic Review of Consumer and Farmer Studies

“… Age: For age, we observe positive and negative relationships. On the one hand, studies demonstrated that older people were less willing to use or buy functional food (Brečić et al., ; Cranfield et al., ; Verneau, Caracciolo, Coppola, & Lombardi, ) or GM food (Canavari & Nayga, ; Hudson et al., ), were less accepting nanotechnology for food production (Kim & Kim, ), or were less willing to pay for GM food (Lusk et al., ). But, on the other hand, there are studies that show older people who were willing to pay more for innovative food (with respect to GM: Lusk & Rozan, ; non‐GM biofortification: Oparinde, Banerji, Birol, & Ilona, ; fortification: Kavoosi‐Kalashami et al., ; Siegrist et al., ; Vecchio et al., ), had less fear toward GM foods (González, Johnson, & Qaim, ; Laros & Steenkamp, ; Sjöberg, ; Titchener & Sapp, ), or had higher intention to buy functional food or nutraceutical products (Henson et al., ). Gender: Results of gender influences on food evaluation seem to be more consistent.…”

“…For Italian consumers, appearance 5 negatively affected the willingness to pay a premium price for functional snacks before tasting (nonsignificant after tasting) as consumer do not believe that these products are appealing (Pappalardo & Lusk, 2016). Naturalness 6 appeared to be an important and positive technology feature for consumers with regards to GM foods (Hudson, Caplanova, & Novak, 2015;Ronteltap et al, 2016). Technologies that were seen as more natural and newer were perceived less risky and more beneficial (Hudson et al, 2015).…”

“…Naturalness 6 appeared to be an important and positive technology feature for consumers with regards to GM foods (Hudson, Caplanova, & Novak, 2015;Ronteltap et al, 2016). Technologies that were seen as more natural and newer were perceived less risky and more beneficial (Hudson et al, 2015). In terms of direct effects on dispositions to biotechnology, motivation to find natural foods 7 had a very strong negative effect (Lockie, Lawrence, Lyons, & Grice, 2005).…”

“…using a best-worst scale approach by Pappalardo and Lusk (2016). 6 Measurement of naturalness: "Apple Cisgenesis: Attitudes to artificially introducing a gene that exists naturally in wild/crab apples which provides resistance to mildew and scab" (scale 1-totally agree that it is fundamentally unnatural to 4-totally disagree) by Hudson et al (2015); "This (GM) bread is unnatural" (scale 1-totally disagree to 5-totally agree) by Ronteltap et al (2016). 7 Measurement of natural content: Ratings of several statements (contains no additives; contains natural ingredients; contains no artificial ingredients; certified free of chemical and hormone residues; is as unprocessed as possible; is prepared in a way that preserves its natural goodness; scale 1-strongly agree to 5-strongly disagree) by Lockie, Lawrence, Lyons, & Grice (2005).…”

“…Measurement of naturalness: “Apple Cisgenesis: Attitudes to artificially introducing a gene that exists naturally in wild/crab apples which provides resistance to mildew and scab” (scale 1—totally agree that it is fundamentally unnatural to 4—totally disagree) by Hudson et al. (); “This (GM) bread is unnatural” (scale 1—totally disagree to 5—totally agree) by Ronteltap et al. ().…”