Understanding the Scope of Farmer Perceptions of Risk: Considering Farmer Opinions on the Use of Genetically Modified (GM) Crops as a Stakeholder Voice in Policy

Abstract

In the beginning, policy debates between critics and advocates of genetically modified (GM) crops focused on scientifically determined risks. Ten years later, the argument between environmentalists or consumers and regulators or industry has changed into a discussion about the implementation of more democratic policymaking about GM farming. A notable omission from the political debate about food biotechnology in the United States, however, is the opinion of farmers who cultivate the GM crops. Policymakers should value practical knowledge based on experiences from farmers, not only scientific industry reports or consumer product opinions. This project uses in-depth interviews to create an original mail survey that uses the practical discourse of farmers in order to explore the relationship of farmer attitudes and GM agriculture. Although national research indicates that larger yields are the most common reason for GM adoption, qualitative information suggest that the potential of GM crops to increase revenue per acre does not truly reflect all the concerns of modern farmers. For example, farmers who use GM seeds indicate that they constantly question the social impacts of their agricultural practices. As such, GM policies should be restructured as a political rationalization of both economic modeling and political theory because this research suggests that farmers' business decisions are utility calucations that consider economics without ignoring environmental and political contexts. Farmers' concerns about non-economic risks suggest that they need more information about GM crops and that governmental policies should respond to their interests, as they are more democratic or pluralistic than industry or consumer arguments.

Power, progress and prevarication

“…In other cases, farmer perception of risk was mitigated by scientific information from trusted agencies such as government extension agents or university researchers. 12 The following responses are consistent with this observation:…”

“…12 Debates have been dominated by environmentalists, scientists, policy makers and regulators. 8 Absent from the debate even in countries where GM crops have been grown the longest (in the US), are the voices of farmers who are the direct users of the technologies 12 Previous studies of farmers in industrialized countries suggest that farmers' decisions about whether or not to adopt GE crops extend beyond economic considerations. Their practical knowledge of agricultural challenges faced in the field may help to resolve disputes between stakeholders who are removed from participating directly in agriculture but are heavily engaged in the debate.…”

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

“…Areal, Riesgo, and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2011) concluded that, for EU farmers, the potential financial gains were important in the decision to adopt GM herbicide-tolerant crops, as did Breustedt, Muller-Scheeßel, and Latacz-Lohmann (2008) for German arable farmers adopting GM oilseed. However, Guehlstorf (2008) in a study in the USA, concluded that farmers were influenced by environmental considerations and social impact, as well as financial gains.…”

Are There Ideological Aspects to the Modernization of Agriculture?

“…It also means that a new relationship between and integration of agriculture, sustainability, environment, and ethics will be needed (Meester et al 2005;Weis 2010). It must include the social consequences of the policy implemented (De Hoogh 1991;Jochemsen 2008), not least indicating renewed attention to the opinions of farmers themselves (Guehlstorf 2008;Visser 2010). This new ethical attitude should also pay critical attention to the assistance provided to Third World countries towards modernizing and rationalizing their agriculture, perhaps more for political than for ideological reasons (e.g., the Green Revolution, as described by Cullather (2004) and Hamblin (2009)).…”