Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S.

Gaskell, George; Bauer, Martín W.; Durant, John R.; Allum, N

doi:10.1126/science.285.5426.384

Cited by 494 publications

(353 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

329

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…( Davison et al, 1997;Gaskell et al, 1999;Bonfadelli, 2005). Although higher knowledge has been associated with positive attitudes toward genetic testing (Davison et al, 1997;Rose et al, 2005), we found little or no relationship between knowledge and attitudes, comporting with other published findings (Macnicol et al, 1991;Singer, 1991;Decruyenaere et al, 1992).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 50%

Public Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Genetics and Genetic Testing

Haga

Barry²,

Mills³

et al. 2013

Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers

226

230

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Variable health literacy and genetic knowledge may pose significant challenges to engaging the general public in personal genomics, specifically with respect to promoting risk comprehension and healthy behaviors. Methods: We are conducting a multistage study of individual responses to genomic risk information for Type 2 diabetes mellitus. A total of 300 individuals were recruited from the general public in Durham, North Carolina: 60% self-identified as White; 70% female; and 65% have a college degree. As part of the baseline survey, we assessed genetic knowledge and attitudes toward genetic testing. Results: Scores of factual knowledge of genetics ranged from 50% to 100% (average = 84%), with significant differences in relation to racial groups, the education level, and age. Scores were significantly higher on questions pertaining to the inheritance and causes of disease (mean score 90%) compared to scientific questions (mean score 77.4%). Scores on the knowledge survey were significantly higher than scores from European populations. Participants' perceived knowledge of the social consequences of genetic testing was significantly lower than their perceived knowledge of the medical uses of testing. More than half agreed with the statement that testing may affect a person's ability to obtain health insurance (51.3%) and 16% were worried about the consequences of testing for chances of finding a job. Conclusions: Despite the relatively high educational status and genetic knowledge of the study population, we find an imbalance of knowledge between scientific and medical concepts related to genetics as well as between the medical applications and societal consequences of testing, suggesting that more effort is needed to present the benefits, risks, and limitations of genetic testing, particularly, at the social and personal levels, to ensure informed decision making.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 50%

Public Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Genetics and Genetic Testing

Haga

Barry²,

Mills³

et al. 2013

Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers

226

230

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Polarisation works well in the media. Media coverage, and a diminished public trust in regulatory authorities may explain why GM crops have met rancorous public resistance in Europe (Gaskell et al, 1999;PABE, 2001). There seems a current tendency in Western societies to take the bearers of bad news more seriously than the bearers of good news.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The release of genetically modified crops into the environment

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryDespite numerous future promises, there is a multitude of concerns about the impact of GM crops on the environment. Key issues in the environmental assessment of GM crops are putative invasiveness, vertical or horizontal gene flow, other ecological impacts, effects on biodiversity and the impact of presence of GM material in other products. These are all highly interdisciplinary and complex issues. A crucial component for a proper assessment is defining the appropriate baseline for comparison and decision. For GM crops, the best and most appropriately defined reference point is the impact of plants developed by traditional breeding. The latter is an integral and accepted part of agriculture. In many instances, the putative impacts identified for GM crops are very similar to the impacts of new cultivars derived from traditional breeding. When assessing GM crops relative to existing cultivars, the increased knowledge base underpinning the development of GM crops will provide greater confidence in the assurances plant science can give on the risks of releasing such crops.

show abstract

“…The higher acceptance of genetically modified foods and feeds in North America compared to Europe [5] is demonstrated by the fact, that two thirds of GM corn cultivations in this region are genetically modified plants, whereas in Europe, GM plants make a minor proportion only. The public needs to be placed in a position to make qualified decisions, and politicians must take the lead in the societal discourse and assume their responsibility.…”

Section: Transparent Communication Strategy On Gmosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transparent communication strategy on GMOs: Will it change public opinion?

Sinemus¹,

Egelhofer²

2007

Biotechnology Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Innovations are central for the economic growth; however, the use of new technologies needs to be widely accepted in the general public and the society as a whole. Biotechnology in general, and the use of genetic engineering in food production in particular are seen critically by the European public and perceived as "risky", and a transatlantic divide between European and US citizens has been observed. This review investigates the reasons for those differing perceptions and proposes new strategies to communicate the benefits of biotechnology in agriculture to a broader public. When analyzing the dialogue process that has taken place between public, scientists, governmental organizations and industry, questions arise on what has been done differently in Europe, in order to propose new, more successful and efficient communication strategies for the future. food use by the FDA in the early 90s and is now widely used in the cheese production [4]. The higher acceptance of genetically modified foods and feeds in North America compared to Europe [5] is demonstrated by the fact, that two thirds of GM corn cultivations in this region are genetically modified plants, whereas in Europe, GM plants make a minor proportion only. The public needs to be placed in a position to make qualified decisions, and politicians must take the lead in the societal discourse and assume their responsibility. One milestone towards acceptance is to reach a better level of public "trust and understanding", however, for obtaining this goal it is necessary to provide a broad basis of transparency on all possible levels, including politics, governments and industry.In this review, we will analyze the origin of the transatlantic divide and propose appropriate communication strategies to enhance the public understanding of the facts on genetic engineering and the dependency on biotechnological innovations in Europe. More information = higher acceptance?It has been often assumed, that the low acceptance in Europe correlates with a low amount of knowledge on biotechnology and genetic engineering, suggesting that education programs would change the publics' perception. Therefore, past communication programs were often conducted as an "educational approach". However, recent experiences and studies contradict this hypothesis. In fact, it appears that factual knowledge of science has little influence on the attitudes [6], and campaigns to educate an apparently ignorant public did not significantly change attitudes. Evidence also comes from a recent Eurobarometer survey [7] showing that a majority is still worried about genetically modified products in food and drinks (Fig.1).Using results from a 1999 Eurobarometer survey, and a parallel telephone survey in the US in 2000, a study [8] also explored the relationship between levels of knowledge, education and perception for biotechnology across a number of medical and agricultural applications. This study found only a weak relationship among these factors, questioning the common assumption, that higher scie...

show abstract

Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S.

Cited by 494 publications

References 1 publication

Public Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Genetics and Genetic Testing

Public Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Genetics and Genetic Testing

The release of genetically modified crops into the environment

Transparent communication strategy on GMOs: Will it change public opinion?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About