Literature DB >> 15028010

GM foods and the misperception of risk perception.

George Gaskell1, Nick Allum, Wolfgang Wagner, Nicole Kronberger, Helge Torgersen, Juergen Hampel, Julie Bardes.   

Abstract

Public opposition to genetically modified (GM) food and crops is widely interpreted as the result of the public's misperception of the risks. With scientific assessment pointing to no unique risks from GM crops and foods, a strategy of accurate risk communication from trusted sources has been advocated. This is based on the assumption that the benefits of GM crops and foods are self-evident. Informed by the interpretation of some qualitative interviews with lay people, we use data from the Eurobarometer survey on biotechnology to explore the hypothesis that it is not so much the perception of risks as the absence of benefits that is the basis of the widespread rejection of GM foods and crops by the European public. Some respondents perceive both risks and benefits, and may be trading off these attributes along the lines of a rational choice model. However, for others, one attribute-benefit-appears to dominate their judgments: the lexicographic heuristic. For these respondents, their perception of risk is of limited importance in the formation of attitudes toward GM food and crops. The implication is that the absence of perceived benefits from GM foods and crops calls into question the relevance of risk communication strategies for bringing about change in public opinion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15028010     DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00421.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  28 in total

1.  The real and perceived risks of genetically modified organisms.

Authors:  Helge Torgersen
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 8.807

Review 2.  Beyond risk. A more realistic risk-benefit analysis of agricultural biotechnologies.

Authors:  Inmaculada de Melo-Martín; Zahra Meghani
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 8.807

3.  Communicating the risks, and the benefits, of nanotechnology.

Authors:  Walter W Piegorsch; Emmanuelle Schuler
Journal:  Int J Risk Assess Manag       Date:  2008-01-01

4.  Attitudes of Agricultural Experts Toward Genetically Modified Crops: A Case Study in Southwest Iran.

Authors:  Mansour Ghanian; Omid M Ghoochani; Miranda Kitterlin; Sheida Jahangiry; Kiumars Zarafshani; Steven Van Passel; Hossein Azadi
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2015-06-05       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  Acceptability of GM foods among Pakistani consumers.

Authors:  Akhter Ali; Dil Bahadur Rahut; Muhammad Imtiaz
Journal:  GM Crops Food       Date:  2016-04-02       Impact factor: 3.074

6.  Marketplace response to GM animal products.

Authors:  Damien Mather; Rasmus Vikan; John Knight
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 54.908

Review 7.  Pharmaceutical Benefit-Risk Communication Tools: A Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Dominic Way; Hortense Blazsin; Ragnar Löfstedt; Frederic Bouder
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 8.  Nanomedicine: promises and challenges for the future of public health.

Authors:  Michelle Pautler; Sara Brenner
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2010-10-05

9.  Communicating Synthetic Biology: from the lab via the media to the broader public.

Authors:  Nicole Kronberger; Peter Holtz; Wolfgang Kerbe; Ewald Strasser; Wolfgang Wagner
Journal:  Syst Synth Biol       Date:  2009-10-10

10.  Review of quantitative and qualitative studies on U.S. public perceptions of synthetic biology.

Authors:  Eleonore Pauwels
Journal:  Syst Synth Biol       Date:  2009-10-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.