Literature DB >> 24630937

Factors influencing U.S. consumer support for genetic modification to prevent crop disease.

Katherine A McComas1, John C Besley2, Joseph Steinhardt3.   

Abstract

This study examines support for the genetic modification (GM) of crops in the context of preventing "late blight," a devastating potato and tomato disease that caused the Irish Potato Famine in the 1850s and results in substantial crop loss today. We surveyed U.S. adults who do the primary grocery shopping in their household (n = 859). Half of the respondents were randomly assigned to read a vignette describing late blight before responding to questions about GM, whereas the other half read a vignette about generic crop disease before responding to questions. We also examine how the perceived fairness of decision makers relates to GM support and the perceived legitimacy of GM decision making. We found that disease specificity mattered less to support and legitimacy than the perceived fairness of decision makers. The perceived risks of GM to human and environmental health negatively related to GM support and legitimacy, whereas the perceived benefits (e.g. reduced threats to crops and a more secure food supply) positively related to support and legitimacy. Objective knowledge about GM had a small, negative relationship with legitimacy whereas self-assessed familiarity with GM had a positive relationship. Overall, the results offer additional confirmation of past findings from more localized settings that perceived fairness of decision makers matters to support for GM and underscore the importance of considering how risk managers' behaviors and actions are perceived alongside individuals' perceptions about the risks and benefits.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Fairness; Genetic modification; Late blight; Public opinion

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24630937     DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appetite        ISSN: 0195-6663            Impact factor:   3.868


  8 in total

Review 1.  Consumer perception of genetically modified organisms and sources of information.

Authors:  Shahla Wunderlich; Kelsey A Gatto
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2015-11-13       Impact factor: 8.701

2.  Potential subchronic food safety of the stacked trait transgenic maize GH5112E-117C in Sprague-Dawley rats.

Authors:  Shiwen Han; Shiying Zou; Xiaoyun He; Kunlun Huang; Xiaohong Mei
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 2.788

3.  Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships.

Authors:  John C Besley; Aaron M McCright; Nagwan R Zahry; Kevin C Elliott; Norbert E Kaminski; Joseph D Martin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Climate solution or corporate co-optation? US and Canadian publics' views on agricultural gene editing.

Authors:  Sara Nawaz; Terre Satterfield
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  The Impact of Alternative Foods on Consumers' Continuance Intention from an Innovation Perspective.

Authors:  Chun Yang; Xuqi Chen; Jie Sun; Chao Gu
Journal:  Foods       Date:  2022-04-18

6.  Public attitudes toward genetic modification in dairy cattle.

Authors:  Caroline Ritter; Adam Shriver; Emilie McConnachie; Jesse Robbins; Marina A G von Keyserlingk; Daniel M Weary
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  The Evolving Field of Risk Communication.

Authors:  Dominic Balog-Way; Katherine McComas; John Besley
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 4.000

8.  Gene editing isn't just about food: comments from U.S. focus groups.

Authors:  Brandon R McFadden; Joy N Rumble; Kathryn A Stofer; Kevin M Folta; Savanna Turner; Adam Pollack
Journal:  GM Crops Food       Date:  2021-05-20       Impact factor: 3.118

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.