Search results

In recent years, concern about the negative environmental effects of technologies, and in particular the use of genetic engineering in food production, has become a major topic in public debate. Public acceptance of genetic engineering is vital to development of this technology. This study, carried out in Christchurch, New Zealand, explores the role of consumers opinions, attitudes and behaviours toward genetic engineering. It focuses on the relative perceived risk associated with consuming genetically engineering food and the role of food labelling in reducing this risk. The study found that most consumers are uninformed about genetic engineering and the potential benefits it holds. The level of accurate knowledge held by the consumer was found to be an important determinant in the perceived level of risk and willingness to accept genetic engineering. Notable relationships were also found between demographic variables, attitudes and behaviours towards genetically engineered produce.

Observes that an indirect reason why genetically engineered food is viewed with suspicion is that recent serious food safety problems have undermined public confidence, both in the food industry and in government, making further “tampering” with food unwelcome. Challenges the assertion that genetic engineering is the answer to worldwide hunger and cites reasons to disbelieve it. Suggests that any advantages from genetic engineering are more likely to benefit the food industry, rather than consumers. Addresses the issues of potential new hazards, lack of clear labelling and the likelihood that impending European Union legislation will not control the producer‐driven development and increased used of genetically engineered enzymes, additives and food ingredients. Questions whether that which is technically feasible is necessarily desirable.

The purpose of this paper is to measure Canadian attitudes towards genetic engineering in food, for both plant-based and livestock, assess trust towards food safety and overall regulatory system in Canada.

This exploratory study is derived from an inductive, quantitative analysis of primary data obtained from an online survey of adults, aged 18 and over, living in Canada for at least 12 months. An online survey was widely distributed in both French and English. Data were collected from 1,049 respondents. The sample was randomized using regional and demographic benchmarks for an accurate representation of the Canadian population. The completion rate of the survey was 94 per cent. Based on the sampling design, the margin of error is 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

Consumers misunderstand the nature of genetic engineering or do not appreciate its prevalence in agrifood or both. In total, 44 per cent of Canadians are confused about health effects of genetically engineered foods and ingredients. In total, 40 per cent believe that there is not significant testing on genetically engineered food to protect consumers. In total, 52 per cent are uncertain on their consumption of genetically engineered food, despite its prominence in the agrifood marketplace. Scientific literacy of respondents on genetic engineering is low. While Canadians are divided on purchasing genetically engineered animal-based products, 55 per cent indicated price is the most important factor when purchasing food.

More research is required to better appreciate the sociological and economic dimensions of incorporating GM foods into our lives. Most importantly, longitudinal risks ought to be better understood for both plant- and animal-based GM foods and ingredients. Additional research is needed to quantify the benefits and risks of GM crops livestock, so business practices and policies approach market expectations. Significantly, improving consumers’ scientific literacy on GM foods will reduce confusion and allow for more informed purchasing decisions. Indeed, a proactive research agenda on biotechnologies can accommodate well-informed discussions with public agencies, food businesses and consumers.

This exploratory study is one of the first to compare consumers’ perceptions of genetic engineering related to animal and plant-based species in Canada since the addition of genetically modified salmon to the marketplace.

This study sets out to assess public awareness and perception of genetically modified (GM) foods in Trinidad, West Indies.

Respondents (113) were interviewed by structured questionnaire on demographics, awareness, perceived risks, perceived benefits, labelling, availability of GM foods and responsibility for information.

Some respondents (31.0 per cent) had not heard of GM foods. Most (64.6 per cent) respondents were willing (“very” or “somewhat”) to purchase GM foods, if considered healthier than conventionally‐produced foods or to purchase GM foods if they were safe (47.8 per cent). Food labels were important for warnings (31.4 per cent), information (30.4 per cent) and advertising (15.3 per cent). Some major perceived risks of GM foods were the toxic effects on health (41.6 per cent) and allergenic effects (28.3 per cent). Some benefits of GM were for increased productivity of crops and food availability (43.8 per cent), improved health and in disease control (27.9 per cent), economics (21 per cent), pest resistance (18.8 per cent) and improved nutrition (16 per cent). Most respondents (41.1 per cent) felt that the Government was responsible for giving information on GM foods. The public was indifferent (p>0.05) as to whether GM foods should be grown in Trinidad and Tobago. The level of education and gender were not (p>0.05) influential factors on responses.

Although the sample size was small, the findings could be used to target effective public education and bio‐safety policies.

The purpose of this paper is to examine consumer attitudes toward genetically modified (GM) and organic foods with a broader list of control variables that includes green attitudes, impulsive purchasing, concerns about privacy, religiosity, birth order, and political preferences.

US internet panelists were asked about their preferences for purchasing non-GM produce, non-GM cereal, and organic products even if they cost a little more. They were also asked if genetically engineered foods are safe to consume. Responses to these four questions were dependent variables in binary logistic regressions. The sample size was 725 adults.

Attitudes toward non-GM produce and non-GM cereal were linked with different variables. Green attitudes were positively linked with non-GM and organic food attitudes. Impulsive purchases, a religiosity factor, and a privacy concern factor were linked with non-GM but not organic food attitudes. Social desirability bias was also significant. The genetically engineered food model identified some unique linkages with the control variables, suggesting that these terms may not improve consumer confidence with food.

New measures and several variables that researchers independently found to be significant were tested together in models and found to be linked with organic and non-GM food attitudes. Some expected relationships were not found. The results provide better profiles of consumers who have strong attitudes toward GM and organic foods.

Seeks to answer the question “whose interests are being served by the laws of purporting to regulate genetically modified organisms?“ Considers the interests of the seed/chemical multinational companies, trade and investment for the countries in which these companies operate and the innovation of science and technology. Covers the European interests with regards to the single internal market and the conflict this can cause between economic and environmental/health interests. Looks at the issues from the US perspective and world trade. Continues by covering nature and the environment followed by health and safety and the rights of consumers. Assesses the regulations of the European community in order to find what protection is available.

The Report of the Committee on the Ethics of Genetic Modification and Food Use was published in September 1993. The use of genetic engineering for food use has received a lot of media and welfare group attention. Addresses emerging ethical issues which affect many societal groups. Information, education and labelling are key factors in the public′s understanding and acceptance of foods produced by this technology. The recommendations of the report have resulted in the Food Advisory Committee (FAC) proposals for labelling products of gene technology. These will not go far enough to satisfy all those who made submissions to the Committee on Ethics. There is a gap between the public′s perception of science and the evidence presented by the biotechnology researchers. The effectiveness of any decisions on labelling hinges not only on more detailed labelling but on bridging the gap between the conflicting interests of scientists and societal welfare groups, so that consumers can make informed choices based on facts.

Presents experimental work which attempts to understand what psychological mechanisms are likely to influence consumer acceptance of genetically engineered food, and the relationship between consumer attitudes towards the technology and consumer acceptance of its products. Discusses the relationship between consumer risk perceptions and consumer reactions; the influence of public knowledge and understanding of the technology on attitudes; media impact; ethical concern; and the importance of perceived need for the technology. Concludes that the most important determinant of consumer acceptance of genetic engineering in food technology is likely to be perceptions of benefit resulting from application of the technology. Suggests that the success of communication strategies is likely to depend on effective provision of information regarding the tangible benefits of the technology, although it is important that a dialogue be established between communicators and the lay public, so that issues addressed reflect the real concerns of the public.

In this farm‐to‐fork trial, genetically engineered (GE) Bt sweet‐corn and Bt potatoes were grown side‐by‐side with conventional varieties in the 2000 growing season at a farm and market in Hillsburgh, Ontario, Canada. The Bt sweet‐corn required no insecticides. From an economic perspective, only the first planting had pest pressure high enough to warrant the higher seed cost of the GE variety. The sweet‐corn harvested throughout the trial was segregated and labeled, and direct consumer evaluation of purchasing preferences was conducted. Overall, the Bt sweet‐corn outsold the conventional sweet‐corn by a margin of 680 dozen (or 8,160 cobs) to 452.5 dozen (or 5,430 cobs). A limited number of intercept interviews were conducted after consumers made their purchasing decision. The majority of consumers interviewed said they were more concerned about pesticides than genetic engineering; however, taste and quality also had a strong influence on purchasing decisions.