Consumer Opinions about Genetically Engineered Salmon and Information Effect on Opinions

American consumers remain uninformed about genetically engineered (GE) foods, raising the prospect of their rejection based on outrage rather than risk. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering introduction of GE salmon into the food supply, an animal application likely to raise consumer concerns. As the first step in designing balanced information to help consumers reach informed opinions about GE salmon, we held eleven focus group discussions to compare the effect of limited (six groups) and detailed (five groups) information on the participants’ formulated consequences of this GE application. The results suggested that an effective communication piece about a specific GE application should contain basic and specific, including process- and product-related, information to help the recipient formulate consequences, and hence, opinions. It should also incorporate multiple viewpoints on certain and uncertain consequences to increase perceptions of source trustworthiness and help consumers reach informed opinions.

[1]  M. Magnusson,et al.  Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods , 2002, Appetite.

[2]  Comparison of Consumer Reaction to Information About Two Genetically Engineered Soybeans That Differ in Consumer Benefit , 2003 .

[3]  S. Dunwoody,et al.  Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. , 1999, Environmental research.

[4]  P. Sandøe,et al.  Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks , 2003, Appetite.

[5]  S. Fawcett,et al.  Consequence analysis: Its effects on verbal statements about an environmental project. , 1980, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[6]  L. Bredahl,et al.  Consumers» Cognitions With Regard to Genetically Modified Foods. Results of a Qualitative Study in Four Countries , 1999, Appetite.

[7]  P. Slovic.  Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[8]  Carla Smink,et al.  Consumers and biotechnology in The Netherlands , 1996 .

[9]  Susanna Hornig Priest.  Misplaced Faith , 2001 .

[10]  Joachim Scholderer,et al.  Four questions on European consumers’ attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production , 2003 .

[11]  Susan Miles,et al.  Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards , 2003 .

[12]  A. Tversky,et al.  Affect, Generalization, and the Perception of Risk. , 1983 .

[13]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Lay views on uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment , 1998 .

[14]  K. Grunert,et al.  Consumer Attitudes and Decision-Making With Regard to Genetically Engineered Food Products – A Review of the Literature and a Presentation of Models for Future Research , 1998 .

[15]  Chezy Ofir,et al.  Context Effects on Judgment under Uncertainty , 1984 .

[16]  T. Hoban,et al.  Consumer knowledge and concern about biotechnology and food safety , 1994 .

[17]  R. Shepherd,et al.  The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production , 1998 .

[18]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  ‘Objection’ mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering , 1997 .

[19]  R. Shepherd,et al.  The influence of realistic product exposure on attitudes towards genetic engineering of food , 1996 .

[20]  Consequence Analysis: An on-Line Replication , 2001 .

[21]  A. V. Cardello,et al.  Role of Sensory and Cognitive Information in the Enhancement of Certainty and Linking for Novel and Familiar Foods , 1994, Appetite.

[22]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology , 1995 .

[23]  Klaus G. Grunert,et al.  Consumer perceptions of food products involving genetic modification : results from a qualitative study in four Nordic countries , 2001 .

[24]  B Fischhoff,et al.  Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[25]  P. Slovic,et al.  Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[26]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED KNOWLEDGE, CONTROL AND RISK ASSOCIATED WITH A RANGE OF FOOD‐RELATED HAZARDS TARGETED AT THE INDIVIDUAL, OTHER PEOPLE AND SOCIETY , 1994 .

[27]  Richard Shepherd,et al.  Public Concerns in the United Kingdom about General and Specific Applications of Genetic Engineering: Risk, Benefit, and Ethics , 1997, Science, technology & human values.

[28]  V. Hillers,et al.  Attitudes of consumers living in Washington regarding food biotechnology. , 2002, Journal of the American Dietetic Association.

[29]  J. Shanahan.  The Polls-Trends: Attitudes about Agricultural Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms. , 2001, Public opinion quarterly.

[30]  H. Tuorila,et al.  Dimensions of novelty: a social representation approach to new foods , 2003, Appetite.

[31]  G. Rowe,et al.  Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: a psychometric study. , 1996, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[32]  J. Scholderer,et al.  The Biotechnology Communication Paradox: Experimental Evidence and the Need for a New Strategy , 2003 .

[33]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk , 2005 .

[34]  J. Viaene,et al.  Consumer beliefs and attitude towards genetically modified food: Basis for segmentation and implications for communication , 2003 .

[35]  M. Magnusson,et al.  Consumer perceptions of genetically modified and organic foods. What kind of knowledge matters? , 2003, Appetite.