Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification - a systematic review and meta-analysis

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess research relevant to understanding consumer and societal attitudes to genetic modification applied to agri-food production. The objective was to compare attitudes in different global regions, at different times and between applications. Seventy articles were included in the final meta-analysis. Plant-related or “general” applications were more acceptable than animal-related applications. Risk perceptions were greater in Europe than North America and Asia. The reverse was true of benefit perceptions. Moral concerns are higher in North America and Asia. Both risk and benefit perceptions increased with time.

[1]  J. Swinnen,et al.  On Butterflies and Frankenstein: A Dynamic Theory of Regulation , 2011 .

[2]  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.

[3]  Einsiedel Ef,et al.  Public perceptions of transgenic animals , 2005 .

[4]  Wei Qin,et al.  Consumer Opinions about Genetically Engineered Salmon and Information Effect on Opinions , 2006 .

[5]  B. Roe,et al.  Genetically modified food labeling: The impacts of message and messenger on consumer perceptions of labels and products , 2007 .

[6]  Susan Miles,et al.  Public attitudes towards genetically-modified food , 2005 .

[7]  A. Ricroch,et al.  Consultations of stakeholders on the roles of research in relation to genetically modified plants in France , 2009, Public understanding of science.

[8]  Joachim Scholderer,et al.  Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[9]  G. Robert,et al.  Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. , 2004, The Milbank quarterly.

[10]  A. Fischer,et al.  Consumer attitudes towards hypoallergenic apples that alleviate mild apple allergy , 2011 .

[11]  Karsten Klint Jensen,et al.  Food Safety and Ethics: The Interplay between Science and Values , 2002 .

[12]  Scott Campbell,et al.  Psychological Determinants of Willingness to Taste and Purchase Genetically Modified Food , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[13]  J. Lassen,et al.  Ethics and genetic engineering – lessons to be learned from GM foods , 2002 .

[14]  Susanna Hornig Priest,et al.  Public Discourse and Scientific Controversy , 2006 .

[15]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review , 2012, Public understanding of science.

[16]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[17]  Gene Rowe,et al.  The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and Priorities , 2008 .

[18]  M. Qaim,et al.  Consumer Acceptance of Second-Generation GM Foods: The Case of Biofortified Cassava in the North-east of Brazil , 2009 .

[19]  Thomas I. Wahl,et al.  Consumer Attitudes to Genetically Modified Food in Norway , 2004 .

[20]  J M Sargeant,et al.  The process of systematic review and its application in agri-food public-health. , 2006, Preventive veterinary medicine.

[21]  Elias Mossialos,et al.  Are perceptions of ‘risks’ and ‘benefits’ of genetically modified food (in)dependent? , 2007 .

[22]  Gene Rowe,et al.  Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[23]  Melissa L. Finucane,et al.  Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified food: an overview of the literature. , 2005, Social science & medicine.

[24]  J. Lusk,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies , 2005 .

[25]  W. Adamowicz,et al.  Labelling Genetically Modified Food: Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Value of Information , 2005 .

[26]  Joan Costa-Font,et al.  The public as a limit to technology transfer: The influence of knowledge and beliefs in attitudes towards biotechnology in the UK , 2006 .

[27]  P. Berger,et al.  Religious America, Secular Europe?: A Theme and Variations , 2008 .

[28]  Wanki Moon,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Non‐biotech Foods in the U.S. and U.K. , 2003 .

[29]  Graham Murdock,et al.  The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement , 2007 .

[30]  J. Gil,et al.  Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy , 2008 .

[31]  Michael D. Mehta,et al.  From Biotechnology to Nanotechnology: What Can We Learn from Earlier Technologies? , 2004 .

[32]  G. Rowe,et al.  Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. , 2011 .

[33]  Stephen J. Ceccoli,et al.  Explaining attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union , 2012 .

[34]  Mark W. Lipsey,et al.  Practical Meta-Analysis , 2000 .

[35]  J. Lassen,et al.  Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. , 2004, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[36]  G. Gaskell,et al.  Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. , 1999, Science.

[37]  M. Pivetti.  Natural and unnatural: activists' representations of animal biotechnology , 2007 .