An Overview of Attitudes Toward Genetically Engineered Food

Abstract

Genetically engineered food has had its DNA, RNA, or proteins manipulated by intentional human intervention. We provide an overview of the importance and regulation of genetically engineered food and lay attitudes toward it. We first discuss the pronaturalness context in the United States and Europe that preceded the appearance of genetically engineered food. We then review the definition, prevalence, and regulation of this type of food. Genetically engineered food is widespread in some countries, but there is great controversy worldwide among individuals, governments, and other institutions about the advisability of growing and consuming it. In general, life scientists have a much more positive view of genetically engineered food than laypeople. We examine the bases of lay opposition to genetically engineered food and the evidence for how attitudes change. Laypeople tend to see genetically engineered food as dangerous and offering few benefits. We suggest that much of the lay opposition is morally based. One possibility is that, in some contexts, people view nature and naturalness as sacred and genetically engineered food as a violation of naturalness. We also suggest that for many people these perceptions of naturalness and attitudes toward genetically engineered food follow the sympathetic magical law of contagion, in which even minimal contact between a natural food and an unnatural entity, either a scientist or a piece of foreign DNA, pollutes or contaminates the natural entity and renders it unacceptable or even immoral to consume.

U.S. Public Opinion on the Governance of Artificial Intelligence

“…One direction for future research is to examine other factors that shape the public's preferences toward AI governance. Technological knowledge, moral and psychological attributes, and perceptions of risks versus benefits are associated with support for GM foods and nanotechnology (Scott et al, 2018;Satterfield et al, 2009). Another direction for future research is to improve the measurement of institutional trust.…”

The Impact of Source Credibility on Scientific Skepticism of Climate Change and Genetically Modified Foods: Findings from the General Social Survey

“…In agriculture, genetic engineering (GE) 2 constitutes the selective breeding of particular traits for crop optimization, be it for yield, rate of growth, drought resistance, herbicide complementarity, pesticide resistance, among others uses (see Varzakas, et al, 2007 for a review); genetically modified foods are the "most visible product" of this process (Clancy, 2016, p. 4). Widespread proliferation in the global marketplace (Scott, et al 2018) and a multiplicity of stakeholders make the political economy of GM, and its communication, complex (Clancy, 2016;McComas, Besley & Steinhardt, 2014). A variety of sources-from government agencies, agricultural producers, and biotech corporations, to agroscientists and medical researchers, lobby organizations, and environmental and consumer groups-provide information and recommendations about GM, often with competing objectives (Roe & Tiesl, 2007).…”

“…A variety of sources-from government agencies, agricultural producers, and biotech corporations, to agroscientists and medical researchers, lobby organizations, and environmental and consumer groups-provide information and recommendations about GM, often with competing objectives (Roe & Tiesl, 2007). Because constructions of risk pervade "the process of manufacturing, the GM products, and the unknown implications of the technology" (emphasis original, Clancy, 2016, p. 2), source credibility can impact individuals' acceptance of GM as well as consumer behavior (Scott et al, 2018;other cites). Moreover, members of the public generally lack control over the development, implementation and political process that governs GM food (Marques, Critchley & Walshe 2015), making source credibility a potentially important predictor of public attitudes toward GM food.…”

“…The shared values, moral understandings and identities that connect stakeholders together in an "in group" community can also lead "in group" members to reject contrary beliefs and perspectives (Passini, 2010). As Scott et al (2018) note, "once a scientific issue becomes aligned with a broader social orientation, people tend to ignore the views of experts in favor of the views of their ideological in-group" (p. 12.13). Indeed, "in group" members are more likely to reject "out group" sources as less trustworthy or knowledgeable than "in group" sources (Mackie & Quellar, 2000).…”

Advancing human health risk assessment

“…The qualitative characteristics of a hazard, and not relevant quantitative information, strongly influence laypeople's risk perception. Recent research (Siegrist and Sütterlin, ; Scott et al., ) has focused on the role of simple heuristics: natural is good and synthetic is bad, for example, in people's hazard evaluations. The results of such studies indicate that not only the negative consequences of a hazard, but also whether the hazard is human‐made (e.g.…”