Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust

Abstract

Recent research suggests that public attitudes toward emerging technologies are mainly driven by trust in the institutions promoting and regulating these technologies. Alternative views maintain that trust should be seen as a consequence rather than a cause of such attitudes. To test its actual role, direct as well as mediating effects of trust were tested in an attitude change experiment involving 1,405 consumers from Denmark, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. After prior attitudes to genetic modification in food production had been assessed, participants received different information materials (either product-specific information or balanced/general information about genetic modification in food production) and were asked to evaluate different types of genetically modified foods (either beer or yoghurt). The information materials were attributed to different information sources (either an industry association, a consumer organization, or a government source). After completion, perceived risk and perceived benefit were assessed, and participants indicated their trust in the information sources to which the materials had been attributed. Direct and trust-mediated attitude change effects were estimated in a multi-sample structural equation model. The results showed that information provision had little effect on people's attitudes toward genetically modified foods, and that perceptions of information source characteristics contributed very little to attitude change. Furthermore, the type of information strategy adopted had almost no impact on postexperimental attitudes. The extent to which people trusted the information sources appeared to be driven by people's attitudes to genetically modified foods, rather than trust influencing the way that people reacted to the information. Trust was not driving risk perception-rather, attitudes were informing perceptions of the motivation of the source providing the information.

Attitudes, values, and socio‐demographic characteristics that predict acceptance of genetic engineering and applications of new technology in Australia

“…2007, 2, 1169-1178 www.biotechnology-journal.com in producer sources and non-expert sources. Such a pattern provides support for the emerging conception of trust as a component rather than a determinant of attitudes to biotechnology [27,33,34]; it is a pattern that suggests that trust ratings should not be taken literally but rather interpreted as indicative of a general alignment or affiliation. Indeed, to the extent that attitudes are general evaluative tendencies [43], similar patterns might well be found for ratings on other evaluative dimensions -liking, for example -of no apparent logical relevance to technology acceptance.…”

“…Experimental findings have not supported the use of information-based persuasion attempts [28] or free access to both pro-and anti-GM arguments [29] as means of increasing acceptance of GM; nor are there grounds to believe that support for GM, for example, increases reliably with education level or knowledge of science [7,13,30]. Apparent community rejection of the official line on GM has, in turn, been attributed to a lack of trust in organizations or individuals involved in GM research or products [13,28,31], although recent analyses depict trust as a component rather than a determinant of attitudes [27,[32][33][34].…”

“…At the level of demographic differences, men have been noted to have more positive attitudes towards gene technology than women [2,20,33,35,36]. Women have shown greater levels of concerns in relation to novel food processing [37] and been found to be less willing than men to consume GM food [30].…”

Trust in the Australian food supply: Innocent until proven guilty

“…Studies have found a relationship between the volume of media reporting and people's perception of risk that is unrelated to the generalised level of trust in the media (Frewer, Miles, & Marsh, 2002;Frewer, Scholderer, & Bredahl, 2003;Vilella-Vila & Costa-Font 2008). Further, there is a convergence of the values of readers of elite press with media presentations over time (Bauer, 2005) Trust in the Australian food system differs from Europe.…”

Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions of Agricultural Professionals Toward Genetically Modified (GM) Foods: A Case Study in Southwest Iran

“…On the other hand, some individuals see risks ranging from general concerns to specific fears in the use of biotechnology in food production. The general concerns include environmental pollution (Moseley 1999;Frewer et al 2000;Zhong et al 2002), crosspollination (Moseley 1999;Martinez-Poveda et al 2009), the possible creation of new viruses and toxins, limited access to seeds due to the patenting of GM plants, the threat to crop genetic diversity (Moon and Balasubramanian 2001;Martinez-Poveda et al 2009), religious, cultural, and ethical concerns (Thompson 1999 and also unknown consequences (Uzogara 2000).…”