Debunking the myth of general consumer rejection of green genetic engineering: Empirical evidence from Germany

Abstract

The emergence of a more sustainable economy in Europe was accompanied by a range of biobased products and technologies. As a prominent example, green genetic engineering opens up multiple options to increase agricultural production, but its public acceptance seems to vary by application area. Risk perception explains consumer acceptance of green genetic engineering, which is a necessary precondition for wider technology adoption. This study investigates risk perceptions for four major sources of risk: health related, environmental, socioeconomic and ethical.Data were collected in a laboratory experiment in Germany, with a total of 439 participants. A between-subject design was employed. The four experimental treatment groups comprised two policy scenarios, namely one only permitting research and development and the other allowing full commercialization of genetically modified products, and two product end-uses, bioenergy and food. The study shows significant end-use differences in both the type of policy scenario and the risk dimension in question. In particular, health risks were generally perceived to be lower for bioenergy than food whenever full commercialization was pursued. Furthermore, full commercialization of genetically modified food prompted higher concerns about personal health, whereas use of crops for bioenergy production was broadly related to higher levels of socioeconomic risk.Finally, although the majority of consumers identified health risks as being most relevant, the consequences for the environment evoked the greatest degree of risk perception. In general, our findings lend support for the notion that the policy regime is the most important determinant for risk perception, followed by the type of risk dimension and level of trust in industry.

Does information change German consumers’ attitudes about genetically modified food?

“…In addition to regional heterogeneity, Hess et al (2016) identify average income, food product characteristics, the characteristics of the biotechnology, knowledge and the information provided in the survey as explanatory factors for GM attitudes. Recently, Butkowski et al (2017) conducted a laboratory experiment in Germany, investigating the risk perceptions of different types of genetic engineering. They find that the level of perceived risk is significantly higher for food than bioenergy, which is mostly driven by higher perceived health risks.…”

Attitude and labelling preferences towards gene-edited food: a consumer study amongst millennials and Generation Z

“…In specific, Hudson et al (2015) have illustrated the large importance that perceptions of the environmental impact of this technology have in orienting consumer approval towards GM food in EU member states, something also confirmed in country-specific EU studies. For example, Butkowski et al (2017) found that consumer perceptions of the environmental risk of GM food were the highest amongst the four different dimensions considered, while Grunert et al (2003) suggested that greater perceptions of environmental risks fostered more negative attitudes towards GM food amongst European consumers.…”

How do consumers perceive open‐source seed licenses? Exploring a new credence attribute

“…Studies related to seed production and breeding are limited to the perceived risks and benefits of genetic engineering (e.g. Butkowski et al., 2017; Christoph et al., 2008; Delwaide et al., 2015; Emberger‐Klein et al., 2016; Nielsen, 2013; Wuepper et al., 2019).…”