Determinants of Public Attitudes to Genetically Modified Salmon

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to assess the attitude of Malaysian stakeholders to genetically modified (GM) salmon and to identify the factors that influence their acceptance of GM salmon using a structural equation model. A survey was carried out on 434 representatives from various stakeholder groups in the Klang Valley region of Malaysia. Public attitude towards GM salmon was measured using self-developed questionnaires with seven-point Likert scales. The findings of this study have confirmed that public attitudes towards GM salmon is a complex issue and should be seen as a multi-faceted process. The most important direct predictors for the encouragement of GM salmon are the specific application-linked perceptions about religious acceptability of GM salmon followed by perceived risks and benefits, familiarity, and general promise of modern biotechnology. Encouragement of GM salmon also involves the interplay among other factors such as general concerns of biotechnology, threatening the natural order of things, the need for labeling, the need for patenting, confidence in regulation, and societal values. The research findings can serve as a database that will be useful for understanding the social construct of public attitude towards GM foods in a developing country.

Attitude and consumption of Bangladeshi professionals toward biotechnological products

“…However, age and education of the respondents significantly influenced their attitude toward biotechnological products. Although perception, attitude and acceptance [1,3,11,15], this study for the first time assessed and compared the attitude and consumption of professionals from both public and private sectors towards biotechnological products in a developing country, Bangladesh. One of the interesting findings of this study is that a large majority of the respondents (86%) were young-to middle-aged categories (Table 1).…”

“…There is a huge variation in attitude and consumption of biotechnological products among various nations in the world [3]. The literature shows that the attitude of Americans towards biotechnological products is more positive than those of Canadians and citizens of the European Union [1].…”

Decomposing the effects of time on the social acceptability of biotechnology using age-period-cohort-country models

“…The different studies carried out on the social acceptability of biotechnology all underline that the absence of perceived utility is one of the determining factors of the opposition to biotechnologies regardless of the field of application (e.g. Amin et al, 2014;Auer, 2008;Einsiedel and Medlock, 2005;Gaskell et al, 2004Gaskell et al, , 2011Klingeman and Hall, 2006;Marris, 2001;Pardo et al, 2009). Pardo et al (2009) underline, for example, a greater acceptance of genetically modified (GM) plants for obtaining medication or treatments to fight deadly diseases (average approval of 6.8/10), illnesses affecting children (6.4), the effects of aging (4.2), or to obtain cosmetic products (3.4).…”

“…The development of ornamental horticulture biotechnologies, in other words the use of biotechnologies in an explicitly leisure activity context, is highly controversial (Alston et al, 2006;Auer, 2008;Klingeman and Hall, 2006). Amin et al (2014) show that the perceived presence of clear benefits of GM salmon enhances the support of the Malaysian public. As part of this utility-risk dilemma under uncertainty and ignorance (Gaskell et al, 2004), which leads the cost-benefit analysis to be less applicable, as developed by Kvakkestad and Vatn (2011), the "ordinary citizen's" confidence (Joly and Marris, 2003) toward the different parties involved in the debate is seen as a crucial variable (e.g.…”

An overview of genetically modified crop governance, issues and challenges in Malaysia

“…Acceptance of GM crops and GM foods has also been linked to religious acceptability, for example, the Halal issue and perceived risks. 25,26 In shaping attitudes towards GM crops, it becomes imperative to consider the balancing role of risks and benefits. This is because for a GM crop that may have clear benefits, if seen as having high moral concerns or perceived risks by the public or stakeholders, its level of acceptance will decrease.…”