From risk perception to information selection…And not the other way round: Selective exposure mechanisms in the field of genetically modified organisms

Bardin, Brigitte; Perrissol, Stéphane; Facca, Léo; Smeding, Annique

doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.12.015

Cited by 22 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our novel application of SARF to selective meat-eating is predicated on three fundamental assumptions: First, that dietary decisions, including selective eating, are influenced by risk perceptions (Douglas 1996;Fischler 2002Fischler , 2015 who both argue, from an anthropological standpoint, that each society has a unique risk portfolio encompassing ideas around dangers inherent in particular foods and food practices constituting a cultural dimension, and, in Fischler's case, that anxieties around food can be strongly connected with loss of ownership of processes and practices in consumer society (Fischler 2002). The influence of risk perceptions is evidenced most acutely in the context of food scares, for example during the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis (Eldridge and Reilly 2003) when risk from infection of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, an incurable, terminal brain disorder, led to a dramatic fall in the consumption of beef, and also notably around genetically modified foods (Bardin et al 2017;Gaskell et al 2004;Horlick-Jones et al 2007). Second, that media framing is influential in opinion formation (Berinsky andKinder 2006, Marks et al 2007), including a rich domain of research around the precise effects of media content on audience behaviour (McCombs 2014).…”

Section: The Social Amplification Of Risk Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Work has been conducted in contexts from democratic elections to technology adoption and includes food choices (Frewer, Miles, and Marsh 2002). Third, that risk-related behaviours specifically are influenced by media portrayal (Bardin et al 2017;Frewer, Miles, and Marsh 2002;Gaskell et al 2004;Horlick-Jones et al 2007;Kasperson and Kasperson 1996;Lasswell 1948) and in particular, SARF (Kasperson et al 1988).…”

Section: The Social Amplification Of Risk Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Amplification without the event: the rise of the flexitarian

Duckett

Lorenzo‐Arribas

Horgan

et al. 2020

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The social amplification of risk framework typically represents consequential effects associated with high levels of media attention proceeding from an initial risk event. This study considers selective meat-eating as risk-related social behaviour that is evidently not initiated by a single event yet, nevertheless, is demonstrably subject to extensive and broadbased media coverage. Recent reported trends indicate a rise in socalled 'flexitarianism' and reducetarianism' whereby people choose to restrict their consumption of meat in favour of a more plant-based diet. Through a content analysis of UK newspaper articles, we support claims from recent survey data that 'environmental concerns', 'animal welfare issues' and 'health considerations' are all strongly associated with decisions to eat less meat. Our study extends the explanatory scope of risk amplification by showing a more nuanced relationship between media coverage and risk-related behaviour in the case of selective meat-eating. Our findings have wider implications for risk communication and the role of the media in other contexts.

show abstract

Section: The Social Amplification Of Risk Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Social Amplification Of Risk Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Amplification without the event: the rise of the flexitarian

Duckett

Lorenzo‐Arribas

Horgan

et al. 2020

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the estimated percent of consumers who accept or oppose genetically modified organisms (GMOs) fluctuates across years and populations, overall, a sizeable proportion of consumers (estimates range from 15 to 75%) hold negative views towards GM products, with European consumers being less accepting than their US counterparts [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. A meta-analysis conducted by Lusk et al [ 8 ] concluded that, across Europe, Asia, and Oceania, consumers were willing to pay a premium of 23–42% more for non-GM products vs. modified alternatives.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

GMO Food Labels Do Not Affect College Student Food Selection, Despite Negative Attitudes towards GMOs

Oselinsky

Johnson

Lundeberg

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

US Public Law 114–216 dictates that food producers in the United States of America will be required to label foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) starting in 2022; however, there is little empirical evidence demonstrating how U.S. consumers would use food labels that indicate the presence or absence of GMOs. The aim of this two-phase study was to determine how attitudes towards GMOs relate to food choices and how labels indicating the presence or absence of GMOs differentially impact choices among college students—the age group which values transparent food labeling more than any other. Participants (n = 434) made yes/no choices for each of 64 foods. In both phases of the study, participants were randomly assigned to seeing GMO Free labels, contains GMOs labels, or no GMO labels. Across the two phases, 85% of participants reported believing that GMOs were at least somewhat dangerous to health (42% believed GMOs to be dangerous), yet in both studies, although eye-tracking data verified that participants attended to the GMO labels, these labels did not significantly affect food choices. Although college consumers may believe GMOs to be dangerous, their food choices do not reflect this belief.

show abstract

“…Since 1996, when the cultivation of GMOs began, a great deal of controversy has been generated among the population around the world, with a large number of reports available in the media such as books, magazines, television, radio, newspapers and social networks. Some present the benefits of GMOs and others argue that have negative effects on the family and on future generations (Bardin, Perrissol, Facca, & Smeding, 2017). In May 2016, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) published their report, "Genetic Engineering Crops".…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Construction and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Perceptions and Attitudes towards Genetically Modified Organisms in the Mexican Urban Population

Montesinos‐López¹,

Franco-Pérez²,

Kismiantini³

et al. 2020

IJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: this paper presents the development and validation of an instrument to measure the perceptions and attitudes about the production and consumption of the Mexican urban consumers towards genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Method: The proposed questionnaire contains 63 questions that encompassed 11 latent factors that was applied to 14,720 people of the Mexican urban population aged between 18 to 65 years. This measuring questionnaire was validated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results: we found that it is acceptable the proposed instrument for measuring perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified organisms (PAGMOs) for the urban Mexican population. Discussion and Conclusion: The same instrument (construct) it is suitable for each of the 8 regions studied since with the multi-group CFA performed we found evidence that this is valid for each of the regions under study. Also, the analysis of the questions of the proposed instrument revealed that participants have a low general knowledge, a high distrust towards GMOs, want labeling of genetically modified (GM) products and not perceive their social values and positive health effects beyond increasing agricultural productivity.

show abstract

From risk perception to information selection…And not the other way round: Selective exposure mechanisms in the field of genetically modified organisms

Cited by 22 publications

References 32 publications

Amplification without the event: the rise of the flexitarian

Amplification without the event: the rise of the flexitarian

GMO Food Labels Do Not Affect College Student Food Selection, Despite Negative Attitudes towards GMOs

Construction and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Perceptions and Attitudes towards Genetically Modified Organisms in the Mexican Urban Population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About