|
Article Excerpt
Biotechnology, specifically agricultural biotechnology, has been a seminal reference point in risk perception studies (Fischhoff & Fischhoff, 2001; Harrison &Han, 2005; Midden et al., 2002; Poortinga & Pidgeon, 2006; Savadori et al., 2004; Siegrist, 2000; Siegrist & Cvetkovich, 2000; Slovic, 1992; Townsend & Campbell, 2004; Townsend, Clark, & Travis, 2004; Wilson et al., 2004). However, in the United States, public perception of risks from this new technology has been minimal at best (Hallman et al., 2004; PEW, 2004; Stewart & McLean, 2005b). Whether this is a result of these products being relatively unknown to the U.S. public, as genetic innovations in the farmers' fields focus on production characteristics such as herbicide tolerance or insect resistance or of other reasons, such as trust in institutions involved with the production and regulation of food, until recently this issue has had little public salience. However, recent events suggest the potential for increased public concern over the new agricultural biotechnology, especially as new, more visible products appear in farmers' fields and ultimately the marketplace.
A number of factors contributed to the rise in agricultural biotechnology's public profile through national media coverage. Foremost were events in which: genetically modified (GM) animal feed (Starlink corn) entered into the human food supply; the appearance of a scientific article extrapolating from laboratory findings suggested the long-term deleterious effects of corn genetically modified to express bacillus thuriengiensis (Bt), a pesticide, on Monarch butterflies; (1) and corn plants genetically modified to produce pig vaccine nearly entered the food supply on two occasions (Stewart & Knight, 2005; Taylor, Tick, & Sherman, 2004), which raised agricultural biotechnology's public profile through national media coverage. More recently, for the past four years an experimental corn plant genetically modified to express the Bt pesticide and an antibiotic used for marker purposes has been entering the food supply without regulatory approval or the awareness of the company producing it, the farmers growing it, and consumers eating it (Rosenwald, 2005), although U.S. regulators later approved it for public consumption (USDA, 2007). While this corn does not necessarily present a health risk, it underscores problems with the implementation of regulations intended to protect the American public from crops not intended for their consumption entering into the food chain (Stewart, in press).
With the appearance of third-generation products--plants genetically modified to produce industrial products and pharmaceutical drugs--an increased concern by interested publics has become more apparent. This is likely the result of current federal regulations that appear to be falling short of the goal of protecting the U.S. food supply (USDA-OIG, 2005). This concern is apparent in comments received in response to proposed U.S. Department of Agriculture regulatory changes on how plant-made industrial products (PMIPs) and plant-made pharmaceuticals (PMPs) are field-tested. Although many of the comments originated from interest group efforts, especially those by antigenetic engineering and organic food groups, the potential for mainstream public involvement is reflected in comments received from food production organizations wishing to maintain public trust in the food they supply. These comments indicate mainstream food industry concerns over PMIPs and PMPs making their way into the human food supply and not just affecting profits by decreasing sales of affected food products and increasing liability but diminishing public trust in the food production system as a whole (Stewart & McLean, 2005a).
In spite of concerns raised by the potential for PMIPs and PMPs to enter the food supply, the benefits offered by them may sway public opinion, especially if management strategies ensuring that the food system's integrity is protected are implemented. (2) Although attitudes and opinions toward first, second, and third generations are strongly related, they are not coterminous (Stewart & McLean, 2005b). Specifically, in light of public support for new medical biotechnologies (Fischhoff & Fischhoff, 2001), there might be less concern over PMPs on the basis of their promising medical benefits with direct implications for the individual, as compared with PMIPs, which may not be seen as providing direct individual benefits.
Therefore, in this study we consider determinants of the general public's perceptions of worries about and benefits deriving from the third generation of agricultural biotechnology. We look specifically at PMIPs and PMPs by considering what determines how worried an individual would be if they ate foods with PMIPs or PMPs in them without their knowledge and how much perceived benefit these products would confer to the individual. This is done in light of risk perception studies and recent research concerning the role of emotions in decision making. We then construct causal models determining response to these different technologies based on: perception of potential exposure to each of these types of genetically modified plants, awareness of genetically modified foods in grocery stores and willingness to consume these products, scientific knowledge in terms of objective general science knowledge and education levels, trust in federal government agencies and farmers, and finally, background information such as age, sex, and ethnicity. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings on the potential for PMIPs and PMPs.
Perceptions of Benefits from and Worry Concerning Third-Generation Products
Much of the psychometric literature on risk perceptions focuses on two descriptive dimensions of how known or unknown a new (or old) technology is and how dreaded that technology is. This approach has been used to characterize risk perceptions of agricultural biotechnology in numerous studies (i.e., Fischhoff & Fischhoff, 2001; Midden et al., 2002; Savadori et al., 2004; Slovic, 1992; Townsend & Campbell, 2004; Townsend et al., 2004). However, recent advances in the neurosciences and their application to social science problems have led to researchers better appreciating the role of emotion in the process of decision making (Peters, Burraston, & Mertz, 2004). The psychometric dimension of dread may be interpreted as reflecting the core emotion of fear/worry, which has a distinct physiological signature--facial expressions, body language and vocalizations, and behavioral implications--by driving decision making (Ekman & Davidson, 1994; Lewis & Haviland-Jones, 2004; Panksepp, 1998). This basic emotion of fear/worry has been useful in explaining individual reactions and actions. Fear leads to individuals collecting more information on the focus of their concern (Brader, 2006; Lerner et al., 2003; Marcus, Neuman, & MacKuen, 2000; Wilson et al., 2004) and relying on their political leaders and institutions to a much greater extent than normal (Lerner et al., 2003; Marcus et al., 2000; Schubert, Stewart, & Curran, 2002).
Fear may be seen as the dominant emotion driving public concerns over the new agricultural biotechnology. This is likely because of many of its products being intended for personal consumption (i.e., eating) and thus becoming both a public and personal threat. Extant research has documented the role of emotions such as fear/worry on reception of agricultural biotechnology (Stewart & McLean, 2005a, 2005b; Stewart & Sorensen, 2000) with fear/worry being an overwhelmingly important factor in the rejection of this technology both in terms of worry over potential environmental harms and possible personal risk. However, and to our knowledge, the emotion of fear/worry as it pertains to agricultural biotechnology has not been systematically studied. Instead, when studied it has tended to be characterized as perceptions of risk (e.g., Midden et al., 2002), the immediate prelude to the emotion of fear.
While benefits from new technologies have often been considered in opposition to fears in a single unified dimension, with risks...
|
