Why rational argument fails the genetic modification (GM) debate

Genetic modification (GM) of crops provides a methodology for the agricultural improvements needed to deliver global food security. However, public opposition to GM-food is great. The debate has tended to risk communication, but here we show through study of a large nationally representative sample...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inFood security Vol. 10; no. 5; pp. 1145 - 1161
Main Authors Mallinson, Lucy, Russell, Jean, Cameron, Duncan D., Ton, Jurriaan, Horton, Peter, Barker, Margo E.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Dordrecht Springer Netherlands 01.10.2018
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects
Adults
Agricultural practices
Agriculture
Anxiety
Biomedical and Life Sciences
Environment
Food
Food Science
Food security
Genetic modification
Life Sciences
Original Paper
Plant Sciences
Regression analysis
Regression models
Risk communication
Segmentation
Social Policy
Social Sciences
Vegetarianism
Genetic modification debate
Attitudinal survey
Rationality
Affect
Food
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Genetic modification (GM) of crops provides a methodology for the agricultural improvements needed to deliver global food security. However, public opposition to GM-food is great. The debate has tended to risk communication, but here we show through study of a large nationally representative sample of British adults that public acceptance of GM-food has social, cultural and affective contexts. Regression models showed that metaphysical beliefs about the sanctity of food and an emotional dislike of GM-food were primary negative determinants, while belief in the value of science and favourable evaluation of the benefits-to-risks of GM-food were secondary positive determinants. Although institutional trust, general knowledge of the GM-food debate and belief in the eco-friendliness of GM-food were all associated with acceptance, their influence was minor. While a belief in the sanctity of food had a direct inverse effect on GM acceptance, belief in the value of science was largely mediated through favourable perception of benefits-to-risks. Furthermore, segmentation analysis demonstrated that anxiety about GM-food had social and cultural antecedents, with white men being least anxious and older vegetarian women being most anxious. Rational argument alone about the risks and benefits of GM-food is unlikely to change public perceptions of GM-technology.
ISSN:1876-4517
1876-4525
DOI:10.1007/s12571-018-0832-1