Consumer perception of risk associated with eating genetically engineered soybeans is less in the presence of a perceived consumer benefit

• Published in: Journal of the American Dietetic Association Vol. 103; no. 2; pp. 208 - 214
• Main Authors: Brown, J.Lynne, Ping, Yanchao
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, NY Elsevier Inc 01.02.2003; Elsevier; Elsevier Science Publishers; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Adult; adults; Agricultural biotechnology; Analysis; Attitude (Psychology); Attitude to Health; Attitudes; Beliefs, opinions and attitudes; Biological and medical sciences; Biotechnology; Chi-Square Distribution; Consumer attitudes; Consumer Behavior; Consumer Product Safety; consumer surveys; Consumers; Data Collection; education; Female; Focus Groups; Food; food labeling; Food Labeling - standards; Food, Genetically Modified; Frozen vegetables; Genetic engineering; Genetically engineered foods; genetically modified foods; genetics; Glycine max - genetics; Health aspects; Human physiology applied to population studies and life conditions. Human ecophysiology; Humans; Labeling; Male; Market surveys; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Nutritional Sciences; Nutritional Sciences - education; Nutritional survey. Food supply and nutritional requirement; Pennsylvania; Perception; Pilot Projects; Plants, Genetically Modified; Public opinion; Risk Factors; risk perception; sociodemographic characteristics; Soybean; Soybeans; supermarkets; United States; Pennsylvania; Human; Prognosis; Food intake; Perception; Risk; Profit; Soybean; Information; Genetically modified organism; Dietician; Food
• ISSN: 0002-8223; 2212-2672; 1878-3570; 2212-2680
• DOI: 10.1053/jada.2003.50029

Objective To determine whether perceived benefit alters personal risk perception associated with eating genetically engineered soybeans, consumer desire for labeling, preferred phrase on a label symbol, and desired information in an educational brochure. Design Comparison of responses of two consumer groups who completed one of two survey versions. Subjects/settings One hundred fifty supermarket shoppers, age 21 years and older, for each survey or n=300 total. Focus groups and a pilot test were used to develop the final survey in which consumers read a description of a genetically engineered soybean with either no obvious consumer benefit or an obvious consumer benefit and then completed a set of attitude questions and evaluated a voluntary label design and educational brochure content. Main outcome measures were mean opinion scores of personal risk and desire for labeling and ranking of desired label phrase and brochure topics. Statistical analyses χ2 and t Tests were used. Results Consumers reading about the soybean with obvious consumer benefit were significantly more comfortable eating these than those reading about the soybean with no obvious consumer benefit (2.9±1.1 vs 3.4±1.0, respectively; P≤.001). However, the groups did not differ in desire for labeling of foods made with these soybeans or preferred brochure content. They did differ significantly in preferred phrase on the symbol (P≤.05). Applications/conclusions Dietitians can use descriptions of genetic engineering applications such as those in this study to help consumers assess these applications. Dietitians can play a critical role in explaining labeling terms and designing educational materials when the FDA finalizes voluntary labeling regulations for genetically engineered foods. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103:208-214.