Recency negativity: Newer food crops are evaluated less favorably

Politics and the life sciences : the journal of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, 2018

In May 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) released the report "Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects," summarizing scientific consensus on genetically engineered crops and their implications. NASEM reports aim to give the public and policymakers information on socially relevant science issues. Their impact, however, is not well understood. This analysis combines national pre- and post-report survey data with a large-scale content analysis of Twitter discussion to examine the report's effect on public perceptions of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We find that the report's release corresponded with reduced negativity in Twitter discourse and increased ambivalence in public risk and benefit perceptions of GMOs, mirroring the NASEM report's conclusions. Surprisingly, this change was most likely for individuals least trusting of scientific studies or university scientists. Our findings indicate that ...

Palgrave Communications

This study empirically examined expert and public attitudes toward applying gene editing to agricultural crops compared with attitudes toward other genetic modification and conventional breeding technologies. Regulations regarding the application of gene editing on food are being debated around the world. New policy measures often face issues of public acceptance and consensus formation; however, reliable quantitative evidence of public perception toward such emerging breeding technologies is scarce. To fill this gap, two web-based surveys were conducted in Japan from December 2016 to February 2017. Participants (N = 3197) were categorised into three groups based on the domain-specific scientific knowledge levels (molecular biology experts, experts in other fields, and lay public). Statistical analysis revealed group differences in risk, benefit, and value perceptions of different technologies. Molecular biology experts had higher benefit and value perceptions, as well as lower risk...

Frontiers in Plant Science, 2021

A pervasive opposition to genetically modified (GM) foods has developed from the notion that they pose a risk to human and environmental health. Other techniques for the genetic modification of plants, such as sexual crossing and mutagenesis breeding, have mostly remained unchallenged. This research aims to investigate public perception of plant breeding technologies. Specifically, sexual crossing, mutagenesis, transgenics (GM) and gene editing. It was expected that attitudes and intentions would be most positive and the perception of risk lowest for plant genetic modification through sexual crosses. Scores on these variables were expected to be similar between mutagenesis, GM and gene editing. It was also expected that attitudes, intentions and risk perception would change (becoming more positive) once participants learned about foods developed through these technologies. Participants reported their attitudes, intentions and risk perception at two points in time. At Time 2, they we...

Many opponents of genetically engineered (GE) food say that it ought to be prohibited regardless of the risks and benefits (Scott et al., 2016). If many people are truly unwilling to consider risks and benefits in evaluating GE technology, this poses serious problems for scientists and policy-makers. In a large demographically-representative German sample (N = 3,025), we investigate consequence-insensitive beliefs about GE crops among GE supporters and opponents, as well as whether these beliefs can be mitigated. We find that a large majority of opponents and a substantial minority of supporters are consequence-insensitive: They say that risks and benefits are irrelevant to their views. At the same time, the responses of consequence-insensitive participants to subsequent belief probes show substantial flexibility. Participants often gave responses inconsistent with the unconditional prohibition or permission of GE crops. These results suggest that professed con-sequence insensitivit...

Plant physiology, 2001

Environmental Values, 2007

In this paper we analyse scientists' perspectives on the release of genetically modified (GM) crops into the environment, and the relationship between their perspectives and the context that they work within, e.g. their place of employment (university or industry), funding of their research (public or industry) and their disciplinary background (ecology, molecular biology or conventional plant breeding). We employed Q-methodology to examine these issues. Two distinct factors were identified by interviewing 62 scientists. These two factors included 92 per cent of the sample. Scientists in factor 1 had a moderately negative attitude to GM crops and emphasised the uncertainty and ignorance involved, while scientists in factor 2 had a positive attitude to GM crops and emphasised that GM crops are useful and do not represent any unique risks compared to conventional crops. Funding had a significant effect on the perspective held by the scientists in this study. No ecologists were ass...

2016

This research aims to analyze people's perceptions about the potential risks associated with the presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food products. We formulated research questions and hypotheses based on parameters, including age, gender, state of residence, and more to analyze these perceptions. We conducted an online nationwide survey across the United States and recruited participants from the general population to understand their perceptions about risks for GMOs and GM foods. We formulated a set of questions regarding the effects of GMOs on food products (including both the pre-and post-study questions) and investigated the changes in people's perceptions after reading selected news releases about GMOs. The survey responses were collected and categorized according to the research parameters and statistical assessments were conducted to test the hypotheses. Additionally, we introduced a novel approach to analyze the responses by creating a mind-map framework for both the pre-and post-study responses. We found that people residing in the southern region of the United States responded more positively toward GMOs when compared to individuals residing in the northeast, west and mid-west regions. We also deduced that people's perceptions about GMOs were not significantly different from each other whether they resided in states with Republican or Democrat/non-partisan party affiliations. Further, we observed that the male participants responded more negatively compared to the female participants across the nation. We compared the results obtained from respondents in the general population to those from a group of Computer Science students at North Dakota State University who completed the same survey. We found that students considered GMOs less risky when compared to the general population. A third research study compared participants from the general population to a group of iv participants who were recruited from the general population. The second group didn't read the news releases that separated the survey's pre-and post-study questions. We observed that the news releases impacted the participants from the first group and, eventually, changed the individuals' perceptions about GMOs when compared to the participants from the second group who possessed no or fewer perception changes.

Viruses, 2015

A wide gap exists between the rapid acceptance of genetically modified (GM) crops for cultivation by farmers in many countries and in the global markets for food and feed, and the often-limited acceptance by consumers. This review contrasts the advances of practical applications of agricultural biotechnology with the divergent paths—also affecting the development of virus resistant transgenic crops—of political and regulatory frameworks for GM crops and food in different parts of the world. These have also shaped the different opinions of consumers. Important factors influencing consumer’s attitudes are the perception of risks and benefits, knowledge and trust, and personal values. Recent political and societal developments show a hardening of the negative environment for agricultural biotechnology in Europe, a growing discussion—including calls for labeling of GM food—in the USA, and a careful development in China towards a possible authorization of GM rice that takes the societal discussions into account. New breeding techniques address some consumers’ concerns with transgenic crops, but it is not clear yet how consumers’ attitudes towards them will develop. Discussions about agriculture would be more productive, if they would focus less on technologies, but on common aims and underlying values.

Artificial selection, a method by which evolution occurs, is a process in which an organism is modified to fulfill a specific purpose. For instance, the evolution of corn dates back about 10,000 years ago. Farmers in Mexico recognized that not all plants were identical and that some were locally more adapted. Through unconscious selection and open pollination, the first landraces developed. Further progresses allowed for conscious selection. However, farmers and companies quickly realized that crossing parent plants to create hybrids was too time-consuming to be economically viable. Backcrossing reduced the time required to obtain an organism with the desired trait. Further technological developments made organic food possible through the utilization of atomic gardening. Recent progress in genetics has enabled creation of so-called GMOs, or genetically modified organisms. All of the developed methods (open pollination, mutation breeding, atomic farming, CRISPR/Cas) have a common goal: to adjust the organism to express a specific trait. Nevertheless, some of the methods are seen as potentially dangerous. Furthermore, the scientists' and public opinion on GMOs are different which raise concerns about scientific and critical literacy regarding GMOs. The present article investigates the misconception that distinguish genetically modified organisms based on the method by which they have been created and relates this misconception to literacy (scientific/critical) and critical thinking. A new term, " Adjusted Organism, " is proposed to enable a fresh, unbiased view for future discussions. Key-words- Genetically Modified Organisms, Critical literacy, Scientific literacy, Bioethics, Gene editing, GM food, Governance of science and technology

Genetically modified (GM) crops are promoted on the basis of a range of far-reaching claims from the GM crop industry and its supporters. They say that GM crops: Are an extension of natural breeding and do not pose different risks from naturally bred crops Are safe to eat and can be more nutritious than naturally bred crops Are strictly regulated for safety Increase crop yields Reduce pesticide use Benefit farmers and make their lives easier Bring economic benefits Benefit the environment Can help solve problems caused by climate change Reduce energy use Will help feed the world. However, a large and growing body of scientific and other authoritative evidence shows that these claims are not true.