Mallinson, L., Russell, J. orcid.org/0000-0002-4174-7210, Cameron, D.D. orcid.org/0000-0002-5439-6544 et al. (3 more authors) (2018) Why rational argument fails the genetic modification (GM) debate. Food Security, 10 (5). pp. 1145-1161. ISSN 1876-4517
Abstract
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.
Metadata
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
Authors/Creators: |
|
Copyright, Publisher and Additional Information: | © 2018 The Author(s). This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
Keywords: | Genetic modification debate; Attitudinal survey; Rationality; Affect; Food |
Dates: |
|
Institution: | The University of Sheffield |
Academic Units: | The University of Sheffield > Faculty of Science (Sheffield) > School of Biosciences (Sheffield) > Department of Animal and Plant Sciences (Sheffield) The University of Sheffield > Faculty of Science (Sheffield) > School of Biosciences (Sheffield) > Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology (Sheffield) The University of Sheffield > Professional Services (Sheffield) |
Depositing User: | Symplectic Sheffield |
Date Deposited: | 17 Oct 2018 10:16 |
Last Modified: | 03 May 2024 14:49 |
Status: | Published |
Publisher: | Springer |
Refereed: | Yes |
Identification Number: | 10.1007/s12571-018-0832-1 |
Open Archives Initiative ID (OAI ID): | oai:eprints.whiterose.ac.uk:137208 |
Download
Filename: Mallinson2018_Article_WhyRationalArgumentFailsTheGen.pdf
Licence: CC-BY 4.0