IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cha/ysa001/v2y2009i1p3-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Apples compared to Apples: Attitudes towards cisgenic and transgenic breeds

Author

Listed:
  • Therese Haller

    (ETH Zurich, Institute for Environmental Decisions IED, Group AFEE, Zürich)

Abstract

Genetically modified (gm) crops are disliked by a majority of the population in most European countries. Until now, it has not been known whether the same lack of acceptance that is known to apply to transgenic crops will apply to cisgenic crops - plant breeds produced using gene technology, but containing no DNA foreign to their species. To study a potential difference in acceptance, we conducted a survey using the actual case of fire blight - a disease affecting several species of fruit trees - as a context for our questions. Five different phytosanitary measures against fire blight were proposed to the respondents, including cisgenic and transgenic apple breeds and treatment with the antibiotic streptomycin. The respondents (n=665), a random sample from the Swiss population, were asked about their attitudes, the effectiveness they expected of each of the measures, and their willingness to consume the produced apples. Only about 40 % of the respondents distinguished between cisgenic and transgenic apples when rating them. This group tended to favor the cisgenic apple breeds not only to the transgenic ones but also to the option of antibiotic treatments. Structural equation models were used to test the dependence of the attitude towards the phytosanitary measure on the other two factors. This analysis revealed analogies between the (dis-)acceptance of gm breeds and antibiotic treatments: in both cases, the expected effectiveness of the measures had little or no impact on the subject’s overall judgment.

Suggested Citation

  • Therese Haller, 2009. "Apples compared to Apples: Attitudes towards cisgenic and transgenic breeds," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 2(1), pages 3-34.
    • Handle: RePEc:cha:ysa001:v:2:y:2009:i:1:p:3-34
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://archive.jsagr.org/v2/01_Haller.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Siegrist, 2003. "Perception of gene technology, and food risks: results of a survey in Switzerland," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 45-60, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michele Gusberti & Urs Klemm & Matthias S. Meier & Monika Maurhofer & Isabel Hunger-Glaser, 2015. "Fire Blight Control: The Struggle Goes On. A Comparison of Different Fire Blight Control Methods in Switzerland with Respect to Biosafety, Efficacy and Durability," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-26, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2006. "Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1707-1719, December.
    2. Marie-Eve Laporte & Géraldine Michel & Sophie Rieunier, 2017. "Towards a better understanding of eating behaviour through the concept of Perception of Nutritional Risk," Post-Print halshs-02923251, HAL.
    3. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    4. Thurner, Thomas & Fursov, Konstantin & Nefedova, Alena, 2022. "Early adopters of new transportation technologies: Attitudes of Russia’s population towards car sharing, the electric car and autonomous driving," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 403-417.
    5. Monika Filipsson & Lill Ljunggren & Tomas Öberg, 2014. "Gender differences in risk management of contaminated land at a Swedish authority," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 353-365, March.
    6. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2004. "Gene Technology in the eyes of the public and experts. Moral opinions, attitudes and risk perception," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2004:7, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 11 May 2005.
    7. Seda Erdem & Dan Rigby, 2013. "Investigating Heterogeneity in the Characterization of Risks Using Best Worst Scaling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1728-1748, September.
    8. Marie-Eve Laporte & Géraldine Michel & Sophie Rieunier, 2015. "Toward a better understanding of eating-behaviour through the concept of Perception of Nutritional Risk [Mieux comprendre les comportements alimentaires grâce au concept de perception du risque nut," Post-Print hal-02054434, HAL.
    9. Marco Semadeni & Ralf Hansmann & Thomas Flüeler, 2004. "Public Attitudes in Relation to Risk and Novelty of Future Energy Options," Energy & Environment, , vol. 15(5), pages 755-777, September.
    10. Bronfman, Nicolás C. & Jiménez, Raquel B. & Arévalo, Pilar C. & Cifuentes, Luis A., 2012. "Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 246-252.
    11. Nick Allum, 2007. "An Empirical Test of Competing Theories of Hazard‐Related Trust: The Case of GM Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 935-946, August.
    12. Aerni, Philipp, 2009. "What is sustainable agriculture? Empirical evidence of diverging views in Switzerland and New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1872-1882, April.
    13. Philipp Aerni, 2011. "Do Political Attitudes Affect Consumer Choice? Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Study with Genetically Modified Bread in Switzerland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-18, September.
    14. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher & Carmen Keller, 2005. "Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1253-1264, October.
    15. Nathalie Stampfli & Michael Siegrist & Hans Kastenholz, 2010. "Acceptance of nanotechnology in food and food packaging: a path model analysis," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 353-365, April.
    16. Jihee Hwang & Jihye You & Junghoon Moon & Jaeseok Jeong, 2020. "Factors Affecting Consumers’ Alternative Meats Buying Intentions: Plant-Based Meat Alternative and Cultured Meat," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-16, July.
    17. Aerni, Philipp & Scholderer, Joachim & Ermen, David, 2011. "How would Swiss consumers decide if they had freedom of choice? Evidence from a field study with organic, conventional and GM corn bread," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 830-838.
    18. Ellen Townsend, 2006. "Affective Influences on Risk Perceptions of, and Attitudes Toward, Genetically Modified Food," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 125-139, March.
    19. Manuel Thiel & Rainer Marggraf, 2009. "Gentechnik oder nicht Gentechnik - Bestimmungsgründe der Wahl von (nicht) gentechnisch veränderten Produkten," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 2(1), pages 35-58.
    20. Gabi Hufschmidt, 2011. "A comparative analysis of several vulnerability concepts," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 58(2), pages 621-643, August.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cha:ysa001:v:2:y:2009:i:1:p:3-34. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Simon Briner (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://jsagr.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.