IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rae/jouces/v81y2006p61-93.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Confiance, justification et controverse sur les OGM en Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Samira Chaklatti

    (GAEL (INRA- UPMF), BP 47, 38040 Grenoble cedex 09)

  • Damien Rousselière

    (LEPII (CNRS- UPMF), BP 47, 38040 Grenoble cedex 09)

Abstract

L’apparition des plantes génétiquement modifiées, en Europe, a donné lieu à des débats importants. Cette controverse concernant les OGM apparaît comme le résultat de la confrontation entre les intérêts des différents acteurs (mouvement associatif, lobby industriel, expert et scientifique, représentant politique) organisés en groupes de pression, s’appuyant chacun sur leur propre registre de justification des bienfaits ou des inconvénients supposés des biotechnologies agricoles. Les données d’une enquête européenne menée sur les sentiments des Européens vis-à-vis de la science (Eurobaromètre 58.0 de 2002) permettent de préciser l’importance de la confiance dans les différentes parties prenantes et l’intérêt des différents registres de justification pour le positionnement dans le débat public de la part des « citoyens ordinaires ». En conclusion sont discutés les principaux faits stylisés ainsi caractérisés.

Suggested Citation

  • Samira Chaklatti & Damien Rousselière, 2006. "Confiance, justification et controverse sur les OGM en Europe," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 81, pages 61-93.
    • Handle: RePEc:rae:jouces:v:81:y:2006:p:61-93
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/201686/2/81-61-93.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Valerie Boisvert & Franck-Dominique Vivien, 2005. "The Convention on biological diversity," Post-Print hal-02874455, HAL.
    2. Boisvert, Valerie & Vivien, Franck-Dominique, 2005. "The convention on biological diversity: A conventionalist approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 461-472, June.
    3. Ch. Bessy & O. Favereau., 2010. "Institutions and Economics of Conventions," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 7.
    4. Charles Noussair & Stéphane Robin & Bernard Ruffieux, 2003. "De l'opinion publique aux comportements des consommateurs. Faut-il une filière sans ogm?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 54(1), pages 47-69.
    5. Cook, A. J. & Kerr, G. N. & Moore, K., 2002. "Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 557-572, October.
    6. Olivier Godard, 2004. "De la pluralité des ordres – Les problèmes d'environnement et de développement durable à la lumière de la théorie de la justification," Géographie, économie, société, Lavoisier, vol. 6(3), pages 303-330.
    7. Susanna Hornig Priest & Heinz Bonfadelli & Maria Rusanen, 2003. "The “Trust Gap” Hypothesis: Predicting Support for Biotechnology Across National Cultures as a Function of Trust in Actors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 751-766, August.
    8. Noussair, Charles & Robin, Stephane & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2002. "Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 47-53, March.
    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. Damien Rousselière & Samira Rousselière, 2010. "On the impact of trust on consumer willingness to purchase GM food:Evidence from a European survey," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 91(1), pages 5-26.

    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. Samira Chaklatti & Damien Rousselière, 2006. "Trust, justification and controversy on the GMOs in Europe [Confiance, justification et controverse sur les OGM en Europe]," Post-Print hal-01201137, HAL.
    2. Damien Rousselière & Samira Rousselière, 2010. "On the impact of trust on consumer willingness to purchase GM food:Evidence from a European survey," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 91(1), pages 5-26.
    3. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Samira Chaklatti & Damien Rousselière, 2006. "Confiance, approbation et opposition : une approche simultanée des déterminants de l'opposition aux OGM en Europe," Post-Print halshs-00105716, HAL.
    5. Roe, Brian & Teisl, Mario F., 2007. "Genetically modified food labeling: The impacts of message and messenger on consumer perceptions of labels and products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 49-66, February.
    6. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    7. Samira Chaklatti & Damien Rousselière, 2007. "Confiance Dans Les Associations De Defense De L'Environnement Et Opposition Aux Ogm En Europe," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 78(1), pages 21-56, March.
    8. Hourcade, Jean-Charles & Salles, Jean-Michel & Thery, Daniel, 1992. "Ecological economics and scientific controversies. Lessons from some recent policy making in the EEC," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 211-233, December.
    9. Winands, Sarah & Holm-Müller, Karin, 2014. "Eco-regional Cartels on the Genetic Resource Market and the case of the Andean Community's legislation," Discussion Papers 163046, University of Bonn, Institute for Food and Resource Economics.
    10. Geoffroy Filoche, 2013. "Domestic biodiplomacy: navigating between provider and user categories for genetic resources in Brazil and French Guiana," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 177-196, May.
    11. Domingo Gil-Giménez & Gladys Rolo-González & Ernesto Suárez & Gabriel Muinos, 2021. "The Influence of Environmental Self-Identity on the Relationship between Consumer Identities and Frugal Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-15, August.
    12. McFadden, Brandon R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2013. "Effects of Cost and Campaign Advertising on Support for California’s Proposition 37," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-13, August.
    13. Karavolias, Joanna & House, Lisa A., "undated". "Impact of Producer and Use of Biotechnology on Consumer Willingness to Pay: Discounts Required for Oranges Produced with Biotechnology," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259981, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    15. Berning, Joshua & Campbell, Ben, 2017. "Consumer Preference and Market Simulations of Food and Non-Food GMO Introductions," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252733, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    16. Huffman, Wallace & Rousu, M. & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 1009. "Are U.S. Consumers Tolerant of GM Foods?," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12336, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    17. Erik C. Nisbet & Kathryn E. Cooper & R. Kelly Garrett, 2015. "The Partisan Brain," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 36-66, March.
    18. Roosen, Jutta & Bieberstein, Andrea & Marette, Stephan & Blanchemanche, Sandrine & Vandermoere, Frederic, 2011. "The Effect of Information Choice and Discussion on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay for Nanotechnologies in Food," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-10, August.
    19. Jochen Hartl & Roland Herrmann, 2009. "Do they always say no? German consumers and second‐generation GM foods," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(5), pages 551-560, September.
    20. Giovanni Anania & Rosanna Nisticò, 2004. "Public Regulation as a Substitute for Trust in Quality Food Markets: What if the Trust Substitute cannot be Fully Trusted?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 160(4), pages 681-701, December.

    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:rae:jouces:v:81:y:2006:p:61-93. 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: Nathalie Saux-Nogues (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inrapfr.html .

    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.