IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Impact of BSE on attitudes to GM food

Registered author(s):

    The aim of this research is to determine whether people in the UK associate genetically modified food (GM food) with the mad cow disease (or BSE) issue, and explain any such association in terms of analogical reasoning. Further, to test whether a lack of perceived control over exposure to GM food accounts for the heightened vulnerability it is typically associated with. Two consecutive questionnaires were administered in various regions of the UK. The first asked 200 participants to indicate whether they regarded GM food as a health risk, and to spontaneously identify issues similar to GM food. The second asked a further 200 to rate the similarity between GM food and BSE, Salmonella, and food irradiation, and to give personal and general risk ratings for consuming GM food, and tolerance ratings for its availability and availability if always clearly labelled . The results indicate GM food is overwhelmingly identified as a health risk, and that BSE is widely held to be analogous with GM food. However, BSE was rated as less similar to GM food than food irradiation. The widespread identification of BSE as an analogue is explained in terms of it representing a worst-case scenario . The risk ratings are consistent with the heightened sense of vulnerability associated with GM food; the tolerance ratings are greater for the availability of GM food if always clearly labelled , indicating a perceived lack of control over exposure to GM food accounts, in part, for GM food risk perceptions. However, the results also indicate that, in terms of practical risk management, labelling may only be effective with respect to a younger age group.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by Cambridge University Press in its journal Risk, Decision and Policy.

    Volume (Year): 6 (2001)
    Issue (Month): 02 (June)
    Pages: 91-103

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:cup:rdepol:v:6:y:2001:i:02:p:91-103_00
    Contact details of provider: Postal: Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK
    Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:rdepol:v:6:y:2001:i:02:p:91-103_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Keith Waters)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.