IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i11p4326-d184473.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Ideology on Attitudes toward GM Food Safety among Chinese Internet Users

Author

Listed:
  • Yue Zhang

    (School of Journalism, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China)

  • Yingying Sun

    (Institute for Disaster Management and Reconstruction, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China)

Abstract

This study explores the causal relationship between Internet users’ ideologies and their corresponding attitudes to genetically modified (GM) food safety. Using the 2015 Chinese Internet User Survey data ( N = 3780) as a representative sample of Internet users from China, the study investigates factors influencing people’s attitudes to GM food safety. Multinomial Logistic Regression Models are applied to examine the effects of demographic features (gender, age, education, family annual income, location, CPC membership, and occupation) and ideological factors (general ideology, political ideology, economic ideology, and cultural ideology) on attitudes to GM food safety. The results demonstrate that the percentage of people whose attitude is that “GM food is risky” (35.1%) surpasses those who think “GM food is safe” (20.4%). The young generation respondents think that GM food is safe, while those with higher levels of income and education are more inclined to view GM food as risky. In addition, public sector employees tend to think that GM food is risky. Respondents characterized with right-wing ideology in general tend to regard GM food as safe, compared to left-wing ideologists. However, their attitude varies in different ideological dimensions of politics, economics, and culture. This paper contributes new insights into understanding ideological influences on science development and sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Yue Zhang & Yingying Sun, 2018. "The Effect of Ideology on Attitudes toward GM Food Safety among Chinese Internet Users," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:11:p:4326-:d:184473
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/4326/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/4326/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brown, Phil & Mayer, Brian & Zavestoski, Stephen & Luebke, Theo & Mandelbaum, Joshua & McCormick, Sabrina, 2003. "The health politics of asthma: environmental justice and collective illness experience in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 453-464, August.
    2. Lynn J. Frewer & Joachim Scholderer & Lone Bredahl, 2003. "Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1117-1133, December.
    3. Salvatore Ceccarelli, 2014. "GM Crops, Organic Agriculture and Breeding for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(7), pages 1-14, July.
    4. Markus Prior, 2005. "News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 577-592, July.
    5. Rodríguez-Entrena, Macario & Salazar-Ordóñez, Melania & Sayadi, Samir, 2013. "Applying partial least squares to model genetically modified food purchase intentions in southern Spain consumers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 44-53.
    6. Huang, Jikun & Hu, Ruifa & van Meijl, Hans & van Tongeren, Frank, 2004. "Biotechnology boosts to crop productivity in China: trade and welfare implications," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 27-54, October.
    7. Smyth, Russell & Qian, Joanne Xiaolei, 2009. "Corruption and left-wing beliefs in a post-socialist transition economy: Evidence from China's 'harmonious society'," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 102(1), pages 42-44, January.
    8. Călin Gurău & Ashok Ranchhod, 2016. "The futures of genetically-modified foods: Global threat or panacea?," Post-Print hal-02012309, HAL.
    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. Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu & Carl Pray & Yanhong Jin, 2019. "Perception and Attitude toward GM Technology among Agribusiness Managers in China as Producers and as Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, March.
    2. Narges Banaeian & Morteza Zangeneh & Sean Clark, 2020. "Trends and Future Directions in Crop Energy Analyses: A Focus on Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, November.
    3. Zhang, Dongcheng & Jiang, Hanchen & Qiang, Maoshan, 2023. "Public attitudes toward hydropower in China: The role of information provision and partisan identification," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    4. Changxin Yu & Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu, 2019. "Attitude Gaps with Respect to GM Non-Food Crops and GM Food Crops and Confidence in the Government’s Management of Biotechnology: Evidence from Beijing Consumers, Chinese Farmers, Journalists, and Gov," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, December.
    5. Yeheng Pan & Yu Xie & Hepeng Jia & Xi Luo, 2022. "Ideologies, Conspiracy Beliefs, and the Chinese Public’s Politicized Attitudes to Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-14, December.
    6. Giuseppe T. Cirella & Alessio Russo, 2019. "Special Issue Sustainable Interdisciplinarity: Human–Nature Relations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-5, December.
    7. Yingying Sun & Yue Zhang, 2019. "Who Is Happier in China? Exploring Determinant Factors Using Religion as a Moderator," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-17, November.

    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. Weizhuo Wang & Christopher Gan & Dao Trang Anh & Quang Thi Thieu Nguyen, 2024. "The decision to buy genetically modified foods in China: what makes the difference?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(6), pages 15213-15235, June.
    2. Kym Anderson & Ernesto Valenzuela & Lee Ann Jackson, 2008. "Recent and Prospective Adoption of Genetically Modified Cotton: A Global Computable General Equilibrium Analysis of Economic Impacts," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(2), pages 265-296, January.
    3. William D. Berry & Jacqueline H. R. DeMeritt & Justin Esarey, 2010. "Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Models: Is a Product Term Essential?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 248-266, January.
    4. Samuele Poy & Simone Schüller, 2016. "Internet and Voting in the Web 2.0 Era: Evidence from a Local Broadband Policy," CESifo Working Paper Series 6129, CESifo.
    5. Kit S. Hagemann & Joachim Scholderer, 2009. "Hot Potato: Expert‐Consumer Differences in the Perception of a Second‐Generation Novel Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 1041-1055, July.
    6. Hanjra, Munir A. & Qureshi, M. Ejaz, 2010. "Global water crisis and future food security in an era of climate change," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 365-377, October.
    7. John V. Duca & Jason L. Saving, 2016. "Income Inequality and Political Polarization: Time Series Evidence Over Nine Decades," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 62(3), pages 445-466, September.
    8. Falck-Zepeda, José B. & Horna, Daniela & Smale, Melinda, 2007. "The economic impact and the distribution of benefits and risk from the adoption of insect resistant (Bt) cotton in West Africa," IFPRI discussion papers 718, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. Donati, Dante, 2023. "Mobile Internet access and political outcomes: Evidence from South Africa," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    10. Evans, Keith S. & Teisl, Mario F. & Lando, Amy. M. & Liu, Sherry T., 2020. "Risk perceptions and food-handling practices in the home," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    11. Ruben Durante & Paolo Pinotti & Andrea Tesei, 2019. "The Political Legacy of Entertainment TV," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(7), pages 2497-2530, July.
    12. Stan Hok‐Wui Wong & Mathew Y. H. Wong, 2020. "“Distant Participation” and Youth Political Attitudes: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1489-1512, July.
    13. Gruère, Guillaume P. & Bouët, Antoine & Mevel, Simon, 2007. "Genetically modified food and international trade: The case of India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines," IFPRI discussion papers 740, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    14. David K Levine, 2023. "True Myths," Levine's Working Paper Archive 11694000000000123, David K. Levine.
    15. Lin Hu & Anqi Li & Ilya Segal, 2019. "The Politics of Personalized News Aggregation," Papers 1910.11405, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2022.
    16. 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.
    17. Chantal Pohl Nielsen & Kym Anderson, 2003. "Golden Rice and the Looming GMO Trade Debate: Implication for the Poor," Centre for International Economic Studies Working Papers 2003-22, University of Adelaide, Centre for International Economic Studies.
    18. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/16juu6v6rg8rq8nl0u1grb4jm6 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Natali HELBERGER & Andra LEURDIJK & Silvain de MUNCK, 2010. "User Generated Diversity. Some reflections on how to improve the quality of amateur productions," Communications & Strategies, IDATE, Com&Strat dept., vol. 1(77), pages 55-78, 1st quart.
    20. Lisa Oswald, 2024. "More than news! Mapping the deliberative potential of a political online ecosystem with digital trace data," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, December.
    21. Stephen C. Whitfield & Eugene A. Rosa & Amy Dan & Thomas Dietz, 2009. "The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 425-437, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:11:p:4326-:d:184473. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.