IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0225372.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public attitudes toward genetic modification in dairy cattle

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline Ritter
  • Adam Shriver
  • Emilie McConnachie
  • Jesse Robbins
  • Marina A G von Keyserlingk
  • Daniel M Weary

Abstract

Genetic modification has been used to create dairy cattle without horns and with increased resistance to disease; applications that could be beneficial for animal welfare, farm profits, and worker safety. Our aim was to assess how different stated purposes were associated with public attitudes toward these two applications using a mixed methods approach. Using an online survey, U.S. participants were randomly assigned to one of ten treatments in a 2 (application: hornless or disease-resistant) x 5 (purposes: improved animal welfare, reduced costs, increased worker safety, all three purposes, or no purpose) factorial design. Each participant was asked to read a short description of the assigned treatment (e.g. hornlessness to improve calf welfare) and then respond to a series of questions designed to assess attitude toward the treatment using 7-point Likert scales (1 = most negative; 7 = most positive). Responses of 957 participants were averaged to creative an attitude construct score. Participants were also asked to explain their response to the treatment. Qualitative analysis of these text responses was used to identify themes associated with the participants’ reasoning. Participant attitudes were more favorable to disease resistance than to hornlessness (mean ± SE attitude score: 4.5 ± 0.15 vs. 3.7 ± 0.14). In the ‘disease-resistance’ group participants had more positive attitudes toward genetic modification when the described purpose was animal welfare versus reduction of costs (contrast = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.12–1.88). Attitudes were less favorable to the ‘hornless’ application if no purpose was provided versus when the stated purpose was either to improve animal welfare (contrast = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.26–1.64) or when all purposes were provided (contrast = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.19–1.58). Similarly, attitudes were less positive when the stated purpose was to reduce costs versus either improving animal welfare (contrast = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.09–1.64) or when all purposes were provided (contrast = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.02–1.56). Quantitative and qualitative analysis indicated that both the specific application and perceived purpose (particularly when related to animal welfare) can affect public attitudes toward genetic modification.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline Ritter & Adam Shriver & Emilie McConnachie & Jesse Robbins & Marina A G von Keyserlingk & Daniel M Weary, 2019. "Public attitudes toward genetic modification in dairy cattle," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-15, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0225372
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225372
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225372
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225372&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0225372?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    2. Andrew Knight, 2007. "Intervening Effects of Knowledge, Morality, Trust, and Benefits on Support for Animal and Plant Biotechnology Applications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1553-1563, December.
    3. Jayson Lusk & F. Norwood, 2010. "Direct Versus Indirect Questioning: An Application to the Well-Being of Farm Animals," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 96(3), pages 551-565, May.
    4. Hallman, William K. & Hebden, W. Carl & Cuite, Cara L. & Aquino, Helen L. & Lang, John T., 2004. "Americans And Gm Food: Knowledge, Opinion And Interest In 2004," Research Reports 18175, Rutgers University, Food Policy Institute.
    5. Philip M. Fernbach & Nicholas Light & Sydney E. Scott & Yoel Inbar & Paul Rozin, 2019. "Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(3), pages 251-256, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    2. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    3. Brianne Suldovsky & William K. Hallman, 2022. "The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016: Intersection of Technology and Public Understanding of Science in the United States," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, September.
    4. Shapiro, Jesse M., 2016. "Special interests and the media: Theory and an application to climate change," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 91-108.
    5. Garrett M. Broad, 2023. "Improving the agri-food biotechnology conversation: bridging science communication with science and technology studies," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 929-938, September.
    6. Raffaelli, R. & Menapace, L., 2018. "Indirect questioning as a debiasing mechanism in preference elicitation for sustainable food? First evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277039, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. 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.
    8. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    9. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    10. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.
    11. Katarzyna Kochaniak & Paweł Ulman, 2020. "Risk-Intolerant but Risk-Taking—Towards a Better Understanding of Inconsistent Survey Responses of the Euro Area Households," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-26, August.
    12. Kim, Min Sung & Jung, Yoonhyuk & Kim, Junghwan, 2021. "A study on factors affecting privacy risk tolerance to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in South Korea," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 735-741.
    13. Naoko Kato-Nitta & Tadahiko Maeda & Yusuke Inagaki & Masashi Tachikawa, 2019. "Expert and public perceptions of gene-edited crops: attitude changes in relation to scientific knowledge," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-14, December.
    14. Jeffrey M. Rudski & William Osei & Ari R. Jacobson & Carl R. Lynch, 2011. "Would you rather be injured by lightning or a downed power line? Preference for natural hazards," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(4), pages 314-322, June.
    15. Josephine, Faass & Michael, Lahr, 2007. "Towards a More Holistic Understanding of American Support for Genetically Modified Crops: An Examination of Influential Factors Using a Binomial Dependent Variable," MPRA Paper 6124, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Lai, Yufeng & Minegishi, Kota & Boaitey, Albert K., 2020. "Social Desirability Bias in Farm Animal Welfare Preference Research," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304375, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Andrea R. Beyer & Barbara Fasolo & Lawrence D. Phillips & Pieter A. de Graeff & Hans L. Hillege, 2013. "Risk Perception of Prescription Drugs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(4), pages 579-592, May.
    18. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan, 2011. "Using Best Worst Scaling To Investigate Perceptions Of Control & Concern Over Food And Non-Food Risks," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108790, Agricultural Economics Society.
    19. Weijun Liu & Zhipeng Hao & Wojciech J. Florkowski & Linhai Wu & Zhengyong Yang, 2022. "Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-19, May.
    20. John C. Beghin & Christopher R. Gustafson, 2021. "Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0225372. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.