IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v12y1995i1p48-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology

Author

Listed:
  • Lynn Frewer
  • Richard Shepherd

Abstract

The development of genetic engineering and its plausible consequences raises a level of controversy that can be identified at the level of public rather than scientific debate. Opposition to genetic engineering may manifest itself in rejection of the technology overall, or rejection of specific aspects of the technology, where public attitudes may be defined by a complex set of perceptions incorporating risk, benefit, control, and ethical concerns. One hundred and seventy six members of the public responded to questionnaires about genetic engineering that were framed in terms of either food production or medical application. The first section assessed perceived risks, benefits, and control of genetic engineering where the targets of the potential application and the location of control were varied. The second section assessed the relationship between objections to application of the technology to different types of organisms (plants, microorganisms, animals, or human genetic material). Questions were directed at either perceived risk or ethical objections. The applications of genetic engineering were seen as riskier and less beneficial when applied to food production than medicine, although perceived control was independent of application. Optimistic bias was observed. Ethical and risk related objections were greater for applications to food than to medicine, and again dependent on the type of organism manipulated. The transfer of genetic material between “dissimilar” types of organism (for example, between plants and animals) were not associated with greater risk or ethical concern than transfers between “similar” types of organism (for example, between animals and animals). The public requirement for legislative control was also dissociated into risk or ethical objections to the technology, and found to be greater for risk-related concerns, although ethical considerations were also important. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Suggested Citation

  • Lynn Frewer & Richard Shepherd, 1995. "Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 12(1), pages 48-57, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:12:y:1995:i:1:p:48-57
    DOI: 10.1007/BF02218074
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF02218074
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF02218074?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Sparks & Richard Shepherd, 1994. "Public Perceptions of the Potential Hazards Associated with Food Production and Food Consumption: An Empirical Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 799-806, October.
    2. Paul Sparks & Richard Shepherd & Lynn Frewer, 1994. "Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: A UK study," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 11(1), pages 19-28, December.
    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. Tran, Van & Yiannaka, Amalia & Giannakas, Konstantinos, 2016. "Consumer Perceptions And Willingness-To-Pay For Nanotechnology Applications That Enhance Food Safety," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235918, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. House, Lisa & Lusk, Jayson L. & Jaeger, Sara & Traill, W. Bruce & Moore, Melissa & Valli, Carlotta & Morrow, Bert & Yee, Wallace M.S., 2004. "Objective And Subjective Knowledge: Impacts On Consumer Demand For Genetically Modified Foods In The United States And The European Union," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20125, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. David Smith & J. Skalnik & Patricia Skalnik, 1997. "The bST debate: The relationship between awareness and acceptance of technological advances," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 14(1), pages 59-66, March.
    4. L. J. Frewer & C. Howard & D. Hedderley & R. Shepherd, 1996. "What Determines Trust in Information About Food‐Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 473-486, August.
    5. Grunert, Klaus G. & Lähteenmäki, Liisa & Nielsen, Niels A. & Poulsen, Jacob B. & Ueland, Oydis & Åström, Annika, 2000. "Consumer perception of food products involving genetic modification: Results from a qualitative study in four Nordic countries," MAPP Working Papers 72, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, The MAPP Centre.
    6. Marin, Floriana & Notaro, Sandra, 2007. "Consumer attitudes toward GM food with hypothetical functional characteristics," 105th Seminar, March 8-10, 2007, Bologna, Italy 7878, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Hwang, Yun Jae & Roe, Brian E. & Teisl, Mario F., 2005. "An Empirical Analysis of United States Consumers' Concerns about Eight Food Production and Processing Technologies," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19128, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Lockie, Stewart & Lawrence, Geoffrey & Lyons, Kristen & Grice, Janet, 2005. "Factors underlying support or opposition to biotechnology among Australian food consumers and implications for retailer-led food regulation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 399-418, August.
    9. Macfarlane, Ronald, 2002. "Integrating the consumer interest in food safety: the role of science and other factors+," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 65-80, February.

    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. Lynn Frewer & Chaya Howard & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 15(1), pages 15-30, March.
    2. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    3. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    4. Hugh Campbell & Anne Murcott & Angela MacKenzie, 2011. "Kosher in New York City, halal in Aquitaine: challenging the relationship between neoliberalism and food auditing," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(1), pages 67-79, February.
    5. L.J. Frewer & D. Hedderley & C. Howard & R. Shepherd, 1997. "‘Objection’ mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 14(1), pages 67-79, March.
    6. Joanna Burger & Robert A. Kennamer & I. Lehr Brisbin & Michael Gochfeld, 1998. "A Risk Assessment for Consumers of Mourning Doves," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 563-573, October.
    7. Schroeter, Christiane, 2001. "Consumer Attitudes Towards Food Safety Risks Associated With Meat Processing," Discussion Papers 26468, University of Giessen, Center for International Development and Environmental Research.
    8. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    9. Ashkan Pakseresht & Anna Kristina Edenbrandt & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2021. "Genetically modified food and consumer risk responsibility: The effect of regulatory design and risk type on cognitive information processing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    10. Paohui Lin & Hsientang Tsai & Tzuya Ho, 2020. "Food Safety Gaps between Consumers’ Expectations and Perceptions: Development and Verification of a Gap-Assessment Tool," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-17, August.
    11. Ellen Townsend & David D. Clarke & Betsy Travis, 2004. "Effects of Context and Feelings on Perceptions of Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1369-1384, October.
    12. McCarthy, Mary, 2005. "The Impact of Experience and Consumer Perceptions on Perceived Risk Reduction Behavior - The Case of Beef," 15th Congress, Campinas SP, Brazil, August 14-19, 2005 24241, International Farm Management Association.
    13. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    14. Sharon M. Parry & Susan Miles & Ascanio Tridente & Stephen R. Palmer & South and East Wales Infectious Disease Group, 2004. "Differences in Perception of Risk Between People Who Have and Have Not Experienced Salmonella Food Poisoning," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 289-299, February.
    15. Zingg, Alexandra & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "People’s willingness to eat meat from animals vaccinated against epidemics," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 226-231.
    16. 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.
    17. Lall, Somik V. & Lundberg, Mattias, 2008. "What are public services worth, and to whom? Non-parametric estimation of capitalization in Pune," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 34-64, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Bocker, Andreas & Hanf, Claus-Hennig, 2000. "Confidence lost and -- partially -- regained: consumer response to food scares," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 471-485, December.
    20. Celio Ferreira, 2006. "Food Information Environments: Risk Communication and Advertising Imagery," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(8), pages 851-868, December.

    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:spr:agrhuv:v:12:y:1995:i:1:p:48-57. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.