IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v22y2002i6p1123-1137.html

Stakeholder Attitudes Toward the Risks and Benefits of Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries: A Comparison Between Mexico and the Philippines

Author

Listed:
  • Philipp Aerni

Abstract

Public perceptions and political debates regarding the risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology are well documented in industrialized countries. Yet, hardly any surveys have been conducted in developing countries. The following study aims to contribute to a better understanding of stakeholder attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology in developing countries. For this purpose, stakeholder representatives in the public debates in Mexico and the Philippines were asked to complete two nearly identical questionnaires on the risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology. A comparison of stakeholder attitudes in the Philippines and Mexico is interesting because it shows how the different political systems, cultural and ecological backgrounds, and the regional context of food and agriculture influence perceptions. In general, the results of the surveys indicate that the participants in both countries consider genetic engineering to be an important tool to address agricultural, nutritional, and environmental problems, and they do not regard transgenic foods as risky for consumers. However, they are concerned about the potential impact of such transgenic crops on their countries' rich biological diversity and do not believe that national biosafety guidelines will be implemented properly. Although the surveys show that stakeholder attitudes in the Philippines and Mexico are quite similar, they also highlight significant differences in perception often related to cultural and political aspects.

Suggested Citation

  • Philipp Aerni, 2002. "Stakeholder Attitudes Toward the Risks and Benefits of Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries: A Comparison Between Mexico and the Philippines," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1123-1137, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:22:y:2002:i:6:p:1123-1137
    DOI: 10.1111/1539-6924.00277
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00277
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1539-6924.00277?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. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    2. Nicholas G. Kalaitzandonakes, 2000. "Agrobiotechnology and Competitiveness," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1224-1233.
    3. Haykin, Stephen & Siamwalla, Ammar, 1983. "The world rice market: structure, conduct, and performance," Research reports 39, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    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. Aerni, Philipp, 2011. "Lock-in Situations in the Global Debates on Climate Change, Biotechnology and International Trade," Papers 317, World Trade Institute.
    2. Michael R. Greenberg & Reya Sinha, 2006. "Government Risk Management Priorities: A Comparison of the Preferences of Asian Indian Americans and Other Americans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1275-1289, October.
    3. Aerni, Philipp & Bernauer, Thomas, 2006. "Stakeholder attitudes toward GMOs in the Philippines, Mexico, and South Africa: The issue of public trust," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 557-575, March.
    4. Philipp Aerni & Florabelle Gagalac & Joachim Scholderer, 2016. "The role of biotechnology in combating climate change: A question of politics?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 13-28.
    5. Aerni, Philipp, 2009. "What is sustainable agriculture? Empirical evidence of diverging views in Switzerland and New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1872-1882, April.
    6. Ian J. Mauro & Stéphane M. McLachlan, 2008. "Farmer Knowledge and Risk Analysis: Postrelease Evaluation of Herbicide‐Tolerant Canola in Western Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 463-476, April.
    7. Aerni, Philipp & Rae, Allan & Lehmann, Bernard, 2009. "Nostalgia versus Pragmatism? How attitudes and interests shape the term sustainable agriculture in Switzerland and New Zealand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 227-235, April.

    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. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    2. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    3. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Fung, Timothy K.F. & Choi, Doo Hun & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2014. "Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 344-355.
    6. Yawson, Robert M. & Kuzma, Jennifer, 2010. "Evidence review and experts’ opinion on consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology," MPRA Paper 40807, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Qi, Wen-Hui & Qi, Ming-Liang & Ji, Ya-Min, 2020. "The effect path of public communication on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    8. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    9. Maketo, Lydia & Ashworth, Peta, 2025. "Social acceptance of green hydrogen in European Union and the United Kingdom: A systematic review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    10. Chang, Chiung-Ting, 2017. "Risk factors associated with flying in adverse weather: From the passengers' point of view," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 68-75.
    11. Tim Slack & Vanessa Parks & Lynsay Ayer & Andrew M. Parker & Melissa L. Finucane & Rajeev Ramchand, 2020. "Natech or natural? An analysis of hazard perceptions, institutional trust, and future storm worry following Hurricane Harvey," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 102(3), pages 1207-1224, July.
    12. Hudson, Darren & Jones, Tom, 2001. "Willingness to Plant Identity Preserved Crops: The Case of Mississippi Soybeans," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(3), pages 475-485, December.
    13. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    14. Dessi, F. & Ariccio, S. & Albers, T. & Alves, S. & Ludovico, N. & Bonaiuto, M., 2022. "Sustainable technology acceptability: Mapping technological, contextual, and social-psychological determinants of EU stakeholders’ biofuel acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    15. D'Amato, Alessio & Giaccherini, Matilde & Zoli, Mariangela, 2019. "The Role of Information Sources and Providers in Shaping Green Behaviors. Evidence from Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    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. 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.
    18. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner & Robert Noland & Jeanne Herb & Marjorie Kaplan & Anthony J. Broccoli, 2014. "Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 997-1012, June.
    19. Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Trust and Confidence: The Difficulties in Distinguishing the Two Concepts in Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1022-1024, July.
    20. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.

    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:wly:riskan:v:22:y:2002:i:6:p:1123-1137. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.