IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v25y2005i5p1241-1252.html

Who Does the Public Trust? The Case of Genetically Modified Food in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • John T. Lang
  • William K. Hallman

Abstract

Trust is important for the perception of many types of risk, including those relating to genetically modified (GM) food. Who the public trusts in any given circumstance, however, is not well understood. In this study of public trust regarding GM food, an exploratory factor analysis with Promax rotation reveals public classification of three common institutional types—evaluators, watchdogs, and merchants. The structure of relationships among these stakeholders can act to enable or constrain public support for this new technology. Evaluators—scientists, universities, and medical professionals—are the most trusted. Watchdogs—consumer advocacy organizations, environmental organizations, and media sources—are moderately trusted. Merchants—grocers and grocery stores, industry, and farmers—are least trusted. While the federal government is seen as closest to being an evaluator, it is not highly correlated with any of the factors. The lack of trust in the organizations with the greatest resources and responsibilities for ensuring the safety of GM food should be seen as an important obstacle to the adoption of the technology.

Suggested Citation

  • John T. Lang & William K. Hallman, 2005. "Who Does the Public Trust? The Case of Genetically Modified Food in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1241-1252, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:25:y:2005:i:5:p:1241-1252
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00668.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00668.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00668.x?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. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    2. Branden B. Johnson, 1999. "Exploring dimensionality in the origins of hazard-related trust," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(4), pages 325-354, October.
    3. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    4. Lynn J. Frewer & Susan Miles & Roy Marsh, 2002. "The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 701-711, August.
    5. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    6. Hallman, William K. & Adelaja, Adesoji O. & Schilling, Brian J. & Lang, John T., 2002. "Public Perceptions Of Genetically Modified Foods: Americans Know Not What They Eat," Research Reports 18176, Rutgers University, Food Policy Institute.
    7. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    8. 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.
    9. Hallman, William K. & Hebden, W. Carl & Aquino, Helen L. & Cuite, Cara L. & Lang, John T., 2003. "Public Perceptions Of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study Of American Knowledge And Opinion," Research Reports 18174, Rutgers University, Food Policy Institute.
    10. Richard G. Peters & Vincent T. Covello & David B. McCallum, 1997. "The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 43-54, February.
    11. Susanna Hornig Priest & Heinz Bonfadelli & Maria Rusanen, 2003. "The “Trust Gap” Hypothesis: Predicting Support for Biotechnology Across National Cultures as a Function of Trust in Actors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 751-766, August.
    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. 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.
    2. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    3. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser, 2006. "Marginal Trust in Risk Managers: Building and Losing Trust Following Decisions Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1187-1203, October.
    4. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    5. Branden B. Johnson & Mathew P. White, 2010. "The Importance of Multiple Performance Criteria for Understanding Trust in Risk Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1099-1115, July.
    6. Mathew P. White & Branden B. Johnson, 2010. "The Intuitive Detection Theorist (IDT) Model of Trust in Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1196-1209, August.
    7. de Jonge, Janneke & van Trijp, J.C.M. & Renes, Reint Jan & van der Lans, Ivo A.C.M. & Frewer, Lynn J., 2006. "Trust: The Importance of Distinguishing between Different Actors and Dimensions," 99th Seminar, February 8-10, 2006, Bonn, Germany 7731, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Ping Wu & Yifan Xu, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 698-710, April.
    9. Cope, S. & Frewer, L.J. & Houghton, J. & Rowe, G. & Fischer, A.R.H. & de Jonge, J., 2010. "Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 349-357, August.
    10. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    11. Lang, John T., 2013. "Elements of public trust in the American food system: Experts, organizations, and genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 145-154.
    12. Nick Allum, 2007. "An Empirical Test of Competing Theories of Hazard‐Related Trust: The Case of GM Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 935-946, August.
    13. Brad Love & Michael Mackert & Kami Silk, 2013. "Consumer Trust in Information Sources," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, June.
    14. Michael Siegrist & Melanie Connor & Carmen Keller, 2012. "Trust, Confidence, Procedural Fairness, Outcome Fairness, Moral Conviction, and the Acceptance of GM Field Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1394-1403, August.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. David Fang & Chen-Ling Fang & Bi-Kun Tsai & Li-Chi Lan & Wen-Shan Hsu, 2012. "Relationships among Trust in Messages, Risk Perception, and Risk Reduction Preferences Based upon Avian Influenza in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-16, August.
    18. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    19. Hye‐Jin Paek & Thomas Hove, 2019. "Mediating and Moderating Roles of Trust in Government in Effective Risk Rumor Management: A Test Case of Radiation‐Contaminated Seafood in South Korea," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2653-2667, December.
    20. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.

    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:25:y:2005:i:5:p:1241-1252. 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.