IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aajs14/168758.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does Internet Use Affect Public Perceptions of Technologies in Livestock Production?

Author

Listed:
  • Matin, Anahita Hosseini
  • Goddard, Ellen

Abstract

Novel technology applications such as cloning and genetic modification in livestock production have not been widely supported by the public. In this study the relationships between attitudes towards animals, internet use and potential uses of genomics (and vaccination) in beef and pork are examined. The public’s attitudes towards animals, based on an AAS score developed by Herzog et al. (1991) could affect how the public sees the use of genomic technologies in livestock production. Media coverage of technology, including use of the internet, may also play a role in attitudes towards new technologies. Public attitudes might impact acceptance of genomic technologies and influence their adoption by producers, hence influencing societal welfare. Understanding some of the factors influencing attitudes can assist in the development and adoption of technologies. Tobit and multinomial regressions for members of the Canadian public suggest that internet use (for the purposes of searching out information on science and technology) is a positive indicator of higher animal attitudes scores (being more protective of animals) which suggests that internet use has both a negative (indirectly through animal attitudes) and a positive (direct) relationship with the use of genomic technologies in livestock production (through the sign of the variable in the attitude towards genomics equations). Respondents’ individual characteristics such as gender, knowledge of genomics applications prior to survey, income level, etc., are also related to their risk/benefit assessment of this livestock production technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Matin, Anahita Hosseini & Goddard, Ellen, 2014. "Does Internet Use Affect Public Perceptions of Technologies in Livestock Production?," 2014 AAEA/EAAE/CAES Joint Symposium: Social Networks, Social Media and the Economics of Food, May 29-30, 2014, Montreal, Canada 168758, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aajs14:168758
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.168758
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/168758/files/Montreal%20Paper-Anahita%20Matin-Final%20_1_.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.168758?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. Tyshenko, Michael G., 2014. "Nanotechnology framing in the Canadian national news media," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 38-48.
    2. Matin, Anahita Hosseini & Goddard, Ellen, 2013. "A Comparative Analysis of Canadian Consumers’ WTP for Novel Food Technologies (Case of Juice Produced by Nanotechnology & Pork Chops Using Genomic Information)," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150461, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 1993. "The Nevada Initiative: A Risk Communication Fiasco," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(5), pages 497-502, October.
    4. 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.
    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. Edward Royzman & Corey Cusimano & Robert F. Leeman, 2017. "What lies beneath? Fear vs. disgust as affective predictors of absolutist opposition to genetically modified food and other new technologies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 466-480, September.
    2. Kentaka Aruga, 2017. "Consumer responses to food produced near the Fukushima nuclear plant," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(4), pages 677-690, October.
    3. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    4. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    5. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    6. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Menrad, Klaus & Gabriel, Andreas & Gylling, Morten, 2009. "Costs Of Co-Existence And Traceability Systems In The Food Industry In Germany And Denmark," Conference Papers 91301, University of Weihenstephan-Triesdorf, Straubing Centre of Science.
    8. Paul Slovic & James Flynn & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Stigma Happens: Social Problems in the Siting of Nuclear Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 773-777, October.
    9. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    10. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.
    11. Fan, Xiaoli & Muringai, Violet, 2018. "Effect of Information on Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Potatoes in Canada," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274073, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Götz, Linde & Svanidze, Miranda & Tissier, Alain & Brand Duran, Alejandro, 2022. "Consumers’ willingness to Buy CRISPR gene-edited tomatoes: Evidence from a choice experiment case study in Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 14(2).
    13. Ashkan Pakseresht & Brandon R McFadden & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2017. "Consumer acceptance of food biotechnology based on policy context and upstream acceptance: evidence from an artefactual field experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(5), pages 757-780.
    14. Mattia C. Mancini & Kent Kovacs & Eric Wailes & Jennie Popp, 2016. "Addressing the Externalities from Genetically Modified Pollen Drift on a Heterogeneous Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-18, October.
    15. Greehy, Grainne & McCarthy, Mary & Henchion, Maeve M. & Dillon, Emma J. & McCarthy, Sinead, 2011. "An Exploration of Irish Consumer Acceptance of Nanotechnology Applications in Food," 2011 International European Forum, February 14-18, 2011, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 122006, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    16. Andreas Drichoutis & Phoebe Koundouri & Mavra Stithou, 2013. "A Laboratory Experiment for the Estimation of Health Risks: Policy Recommendations," DEOS Working Papers 1316, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    17. Karen Lewis DeLong & Carola Grebitus, 2018. "Genetically modified labeling: The role of consumers’ trust and personality," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 266-282, March.
    18. Bett, Charles & Ouma, James Okuro & Groote, Hugo De, 2010. "Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 332-340, August.
    19. Bindu Paudel & Deepthi E. Kolady & David Just & Evert Van der Sluis, 2023. "Determinants of consumer acceptance of gene‐edited foods and its implications for innovators and policymakers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 623-645, July.
    20. Hu, Yang & House, Lisa A. & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "How do consumers respond to labels for crispr (gene-editing)?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Production Economics; Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aajs14:168758. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.