Public Perceptions Of Biotechnology And Acceptance Of Genetically Modified Food
Public debate on biotechnology is embroiled in controversy over the risks and benefits associated with this emerging technology. Using data from a national survey, this study analyzes public acceptance of biotechnology in food production. Empirical results suggest that while there is general optimism about biotechnology, and support for its use in plants, public approval of its use in animals is perhaps more limited. Younger and more educated individuals are generally more supportive of biotechnology. Attitudes towards biotechnology differ substantially between males and females, and between whites and non-whites. While people's religious and social views, confidence in scientists, corporations and government have significant influence, income and regional differences do not have significant effects on public acceptance of biotechnology.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Miranowski, John & Moschini, GianCarlo & Babcock, Bruce A. & Duffy, Michael & Wisner, Robert N. & Beghin, John C. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Lence, Sergio H. & Baumel, C. Phillip & Harl, Neil E., 1999. "Economic Perspectives on GMO Market Segregation," Staff General Research Papers 11407, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Moon, Wanki & Balasubramanian, Siva K., 2001. "A Multi-Attribute Model Of Public Acceptance Of Genetically Modified Organisms," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20745, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
- Baker, Gregory A. & Burnham, Thomas A., 2001. "Consumer Response To Genetically Modified Foods: Market Segment Analysis And Implications For Producers And Policy Makers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(02), December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:rutfwp:18185. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.