Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T05:20:06.638Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mad cows, mad corn and mad communities: the role of socio-cultural factors in the perceived risk of genetically-modified food

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2007

Melissa L. Finucane
Melissa L. Finucane*
Affiliation:
Decision Research, Eugene, Oregon 97401, USA
*
Corresponding author: Dr Melissa Finucane, present address Center for Health Research, 501 Alakawa Street, Suite 201, Honolulu, HI 96817, USA, fax +1 808 432 4785, email melissafinucane@hotmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The rapid globalization of the world economy has increased the need for a knowledge base of reliable socio-cultural differences in perceptions, values and ways of thinking about new food technologies. Awareness of socio-cultural differences is important because collaborative efforts to deal with food hazards presuppose some understanding of where, how and why the viewpoints of various stakeholders may differ. In the present paper factors that influence public perceptions of genetically-modified (GM) food are discussed, with a special focus on the unique circumstances of populations in the USA, Europe and developing countries. It is argued that effective communication and decision making about the risk of GM food depends critically on understanding how socio-cultural groups differ in their values and in the way they deal with the risks and benefits of new technologies. The implications of psychological aspects of perceived risk (including the roles of qualitative dimensions of risk, world views and trust) for public acceptance of new food technologies are highlighted.

Keywords

Genetically-modified foodCultureRisk perceptionPsychology
Type
Meeting Report
Information
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , February 2002 , pp. 31 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 2002

References

Aerni, P (1999) Public Acceptance of Transgenic Rice and its Potential Impact on Future Rice Markets in Southeast Asian Countries. Doctoral dissertation thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Barke, R, Jenkins-Smith, H & Slovic, P (1997) Risk perceptions of men and women scientists. Social Science Quarterly 78, 167–176.Google Scholar
Beachy, RN (1999) Facing fear of biotechnology. Science 285, 335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruce, DM & Eldridge, J (2000) The role of values in risk perception in the GM debate. In Foresight and Precaution, pp. 855–862 [Cottam, MP, Harvey, DW, Pape, RP and Tait, J, editors]. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: AA Balkema.Google Scholar
Dake, K (1991) Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 22, 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, M & Wildavsky, A (1982) Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Earle, TC & Cvetkovich, GT (1995) Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Finucane, ML, Slovic, P, Mertz, CK, Flynn, J & Satterfield, TA (2000) Gender, race, and perceived risk: The 'white male' effect. Health, Risk and Society 2, 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorino, DJ (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values 15, 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, J, Slovic, P & Mertz, CK (1994) Gender, race and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis 14, 1101–1108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Granot, H (1999) Facing catastrophe: Mad cows and emergency policy-making. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 17, 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grobe, D, Douthitt, R & Zepeda, L (1999) A model of consumers' risk perceptions toward recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH): The impact of risk characteristics. Risk Analysis 19, 661–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, G (1984) Culture's Consequences, p. 277. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Klee, K (1999) Frankenstein foods? Newsweek 13 September issue, 33–35.Google Scholar
Krimsky, S & Golding, D (1992) Social Theories of Risk. Westport, CT: Praeger–Greenwood.Google Scholar
Levidow, L (1999) Regulating Bt maize in the United States and Europe: A scientific-cultural comparison. Environment 41, 10–22.Google Scholar
Losey, JE, Rayor, LS & Carter, ME (1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399, 214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marris, C (2000) Swings and Roundabouts: French Public Policy on Agricultural GMOs 1996–1999. Report No. 00–02, Guayancourt, France: Cahier du C3ED. Available at http://www.c3ed.uvsq.fr.Google Scholar
National Research Council(1996). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Paarlberg, R (2000) Genetically modified crops in developing countries: Promise or peril? Environment 42, 19–27.Google Scholar
Sheehy, H, Legault, M & Ireland, D (1996) Consumers and Biotechnology: A Synopsis of Survey and Focus Group Research. Ottawa, ON: Office of Consumer Affairs, Industry Canada. Available at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca./SSG/ca00921e.htmlGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, R, Manaras, I & Sparks, P (2000) Moral and ethical concerns on genetic modification of foods. In Foresight and Precaution, pp. 849–854 [Cottam, MP, Harvey, DW, Pape, RP and Tait, J, editors]. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: AA Balkema.Google Scholar
Slovic, P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236, 280–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slovic, P (1992) Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In Social Theories of Risk, pp. 117–152 [Krimsky, S and Golding, D, editors]. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Slovic, P (1997) Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics and Science: Surveying the Risk-assessment Battlefield, pp. 277–313 [Bazerman, MH, Messick, DM, Tenbrunsel, AE and Wade-Benzoni, KA, editors]. San Francisco, CA: New Lexington.Google Scholar
Slovic, P & Gregory, R (1999) Risk analysis, decision analysis, and the social context for risk decision making. In Decision Science and Technology: Reflections on the Contributions of Ward Edwards, pp. 353–365 [Shanteau, J, Mellers, BA and Schum, DA, editors]. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tse, DK, Lee, K, Vertinsky, I & Wehrung, DA (1988) Does culture matter? A cross-cultural study of executives' choice, decisiveness and risk adjustment in international marketing. Journal of Marketing 52, 181–195.Google Scholar
Tutangata, T (1999) Genetic engineering: The right to say no. Islands Business May issue, 42.Google Scholar
Weber, EU & Hsee, CK (1999) Models and mosaics: Investigating cross-cultural differences in risk perception and risk preference. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 6, 611–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber, EU & Hsee, CK (2000) Culture and individual judgment and decision making. Applied Psychology: An International Review 49, 32–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, N (1983) Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar