51
|
Why do we eat cereal but not lamb chops at breakfast? Investigating Americans’ beliefs about breakfast foods. Appetite 2020; 144:104458. [DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104458] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2019] [Revised: 08/28/2019] [Accepted: 09/13/2019] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
52
|
Royzman EB, Cusimano C, Metas S, Leeman RF. Is Opposition to Genetically Modified Food "Morally Absolutist"? A Consequence-Based Perspective. PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 2019; 15:250-272. [PMID: 31877108 DOI: 10.1177/1745691619873550] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
Genetically modified foods (GMFs) have met with strong opposition for most of their existence. According to one account-the consequence-based perspective (CP)-lay people oppose GMFs because they deem them unsafe as well as of dubious value. The CP is backed by the data and offers a clear solution for easing GMF opposition. However, several scholars have claimed that the CP is faulty, that lay opposition derives from largely nonrational factors and is consequence blind. One recent statement of this, the moral-absolutism perspective (MAP), contends that GMFs' opponents are principled "moral absolutists" who think that GMFs should be banned no matter their value or risk. Herein we critically weigh key arguments for this proposal. We also present five new studies that probed the clearest data that seem to favor the MAP-opponents affirming the statement that GMFs should be "prohibited," no matter their value or risk. These studies jointly show that (a) most presumed absolutists do not understand the key question and/or (b) cannot validly answer it. We show that taking due steps in clarifying the question and screening for those participants who cannot validly answer it cuts down absolutism to near zero. Finally, we demonstrate that helping GMFs' opponents imagine a world wherein GMFs are safe and constructive makes the majority willing to welcome GMFs in this context.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edward B Royzman
- Master of Behavioral and Decision Sciences Program and Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania
| | | | | | - Robert F Leeman
- Department of Health Education and Behavior, University of Florida.,Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine
| |
Collapse
|
53
|
Ritter C, Shriver A, McConnachie E, Robbins J, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM. Public attitudes toward genetic modification in dairy cattle. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0225372. [PMID: 31790436 PMCID: PMC6886766 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225372] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2019] [Accepted: 11/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Genetic modification has been used to create dairy cattle without horns and with increased resistance to disease; applications that could be beneficial for animal welfare, farm profits, and worker safety. Our aim was to assess how different stated purposes were associated with public attitudes toward these two applications using a mixed methods approach. Using an online survey, U.S. participants were randomly assigned to one of ten treatments in a 2 (application: hornless or disease-resistant) x 5 (purposes: improved animal welfare, reduced costs, increased worker safety, all three purposes, or no purpose) factorial design. Each participant was asked to read a short description of the assigned treatment (e.g. hornlessness to improve calf welfare) and then respond to a series of questions designed to assess attitude toward the treatment using 7-point Likert scales (1 = most negative; 7 = most positive). Responses of 957 participants were averaged to creative an attitude construct score. Participants were also asked to explain their response to the treatment. Qualitative analysis of these text responses was used to identify themes associated with the participants’ reasoning. Participant attitudes were more favorable to disease resistance than to hornlessness (mean ± SE attitude score: 4.5 ± 0.15 vs. 3.7 ± 0.14). In the ‘disease-resistance’ group participants had more positive attitudes toward genetic modification when the described purpose was animal welfare versus reduction of costs (contrast = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.12–1.88). Attitudes were less favorable to the ‘hornless’ application if no purpose was provided versus when the stated purpose was either to improve animal welfare (contrast = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.26–1.64) or when all purposes were provided (contrast = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.19–1.58). Similarly, attitudes were less positive when the stated purpose was to reduce costs versus either improving animal welfare (contrast = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.09–1.64) or when all purposes were provided (contrast = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.02–1.56). Quantitative and qualitative analysis indicated that both the specific application and perceived purpose (particularly when related to animal welfare) can affect public attitudes toward genetic modification.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caroline Ritter
- Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Adam Shriver
- Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Emilie McConnachie
- Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Jesse Robbins
- Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk
- Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Daniel M. Weary
- Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
54
|
Darsan Singh JK, Mat Jalaluddin NS, Sanan-Mishra N, Harikrishna JA. Genetic modification in Malaysia and India: current regulatory framework and the special case of non-transformative RNAi in agriculture. PLANT CELL REPORTS 2019; 38:1449-1463. [PMID: 31350570 DOI: 10.1007/s00299-019-02446-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2019] [Revised: 07/09/2019] [Accepted: 07/18/2019] [Indexed: 05/20/2023]
Abstract
Recent developments in modern biotechnology such as the use of RNA interference (RNAi) have broadened the scope of crop genetic modification. RNAi strategies have led to significant achievements in crop protection against biotic and abiotic stresses, modification of plant traits, and yield improvement. As RNAi-derived varieties of crops become more useful in the field, it is important to examine the capacity of current regulatory systems to deal with such varieties, and to determine if changes are needed to improve the existing frameworks. We review the biosafety frameworks from the perspective of developing countries that are increasingly involved in modern biotechnology research, including RNAi applications, and make some recommendations. Malaysia and India have approved laws regulating living modified organisms and products thereof, highlighting that the use of any genetically modified step requires regulatory scrutiny. In view of production methods for exogenously applied double-stranded RNAs and potential risks from the resulting double-stranded RNA-based products, we argue that a process-based system may be inappropriate for the non-transformative RNAi technology. We here propose that the current legislation needs rewording to take account of the non-transgenic RNAi technology, and discuss the best alternative for regulatory systems in India and Malaysia in comparison with the existing frameworks in other countries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jasdeep Kaur Darsan Singh
- Centre for Research in Biotechnology for Agriculture (CEBAR), Level 3, Research Management and Innovation Complex, University of Malaya, Jalan Universiti, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Faculty of Science, Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Malaya, Jalan Universiti, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Nurzatil Sharleeza Mat Jalaluddin
- Centre for Research in Biotechnology for Agriculture (CEBAR), Level 3, Research Management and Innovation Complex, University of Malaya, Jalan Universiti, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Neeti Sanan-Mishra
- International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB), Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi, Delhi, 110067, India
| | - Jennifer Ann Harikrishna
- Centre for Research in Biotechnology for Agriculture (CEBAR), Level 3, Research Management and Innovation Complex, University of Malaya, Jalan Universiti, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
- Faculty of Science, Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Malaya, Jalan Universiti, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
| |
Collapse
|
55
|
Egolf A, Hartmann C, Siegrist M. When Evolution Works Against the Future: Disgust's Contributions to the Acceptance of New Food Technologies. RISK ANALYSIS : AN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE SOCIETY FOR RISK ANALYSIS 2019; 39:1546-1559. [PMID: 30759314 PMCID: PMC6850642 DOI: 10.1111/risa.13279] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2018] [Revised: 12/18/2018] [Accepted: 01/04/2019] [Indexed: 05/23/2023]
Abstract
New food technologies have a high potential to transform the current resource-consuming food system to a more efficient and sustainable one, but public acceptance of new food technologies is rather low. Such an avoidance might be maintained by a deeply preserved risk avoidance system called disgust. In an online survey, participants (N = 313) received information about a variety of new food technology applications (i.e., genetically modified meat/fish, edible nanotechnology coating film, nanotechnology food box, artificial meat/milk, and a synthetic food additive). Every new food technology application was rated according to the respondent's willingness to eat (WTE) it (i.e., acceptance), risk, benefit, and disgust perceptions. Furthermore, food disgust sensitivity was measured using the Food Disgust Scale. Overall, the WTE both gene-technology applications and meat coated with an edible nanotechnology film were low and disgust responses toward all three applications were high. In full mediation models, food disgust sensitivity predicted the disgust response toward each new food technology application, which in turn influenced WTE them. Effects of disgust responses on the WTE a synthetic food additive were highest for and lowest for the edible nanotechnology coating film compared to the other technologies. Results indicate that direct disgust responses influence acceptance and risk and benefit perceptions of new food technologies. Beyond the discussion of this study, implications for future research and strategies to increase acceptance of new food technologies are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aisha Egolf
- Institute for Environmental DecisionsConsumer BehaviourETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
| | - Christina Hartmann
- Institute for Environmental DecisionsConsumer BehaviourETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
| | - Michael Siegrist
- Institute for Environmental DecisionsConsumer BehaviourETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
| |
Collapse
|
56
|
Lanzoni A, Castoldi AF, Kass GE, Terron A, De Seze G, Bal-Price A, Bois FY, Delclos KB, Doerge DR, Fritsche E, Halldorsson T, Kolossa-Gehring M, Hougaard Bennekou S, Koning F, Lampen A, Leist M, Mantus E, Rousselle C, Siegrist M, Steinberg P, Tritscher A, Van de Water B, Vineis P, Walker N, Wallace H, Whelan M, Younes M. Advancing human health risk assessment. EFSA J 2019; 17:e170712. [PMID: 32626449 PMCID: PMC7015480 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.e170712] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
The current/traditional human health risk assessment paradigm is challenged by recent scientific and technical advances, and ethical demands. The current approach is considered too resource intensive, is not always reliable, can raise issues of reproducibility, is mostly animal based and does not necessarily provide an understanding of the underlying mechanisms of toxicity. From an ethical and scientific viewpoint, a paradigm shift is required to deliver testing strategies that enable reliable, animal-free hazard and risk assessments, which are based on a mechanistic understanding of chemical toxicity and make use of exposure science and epidemiological data. This shift will require a new philosophy, new data, multidisciplinary expertise and more flexible regulations. Re-engineering of available data is also deemed necessary as data should be accessible, readable, interpretable and usable. Dedicated training to build the capacity in terms of expertise is necessary, together with practical resources allocated to education. The dialogue between risk assessors, risk managers, academia and stakeholders should be promoted further to understand scientific and societal needs. Genuine interest in taking risk assessment forward should drive the change and should be supported by flexible funding. This publication builds upon presentations made and discussions held during the break-out session 'Advancing risk assessment science - Human health' at EFSA's third Scientific Conference 'Science, Food and Society' (Parma, Italy, 18-21 September 2018).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Frédéric Y Bois
- French National Institute for Industrial Environment and Risks FR
| | - K Barry Delclos
- National Center for Toxicological Research US Food and Drug Administration USA
| | - Daniel R Doerge
- National Center for Toxicological Research US Food and Drug Administration USA
| | - Ellen Fritsche
- Leibniz Research Institute for Environmental Medicine DE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Ellen Mantus
- The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Bob Van de Water
- Drug Discovery and Safety Leiden Academic Centre for Drug Research Leiden University NL
| | | | - Nigel Walker
- National Toxicology Program/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences USA
| | - Heather Wallace
- Institute of Medical Sciences University of Aberdeen Scotland UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
57
|
Rose KM, Howell EL, Su LYF, Xenos MA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA. Distinguishing scientific knowledge: The impact of different measures of knowledge on genetically modified food attitudes. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE (BRISTOL, ENGLAND) 2019; 28:449-467. [PMID: 30764719 DOI: 10.1177/0963662518824837] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
The impact of knowledge on public attitudes toward scientific issues remains unclear, due in part to ill-defined differences in how research designs conceptualize knowledge. Using genetically modified foods as a framework, we explore the impacts of perceived familiarity and factual knowledge, and the moderating roles of media attention and a food-specific attitudinal variable (food consciousness), in shaping these relationships. Based on the differential effects on "negative attitudes" toward genetically modified foods, we provide further evidence that the measures of knowledge are separate concepts and argue against a one-dimensional view of scientific knowledge. We discuss implications for understanding the relationship between knowledge and science attitudes.
Collapse
|
58
|
Promises and perils of gene drives: Navigating the communication of complex, post-normal science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2019; 116:7692-7697. [PMID: 30642954 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1805874115] [Citation(s) in RCA: 66] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/17/2023] Open
Abstract
In November of 2017, an interdisciplinary panel discussed the complexities of gene drive applications as part of the third Sackler Colloquium on "The Science of Science Communication." The panel brought together a social scientist, life scientist, and journalist to discuss the issue from each of their unique perspectives. This paper builds on the ideas and conversations from the session to provide a more nuanced discussion about the context surrounding responsible communication and decision-making for cases of post-normal science. Deciding to use gene drives to control and suppress pests will involve more than a technical assessment of the risks involved, and responsible decision-making regarding their use will require concerted efforts from multiple actors. We provide a review of gene drives and their potential applications, as well as the role of journalists in communicating the extent of uncertainties around specific projects. We also discuss the roles of public opinion and online environments in public engagement with scientific processes. We conclude with specific recommendations about how to address current challenges and foster more effective communication and decision-making for complex, post-normal issues, such as gene drives.
Collapse
|