Is Opposition to Genetically Modified Food "Morally Absolutist"? A Consequence-Based Perspective

Effects of graphical presentation of benefits on cognitive judgments induced by affect heuristic: Focusing on the acceptance of genetically modified foods

Genetically modified (GM) foods have been assumed to be seen through intuitive and affective routes (i.e., affect heuristics) rather than analytical and deliberative routes. We examined the impact of the graphical presentation of benefits derived from GM or conventionally bred foods on the acceptance of these varieties. In the two experiments (n = 266 for study 1 and n = 402 for study 2), no differences emerged in the estimation of farmers' benefits resulting from the introduction of improved varieties by the type of improvement. However, there were statistically significant differences in the magnitude of risk and the degree of acceptance of the improved varieties. Therefore, despite presenting identical benefits as a graphical figure, GM foods were consistently evaluated as providing higher risk and were less frequently accepted than conventionally bred foods. These results suggest that while the graphical presentation of benefits may promote comprehension of some advantages of the introduction of GM varieties, this may not lead to acceptance from the consumer's point of view. Based on the current findings, as well as previous studies on trust in risk managers, we discuss the specific factors that might promote acceptance of GM products.

Genetically modified foods: bibliometric analysis on consumer perception and preference

In this study, we present the bibliometric trends emerging from research outputs on consumer perception and preference for genetically modified (GM) foods and policy prescriptions for enabling the consumption using VOSviewer visualization software. Consumers' positive response is largely influenced by the decision of the governments to ban or approve the GM crops cultivation. Similarly, the public support increases when the potential benefits of the technology are well articulated, consumption increases with a price discount, people's trust on the government and belief in science increases with a positive influence by the media. Europe and the USA are the first region and country, respectively, in terms of the number of active institutions per research output, per-capita GDP publication and citations. We suggest research-, agri-food industries-, and society-oriented policies to be implemented by the stakeholders to ensure the safety of GM foods, encourage consumer-based studies, and increase public awareness toward these food products.

Food engineers' attitudes and purchasing intentions towards genetically modified organism products

Background: Biotechnological developments have resulted in the modification of the genetic structures of many organisms. However, the possibility of risks in terms of human health has caused consumers to approach products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with suspicion. Objective: In this study, we aimed to determine the attitudes of food engineers towards GMO products and their effects on purchase intentions. Methods: For this purpose, an attitude scale towards GMO products was adapted, and a multivariate regression analysis was performed by applying the adapted questionnaire. Results: It has been determined that the negative attitudes of food engineers towards GMO products and their purchasing intentions have an effect. Attitudes toward the use of gene technology in production were determined with 17% as the most effective dimension of purchase intention, and it was found to have a significant effect (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Overall, it was determined that food engineers were concerned about the potential risk of GMO foods. In order to overcome these concerns, it is thought that eliminating the lack of knowledge of this professional group on gene technology should be planned as a strategic goal.

Climate solution or corporate co-optation? US and Canadian publics’ views on agricultural gene editing

The dexterity and affordability of gene-editing technologies promise wide-ranging applications in agriculture. Aiming to take advantage of this, proponents emphasize benefits such as the climate-mitigating promises of gene editing. Critics, on the other hand, argue that gene editing will perpetuate industrialized forms of agriculture and its concomitant environmental and social problems. Across a representative sample of US and Canadian residents (n = 1478), we investigate public views and perceptions of agricultural gene editing. We advance existing survey-based studies, which tend to focus on whether knowledge, familiarity, trust, or perceptions of naturalness predict views on gene editing. Instead, we examine whether broader societal concerns about industrialized food systems—a key claim about genetic engineering launched by critics—predicts comfort with gene editing. We also explore the predictive power of views of climate change as an urgent problem, following proponent arguments. Survey results explore gene editing views in reference to specific cases (e.g., drought-tolerant wheat) and specific alternatives (e.g., versus pesticide use). We find that people critical of industrialized food systems were most likely to express overall absolute opposition to the technology, whereas those concerned with the imminence of climate change were more likely to support climate-relevant gene editing. Our findings suggest the need for further research into the conditions upon which public groups find gene editing compelling or not—namely, if applications enhance or counter industrial food systems, or offer particular climate adaptive benefits. Furthermore, we argue that attention to broader societal priorities in surveys of perceptions may help address calls for responsible research and innovation as concerns gene editing.

The inverse relation between risks and benefits: The impact of individual differences in information processing style

Existing research shows that evaluations of the risks and benefits of various hazards (i.e., technologies and activities) are inversely related. The affect heuristic explains the negative relation between risks and benefits, as based on the strength of positive or negative affect associated with a hazard. Research on the affect heuristic previously investigated under which conditions people judge risk and benefits independently, focusing on expertise as a factor that might exempt from inversely related judgements of risk and benefits. Measurements within Dual Process Theories have been found to be associated with rational, analytical decision making and accurate judgments. In this paper we investigated the extent to which rational information processing styles can predict the risk-benefit relation of technologies in a medical and food applications and whether the attitudes influence the strength or direction of the relationship. Using the Need for Cognition Scale (NFC), a psychometric-based risk scale and an explicit measure of attitude, in a representative sample of 3228 Swedes, we found that the high NFC group judged the risks and benefits of technologies to be inversely related. In contrast, the low NFC group judged the risks and benefits to be positively related. These results were confirmed across all studied technologies by applying moderation analysis. We discuss the results in light of recent research on cognitive processing and polarization over technologies’ risks.

Clarification on "EFSA Genetically Engineered Crop Composition Equivalence Approach: Performance and Consistency"

A recent perspective defends the approach of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for evaluating the compositional normality of genetically engineered (GE) crops using a concurrently grown subset of non-GE varieties within the risk assessment. While the approach of the EFSA manages the risk of falsely claiming equivalence, this is achieved at the expense of low power to detect true equivalence. This generates inconsistent findings and safety conclusions across studies for the same GE event based on the selected non-GE comparators. Because variation in GE crop composition has not been associated with safety, we suggest policy improvements that would better align with consumer protection.

The Importance of Context in Moral Judgments

There is a gap between morality as experienced and morality as studied. In our personal and professional lives, moral judgments are embedded within a specific context. We know the who, what, where, and when and often can infer the why; we know the broader context of actions; and we may have a specific relationship with the actors. However, scholarly theorizing is often built on inferences from participants’ responses to decontextualized, impoverished stimuli. In our quest for uncovering general psychological truths, moral psychologists have examined evaluations of poorly guarded trolleys, strangers with odd sexual proclivities, and endorsement of abstract principles. The four articles included in this section demonstrate the power of contextualizing morality. In the current article, I place these papers within a broader framework for how scholars can contextualize morality research. I then argue why contextualizing morality matters: not only do contextualized questions better reflect the nuances of reality but also contextualized judgments might be key for improving predictions of moral behavior and understanding moral change.