Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:49:22.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Importance of Having a Different Opinion Europeans and GM foods*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2008

Enzo Loner
Enzo Loner*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, Università di Trento [enzo.loner@unitn.it].
Get access

Abstract

Objectives. The article examines the opinions of Europeans concerning genetically modified (GM) foods. It first deals with the socio-cultural variables that favour acceptance of such products. It then analyses the minority of respondents who exhibit greater openness towards GM foods. Methods. Mokken Scale Analysis (MSA) is applied to 2002 Eurobarometer 58.0 data to construct an index of acceptance of GM foods. Results. The acceptance of GM foods is associated positively with trust in biotechnologies and negatively with concerns about the environment. The minority consisting of respondents in favour of GM foods possesses specific characteristics. Unlike the rest of the respondents, these principally consider the opportunity to spend less, the absence of fats, and the taste of foods. Conclusions. The analysis confirms that high education level does not favour acceptance of GM foods.

Résumé

L'article porte sur les opinions des européens vis à vis des OGM. Après avoir dégagé les variables associées aux opinions favorables, on s'intéresse aux attitudes, minoritaires, favorables. La méthode Mokken Scale Analysis est appliquée aux données Eurobaromètre de 2002. Un modèle Lisrel teste la qualité de l'indice obtenu. Il apparaît que l'acceptation des OGM est liée positivement à la confiance dans les biotechnologies et négativement à l'intérêt pour l'environnement.

Par ailleurs, la minorité favorable se distingue par un souci de dépenser moins, d’éviter les graisses et pour le goût des aliments. En revanche un haut niveau d’éducation n'est nullement favorable à l'acceptation des OGM.

Zuzammenfassung

Aufgabenstellung. Dieser Beitrag erörtert die Einstellung der europäischen Öffentlichkeit zu genetisch veränderten Lebensmitteln : welche soziokulturellen Aspekte fließen positiv mit ein, wer sind die Gegner. Methode. Die Mokken Scale Analysis wird auf den Eurobarometer 2002 angewandt, um Raster bei der Beurteilung von genetisch veränderten Lebensmitteln aufzustellen. Das Lisrel Modell überprüft die Verwendbarkeit dieses Rasters. Ergebnis. Vertrauen in die Biotechnologien führt zu einer positiven Einstellung, Angst vor Umweltschäden zur Ablehnung. Die Minderheit der Befürworter sieht Vorteile in puncto Zeitersparnis, fettarme und geschmacklich bessere Produkte.

Schlußfolgerung. Laut dieser Studie führt eine höhere Ausbildung nicht grundsätzlich zur Anerkennung genetisch veränderter Lebensmittel.

Type
Research Articles
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , April 2008 , pp. 31 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © A.E.S. 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrich, David, 1988. Rasch Models for Measurement, Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no 07-068 (Beverly Hills, Sage Publications).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Martin W., 2005a. “Distinguishing Red and Green Biotechnology: Cultivation effects of the Elite Press”, International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17 (1), pp. 63-89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Martin W., 2005b. “Public Perceptions and Mass Media in the Biotechnology Controversy”, International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17 (1), pp. 5-22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Martin W. and Bonfadelli, Heinz, 2002. “Controversy, media coverage and public knowledge”, pp. 149-178in Bauer, M. W., and Gaskell, G., eds, Biotechnology. The Making of a Global Controversy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Bauer, Martin W. and Gaskell, George, 2002. “Researching the public sphere of biotechnology”, pp. 1-20in Bauer, M. W. and Gaskell, G., eds, Biotechnology. The Making of a Global Controversy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Bond, Trevor and Fox, Christine, 2001. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences (Mahwah N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonfadelli, Heinz, 2005. “Mass media and Biotechnology: Knowledge gaps within and between European countries”, International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17 (1), pp. 42-62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonny, Sylvie, 2003. “Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factor explaining rejection in France and Europe”, Electronic Journal of Biotechnology 6 (1), pp. 50-71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bredahl, Lone, 2001. “Determinants of Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions With Regard to Genetically Modified Foods. Results of a Cross-National Survey”, Journal of Consumer Policy, 24, pp. 23-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, Donald M., 2002. “A social contract for biotechnology: shared visions for risky technologies?”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15, pp. 279-289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucchi, Massimiano and Neresini, Federico, 2002. “Biotech remains unloved by the more informed. The media may be providing the message – but is anyone heeding the call?”, Nature, 416, p. 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucchi, Massimiano and Neresini, Federico, 2004. “Why Are People Hostile to Biotechnologies?”, Science, 304, p. 1749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bucchi, Massimiano, Neresini, Federico and Pellegrini, Giuseppina, 2003. “Biotecnologie: democrazia e governo dell'innovazione. Terzo rapporto su biotecnologie e opinione pubblica” (Milano, Fondazione Giannino Bassetti ).Google Scholar
Buttel, Frederick H., 1998. “Assessing the Environmental Implications of Agricultural Biotechnologies: A Sociological Perspective”, pp. 47-58in Hardy, R. W. E. and Baker Segelken, J., eds, NABC Report 10. Agricultural Biotechnology and Environmental Quality: Gene Escape and Pest Resistance (Ithaca-New York, National Agricultural Biotechnology Council).Google Scholar
Cook, Guy, Robbins, Peter T. and Pieri, Elisa, 2006. “‘Words of mass destruction’: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions”, Public Understanding of Science, 15, pp. 5-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooley, D. R., 2002. “So Who's Afraid of Frankenstein Food?”, Journal of Social Philosophy, 33 (3), pp. 442-463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embretson, Susan E., and Reise, Steven P., 2000. Item Response Theory for Psychologists (New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers).Google Scholar
Foster, Kenneth R., Vecchia, Paolo and Repacholi, Michael H., 2000. “Science and the precautionary principle”, Science, 288, pp. 979-981.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frewer, Lynn J., Scholderer, Joachim and Brendahl, Lone, 2003. “Communicating about Risk and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust”, Risk Analysis, 23 (6), pp. 1117-1133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frewer, Lynn J., Kettlitz, Beate, Scholderer, Joachim, Beekman, V., and Berdal, K. G. 2004. “Societal aspects of genetically modified foods”, Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42, pp. 1181-1193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaskell, George, Allum, Nick, Bauer, Martin, Durant, John, Allansdottir, Agnes, Bonfadelli, Heinz, Boy, Daniel, Cheveigné, Suzanne de, Fjaestad, Björn, Gutteling, Jan M., Hampel, Juergen, Jelsøe, Erling, Correia Jesuino, Jorge, Kohring, Matthias, Kronberger, Nicole, Midden, Cees, Hviid Nielsen, Torben, Przestalski, Andrzej, Rusanen, Timo, Sakellaris, George, Torgersen, Helge, Twardowski, Tomasz and Wagner, Wolfgang, 2000. “Biotechnology and the European public”, Nature Biotechnology, 18, pp. 935-938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaskell, George, Thompson, Paul and Allum, Nick, 2002. “Worlds apart? Public opinion in Europe and the USA”, in Bauer, M. W. and Gaskell, G., eds, Biotechnology. The Making of a Global Controversy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 351-378).Google Scholar
Gaskell, George, Allum, Nick and Stares, Sally, 2003. “Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002. Eurobarometer 58.0. A Report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project”, Life Sciences in European Society, QLG7-CT-1999-0286.Google Scholar
Gaskell, George, Allum, Nick, Wagner, Wolfgang, Kronberger, Nicole, Torgersen, Helge, Hampel, Juergen and Bardes, Julie, 2004. “GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception”, Risk Analysis, 24 (1), pp. 185-194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giampaglia, Giuseppe, 1990. Lo scaling unidimensionale nella ricerca sociale (Napoli, Liguori).Google Scholar
Grunert, Klaus G., Lähteenmäki, Liisa, Nielsen, Niels A., Poulsen, Jacob B., Ueland, Oydis and Åström, Annika, 2001. “Consumer perceptions of food products involving genetic modifications: results from a qualitative study in four Nordic countries”, Food Quality and Preference, 12, pp. 527-542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grunert, Klaus G., Bredahl, Lone and Scholderer, Joachin, 2003. “Four questions on European consumers’ attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production”, Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 4, pp. 435-445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutteling, Jan M., 2005. “Mazur's hypothesis on technology controversy and media”, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17 (1), pp. 23-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutteling, Jan M., Olofsson, Anna, Fjæstad, Björn, Kohring, Matthias, Goerke, Alexander, Bauer, Martin W., and Rusanen, Timo, 2002. “Media coverage 1973-1996: Trends and dynamics”, in Bauer, M. W. and Gaskell, G., eds, Biotechnology. The Making of a Global Controversy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 95-128).Google Scholar
Guttman, Louis, 1950. “The Utility of Scalogram Analysis”, in Stouffer, Samuel A., Guttman, Louis, Suchman, Edward A., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Star, Shirley A., Clausen, John A., eds, Measurement and Prediction. Volume IV of Studies in social psychology in World War II (New York, Wiley, pp. 60-90).Google Scholar
Hoban, Thomas J., 1998. “International Acceptance of Agricultural Biotechnology”, in Hardy, Ralph W. E. and Segelken, Jane Baker, eds, NABC Report 10. Agricultural Biotechnology and Environmental Quality: Gene Escape and Pest Resistance (Ithaca-New York, National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, pp. 59-74).Google Scholar
Hoban, Thomas J., 2003. “Public Concerns About Biotechnology”, in Serageldin, Ismail and Persley, Gabrielle J., eds, Biotechnology and Sustainable Development: Voices of the South and North (Wallingford-Oxfordshire, Cabi International, pp. 279-288).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
INRA, 1991,“Opinions of Europeans on Biotechnology in 1991, Eurobarometer 35.1”.Google Scholar
INRA, 1993. “Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering: What Europeans Think about it in 1993, Eurobarometer 39.1”.Google Scholar
INRA, 1996. “Les Européens et la Biotechnologie Moderne, Eurobarometer 46.1”.Google Scholar
INRA, 2000. “The Europeans and Biotechnology, Eurobarometer 52.1”.Google Scholar
INRA, 2002. “Europeans and Biotechnologyin 2002. Eurobarometer 58.0”.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, Karl and Sörbom, Dag, 1993. Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modelling with the Simplis Command Language (Chicago, SSI International).Google Scholar
Loner, Enzo, 2006. “Il dibattito sulle innovazioni tecnologiche nell'opinione pubblica europea: il caso delle biotecnologie”, Quaderni di Sociologia, 41, pp. 11-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loop, Carl B. 1998. “Biotechnology: Is It Defendable?”, in Hardy, Ralph W. E. and Baker Segelken, Jane, eds, NABC Report 10. Agricultural Biotechnology and Environmental Quality: Gene Escape and Pest Resistance (Ithaca-New York, National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, pp. 41-46).Google Scholar
Lujàn, José L., and Todt, Oliver, 2000. “Perceptions, attitudes and ethical valutations: the ambivalence of the public images of biotechnology in Spain”, Public Understanding of Science, 9, pp. 383-392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazur, Alan, 1975. “Opposition to technical innovation”, Minerva, 15, pp. 58-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazur, Alan. 1981. “Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies”, Journal of Communication 31 (2), pp. 106-115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Midden, Cees J. H., Boy, Daniel, Eisiendel, Edna, Fjæsrad, Björn, Liakopoulos, Miltos, Miller, Jon D., Öhman, Susanna and Wagner, Wolfgang, 2002. “The structure of public perceptions”, in Bauer, M. W. and Gaskell, G., eds, Biotechnology. The Making of a Global Controversy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 203-223).Google Scholar
Mini, Silvio, 2005. “Genetics and biotechnologies in Italian mass media”, Journal of Science Communication, 4 (3), pp. 1-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mokken, Robert J., 1971. A Theory and Procedure of Scale Analysis (Paris, The Hague, Mouton).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molenaar, Ivo, Van Schuur, Wijbrandt H., Sijtsma, Klaas and Mokken, Robert J., 2000. MSP5 For Windows (Groningen, ProGamma).Google Scholar
Moscovici, Serge, Mucchi-Faina, Angelica and Maass, Anne. 1994. Minority influence (Chicago, Nelson Hall).Google Scholar
Neresini, Federico, 2005. “Scienza, media e opinione pubblica”, Sapere, 12, pp. 6-12.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Torben Hviid, Jelsøe, Erling, and Öhman, Susanna, 2002. “Traditional blue and modern green resistance” in . Bauer, M. W and Gaskell, G., eds, Biotechnology. The Making of a Global Controversy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 179-202).Google Scholar
Pellizzoni, Luigi, 2006. “Decidiamo assieme! Conflitti tecnologici e deliberazione pubblica”, Quaderni di Sociologia, 41, pp. 91-114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poortinga, Wouter and Pidgeon, Nick F., 2005. “Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?”, Risk Analysis, 25 (1), pp. 199-209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roller, Sibel, 2001. “Genetically Modified Foods: Threat or Opportunity?”, Food Technology Biotechnology, 39 (4), pp. 259-263.Google Scholar
Saher, Marieke, Lindeman, Marjaana, and Kovisto Hursti, Ulla-Kaisa, 2006. “Attitudes towards genetically modified and organic foods”, Appetite, 46, pp. 324-331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scholderer, Joachim, 2005. “The GM foods debate in Europe: history, regulatory solutions, and consumer response research”, Journal of Public Affairs, 5, pp. 263-274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sijtsma, Klaas and Molenaar, Ivo W., 2002. Introduction to Nonparametric Item Response Theory (Thousand Oaks California, Sage Publications).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tait, Joyce, 2001. “More Faust than Frankenstein: the European debate about the precautionary principle and risk regulation for genetically modified crops”, Journal of Risk Research, 4 (2), pp. 175-189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toke, Dave, 2002. “Ecological Modernisation and GM Food”, Environmental Politics 11 (3), pp. 145-163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torgersen, Helge, Hampel, Jürgen, von Bergmann-Winberg, Marie-Louise, Bridgman, Eleanor, Durant, John, Eisiedel, Edna, Fjæstad, Björn, Gaskell, George, Grabner, Petra, Hieber, Petra, Jelsøe, Erling, Lassen, Jesper, Marouda-Chatjoulis, Athena, Nielsen, Torben Hviid, Rusanen, Timo, Sakellaris, George, Seifert, Franz, Smink, Carla, Twardowski, Tomasz and Wambu Kamara, Merci, 2002. “Promise, problems and proxies: twenty-five years of debate and regulation in Europe”, in Bauer, M. W. and Gaskell, G., eds, Biotechnology. The Making of a Global Controversy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 21-94).Google Scholar
Van Schuur, Wijbrandt H., 2003. “Mokken Scale Analysis: Between the Guttman Scale and Parametric Item Response Theory”, Political Analysis, 11, pp. 139-163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, Wim, Frewer, Lynn J., Scholderer, Joachim, De Brabander, Hubert F., 2007. “Why consumers behave as they do with respect to food safety and risk information”, Analitica Chimica Acta, 586, pp. 2-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed