This paper reports on one aspect of qualitative research on public understandings of food risks, focusing on lay understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in a UK context. A range of theoretical, conceptual, and empirical literature on food, risk, and the public understanding of science are reviewed. The fieldwork methods are outlined and empirical data from a range of lay groups are presented. Major themes include: varying “technical” knowledge of science, the relationship between knowledge and acceptance of genetic modification, the uncertainty of scientific knowledge, genetic modification as inappropriate scientific intervention in “nature,” the acceptability of animal and human applications of genetic modification, the appropriate boundaries of scientific innovation, the necessity for GM foods, the uncertainty of risks in GM food, fatalism about avoiding risks, and trust in “experts” to manage potential risks in GM food. Key discussion points relating to a sociological understanding of public attitudes to GM food are raised and some policy implications are highlighted.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
and A. Shaw, “Public understandings of food risks: what do the experts say?”Food Science and Technology Today, 14(4) (September 2000): 140-143.
2.
“We can't control mutant crops,”The Express (February 18, 1999): 1.
3.
“Prince warns of new tech crop dangers,”Daily Telegraph (June 8, 1998): 1-2.
4.
G. Tansey and T. Worsley, The Food System: A Guide (London: Earthscan, 1995).
5.
and S. Nottingham, Eat Your Genes: How Genetically Modified Food Is Entering Our Diet (London: Zed Books, 1998).
6.
The Food Standards Agency: A Force for Change (London: HMSO, 1998).
7.
White Paper on Food Safety (Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 2000).
8.
The Food Standards Agency.
9.
M. J. Smith , “From policy community to issue network: Salmonella in eggs and the new politics of food,”Public Administration69 (Summer 1991): 235-255.
10.
D. Lupton , Risk (London: Routledge, 1999).
11.
J. Durant , “Introduction,” in Biotechnology in Public: A Review of Recent Research, ed. J. Durant (London: Science Museum for the European Federation of Biotechnology, 1992).
12.
and L. Frewer, C. Howard, and R. Shepherd, “Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering,”Science, Technology and Human Values, 22 (1997): 98-124.
13.
and Eurobarometer, Eurobarometer 52.1: The Europeans and Biotechnology, report by INRA (Europe)-ECOSA, on behalf of European Commission, Directorate-General for Research, Directorate B—Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources Programme, managed and organised by Directorate-General for Education and Culture “Citizen” Centre” (Public Opinion Analysis Unit) (Brussels, 2000).
14.
Consumer Attitudes to Genetically Modified Foods: Results of Qualitative Research (Watford: Institute of Grocery Distribution, 1997).
15.
and J. Reilly and D. Miller, “Scaremonger or scapegoat: The role of the media in the emergence of food as a social issue,” in Food, Health and Identity, ed. P. Caplan (London: Routledge, 1997).
16.
S. Macintyre , J. Reilly, D. Miller, and J. Eldridge, “Food choice, food scares and health: The role of the media” in The Nation's Diet: The Social Science of Food Choice, ed. A. Murcott (London: Longman, 1998).
17.
R. Grove-White , P. MacNaghten, S. Mayer, and B. Wynne, Uncertain World: Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain (Lancaster: CSEC, 1997).
18.
and P. Sutton, “Genetics and the future of nature politics, Sociological Research Online, 4(3) (1999), available at www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/4/3/sutton.html.
19.
and A. Shaw, “Public understandings of food risks: What do the experts say?”Food Science and Technology Today, 14(4) (2000): 140-143.
20.
A. L. Strauss and J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, 2nd ed. (London: Sage, 1998).
21.
Grove-Whiteet al. , Uncertain World, 22
22.
23.
and Grove-Whiteet al., Uncertain World.
24.
and O'Riordanet al., “Images of science underlying public perceptions of risk” (cit. n. 15).
25.
L. Sjoberg , “Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust,”Risk Analysis, 21(1) (February 2001): 189-198.
26.
H. Otway , “Public Wisdom, Expert Fallability: Toward a Contextual Theory of Risk,” in Social Theories of Risk, eds. S. Krimsky and D. Golding (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1992).
27.
and B. Wynne, “May the sheep safely graze: A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide,” in Risk, Environment and Modernity, eds. S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne (London: Sage, 1996).
28.
A. Kerr , S. Cunningham-Burley, and A. Amos, “The new genetics and health: mobilising lay expertise,”Public Understanding of Science, 7(1) (1998): 41-60.
29.
and D. Lupton, “Risk as a moral danger: The social and political functions of risk discourse in public health,”International Journal of Health Services, 23 (1993): 425-435.
30.
Lupton , Risk (cit. n. 10).
31.
D. Nelkin , “Communicating technological risk: The social construction of risk perception,”Annual Review of Public Health, 10 (1989): 95-113.
32.
S. Macintyre , “The public understanding of science or the scientific understanding of the public? A review of the social context of the new genetics,”Public Understanding of Science, 4 (1995): 223-232.
33.
and Murcott, “Public beliefs about GM foods.”
34.
E. P. Fischer , “The public misunderstanding of science,”Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 21(2) (1996): 110-116.
35.
and J. R. Krebs, “Science, uncertainty and policy: Food for thought,”Toxicology Letters, 120 (2001): 89-95.
