This research examined public opinion toward genetically modified plants and animals for food, and how trust in organizations and media coverage explained attitudes toward these organisms. Nationally representative samples (N = 8821) over 10 years showed Australians were less positive toward genetically modified animals compared to genetically modified plants for food, especially in years where media coverage was high. Structural equation modeling found that positive attitudes toward different genetically modified organisms for food were significantly associated with higher trust in scientists and regulators (e.g. governments), and with lower trust in watchdogs (e.g. environmental movement). Public trust in scientists and watchdogs was a stronger predictor of attitudes toward the use of genetically modified plants for food than animals, but only when media coverage was low. Results are discussed regarding the moral acceptability of genetically modified organisms for food, the media’s role in shaping public opinion, and the role public trust in organizations has on attitudes toward genetically modified organisms.
AerniP (2005) Stakeholder attitudes towards the risks and benefits of genetically modified crops in South Africa. Environmental Science & Policy8(5): 464–476.
2.
American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) (2004) Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, 3rd edn.Lenexa, KS: AAPOR.
3.
AndersonKJacksonLA (2003) Why are US and EU policies toward GMOs so different?AgBioForum6(3): 95–100.
4.
AugoustinosMCrabbSShepherdR (2009) Genetically modified food in the news: Media representations of the GM debate in the UK. Public Understanding of Science19: 98–114.
5.
Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (2012) Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991, no. 118, F2012C00771 Standard.
6.
Gene Technology Act (2000) 169 Stat., 26.
7.
BauerMWDurantJGaskellGMiddenCJH (1997) Europe ambivalent on biotechnology. Nature387(26): 845–847.
8.
BreuschJ (2005) Vic canola in GM contamination scare. The Australian Financial Review, 22July, p.26.
9.
ConnorMSiegristM (2010) Factors influencing people’s acceptance of gene technology: The role of knowledge, health expectations, naturalness, and social trust. Science Communication32(4): 514–538.
10.
CormickC (2007) Public attitudes towards GM crops and food. Agricultural Science21(2): 24–30.
11.
CritchleyCR (2008) Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science17: 309–327.
12.
DietrichHSchibeciR (2003) Beyond public perceptions of gene technology: Community participation in public policy in Australia. Public Understanding of Science12(4): 381–401.
13.
EaglyAHChaikenS (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
14.
EinsiedelEFJelsoeEBreckT (2001) Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science10(1): 83–98.
15.
European Food Safety Authority (2012) Final review of the Séralini et al. (2012a) publication on a 2-year rodent feeding study with glyphosate formulations and GM maize NK603 as published online on 19 September 2012 in Food and Chemical Toxicology. EFSA Journal10(11): 2986–2995.
16.
EvensenCHobanTWoodrumE (2000) Technology and morality: Influences on public attitudes toward biotechnology. Knowledge, Technology & Policy13(1): 43–57.
17.
FinucaneMLHolupJL (2005) Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified food: An overview of the literature. Social Science & Medicine60(7): 1603–1612.
18.
FlipseSMOsseweijerP (2013) Media attention to GM food cases: An innovation perspective. Public Understanding of Science22(2): 185–202.
19.
FrewerLJMilesS (2003) Temporal stability of the psychological determinants of trust: Implications for communication about food risks. Health Risk & Society5(3): 259–271.
20.
FrewerLJShepherdR (1995) Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology. Agriculture and Human Values12(1): 48–57.
21.
FrewerLJHedderleyDHowardCShepherdR (1997) ‘Objection’ mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering. Agriculture and Human Values14(1): 67–79.
22.
FrewerLJHowardCShepherdR (1997) Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethics. Science Technology & Human Values22(1): 98–124.
23.
FrewerLJHowardCHedderleyDShepherdR (1996) What determines trust in information about food related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis16(4): 473–486.
24.
FrewerLJHowardCHedderleyDShepherdR (1999) Reactions to information about genetic engineering: Impact of source characteristics, perceived personal relevance, and persuasiveness. Public Understanding of Science8(1): 35–50.
25.
FrewerLJLassenJKettlitzBScholdererJBeekmanVBerdalKG (2004) Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology42(7): 1181–1193.
26.
FrewerLJMilesSMarshR (2002) The media and genetically modified foods: Evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Analysis22(4): 701–711.
27.
GaskellGAllumNBauerMDurantJAllansdottirABonfadelliH. (2000) Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology18(9): 935–938.
28.
GaskellGAllumNWagnerWKronbergerNTorgersenHHampelJ. (2004) GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis24(1): 185–194.
29.
GaskellGBauerMWDurantJAllumNC (1999) Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US. Science285(5426): 384–387.
30.
GodfrayHCJBeddingtonJRCruteIRHaddadLLawrenceDMuirJF. (2010) Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science327(5967): 812–818.
31.
GuttelingJHanssenLvan der VeerNSeydelE (2006) Trust in governance and the acceptance of genetically modified food in the Netherlands. Public Understanding of Science15(1): 103–112.
32.
HossainFOnyangoB (2004) Product attributes and consumer acceptance of nutritionally enhanced genetically modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies28(3): 255–267.
33.
HuangJPrayCRozelleS (2002) Enhancing the crops to feed the poor. Nature418(6898): 678–684.
JayaramanKJiaH (2012) GM phobia spreads in South Asia. Nature Biotechnology30(11): 1017–1019.
36.
KelleyJ (1995) Public perceptions of genetic engineering: Australia, 1994. Final Report to the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. May. Canberra, ACT, Australia: International Social Science Survey, Australia.
37.
KnightAJ (2007) Intervening effects of knowledge, morality, trust, and benefits on support for animal and plant biotechnology applications. Risk Analysis27(6): 1553–1563.
38.
KnightAJ (2009) Perceptions, knowledge and ethical concerns with GM foods and the GM process. Public Understanding of Science18(2): 177–188.
39.
LangJTHallmanWK (2005) Who does the public trust? The case of genetically modified food in the United States. Risk Analysis25(5): 1241–1252.
40.
LapanHEMoschiniGC (2004) Innovation and trade with endogenous market failure: The case of genetically modified products. American Journal of Agricultural Economics86(3): 634–648.
LobbAEMazzocchiMTraillWB (2007) Modelling risk perception and trust in food safety information within the theory of planned behaviour. Food Quality and Preference18(2): 384–395.
43.
LockieSLawrenceGLyonsKGriceJ (2005) Factors underlying support or opposition to biotechnology among Australian food consumers and implications for retailer-led food regulation. Food Policy30(4): 399–418.
44.
MacerDNgMAC (2000) Changing attitudes to biotechnology in Japan. Nature Biotechnology18(9): 945–947.
45.
MewettOEmslieKRJohnsonHLizzioJDibleyKLMurbyEJ. (2008) Maintaining Product Integrity in the Australian Seed and Grain Supply Chain—The Role of Sampling and Testing for GM Events. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences.
46.
Milward Brown (2001) Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey: Final Report. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Biotechnology Australia.
47.
Milward Brown (2003) Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Biotechnology Australia.
48.
MohrPHarrisonAWilsonCBaghurstKISyretteJ (2007) Attitudes, values, and socio-demographic characteristics that predict acceptance of genetic engineering and applications of new technology in Australia. Biotechnology Journal2(9): 1169–1178.
NortonJLawrenceGWoodG (1998) The Australian public’s perception of genetically-engineered foods. Australasian Biotechnology8: 172–181.
52.
PardoREngelhardMHagenKJørgensenRRehbinderESchniekeA. (2009) The role of means and goals in technology acceptance. EMBO Reports10(10): 1069–1075.
53.
PriestSHBonfadelliHRusanenM (2003) The “trust gap” hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis23(4): 751–766.
54.
SchmidtCW (2008) The yuck factor when disgust meets discovery. Environmental Health Perspectives116(12): A524–A527.
55.
SiegristM (1999) A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology29(10): 2093–2106.
56.
SiegristM (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis20(2): 195–204.
57.
SinemusKEgelhoferM (2007) Transparent communication strategy on GMOs: Will it change public opinion?Biotechnology Journal2(9): 1141–1146.
ThompsonPB (2007) Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.
60.
TownsendE (2006) Affective influences on risk perceptions of, and attitudes toward, genetically modified food. Journal of Risk Research9(2): 125–139.
61.
TownsendECampbellS (2004) Psychological determinants of willingness to taste and purchase genetically modified food. Risk Analysis24(5): 1385–1393.
62.
WallsJRogers-HaydenTMohrAO’RiordanT (2005) Seeking citizens’ views on GM crops: Experiences from the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Environment47(7): 22–36.
WolfenbargerLLPhiferPR (2000) The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science290(5499): 2088–2093.
65.
Yann Campbell Hoare Wheeler (YCHW) (1999) Public Attitudes towards Biotechnology. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Biotechnology Australia
66.
YuanKHBentlerPM (2000) Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Methodology30(1): 165–200.
