American consumers remain uninformed about genetically engineered (GE) foods, raising the prospect of their rejection based on outrage rather than risk. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering introduction of GE salmon into the food supply, an animal application likely to raise consumer concerns. As the first step in designing balanced information to help consumers reach informed opinions about GE salmon, we held eleven focus group discussions to compare the effect of limited (six groups) and detailed (five groups) information on the participants’ formulated consequences of this GE application. The results suggested that an effective communication piece about a specific GE application should contain basic and specific, including process- and product-related, information to help the recipient formulate consequences, and hence, opinions. It should also incorporate multiple viewpoints on certain and uncertain consequences to increase perceptions of source trustworthiness and help consumers reach informed opinions.
Baeckstroem, A., A.-M. Pirttila-Backman, and H. Tuorila. 2003. Dimensions of novelty: A social representation approach to new foods. Appetite40: 299-307.
2.
Bredahl, L.1999. Consumers’ cognitions with regard to genetically modified foods—results of a qualitative study in four countries. Appetite33: 343-360.
3.
Bredahl, L., K. Grunert, and L. J. Frewer. 1998. Consumer attitudes and decision-making with regard to genetically engineered food products—A review of the literature and a presentation of models for future research. Journal of Consumer Policy21: 251-277.
4.
Brown, J. L., and Y. C. Ping. 2001. Comparison of consumer reaction to information about two genetically engineered soybeans that differ in consumer benefit. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing13 (1): 7-25.
5.
Council, N. R.1989. Improving risk communication. Committee on Risk Perception and Communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6.
Fife-Schaw, C., and G. Rowe. 1996. Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: A psycho-metric study. Risk Analysis16 (4): 478-500.
7.
Fischhoff, B.1995. Risk perception and communication unplugged—20 years of process. Risk Analysis15 (2): 137-145.
8.
Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, and B. Combs. 1978. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Study9: 127-152.
9.
Frewer, L. J., D. Hedderley, C. Howard, and R. Shepherd. 1997. “Objection” mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering. Agriculture and Human Values14: 67-79.
10.
Frewer, L., C. Howard, and R. Shepherd. 1995. The influence of realistic product exposure on attitudes towards genetic engineering of food. Food Quality and Preference7 (1): 61-67.
11.
Frewer, L., C. Howard, and R. Shepherd. 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.
12.
Frewer, L., C. Howard, and R. Shepherd. 1998. The influence of initial attitudes on response to communication about genetic engineering in food production. Agriculture and Human Values15: 15-30.
13.
Frewer, L., and R. Shepherd. 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: 48-57.
14.
Frewer, L. J., R. Shepherd, and P. Sparks. 1994. The interrelationship between perceived knowledge, control and risk associated with a range of food-related hazards targeted at the individual, other people and society. Journal of Food Safety14 (1): 19-40.
15.
Griffin, R. J., S. Dunwoody, and K. Neuwirth. 1999. Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental Research80 (2): S230-S245.
16.
Grobe, D., R. Douthitt, and L. Zepeda. 1999. A model of consumers’ risk perceptions toward recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH): The impact of risk characteristics. Risk Analysis19 (4): 661-673.
17.
Grunert, K. G., L. Bredahl, and J. Scholderer. 2003. Four questions on European consumers’ attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies4: 435-445.
18.
Grunert, K. G., L. Lahteenmaki, N. A. Nielsen, J. B. Poulsen, O. Ueland, and A. Astrom. 2001. Consumer perceptions of food products involving genetic modification—Results from a qualitative study in four Nordic countries. Food Quality and Preference12 (8): 527-542.
19.
Hallman, W. K.1996. Public perceptions of biotechnology: Another look. Bio-Technology14 (1): 35-38.
20.
Hallman, W. K., A. O. Adelaja, B. J. Schilling, and J. T. Lang. 2002. Public perceptions of genetically modified foods—Americans know not what they eat. New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers University.
21.
Hallman, W. K., W. C. Hebden, H. L. Aquino, C. L. Cuite, and J. T. Lang. 2003. Public perceptions of genetically modified foods—National study of American knowledge and opinion. New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers University.
22.
Hallman, W. K., and J. Metcalfe. 1994. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology: A survey of New Jersey residents. New Brunswick, NJ: New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
23.
Hamstra, A. M., and C. Smink. 1996. Consumers and biotechnology in the Netherlands. British Food Journal98 (Supp. 4): 34-38.
24.
Hansen, J., L. Holm, L. Frewer, P. Robinson, and P. Sandoe. 2003. Beyond the knowledge deficit: Recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite41: 111-121.
25.
Heffernan, J. W., and V. N. Hillers. 2002. Attitudes of consumers living in Washington regarding food biotechnology. Journal of the American Dietetic Association102 (1): 85-88.
26.
Hocking, J. E., D. W. Stacks, and S. T. McDermott. 1999. Communication research. 3d ed.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
27.
Hursti, U-K. K., and M. K. Magnusson. 2003. Consumer perceptions of genetically modified and organic foods. What kind of knowledge matters?Appetite41: 207-209.
28.
International Food Information Council (IFIC). 1997. U.S. consumer attitudes toward food biotechnology I. International Food Information Council Foundation. Accessed 8 January 2005 from http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Wirthlin-IFIC-Survey.htm.
29.
International Food Information Council (IFIC). 1999a. U.S. consumer attitudes toward food biotechnology II. International Food Information Council Foundation. Accessed 8 January 2005 from http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Wirthlin-IFIC-Survey.htm.
30.
International Food Information Council (IFIC). 1999b. U.S. consumer attitudes toward food biotechnology III—Americans remain positive on food biotechnology. International Food Information Council Foundation. Accessed 8 January 2005 from http://www.ific.org/.
31.
International Food Information Council (IFIC). 2000. U.S. consumer attitudes toward food biotechnology IV. International Food Information Council Foundation. Accessed 8 January 2005 from http://www.ific.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=18001.
32.
International Food Information Council (IFIC). 2001. U.S. consumer attitudes toward food biotechnology V. International Food Information Council Foundation. Accessed 8 January 2005 from http://www.ific.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=19241.
33.
Johnson, B. B., and P. Slovic. 1995. Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Analysis15 (4): 485-494.
34.
Johnson, B. B., and P. Slovic. 1998. Lay views on uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment. Journal of Risk Research1 (4): 261-279.
35.
Johnson, E. J., and A. Tversky. 1983. Affect, generalization and the perception of risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology45: 20-31.
36.
Kuznesof, S., and C. Ritson. 1996. Consumer acceptability of genetically modified foods with special reference to farmed salmon. British Food Journal4, 5-5: 39-47.
37.
Levy, A. S., and B. M. Derby. 2000. Report on consumer focus groups on biotechnology. Food and Drug Administration. Accessed 8 March 2002 from http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/-comm/biorpt.htm.
38.
Magnusson, M. K., and U-K. K. Hursti. 2002. Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Appetite39: 9-24.
39.
Miles, S., and L. Frewer. 2003. Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards. Journal of Risk Research6 (3): 267-283.
40.
Moore, S. K., and M. A. Mattaini. 2001. Consequence analysis: An on-line replication. Behavior and Social Issues11: 71-79.
41.
National Science Board. 2000. Science and engineering indicators—2000. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
42.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1987. New developments in biotechnology—Background paper: Public perceptions of biotechnology. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.
43.
Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1984. Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research11: 668-672.
44.
Pew. 2002. Consumers evenly divided over environmental risks and benefits of genetically modified food and biotechnology. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Accessed 5 March 2002 from http://pewagbiotech.org/polls/.
45.
Priest, S. H.2001. Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication23 (2): 97-110.
46.
Saad, L.2001. Biotech food remains fairly obscure to most Americans. The Gallup Poll Monthly, August, 38-41.
47.
Sanford, F. L., and S. B. Fawcett. 1980. Consequence analysis: Its effects on verbal statements about an environmental project. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis13: 57-64.
48.
Scholderer, J., and L. Frewer. 2003. The biotechnology communication paradox: Experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. Journal of Consumer Policy26: 125-157.
49.
Shanahan, J., D. A. Scheufele, and E. Lee. 2001. The polls-trends: Attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Public Opinion Quarterly65: 267-281.
50.
Slovic, P.1987. Perception of risk. Science236: 280-285.
51.
Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1980. Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In Societal risk assessment: How safe is safe enough?, edited by R. C. Schwing and W. A. Albers, 137-144. New York: Plenum.
52.
Tuorila, H., H. L. Meiselman, R. Bell, A. V. Cardello, and W. Johnson. 1994. Role of sensory and cognitive information in the enhancement of certainty and liking for novel and familiar foods. Appetite23 (3): 231-246.
53.
Verdurme, A., and J. Viaene. 2003. Consumer beliefs and attitude towards genetically modified food: Basis for segmentation and implications for communication. Agribusiness19 (1): 91-113.
54.
Zimmerman, L., P. Kendall, M. Stone, and T. Hoban. 1994. Consumer knowledge and concern about biotechnology and food safety. Food Technology48 (11): 71-77.
