Summary
This paper considers public attitudes toward genetically modified plants in the fields or those soon to be planted. Analyzing a regional public opinion survey of 680 respondents in Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Oklahoma carried out in the Spring—Summer of 2004, we look at the importance of public attitudes toward the three generations of agricultural biotechnology in light of the changing regulatory environment. Specifically, we ask questions concerning the first generation of plants with agronomic qualities, comparing our findings with previous studies, then look at perceptions of the second generation of crops with product quality characteristics, and the third generation, which expresses industrial products and pharmaceutical drugs. We look at perceived benefits, the likelihood, that these plants might accidentally enter the food supply, the likelihood that these plants might be eaten by the respondent, as well as how worried and angry the respondent would be as a result. Findings suggest that the public is still largely unaware of food biotechnology and genetically modified food products in their life. When compared with the first and second generation agricultural biotechnology products, survey respondents indicated that third generation products are not only likely to provide greater benefits, but are also potentially the source of more worry and anger if accidentally eaten.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hallman, W. K.; Hebden, W. C.; Cuite, C. L.; Aquino, H. L.; Lang, J. T. Americans and genetically modified food: knowledge, opinion and interest in 2004 (Publication number RR-1104-007). New Brunswick, NJ, Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey; 2004.
Hoban, T. J. Societal perspectives on agricultural biotechnology. Presentation to USDA-Advisory Committee and 21st Century agriculture (AC21), June 2, 2004, http://www.usda.gov/agencies/biotech/ac21/meetings/mtg_june04/ac21_mtg_june04.html (accessed July 23, 2004).
Jaffe, G. Planting Trouble: are farmers squadering Bin. corn technology? An analysis of USDA data showing significant non-compliance with EPA's refuge requirements. Center for Science in the Public Interest (www.cspinet.org):2003.
Kishore, G. New value added products: what types of products are coming? Presentation to USDA-Advisory Committee and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21), September 15, 2003. htt://www.usda.gov/agencies/biotech/ac21/meetings/mtg_sept03/ac21_mtg_sept03.html (accessed July 23, 2004).
Lerner, J. S.; Conzalez, R. M.; Small, D. A.; Fischhoff, B. Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism. Psychol. Sci. 14(2):144–150; 2003.
Lin, W.: Price, G. K.; Allen, E. StarLink: impacts on the US corn market and world trade. Economic Research Service/USDA Feed Year-book/FDS-2-1/April 2001.
Losey, J. E.; Rayor, L. S.; Carter, M. E. Transgenic pollen harms monarch butterflies, Nature 399:214; 1999.
Nature. Don's rely on Uncle Sam. Nature 434: 807; 2005.
NRC (National Research Council) Environmental effects of transgenic plants: the scope and adequacy of regulation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2002:72–75.
NRC (National Research Council). Biological confinement of genetically engineered organisms. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2004:34–35.
PEW (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology). An update on public sentiment about agricultural biotechnology. Mellman Group, Inc./Public Opinion Strategies for the Pew Initiative. Washington, DC: Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology; 2003.
PEW (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology). Factsheet: genetically modified crops in the United States Washington, DC: Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology; 2004a. http://pewagbiotech.org/ resources/factsheets/display.php3?FactsheetID=2 (accessed September 7, 2004).
PEW (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology). Public sentiment about genetically modified food. Mellman Group, Inc./Public Opinion Strategies for the Pew Initiative. Washington, DC: Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 2004b. http://pewagbiotech.org/research/ 2004update/overview.pdf (accessed May 27, 2005).
Shanahan, J.; Scheufele, D.; Lee, E. The polls-trends: attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Public Opin. Quart. 65(2):267–281; 2001.
Stewart, P. A.; Harding, D.; Day, E. Regulating the new agricultural biotechnology by managing innovation diffusion. Am. Rev. Public Admin. 32(1):78–99; 2002.
Stewart, P. A.; Knight, A. J. Trends affecting the next generation of US agricultural biotechnology: politics, policy and plant-made pharmaceuticals. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 72(5):521–534; 2005.
Stewart, P. A.; McLean, W. P. Fear and hope over the third generation of agricultural biotechnology, AgBio Forum. J. Agrobiotechnol. Manag. Econ. 7(3): Article 5. http://www.agbioforum.org/v7n3/v7n3a05stewart.htm.; 2005
Taylor, M. R.; Tick, J. S.; Sherman, D. M. Tending the fields: state & federal roles in the oversight of genetically modified crops. Washington, DC: PEW Initiative on Food and Biotechnology; 2004.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stewart, P.A., McLean, W.P. Public opinion toward the first, second, and third generations of plant biotechnology. In Vitro Cell.Dev.Biol.-Plant 41, 718–724 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1079/IVP2005703
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/IVP2005703