Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 541–558

Understanding the Scope of Farmer Perceptions of Risk: Considering Farmer Opinions on the Use of Genetically Modified (GM) Crops as a Stakeholder Voice in Policy

Article

Abstract

In the beginning, policy debates between critics and advocates of genetically modified (GM) crops focused on scientifically determined risks. Ten years later, the argument between environmentalists or consumers and regulators or industry has changed into a discussion about the implementation of more democratic policymaking about GM farming. A notable omission from the political debate about food biotechnology in the United States, however, is the opinion of farmers who cultivate the GM crops. Policymakers should value practical knowledge based on experiences from farmers, not only scientific industry reports or consumer product opinions. This project uses in-depth interviews to create an original mail survey that uses the practical discourse of farmers in order to explore the relationship of farmer attitudes and GM agriculture. Although national research indicates that larger yields are the most common reason for GM adoption, qualitative information suggest that the potential of GM crops to increase revenue per acre does not truly reflect all the concerns of modern farmers. For example, farmers who use GM seeds indicate that they constantly question the social impacts of their agricultural practices. As such, GM policies should be restructured as a political rationalization of both economic modeling and political theory because this research suggests that farmers’ business decisions are utility calucations that consider economics without ignoring environmental and political contexts. Farmers’ concerns about non-economic risks suggest that they need more information about GM crops and that governmental policies should respond to their interests, as they are more democratic or pluralistic than industry or consumer arguments.

Keywords

Genetically modified crops Environmental policies Risk analysis Food biotechnology Qualitative research Modern farming 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adesina, A., & Zinnah, M. (1993). Technology characteristics, farmers’ perceptions and adoption decisions: a Tobit model application in Sierra Leone. Agricultural Economics, 9, 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, C., & Guillory, C. A. (1997). Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: a cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. The American Political Science Review, 91(1), 66–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armour, A. (1997). Rethinking the role of risk assessment in environmental policymaking. In R. Bartlett & L. Caldwell (Eds.), Environmental policy: Transnational issues and national trends. Westport: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  4. Artuso, A. (2003). Risk perceptions, endogenous demand and regulation of agricultural biotechnology. Food Policy, 28(1), 131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barboza, D. (1999, November 19). Two sides square off on genetically altered food. New York Times.Google Scholar
  6. Bauer, M. W. (2005). Public perception and mass media in the biotechnology controversy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohman, J. (1996). Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity and democracy. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Burros, M. (1999, September 8). Eating well: different genes, same old label. New York Times.Google Scholar
  9. Canola Council of Canada. (2001). An agronomic and economic assessment of transgenic canola. Retrieved 2004, from http://www.canolacouncil.org/production/gmo_toc.html.
  10. Cavanaugh-Grant, D. (1990). A study of illinois farmers’ attitudes and current farming practices. Springfield, Illinois: Illinois Department of Energy and Natural ResourcesOffice of Research and Planning.Google Scholar
  11. Charles, D. (2001). Lords of the harvest: Biotech, big money, and the future of food. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. de Greef, K., Stafleu F., & de Lauwere, C. (2006). A simple value-distinction approach aids transparency in farm animal debate. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 57–66.Google Scholar
  13. Dryzek, J. (1996). Political inclusion and the dynamics of democratization. The American Political Science Review, 90(3), 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dryzek, J. (1997). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Duram, L., & Larson, K. (2001). Agricultural research and alternative farmers’ information needs. Professional Geographer, 53(1), 84–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellis, R., & Thompson, F. (1997). Culture and the environment in the Pacific Northwest. The American Political Science Review, 91(4), 885–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ERS, Economic Research Service. (2004). Agricultural biotechnology: Adoption of biotechnology and its production impacts. Retrieved 2004, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/biotechnology/chapter1.htm.
  18. Etzioni, A. (1987). How rational are we? Sociological Forum, 2(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feder, G., & Umali, D. (1993). The adoption of agricultural innovations: A review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 43, 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Daberkow, S., & McBride, W. D. (2001). Decomposing the size effect on the adoption of innovations: Agrobiotechnology and precision agriculture. AgBioForum, 4(2), 124–136.Google Scholar
  21. Fishburn, P. (1990). Utility theory and decision theory. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, & P. Newman (Eds.), Utility and probability. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  22. Gillroy, J. M. (1993). Integrity, value and analysis of risk. In J. M. Gilroy (Ed.), Environmental risk, environmental values and political choices. Boulder: Westview Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  23. Guehlstorf, N. (2004). Political theories of risk analysis. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Guehlstorf, N. P., & Hallstrom, L. K. (2005). The role of culture in risk regulations: A comparative study of genetically modified corn in the United States of America and European Union. Environmental Science and Policy, 8, 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoban, T. (1999). Public perceptions and understanding of agricultural biotechnology. Economic Perspectives, 4(4), 1–6.Google Scholar
  26. Holechek, L. J., Cole, R. A., Fisher, J. T., & Valdez, R. (2003). Natural resource: Ecology, economics, and policy (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  27. ISAAA, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. (2006). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2006 executive summary. Retrieved 2007, from http://www.isaa.org/Resources/Publications/briefs/35/executivessummary/default.html.
  28. Janick, J., Altieri, M. A., & Colwell, R. N. (2001). Agriculture, in AccessScience@McGraw-Hill. Retrieved 2005, from http://www.accessscience.com.
  29. Kendall, P. (2000, January 24). Frito-lay Co. tells Illinois farmers not to plant GE corn. Chicago Tribune.Google Scholar
  30. Keulartz, J., Korthals M., Schermer, M., & Swierstra T. (Eds.). (2002). Pragmatist ethics for a technological culture. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Kraft, M. (2007). Environmental politics and policy (4th ed.). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  32. Kraft, M., & Vig, N. (Eds.). (2006). Environmental policy: New directions for the twenty-first century (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lighthall, D. (1995). Farm structure and chemical use in the corn belt. Rural Sociology, 60(3), 505–520.Google Scholar
  34. Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Makowski, T. J., Sofranko, A. J., & Van Es, J. C. (1990). Agroecological and policy influences on no-till adoption. Society and Natural Resources, 3(2), 361–370.Google Scholar
  36. McCool, J. (Ed.). (1995). Public policy theories, models and concepts. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  37. McGuire, D. (2002, September 14). ACGA farmer choice: Customer first program. The Economist.Google Scholar
  38. Myhr, A. I., & Traavik, T. (2003). Genetically modified (GM) crops: Precautionary science and conflicts of interest. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16, 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paehlke, R. (1990). Democracy and environmentalism: Opening the door to the administrative state. In R. Paehlke & D. Torgerson (Eds.), Managing the leviathan: Environmental politics and the administrative state. New York: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
  40. Reuters (2002, November 26). Illinois farmers bio-corn growth could threaten EU sales. Reuters News Service.Google Scholar
  41. Sall, S., Norman, D., & Featherstone, A. M. (2000). Quantitative assessment of improved rice variety adoption: the farmer’s perspective. Agricultural Systems, 66, 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1991). Risk and rationality: philosophical foundations for populist reforms. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sinukaban, N. (2001). Impact of upland agriculture and conservation project (UACP) on sustainable agriculture development in Serang Watershed, Indonesia. In D. E. Stott, R. H. Mohtar, & G. C. Steinhardt (Eds.), Sustaining the Global Farm. Selected papers from the 10th International Soil Conservation Organization Meeting held May 24–29, 1999 at Purdue University and the USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
  44. Slovic, P. (1992). Perceptions of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  45. Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19(4), 689–701.Google Scholar
  46. Stone, D. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  47. Thompson, M. (1997). Security and solidarity: An anti-reductionist framework for thinking about the relationship between us and the rest of nature. The Geographical Journal, 163(2), 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thompson, P. (1998). Food biotechnology in ethical perspective. New York: Blackie Academic & Professional.Google Scholar
  49. University of Florida. (2004). Biotechnology in the United States. IFAS Extension, Retrieved 2004, from http://agbiotech.ifas.ufl.edu/usa.html.
  50. U.S. Biotechnology Regulatory Agencies. (2004). US database of completed regulatory agency reviews USDA, EPA, FDA. Retrieved 2004, from http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov.
  51. Van Tassel, L. W., Ferrell, M. A., Yang, B., Legg, D. E., & Lloyd, J. E. (1999). Pesticide practices and perceptions of Wyoming farmers and ranchers. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 54(1), 410–414.Google Scholar
  52. Weaver, R. (1996). Prosocial behavior: Private contributions to agriculture’s impact on the environment. Land Economics, 72(2), 231–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wilson, D., Urban, M., Graves, M., & Morrison, D. (2003). Beyond the economic: Farmer practices and indenties in Central Illinois, USA. The Great Lakes Geographer, 10(1), 22–33.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Political Science Department and Environmental Sciences ProgramSouthern Illinois University EdwardsvilleEdwardsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations