Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 341–352 | Cite as

Contextualizing farmers’ attitudes towards genetically modified crops



Analyses of the role of technological development in agriculture are central to an understanding of social change in agri-food systems. The objective of this paper is to contribute to the formation of a broader perspective of how farmers are positioning themselves with respect to controversial agricultural technologies through an empirical analysis of Washington State farmers’ willingness or unwillingness to try Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) technology on their farms. The use of this type of biotechnology in farming has been criticized for its potential harmful effects on natural environments and socio-cultural systems, while proponents highlight the possibilities for increasing production with minimal use of other inputs. An analysis of the extent of farmers’ expressed willingness to use GMOs provides an opportunity to better understand how their diverse thoughts about controversial agricultural technologies are shaped not only by their own experiences but also by social context. The present study does this by analyzing data from a farm survey conducted on a random sample of farmers from across Washington State. The results show that the production practices farmers utilize and the market strategies they employ may be at least as useful as farmers’ socio-economic characteristics in explaining what types of farmers appear to be more or less interested in potentially using this technology. Furthermore, the relationship between level of formal education and willingness to use GMOs is not straightforward. It may hide differences between farmers with respect to where and how they received their formal education as well as the type(s) of knowledge they gained. It is argued that future research should recognize the diversity that exists in farmers’ interests vis-á-vis particular technologies and should also explore how these interests are shaped by farmers’ past and present social networks and life experiences.

Key words

Agricultural biotechnology Education Farmer attitudes GMOs Socio-cultural characteristics Technology adoption Washington State 



Genetically Modified Organisms


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abaidoo S., Dickinson H. (2002). Alternative and conventional agricultural paradigms: Evidence from farming in southwest Saskatchewan. Rural Sociology 67:114–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albrecht D. E. (1998). The industrialization of farm communities: implications for family structure and socioeconomic conditions. Rural Sociology 63(1): 51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albrecht D. E., Murdock S. H. (1990). The Sociology of U.S. Agriculture. Iowa State University Press, Ames IowaGoogle Scholar
  4. Barham B. L. (1996). Adoption of a politicized technology: bST and Wisconsin dairy farmers. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78:1056–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batie S. S., Ervin D. E. (2001). Transgenic crops and the environment: Missing markets and public roles. Environment and Development Economics 6(4): 435–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Busch L., Bonanno A., Lacy W. B. (1989). Science, technology, and the restructuring of agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 29(2): 118–130Google Scholar
  7. Busch L., Lacy W. B., Burkhardt J., Lacy L. R. (1991). Plants, Power and Profit. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  8. Busch L. (2000). The Eclipse of Morality. Aldine de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Buttel F. H., Larson O. F., Gillespie G. W. Jr. (1990). The Sociology of Agriculture. Greenwood Press, Westport ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
  10. Buttel F. H. (2000). The recombinant BGH controversy in the United States: Toward a new consumption politics of food?. Agriculture and Human Values 17:5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Callon M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In Law J. (eds). Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London UK, pp. 196–233Google Scholar
  12. Carlson J. E., McLeod M. E. (1978). A comparison of agrarianism in Washington, Idaho, and Wisconsin. Rural Sociology 43:17–30Google Scholar
  13. Carson R. (1962). Silent Spring. Fawcett Publications, Greenwich ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
  14. Castells M., Portes A. (1989). World underneath: The origins, dynamics, and effects of the informal economy. In Portes A., Castells M., Benton L. A. (eds). The Informal Economy. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Maryland, pp. 11–40Google Scholar
  15. Coughenour C. M., Chamala S. (2000). Conservation Tillage and Cropping Innovation. Iowa State University Press, Ames IowaGoogle Scholar
  16. Coughenour C. M. (2003). Innovating conservation agriculture: The case of no-till cropping. Rural Sociology 68:278–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dillman D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Wiley, New York, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Dorner P. (1983). Technology and U.S. agriculture. In: Summers G. F. (ed). Technology and Social Change in Rural Areas. Westview Press, Boulder Colorado, pp. 73–86Google Scholar
  19. DuPuis E. M. (2000). Not in my body: rBGH and the rise of organic milk. Agriculture and Human Values 17:285–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duram L. A. (1990). Factors in organic farmers’ decision making: Diversity, challenge, obstacles. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 14:2–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fliegel F. C. (1993). Diffusion Research in Rural Sociology: The Record and Prospects for the Future. Connecticut: Greenwood Press, WestportGoogle Scholar
  22. Friedland W. H., Barton A., Thomas R. (1981). Manufacturing Green Gold. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Galjart B. (1971). Rural development and sociological concepts: A critique. Rural Sociology 36(1): 31–41Google Scholar
  24. Giddens A. (2000). Runaway World. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Gilbert J., Wehr K. (2003). Dairy industrialization in the first place: Urbanization, immigration, and political economy in Los Angeles County, 1920–1970. Rural Sociology 68(4): 467–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gilg A. W., Battershill M. (1999). The role of household factors in direct selling of farm produce in France. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 90(3): 312–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goodman D. (2002). Rethinking food production-consumption: Integrative perspective. Sociologia Ruralis 42(4): 271–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gordon, J. (2002). “Beyond knowledge: Guidelines for effective health promotion messages.” Journal of Extension 40(6). Accessed on February 16, 2003 at Scholar
  29. Jackson-Smith D. B., Buttel F. H. (2003). Social and ecological dimensions of the alternative-conventional agricultural paradigm scale. Rural Sociology 68 (4): 513–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kelsey, K. D. (2002). “What is old is new again: Cooperative extension’s role in democracy building through civic engagement”. Journal of Extension 40(6). Accessed on September 9, 2004 at Scholar
  31. Kendall P. (1997). Food biotechnology: Boon or threat? Journal of Nutrition Education 29 (3): 112–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kenney M., Lobao L., Curry J., Goe W. R. (1989). Midwestern agriculture in U.S. Fordism: From the New Deal to economic restructuring. Sociologia Ruralis 29(2): 131–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kloppenburg J. R. Jr. (1988). First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  34. Latour B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  35. Law J. (1987). Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion In Bijker W. E., Hughes T. P., Pinch T. J. (eds). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 111–134Google Scholar
  36. Law J. (1994). Organizing Modernity. Blackwell, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  37. Lockeretz W. (1997). Diversity of personal and farm characteristics among organic growers in the Northeastern United States. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 14:13–24Google Scholar
  38. Marra, M. C., P. G. Pardey, and J. M. Alsoton (2002). “The payoffs to transgenic field crops: An assessment of the evidence”. AgBioForum 5(2). Accessed on September 14, 2004 at Scholar
  39. Middendorf G., Skladany M., Ranson E., Busch L. (2000). New agricultural biotechnologies: The struggle for democratic choice In Magdoff F., Foster J. B., Buttel F. H. (eds). Hungry for Profit. Monthly Review Press, New York New York, pp. 107–124Google Scholar
  40. Napier T. L., Tucker M. A., Henry C., Yang X. (2004a). Ethical orientations of Ohio residents toward genetically engineered plants and animals. Food, Agriculture and Environment 2(2): 400–411Google Scholar
  41. Napier T. L., Tucker M., Henry C., Whalley S. R. (2004b). Consumer attitudes toward GMOs: The Ohio experience. Journal of Food Science 69(3): 69–76Google Scholar
  42. Nelson G. C., DePinto A. (2001). GMO adoption and nonmarket effects. In Nelson G. C. (eds). Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture: Economics and Politics. Academic Press, San Diego California, pp. 59–79Google Scholar
  43. Nowak P. J. (1983). Adoption and diffusion of soil and water conservation practices. The Rural Sociologist 3:83–91Google Scholar
  44. Pampel F., Van Es J. C. (1977). Environmental quality issues of adoption research. Rural Sociology 42:57–71Google Scholar
  45. Piore M. J., Sabel C. F. (1984). The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. Basic Books, New York, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Pretty J. (2002). Agri-Culture: Reconnecting People, Land and Nature. Earthscan Publications, Ltd, Sterling, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  47. Ribaudo M. O., Shoemaker R. A. (1995). The effect of feedgrain program participation on chemical use. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 24 (2): 211–220Google Scholar
  48. Rogers E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed. Free Press, New York, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Salamon S. (1985). Ethnic community and the structure of agriculture. Rural Sociology 50:323–340Google Scholar
  50. Schurman R. A., Kelso D. D. T. (2003). Engineering Trouble. University of California Press, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith J. P. (1982). Agrarian ideology and region: The persistence of two variants. The Rural Sociologist 48:291–307Google Scholar
  52. Smith D. E., Skalnik J. R., Skalni P. C. (1997). The bST debate: The relationship between awareness and acceptance of technological advances. Agriculture and Human Values 14:59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Strang D., Soule S. A. (1998). Diffusion in organization and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology 24:265–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taylor D. L., Miller W. L. (1978). The adoption process of environmental innovations: A case study of a government project”. Rural Sociology 43:634–648Google Scholar
  55. Thompson P. B. (1997). Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective. Blackie Academic and Professional, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  56. Valente T. W. (1995). Network Models of the Diffusion of Innovations. Hampton, Cresskill, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  57. Vandeburg, J. M., J. R. Fulton, F. J. Dooley, and P. V. Preckel (2000). “Impact of identity preservation of non-GMO crops on the grain market system”. Staff Paper #00–03. Lafayette, Indiana: Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue UniversityGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilkinson J. (2002). Genetically modified organisms, organics and the contested construction of demand in the agrifood system. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 10(2): 3–11Google Scholar
  59. Wilson W. W., Janzen E. L., Dahl B. L. (2003). Issues in development and adoption of genetically modified wheats. AgBioForum 6(3): 101–112Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  2. 2.Department of Community and Rural SociologyWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations