Allyse, M., Y. Bombard, R. Isasi, M. Michie, K. Musunuru, and K.E. Ormond. 2019. What do we do now?: Respnding to claims of germline gene editing in humans. Genetics in Medicine 21: 2181–2183.
Google Scholar
Bain, C., S. Lindberg, and T. Selfa. 2020. Emerging sociotechnical imaginaries for gene edited crops for foods in the United States: Implications for governance. Agriculture and Human Values 35: 265–279.
Google Scholar
Baltes, N.J., J. Gil-Humanes, and D.F. Voytas. 2017. Genome engineering and agriculture: Opportunities and challenges. Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science 149: 1–26.
Google Scholar
Bartkowski, B., and C.M. Baum. 2019. Dealing with rejection: An application of the exit-voice framework to genome-edited food. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 7: 1–15.
Google Scholar
Bartkowski, B., I. Theesfeld, F. Pirscher, and J. Timaeus. 2018. Snipping around for food: Economic, ethical and policy implications of CRISPR/Cas genome editing. Geoforum 96: 172–180.
Google Scholar
Bearth, A., and M. Siegrist. 2016. Are risk and benefit perceptions more important for public acceptance of innovative food technologies: A meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology 49: 14–23.
Google Scholar
Bredahl, L. 2001. Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods- results of a cross-national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy 24: 23–61.
Google Scholar
Costa-Font, J., and E. Mossialos. 2005. Are perceptions of ‘risks’ and ‘benefits’ of genetically modified food (in)dependent? Food Quality and Preference 18: 173–182.
Google Scholar
EASAC (European Academies Science Advisory Council). 2020. The regulation of genome-edited plants in the European Union. Reports and statements biosciences. https://easac.eu/publications/details/the-regulation-of-genome-edited-plants-in-the-european-union/. Accessed 29 July 2020.
Eurostat. 2019. Population by educational attainment level, Tertiary education. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=edat_lfse_03&lang=eng. Accessed 5 September 2019.
Frewer, L. 2017. Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications. European Review of Agricultural Economics 44 (4): 683–704.
Google Scholar
Frewer, L., J. Lassen, B. Kettlitz, J. Scholderer, V. Beekman, and K.G. Berdal. 2004. Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology 42: 1181–1193.
Google Scholar
Frewer, L.J., I.A. van der Lands, A.R.H. Fischer, M.J. Reinders, D. Menozzi, X. Zhang, I. van den Berg, and K.L. Zimmermann. 2013. Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science and Technology 30: 142–152.
Google Scholar
Galata, L., K. Karantininis, and S. Hess. 2014. Cross-Atlantic differences in biotechnology and GMOs: A media content analysis. In Agricultural cooperative management and policy, ed. C. Zopounidis, et al., 299–314. Cham: Springer.
Google Scholar
Gamez-Djokic, M. 2019. Personal theories for morality. https://www.yourmorals.org/. Accessed 10 Mar 2019.
Gaskell, G., M.W. Bauer, J. Durant, and N.C. Allum. 1999. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science 285: 384–387.
Google Scholar
Gaskell, G., N. Allum, M. Bauer, J. Durant, A. Allansdottir, H. Bonfadelli, D. Boy, S. de Cheveigné, B. Fjaestad, J.M. Gutteling, J. Hampel, E. Jelsøe, J. Correia Jesuino, M. Kohring, N. Kronberger, C. Midden, T. Hviid Nielsen, A. Przestalski, T. Rusanen, G. Sakellaris, H. Torgersen, T. Twardowski, and W. Wagner. 2000. Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology 18: 935–938.
Google Scholar
Gaskell, G., I. Bard, A. Allansdottir, R. Vieira da Cunha, P. Eduard, C. Hofmaier, N. Kronberger, N. Laursen, A. Meijknecht, S. Nordal, A. Quintanilha, G. Revuelta, N. Saladié, J. Sándor, J. Borlido Santos, S. Seyringer, I. Singh, H. Somsen, W. Toonders, H. Torgersen, V. Torre, M. Varju, and H. Zwart. 2017. Public views on gene editing and its uses. Nature Biotechnology 35 (11): 1021–1023.
Google Scholar
GeneInnovate. 2020. Norwegian consumers’ attitudes toward gene editing in Norwegian agriculture and aquaculture. https://www.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2020/04/Report-consumer-attitudes-to-gene-editing-agri-and-aqua-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2021.
Graham, J., J. Haidt, and B.A. Nosek. 2009. Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96 (5): 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141.
Article
Google Scholar
Grunert, K.G., L. Bredahl, and J. Scholderer. 2003. Four questions on European consumers’ attitudes towards the use of genetic modification in food production. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 4: 435–445.
Google Scholar
Haidt, J. 2012. The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon.
Google Scholar
Haidt, J. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108: 814–834.
Google Scholar
Haidt, J. 2013. Moral psychology for the twenty-first century. Journal of Moral Deduction 42 (3): 281–297.
Google Scholar
Haidt, J., and J. Graham. 2007. When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research 20: 98–116.
Google Scholar
Haidt, J., F. Björklund, and S. Murphy. 2000. Moral dumbfounding: when intuition finds no reason. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virgina. https://polpsy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/haidt.bjorklund.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2020.
Huber, S., and O.W. Huber. 2012. The centrality of religiosity scale (CRS). Religions 3: 710–724.
Google Scholar
Hudson, J., A. Caplanova, and M. Novak. 2015. Public attitudes to GM foods: The balancing of risks and gains. Appetite 92: 303–313.
Google Scholar
Istituto nazionale di statistica. 2018. Populazione residente per fascia di età. https://www.istat.it/it/popolazione-e-famiglie?dati. Accessed 22 March 2018.
Istituto provinciale di statistica. 2018. Populazione residente per sesso. https://astat.provinz.bz.it/. Accessed 22 March 2018.
Jones, H.D. 2015. Regulatory uncertainty over genome editing. Nature Plants 1: 1–3.
Google Scholar
Klümper, W., and M. Qaim. 2014. A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS ONE 9 (11): e111629.
Google Scholar
Lander, E., F. Baylis, F. Zhang, E. Charpetnier, P. Berg, C. Bourgain, B. Friedrich, J.K. Joung, J. Li, D. Liu, L. Naldini, J.-B. Nie, R. Qiu, B. Schoene-Seifert, F. Shao, S. Terry, W. Wei, and E.-L. Winnacker. 2019. Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing. Nature 567: 165–168.
Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., M. Jamal, L. Kurlander, M. Roucan, and L. Taulman. 2005. A meta-analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 30 (1): 28–44.
Google Scholar
Marques, M.D., C.R. Critchley, and J. Walshe. 2015. Attitudes to genetically modified food over time: how trust in organizations and the media cycle predict support. Public Understanding of Science 25 (5): 601–618.
Google Scholar
Mielby, H., P. Sandøe, and J. Lassen. 2013. Multiple aspects of unnaturalness: Are cisgenic crops perceived as being more natural and more acceptable than transgenic crops? Agriculture and Human Values 2013 (30): 471–480.
Google Scholar
Muringai, V., X. Fan, and E. Goddard. 2020. Canadian consumer acceptance of gene-edited versus genetically modified potatoes: A choice experiment approach. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 68: 47–63.
Google Scholar
Myskja, B. 2006. The moral difference between intragenic and transgenic modification of plants. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19: 225–238.
Google Scholar
Paolacci, G., and J. Chandler. 2014. Inside the Turk: Understanding mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23: 184–188.
Google Scholar
Pirscher, F., B. Bartkowski, I. Theesfeld, and J. Timaeus. 2018. Nature-identical outcomes, artificial processes: Governance of CRISPR/cas genome editing as an ethical challenge. In Ethical tensions from new technology. The case of agricultural biotechnology, ed. H.S. James, 137–150. Wallingford: CAB International.
Google Scholar
Rommens, C.M., M.A. Haring, K. Swords, H.V. Davies, and W.R. Belknap. 2007. The intragenic approach as a new extension to traditional plant breeding. Trends in Plant Science 12 (9): 397–403.
Google Scholar
Ronteltalp, A., M.J. Reinders, S.M. van Dijk, S. Heijting, I.A. van der Lans, and L.A.P. Lotz. 2016. How technology features influence public response to new agrifood technologies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29: 643–672.
Google Scholar
Saltzstein, H.D., and T. Kasachkoff. 2004. Haidt’s moral intuitionist theory: A psychological and philosophical critique. Review of General Psychology 8 (4): 273–282.
Google Scholar
Schultz-Bergin, M. 2018. Is CRISPR an ethical game changer? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31: 219–238.
Google Scholar
Scott, S.E., Y. Inbar, and P. Rozin. 2016. Evidence for absolute moral opposition to genetically modified food in the United States. Perspective on Psychological Science 11 (3): 315–324.
Google Scholar
Scott, S.E., Y. Inbar, C.D. Wirz, D. Brossard, and P. Rozin. 2018. An overview of attitudes towards genetically modified food. Annual Review of Nutrition 38: 459–479.
Google Scholar
Siegrist, M. 2000. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 20 (2): 195–203.
Google Scholar
Siegrist, M., and C. Hartmann. 2020. Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nature Food 1: 343–350.
Google Scholar
Siegrist, M., G. Cvetkovich, and C. Roth. 2000. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis 20 (3): 353–362.
Google Scholar
Siipi, H. 2008. Dimensions of naturalness. Ethics and the Environment 13 (1): 71–103.
Google Scholar
Sjöberg, L. 2000. Perceived risk and tampering with nature. Journal of Risk Research 3 (4): 353–367.
Google Scholar
Special Eurobarometer. 2010. Eurobarometer 73.1 Biotechnology. https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/755. Accessed 30 July 2020.
Statistics Canada. 2019. Educational attainment and qualifications, 2016 Census of Population. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/subjects/education_training_and_learning/educational_attainment_and_qualifications. Accessed 29 July 2020.
Statistics Canada. 2020. Table 17-10-0005-01 Population estimates on July 1st, by age and sex. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000501&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=2.1&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2015&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2019&referencePeriods=20150101%2C20190101. Accessed 29 July 2020.
Statistik Austria. 2018. Statistik des Bevölkerungsstandes. Erstellt am 17.05.2018. https://www.statisitik.at. Accessed 20 July 2020.
Statistik Austria 2019. Bevölkerung nach Alter und Geschlecht. https://www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/menschen_und_gesellschaft/bevoelkerung/bevoelkerungsstruktur/bevoelkerung_nach_alter_geschlecht/index.html. Accessed 20 July 2020.
Statistisches Bundesamt. 2018. Vorausberechneter Bevölkerungsstand: Deutschland, Stichtag, Varianten der Bevölkerungsvorausberechnung, Geschlecht, Altersjahre. https://www-genesis.destatis.de/. Accessed 20 May 2019.
Uchiyama, M., A. Nagai, and K. Muto. 2018. Survey on the perception of germline genome editing among the general public in Japan. Journal of Human Genetics 63: 745–748.
Google Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. 2018a. Current population survey, 2018 annual social and economic supplement. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/demo/education-attainment/cps-detailed-tables.html. Accessed 20 May 2019.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2018b. Annual estimates of the resident population by single year of age and sex for the United States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017. https://www.census.gov. Accessed 20 May 2019.
Wang, H., and H. Yang. 2019. Gene-edited babies: What went wrong and what could go wrong. PLoS Biology 17 (4): e3000224.
Google Scholar
Weaver, S.A., and M.C. Morris. 2005. Risks associated with genetic modification: An annotated bibliography of peer reviewed natural science publications. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18: 157–189.
Google Scholar
Weber, E.U., A. Blais, and N.E. Betz. 2002. A domain specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15: 263–290.
Google Scholar
Yang, Y., and J.E. Hobbs. 2020. Supporters or opponents: Will cultural values shape consumer acceptance of gene editing. Journal of Food Products Marketing 26: 17–37.
Google Scholar
Zahry, N.R., and J.C. Besley. 2019. Genetic engineering, genetic modification, or agricultural biotechnology: Does the term matter? Journal of Risk Research 22: 16–31.
Google Scholar
Zhang, L., P. Zhong, X. Zhai, Y. Shao, and S. Lu. 2019. Open letter from Chinese HIV professionals on human genome editing. The Lancet 393: 26–27.
Google Scholar