Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Market for Credible Information in Biotechnology

  • Chapter
Book cover Biotechnology and the Consumer

Abstract

In the past, public reactions to products have generally taken place in the post-marketing phase of development. Increasingly, however, products of controversial technologies such as biotechnology applications have undergone increasing public scrutiny in earlier stages of the development cycle. Clearly, the market for technological development includes the pool of information available to the public and the institutional arrangements in place for access to and dissemination of such information. Such arrangements have been identified as integral to creating markets for innovation. This paper addresses the following questions: What is the nature of the market for credible information for biotechnology products? What social or institutional arrangements and practices attempt to promote greater credibility of information for biotechnology products? Experiences in various European countries are examined as a context for discussing the current policy attempts in Canada to address this challenge.

Edna F. Einsiedel is Professor of Communication Studies in the Graduate Program in Communication Studies at the University of Calgary. Address: 2500 University Dr. N.W., Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4. E-mail: einsiede@ucalgary.ca.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (1993). Workshop on regulating agricultural products of biotechnology. November. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (1994). Technical workshop on the labelling of novel foods derived through genetic engineering. Proceedings. November. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (1989). Public consultation and participation. Calgary, Alberta: AEUB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (1993). Oil and Gas Developments, Eastern Slopes — Information Letter. Calgary, Alberta: AEUB.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Dietetic Association (1993). Press Release, November 8, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biotechnology and the European Public Concerted Action Group (1997). Europe ambivalent on biotechnology. Nature, 387, 845–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bord, R., & O’Connor, R. (1990). Risk communication, knowledge and attitudes: Explaining reactions to a technology perceived as risky. Risk Analysis, 10, 499–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, L. (1997). Personal comunication. January 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association (1995). Reducing emissions. Ottawa: CCPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association (1996a). Does Responsible Care™ pay? Ottawa: CCPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association (1996b). Responsible Care™ Way of Life: expectations of member and partner companies. Ottawa: CCPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association (1996c). Are we there yet? Ottawa: CCPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association (1996d). Responsible Care™: A total commitment. Ottawa: CCPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy (1995). Citizen’s guide to biotechnology. Toronto: CIELAP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Consumers Association of Canada (1995). Background paper on food biotechnology in Canada. Prepared for the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, Ottawa, April 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covello, V. T., McCallum, D. B., & Pavlova, M.T. (1987). Effective risk communication: The role and responsibility of government and nongovernment organizations. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covello, V. T., Sandman, P., & Slovic, P. (1991), Guidelines for communicating information about chemical risks effectively and responsibly. In: E. Mayo & R. Hollander (Eds.), Acceptable evidence: Science and values in risk management, pp. 95–118. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creative Research International (1996). Environmental applications of biotechnology: Focus groups. Report to Environment Canada. Ottawa: Environment Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Decima Research (1993). Report to the Canadian Institute of Biotechnology on public attitudes toward genetic engineering. Ottawa: CIB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einsiedel, E. F. (1997). Canadian attitudes to and perceptions of biotechnology. Calgary: University of Calgary. Unpublished report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekos Research Associates Inc. (1996). Focus groups on agri-food: Applications of biotechnology. Report to Consumer Affairs, Industry Canada. Ottawa: Industry Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Féderation nationale des associations de consummateurs du Quebec (1996). To protect our quality of life and that of our children: Recommendations for the development and marketing of biotechnology. Ottawa: Office of Consumer Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grocery Manufacturers of America (1992). Press Release, July 18, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundahl, J. (1995). The Danish consensus conference model. In: S. Joss & J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science, pp. 31–40. London: Science Museum and EC DG XII.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (1997). Privacy rights and new technologies consultation package. Ottawa: Library of Parliament Research Branch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. N. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Informal Consultation Group on Biotechnology (1996a). Market introduction and labelling of foods produced with the aid of modern biotechnology. Amsterdam: Informal Consultation Group on Biotechnology. Unpublished report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Informal Consultation Group on Biotechnology (1996b). Checklist Novel Foods I. Amsterdam: Informal Consultation Group on Biotechnology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1995). Product, process, and programme: Three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology. In: M. Bauer (Ed.), Resistance to new technology: Nuclear power, information technology, and biotechnology, pp. 185–210. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelsøe, E. (1997). Roskilde University. Personal communication. March 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joss, S., & Durant, J. (1995). Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum and EC DG XII.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluver, L. (1995). Consensus conferences at the Danish Board of Technology. In: S. Joss & J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, pp. 41–49. London: Science Museum and EC DG XII.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky, S., & Wrubel, R. (1996). Agricultural biotechnology and the environment-Science, policy and social issues. Urbana, IL.: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laband, D. (1991). Search vs. experience goods. Economic Inquiry, 34, 497–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlier, S. (1997). Alberta Energy Utilities Board. Personal communications. January 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, J. D. (1995). Deciding together: Bioethics and moral consensus. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullan, F., & Jacoby, I. (1985). The town meeting for technology: The maturation of consensus conferences. Journal of the American Medical Association, 254, 1068–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Nutrition (1996). Annual report. Ottawa: NIN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Optima Consultants (1994). Understanding the consumer interest in the new biotechnology. Ottawa: Office of Consumer Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritzker, D., & Dalton, D. (1990). Negotiated rulemaking sourcebook. Washington, DC: Administrative Conference of the United States.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., & Levine, L. (1991). Credibility and trust in risk communications. In: R. Kasperson & P. Stallen (Eds.), Communicating risks to the public, pp. 175–218. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., Misa, T., & Schot, J. (1995). Constructive technology assessment: A new paradigm for managing technology in society. In A. Rip, T. Misa, & J. Schot (Eds.), Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment, pp. 54–80. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roobeek, A. J. M. (1995). Biotechnology: A core technology in a new techno-economic paradigm. In: M. Fransman, G. Junne, & A. Roobeek (Eds.), The biotechnology revolution?, pp. 86–102. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Science Council (1982). Value-laden scientific disputes and policy. Ottawa: Supply and Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubal, M., Yinnon, T., & Zuscovitch, E. (1991). Networks and market creation. Research Policy, 20, 381–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toft, J. (1996). Denmark: Seeking a broad-based consensus on gene technology. Science and Public Policy, 23(3), 171–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J., & Wynne, B. (1992). Risk communication: A literature review and some implications for biotechnology. In: J. Durant (Ed.), Biotechnology in public, pp. 109–141. London: Science Museum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Daele, W. (1995). Strategies of dealing with with the risks of genetic engineering: Lessons from a participatory technology assessment in Germany. In: J. Landsmann & R. Casper (Eds.), Key biosafety aspects of genetically modified organisms, pp. 121–140. Berlin: Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Schomberg, R. (1996). Netherlands: Deliberating biotechnology regulation. Science and Public Policy, 23(3), 158–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohl, J. (1998). Consumer decision-making and risk perception regarding foods produced with biotechnology. Journal of Consumer Policy, 21. Also included in: B. M. Knoppers & A. D. Mathios (Eds.), Biotechnology and the consumer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Edna F. Einsiedel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Bartha M. Knoppers Alan D. Mathios

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Einsiedel, E.F. (1998). The Market for Credible Information in Biotechnology. In: Knoppers, B.M., Mathios, A.D. (eds) Biotechnology and the Consumer. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5311-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5311-3_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-5541-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-5311-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation