Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
general attitudes and values (for a detailed
review, see Scholderer and Verbeke, 2012).
Empirically, the strongest correlations
can be found with attitudes towards the
environment, attitudes towards techno-
logical progress, trust in the actors and
institutions that commercialize new tech-
nologies and regulate their risks, and general
tendencies to reject the unknown (Borre,
1990; Sparks
et al
., 1995; Siegrist, 1998,
2000; Bredahl, 2001; Søndergaard
et al
.,
2007). Considering the nature of the general
attitudes and values that are associated
strongly with attitudes towards gene tech-
nology, it can be argued that attitudes
towards gene technology are
moral
judge-
ments, not evaluations of the risks and
benei ts of the technology or its applications.
h is interpretation is consistent with
another, often replicated i nding: attitudes
towards gene technology are highly resistant
to change and cannot be inl uenced by
typical mass communication techniques.
People may even interpret such communi-
cations as attempts to undermine the
legitimacy of their value orientations, which
can lead to serious boomerang ef ects
(Frewer
et al
., 2003; Scholderer and Frewer,
2003). Even though this may be seen as
politically incorrect, the best strategy for
many seed companies and biotechnology
associations is therefore to try not to
communicate with the general public at all.
h e general public may not love gene
technology, but they do not love pesticides
or mutagenesis either (apparently even less;
see Hagemann and Scholderer, 2007). And
despite all the scepticism, everybody eats.
farmers towards the use of transgenic crops
in horticulture (e.g. Chong, 2005; Kondoh
and Jussaume, 2006; Heller, 2007; Hall,
2008; Kaup, 2008; Mauro and McLachlan,
2008; Areal
et al
., 2011; Mal
et al
., 2012;
Skevas
et al
., 2012). Due to the heterogeneity
of these studies - with crops ranging from
aubergine to cotton to maize and regions
ranging from Northern India to Washington
State to Portugal - it is dii cult to draw
general conclusions from them. A consistent
i nding is that the farmers who participated
in these studies tended to evaluate
transgenic crops quite pragmatically. Higher
yields and reduced spending on pest and
weed control are typically seen as the most
tangible benei ts of transgenic varieties.
Coexistence measures and the bureaucratic
burdens associated with them tend to make
farmers hesitant. However, this hesitation
appears to become less pronounced as
experience with the successful implemen-
tation of coexistence measures accumulates
in a region (for a detailed review, see
Scholderer and Verbeke, 2012). With the
obvious exception of organic farmers and
farmers in countries where certain trans-
genic varieties are banned, there seem to be
no strong tendencies for or against GM
crops in general.
and Retailers
h e situation becomes a little more
complicated at the levels of the value chain
that immediately precede the i nal con-
sumer markets. In theory, every food
manufacturer is free to source transgenic
ingredients and use them in their products,
as long as the ingredients are approved for
marketing in the countries where the
products will be sold. In reality, it is not
quite so straightforward. After all, food
manufacturers do not sell their products to
consumers. h ey sell them to retailers, and
therefore the retailers decide whether a
product that contains GM ingredients will
ever make it on to the shelves of a
supermarket. It is important to understand
this: retailers are the gatekeepers to
Farmers
Although farmers are the actual 'users' of
transgenic crops, their voice has largely been
ignored in the public debate on gene
technology (Guehlstorf, 2008). h ere are
relatively few empirical studies on the
attitudes of farmers, most are relatively
recent, most are based on small, non-
representative samples of farmers and
almost all of them are about the attitudes of
