1932

Abstract

Genetically engineered food has had its DNA, RNA, or proteins manipulated by intentional human intervention. We provide an overview of the importance and regulation of genetically engineered food and lay attitudes toward it. We first discuss the pronaturalness context in the United States and Europe that preceded the appearance of genetically engineered food. We then review the definition, prevalence, and regulation of this type of food. Genetically engineered food is widespread in some countries, but there is great controversy worldwide among individuals, governments, and other institutions about the advisability of growing and consuming it. In general, life scientists have a much more positive view of genetically engineered food than laypeople. We examine the bases of lay opposition to genetically engineered food and the evidence for how attitudes change. Laypeople tend to see genetically engineered food as dangerous and offering few benefits. We suggest that much of the lay opposition is morally based. One possibility is that, in some contexts, people view nature and naturalness as sacred and genetically engineered food as a violation of naturalness. We also suggest that for many people these perceptions of naturalness and attitudes toward genetically engineered food follow the sympathetic magical law of contagion, in which even minimal contact between a natural food and an unnatural entity, either a scientist or a piece of foreign DNA, pollutes or contaminates the natural entity and renders it unacceptable or even immoral to consume.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-nutr-071715-051223
2018-08-21
2024-04-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/nutr/38/1/annurev-nutr-071715-051223.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-nutr-071715-051223&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.  Alesci C, Gillespie P 2015. Chipotle is now GMO-free. CNN Money Apr 27. http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/26/investing/chipotle-gmo-free/index.html
  2. 2.  Allum N, Sturgis P, Tabourazi D, Brunton-Smith I 2008. Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Underst. Sci. 17:35–54
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.  Bäckström A, Pirttilä-Backman A-M, Tuorila H 2004. Willingness to try new foods as predicted by social representations and attitude and trait scales. Appetite 43:75–83
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.  Bai Y, Lindhout P 2007. Domestication and breeding of tomatoes: What have we gained and what can we gain in the future?. Ann. Bot. 100:1085–94
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.  Baron J, Spranca M 1997. Protected values. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 70:1–16
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.  Bauer MW, Allum N, Miller S 2007. What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Underst. Sci 16:79–95
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.  Bredahl L 2001. Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified food—results of a cross-national survey. J. Consum. Policy 24:23–61
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.  Brossard D 2012. Social challenges: public opinion and agricultural biotechnology. The Role of Biotechnology in a Sustainable Food Supply J Popp, W Jahn, M Matlock, N Kemper 1–15 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.  Brossard D, Nisbet MC 2007. Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 19:24–52
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.  Bruening G, Lyons J 2000. The case of the FLAVR SAVR tomato. Calif. Agric. 54:6–7
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.  Bubela T, Nisbet MC, Borchelt R, Brunger F, Critchley C et al. 2009. Science communication reconsidered. Nat. Biotechnol. 27:514–18
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.  Busch L 2011. Food standards: the cacophony of governance. J. Exp. Bot. 62:3247–50
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.  Charles D 2014. Why the ‘non-GMO’ label is organic's frenemy Natl. Public Radio Feb. 28.: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/02/28/283460420/why-the-non-gmo-label-is-organic-s-frenemy
  14. 14. Codex Aliment. Comm. 2003. Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods using recombinant DNA plants Guideline CAC/GL 45-2003. Codex Aliment. Comm., Rome
  15. 15.  Cohen GL 2003. Party over policy: the dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 85:808–22
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.  Cohen SN, Chang AC, Boyer HW, Helling RB 1973. Construction of biologically functional bacterial plasmids in vitro. PNAS 70:3240–44
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.  Costa-Font J, Gil JM, Traill WB 2008. Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: review and implications for food policy. Food Policy 33:99–111
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.  Costa-Font J, Mossialos E 2007. Are perceptions of ‘risks’ and ‘benefits’ of genetically modified food (in)dependent?. Food Qual. Preference 18:173–82
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.  Doebley J 2004. The genetics of maize evolution. Annu. Rev. Genet. 38:37–59
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.  Douglas M 1966. Purity and Danger London: Routledge
  21. 21.  Dreezens E, Martijn C, Tenbült P, Kok G, De Vries NK 2005. Food and values: an examination of values underlying attitudes toward genetically modified- and organically grown food products. Appetite 44:115–22
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.  Druckman JN, Bolsen T 2011. Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. J. Commun. 61:659–88
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.  Ellen PS, Bone PF 2008. Stained by the label? Stigma and the case of genetically modified foods. J. Public Policy Mark. 27:69–82
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. Eur. Comm. 2018. Traceability and labelling Eur. Comm., Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/traceability_labelling_en
  25. 25. Eur. Parliam. 2015. Eight things you should know about GMOs Eur. Parliam Brussels: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20151013STO97392/eight-things-you-should-know-about-gmos
  26. 26.  Fernandez-Cornejo J, Wechsler S, Livingston M, Mitchell L 2014. Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States Washington, DC: US Dep. Agric.
  27. 27.  Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM 2000. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 13:1–17
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.  Flipse SM, Osseweijer P 2013. Media attention to GM food cases: an innovation perspective. Public Underst. Sci. 22:185–202
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.  Frazer JG 1981. The Golden Bough: The Roots of Religion and Folklore New York: Avenel
  30. 30.  Frewer LJ, Howard C, Hedderley D, Shepherd R 1999. Reactions to information about genetic engineering: impact of source characteristics, perceived personal relevance, and persuasiveness. Public Underst. Sci. 8:35–50
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.  Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R 1998. The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production. Agric. Hum. Values 15:15–30
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.  Frewer LJ, Scholderer J, Bredahl L 2003. Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: the mediating role of trust. Risk Anal 23:1117–33
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.  Funk C, Rainie L 2015. Americans, politics and science issues Pew Res. Cent Washington, DC: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/americans-politics-and-science-issues/
  34. 34.  Gaskell G, Allum N, Wagner W, Kronberger N, Torgersen H et al. 2004. GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Anal 24:185–94
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.  Gaskell G, Stares S, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Castro P et al. 2010. Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010. Winds of Change? Brussels: Eur. Comm.
  36. 36.  Grossman MR 2016. Genetically engineered animals in the United States: the AquAdvantage Salmon. Eur. Food Feed Law Rev. 11:190–200
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.  Gruère GP 2006. An analysis of trade related international regulations of genetically modified food and their effects on developing countries EPT Discuss. Pap. 147, Int Food Policy Res. Inst Washington, DC:
  38. 38.  Gruère GP, Carter CA, Farzin YH 2008. What labelling policy for consumer choice? The case of genetically modified food in Canada and Europe. Can. J. Econ. 41:1472–97
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.  Grunert KG, Bredahl L, Scholderer J 2003. Four questions on European consumers’ attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 4:435–45
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.  Haidt J 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol. Rev. 108:814–34
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.  Haidt J, McCauley C, Rozin P 1994. Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: a scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personal. Individ. Differ. 16:701–13
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.  Hall PK 2016. Congress finalizes mandatory GMO labeling law. Ag. Food Law Blog, http://nationalaglawcenter.org/congress-finalizes-mandatory-gmo-labeling-law-2/
  43. 43.  Hallman WK, Cuite CL, Morin XK 2013. Public perceptions of labeling genetically modified foods Work. Pap., Rutgers School Environ. Biol. Sci.
  44. 44.  Hallman WK, Hebden WC, Aquino HL, Cuite CL, Lang JT 2003. Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study of American Knowledge and Opinion New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Inst. Rutgers
  45. 45.  Hallman WK, Hebden WC, Cuite CL, Aquino HL, Lang JT 2004. Americans and GM Food: Knowledge, Opinion and Interest in 2004 New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Inst. Rutgers
  46. 46.  Harmon A 2013. Golden rice: lifesaver?. New York Times, Aug. 24. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/sunday-review/golden-rice-lifesaver.html
  47. 47.  Harmon A 2014. A lonely quest for facts on genetically modified crops. New York Times, Jan. 4. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/us/on-hawaii-a-lonely-quest-for-facts-about-gmos.html
  48. 49.  Helliwell R, Hartley S, Pearce W, O'Neill L 2017. Why are NGOs sceptical of genome editing? NGOs’ opposition to agricultural biotechnologies is rooted in scepticism about the framing of problems and solutions, rather than just emotion and dogma. EMBO Rep 18:2090–93
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 50.  Hemphill TA, Banerjee S 2015. Genetically modified organisms and the U.S. retail food labeling controversy: consumer perceptions, regulations, and public policy. Bus. Soc. Rev. 120:435–64
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 51.  Hossain F, Onyango B 2004. Product attributes and consumer acceptance of nutritionally enhanced genetically modified foods. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 18:225–67
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 52.  House L, Lusk J, Jaeger S, Traill WB, Moore M et al. 2005. Objective and subjective knowledge: impacts on consumer demand for genetically modified foods in the United States and the European Union. AgBioForum 7:113–23
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 53.  James C 2015. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2015 Brief 51-2015. Int. Serv. Acquis Agri-Biotech Appl New York:
  53. 54.  Januszewska R, Pieniak Z, Verbeke W 2011. Food choice questionnaire revisited in four countries. Does it still measure the same?. Appetite 57:94–98
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 55.  Kahan DM 2015. Climate‐science communication and the measurement problem. Political Psychol 36:1–43
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 56.  Kahan DM, Jenkins‐Smith H, Braman D 2011. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J. Risk Res. 14:147–74
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 57.  Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J et al. 1988. The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal 8:177–87
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 58.  Kellert SR 1997. The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society Washington, DC: Island Press
  58. 59.  Kellert SR 2003. Kinship to Mastery: Biophilia in Human Evolution and Development Washington, DC: Island Press
  59. 60.  Kelso DDT 2004. Genetically engineered salmon, ecological risk, and environmental policy. Bull. Mar. Sci. 74:509–28
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 61.  Khan R 2013. Do liberals oppose genetically modified organisms more than conservatives?. Discover Blog June 11. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/06/do-liberals-oppose-genetically-modified-organisms-more-than-conservatives/#.WqhYvejwa70
  61. 62.  Klerck D, Sweeney JC 2007. The effect of knowledge types on consumer‐perceived risk and adoption of genetically modified foods. Psychol. Mark. 24:171–93
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 63.  Lipton E 2015. Food industry enlisted academics in G.M.O. lobbying war, emails show. New York Times, Sept. 5. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html
  63. 64.  Lord CG, Ross L, Lepper MR 1979. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 37:2098–109
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 65.  Lusk JL, Jamal M, Kurlander L, Roucan M, Taulman L 2005. A meta-analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 30:28–44
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 66.  Lusk JL, Rozan A 2006. Consumer acceptance of ingenic foods. Biotechnol. J. 1:1433–34
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 67.  Manuel J 2015. Europe compromises on GM crops. Nat. Plants 1:14022
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 68.  Mauss M 1972. A General Theory of Magic London: Routledge
  68. 69.  Mayer A 2015. How your food gets the ‘non-GMO’ label Natl. Public Radio Jan. 20.: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/01/20/378361539/how-your-food-gets-the-non-gmo-label
  69. 70.  McWilliams J 2015. ‘Ban GMOs: That shit ain't food. .’ Pac. Stand Apr. 14. https://psmag.com/environment/ban-gmos-that-shit-aint-food
  70. 71.  Medin DL, Bang M 2014. The cultural side of science communication. PNAS 111:13621–26
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 72.  Moon W, Balasubramanian SK 2001. Public perceptions and willingness-to-pay a premium for non-GM foods in the US and UK. AgBioForum 4:221–31
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 73.  Moon W, Balasubramanian SK 2003. Willingness to pay for non‐biotech foods in the US and UK. J. Consum. Aff. 37:317–39
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 74.  Moon W, Balasubramanian SK 2004. Public attitudes toward agrobiotechnology: the mediating role of risk perceptions on the impact of trust, awareness, and outrage. Rev. Agric. Econ. 26:186–208
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 75.  Muir WM 2004. The threats and benefits of GM fish. EMBO Rep 5:654–59
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 76. Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med. 2016. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med.
  76. 77. Natl. Hum. Genome Res. Inst. 2015. Comparative Genomics Natl. Hum. Genome Res. Inst Bethesda, MD: https://www.genome.gov/11509542/
  77. 78.  Nep S, O'Doherty K 2013. Understanding public calls for labeling of genetically modified foods: analysis of a public deliberation on genetically modified salmon. Soc. Nat. Resour. 26:506–21
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 79.  Nielsen Co 2015. We Are What We Eat: Healthy Eating Trends Around the World New York: Nielsen Co.
  79. 80.  Nisbet MC, Huge M 2006. Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate: managing power and participation through the press/policy connection. Int. J. Press/Politics 11:3–40
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 81.  Olatunji BO, Williams NL, Tolin DF, Abramowitz JS, Sawchuk CN et al. 2007. The Disgust Scale: item analysis, factor structure, and suggestions for refinement. Psychol. Assess. 19:281–97
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 82.  Paarlberg RL 2000. The global food fight. Foreign Aff 79:24–38
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 83.  Paarlberg RL 2001. The Politics of Precaution: Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
  83. 84.  Pollack A 2015. Genetically engineered salmon approved for consumption. New York Times, Nov. 19. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/business/genetically-engineered-salmon-approved-for-consumption.html
  84. 85.  Prescott J, Young O, O'Neill L, Yau N, Stevens R 2002. Motives for food choice: a comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia and New Zealand. Food Qual. Preference 13:489–95
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 86.  Renner B, Sproesser G, Strohbach S, Schupp HT 2012. Why we eat what we eat: The Eating Motivation Survey (TEMS). Appetite 59:117–28
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 87.  Rock A 2016. Peeling back the ‘natural’ food label. Consum. Rep. Jan. 29. https://www.consumerreports.org/food-safety/peeling-back-the-natural-food-label/
  87. 88.  Román S, Sánchez-Siles LM, Siegrist M 2017. The importance of food naturalness for consumers: results of a systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 67:44–57
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 89.  Rommens CM 2004. All-native DNA transformation: a new approach to plant genetic engineering. Trends Plant Sci 9:457–64
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 90.  Roth AE 2007. Repugnance as a constraint on markets. J. Econ. Perspect. 21:337–58
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 91.  Rozin P 2005. The meaning of “natural”: process more important than content. Psychol. Sci. 16:652–58
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 92.  Rozin P 2006. Naturalness judgments by lay Americans: Process dominates content in judgments of food or water acceptability and naturalness. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 1:91–97
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 93.  Rozin P, Fischler C, Shields-Argelès C 2009. Additivity dominance: Additives are more potent and more often lexicalized across languages than are “subtractives.”. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 4:475–78
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 94.  Rozin P, Fischler C, Shields-Argelès C 2012. European and American perspectives on the meaning of natural. Appetite 59:448–55
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 95.  Rozin P, Lowery L, Imada S, Haidt J 1999. The CAD triad hypothesis: a mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 76:574–86
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 96.  Rozin P, Millman L, Nemeroff C 1986. Operation of the laws of sympathetic magic in disgust and other domains. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 50:703–12
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 97.  Rozin P, Nemeroff C 2002. Sympathetic magical thinking: the contagion and similarity “heuristics. .” In Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgement T Gilovich, D Griffin, D Kahneman 201–16 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 98.  Rozin P, Spranca M, Krieger Z, Neuhaus R, Surillo D et al. 2004. Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 43:147–54
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 99.  Runge KK, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Rose KM, Larson BJ 2017. Attitudes about food and food-related biotechnology. Public Opin. Q. 81:577–96
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 100.  Scheufele DA 2007. Opinion climates, spirals of silence and biotechnology: public opinion as a heuristic for scientific decision-making. The Public, the Media, and Agricultural Biotechnology D Brossard, J Shanahan, TC Nesbitt 231–44 Cambridge, MA: CABI
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 101.  Scholderer J, Frewer LJ 2003. The biotechnology communication paradox: experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. J. Consum. Policy 26:125–57
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 102.  Schouten HJ, Krens FA, Jacobsen E 2006. Cisgenic plants are similar to traditionally bred plants. EMBO Rep 7:750–53
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 103.  Scott SE, Inbar Y, Rozin P 2016. Evidence for absolute moral opposition to genetically modified food in the United States. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 11:315–24
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 104.  Scott SE, Rozin P 2017. Are additives unnatural? Generality and mechanisms of additivity dominance. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 12:572–83
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 105.  Sharma S, Kaur R, Singh A 2017. Recent advances in CRISPR/Cas mediated genome editing for crop improvement. Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 11:193–207
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 106.  Siegrist M 1998. Belief in gene technology: the influence of environmental attitudes and gender. Personal. Individ. Differ. 24:861–66
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 107.  Siegrist M 1999. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29:2093–106
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 108.  Siegrist M 2000. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal 20:195–204
    [Google Scholar]
  108. 109.  Siegrist M 2003. Perception of gene technology and food risks: results of a survey in Switzerland. J. Risk Res. 6:45–60
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 110.  Siegrist M, Sütterlin B 2016. People's reliance on the affect heuristic may result in a biased perception of gene technology. Food Qual. Preference 54:137–40
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 111.  Sjöberg L 2008. Genetically modified food in the eyes of the public and experts. Risk Manag 10:168–93
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 112.  Skitka LJ, Bauman CW, Sargis EG 2005. Moral conviction: another contributor to attitude strength or something more?. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 88:895–917
    [Google Scholar]
  112. 113.  Smith MD, Asche F, Guttormsen AG, Wiener JB 2010. Genetically modified salmon and full impact assessment. Science 330:1052–53
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 114.  Spence A, Townsend E 2006. Examining consumer behavior toward genetically modified (GM) food in Britain. Risk Anal 26:657–70
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 115. Statista. 2017. Worldwide sales of organic food from 1999 to 2016 (in billion U.S. dollars). Statista https://www.statista.com/statistics/273090/worldwide-sales-of-organic-foods-since-1999/
  115. 116.  Steptoe A, Pollard TM, Wardle J 1995. Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the Food Choice Questionnaire. Appetite 25:267–84
    [Google Scholar]
  116. 117.  Stewart CN, Richards HA, Halfhill MD 2000. Transgenic plants and biosafety: science, misconceptions and public perceptions. BioTechniques 29:832–43
    [Google Scholar]
  117. 118.  Sunstein CR 2005. Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  118. 119.  Taleb N, Read R, Douady R, Norman J, Bar-Yam Y 2014. The precautionary principle (with application to genetic modification of organisms) Work. Pap., Extreme Risk Initiat. NYU Sch. Eng.
  119. 120.  Tanaka Y 2004. Major psychological factors affecting acceptance of gene‐recombination technology. Risk Anal 24:1575–83
    [Google Scholar]
  120. 121.  Tenbült P, de Vries NK, Dreezens E, Martijn C 2005. Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite 45:47–50
    [Google Scholar]
  121. 122.  Tetlock PE, Kristel OV, Elson SB, Green MC, Lerner JS 2000. The psychology of the unthinkable: taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 78:853–70
    [Google Scholar]
  122. 123.  Thomas K 1991. Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500–1800 London: Penguin
  123. 124.  Traill BW, Yee WM, Lusk JL, Jaeger SR, House LO et al. 2006. Perceptions of the risks and benefits of genetically-modified foods and their influence on willingness to consume. Acta Agric. Scand C 3:12–19
    [Google Scholar]
  124. 125.  Tylor EB 1871. Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom London: John Murray
  125. 126. US Dep. Agric. 2017. Organic market overview US Dep. Agric Washington, DC: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/organic-market-overview.aspx
  126. 127. US Food Drug Admin. 1992. Statement of policy—Foods derived from new plant varieties Biotechnol. Guid. Doc., US Food Drug Admin. Silver Spring, MD: https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm
  127. 128. US Food Drug Admin. 2018. Consumer info about food from genetically engineered plants US Food Drug Admin Silver Spring, MD: https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GEPlants/ucm461805.htm
  128. 129.  Varki A, Altheide TK 2005. Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: searching for needles in a haystack. Genome Res 15:1746–58
    [Google Scholar]
  129. 130.  Vigani M, Olper A 2013. GMO standards, endogenous policy and the market for information. Food Policy 43:32–43
    [Google Scholar]
  130. 131.  Vigani M, Olper A 2015. Patterns and determinants of GMO regulations: an overview of recent evidence. AgBioForum 18:44–54
    [Google Scholar]
  131. 132.  Waltz E 2015. Nonbrowning GM apple cleared for market. Nat. Biotechnol. 33:326–27
    [Google Scholar]
  132. 133.  Waltz E 2017. First genetically engineered salmon sold in Canada. Nature 548:148
    [Google Scholar]
  133. 134.  Watanabe M 1974. The conception of nature in Japanese culture. Science 183:279–82
    [Google Scholar]
  134. 135.  White L Jr 1967. The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science 155:1203–7
    [Google Scholar]
  135. 136. Whole Foods Mark. 2018. What are GMOs? Whole Foods Mark Austin, TX: http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/gmo-your-right-know
  136. 137.  Wilson EO 1984. Biophilia Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  137. 138.  Zhang M, Liu GL 2015. The effects of consumer's subjective and objective knowledge on perceptions and attitude towards genetically modified foods: objective knowledge as a determinant. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 50:1198–205
    [Google Scholar]
  138. 139.  Zhu X, Xie X 2015. Effects of knowledge on attitude formation and change toward genetically modified foods. Risk Anal 35:790–810
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-nutr-071715-051223
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error