Risk perception and impact on attitudes

Research that has been directed towards understanding public perceptions associated with potential food hazards have largely, but not exclusively, focused on issues associated with risk and benefit. How the public defines risk and benefit, and how the experts define the same issues, may be very different. This is not to say that non-experts should be viewed as irrational, but rather that public views should inform the debate about the strategic development of genetic modification. Research has demonstrated that risk perception is ‘socially constructed’ – that is, the way that people psychologically represent risks is a more important determinant of the way in which people react to risks relative to probabilistic risk assessments. Risk perception research has demonstrated that risks which are perceived as involuntary and unnatural are viewed as more threatening than those over which people perceive they have a choice, even if the probability of occurrence of the involuntary risk is very low (Slovic, 1993). Furthermore, specific concerns may be linked with particular hazards. For example, genetic modification of foods is associated with beliefs that the technology is ethically wrong, and representative of ‘tampering with nature’, that the long-term impact is unknown or unforeseen, (particularly with respect to effects on future generations), and that people have no choice over whether or not to consume them (Miles and Frewer, 2001).

That attitudes influence people’s behaviours regarding their choices about whether or not to eat genetically modified products can be demonstrated by reference to real-world events. Public concerns about involuntary exposure to potential hazards are demonstrated by their reactions to situations where genetically modified ingredients are introduced into the marketplace without labelling and tracebility mechanisms. The removal of consumer choice is a key driver of consumer negativity towards genetically modified foods.

Genetically modified soya developed by Monsanto was not labelled when it was first imported into Europe from the United States. As a result, European consumers perceived that they had little choice about whether to consume genetically modified foods, creating problems for the European industry through heightened consumer concern and distrust in manufacturers and regulatory institutions. In addition, failure to label genetically modified ingredients resulted in perceptions of mistrust associated with industry, as the public assumed that failure to label indicated that the real risks were being hidden in order to promote a vested interest. Finally, the European public perceived that the benefits of genetically modified Soya accrued to American producers and to industry, but that European consumers experienced the risks. Combining all these factors, it is not surprising that acceptance of genetically modified Soya by the European public was so low. In contrast, the public accepted tomato paste produced by Zeneca, introduced to the British consumer a year earlier. This was because the product was clearly labelled as genetically modified, had a tangible consumer benefit, (reduced cost) and was consumed on a voluntary basis by the public.