Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States
- PMID: 27217243
- DOI: 10.1177/1745691615621275
Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States
Abstract
Public opposition to genetic modification (GM) technology in the food domain is widespread (Frewer et al., 2013). In a survey of U.S. residents representative of the population on gender, age, and income, 64% opposed GM, and 71% of GM opponents (45% of the entire sample) were "absolutely" opposed-that is, they agreed that GM should be prohibited no matter the risks and benefits. "Absolutist" opponents were more disgust sensitive in general and more disgusted by the consumption of genetically modified food than were non-absolutist opponents or supporters. Furthermore, disgust predicted support for legal restrictions on genetically modified foods, even after controlling for explicit risk-benefit assessments. This research suggests that many opponents are evidence insensitive and will not be influenced by arguments about risks and benefits.
Keywords: biotechnology; disgust; genetic engineering; genetic modification; moralization; protected values; sacred values.
© The Author(s) 2016.
Similar articles
-
No Absolutism Here: Harm Predicts Moral Judgment 30× Better Than Disgust-Commentary on Scott, Inbar, & Rozin (2016).Perspect Psychol Sci. 2016 May;11(3):325-9. doi: 10.1177/1745691616635598. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2016. PMID: 27217244
-
Is Opposition to Genetically Modified Food "Morally Absolutist"? A Consequence-Based Perspective.Perspect Psychol Sci. 2020 Mar;15(2):250-272. doi: 10.1177/1745691619873550. Epub 2019 Dec 26. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2020. PMID: 31877108
-
Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most.Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Mar;3(3):251-256. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0520-3. Epub 2019 Jan 14. Nat Hum Behav. 2019. PMID: 30953007
-
Biological and biomedical aspects of genetically modified food.Biomed Pharmacother. 2005 Dec;59(10):531-40. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2005.07.013. Epub 2005 Oct 21. Biomed Pharmacother. 2005. PMID: 16298508 Review.
-
Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials.Food Chem Toxicol. 2008 Mar;46 Suppl 1:S2-70. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2008.02.008. Epub 2008 Feb 13. Food Chem Toxicol. 2008. PMID: 18328408 Review.
Cited by
-
Understanding the Factors Driving Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Gene-Edited Foods in China.Foods. 2024 Jul 25;13(15):2348. doi: 10.3390/foods13152348. Foods. 2024. PMID: 39123540 Free PMC article.
-
U.S. public opinion about the safety of gene editing in the agriculture and medical fields and the amount of evidence needed to improve opinions.Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024 Feb 16;12:1340398. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1340398. eCollection 2024. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024. PMID: 38433825 Free PMC article.
-
Engineered and natural gene drives: mechanistically the same, yet not same in kind.Nat Commun. 2023 Sep 26;14(1):5994. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-41727-3. Nat Commun. 2023. PMID: 37752157 Free PMC article.
-
Genetically Engineered Foods and Moral Absolutism: A Representative Study from Germany.Sci Eng Ethics. 2023 Sep 6;29(5):34. doi: 10.1007/s11948-023-00454-0. Sci Eng Ethics. 2023. PMID: 37672172 Free PMC article.
-
Examining the key determinants of the jordanian customer's adoption of genetically modified food.Heliyon. 2023 Jun 3;9(6):e16920. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16920. eCollection 2023 Jun. Heliyon. 2023. PMID: 37484351 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
