طبیعی بودن درک و قبول واقعیت غذایی اصلاح ژنتیکی شده

Abstract This study examines people's acceptance of genetically modified (GM) food. Results suggest that GM acceptance depends most on how natural the genetically modified product is perceived and not directly on how natural the non-GM product is seen. A GM product that is perceived as more natural is more likely to be accepted than a GM product that is perceived as less natural. The extent to which GM affects the perceived naturalness of a product partly depends on the kind of product.

Introduction More and more products are either genetically modified or organically grown. The change of hereditary material by transferring properties of one organism (e.g. plant, animal) into another organism is referred to as genetic modification (GM). With this technique, varieties of plants and animals can be created that are, for example, more resistant to herbicides or richer in vitamins. Opinions towards GM differ strongly and this issue is heavily debated. Grunert, Bredahl, and Scholderer (2003) showed that consumer attitudes are negative towards GM in food production. The authors suggest that the negative attitudes are embedded in a system of more general attitudes (e.g. towards nature). Dreezens, Martijn, Tenbült, Kok, and de Vries (2005) showed that specific values play a role in predicting participants' attitudes towards genetic modified foods. It appears that interpersonal differences are related to different attitudes towards GM. Other studies (Gamble, Muggleston, Hedderley, Parminter, & Vaughan, 2000; Tenbült, de Vries, Dreezens, & Martijn, unpublished manuscript) have also shown a negative attitude towards GM. Consumers reject it for ethical reasons. They are afraid of the long-term effects of consuming genetically modified foods; they believe that it will disadvantage developing countries or that it disturbs the ecological balance et cetera. Acceptance of genetic modification in food production varies over different consumer categories. GM acceptance has been related to socio-demographic factors (Hossain et al., 2002 and Tenbült et al. 2004; Onyango, & Nayga Jr., 2004), trust and confidence in science, government and biotechnology companies (Frewer et al., 1998 and Hossain et al., 2002; Onyango et al., 2004), nature of the GM technology that has been used (Burton and Pearse, 2003 and Frewer et al., 1998; Onyango, & Nayga Jr. 2004) and information provided about GM (Grunert et al., 2003). Only a few studies relate GM acceptance to the type of food products. Research by Gamble et al. (2000) suggests that acceptance of genetic modification in foods is product-specific. The authors show that consumers are more interested in labels when they are purchasing a ‘healthy’ item for others, than when they want to buy a snack, like chocolate, for themselves. Consumers believed that the way tomatoes are produced is more important than, for example, the quality, taste and price of the product. Interestingly, this pattern is reversed when they are presented with chocolate biscuits. The authors suggest that the chocolate biscuits are already seen as being unhealthy, so consumers do not care whether the production technology is also regarded as unhealthy. Apparently, the basis for evaluations of products differs between product categories. Genetic modification can be a feature that influences this evaluation and it is therefore likely that acceptability of genetic modification depends on product categories. In the study by Gamble et al. (2000), the perceived healthiness of products was investigated as the decisive characteristic. More in general, evaluations of products can also be determined by other criteria, for example, the extent to which a product is seen as less important or less necessary for people's diet or whether the product is seen as less natural or not. Rozin, Spranca, Krieger, Neuhaus, Sunllo, Swerdlin, & Wood (2004) showed that people have a substantial preference for natural over processed or artificial products. When people are confronted with two products that are chemically identical, but one of the two is natural and the other is artificial, people prefer the natural one. If GM is perceived as an artificial procedure in food production, it follows that GM products are seen as less natural, and will therefore be less well accepted. The present research aims to investigate whether GM acceptance is product-specific and whether the perceived naturalness, healthiness or necessity of the products determine the acceptability of genetic engineering in different product categories. We expect that the perceived naturalness rather than the perceived healthiness or perceived necessity of products influences GM acceptance and that differences between categories with regard to perceived naturalness account for differences in GM acceptance.

Results ‘Necessary’ and ‘less necessary’ category of products In the pilot study, ‘tomato’, ‘butter’ and ‘bread’ were classified as necessary (see Table 1). From now on we will refer to these products as the ‘necessary’ category of products. ‘Fish fingers’, ‘crisps’ and ‘mars’ will be referred to as ‘less necessary’. The mean ratings of both categories of products were calculated for all further analyses. Product specificity The two categories were compared with regard to the perceived naturalness of the non-GM variant, the perceived unnaturalness of the GM variant and acceptance of the GM product. A paired samples T-test showed that the ‘necessary’ category of products is perceived as being more natural than the ‘less necessary’ category of products [t(143)=23.24, p<0.001]. Besides this, paired samples T-tests also showed that in general for products in the ‘necessary’ category, it was more accepted when they were genetically modified than for products in the ‘less necessary’ category [t(143)=2.05, p<0.05 (for means see Table 2)]. No significant difference was found between the two categories with regard to GM unnaturalness. The ‘necessary’ category is perceived as being more natural in its original state, and is also more accepted when it is genetically modified compared to the ‘less necessary’ category. Importantly, GM acceptance differs between the two categories. Table 2. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for GM acceptance and the perceived naturalness and GM unnaturalness, for the ‘necessary’ and ‘less necessary’ categories of products M SD ‘Necessary’ category Naturalness non-GM 3.99 0.61 Unnaturalness GM 2.53 1.00 Acceptance GM 3.07 0.91 ‘Less necessary’ category Naturalness non-GM 2.11 0.67 Unnaturalness GM 2.46 0.95 Acceptance GM 3.01 0.86 Table options Correlations Correlations between the perceived naturalness and GM unnaturalness were positive for both categories (see Table 3). The more a product is perceived as natural, the more its GM form is seen as unnatural. Table 3. Correlations of unnaturalness of GM products, necessity and naturalness of non-GM products and GM acceptance for the two categories ‘Necessary’ category ‘Less necessary’ category Necessity Naturalness GM unnaturalness Necessity Naturalness GM unnaturalness Naturalness 0.373** 1 0.354** 0.368** 1 0.529** GM unnaturalness n.s. .354** 1 n.s. 0.529** 1 GM acceptance −0.202* −0.229** −0.512** n.s. −0.199* −0.393** N=144. **Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). Table options The perceived unnaturalness of the GM ‘necessary’ category and the GM ‘less necessary’ category correlated negatively with GM acceptance (see Table 3). So, the more unnatural the GM group is perceived, the less likely it is that GM will be accepted. Only the perceived naturalness and necessity of the ‘necessary’ category correlated negatively with GM acceptance of the ‘necessary’ category [necessity, r(144)=−0.202, p<0.05; naturalness, r(144)=−0.229, p<0.01]. So, the more natural and the more necessary the ‘necessary’ category is perceived, the less likely GM acceptance will occur. GM acceptance was regressed on perceived naturalness and GM unnaturalness for both categories. GM unnaturalness was a significant predictor of GM acceptance of the ‘necessary’ category of products [β=0.51, p<0.001, F(1,142)=50.52, p<0.001]. GM unnaturalness was also a significant predictor of GM acceptance of the ‘less necessary’ category of products [β=0.39, p<0.001, F(1,142)=25.95, p<0.001]. So, GM acceptance can be predicted by the perceived unnaturalness of the GM forms for both the ‘necessary’ and ‘less necessary’ categories of products. Perceived naturalness of the original products was a non-significant predictor in both cases. Thus, it may be suggested that the negative correlation between perceived naturalness and necessity with GM acceptance within the ‘necessary’ category is due to intercorrelations of these variables. Technology specificity Analysis of correlations between GM acceptances of different products showed very high correlations (all Rs above 0.73). Apparently, people who accept some products in GM form are also likely to accept other products in GM form more.