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.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2012, October 20). Labeling of genetically modified foods. Retrieved from http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=464
Baron J., Leshner S. (2000). How serious are expressions of protected values? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 183–194.
Baron J., Ritov I. (2009). Protected values and omission bias as deontological judgments. In Bartels D. M., Bauman C. W., Skitka L. J., Medin D. L. (Eds.), Moral judgment and decision making: The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 50, pp. 133–167). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Baron J., Spranca M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 1–16.
Bredahl L. (2001). Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified food—Results of a cross-national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24, 23–61.
Bruening G., Lyons J. M. (2000). The case of the FLAVR SAVR tomato. California Agriculture, 54(4), 6–7.
Costa-Font J., Mossialos E. (2007). Are perceptions of “risks” and “benefits” of genetically modified food (in)dependent? Food Quality and Preference, 18, 173–182.
European Commission’s Directorate General for Health and Consumers. (2009, April 30). GMOs in a nutshell. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/qanda/d4_en.htm
Finucane M. L., Alhakami A., Slovic P., Johnson S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1–17.
Frewer L. J., Scholderer J., Bredahl L. (2003). Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: The mediating role of trust. Risk Analysis, 23, 1117–1133.
Frewer L. J., van der Lans I. A., Fischer A. R. H., Reinders M. J., Menozzi D., Zhang X., . . . Zimmermann K. L. (2013). Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification—A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 30, 142–152.
Ganzach Y. (2000). Judging risk and return of financial assets. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 353–370.
Gaskell G., Bauer M. W., Durant J., Allum N. C. (1999). Worlds apart? Reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science, 285, 384–397.
Gutierrez R., Giner-Sorolla R. (2007). Anger, disgust, and presumption of harm as reactions to taboo-breaking behaviors. Emotion, 7, 853–868.
Haidt J., Hersh M. A. (2001). Sexual morality: The cultures and emotions of conservatives and liberals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 191–221.
Haidt J., Koller S. H., Dias M. G. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613–628.
Haidt J., McCauley C., Rozin P. (1994). Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 701–713.
Hallman W. K., Cuite C. L., Morin X. K. (2013). Public perceptions of labeling genetically modified foods (Working paper). Retrieved from http://humeco.rutgers.edu/documents_pdf/news/gmlabelingperceptions.pdf
Hallman W. K., Hebden W. C., Aquino H. L., Cuite C. L., Lang J. T. (2003). Public perceptions of genetically modified foods: A national study of American knowledge and opinion. New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey. Retrieved from http://core.kmi.open.ac.uk/download/pdf/6435317.pdf
Harmon A. (2013, August 24). Golden rice: Lifesaver? The New York Times. Available from www.nytimes.com
Horberg E. J., Oveis C., Keltner D., Cohen A. B. (2009). Disgust and the moralization of purity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 963–976.
Inbar Y., Pizarro D. A., Bloom P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition & Emotion, 23, 714–725.
Kahan D. M. (2015). Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Advances in Political Psychology, 36, 1–43.
Kass L. (2001, May 21). Preventing a brave new world: Why we should ban human cloning now. The New Republic. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/~mvr2j/sfsu09/extra/Kass3.pdf
Khan R. (2013, June 11). Do liberals oppose genetically modified organisms more than conservatives? Retrieved from http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/06/do-liberals-oppose-genetically-modified-organisms-more-than-conservatives
Mayer F. S., Frantz C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.
McWilliams J. (2015, April 14). Ban GMOs: That shit ain’t food. Pacific Standard. Retrieved from http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/ban-gmos-that-shit-aint-food
Nicolia A., Manzo A., Veronesi F., Rosellini D. (2014). An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 34, 77–88.
Olatunji B. O., Williams N. L., Tolin D. F., Abramowitz J. S. (2007). The Disgust Scale: Item analysis, factor structure, and suggestions for refinement. Psychological Assessment, 19, 281–297.
Pew Research Center. (2015, January 28). Public and scientists views on science and society. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/pi_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-01
Pizarro D., Inbar Y., Helion C. (2011). On disgust and moral judgment. Emotion Review, 3, 267–268.
Priest S. H. (2000). US public opinion divided over biotechnology? Nature Biotechnology, 18, 939–942.
Ritov I., Baron J. (1999). Protected values and omission bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 79–94.
Roth A. E. (2007). Repugnance as a constraint on markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(3), 37–58.
Royzman E., Atanasov P., Landy J. F., Parks A., Gepty A. (2014). CAD or MAD? Anger (not disgust) as the predominant response to pathogen-free violations of the divinity code. Emotion, 14, 892–907.
Rozin P. (2005). The meaning of “natural”: Process more important than content. Psychological Science, 16, 652–658.
Rozin P., Fischler C., Shields-Argelès C. (2012). European and American perspectives on the meaning of natural. Appetite, 59, 448–456.
Rozin P., Haddad B., Nemeroff C., Slovic P. (2015). Psychological aspects of the rejection of recycled water: Contamination, purification and disgust. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 50–63.
Rozin P., Haidt J., McCauley C. R. (2008). Disgust. In Lewis M., Haviland-Jones J. M., Barrett L. F. (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 757–776). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
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). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 574–586.
Rozin P., Markwith M., Stoess C. (1997). Moralization and becoming a vegetarian: The transformation of preferences into values and the recruitment of disgust. Psychological Science, 8, 67–73.
Ruby M., Rozin P., Chan C. (in press). Determinants of willingness to eat insects in the U.S.A. and India. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed.
Russell P. S., Giner-Sorolla R. (2011a). Moral anger, but not Moral disgust, responds to intentionality. Emotion, 11, 233–240.
Russell P. S., Giner-Sorolla R. (2011b). Moral anger is more flexible than moral disgust. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 2, 360–364.
Sanvido O., Romeis J., Bigler F. (2007). Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops: Ten years of field research and commercial cultivation. In Fiechter A., Sautter C. (Eds.), Green gene technology (pp. 235–278). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Scholderer J., Frewer L. J. (2003). The biotechnology communication paradox: Experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26, 125–157.
Schultz P. W. (2001). Assessing the structure of environmental concern: Concern for the self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327–339.
Siegrist M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20, 195–203.
Taleb N. N., Read R., Douady R., Norman J., Bar-Yam Y. (2014). The precautionary principle (with application to genetic modification of organisms) (Extreme Risk Initiative—NYU School of Engineering Working Paper Series). Retrieved from http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf
Tenbült P., De Vries N. K., Dreezens E., Martijn C. (2005). Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite, 45, 47–50.
Tetlock P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 320–324.
Tetlock P. E., Kristel O. V., Elson S. B., Lerner J., Green M. C. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 853–870.
United States Department of Agriculture. (2015). EU-28: Agricultural biotechnology annual, GAIN report number FR9174. Retrieved from http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Paris_EU-28_7-23-2015.pdf
