Multiple aspects of unnaturalness: are cisgenic crops perceived as being more natural and more acceptable than transgenic crops?
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Multiple aspects of unnaturalness : are cisgenic crops perceived as being more natural and more acceptable than transgenic crops? / Mielby, Henrik Ole; Sandøe, Peter; Lassen, Jesper.
In: Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2013, p. 471-480.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Multiple aspects of unnaturalness
T2 - are cisgenic crops perceived as being more natural and more acceptable than transgenic crops?
AU - Mielby, Henrik Ole
AU - Sandøe, Peter
AU - Lassen, Jesper
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - In Europe the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in food production has so far failed to gain wide public approval. Ordinary people are concerned about issues not covered by the existing regulation, including usefulness and unnaturalness. In response, particularly to worries about unnaturalness, biotechnologists have suggested that inserted genes should derive only from the plant itself, or from close relatives. This paper examines public perceptions of these so-called ‘cisgenic crops’ and asks whether the public shares the idea that they are less unnatural and thus more acceptable than transgenic plants. Using five focus group interviews, we identified five lines of argument about naturalness with a bearing on the assessment of cisgenic crops as well as GM crops in general. The paper concludes that, depending on perceptions of naturalness, some people would agree that cisgenic crops are more acceptable than their transgenic counterparts. The finding that ordinary people value different aspects of naturalness may be relevant to a broader audience than just those interested in gene technology. It cautions against a simplistic interpretation of what counts as ‘natural’.
AB - In Europe the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in food production has so far failed to gain wide public approval. Ordinary people are concerned about issues not covered by the existing regulation, including usefulness and unnaturalness. In response, particularly to worries about unnaturalness, biotechnologists have suggested that inserted genes should derive only from the plant itself, or from close relatives. This paper examines public perceptions of these so-called ‘cisgenic crops’ and asks whether the public shares the idea that they are less unnatural and thus more acceptable than transgenic plants. Using five focus group interviews, we identified five lines of argument about naturalness with a bearing on the assessment of cisgenic crops as well as GM crops in general. The paper concludes that, depending on perceptions of naturalness, some people would agree that cisgenic crops are more acceptable than their transgenic counterparts. The finding that ordinary people value different aspects of naturalness may be relevant to a broader audience than just those interested in gene technology. It cautions against a simplistic interpretation of what counts as ‘natural’.
KW - Naturalness
KW - Public attitudes
KW - GMOs
KW - Cisgenesis
KW - Focus groups
KW - PLANTS
KW - biotechnology
KW - public perception
KW - focus group
U2 - 10.1007/s10460-013-9430-1
DO - 10.1007/s10460-013-9430-1
M3 - Journal article
VL - 30
SP - 471
EP - 480
JO - Agriculture and Human Values
JF - Agriculture and Human Values
SN - 0889-048X
IS - 3
ER -
ID: 94755878