Advertisement

Public Perception of Animal Biotechnology

  • Alison L. Van Eenennaam
  • Amy E. Young
Chapter

Abstract

The commercialization of any product hinges on consumer acceptance. Genetic engineering has faced an uphill battle in this regard since the introduction of genetically engineered (GE) crops in the 1990s. Public perception of GE animals is generally negative, with biomedical applications being more positively perceived than agricultural applications. To date most GE animals have been developed in private or university laboratories for research purposes. Opposition to GE animals is often conflated with opposition to use of animals in research in general, as well as opposition to aspects of intensive animal agriculture. In general, concerns about animal biotechnology are influenced by (1) views around the moral status of animals, the boundary between “natural” and “unnatural,” and perceived risks and benefits of GE animals to health and the environment (personal and cultural characteristics); (2) the purpose of the application, the method(s) being used, and the motivation of the research group making the genetic modification (research characteristics); (3) the species being modified (animal characteristics). As such, it is difficult to generalize about public perception of GE animals as a discrete category. The first GE food animal approval, the AquAdvantage salmon, in 2015, followed years of regulatory delay partially resulting from the negative public perception of genetic engineering. There are a number of new animal applications in development, enabled by new methods, which specifically target traits for animal health and well-being. A nuanced consideration of these applications by those that are not intrinsically opposed to the technology may positively impact public perception of GE animals.

Keywords

Animal biotechnology Transgenics Genetic engineering (GE) Emerging technology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge research funding support from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture and the Biotechnology Risk Assessment Grant (BRAG) program, US Department of Agriculture, under award numbers 2011-68004-30367, 2013-68004-20364, 2015-67015-23316, 2015-33522-24106, and 2017-33522-27097-0.

References

  1. Abah J, Ishaq MN, Wada AC (2010) The role of biotechnology in ensuring food security and sustainable agriculture. Afr J Biotechnol 9(52):8896–8900Google Scholar
  2. Adalja A, Sell T, McGinty M, Boddie C (2016) Genetically Modified (GM) mosquito use to reduce mosquito-transmitted disease in the us: a community opinion survey. PLOS current outbreaks, 2016 May 25. Edition 1.  https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.outbreaks.1c39ec05a743d41ee39391ed0f2ed8d3
  3. Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (2002) Animals and biotechnology. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100419143351/http://www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/pdf/animals_and_biotechnology_report.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2018
  4. Allum N, Sturgis P, Tabourazi D, Brunton-Smith I (2008) Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Underst Sci 17:35–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arjó G, Portero M, Piñol C, Viñas J, Matias-Guiu X, Capell T, Bartholomaeus A, Parrott W, Christou P (2013) Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudoscience: and in depth analysis of the Séralinin et al. study claiming that Roundup™ Ready corn or the Herbicide Roundup™ cause cancer in rats. Transgenic Res 22(2):255–267PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (1999) Ethics, morality and animal biotechnology. http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/documents/animal-biotechnology-pdf/. Accessed 25 Jan 2018
  7. Blancke S, Van Breusegem F, De Jaeger G, Braeckman J, Van Montagu M (2016) Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. Trends Plant Sci 20(7):414–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bode L, Vraga EK (2015) In related news, that was wrong: the correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. J Commun 65:619–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bredahl L (2001) Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified food—results of a cross-national survey. J Consum Policy 24(1):23–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlson DF, Lancto CA, Zang B, Kim ES, Walton M, Oldeschulte D, Seabury C, Sonstegard TS, Fahrenkrug SC (2016) Production of hornless dairy cattle from genome-edited cell lines. Nat Biotech 34:479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carroll D, Charo RA (2015) The societal opportunities and challenges of genome editing. Genome Biol 16:242PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caswell M, Fuglie K, Klotz C (2003) Agricultural biotechnology: an economic perspective. Novinka Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Ceccoli S, Hixon W (2011) Explaining attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union. Int Polit Sci Rev 33(3):301–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooke JG, Downie R (2010) African perspectives on genetically modified crops: assessing the debate in Zambia, Kenya, and South Africa. http://csis.org/files/publication/100701_Cooke_AfricaGMOs_WEB.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2018
  15. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (2010) Ethical implications of animal biotechnology: considerations for animal welfare decision making. http://www.cast-science.org/publications/?ethical_implications_of_animal_biotechnology_considerations_for_animal_welfare_decision_making&show=product&productID=2952. Accessed 25 Jan 2018
  16. Crawford SC (2003) Hindu bioethics for the twenty-first century. State University of New York Press, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  17. Critchley CR (2008) Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Underst Sci 17(3):309–327PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Curtis KR, Moeltner K (2007) The effect of consumer risk perceptions on the propensity to purchase genetically modified foods in Romania. Agribusiness 23(2):563–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Witt A, Osseweijer P, Pierce R (2015) Understanding public perceptions of biotechnology through the "Integrative Worldview Framework". Public Underst Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515592364 0963662515592364, E-pub ahead of print July 3, 2015
  20. Driscoll JW (1992) Attitudes towards animal use. Anthrozoös 5:32–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Driscoll J (1995) Attitudes toward animals: species ratings. Soc Anim 3(2):139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Einsiedel EF (2005) Public perceptions of transgenic animals. Rev Sci Tech 24(1):149–157PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Epstein R (1998) Buddhism and biotechnology. http://online.sfsu.edu/repstein/GEessays/Buddhism%20and%20Biotechnology.htm. Accessed 25 Jan 2018
  24. Finucane ML (2002) Mad cows, mad corn and mad communities: the role of socio-cultural factors in the perceived risk of genetically-modified food. Proc Nutr Soc 61(1):31–37PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Flipse SM, Osseweijer P (2013) Media attention to GM food cases: an innovation perspective. Public Underst Sci 22(2):185–202PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009) Codex Alimentarius. Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  27. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2013) Biotechnologies at work for smallholders: case studies from developing countries in crops, livestock and fishGoogle Scholar
  28. Forsberg CW, Meidinger RG, Liu M, Cottrill M, Golovan S, Phillips JP (2013) Integration, stability and expression of the E. coli phytase transgene in the Cassie line of Yorkshire Enviropig. Transgenic Res 22(2):379–389PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Frewer L, Miles S, Marsh R (2002) The media and genetically modified foods: evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Anal 22(4):701–711PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Frewer L, Lassen J, Kettlitz B, Scholderer J, Beekman V, Berdal KG (2004) Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food Chem Toxicol 42(7):1181–1193PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Frewer L, Bergmann K, Brennan M, Lion R, Meertens R, Rowe G et al (2011) Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Food Sci Technol 22:442–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Frewer L, van der Lans I, Fischer A, Reinders M, Menozzi D, Zhang X et al (2013) Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Food Sci Tech 30:142–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Furnham A, McManus C, Scott D (2003) Personality, empathy and attitudes to animal welfare. Anthrozoös 16(2):135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gabriel KI, Rutledge BH, Barkley CL (2012) Attitudes on animal research predict acceptance of genetic modification technologies by university undergraduates. Soc Anim 20:381–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gallegos J (2017) GMO salmon caught in U.S. regulatory net, but Canadians have eaten 5 tons. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/08/04/gmo-salmon-caught-in-u-s-regulatory-net-but-canadians-have-eaten-5-tons/?utm_term=.0d6ec3f269fc. Accessed 25 Jan 2018
  36. Ganiere P, Chern WS, Hahn D (2006) A continuum of consumer attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the United States. J Agr Resour Econ 31(1):129–149Google Scholar
  37. Gaskell G, Allum N, Bauer M, Durant J, Allansdottir A, Bonfadelli H et al (2000) Biotechnology and the European public. Nat Biotechnol 18(9):935–938PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Gaskell G, Allum NC, Stares SR (2003) Europeans and biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  39. Gaskell G, Allum N, Wagner W, Kronberger N, Torgersen H, Hampel J, Bardes J (2004) GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Anal 24(1):185–194PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Gjerris M (2012) Animal biotechnology: the ethical landscape. In: Brunk CG, Hartley S (eds) Designer animals: mapping the issues in animal biotechnology. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  41. Gordon JW, Scangos GA, Plotkin DJ, Barbosa JA, Ruddle FH (1980) Genetic transformation of mouse embryos by microinjection of purified DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 77(12):7380–7384PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Grunert KG, Bech-Larsen T, Lahteenmaki L, Ueland O, Astrom A (2004) Attitudes towards the use of GMOs in food production and their impact on buying intention: the role of positive sensory experience. Agribusiness 20(1):95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gupta N, Fischer A, Frewer L (2011) Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: a review. Public Underst Sci 21(7):782–795PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Hagelin J, Hau J, Carlsson HE (1999) Undergraduate university students' views of the use of animals in biomedical research. Acad Med 74(10):1135–1137PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Hagelin J, Carlsson HE, Hau J (2003) An overview of surveys on how people view animal experimentation: some factors that may influence the outcome. Public Underst Sci 12:67–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hallerman E, Grabau E (2016) Crop biotechnology: a pivotal moment for global acceptance. Food Energy Secur 5(1):3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hallman WK, Hebden WC, Aquino HL, Cuite CL, Lang JT (2003) Public perceptions of genetically modified foods: a national study of American knowledge and opinion (RR-1003-004). Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJGoogle Scholar
  48. Hammer RE, Pursel VG, Rexroad CE Jr, Wall RJ, Bolt DJ, Ebert KM, Brinster RL (1985) Production of transgenic rabbits, sheep and pigs by microinjection. Nature 315(6021):680–683PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Herzog HA, Galvin S (1997) Common sense and the mental lives of animals: an empirical approach. In: Mitchell RW (ed) Anthropormorphism, anecdotes and animals. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, pp 237–253Google Scholar
  50. Hess S, Lagerkvist CJ, Redekop W, Pakseresht A (2013) Consumers’ evaluation of biotechnology in food products: new evidence from a meta-survey. Paper presented at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association’s 2013 AAEA & CAES joint annual meeting, Washington, DC. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/151148/2/Consumers%20Evaluation%20of%20Biotechnology%20in%20Food%20Products%202013%20final.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2018
  51. Hoban TJ (2004) Public attitudes towards agricultural biotechnology (ESA Working Paper No. 04-09). http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/23810/1/wp040009.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2018
  52. Houghton JR, Rowe G, Frewer LJ, Van Kleef E, Chryssochoidis G, Kehagia O et al (2008) The quality of food risk management in Europe: perspectives and priorities. Food Policy 33:13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hudson J, Caplanova A, Novak M (2015) Public attitudes to GM foods. The balancing of risks and gains. Appetite 92:303–313PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. International Food Information Council (2014) Consumer perceptions of food technology survey. http://www.foodinsight.org/surveys/2014-food-technology-survey. Accessed 25 Jan 2018
  55. Ipsos Social Research Institute (2013) Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues—biotechnology (ISRI Project 12-025766-01). http://www.industry.gov.au/industry/IndustrySectors/nanotechnology/Publications/Documents/Emergingtechstudybio.docx. Accessed 25 Jan 2018
  56. James C (2016) Global status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops 2016. ISAAA brief no. 52. ISAAA, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  57. Jasper J, Nelkin D (1992) The animal rights crusade. The Free Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  58. Jayaraman K, Jia H (2012) GM phobia spreads in South Asia. Nat Biotechnol 30(11):1017–1019PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Kaiser M (2005) Assessing ethics and animal welfare in animal biotechnology for farm production. Rev Sci Tech 24(1):75–87PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Kalof L, Dietz T, Stern PC, Guagnano GA (1999) Social psychosocial and structural influences on vegetarian beliefs. Rural Sociol 64:500–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kendall HA, Lobao LM, Sharp JS (2006) Public concern with animal well-being: place, social structural location, and individual experience. Rural Sociol 71(3):399–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Knight A (2009) Perceptions, knowledge and ethical concerns with GM foods and the GM process. Public Underst Sci 18(2):177–188PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Knight S, Barnett L (2008) Justifying attitudes towards animal use: a qualitative study of people's views and beliefs. Anthrozoös 21:31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Knight S, Nunkoosing K, Vrig A, Cherryman J (2003) Using grounded theory to examine people's attitudes towards how animals are used. Soc Anim 11:179–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Knight S, Vrij A, Cherryman J, Nunkoosing K (2004) Attitudes towards animal use and belief in animal mind. Anthrozoös 17(1):43–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Knight JG, Mather DW, Holdsworth DK, Ermen DF (2007) Acceptance of GM food—an experiment in six countries. Nat Biotechnol 25(5):507–508PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Kronberger N, Wagner W, Nagata M (2013) How natural is “more natural”? The role of method, type of transfer, and familiarity for public perceptions of cisgenic and transgenic modification. Sci Commun:1–25Google Scholar
  68. Lazaris A, Arcidiaconon S, Huang Y, Zhou J-F, Duguay F, Chretien N, Karatzas CN (2002) Spider silk fibers spun from soluble recombinant silk produced in mammalian cells. Science 295:472–476PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Leahy PJ, Mazur A (1980) The rise and fall of public opposition in specific social movements. Social Stud Sci 10(3):259–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Li R, Wang Q, McHughen A (2015) Chinese government reaffirms backing for GM products. Nat Biotechnol 33(10):1029PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Logar N, Pollock LK (2005) Transgenic fish: is a new policy framework necessary for a new technology? Environ Sci Policy 8(1):17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Lund TB, McKeegan DEF, Cribbin C, Sandoe P (2016) Animal ethics profiling of vegetarians, vegans and meat-eaters. Anthrozoös 29(1):89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lusk J, Murray S (2015) Food demand survey. FooDS 2(9):1–5Google Scholar
  74. Lusk J, McFadden B, Rickard B (2015) Which biotech foods are most acceptable to the public? Biotechnol J 10:13–16PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. Marchant GE, Stevens YA (2016) A new window of opportunity to reject process-based biotechnology regulation. GM Crops & Food 64(4):233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Marques M, Critchley C, Walshe J (2015) Attitudes to genetically modified food over time: how trust in organizations and the media cycle predict support. Public Underst Sci 24(5):601–618PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. McColl KA, Clarke B, Doran TJ (2013) Role of genetically engineered animals in future food production. Aust Vet J 91(3):113–117PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. Melodlesi A (2011) Vatican panel backs GMOs. Nat Biotechnol 29(1):11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Mielby H, Sandøe P, Lassen J (2012) The role of scientific knowledge in shaping public attitudes to GM technologies. Public Underst Sci 22(2):155–168PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. Moerbeek H, Casimir G (2005) Gender differences in consumers' acceptance of genetically modified foods. Int J Consum Stud 29(4):308–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Mora C, Menozzi D, Kleter G, Aramyan L, Valeeva N, Zimmerman K, Reddy G (2012) Factors affecting the adoption of genetically modified animals in the food and pharmaceutical chains. Bio-based Appl Econ 1(3):313–329Google Scholar
  82. Navaro J, Maldonado E, Pedraza C, Cavas M (2001) Attitudes among animal research among psychology students in Spain. Psychol Rep 89:227–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Network of African Science Academies (2015) Harnessing modern agricultural biotechnology for Africa’s economic development: recommendations to policymakers. http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=28031. Accessed 25 Jan 2018
  84. Novoselova T, Meuwissen M, Huirne R (2007) Adoption of GM technology in livestock production chains: an integrating framework. Food Sci Technol 18:175–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Ormandy E (2009) Worldwide trends in the use of animals in research: the contribution of genetically-modified animal models. ATLA-Altern Lab Anim 37:63–65Google Scholar
  86. Ormandy E, Schuppli C (2014) Public attitudes toward animal research: a review. Animals 4:391–408PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  87. Ormandy E, Schuppli C, Weary D (2012) Factors affecting people's acceptance of the use of zebrafish and mice in research. ATLA-Altern Lab Anim 40(6):321–333Google Scholar
  88. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2007) Options for future discussions on genetically modified and cloned animals. Paper presented at the pew initiative on food and biotechnology workshop, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  89. Pew Research Center (2015) Public and scientists' views on science and society. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/. Accessed 25 Jan 2018
  90. Pifer LK (1996) Exploring the gender gap in young adults' attitudes about animal research. Soc Anim 4(1):37–52PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  91. Pifer L, Shimizu K, Pifer R (1994) Public attitudes toward public research: some international comparisons. Soc Anim 2:95–113PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  92. Pin R, Gutteling J (2009) The development of public perception research in the genomics field: an empirical analysis of the literature in the field. Sci Commun 31(1):57–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Priest SH (2000) US public opinion divided over biotechnology? Nat Biotechnol 18(9):939–942PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  94. Priest SH, Bonfadelli H, Rusanen M (2003) The "trust gap" hypothesis: predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Anal 23(4):751–766PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  95. Puduri V, Govindasamy R, Lang JT, Onuango B (2005) I will not eat it with a fox; I will not eat it in a box: what determines acceptance of GM food for American consumers? Choices 20:257–261Google Scholar
  96. Qaim M, Kouser S (2013) Genetically modified crops and food security. PLoS One 8(6):e64879PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Rodriguez L, Abbott E (2007) Communication, public understanding and attitudes toward biotechnology in developing nations: a meta-analysis. Paper presented at the 11th international conference on agricultural biotechnologies: new frontiers and products—economics, policies and science, Ravello, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  98. Rollin BE (2014) The perfect storm—genetic engineering, science, and ethics. Sci & Educ 23:509–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Ruane J, Sonnino A (2011) Agricultural biotechnologies in developing countries and their possible contribution to food security. J Biotechnol 156(4):356–363PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  100. Russell WMS, Burch RL (1959) The principles of humane experimental technique. Methuen, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  101. Samadi S, Barberousse A (2015) Species. In: Heams PHT, Lecointre G, Silberstein M (eds) Handbook of evolutionary thinking in the sciences. Springer Science, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  102. Sanchez D (2015) Genetically modified crops: how attitudes to new technology influence adoption. Australian Council of Learned Academies. http://www.acola.org.au/PDF/SAF05/4Genetically%20modified%20crops.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2018Google Scholar
  103. Sanderson J (2013) Pigoons, Rakunks and Crakers: Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake and genetically engineered animals in a (Latourian) hybrid world. Law and Humanities 7(2):218–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Sandler RL (2015) Food ethics. Routledge, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  105. Scholderer J, Frewer LJ (2003) The biotechnology communication paradox: experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. J Consum Policy 26(2):125–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Schuppli CA (2011) Decisions about the use of animals in research: ethical reflection by animal ethics committee members. Anthrozoös 24(4):409–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Schuppli C, Weary D (2010) Attitudes towards the use of genetically modified animals in research. Public Underst Sci 19(6):686–697PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  108. Scott SE, Inbar Y, Rozin P (2016) Evidence for absolute moral opposition to genetically modified food in the United States. Perspect Psychol Sc 11(3):315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2005) Handbook of the convention on biological diversity including its cartagena protocol on biosafety, 3rd edn. Friesen, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  110. Shaw A (2002) “It just goes against the grain.” Public understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK. Public Underst Sci 11(3):273–291PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  111. Sheehy H, Legault M, Ireland D (1998) Consumer and biotechnology: a synopsis of survey and focus group research. J Consum Policy 21:359–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Sherkow JS, Greely HT (2015) The history of patenting genetic material. Annu Rev Genet 49:161–182PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  113. Siegrist M (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal 20(2):195–203PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  114. Smyth SJ, Kerr WA, Phillips PWB (2015) Global economic, environmental and health benefits from GM crop adoption. Glob Food Secur-Agr 7:24–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Steinhart H (2006) Novel foods and novel processing techniques as threats and challenges to a hypersensitive world. In: Gilissen LJEJ, Wichers HJ, Savelkoul HFJ, Bogers RJ (eds) Allergy matters: new approaches to allergy prevention and management, vol 10, Springer, Dordrecht, pp 63–75Google Scholar
  116. Stephan HR (2015) Cultural politics and the transatlantic divide over GMOs: cultures of nature. Palgrave Macmillan, London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Swami V, Furnham A, Christopher AN (2008) Free the animals? Investigating attitudes toward animal testing in Britain and the United States. Scand J Psychol 49(3):269–276PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  118. Tizard M, Hallerman E, Fahrenkrug S, Newell-McGloughlin M, Gibson J, de Loos F, Wagner S, Laible G, Han JY, D’Occhio M, Kelly L, Lowenthal J, Gobius K, Silva P, Cooper C, Doran T (2016) Strategies to enable the adoption of animal biotechnology to sustainably improve global food safety and security. Transgenic Res 25(5):575–595PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  119. Townsend E, Campbell S (2004) Psychological determinants of willingness to tast and purchase genetically modified food. Risk Anal 24(5):1385–1393PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  120. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2015) FDA has determined that the aquadvantage salmon is as safe to eat as non-ge salmon. https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm472487.htm Accessed 25 Jan 2018
  121. Vazquez-Salat N (2013) Are good ideas enough? The impact of socio-economic and regulatory factors on GMO commercialisation. Biol Res 46(4):317–322PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  122. Vazquez-Salat N, Houdebine L (2013) Will GM animals follow the GM plant fate? Transgenic Res 22(1):5–13PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  123. Veil SR, Reno J, Freihaut R, Oldham J (2015) Online activists vs. Kraft foods: a case of social media hijacking. Public Relat Rev 41:103–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Vis F (2014) To tackle the spread of misinformation online we must first understand it. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/24/tackle-spread-misinformation-online. Accessed 25 Jan 2018
  125. Wagner W, Kronberger N, Nagata M, Sen R, Holtz P, Palacios F (2010) Essentialist theory of ‘hybrids’: from animal kinds to ethnic categories and race. Asian J Soc Psychol 13(4):232–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Waltz E (2016) GM salmon declared fit for dinner plates. Nat Biotechnol 34(1):7–9PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  127. Waltz E (2017) First genetically engineered salmon sold in Canada. Nature 548:148PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  128. Wells DL, Hepper PG (1997) Pet ownership and adults' views on animal use. Soc Anim 5:45–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. World Health Organization (2016) Glossary: food security. http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4671e/y4671e06.htm. Accessed 25 Jan 2018

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal ScienceUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations