4.6 Article

How chemophobia affects public acceptance of pesticide use and biotechnology in agriculture

Journal

FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE
Volume 91, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104197

Keywords

Agricultural biotechnology; Pesticides; Gene editing; Gene modification; Public acceptance

Funding

  1. Consumer Behavior Group at ETH Zurich

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Consumers have varying levels of acceptance towards the use of pesticides and agricultural biotechnology in agriculture, particularly influenced by chemophobia and the preference for naturalness in food. Addressing these issues and educating consumers on the role of technologies in pest-management and crop-protection could increase their trust and acceptance of related agricultural policies.
Protecting crops from infestations is critical to ensuring stable, safe food production. However, many consumers are concerned about the use of pesticides and agricultural biotechnology (agri-biotech) applications. A lack of consumer acceptance can prevent potentially beneficial applications from being utilized. This study examines consumer acceptance of pesticide use in conventional and organic agriculture and agri-biotech applications as crop-protection measures. An online between-subject experiment was conducted with participants from the German-speaking part of Switzerland (N = 643). The results revealed that consumers were most willing to accept gene transfers as a protection measure, provided the gene came from a wild variety of the same species as the cultivated plant. Both chemophobia and the importance of naturalness in food influence consumer acceptance of pesticide use and agri-biotech applications. Addressing chemophobia and informing consumers about the role of technologies in pest-management and crop-protection could lead them to trust and accept related agricultural policies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available