Table of Contents

Introduction
Methods
Research Landscape
Conceptualization and Selection of Variables
Findings Within the Literature
Research Designs and Data Collection
Conclusions

Tables

Table 1: Research sample
Table 2: Research projects from the two largest hubs
Table 3: Variable types and frequencies
Table 4: Frequencies of variables and examples of findings
Table 5: Significance of measured demographic variables
Table 6: Significance of measured substantive variables
Table 7: Research design characteristics

Figures

Figure 1: Mapping research variables

Reference List

The primary objective of this investigation is a meta-analysis of social science research on the public and genetically modified (GM) foods. More specifically, our goals are to portray the "landscape" of scholarly collection and analysis, to identify strengths and weaknesses of the publications, to collate central tendencies of researchers in terms of the variables being investigated, and to summarize salient conclusions across studies. The research sample is comprised of 25 U.S. studies that use quantitative methodologies to analyze survey results through the year 2005. The sample is marked by the interdisciplinary composition of researchers, but is narrow in the facts that almost all research is done by land-grant universities and two research hubs (Hoban/North Carolina State University, and Food Policy Institute/Rutgers University) account for about half of the work done.

Our analysis reveals a literature that is not yet building on common ground, but still seeking form and organization. These researchers, though interested in similar issues, define, conceptualize, operationalize, and measure variables very differently. Analysis of the actual examinations of issues considered in this literature shows that although sharing interest in public perceptions and behavior surrounding genetically modified food, there is some range in how variables are constructed and used. This literature is focused on public attitudes toward GM foods, with particular emphases on consumer knowledge, feelings of trust, support or opposition, and labeling.

Some general patterns and findings emerge from the forty-nine separate analyses in the 25 research reports. While some findings appear to be contradictory, this literature does coalesce in a broad way to draw some conclusions about public perceptions and attitudes. In summary, women, people with less education, respondents in the middle age category, and those who are not very knowledgeable about genetic modification are the most likely to oppose it. Men, people with high levels of education and who report being aware of GM food and biotechnology, are most likely to support biotechnology in express less concern over GM food products. Concerns are predictably related to other allied issues, such as perceived risk to the environment and health. Belief systems are also important, e.g., religious participation and standing as well as moral objections to biotechnology influence support for genetically modified foods. Additionally, institutional trust and allegiance matter and there is some indication that political perspective can influence the attitudes of the public toward GM food products. Although these findings are interesting, much of this analysis remains at the descriptive level. For the most part, findings represent conclusions drawn from analyses that are relatively cursory and unsophisticated. Although we may be able to glean some interesting insights from simple and descriptive work, it remains preliminary.

Nearly half of these studies do not report on basic research design and implementation factors (e.g., response rates) that readers need to examine the trustworthiness of any claims or conclusions. In terms of the reported design variables, one can suggest that the strengths of this research are the sample sizes, the adequacy of the sampling frames, and univariate and descriptive renderings of the collected data. On the other hand, too many of these projects have inadequate usable response rates, little knowledge of non-respondents, and a basic propensity to avoid sophisticated forms of analysis. The basic kinds of significant correlations and trends presented in this literature may be wholly spurious or non-trustworthy. The lack of complex analysis, along with the general absence of any theoretical perspective or guidance to understanding results, also suggests that we gain only limited knowledge from the data. This is regrettable, as many of these studies report on rather large bodies of data and thus may yet reveal greater understanding about the public and GM foods.

In summary, our analysis of the existing corpus of social science survey research on public responses to GM foods shows that we are not yet ready to make anything more than basic and rather superficial generalizations on this topic.

Table 1: Research sample

Authors	Year	Population	Affiliations	Institutions	Funding
Brown, Ping	2003	U.S. super market shoppers	Food Science	Penn State U	Not specified
Brown & Ping	2001	U.S. super market shoppers	Food Science	Penn State U	Not specified
Center for Rural Studies	2004	Registered VT voters	No disciplines reported	Center for Rural Studies	CRS
Center for Rural Studies	2000	Registered VT voters	No disciplines reported	Center for Rural Studies	CRS
Hallman & Metcalf	1994	NJ residents	Human Ecology--tropical crops and pastures	Food Policy Institute-Rutgers, Cook College--CSIRO Australia	NJ Ag experiment station
Hallman et al	2002	Americans	Human Ecology--sociology	Food Policy Institute- Rutgers, cook college	USDA-IFAFS grant
Hallman et al	2003	U.S. Residents	Human Ecology--AG ex station--food policy--sociology	Food Policy Institute- Rutgers, cook college	USDA-IFAFS grant
Hallman et al	2004	U.S. Residents	Human Ecology--AG ex station--food policy--sociology	Food Policy Institute- Rutgers, cook college	USDA-IFAFS grant
Hoban &Katic	1998		Sociology and anthropology	North Carolina State U	Not Specified
Hoban	1996		Sociology and anthropology	North Carolina State U	USDA and GMA
Hoban & Kendall	1993	US adults	Sociology and anthropology-- food science and human nutrition	North Carolina state U-- Colorado State U	USDA
Hoban et al	1992	NC farmers and Non farmers	Sociology and Anthropology	North Carolina State U	NC biotech center and Life Sciences dept
Housain et al	2002	USA public (consumers)	Agriculture--Economics--human Ecology	Food Policy Institute-Rutgers, Cook College	USDA-IFAFS grant
Hossain et al	2002b	Non-institutionalized US adult civilians	Agriculture--Economics--human Ecology	Food Policy Institute- Rutgers	USDA-IFAFS grant
Hossain et al	2002c	Non-institutionalized US adult civilians	Ag, food and resource economics-- Human ecology	Food Policy Institute- Rutgers	USDA-IFAFS grant
International Food Information Council (IFIC)	2004	Continental US adults over 18	Non-governmental organization	IFIC	IFIC
International Food Information Council (IFIC)	2005	Continental US adults over 18	Non-governmental organization	IFIC	IFIC
Israel & Hoban	1992	FL and N. Carolina	Rural Soc---Soc	University of FL—North Carolina State U	NC Biotech Center
Lusk & Sullivan	2002	Consumers in Mississippi	Ag Economics	Mississippi State U	Not specified
Mendenhall, Evenson	2001	New Haven, CT Food purchasers over 18	Environmental Health Sciences--Economic Growth Center	Dep of Epidemiology and Public Health ---Yale University	Not specified
Pew Charitable Trust	2001	American consumers	Non-govt. organization	PEW	PEW
Pew Charitable Trust	2003	American consumers	Non-govt. organization	PEW	PEW
Pew Charitable Trust	2004	American consumers	Non-govt. organization	PEW	PEW
Schilling et al	2002	Non-institutionalized US adult civilians	Human ecology--research	Food Policy Institute- Rutgers	Not specified
Wolf, Domegon	2002	Households in Ireland (Galway), US (San Luis Obispo)	Agribusiness--Marketing	Cal Polytech -- National U of Ireland	Not specified

Table 2: Research projects from the two largest hubs

Publication	Year of research	Sponsor	Method	Population
Research from Hoban and Associates
Hoban, Woodrum, and Czaja. 1992	1988-89	NC biotech Center	Telephone interviews	NC residents
Israel, G. D., Hoban, T.J. 1992	1988-89 1991	NC biotech Center	Telephone interviews	NC and FL residents
Hoban and Kendall 1992 Hoban and Kendall 1993 Hoban, T.J. 1996	1992	USDA	Telephone interviews and Focus groups	US residents
Hoban, T.J. 1996	1994	Grocery Manufactures of America (GMA)	Telephone interviews	US residents
	1995	Food marketing Institute	Telephone Survey	US residents
	1996	Food marketing Institute	Telephone Survey	US residents
Hoban, T. J. and L. D. Katic. 1998 Hoban, T. J. 1999	1997	International Food Info Council (IFIC)	Telephone	US and Japanese residents
	1997	Wirthlin Quorum Survey	Telephone interviews	US residents
Hoban, T. J. 1999	1998	International Food Info Council (IFIC)	Telephone interviews	Japan residents
	2001	American Farm Bureau Foundation	Telephone and Mail surveys	Food industry leaders and Global government leaders
	2002	North American Millers Association & American Society of Baking	Telephone interviews	US adults 18 yrs and older
Food Institute Research
Hallman & Metcalf, 1994	1993		NJ residents	Telephone Survey
Hallman, Adelaja, Schilling & Lang, 2002 Hossain, Onyango, Delaja, & Hallman, 2002 Hossain, Onyango, Delaja, Schilling & Hallman, 2002 Housain, Onyango, Adelaja, Schilling & Hallman, 2002 Schilling, Hallman, Adelaja & Marxen, 2002	2001	USDA	Non-institutionalized US civilian	Telephone Interviews
Hallman, Hebden, Aquino, Cuite & Lang, 2003	2003	USDA	Non-institutionalized US civilian	Telephone Interviews
Hallman,Hebden, Cuite, Aquino and Lang, 2004	2004	USDA	Non-institutionalized US civilian	Telephone Interviews
* Hoban has written a considerable amount about food biotechnology, but this table does not include publications that do not specifically reference a research project.

Table 3: Variable Types and Frequencies

Variables	Frequency of use	# of papers	# of authors	Dimension
Whole complex	14	13	5	Issue
Particular GM foods (w or w/out special qualities given)	5	4	3	Issue
GM technology (actual)	1	1	1	Issue
GM technology (potential)	0	0	0	Issue
Labels and Labeling	12	11	8	Issue
Observed behavior	0	0	0	Behavior
Reported behavior	10	8	6	Behavior
Reported intended Behavior	8	6	6	Behavior
Reported statements about hypothetical actions	4	3	3	Behavior
Knowledge or Familiarity of Technology	34	18	10	Cognitive
Knowledge or Familiarity of Consumer Products	18	9	6	Cognitive
Risks & Safety (general)	9	7	5	Cognitive
Risks & Safety (human-centered)	2	2	2	Cognitive
Risks & Safety (environment centered)	3	3	2	Cognitive
Regulation & Government Roles	16	9	6	Cognitive
Labels	10	5	3	Cognitive
Concern	9	8	7	Affective
Trust/Skepticism	13	9	6	Affective
Support/Opposition	21	12	7	Affective
Acceptability	15	10	5	Affective
Desirability	14	9	5	Affective
Costs/Benefits	6	4	3	Affective
Morality & Ethics	9	9	6	Affective

Table 4: Frequencies of variables and examples of findings (N= 48 analyses)

Demographic Variables	# Papers	# Analyses	# Significant	Examples of Findings
Age	9	28	11	Younger (<35) respondents are less likely to be biotech skeptics, believe in potential benefits, support biotech and purchase GM food products. Older respondents (>55) more likely to be supportive and less concerned about biotech.
Gender	9	24	20	Women are more likely to oppose GE plants/animals, less aware of GM and less faith in institutional authority. Women are more morally opposed to GE and skeptical, less likely to see benefits. Men are more likely to be supportive and buy GMO. Men have heard and read more and are less concerned. Men are more likely to be skeptical and less trusting of government.
Income	10	29	8	Those with higher income are more aware, more faith in institutions, less moral objections, and less overall opposition. Positive relationship between income and biotech learners. Lower income groups (<35000) are more interested in learning and less self -protecting than those with income >75000.
Education	8	27	16	Those with higher education (>HS) are more aware and less likely to find GE morally objectionable or oppose GE. Education is negatively related to opposition to GMO. College and graduate education are more enthusiastic and willing to learn, purchase, and believe in potential benefits. Graduate education less likely to see benefits. Higher education related to more often heard or read about GM, more aware and less concerned.
Political ID	4	9	5	‘Liberal's are more skeptical and ‘conservatives' are more enthusiastic. Both more likely to be biotech learners as compared to ‘Centrists'. ‘Liberals' are less likely to see benefits of biotech as compared to ‘moderates', and less likely to buy as compared to ‘conservatives.'
Employment	1	2	1	Full time employees in Ireland are more likely to be familiar with GM
Marital Status	2	6	0
Children	4	13	1
Religious/Religion	4	12	9	Church attendance is + related to opposition to GM plants, moral objection and less faith in institutional authority. Fundamentalism is related to higher trust in institutional authority, less awareness and high moral opposition. Respondents that attend church regularly are more skeptical and less enthusiastic about GMO, see less benefits, less willing to purchase. Those who never attend church are more likely to support biotech.
Ethnicity	3	9	7	Non-white respondents perceive higher risk, less likely to be skeptics and more likely to be benefit seekers. Whites are less skeptical, less enthusiastic and less interested in learning, but more supportive of biotech and willing to purchase GMO than non-whites.
Substantive Variables	# Papers	# Analyses	# Significant	Examples of Findings
Understanding of Science/ Technology	6	10	10	Those with more understanding of knowledge (tested) are more supportive of biotechnology, and more willing to buy GM products.
Knowledge/ Familiarity of Technology	10	13	10	Awareness/familiarity of GM technology is related to support, and willingness to purchase. Those who report reading/hearing about it recently are less concerned and also less willing to pay. Respondents with scientific familiarity are interested in knowing more about GM technology.
Support for Biotech	3	3	3	Positively related to actual knowledge and self-report of knowledge of science. Support is also higher when there are perceived benefits to farmers and industry.
Support for food Products	3	4	3	Those who are familiar with GM products are more likely to purchase organic foods, and those who do are slightly less likely to support GM foods. This is related to perception of benefits.
Morality	3	6	6	Concern over GE food is highly influenced by the belief that GE is morally wrong. Those with no moral problem with biotech are less likely to be skeptical, more likely to see benefits, and have enthusiasm for biotech.
Plants vs. Animals	4	5	4	Animal products are less accepted than plant products. (More people are concerned and very concerned about meat/dairy)
Human Risks/ Safety	2	6	4	Concern about health is positively related to concern over GM foods, preferring non-GM foods, and willingness to pay premium for them. Health concern positively related to concern for environment
Environmental Risks/Safety	2	2	2	The more important the environment was to consumers the less likely they were to accept GM
Industry and Government	6	13	12	Trust in government and regulatory agencies is related to perceived benefits of GM, less skeptical and more enthusiastic. Faith in institutional authority correlates with less opposition and few moral objections. Trust in scientists is similarly related to support for plant/animal biotech and possible benefits. Trust in news/activist groups related to less acceptance.
Nutrition/ Ingredients	3	3	3	Respondents interested in health, natural foods, or strict diets were less likely to approve GM. Those who read labels (food and nutrition) are less likely to see benefits or be enthusiastic about biotech. Those familiar or concerned with GM are more likely to read labels.
GMO labels	5	8	7	Those who say we need GM labels are most likely to be skeptics of biotech. Those familiar with GM are most likely to support mandatory GM labeling. Those most willing to buy GMO less likely to support mandatory labeling. Those who read labels are less likely to buy GM if labeled GM and more likely to pay premium for non-GM.

Table 5: Significances of Measured Demographic Variables

open

Table 6: Significances of Measured Substantive Variables

open

Table 7: Research Design Characteristics

open

Figure 1: Mapping Research Variables

open

Reference List

Bredahl, L. 1999. "Consumers' cognitions with regard to genetically modified foods. Results of a qualitative study in four countries." Appetite 33(3):343-360.

Brown, J. L., and Y. Ping. 2003. "Consumer perception of risk associated with eating genetically engineered soybeans is less in the presence of a perceived consumer benefit." Journal of the American Dietetic Association 103(2):208-214.

Brown, J. L and Y. Ping 2001. "Comparison of Consumer Reaction to Information About Two Genetically Engineered Soybeans that Differ in Consumer Benefit" Journal of International Food and Agribuisness Marketing 13 (1):7-25.

Center for Rural Studies. 2000."Attitudes toward Genetically Modified Organisms" Accessed December 12, 2005 at http://crs.uvm.edu/vtrpoll/2000/Gmo/.

Center for Rural Studies. 2004. "Vermonters Awareness, Knowledge and Opinions of Genetic Modification." Accessed on December 26, 2005 at http://crs.uvm.edu/vtrpoll/2004/gmo04.

Davison, A., Barns, I., and Schibeci, R. (1997) Problematic Publics: A Critical Review of

Surveys of Public Attitudes to Biotechnology. Science, Technology, & Human Values 22(3):317-348

Geczi, Emilian, Hoskins Amy S, Kolodinsky Jane M. 2004. "Vermonters and Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods Vermonter Poll 2004." Center for Rural Studies Report accessed December 12 2005 at http://crs.uvm.edu/vtrpoll/2004/label04.pdf.

Food and Drug Administration. 2000. Report on Consumer Focus Groups on Biotechnology. US-FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Scientific Analysis and Support.

Hallman, William K. and J. Metcalfe.1994 "Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology: A Survey of New Jersey Residents." 66 p. New Brunswick, NJ, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

Hallman, William K., A.O. Adelaja, B.J. Schilling and J.T. Lang. 2002. "Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Food: Americans Know Not What they Eat." New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

Hallman, W. K., Hebden, W. C., Aquino, H.L., Cuite, C.L. and Lang, J.T.. 2003. "Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study of American Knowledge and Opinion." (Publication number RR-1003-004). New Brunswick, New Jersey; Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey.

Hallman, W. K., Hebden, W. C., Aquino, H.L., Cuite, C.L. and Lang, J.T. 2004. "American s and GM Foods: Knowledge, Opinion, and Interest in 2004" (Publication number RR-1104-007). New Brunswick, New Jersey; Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey.

Hoban, T. J., Woodrum, E., and R. Cjaza. 1992. Public Opposition to Genetic Engineering. Rural Sociology 57: 476-493.

Hoban, T. J. 1993. Consumer Knowledge and Attitudes About Biotechnology. Outook March:633-643.

Hoban, T. J. 1993. Biotechnology: Consumer Attitudes. Agricultural Outlook 193:20-22.

Hoban, Thomas J. 1994. Consumer Awareness and Acceptance of Bovine Somatotropin (BST). [Np]: Grocery Manufacturers of America.

Hoban, T. J. 1995. Construction of Food Biotechnology as a Social Issue. In Eating Agendas: Food and Nutrition as a Social Problem, edited by D.Maurer and J.Sobal (New York: Adeline de Gruyter).

Hoban, T. J. 1996. How Japanese Consumers View Biotechnology. Food Technology 50, no. 7:85-88.

Hoban, T. J. 1996. Trends in Consumer Attitudes About Biotechnology. Journal of Food Distribution Research 27:1-10.

Hoban, Thomas J., I. 1996. Anticipating public reaction to the use of genetic engineering in infant nutrition. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 63(4):662-668.

Hoban, T. J. 1997. Consumer Acceptance of Biotechnology: An International Perspective. Nature Biotechnology 15, no. 3:232-234.

Hoban, T. J. and L. D. Katic. 1998. American consumer views on biotechnology. Cereal Foods World 43, no. 1.

Hoban, T. J. 1998. Trends in Consumer Attitudes About Agricultural Biotechnology. Agbioforum 1, no. 1.

Hoban, T. J. 1999. Consumer Acceptance of Biotechnology in the United States and Japan. Food Technology 53, no. 5:50-53.

Hoban, T. J. US Consumers' Reactions to the StarLink Controversy. 2000. [Np]: Grocery Manufacturers of America.

Hoban, T.J. 2002. American Consumers' Awareness and Acceptance of Biotechnology, in S.G. Puepple and R.W. Hardy, eds., Genetically Modified Food and the Consumer, pp. 103-115. National Agricultural Bioltech Council Report #3, Ithaca, 2002.

Hoban, Thomas J. and Patricia A. Kendall. 1992. Consumer Attitudes About the Use of Biotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. Appendix C: "Telephone Survey Instrument," pp. 71-84.

Hoban, Thomas J. and Patricia A. Kendall. 1993. Consumer Attitudes About Food Biotechnology. Raleigh, NC, N.C. Cooperative Extension Service.

Hoban, Thomas J. and J. Miller. 1998. Attitudes About Science and Technology. National Science Foundation. Hossain, Ferdaus, B. Onyango, A. Adelaja, B. Schilling and W. Hallman. 2002. "Uncovering Factors Influencing Public Perceptions of Food Biotechnology". New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

Hoban, T., Woodrum, E. and R. Czaja. 992. Public Opposition to Genetic Engineering. Rural Sociology 57(4): 476-493.

Hossain, Ferdaus B. Onyango, A. Adelaja, and B. Hallman. 2002b. "Public Perceptions of Biotechnology and Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food". New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

Hossain, Ferdaus, B. Onyango, A. Adelaja, B. Schilling and W. Hallman. 2002c. "Consumer Acceptance of Food Biotechnology: Willingness to Buy Genetically Modified Food Products". New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

International Food Information Council. 2005a. "U.S. Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Biotechnology." Accessed on December 24, 2005 at http://ific.nisgroup.com/research/upload/2005BiotechSurvey.pdf

International Food Information Council. 2005b. "Food Biotechnology, Not a top-of-the- mind concern for American Consumers" Accessed on December 12 2005 at <http://ific.nisgroup.com/research/upload/2005BiotechSurvey.pdf>

Israel, G. D., Hoban, and T.J. 1992. "Concern about eating genetically engineered food." Southern Rural Sociology : Journal of the Southern Rural Sociological Association, Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists 9(1):23-43.

Lusk, J. L., and P. Sullivan. 2002. "Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods." Food Technology 56(10):32-37.

Mendenhall, Catherine and Robert Evanson. 2002. "Estimates of Willingness to pay a Premium for Non-GM foods: a Survey" In Vittorio Santaniello, Robert E. Evenson, and David Zilberman, eds., Market Development for Genetically Modified Foods, pp. 25-38. New York, CABI Publishing.

Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. 2001. "Public Sentiment About Genetically Modified Food." Accessed on December 23, 2005 at http://pewagbiotech.org/research/gmfood/.

Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. 2003. "Public Sentiment About Genetically Modified Food, September 2003 Update." Accessed on December 23, 2005 at http://pewagbiotech.org/research/2003update.

Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. 2004. "Public Sentiment About Genetically Modified Food, November 2004 Update." Accessed on December 23, 2005 at http://pewagbiotech.org/research/2004update.

Schilling, Brian J., William K. Hallman, Adesoji O. Adelaja, and Lucus J. Marxen. 2002. "Consumer Knowledge of Food Biotechnology: A Descriptive Study of U.S. Residents." New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

Teisl, Mario F, et-al. 2002. "Focus Group Reactions to Genetically Modified Food Labels." AgBioForum 5(1):6-9.

Verdurme, A. and Viaene, J. 2000. "Exploring and modeling consumer attitudes towards genetically modified food." Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal

Wolf, Marianne M. and Christine Domegan. 2002. "A comparison of consumer attitudes towards GM food in Ireland and the United States: a case study over time". In Vittorio Santaniello, Robert E. Evenson, and David Zilberman, eds., Market Development for Genetically Modified Foods, pp. 25-38. New York, CABI Publishing.