Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T21:52:37.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Swedish farmers attitudes, expectations and fears in relation to growing genetically modified crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2008

Anna Lehrman
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7044, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden
Katy Johnson
Affiliation:
The University of Southampton, Bassett Crescent East, Highfield, Southampton, SO16 7PX, UK

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study evaluates a survey about Swedish farmers' attitude towards genetically modified (GM) crops, and their perception concerning potential benefits and drawbacks that cropping of an insect resistant (IR) GM variety would involve. The questions were “tick a box” choices, included in a yearly omnibus survey sent to 1000 Swedish farmers (68% response rate). The results showed that a majority of the farmers were negative, although almost one third claimed to be neutral to GM crops. The farmers recognized several benefits both in terms of agricultural production and for the environment, but they were also highly concerned about the consumers' unwillingness to buy GM products. Farmers perceived an increase in yield, but nearly as many farmers thought that there would be no benefits with growing an IR GM crop. Several differences in hopes and concerns of the farmers surveyed were revealed when they were divided in positive, neutral and negative groups. Farmers negative to GM were more concerned than positive farmers about IR GM crops being dangerous for humans, livestock or other organisms to consume. GM-positive farmers seemed to be most concerned about potential problems with growing a marketable crop and expensive seeds, but saw a reduced health risk to the grower, due to less use of pesticides, as a possible benefit. The results among the GM-neutral farmers were in most cases closely related to the positive farmers' choices, implying that they believe that there are advantages with growing an IR GM crop, but also fear potential drawbacks. This general uncertainty about GM IR crops may prevent them from accepting the new technology.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© ISBR, EDP Sciences, 2008

References

Anderson, JC, Wachenheim, CJ, Lesch, WC (2006) Perceptions of genetically modified and organic foods and processes. AgBioForum 9: 180194
Brookes G (2007) The benefits of adopting genetically modified, insect resistant (Bt) maize in the European Union (EU): First results from 1998-2006 plantings: PG Economics Ltd
Brookes G, Barfoot P (2006) GM Crops: The first ten years – Global socio-economic and environmental impacts. ISAAA Brief No 36
Busch, L, Bonanno, A, Lacy, WB (1989) Science, technology, and the restructuring of agriculture. Sociol. Rural. 29: 118130 CrossRef
Buttel FH, Larson OF, Gillespie GWJ (1990) The sociology of agriculture. New York, Greenwood Press
Conner, AJ, Glare, TR, Nap, J-P (2003) The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment. Plant J. 33: 1946 CrossRef
Cook, AJ, Fairweather, JR (2003) New Zealand farmer and grower intentions to use gene technology: Results from a resurvey. AgBioForum 6: 120-127
EU (2007) Organic Food: New Regulation to foster the further development of Europe's organic food sector. Press release http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/807&format=HTML&aged=0
Fernadez-Cornejo J, Caswell M (2006) The first decade of genetically engineered crops in the United States, Economic information bulletin Number 11. United States Department of Agriculture
Fjæstad B, Olofsson A, Öhman S (2003) Svenskarna och gentekniken – Rapport från 2002 års Europabarometer om bioteknik. Östersund: Mitthögskolan
Frewer, LJ, Howard, C, Aaron, JI (1998) Consumer acceptance of transgenic crops. Pestic. Sci. 52: 388393 3.0.CO;2-F>CrossRef
Gaskell, G, Allum, N, Bauer, M, Durant, J, Allansdottir, A, Bonfadelli, H, Boy, D, de Cheveigne, S, Fjæstad, B, Gutteling, JM, Hampel, J, Jelsoe, E, Jesuino, JC, Kohring, M, Kronberger, N, Midden, C, Nielsen, TH, Przestalski, A, Rusanen, T, Sakellaris, G, Torgersen, H, Twardowski, T, Wagner, W (2000) Biotechnology and the European public. Nat. Biotechnol. 18: 935938 CrossRef
Gaskell G, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Corchero C, Fischler C, Hampel J, Jackson J, Kronberger N, Mejlgaard N, Revuelta G, Schreiner C, Stares S, Torgersen H, Wagner W (2006) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and trends. Eurobarometer 64.3. European Commission's Directorate-General for Research
Gómez-Barbero M, Rodríguez-Cerezo E (2006) Economic impact of dominant GM crops worldwide: a review. Luxembourg: European Commission
Hornig Priest, S (2000) US public opinion divided over biotechnology? Nat. Biotech. 18: 939942 CrossRef
James C (2006) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2006. ISAAA Brief No. 35. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY
Johnson, KL, Raybould, AF, Hudson, MD, Poppy, GM (2007) How does scientific risk assessment of GM crops fit within the wider risk analysis? Trends Plant Sci. 12: 15 CrossRef
Koivisto Hursti, U-K, Magnusson, MK, Algers, A (2002) Swedish consumers' opinions about gene technology. Br. Food J. 104: 860872 CrossRef
Krosnick JA (1990) Survey research. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50: 537–567
Magnusson, MK, Koivisto Hursti, U-K (2002) Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Appetite 39: 924 CrossRef
Pilcher, CD, Rice, ME, Higgins, RA, Steffey, KL, Hellmich, RL, Witkowski, J, Calvin, D, Ostlie, KR, Gray, M (2002) Biotechnology and the European corn borer: Measuring historical farmer perceptions and adoption of transgenic Bt corn as a pest management strategy. J. Econ. Entomol. 95: 878892 CrossRef
Poortinga, W, Pidgeon, NF (2006) Exploring the structure of attitudes toward genetically modified food. Risk Anal. 26: 17071719 CrossRef
Shelton, AM, Zhao, JZ, Roush, RT (2002) Economic, ecological, food safety, and social consequences of the deployment of Bt transgenic plants. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 47: 845881 CrossRef
SJV (2006) Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics: Swedish Board of Agriculture
SOU (2007) Ansvarsfrågan vid odling av genmodifierade grödor. Betänkande av utredningen om ansvarsfrågan vid odling av genmodifierade grödor 2007:46. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet
Sveriges Lantbruk (2003) http://abe.dynamicweb.dk/images/files/Landbrugsundersogelsen.pdf : BioteknikCentrum
ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P (2002) CANOCO Reference Manual and CanoDraw for Windows User's Guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (Version 4.5). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY, USA
Weaver, SA, Morris, MC (2005) Risks associated with genetic modification: an annotated bibliography of peer reviewed natural science publications. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 18: 157189 CrossRef
Wilson, TA, Rice, ME, Tollefson, JJ, Pilcher, CD (2005) Transgenic corn for control of the European corn borer and corn rootworms: a survey of Midwestern farmers' practices and perceptions. J. Econ. Entomol. 98: 237247 CrossRef