Who doesn't like Genetically Modified Organisms?

I was looking at poll results for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). Internationally the results are all over the place, but within nations the data suggest a pretty strong notional resistance to "playing God," with a rank order of aversion spanning plants (least averse) to humans (most averse). There is some mild positive correlation between education and trust/acceptance of GMOs, and also some between irreligion and attitudes towards cloning and such for animals. The The Pew Initiative On Food And Biotechnology has some good data. For example:

Religious attendance also has a significant effect on comfort with animal cloning, with less religious Americans expressing greater comfort and more religious Americans harboring greater reservations. Nearly one third (30%) of those who attend religious services a few times a year or less are comfortable with animal cloning and just 54% are uncomfortable; those who attend once a month exhibit somewhat less comfort, at 21%, and great discomfort, at 64%; among somewhat frequent churchgoers, just 12% are comfortable while 76% are uncomfortable; and among weekly church attendees, 17% are comfortable with cloning and 70% are uncomfortable.

Note that though the less religious are more comfortable they are mostly still uncomfortable. Additionally, there seems to be a consistent pattern where women are more suspicious of GMOs than men:

i-b11f57509c028c44c85cde05704fc04b-menwomenGMO.jpg

But it gets far more interesting when you look at international data. Check out this figure from Public Attitudes towards Agricultural Biotechnology:

i-018cf97c7c6d55bb9dbb057e1c47f364-benefitsGMO.jpg

Below is a chart I made that illustrates the attitude toward the benefits of GMO as it relates to per capita wealth. It seems to me that the very poor are just happy to eat, but as they attain a minimum level of nutritional subsistence traditionalist impulses are given more free reign. Then, as the nations become far wealthier and cultural conservatism is a weaker force attitudes toward change are more subject to fads & fashions, and ultimately discretionary.

i-ee575bf184106e0c72771c9d41eb43ec-gmochart.jpg

Update: Assman sayeth:

I checked Kendall's tau for the correlation between GDP PPP and % Trusting GMOs, looking at the rich and the poor separately. Within the 12 countries labeled rich, the correlation is +0.62 (p = 0.007, two-tailed). For the 22 countries labeled poor, the correlation is -0.51 (p = 0.001, two-tailed). So, what you said.

However, I looked at all 34 countries together -- the correlation is -0.46 (p = 0.0002, two-tailed). So "poorer = more trusting" holds at the global level too.

You can correct the p-values for testing 3 hypotheses, and they're still significant.

Tags

More like this

France and Greece both have traditions of good quality food made with fresh, local ingredients following a traditional cuisine. So I suspect that's nothing to do with income.

In Britain, we have mixed traditions on food: some absolutely excellent stuff and some of the most vile rubbish you would never want to eat (there was even a fuss in Britain when the European Union suggested minimum rules that implied there should be a reasonable amount of meat in a sausage!). The anti-GM trend in Britain is more simply due to skepticism and distrust of what large companies say, plus a dislike of being told what to do: "you will eat GM foods", "oh no, we won't".

You have found a correlation, but I don't think you have found causation.

You have found a correlation, but I don't think you have found causation.

actually, i haven't find much of a correlation. i said:
Then, as the nations become far wealthier and cultural conservatism is a weaker force attitudes toward change are more subject to fads & fashions, and ultimately discretionary.

did you read that? or not? IOW, to make it clear for you: wealthy nations will do as they want based on whatever values or opinions they have. what i did say is that very poor nations seem to just be excited at the prospect of new technologies increasing food production and so there isn't as much discretionary consideration, an effect that seems to get weaker as you increase income.

(you could also make arguments such as the possibility that corporations are more powerful and ubiquitous as countries develop economically, naturally producing more distrust for economies of scale and technological innovation, etc.)

I checked Kendall's tau for the correlation between GDP PPP and % Trusting GMOs, looking at the rich and the poor separately. Within the 12 countries labeled rich, the correlation is +0.62 (p = 0.007, two-tailed). For the 22 countries labeled poor, the correlation is -0.51 (p = 0.001, two-tailed). So, what you said.

However, I looked at all 34 countries together -- the correlation is -0.46 (p = 0.0002, two-tailed). So "poorer = more trusting" holds at the global level too.

You can correct the p-values for testing 3 hypotheses, and they're still significant.

I'm interested in GM products and I want to remember your opinion about it.
So I wonder that you don't mind if I scrape this article in my blog.(Of course, I will state your blog. )

Being picky about food is a luxury.

So are safety standards.

By Caledonian (not verified) on 06 Jul 2008 #permalink

There's some fallacy in claiming that religious or uneducated people are more opposed to GMOs. In the international graph this is pretty obvious: more religious countries like the USA are fanatically in favor (believing in God and in "science", i.e. technology, seems to be the about same), while more agnostic ones are rather against. Also, more educated countries are generally against, while less educated ones tend to be in favor.

It's not "all over the place" as you want to believe. Nor it's just a "the rich" vs. "the poor" issue. As wealth and education are almost intrisecally associated.

A most important issue is that the consumer should have the ultimate choice and every single food that uses GMOs should be tagged as such, as well as other tags, like the origin of the products (it's likely that people is ready to pay a little more for a local product that has less impact in global warming or alien species dispersal through globalized trade - but they can't choose if they are denied the information).

But a most important concern about GMOs is that they make farmers dependent of vicious mulinationals, instead of getting their own seed from their crops or local seed banks. Also genetic diversity, believe it or not, is of outmost importance to preserve and the benefits of GMOs are in most cases yet to be proven. Who is going to preserve the genetic diversity of crops if they are all replaced by bio-industrial products? We need to act with common sense and caution, not with a fanatic faith in technology, much less in the multinationals that control these industrial seeds. We have already experienced how pesticides and other chemicals, and specially irrational abusive use of them, have polluted our soil, water and health, we don't need more of the same. We need diversity, sustainable agriculture, regional food self-sufficiency, and a reintegration of humankind with nature: not more irrational fanatic divergence.

@agnostic- shall I take this as another study that proves I am not a woman?

and a reintegration of humankind with nature

as a myopic person with asthma, i'd really like to avoid that....

shall I take this as another study that proves I am not a woman?

Just one who doesn't get basic statistical concepts like "average." I'm sure you've studied these concepts, but I mean really absorbed it into the root of your thinking.

shall I take this as another study that proves I am not a woman?

Just one who doesn't get basic statistical concepts like "average." I'm sure you've studied these concepts, but I mean really absorbed it into the root of your thinking.

Well, the thing is perhaps semantics. Would it convey a different feeling using "women are more _ than men" rather than "on average, women are more _ than men"? When people do studies, haven't you noticed use the former rather than the latter which they mean.

And everyone knows that women are more irrational and superstitious than men.

Like, for example, this statement would imply (in the popular thought) whereas what is probably meant is:

More women are irrational and superstitious than men.
Or the average of superstitiousness and irrationality is higher for women than men.

But these headlines don't grab as much

Regardless of my position on gmo...

as a myopic person with asthma, i'd really like to avoid that....

As someone writing about science and thus pretending to be thoughtful, reasonable, and man of science, you might be willing to consider avoiding distort, use of immense hyperbole, and efforts to make others who don't agree with you on specific topic look dumb.

and a reintegration of humankind with nature was not intended to mean what you made it to be. You know that. But still choose to render it the way you did just to make a point.

Though I'm from science myself, looking at your comment, I can easily imagine why a lot of people tend to distrust scientists. Times of Newton and Einstein have, unfortunately, gone. Scientific integrity - with them.

I am strongly opposed to GMOs as we currently use them!! Can anyone (ANYONE!) please mention the benefits for us to grow huge amounts of roundup-ready canola, roundup-ready corn, etc., in huge monocultures? All the proponents of GMOs have always emphasized how using GMO will increase the yield, reduce the need for fertilizer, reduce the need for pesticides and herbicides. None of this is the case here. Per se, these monocultures are horrible in the long run, because they ruin soin health (for anyone interested in this, read up on the importance of the soil microbiota) and lead to massive erosion (soil loss due to wind or water). Not even to talk about what those huge amounts of pesticide will do to our health in the long run as they accumulate more and more in the water. And let's not even get started on the socioeconomic costs of this stuff; it's only beneficial if you are a Monsanto shareholder. Most importantly, where are the data that these GMOs are not causing any long-term environmental or health damage? There is very very little, and the little there is is actually very concerning.

The risk-to-benefit ratio might actually be much better if we tried to create plants that were perfectly adapted to specific microclimates, that really used less water, produced more yield, or had a higher nutrient density. I'd actually be happy if we had an educated discussion about this. Won't happen though; GMOs are so expensive to produce that they will only be worth the investment if (a) patented, and (b) targeted towards a large market (that you create by, for example, suing farmers who allowed the patented gene to fly into their field).

It is a total mystery to me that we as a society let the multinational corporations fool us this way. Who is actually benefitting from this? Wake up, people!!