Genetic engineering, genetic modification, or agricultural biotechnology: does the term matter?

Abstract

The risk perception and communication literature appears to use terms such as genetic engineering (GE), genetic modification (GM), and agricultural biotechnology (agbiotech) almost interchangeably. The present research therefore seeks to compare the effect of these three terms on consumers’ cognitive, affective and behavioral component of attitude. The variables under investigation are consumers’ perceptions of risk, benefits, personal control over technology, support and promotion of the development of technology, dread, labeling, and purchase intentions. The study draws on the equivalency framing literature in conducting two question wording experiments whereby participants are randomly assigned to receive a version that uses just one of the three different terms. The first experiment found that the framing effect of food technology as either GE or GM may be contingent on source of information. When the technology was framed as GE and the information source was a consumer organization, respondents reported higher perceived personal control over the technology compared to when the information source was government, newspaper, or no source. Therefore, framing food as GE may be a somewhat beneficial for those who seek to promote the technology while framing the technology as GM might help those who oppose the technology. The second experiment found that using the terms agbiotech and GE were associated with higher perceived benefits, positive feelings, and purchase intention compared to GM. The ‘agbiotech’ term garnered the most relative support for the technology. Implications are discussed.