Search

Genetic modification (GM) of crops and climate change are arguably two of today's most challenging science communication issues. Increasingly, these two issues are connected in messages proposing GM as a viable option for ensuring global food security threatened by climate change. This study examines the effects of messages promoting the benefits of GM in the context of climate change. Further, it examines whether explicit reference to “climate change,” or “global warming” in a GM message results in different effects than each other, or an implicit climate reference. An online sample of U.S. participants (N = 1050) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: “climate change” cue, “global warming” cue, implicit cue, or control (no message). Generally speaking, framing GM crops as a way to help ensure global food security proved to be an effective messaging strategy in increasing positive attitudes toward GM. In addition, the implicit cue condition led to liberals having more positive attitudes and behavioral intentions toward GM than the “climate change” cue condition, an effect mediated by message evaluations.

This study examines support for the genetic modification (GM) of crops in the context of preventing “late blight,” a devastating potato and tomato disease that caused the Irish Potato Famine in the 1850s and results in substantial crop loss today. We surveyed U.S. adults who do the primary grocery shopping in their household (n = 859). Half of the respondents were randomly assigned to read a vignette describing late blight before responding to questions about GM, whereas the other half read a vignette about generic crop disease before responding to questions. We also examine how the perceived fairness of decision makers relates to GM support and the perceived legitimacy of GM decision making. We found that disease specificity mattered less to support and legitimacy than the perceived fairness of decision makers. The perceived risks of GM to human and environmental health negatively related to GM support and legitimacy, whereas the perceived benefits (e.g. reduced threats to crops and a more secure food supply) positively related to support and legitimacy. Objective knowledge about GM had a small, negative relationship with legitimacy whereas self-assessed familiarity with GM had a positive relationship. Overall, the results offer additional confirmation of past findings from more localized settings that perceived fairness of decision makers matters to support for GM and underscore the importance of considering how risk managers’ behaviors and actions are perceived alongside individuals’ perceptions about the risks and benefits.