Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Understanding the Scope of Farmer Perceptions of Risk: Considering Farmer Opinions on the Use of Genetically Modified (GM) Crops as a Stakeholder Voice in Policy

  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the beginning, policy debates between critics and advocates of genetically modified (GM) crops focused on scientifically determined risks. Ten years later, the argument between environmentalists or consumers and regulators or industry has changed into a discussion about the implementation of more democratic policymaking about GM farming. A notable omission from the political debate about food biotechnology in the United States, however, is the opinion of farmers who cultivate the GM crops. Policymakers should value practical knowledge based on experiences from farmers, not only scientific industry reports or consumer product opinions. This project uses in-depth interviews to create an original mail survey that uses the practical discourse of farmers in order to explore the relationship of farmer attitudes and GM agriculture. Although national research indicates that larger yields are the most common reason for GM adoption, qualitative information suggest that the potential of GM crops to increase revenue per acre does not truly reflect all the concerns of modern farmers. For example, farmers who use GM seeds indicate that they constantly question the social impacts of their agricultural practices. As such, GM policies should be restructured as a political rationalization of both economic modeling and political theory because this research suggests that farmers’ business decisions are utility calucations that consider economics without ignoring environmental and political contexts. Farmers’ concerns about non-economic risks suggest that they need more information about GM crops and that governmental policies should respond to their interests, as they are more democratic or pluralistic than industry or consumer arguments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adesina, A., & Zinnah, M. (1993). Technology characteristics, farmers’ perceptions and adoption decisions: a Tobit model application in Sierra Leone. Agricultural Economics, 9, 297–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., & Guillory, C. A. (1997). Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: a cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. The American Political Science Review, 91(1), 66–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armour, A. (1997). Rethinking the role of risk assessment in environmental policymaking. In R. Bartlett & L. Caldwell (Eds.), Environmental policy: Transnational issues and national trends. Westport: Quorum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artuso, A. (2003). Risk perceptions, endogenous demand and regulation of agricultural biotechnology. Food Policy, 28(1), 131–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barboza, D. (1999, November 19). Two sides square off on genetically altered food. New York Times.

  • Bauer, M. W. (2005). Public perception and mass media in the biotechnology controversy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohman, J. (1996). Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity and democracy. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burros, M. (1999, September 8). Eating well: different genes, same old label. New York Times.

  • Canola Council of Canada. (2001). An agronomic and economic assessment of transgenic canola. Retrieved 2004, from http://www.canolacouncil.org/production/gmo_toc.html.

  • Cavanaugh-Grant, D. (1990). A study of illinois farmers’ attitudes and current farming practices. Springfield, Illinois: Illinois Department of Energy and Natural ResourcesOffice of Research and Planning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charles, D. (2001). Lords of the harvest: Biotech, big money, and the future of food. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Greef, K., Stafleu F., & de Lauwere, C. (2006). A simple value-distinction approach aids transparency in farm animal debate. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 57–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. (1996). Political inclusion and the dynamics of democratization. The American Political Science Review, 90(3), 475–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. (1997). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duram, L., & Larson, K. (2001). Agricultural research and alternative farmers’ information needs. Professional Geographer, 53(1), 84–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R., & Thompson, F. (1997). Culture and the environment in the Pacific Northwest. The American Political Science Review, 91(4), 885–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ERS, Economic Research Service. (2004). Agricultural biotechnology: Adoption of biotechnology and its production impacts. Retrieved 2004, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/biotechnology/chapter1.htm.

  • Etzioni, A. (1987). How rational are we? Sociological Forum, 2(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feder, G., & Umali, D. (1993). The adoption of agricultural innovations: A review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 43, 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Daberkow, S., & McBride, W. D. (2001). Decomposing the size effect on the adoption of innovations: Agrobiotechnology and precision agriculture. AgBioForum, 4(2), 124–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. (1990). Utility theory and decision theory. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, & P. Newman (Eds.), Utility and probability. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillroy, J. M. (1993). Integrity, value and analysis of risk. In J. M. Gilroy (Ed.), Environmental risk, environmental values and political choices. Boulder: Westview Press, Inc.

  • Guehlstorf, N. (2004). Political theories of risk analysis. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guehlstorf, N. P., & Hallstrom, L. K. (2005). The role of culture in risk regulations: A comparative study of genetically modified corn in the United States of America and European Union. Environmental Science and Policy, 8, 327–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoban, T. (1999). Public perceptions and understanding of agricultural biotechnology. Economic Perspectives, 4(4), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holechek, L. J., Cole, R. A., Fisher, J. T., & Valdez, R. (2003). Natural resource: Ecology, economics, and policy (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISAAA, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. (2006). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2006 executive summary. Retrieved 2007, from http://www.isaa.org/Resources/Publications/briefs/35/executivessummary/default.html.

  • Janick, J., Altieri, M. A., & Colwell, R. N. (2001). Agriculture, in AccessScience@McGraw-Hill. Retrieved 2005, from http://www.accessscience.com.

  • Kendall, P. (2000, January 24). Frito-lay Co. tells Illinois farmers not to plant GE corn. Chicago Tribune.

  • Keulartz, J., Korthals M., Schermer, M., & Swierstra T. (Eds.). (2002). Pragmatist ethics for a technological culture. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Kraft, M. (2007). Environmental politics and policy (4th ed.). New York: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraft, M., & Vig, N. (Eds.). (2006). Environmental policy: New directions for the twenty-first century (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.

  • Lighthall, D. (1995). Farm structure and chemical use in the corn belt. Rural Sociology, 60(3), 505–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makowski, T. J., Sofranko, A. J., & Van Es, J. C. (1990). Agroecological and policy influences on no-till adoption. Society and Natural Resources, 3(2), 361–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCool, J. (Ed.). (1995). Public policy theories, models and concepts. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

  • McGuire, D. (2002, September 14). ACGA farmer choice: Customer first program. The Economist.

  • Myhr, A. I., & Traavik, T. (2003). Genetically modified (GM) crops: Precautionary science and conflicts of interest. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16, 227–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paehlke, R. (1990). Democracy and environmentalism: Opening the door to the administrative state. In R. Paehlke & D. Torgerson (Eds.), Managing the leviathan: Environmental politics and the administrative state. New York: Broadview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuters (2002, November 26). Illinois farmers bio-corn growth could threaten EU sales. Reuters News Service.

  • Sall, S., Norman, D., & Featherstone, A. M. (2000). Quantitative assessment of improved rice variety adoption: the farmer’s perspective. Agricultural Systems, 66, 129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1991). Risk and rationality: philosophical foundations for populist reforms. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinukaban, N. (2001). Impact of upland agriculture and conservation project (UACP) on sustainable agriculture development in Serang Watershed, Indonesia. In D. E. Stott, R. H. Mohtar, & G. C. Steinhardt (Eds.), Sustaining the Global Farm. Selected papers from the 10th International Soil Conservation Organization Meeting held May 24–29, 1999 at Purdue University and the USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory.

  • Slovic, P. (1992). Perceptions of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19(4), 689–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M. (1997). Security and solidarity: An anti-reductionist framework for thinking about the relationship between us and the rest of nature. The Geographical Journal, 163(2), 141–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. (1998). Food biotechnology in ethical perspective. New York: Blackie Academic & Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Florida. (2004). Biotechnology in the United States. IFAS Extension, Retrieved 2004, from http://agbiotech.ifas.ufl.edu/usa.html.

  • U.S. Biotechnology Regulatory Agencies. (2004). US database of completed regulatory agency reviews USDA, EPA, FDA. Retrieved 2004, from http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov.

  • Van Tassel, L. W., Ferrell, M. A., Yang, B., Legg, D. E., & Lloyd, J. E. (1999). Pesticide practices and perceptions of Wyoming farmers and ranchers. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 54(1), 410–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, R. (1996). Prosocial behavior: Private contributions to agriculture’s impact on the environment. Land Economics, 72(2), 231–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D., Urban, M., Graves, M., & Morrison, D. (2003). Beyond the economic: Farmer practices and indenties in Central Illinois, USA. The Great Lakes Geographer, 10(1), 22–33.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The participation of individual farmers and agricultural organizations is gratefully recognized. This author would also like to thank panel members of the Western Political Science Association and multiple reviewers of the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics who offered critical feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. Appreciation is also offered to Southern Illinois University Edwardsville that funded part of the study and some of the work completed by graduate assistants Joan Lame, Yaw Owusu, and Wade Rives. For all concerns methodological I am also indebted to Jonathan Sullivan Morris, Ph.D.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas P. Guehlstorf.

Appendix

Appendix

Graph 1
figure a

Adoption of genetically engineered crops grows steadily in the U.S. Data for each crop category include varieties with both HT and Bt (stacked) traits. Source: 1996–1999 data are from Fernandez-Cornejo (2002). Data for 2000–2006 are available in the ERS data product, Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops grows steadily in the U.S., Tables 1–3

Graph 2
figure b

Main reason to adopt as stated by farmers. Permission given by Fernandez-Cornejo of USDA as found in government briefing, “Agricultural Biotechnology: adoption of biotechnology and its production impacts (ERS 2004)”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guehlstorf, N.P. Understanding the Scope of Farmer Perceptions of Risk: Considering Farmer Opinions on the Use of Genetically Modified (GM) Crops as a Stakeholder Voice in Policy. J Agric Environ Ethics 21, 541–558 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-008-9116-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-008-9116-7

Keywords

Navigation