Table 4.
Recognition of risk from GMa technology and food.b-d
| Item | Values | Japan | United States | the United Kingdom | France | ANOVAe
(F value) |
P | |
| 1. Most consumers are not aware of risks to food safety. | ||||||||
|
|
Mean (SDf) | 2.96 (1.066) | 2.39 (1.184) | 2.69 (1.287) | 2.07 (1.047) | 48.112 | <.001 | |
|
|
Effect size:g (CI) |
|
0.50 (0.37 to 0.64) | 0.23 (0.09 to 0.36) | 0.84 (0.70 to 0.98) |
|
|
|
| 2. Most consumers do not understand the risk of GM food. | ||||||||
|
|
Mean (SD) | 2.27 (0.862) | 2.18 (1.141) | 2.28 (1.224) | 2.06 (1.024) | 3.902 | .009 | |
|
|
Effect size:g (CI) |
|
0.09 (−0.04 to 0.22) | −0.01 (−0.14 to 0.13) | 0.23 (0.09 to 0.36) |
|
|
|
| 3. If provided with an explanation of genetically modified technology, most consumers would accept GM food. | ||||||||
|
|
Mean (SD) | 3.39 (1.081) | 3.12 (1.225) | 3.19 (1.234) | 2.93 (1.321) | 10.709 | <.001 | |
|
|
Effect size:g (CI) |
|
0.23 (0.10 to 0.36) | 0.17 (0.04 to 0.30) | 0.38 (0.25 to 0.52) |
|
|
|
| 4. Most consumers would accept GM food if provided with scientific data supporting its safety. | ||||||||
|
|
Mean (SD) | 3.26 (1.073) | 2.93 (1.236) | 3.03 (1.188) | 2.82 (1.288) | 10.546 | <.001 | |
|
|
Effect size:g (CI) |
|
0.28 (0.15 to 0.42) | 0.20 (0.07 to 0.33) | 0.37 (0.23 to 0.50) |
|
|
|
| 5. Most consumers would accept GM food if they understood that all food carries a certain level of risk. | ||||||||
|
|
Mean (SD) | 3.42 (1.059) | 3.16 (1.258) | 3.22 (1.199) | 3.16 (1.415) | 4.443 | .004 | |
|
|
Effect size:g (CI) |
|
0.22 (0.09 to 0.35) | 0.18 (0.05 to 0.31) | 0.21 (0.08 to 0.35) |
|
|
|
| 6. Most consumers cannot understand genetically modified technology even if it is explained to them. | ||||||||
|
|
Mean (SD) | 3.18 (1.027) | 2.97 (1.299) | 2.98 (1.226) | 2.80 (1.304) | 6.948 | <.001 | |
|
|
Effect size:g (CI) |
|
0.17 (0.04 to 0.31) | 0.18 (0.05 to 0.31) | 0.32 (0.19 to 0.45) |
|
|
|
| 7. Consumers should try hard to understand scientific information and learn more about the issue. | ||||||||
|
|
Mean (SD) | 2.68 (0.898) | 2.45 (1.159) | 2.66 (1.125) | 2.86 (1.370) | 8.659 | <.001 | |
|
|
Effect size:g (CI) |
|
0.22 (0.08 to 0.35) | 0.02 (−0.12 to 0.15) | −0.16(−0.29 to −0.03) |
|
|
|
| 8. It is annoying to hear the same argument about safety of GM food repeated over and over, even when consumers don’t understand it. | ||||||||
|
|
Mean (SD) | 3.12 (1.047) | 3.22 (1.326) | 3.34 (1.198) | 2.87 (1.409) | 11.050 | <.001 | |
|
|
Effect size:g (CI) |
|
−0.08 (−0.22 to 0.05) | −0.20 (−0.33 to −0.06) | 0.21 (0.08 to 0.34) |
|
|
|
aGM: genetically modified.
b“Consumers” in this paper means nonexperts.
cLikert Scale: 1= strongly agree → 6= strongly disagree.
dMean: average of Likert Scale points.
eANOVA: analysis of variance.
fSD: standard deviation.