104 The Open E hics Jou nal, 2009, 3, 104-117
1874-7612/09 2009 Ben ham Open
Open Access
E hical Compa ibili y o GM C ops wi h In insic and Ex insic Values o
Fa me s: A Re iew
I ene Vänninen1,*, Helena Siipi2, Ma jo Keski alo1 and Ma ia E kkilä1
1MTT Ag i ood Resea ch Finland, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
2Depa men o Philosophy, Uni e si y o Tu ku, FIN- 20014 Tu ku, Finland
Abs ac : The ole o in insic and ex insic e hical alues as de e minan s o a me s’ adop ion decisions o gene ically
modi ied (GM) c ops is e iewed based on 17 scien i ic pape s publish be ween 1999 and 2006 in nine coun ies. In hese
s udies, in insic alues ecei ed less a en ion han ex insic alues as con ibu o s o adop ion decisions. The na u al-
ness/unna u alness concep ea u ed only in one quali a i e s udy. Fa me s in mos coun ies we e gene ally e y knowl-
edgeable abou issues ela ed o GM ood sa e y, en i onmen al and ag onomic impac s, and animal wel a e. In a s udy
conduc ed in New Zealand, a me s in ending o adop GM c ops ag eed mo e wi h he an h opocen ic alue posi ion
han o he con en ional o o ganic a me s, who ended o emphasize he isks associa ed wi h GM c ops. This and o he
a me ypologies, p oduced in ou coun ies on he basis o exp essed e hical a i udes owa d GM c ops and condensing
a ound bene i belie e s, isk pe cei e s and a alis s, showed ecognizable consis ency be ween coun ies. Thus con en-
ional a me s a e a om being a homogeneous g oup in ega d o hei a i udes owa d GM c ops. E en hose who
we e using hese c ops o yea s ques ioned and e alua ed hei decision con inuously. Despi e he exp essed e hical con-
ce ns, economic and ma ke conside a ions ended o igu e as he mos p ominen de e minan s o in ended o ealized
adop ion/ ejec ion decisions. The s abili y/changeabili y o a me s’ e hical alues in he cou se o he inno a ion-
adop ion p ocess is discussed. The e m e hical compa ibili y is sugges ed o be included in he lis o inno a ion a ibu es
as used acco ding o he adop ion pe cep ion pa adigm o inno a ion di usion esea ch.
Key Wo ds: Fa me s, e hics, in insic alues, ex insic alues, ansgenic c ops, gene ically modi ied c ops, gene ic enginee -
ing, bio echnology, ag icul u e, inno a ion di usion, inno a ion adop ion, a i udes, heo y o planned beha io .
INTRODUCTION
The i e majo aspec s o bio echnology e hics a e (i)
ood sa e y, (ii) animal wel a e, (iii) en i onmen al impac s,
(i ) social consequences, and ( ) he na u alness/
unna u alness issue [1, 2]. In he pas decade se e al au ho s
ha e conside ed he e hics o bio echnology in ag icul u e,
especially he de elopmen , adop ion and egula ion o
ansgenic c ops [1, 3-13]. In hei su ey o he mul i ude o
academic pape s conce ning he e hics, economics and social
impac s o gene ically modi ied (GM) c ops, Whi e and
Veeman [14] included only i e pape s linked wi h he wo d
a me o g owe . Such absence o he a me pe spec i e
om he e hical discou se o bio echnology has been no ed
also by Mau o and McLachlan [15] and Hall [16]. A com-
mon a gumen abou consume choice is ha hey mus no
be pu in a posi ion whe e hey a e unable o apply hei own
alues in choosing whe he o ea he p oduc s o bio ech-
nology [17]. Such a gumen s a e less equen ly exp essed
abou con en ional a me s.
The a me ’s pe spec i e on he e hics o adop ing new
echnologies was add essed by Mepham [18] and Gesche
and Haslbe ge [19] in de eloping ools o policy-make s
*Add ess co espondence o his au ho a he MTT Ag i ood Resea ch
Finland, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland; Tel: +358-3-41881; Fax: +358-3-
41882584; E-mail: I ene.Vanninen@m . i
in es iga ing he consequences o di e en s akeholde s o a
pa icula echnology. In he e hical ool [19], he a me s’
pe spec i e on he adop ion o GM c ops included he ol-
lowing: income secu i y and sus ainable ag icul u al p ac-
ices ( he bene icence p inciple), dependence on he s a e-
gies o bio echnology co po a ions and loss o adi ional
land aces ( he non-male icence p inciple); ai ea men in
ade and law, as well as espec ing local alues and adi-
ions ( he p inciple o jus ice and ai ness); and eedom o
adop o no o adop he new echnology (au onomy, choice
and sel -de e mina ion, i.e. espec owa d au onomy). This
is a ai s a , bu ails o con ey he pe sonal expe ience o
he complexi y o he combined echnical, e hical, social, and
business en i onmen s in which a a me makes he decision
whe he o adop o ejec GM c ops [20-22].
Fa me s a e po en ially subjec o in luence om bo h
sides o he GMO (gene ically modi ied o ganism) deba e:
encou aged by he ag obio ech indus y o adop he new
echnology, a ge ed by p o es g oups in en on des oying
c ops, and acing po en ial consume and supe ma ke ejec-
ion o GM ood [16]. In his ug o wa , he a me ies o
mee and espond o he demands o ag icul u al, en i on-
men al, business and consume e hics, o en cons ained in
his e hical choices by he economic challenges c ea ed
by indus ialized ag icul u e [21, 20, 23]. In he mids o all
his, he con en ional a me ’s indi idual and socio-cul u al
iden i y is challenged. The concep o a good a me s ill
E hical Compa ibili y o GM C ops wi h In insic and Ex insic Values The Open E hics Jou nal, 2009, Volume 3 105
e ol es a ound he p oduc i is pa adigm, he my h o he
ga den (i.e. he a me as s ewa d esponsible o he land
and he ended landscape), ha d wo k, and he doc ine o
g ace [24-26]. Gasson [27], Willock e al. [28] and Schoon
and Te G oe enhuis [29] a e e e ed o o o iginal s udies
and Ga o h and Rehman [30] o a e iew on gene al alues
o a me s. O en, he a me inds himsel de ending his occu-
pa ion. Whe eas, he gene al public in Eu ope sees he h ee
main esponsibili ies o a me s as (i) supplying he popula-
ion wi h heal hy and sa e ood; (ii) p o ec ing he en i on-
men ; and (iii) supplying he popula ion wi h a di e si y o
quali y p oduc s – and all his o easonable p ices [31].
The aim o his pape is o e iew he li e a u e accumu-
la ed du ing he las 10 yea s on e hical issues o GM c ops
om he a me pe spec i e. We a e pa icula ly in e es ed
whe he e hical alues, ei he in insic o ex insic, guide he
adop ion/non-adop ion decisions o a me s. The e iew o-
cuses on con en ional a me s in de eloped coun ies, bu
s udies con as ing con en ional and o ganic a me s a e
used when a ailable. We s a by in oducing he concep s o
in insic and ex insic alues, hen gi e a sho o e iew o
gene al alues o a me s o build he amewo k in which
in insic and ex insic e hical alues a e conside ed as pa ial
de e minan s o a me s’ pe cep ions and a i udes owa d
GM c ops. The Theo y o Reasoned Ac ion and he Theo y
o Planned Beha io a e b ie ly in oduced o illus a e how
he an eceden s o alue-de i ed (and o he ypes o ) beha -
iou a e elici ed om indi iduals. Finally, we y o p o ide
answe s o wo esea ch ques ions on he basis o he 17 pa-
pe s ha we e chosen as he ma e ial o his e iew: 1) o
wha ex en a e a me s guided by in insic and ex insic
alues, lea ing aside o he momen economic and inancial
conside a ions, in deciding whe he o adop GM c ops; and
2) do he a ailable s udies e eal any hing abou he ex en o
which he p inciples o bene icence, non-male icence, ai -
ness and jus ice, and choice and sel -de e mina ion a e eal-
ized in he p ac ice o a me s’ using o GM c ops?
INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC ETHICAL VALUES
Renne [32, p. 17] de ines alues as cogni i e cons uc s
ha explain an indi idual’s p e e ences in li e goals, p inci-
ples, and beha iou al p io i ies. Values a e o med and
modi ied by an indi idual’s expe iences o e he li e ime
[33]. Thei an eceden s can be ound in biology, ace/
e hnici y and gende , social s uc u e (occupa ion, educa ion,
wi hin-na ion alue sys ems, amily cha ac e is ics, age co-
ho , and eligion) [34]. People may no be awa e o explici
easons o he alues hey hold, bu despi e his hey ha e
implici belie s ha con ibu e o alue impo ance [35] in
[30, 34].
The e hical p oblem acing a a me is whe he o adop
o ejec GM c ops conside ing he na u e o he echnology
and knowledge o i s ela i e bene i s and isks. In e hical
sense, he a me is aced wi h a decision-p oblem [36, p. 30]
whe e he e hical p inciples and alues possessed by he
a me may sugges o him mo e han one al e na i e choice.
Chouina d e al. [37], a e e iewing he li e a u e on u ili y
and beha io al economics, conclude ha i seems easonable
o assume ha bo h egois ic- inancial and social-mo al ac-
o s may in luence p oduc ion decisions o a me s. In ac ,
hey p opose a model o h ee ypes o a me s ha di e in
hei mo i a ion owa d adop ing en i onmen ally benign
a ming p ac ices: hose mo i a ed by p o i -maximizing,
ego-u ili y maximize s, and a blend o ego- and s ewa d-
u ili y maximize s. Thus a me s may be mo i a ed by bo h
sel and social in e es s when i comes o selec ing a ming
p ac ices. Much o he li e a u e has sides epped a sys ema ic
in eg a ion o sel -in e es and social goals, ei he by assum-
ing ha only p o i s ma e , o by adding social and s ewa d-
ship ac o s in an ad hoc way [37]. Such a i ude seems o
p e ail also abou con en ional a me s’ mo i a ions ega d-
ing hei adop ion o GM c ops.
The a me ’s mani es beha iou (i.e. decision ega ding
GM c op adop ion) is he p oduc o his decision-making
p ocess ha is ela i e o his alue o ien a ion [38]. A deci-
sion-making p oblem includes bo h economic, echnical,
social, poli ical and e hical issues (see [33]). O hese, he
economic, echnical and social domains a e included, in one
o m o ano he , in he de e minan s o he inno a ion-
decision p ocess illus a ed by Roge s [39] (p. 170). The
explici e hical (and also poli ical) dimensions a e, howe e ,
lacking om he model. F i zsche [33], in his g aphical
model, opens up he e hical decision-making dimension and
shows how he ini ial in luence upon decision-making s ems
om he indi idual’s pe sonal alues o ei he ins umen al
(ex insic) o e minal (in insic) in na u e, and how hese
alues a e modi ied by se e al ac o s du ing he decision-
making. The model is de eloped o he sphe e o business
e hics, whe e, o cou se, also a me s, as en ep eneu s, be-
long. In p o essional li e ex e nal o ces can media e o al e
pe sonal alues in decision-making [33]. Al hough a pe -
son’s alue sys em anks alues acco ding o hei ela i e
impo ance o he indi idual [40], in a si ua ion o con-
s ained choice indi iduals may end up making ade-o s
be ween hei alues [20, 23, 30]. Thus e hics, as p ac iced
by a me s when acing an e hical p oblem, a e no necessa -
ily s able bu a e in luenced by si ua ional ac o s. Hend ick-
son and James [20] emphasize he unde s anding o he si u-
a ional componen s ha in luence a me s’ e hical beha iou ,
as a me s’ ac i i ies in luence socie y’s access o such im-
po an public goods as good, sa e ood, and clean en i on-
men .
E hical alues a e basic con ic ions abou wha is mo -
ally igh and w ong, good and bad [41]. The in insic alues
ha e a cen al posi ion in e hics [42]. In insic alues a e
ends in hemsel es, i.e. pu sued o hei own sake. The in-
insic alue o some hing is said o be he alue ha ha
hing has “in i sel ,” “ o i s own sake,” “as such,” o “in i s
own igh .”[42]. Fo example, he in insic alue o plan s
indica es ha a plan is e hically ele an and has a alue in
i s own igh , independen o i s ins umen al, o ex insic,
alue o humans [43]. The in insic alue a ibu ed o en i-
onmen al goods (e.g. a na u e habi a ) is associa ed wi h
such a ibu es as nonsubs i u ibili y (uniqueness), i e e si-
bili y ( eplica ion o he speci ic commodi y is impossible i
i is des oyed), eelings o sen imen ali y, and a sense o
mo al obliga ion [44]. Thus a na u e habi a can be alued
because o cha ac e is ics i possesses in i s own igh , no
because a walk in he o es o in a bog is enjoyable o a
human being. In insic alues can be u he ca ego ised o
high and low alues and s ong and weak alues, o exam-
ple. High alues a e alues ha a e a ibu ed o hings ha
106 The Open E hics Jou nal, 2009, Volume 3 Vänninen e al.
make li e lou ishing (such as iendship); low alues a e
connec ed o mo e basic issues. S ong alues a e ypically
a ibu ed o hings necessa y o decen li e (such as no
ha ing pain), whe eas weak alues a e less impo an in his
manne . In e es ingly s ong alues a e o en low alues and
weak alues a e high alues. Since ood p oduc ion con ib-
u es in o eeding people i seems o be somehow associa ed
wi h s ong and low alues – and e en mo e clea ly wi h
ex insic alues. Ne e heless, as iews abou good ood and
he way i is p oduced a e connec ed o many in insic alues
including ai ness, heal h, pleasu e e c., e hical ques ions
abou ood p oduc ion may also conce n high alues. The
an i hesis o na u alness/unna u alness, o example, is cen-
al in he sphe e o high in insic alues in he a gumen s o
GMO opponen s [1] (p. 183-184). Acco ding o Siipi [45],
he e ms na u al/unna u al a e ambiguous, and a he han
discussing na u alness and unna u alness in gene al, he di -
e en o ms o (un)na u alness should be he ocus o dis-
cussion. On he o he hand, i can be asked why some hing
ha is unna u al should be conside ed as being also une hi-
cal? [17].
Coms ock [1] lis s 14 ways ha opponen s o gene ic
enginee ing (GE) and GMOs ha e used when de ending
hei posi ion on GE o plan s, animals, and oods being un-
na u al. This can mean playing God, a oga ing his o ically
unp eceden ed powe o ou sel es, exhibi ing a ogance,
hub is, and disa ec ion, messing up wi h he essence o li -
ing beings by c ossing species bounda ies, changing elos, o
end, o an a indi idual, commodi ying li e and dis espec ing
li e by e.g. pa en ing i , and dis up ing he in eg i y, beau y,
and balance o c ea ion. In insic objec ions ypically ely on
e hical claims ha do no all in o an o e lapping consensus,
and he same conce ns hei ejec ion, acco ding o Sei e
and Hedemann [46]. In insic objec ions hus canno be ap-
pealed o in jus i ying e.g. GM ood policy, bu on he o he
hand public policy conce ning GMOs should also no be
jus i ied on g ounds ha equi e he ejec ion o in insic
objec ions [46].
Ex insic alue is alue ha is no in insic. Tha which is
ex insically good/bad is de i a i ely good/bad; i is
good/bad, no o i s own sake, bu o he sake o some hing
else ha is good/bad and o which i is ela ed in some way
[42]. The e is a gene al ag eemen on he use ulness o he
dis inc ion be ween in insic and ex insic alues, bu he
di icul y lies in whe e exac ly o d aw he line be ween
hem [47] (p. 114). Especially he dis inc ion be ween s ong
in insic alues and ex insic alues is o en ha d o make.
O en, he one and same hing can be alued bo h in insi-
cally and ex insically. When a na u e habi a is h ea ened o
be des oyed, a e we conce ned o he habi a ’s own sake
(in insic alue a ibu ed o he habi a ), o because we may
lose he possibili y o walking in ha pa icula habi a o -
e e (ex insic alue a ibu ed o he habi a )? [48]. The la e
is an an h opocen ic, u ili y-based iew on na u e. Viewed
in his ligh , GM c ops ha e (posi i e) ex insic alue i hey
b ing bene i s o he humankind, animals and ecosys ems
(e.g. [49, 50]). The opponen s o GMOs end o a gue ha
GMOs ha e ha m ul (ex insic) consequences o basically
i e di e en gene al ypes: i) impac on he en i onmen
(impac s ha could dis up ecosys em p ocesses, escape o
DNA genes o wild plan s and weeds ia pollen low, loss
o GE ai s by way o a ge pes de eloping esis ance o
hem); ii) impac on humans, including ood sa e y; iii) im-
pac on non-human animals; i ) impac on a ming commu-
ni ies in bo h he de eloped and de eloping coun ies; and )
shi ing powe ela ions (e.g. he ising impo ance o com-
me cial in e es s and mul ina ionals and a me s becoming
dependen on he GM seeds p oduced by such companies).
[1, 17]. The alleged isks o GMOs may h ea en hings ha
a e alued by humans ei he in insically o ex insically, bu
no all humans sha e simila alues owa d he abo e hings,
o hey pe cei e he ela i e impo ance o bene i s o isks
in di e en ways. Fo example, unin ended ecological con-
sequences o GMOs ecei e di e en le el o conce n in
Eu ope and No h Ame ica. Ame icans and Canadians ha e
no his o ically associa ed ecological isks o ag icul u al
bio echnology wi h e hical conce n ([17] and e e ences
he ein). The alleged ex insic isks, i.e. possible unin ended
consequences o GMOs, a e an icipa ed and managed wi h
isk analysis comp ising isk iden i ica ion, measu emen ,
e alua ion, and managemen . Thompson [17] a gues i is
possible o see all phases o isk analysis as in ol ing e hical
issues. Value judgmen s a e implici in a emp s o iden i y
o decide which consequences a e ele an , de e mine which
o he possible cou ses o ac ion should be selec ed o mod-
elling and analysis, o choose how o ea unce ain ies in
da a and modelling, and how o de i e and in eg a e s a is i-
cal and subjec i e p obabili ies [17].
HOW ARE VALUES CAPTURED?
Values can be unde s ood as a g oup-le el phenomenon
equi ing sha ed ag eemen , bu hey a e mo e ypically un-
de s ood and measu ed o cap u ed as an indi idual-le el
cons uc [34]. Quali a i e s udies employ se e al di e en
echniques o elici an eceden s o beha iou ( alues, belie s,
a i udes, in en ions) om indi iduals (see Table 1 o de ini-
ions). Quali a i e echniques include s uc u ed and open-
ended in-dep h in e iews ollowed by discou se o con en
analysis, ocus g oup wo k-shops ( o an illus a i e exam-
ple, see [51]) o panels wi h g oup-ladde ing in e iews and
con en analysis. Such echniques p obe in o he in e nal
s uc u e o pa icipan s’ belie sys ems, and usually lea e
he in e iewee much mo e space o o mula e his o he
ideas han would be possible in a quan i a i e su ey [52]
(p. 22-23).
On he o he hand, he quan i a i e, beha iou al app oach
is based on a cogni i e cons uc model in ol ing a i udes
as he main an eceden s o beha iou . Such expec ancy-
alue-based models o a i ude-beha io ela ionships aim a
p edic ing he decision-making beha iou o he s udied
popula ion, o a explaining he non-economic ac o s which
con ibu e o decision-making. In such models, a i ude o-
wa d a beha iou (e.g. adop ion o GM c ops by a a me ) is
i sel a unc ion o he alue one assigns o he pe cei ed
consequences o he beha iou (“Wha ollows i I adop GM
c ops, o decide no o adop , o pos pone adop ion, o adop
only on a po ion o my ac eage now?”) and he subjec i e
p obabili ies one a aches o hose consequences. In essence,
he s uc u e o hese models e lec s he subjec i e expec ed
u ili y ha unde pins people’s choices; as such, hey a e a-
ional choice models o human beha iou [53]. The e a e wo
equen ly applied heo ies o his app oach, he Theo y o
E hical Compa ibili y o GM C ops wi h In insic and Ex insic Values The Open E hics Jou nal, 2009, Volume 3 107
Reasoned Ac ion (TRA) and i s mo e ad anced e sion, he
Theo y o Planned Beha io (TBP) [54-56]. Acco ding o
hese heo ies, a i udes a e ans e ed o beha iou s ia
in en ion, he p oximal cause o beha iou (Fig. 1). No all
a i udes a e alue-exp essi e [57], bu o cases when hey
a e assumed o be, empi ical e idence con i ms he causal
link (e.g. [58]). Once he model has been speci ied and he
di e en componen s ope a ionalized as s a emen s conce n-
ing beha iou al an eceden s and ou comes, esponden s’
esponses owa d he s a emen s a e cap u ed by ques ion-
nai e su eys, whe eupon he esponden s exp ess hei
e alua ion o s a emen s on a Like -scale (ag eemen -
disag eemen wi h o a ou ableness-un a ou ableness o
he s a ed issue) [59].
Spa ks e al. [60] s a e ha a i udes may a ise pa ly as a
consequence o he ou comes being unknown. This means
ha pe cep ions o unce ain y abou ou comes a he han
belie s abou pa icula ou comes migh p o ide he domi-
nan in luence on a i udes [60]. Fo a me s con empla ing
he adop ion o GM c ops, such unce ain y is one o he
easons ha accen ua es his e hical dilemma: The a me
may ha e o decide abou adop ion o ejec ion o GM c ops
be o e hey know enough abou all po en ial bene i s and
isks o he echnology. In such a si ua ion a me s a e de-
penden on he in o ma ion gi en o hem by a ious sou ces,
he us wo hiness o which may be pe cei ed a iably by
he a me . A i udes can be assumed o change o e ime
when di usion p oceeds, esul ing in dec ease o unce ain y
owing o inc eased expe ience and knowledge abou he
echnology (see [39], p. 20-21). The Elabo a ion Likelihood
Model can be used o sys ema ically in es iga e he impac
o in o ma ion on a i ude change [59, 61].
TPB has been shown o be e icacious as a p edic o o
in en ions and beha iou [54]. The beha iou al app oach is
much used in ag icul u al s udies, al hough no always in a
alid way [62]. B edahl e al. [59] e iewed li e a u e on
a i udinal-beha io al models and modi ied TPB o include
componen s hey deemed necessa y o s udies ocusing on
consume a i udes ega ding GM oods. The same modi ica-
ions a e p obably applicable also o s udies on a me s’
a i udes ega ding GM c op adop ion and use. Addi ional
componen s can be added o he model i hey in luence be-
ha iou and belie s o i s ou comes independen ly o a i-
udes [59]. Such componen s include: i)subjec i e no ms ha
inco po a e he pe son’s belie s conce ning wha signi ican
o he s ( a me ’s amily membe s, o he a me s, o he
s akeholde s) hink abou his choices; ii) pe cei ed beha -
iou al con ol (PBC); iii) sel -iden i y ( he global unde s and-
ing a sen ien being has o him o he ; as such, his compo-
nen inco po a es also pe sonal no ms); and i ) he compo-
nen o pe cei ed e hical/mo al obliga ions. O hese compo-
nen s, PBC exp esses he pe cei ed di icul y ha co e s
ac o s embedded in he pe son such as skills and abili ies o
ealize he (in ended) beha iou o in e es , and pe cei ed
con ol ha co e s he e ec o ex e nal ac o s belie ed by
he a me o in luence he deg ee o pe sonal con ol o e
he beha iou in ques ion (“Do I ge non-GM seeds om
anywhe e i I decide no o plan GM-c ops?”). The compe-
ence ha a a me eels he o she has in judging isks and
bene i s o a GM c op in a choice si ua ion is an impo an
aspec o PBC [59].
In he TPB model, he impo ance o he measu e o e hi-
cal/mo al obliga ion s ems om he ‘social’ con ex o he
a i ude-beha iou s udies. In o he wo ds, beha iou s may
no be o a pu ely sel -in e es ed na u e unlike p edic ed by
he o iginal TPB model, bu decision-making may be d i en
also by a sense o e hical obliga ion and sel -iden i y, in con-
as o being d i en by only a i udes ha a e deemed o
s em om beha iou al belie s and ou come e alua ions (e.g.
[63]). Fo example, indi iduals may wan o p ese e a na u-
Table 1. De ini ions o Key Cogni i e Cons uc s o he Beha iou al App oach o Elici he An eceden s o Beha io
Te m De ini ion Re e ence
Value Endu ing belie s ha speci ic modes o conduc o end-s a e o exis ence a e pe sonally o socially
p e e able o some opposi e o con e se modes o conduc o end–s a es o exis ence.
C i e ia ha people use o selec and jus i y ac ions and o e alua e e en s
and hemsel es, as well as o he people.
[38]
[40], p. 551
Pe cep ion A way o concei ing some hing.
Pe cep ion is he way people o ganize and in e p e he wo ld a ound hem
in o de o gi e meaning o hei su oundings.
h p://wo dne web.p ince on.edu/
pe l/webwn?s=pe cep ion
[41]
Belie Con ic ion ha ends o o igina e om alues bu is no necessa ily always
based on e lec ion and conscious objec i e hinking.
Any cogni i e con en held as ue.
[30]
h p://wo dne web.p ince on.edu/
pe l/webwn?s=belie
A i ude Fa ou able o un a ou able disposi ion suscep ible o ansien in luences.
A complex men al s a e in ol ing belie s, eelings,
alues and disposi ions o ac in ce ain ways.
[30]
h p://wo dne web.p ince on.edu/
pe l/webwn?s=a i ude
In en ion An an icipa ed ou come ha is in ended o ha guides you planned ac ions. h p://wo dne web.p ince on.edu/
pe l/webwn?s=in en ion
Goal The s a e o a ai s ha a plan is in ended o achie e and ha (when achie ed)
e mina es beha io in ended o achie e i . h p://wo dne web.p ince on.edu/
pe l/webwn?s=goal
Objec i e The goal (aim) in ended o be a ained (and which is belie ed o be a ainable). h p://wo dne web.p ince on.edu/
pe l/webwn?s=objec i e
108 The Open E hics Jou nal, 2009, Volume 3 Vänninen e al.
al esou ce o mo al o o he mo i es e en i hey know
ha hey will ne e ecei e di ec consump ion bene i s (use
alue) om i [37]. The independen impac o pe cei ed
e hical/mo al obliga ion on beha iou al in en ions has been
e i ied o in en ions wi h ega d o GM oods [60]; see also
[56] (p. 199-200); [63]. Howe e in wo o he s udies his
e hical componen was deemed no o in luence beha iou o
in en ions di ec ly, bu as an an eceden o a i udes [53, 64].
Whe e in he model his componen should be posi ioned
may depend, o example, on wha beha iou is in ques ion
and how o he componen s ha e been ope a ionalized [53,
60].
Whe e should in insic and ex insic alues exp essed by
he esponden s owa d he ou comes o he beha iou o
in e es be included in he model? We could no ind any
s udies whe e his ques ion was deal wi h explici ly. An-
o he ques ion is whe he in insic and ex insic alues can
be inco po a ed in he one and same e hical/mo al compo-
nen , o whe he hey mus be spli indi e en componen s.
Spa ks e al. [60] in hei s udy o consume a i udes owa d
GM oods sugges ha esponden s’ a ings on he measu es
o pe cei ed e hical obliga ion may ha e been made as a
p oxy o ins umen al conside a ions no p o ided o in he
belie s a emen s ha we e p esen ed o subjec s. This sug-
ges s ha a leas pa ly, he ex insic alues con ibu ing o
beha iou al in en ions may be inco po a ed in he s a emen s
desc ibing he belie s o he ou comes o he beha iou in
ques ion. Whe eas o he pe cei ed e hical obliga ions ( o
example, in ela ion o "playing God" o " ampe ing wi h
na u e" wi h GMOs) may no be consequen ialis o ou -
come-o ien ed in his way [60] and should be placed
elsewhe e ( he sel -iden i y componen pe haps, o he
componen o e hical/mo al obliga ions).
B edahl e al. [59] sugges se e al modi ica ions o he
o iginal TPB model o s udying consume a i udes owa d
GM ood and a i ude change. They p opose ha a dis inc-
ion be ween di e en ou come ypes be made, as i may be
ha he belie s unde lying a i udes a y in s eng h depend-
ing on which ou come ype he pe son has in mind. The
belie s unde lying a i udes should be explici ly ela ed o
key ou come ypes so ha he in luences o each g oup on
o e all a i udes can be assessed. Belie s abou he isks and
bene i s o gene ic enginee ing a e impo an de e minan s o
a i udes and i is ecommended ha an explici dis inc ion
be ween belie s o isks and belie s o bene i s associa ed
wi h he applica ion o gene ic enginee ing should be made
[59].
THE ROLE OF INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC
VALUES IN FARMERS’ DECISION-MAKING
REGARDING GM CROPS: A LITERATURE REVIEW
Collec ion o Ma e ial and Gene al O e iew o Fa me
A i udes Towa d GM C ops
The collec ion o he e iew ma e ial was s a ed using
he ollowing sea ch wo ds and ph ases in ISI Web o Sci-
ence, CAB Abs ac s, and Google Schola : a me /g owe
e hics; e hics + ansgenic c ops /bio echnology /gene ically
modi ied c ops /gmo c op; a me /g owe e hics + gene i-
cally modi ied c op/gmo/ ansgenic c op /bio echnology;
a me /”g owe + a i ude/pe cep ion/belie /in en ion + ge-
ne ically modi ied c op/gmo/ ansgenic c op /bio echnology.
Fu he sea ches we e based on e e ence lis s o ound
pape s, and on pape s ci ing ound pape s and, again, he
e e ence lis o he o me . This sea ching p ocedu e,
Fig. (1). Schema ic ep esen a ion o he Theo y o Planned Beha iou and i s componen s in luencing in en ion and/o a i ude. Adap ed
om Ga o h and Rehman [65]. The e hical/mo al obliga ion componen and sel -iden i y componen ha e been shown o in luence
in en ion ei he di ec ly o ia a i ude (dashed lines) (see ex o e e ences).

E hical Compa ibili y o GM C ops wi h In insic and Ex insic Values The Open E hics Jou nal, 2009, Volume 3 109
complemen ed wi h ad hoc sea ches using a ious combina-
ions o he abo e sea ch wo ds, yielded a o al o 17 pape s
ha epo ed s udies in which a me s’ alues, belie s, pe -
cep ions, a i udes and beha iou wi h ega d o he adop ion,
use and accep abili y o GM c ops ei he been su eyed us-
ing s uc u ed ques ionnai es o quali a i e in e iews, o a
combina ion o bo h me hods. In e ms o se ing as guides
o a me s’ alues on GM c ops, he me hodological igou
o he s udies a ied conside ably (Table 2).
Table 3 p esen s an o e iew on he willingness o a m-
e s o adop GM c ops as pe cen ages o a me esponden s.
This is jus a s a ing poin o show he a iabili y in a me
a i udes, because yes-no esponses gi e no indica ion
whe he e hics we e in ol ed in gene a ing he esponses, o
whe he hey e lec me e economical, echnical, poli ical
and social alue posi ions. This able sugges s ha expe i-
ence inc eases a me s’ willingness o use GM c ops and
educes he a me s’ unce ain y o adop . Such a end is in
acco dance wi h he inno a ion di usion heo y which s a es
ha unce ain y diminishes o e ime h ough he acquisi ion
o expe ience and in o ma ion [39, 80]. In Ohio, Napie e al.
[73] epo ed ha expe ience and in o ma ion signi ican ly
inc eased he accep ance o GE o plan s by u al inhabi an s
compa ed o u ban ci izens. In Illinois, a me s wi h expe i-
ence in g owing GM c ops we e mo e likely o ag ee upon
bene i s and e hicali y o bio echnology in bo h plan and
animal p oduc ion [79]. Thus expe ience may coun as a
necessa y, bu appa en ly no as a su icien condi ion o
imp o ed a i ude owa d GM c ops. Mau o e al. [75] epo
ha he Canadian a me s’ expe ience on he bicide ole an
canola did no p epa e g ound o hei accep ance o
Roundup Ready whea (RRW). The easons o ejec ing
RRW we e p agma ic in con as o consume s who end o
e alua e he desi abili y o bio echnology acco ding o ide-
ology and conce n ega ding human and en i onmen al
heal h [75].
Table 2. Pape s Included in he Re iew. P e/Pos = S udy was Conduc ed Be o e/A e GM C ops we e A ailable o G owing.
QQS=Quan i a i e Ques ionnai e Su ey
Yea o S udy Coun y (S a e) Me hodology. Theo e ical App oach o Elici ing Values, Pe cep ions,
A i udes, o In en ions. Da a Analysis Re e ence
1999 p e AU QQS, 193 esponden s. No heo y explici ly s a ed. Reg ession, Chi-squa e es , co ela ion. [66]
1999 p e NO QQS, 430 o ganic and 383 con en ional a me esponden s. No heo y
explici ly s a ed. Bina y logis ic eg ession. [67]
2000 p e NZ QQS, 656 esponden s. None eplici ly s a ed, Theo y o Reasoned Ac ion is implied. - es . [68]
2002 p e NZ QQS, 115 esponden s. Theo y o Planned Beha io . - es , co ela ion, MANOVA. [69]
2002 p e US (WA) QQS, 598 esponden s (109 o ganic, 489 con en ional). Libe a ian,
u ili a ian and i ue adi ions o e hics. C oss- abula ion. [70]
2002 and/o
a e wa ds pos ES Quali a i e echniques, 22 g oup and indi idual in-dep h in e iew wi h a me s.
Ac ion esea ch app oach. Discou se analysis. [71]
2002-03 pos CA Mixed me hodology wi h a QQS, 370 su ey esponden s, 15 in-dep h ace- o- ace
and 74 elephone in e iews. Risk pe cep ion heo y is sugges ed by he
esea ch app oach. Co espondence analysis.
[15]
2003 pos US (MO) E hnog aphic open-ended in e iews wi h wo dozens o con en ional a me s. No heo y
speci ied. O e all imp essions on he con en o he in e iews. [72]
2003 pos US (OH) QQS, 902 esponden s (43.7% a me s). Selec ed componen s o classical di usion model
and isk pe cep ion heo y. S uc u al equa ion modelling. [73]
2003 p e AU QQS, 71 esponden s. Inno a ion adop ion model. Disc imina o y powe sco es. [74]
2004 p e CA QQS, 1566 esponden s. No heo y explici ly s a ed, he esea ch app oach implies isk
pe cep ion heo y. Fac o analysis; quali a i e da a was coded and any eme ging
hemes iden i ied we e ma ched wi h quan i a i e indings.
[75]
2004 p e IN 100 ace- o- ace in e iews wi h open- and close-ended ques ions. Risk pe cep ion heo y ha
included a componen o mo al aspec s o he isk. Thema ic con en analysis. [76]
2005 pos US (IL) 20 open-ended in e iews, QQS o 200 adop e s and non-adop e s o Roundup Ready soya. No
heo y explici ly s a ed, bu isk pe cep ion heo y is implied. Discou se analysis (in e iews),
o de ed logis ic eg ession (mail su ey).
[77]
2005 p e GB (Sco land) QQS using Q-me hodology, ace- o- ace in e iews, numbe o esponden s no gi en. Analysis
wi h PQ-Me hod (co ela ion, ac o analysis, a imax o a ion) [16]
2005 p e SE QQS, 685 esponden s. No heo y explici ly s a ed. Co ela ion analyses, non-pa ame ic es s,
de ended co espondence analysis, p incipal componen analysis. [78]
2006 pos US QQS, 692 esponden s. Desc ip i e e hics. P incipal componen analysis. [21]
Be ween
2003-05? pos US (IL) QQS, 134 esponden s. No heo y explici ly s a ed, adop e pe cep ion pa adigm
wi h e hical compa ibili y as an a ibu e o he inno a ion is implied.
Chi-squa e es s, ac o analysis, bina y logis ic eg ession.
[79]
110 The Open E hics Jou nal, 2009, Volume 3 Vänninen e al.
Role o In insic Values in Adop ion Decision-Making
Only ew pape s inqui ed in o he in insic alues o
a me s ega ding GM c ops. Fai wea he and Campbell [68]
s udied he in insic en i onmen al belie s o New Zealand
a me s by con as ing o ganic, con en ional and GE in end-
ing a me s. The wo o me g oups had an un a ou able
a i ude owa ds GE, he o ganic a me s sligh ly, bu no
signi ican ly, mo e so. The la e a e commi ed o in ensi e
p oduc ion me hods o which GM c ops a e po en ially im-
po an . Fa me s we e p esen ed wi h ou alue posi ions:
an h opocen ism, deep ecology, eco eminism and ecocen-
ism, and we e asked o p o ide esponses o a numbe o
ope a ional s a emen s exp essing hese alue posi ions. The
h ee la e alue posi ions all place in insic alue on na u e,
whe eas an h opocen ism alues na u e only because o
ma e ial o physical bene i s i can p o ide o humans. Al-
hough he e we e no clea quali a i e di e ences in he in-
insic alue posi ions o New Zealand a me s owa ds na-
u e, he impo ance placed on hose alues a ied be ween
o ganic, con en ional and GE in ending a me s. All a me
ypes ag eed a leas somewha wi h he an h opocen ic
iewpoin . O ganic and con en ional a me s emb aced he
eco eminis posi ion o a simila deg ee, whe eas GE in end-
ing a me s ag eed less o i s p inciples. The posi ions o
deep ecology and econcen ism we e alued di e en ly by
all h ee a me g oups. GE in ending a me s we e con-
cluded o exp ess sensi i i y o hei en i onmen , bu no
empha ically, and hey a ed nega i e consequences o gene
echnology e y unlikely as opposed o o ganic a me s.
Thei ac ic appea ed o be o wai un il GE p oduc s eme ge
as a e olu iona y echnological ix o deal wi h en i on-
men al issues [68]. Such expec a ions a e in s a k con as o
he a i ude o No wegian a me s – ep esen ing mos ly
small scale a ming – who disag eed e y s ongly wi h he
s a emen ha gene echnology migh sol e u u e en i on-
men al p oblems in ag icul u e [67].
O e all, New Zealand o ganic a me s exhibi ed a highe
le el o sensi i i y o na u e han con en ional o GE in end-
ing a me s [68]. Ea lie s udies ha e shown ha he e a e
di e ences in he a i udes and belie s o o ganic and con-
en ional a me s owa ds na u e, conse a ion and he ole
o a me as a ca e ake o he land (e.g. [26, 84-86]). Such
di e ences may s em om di e en e hical con ic ions
abou li e in gene al which, in u n, de e mine echnological
choices in gene al and he use o GM c ops in pa icula . In
he US (WA), o ganic a me s we e mo e likely han con-
Table 3. Fa me s’ In e es S a es Rega ding Adop ion o Consump ion o GMOs in Selec ed Coun ies in P e- and Pos -Release
Si ua ions
Coun y: In en ion Rega ding GMOs, P e- o Pos -Release
Si ua ion % Yes (Ag ee) % Neu al/
Doesn’ Know % no (Disag ee) Re e ence
CA: Would adop Roundup Ready whea ? p e- elease no gi en no gi en 89.8 [75]
SE: Would adop ? Insec esis an c ops, p e- elease 12.7 30.6 56.7 [78]
NZ: Would pu chase GM ood o consump ion? p e- elease 17 40 45 [69]
AU: Would g ow GM canola? p e- elease1 19 36 45
[81] ( e e ed
o in [74])
NZ: Would adop ? C op no speci ied, p e- elease 25 34 41 [69]
AU: Would accep ? Po k wi h human gene, p e- elease 25 13 62 [66]
AU: Would accep ? Toma o wi h ish gene, p e- elease 30 15 54 [66]
US (WA), a me s wi h o ganic c ops: Would adop ?
(c op no speci ied) , p e-/pos - elease1 30.2 29.7 40 [82]
AU: Would g ow GM canola? p e- elease 37 0 63 [74]
US (WA): Would adop ? (c op no speci ied) p e-/pos - elease1 41.8 32.7 25.5 [82]
ES: Would adop B -co n? pos - elease 56 no gi en no gi en [83]
AU: Would accep ? Be e as ing oma o/blue ose /cheese
p oduced wi h modi ied enzymes, p e- elease 47-58 14-16 27-36 [66]
AU: Would accep ? He bicide esis an whea , p e- elease 63 14 23 [66]
US (OH): Is i e hically accep able o gene ically modi y plan s?
(c op no speci ied), pos - elease 64.3 17 18.7 [73]
AU: Would consume lou o highe -yielding/pes
esis an /he bicide esis an GM whea ? p e- elease 71 12 17 [66]
AU: Would accep ? Blow ly esis an sheep, p e- elease 72 11 16 [66]
AU: Would g ow o highe -yielding/pes esis an /he bicide
esis an clo e o lupin? p e- elease 62-84 6-14 11-23 [66]
US (IL): Will plan nex yea ? (c op no speci ied), pos - elease 92.5 0 7.5 [79]
1A he ime o he su ey, GM co n, soybeans, co on and po a o we e a ailable, bu hese c ops we e g own only o a e y limi ed deg ee in WA; he s udy he e o e measu ed
a me s’
h
yp
o he ical
in e es
in
GM
c o
p
s.
E hical Compa ibili y o GM C ops wi h In insic and Ex insic Values The Open E hics Jou nal, 2009, Volume 3 111
en ional g owe s o e alua e en i onmen al policies acco d-
ing o alues ha inco po a e conce ns beyond hei indi id-
ual economic in e es s. In e es ingly, hose o ganic g owe s
who exp essed willingness o y GM c ops esembled con-
en ional g owe s in se e al a iables measu ing a i udes
owa ds consume conce ns o GM c ops, en i onmen al
issues and impo ance o economic ac o s in a me s’ p o-
essional li es. O e all, howe e , o ganic g owe s we e ypi-
cally mo e communal and consequen ial in hei alue o ien-
a ions han con en ional g owe s who ended o be on he
libe a ian side [70].
James [72], a e con e sa ions wi h Missou i a me s
acing se ious economic p essu es, concluded ha he e hical
challenges o a me s seemed o be mo e beha iou al han
philosophical. In Sco land, Hall [16] collec ed o e 700
s a emen s ega ding GM c ops om a me s by using 13
open ended ques ions. Only one o he 48 s a emen s selec ed
o be ep esen a i e o he ini ially collec ed 700 s a emen s
was o he o m o an in insic alue s a emen (“I only
‘na u al’ genes a e added o GM plan s hen i ’s ok bu i i
in ol es using genes om a di e en species hen i is no
ok”). This was he only explici unna u alness a gumen
ha was di ec ly obse able in he 17 e iewed s udies. The
sca ci y o such s a emen s is likely because he esea che s
did no explici ly ask a me s’ abou hei na u alness/
unna u alness pe cep ions ega ding GM c ops! Thus i
appea s a his s age ha he mos u gen issues ha sp ing
o a me s’ minds when asked abou GM c ops do conce n
economic, p ac ical ag onomic and ma ke ing issues ins ead
o he in insic and ex insic e hical alues p ojec ed on o i s
consequences.
Role o Ex insic Values in Adop ion Decision-Making
Mos pape s acknowledged a me s’ high le el o knowl-
edge and awa eness o bo h po en ial heal h as well as en i-
onmen al ex e nali ies o GM c ops. This was ue ega d-
less o in which coun y he s udy was conduc ed, wi h only
one p e- elease excep ion. Chong [76] s udied whe he he
mo al aspec s o isk igu e in Indian a me s’ pe cep ions o
B eggplan , and whe he economic bene i s ou weigh pe -
cei ed isks in a p e- elease si ua ion. Acco ding o [76],
none o he 100 in e iewed a me s men ioned mo al en i-
onmen al o ecological conce ns as an issue when conside -
ing he accep abili y o he new c op. Chong [76] concluded
ha he isk models used in de eloped coun ies may no be
app op ia e o de eloping coun ies whe e economic bene-
i s a e mo e salien han mo al conce ns o p oduce s. In he
Indian con ex , eggplan a me s eadily pe cei ed heal h
bene i s om he use o B -eggplan owing o educ ions in
pes icide use. I no adop ing he new echnology means pu -
ing up wi h a high le el o nega i e economic o heal h im-
pac s, e en qui e isky echnologies may be no ma i ely ac-
cep able o use s [87]. Mo al no ions conce ning a pa icula
echnology may no be uni e sally impo an , and can be
modula ed by socioeconomic condi ions [76].
In he de eloped coun ies, con en ional a me s pa ici-
pa ing in he s udies ended o exp ess a i udes in e ing
economic alues, pa icula ly a m-le el u ili y, as hei i s
and o emos c i e ia o adop ing GM c ops. In Wes e n
Aus alia, canola g owe s we e mo e likely in hei in en-
ions o plan GM canola i non-GM canola did no sell a a
p emium p ice o i yield ad an age o he GM c op was
an icipa ed. On he o he hand, in addi ion o he economic
and ma ke access ac o s, he g owe s’ decision o adop
GM canola depended also signi ican ly on hei a i udes
owa d isks: c oss pollina ion wi h non-GM c ops o weeds,
and pe cei ed need o mo e esea ch in o GM canola. E en
in he scena io o ensu ing yield ad an age o GM canola
and ce ain y o no p ice p emium o non-GM canola,
g owe a i ude ega ding GM canola as being “bad o he
en i onmen ” was s ill among he signi ican de e minan s o
adop ion in en ions. In conclusion, g owe s we e awa e o
he po en ial isks ha migh ensue o he g ea e communi y
om GM canola, bu s ill, he majo decision ac o s we e
economic despi e ha conce ns o e hical na u e we e com-
monly exp essed [74]. McDougall e al. [66] a i ed a simi-
la conclusion ega ding pulse g owe s in Wes e n Aus alia.
In New Zealand, a me s appea ed o welcome any de el-
opmen ha holds he p ospec o imp o ing hei business,
bu hei in en ions we e ne e heless dependan upon he
ealisa ion o ele an bene i s and e idence o accep able
isk om he use o GM c ops, in addi ion o ma ke accep -
abili y and on- a m p o i abili y [69]. The New Zealand
s udy was he only one employing he Theo y o Planned
Beha io in i s s ic sense o de ec changes in a me s’ a i-
udes owa d GM c ops, bu only using a i udes, in en ions
and ac ual beha iou as componen s in he model. The ou -
comes o beha iou al belie s included imp o ed be e qual-
i y ood, inc eased ood p oduc ion, enhanced economic
g ow h, new isks o public heal h, ad e se e ec s on u u e
gene a ions, damage o ecological sys ems, and pe sonal
isks. O hese, he likelihood o GM c ops con ibu ing o
enhanced economic g ow h and inc eased ood p oduc ion
we e bo h pe cei ed o be highe in he 2002 esu ey han
in 2000, and he likelihood o ecological damage esul ing
om he use o GM c ops was pe cei ed o ha e dec eased.
In addi ion, ewe a me s ag eed in 2002 ha New Zealand
should become GE ee. As bo h he ini ial su ey and he
esu ey (wi h same esponden s) we e done in a p e- elease
si ua ion, no meaning ul changes in o e all a i udes and
in en ions we e de ec ed. On he o he hand, a me s in a-
ou o o ganic me hods appea ed o simply ejec gene
echnology in bo h su eys, conside ing i incompa ible wi h
o ganic a ming [69].
In Canada, he majo i y o GM canola a me s we e
pleased wi h he bene i s o he c op: ease o a m and weed
managemen , highe yields, and sa ing ime. Among he
isks, hose ela ed o a me ’s economy, pa icula ly he loss
o ma ke s, and co po a e powe issues ega ding in ellec ual
p ope y igh s o GM seeds we e pe cei ed o be he mos
impo an . Howe e , GM olun ee plan s, gene sp ead, he -
bicide esis an weeds, p oblems wi h seed sa ing and dam-
age o non- a ge species we e also pe cei ed as impo an
isks. An impo an inding was ha highe isk pe cep ion
was associa ed wi h g owing HT canola o e mul iple yea s
[15]. This was in con as o esul s ob ained by Chimmi i
e al. [79] in he US whe e he expe ience o g owing GM
co n o soybean inc eased a me s’ pe cep ion o he e hical-
i y o g owing such c ops. In e es ingly, he expe iences o
bene i s pe cei ed o be ela ed o g owing HT GM canola
did no ans e o Canadian a me s’ posi i e a i udes
ega ding HT whea [75]. Pe cei ed isks o HT whea
we e anked highe han bene i s and we e associa ed wi h
112 The Open E hics Jou nal, 2009, Volume 3 Vänninen e al.
p e ious expe ience wi h GM canola plus a s ong belie in
he impo ance o communi y and en i onmen . Among he
ac o s condensing a me s’ isk pe cep ions o GM whea ,
he ac o named “con amina ion impac ” accoun ed only
o 4.1 % o a iance compa ed o he 88.2 % o he ma ke
impac ac o . Thus en i onmen al impac s did igu e in
a me s isk pe cep ions bu hei ole was small compa ed o
ma ke ac o s [75].
Acco ding o he s udy by Mau o e al. [75], Canadian
a me s esen ed he sec ecy o he es loca ions o GM
whea which could expose hei non-GM whea ields o pol-
len con amina ion. Such sec ecy can be seen as dis espec o
a me au onomy and o hei igh o access o in o ma ion
in a si ua ion whe e po en ial pollen low om he es ields
could con amina e a me s’ ields. Canadian GM canola
g owe s also expe ienced ha hey go oo li le in o ma ion
om he GM indus y and go e nmen abou pollen and seed
con amina ion and p oblems wi h olun ee s. This implies
neglec o he a me s’ igh o all ele an in o ma ion con-
ce ning he consequences o he new echnology [75] and
emphasizes he clima e o unce ain y whe e a me s mus
decide abou he adop ion and use o GM c ops. Mau o e al.
[75] concluded ha a me s’ p ac ice-based expe ise is o e -
looked by decision-make s and egula o s o GM c ops in
No h Ame ica, i.e. hei expe ience is no ed back o he
egula o y and policy sys em. In he US, Guehls o ’s [77]
s udy o Illinois a me s also concluded ha he opinion o
a me s has no been ully unde s ood by policy planne s,
and ha ew a me s ha e e e had o discuss he social, en-
i onmen al, and economic consequences o GM c ops. De-
spi e he ac ha he u ili y o he bene i o he he bi-
cide/insec ole an GM c ops ou weighs he unce ain en i-
onmen al isks, Illinois a me s con inually ques ioned and
e alua ed hei decision [77]. Whe he such conce ns ex-
p essed au hen ic en i onmen al alues Guehls o lea es
open. The abo e si ua ions o igno ing local expe ience-
based knowledge a e compa able o igno ing o denig a ing
o indigenous knowledge sys ems by change agen s in he
p ocess o inno a ion di usion [39] (p. 254-257). Fa me
au onomy is also a s ake in hose ins ances when Canadian
con en ional a me s had o adop GM canola only because
hei neighbou s’ ields ine i ably con amina ed hei ields
[15]. Spanish a me s o o ganic maize ha e expe ienced
simila si ua ions. Some had o abandon o ganic ag icul u e
due o pollen low om hei neighbou ’s GM maize ields.
In o de o p ese e good ela ionships, o ganic maize a m-
e s did no always ake legal ac ion agains he neighbou
whose GM c op was he sou ce o con amina ion [71].
Whe he such de elic ion is accep able is also a mo al
ques ion.
Fa me s, as bo h p oduce s and consume s o GM ood,
may ha e di e en a i udes o GM c ops han consume s.
Napie e al. [73] su eyed di e ences be ween u ban and
u al inhabi an s ( a me s) in hei pe cep ions o isk o p o-
duc ion and consump ion o GM plan s and animals. The
ex insic isks conside ed he mos impo an – o e and
abo e he isk o loosing global ma ke s o US a m p od-
uc s - we e he c ea ion o pes icide esis an weeds and in-
sec s, and des uc ion o bene icial insec s. In all isk ca ego-
ies, u al esponden s pe cei ed he isks o be smalle
compa ed o he pe cep ion o u ban esponden s. Fa me s’
g ea e expe ience and knowledge le el o GMOs was con-
cluded o con ibu e o he obse ed di e ence. In e es ingly,
in No way he ela i e a i ude o con en ional a me s abou
he possibili ies o gene echnology sol ing u u e en i on-
men al p oblems in ag icul u e was mo e nega i e han ha
o con en ional consume s in a p e- elease si ua ion [67].
The No wegian a me s’ a i ude owa d GMOs was meas-
u ed only wi h one s a emen in a coun y o small-scale ag-
icul u e, so i is di icul o say whe he he esponse e lec s
e hical o ien a ions o ma ke conce ns. In Aus alia in he
beginning o 2000s, a me s’ a i udes conce ning he ac-
cep abili y o di e en ypes o GMOs we e simila o hose
o consume s wi h only wo excep ions (blow ly esis an
sheep and HT whea [66].
The s udy conduc ed by Hall [16] was in e es ing as she
used also open-ended ques ions o p omp a me a i udes
and conce ns o GM c ops in Sco land. Se e al o he 48
a me -o igina ing s a emen s deal wi h issues ha in e ed
abou he ex insic non-economic alue o ien a ions o he
esponden s in ega d o en i onmen and human heal h.
Based on a i udinal di e ences, a me s we e g ouped as
bene i belie e s, isk pe cei e s o a alis s. The bene i be-
lie e s ecognized ha he GM echnology needs o be
p o en sa e and hey demons a ed some conce n o ex insic
sa e y issues, howe e a me s in his g oup we e concluded
o eadily adop GM c ops i a ailable. They we e ela i ely
unconce ned abou po en ial c oss-pollina ion, u u e isks,
and impac s on wildli e, and hey appea ed o suppo he
p inciple o subs an ial equi alence o GM ood. All in all,
he bene i belie e s appa en ly ega d GM echnology as
any o he ag icul u al inno a ion [16]. The pe cep ions o he
bene i belie e s o Hall [16] appea compa able o hose
exp essed by he GE in ending a me s o [68] in New Zea-
land. In Aus alia, canola g owe s could be g ouped in p o-
ponen s and opponen s o GM c ops as well; hei a i udes
conce ning ex insic isks o GM c ops also di e ged along
he p o- and an i-GMO dema ca ion line [74]. The isk pe -
cei e s, o eluc an adop e s as named by Hall [16] we e
e y conce ned abou he po en ial isks, public eac ion, and
consume demand and hey did no see ha he bene i s
would ou weigh isks. Fa me s in his g oup we e concluded
o ep esen eluc an adop e s o GM c ops. The hi d g oup,
he a alis s, exp essed a “wha will be will be” a i ude o-
wa ds he la ge adop ion o GM c ops. O e all, he gene al
conclusion made by Hall [16] o he Sco ish a me s a i-
udes owa d GM c op was ha such c ops will be no bad
hing o Sco land, p o ided he e is public accep ance and
consume demand, he igh balance o bene i s and isks,
and echnologically use ul solu ions. This is a e y simila
conclusion o ha epo ed om New Zealand [69].
Swedish a me s’ a i udes o GM c ops p oduced wo
main g oupings o a me s in e ing di e en alue posi ions
owa d he ex insic consequences o insec esis an GM
c ops. Those in a ou o GM c ops p edominan ly displayed
a i udes in e ing economic alues and ended o own la ge
a ms. These a me s saw he po en ial o GM c ops o e-
ducing bo h insec icide cos s, heal h isks o he g owe as
well as damage o o he o ganisms compa ed o insec icide
use [78]. These a me s’ pe cep ions appea compa able o
he GE in ending a me s in New Zealand [68] and he bene-
i belie e s in Sco land [16]. Those wi h nega i e a i udes