Ethical compatibility of GM crops with intrinsic and extrinsic values of farmers: a review

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