Genetically Engineered Foods and Moral Absolutism: A Representative Study from Germany.

There is an ongoing debate about genetic engineering (GE) in food production. Supporters argue that it makes crops more resilient to stresses, such as drought or pests, and should be considered by researchers as a technology to address issues of global food security, whereas opponents put forward that GE crops serve only the economic interests of transnational agrifood-firms and have not yet delivered on their promises to address food shortage and nutrient supply. To address discourse failure regarding the GE debate, research needs to understand better what drives the divergent positions and which moral attitudes fuel the mental models of GE supporters and opponents. Hence, this study investigates moral attitudes regarding GE opposition and support in Germany. Results show that GE opponents are significantly more absolutist than supporters and significantly less likely to hold outcome-based views. Furthermore, GE opponents are more willing to donate for preventing GE admission than supporters are willing to donate for promoting GE admission. Our results shed light on why the divide between opponents and supporters in the German GE debate could remain stark and stable for so long.

Mitigating consequence insensitivity for genetically engineered crops.

Many opponents of genetically engineered (GE) food say that it ought to be prohibited regardless of the risks and benefits (Scott et al., 2016). If many people are truly unwilling to consider risks and benefits in evaluating GE technology, this poses serious problems for scientists and policymakers. In a large demographically-representative German sample (N = 3,025), we investigate consequence-insensitive beliefs about GE crops among GE supporters and opponents, as well as whether these beliefs can be mitigated. We find that a large majority of opponents and a substantial minority of supporters are consequence-insensitive: They say that risks and benefits are irrelevant to their views. At the same time, the responses of consequence-insensitive participants to subsequent belief probes show substantial flexibility. Participants often gave responses inconsistent with the unconditional prohibition or permission of GE crops. These results suggest that professed consequence insensitivity should be taken as an expression of a strong moral belief rather than as literal endorsement of policy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Can digital farming technologies enhance the willingness to buy products from current farming systems?

While current global agriculture allows for efficient food production, it brings environmental disadvantages, which resulted in a lack of public acceptance. Digital technologies (e.g., technologies that enable precision agriculture) have been suggested as a potential solution to reconcile environmental sustainability and yield increases. By embedding digital technologies into holistic farming system visualized through mission statements, this study tests the effect of different intensities of digitization, as well as environmental arguments on the willingness to buy food produced by farms in Germany. We use a 4 x 4 repeated measure experimental design surveying a representative sample of 2,020 German citizens recruited online. Our research framework captures the farming system (comparing low intensity of digitalization for a small or organic farm and low, medium, and high intensity of digitalization for large or conventional farms) and environmental arguments (comparing no arguments, and altruistic, egoistic, and biospheric arguments). The results show a negative effect of digital technologies on willingness to buy. However, this relationship turns positive when introducing environmental arguments. Furthermore, there is a moderation effect for respondents' attitudes towards technologies that varies depending on whether altruistic, egoistic, or biospheric concerns were stated. The results indicate that digital technologies can increase willingness to buy products from both large and conventional farms, but not to the level of small farms and organic farms.