[雙語翻譯]轉(zhuǎn)基因食品外文翻譯--消費者對轉(zhuǎn)基因食品不了解什么，以及這如何影響人們的信仰（英文）

1、THEJOURNAL ? RESEARCH ? www.fasebj.orgWhat consumers don’t know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefsBrandon R. McFadden,*,1 and Jayson L. Lusk?*Department of Food and Resource Economics, Universi

2、ty of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA; and ?Department of Agricultural Economics,Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USAABSTRACT: In the debates surrounding biotechnology and genetically modified (GM) foo

3、d, data from consumer polls are often presented as evidence for precaution and labeling. But how much do consumers actually know about the issue? New data collected from a nationwide U.S. survey reveal low levels of know

4、ledge and numerous misperceptions about GM food. Nearly equal numbers of consumers prefer mandatory labeling of foods con- taining DNA as do those preferring mandatory labeling of GM foods. When given the option, the maj

5、ority of consumers prefer that decisions about GM food be taken out of their hands and be made by experts. After answering a list of questions testing objective knowledge of GM food, subjective, self-reported knowledge d

6、eclines somewhat and beliefs about GM food safety increase slightly. Results suggest that consumers think they know more than they actually do about GM food, and queries about GM facts cause respondents to reassess how m

7、uch they know. The findings question the usefulness of results from opinion polls as a motivation for creating public policy surrounding GM food.—McFadden, B. R., Lusk, J. L. What consumers don’t know about genetically m

8、odified food, and how that affects beliefs. FASEB J. 30, 000–000 (2016). www.fasebj.orgKEY WORDS: GM food ? labeling ? public acceptance ? public knowledgeDebate about biotechnology in plant research and about geneticall

9、y modified (GM) food in the United States has intensified in recent years, with mandatory labeling ballot initiatives appearing in California, Col- orado, Connecticut, Maine, Oregon, and Washington. The Vermont legislatu

10、re passed the first U.S. manda- tory labeling law for GM food (1), an action that has prompted competing legislation in the U.S. Congress (2). At the heart of the debate is stated public opposition to GM food, and public

11、 opinion may be a proximate cause of policy (3). Indeed, public opinion polls are of- ten used to characterize consumer sentiment and mo- tivatemoreprecautionary policies for GMfood.Apparent consumer concern could lead t

12、o a climate that impedes particular research methods and lowers the potential return to investments in biotechnology applications. The seemingly high level of public opposition is puz- zling given the views of most scien

13、tists on the issue. It could be argued that gaps between science and the public have always existed (4) and are increasing (5). However, the gap is extraordinarily large regarding the safety of GMfoods.Only 37% of U.S.co

14、nsumers believethatGM food is safe to eat; in contrast, 88% of scientist members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science believe GM food is safe to eat (6). The gap between public andscientificassessme

15、ntofGMfoodsafetywasthelargest among all issues studied, including vaccines, climate change, and fracking, by a recent Pew Research Center study (6). The divide may indicate a need for better sci- ence communication. Howe

16、ver, previous research on the topic has shown that simply providing statements from the scientific community does not substantively change beliefs about the safety of GM food, and in fact results in a backlash among a se

17、gment of the population (7, 8). There are several psychologic and behavioral-economic factorsthatmaycausethepublictoformbeliefsinconsistent with those of scientists. The world is full of uncertainty, and consumers form b

18、eliefs subject to constrained time, in- formation, and computational capabilities. These con- straints often require consumers to use heuristics, or rules of thumb, which can lead to biases when decisions concern uncerta

19、in risks, benefits, and consequences (9). Biases are perhaps more pronounced when consumers have little knowledge about an issue that is contempo- raneously covered by the media, as has been the case with GM food (10, 11

20、). In addition to media, other social influences likely shape beliefs. For example, consumers are more likely form a belief about an issue that is re- flective of others who share similar values, as suggested by cultural

21、 cognition theory (12). Moreover, consistentABBREVIATIONS: GM, genetically modified1 Correspondence: Department of Food and Resource Economics, 1195 McCarty Hall A, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. E-ma

22、il: brandon.mcfadden@ufl.edudoi: 10.1096/fj.201600598 This article includes supplemental data. Please visit http://www.fasebj.org to obtain this information.0892-6638/16/0030-0001 © FASEB 1The FASEB Journal article

23、fj.201600598. Published online May 19, 2016.techniques, a significant proportion of respondents thought selection did not alter any genes (Tukey’s post hoc test). Conversely, compared to genetic marker–assisted breeding,

24、 mutagenesis, and selection, a significant pro- portion of respondents thought GM altered 10 or more genes (Tukey’s test). Thus, respondents associate GM with more genetic alteration, which is not consistent with actual

25、practice because selection alters thousands of genes while GM typically alters a select few. Consumers had the option to choose “I don’t know” for the pervious question. However, when forced to answer a question that ask

26、ed if corn always contained the same genesbeforeGMwaspossible,49%ofrespondentsthought corn had always contained the same genes. Further vali- dating that some consumers have little knowledge of basic genetics were the re

27、sponses to 2 other questions. Thirty- three percent of respondents thought non-GM tomatoes did not contain genes, and 32% thought vegetables did not have DNA. Taken together, these results indicate that at least of a thi

28、rd of consumers have little to no knowledge about genetics. The most widely adopted GM crops, relative to total production for a given commodity, are corn, cotton, pa- paya, soybeans, and sugar beets. Respondents were as

29、ked what crops on the market were GM. Fifty-five percent of the sample thought corn was GM, and corn was the only commodity to receive more than 50%. A much smaller proportion thought that cotton, papaya, and sugar beets

30、 were GM, at 19, 14, and 18%, respectively. About a third, 34%, thought soybeans were GM. Approximately 15% of consumers thought all the crops present as response op- tions were GM, including carrots and onions, which 28

31、 and 21% of respondents, respectively, thought were GM. Thirty-two percent responded “I don’t know.” Although respondents were more aware of GM corn than any other GM commodity, many respondents were not aware of the ext

32、ent of GM corn adoption. In 2015, approximately 92% of all corn planted was GE (19). Yet on averagerespondentsthought56%(SD24%) ofcorn plantedwas GM; they also thought 52% (SD 23%) of wheat planted was GM. Currently ther

33、e are no acres of GM wheat; nev- ertheless, consumers thought GM corn and wheat were adopted at similar levels. In addition to crops, 46% of the sample thought there were GM animal food products on the market. The commod

34、ities previously listed (i.e., corn, cotton, papaya, soybeans, and sugar beets) were modified to be resistant to insects, herbicide, or disease. The reason for modification of GM commodities may not be obvious to consume

35、rs. Respondents were asked why GM commod- ities on the market may have been modified. A majority of consumers thought GM commodities currently on the market were modified to be resistant to insects and dis- ease, at 53 a

36、nd 52%, respectively. However, only 35% of consumers thought GM commodities on the market were modified to be resistant to herbicides. The result is curious in light of the recent heightened public discussion and debate

37、about the safety of glyphosate relative to that of pesticides. After answering numerous questions that tested ob- jective knowledge, the questions at the beginning of the survey on expressed knowledge and safety beliefs

38、were repeated. Figure 2 illustrates the change in subjective self- reported knowledge for the sample. It is obvious that the mass shifts from the right (i.e., the knowledgeable cate- gories) to the left (i.e., the neithe

39、r and unknowledgeable categories) and there was a significant decrease in the number of respondents in the “somewhat knowledge- able” category. What is not obvious from the figure is how individual consumers flowed acros

40、s these categories after answering questions. Paired t tests indicated that after answering questions, there were significant increases to the “very unknowledgeable” (t = 2.68) and “neither un- knowledgeable/knowledgeabl

41、e” (t = 3.54) categories and significant decreases to the “somewhat knowledgeable” (t = 24.69) and “very knowledgeable” (t = 23.86) cate- gories. Together, these results suggest consumers think they know more than they a

42、ctually do, and queries aboutFigure 1. Consumer beliefs about number of genes altered by various breeding techniques. Significant differences were determined using Tukey’s post hoc text. **P = 0.05, ***P = 0.01.CONSUMERS