Expertise, Trust, and Communication about Food Biotechnology

In the United States, bioengineered grains are prevalent in the food supply, but bioengineering remains poorly understood by the public (Hallman, Hebden, Aquino, Cuite, & Lang, 2003). Scientists and other experts with a stake in food technology have often suggested that public fears about bioengineering would be overcome if members of the public were given more information (Brady & Brady, 2003; Hoban, 1997). Although there is some empirical support for this belief, a careful review of the existing literature finds the relationship between knowledge and approval of genetically modified (GM) food to be weak and the direction ambiguous (Cuite, Aquino, & Hallman, in press). Moreover, communication about risk involves more than simply transmitting scientific information, and communicators need to consider organizational, contextual, and situational factors that shape reactions to perceived risks (Chess, 1998; Priest, 2001). In studies of reactions to risks, scholars increasingly cite the importance of trust in institutions and experts (Poortinga & Pidgeon, 2003). Studies of the general population in the United States and Europe show that trust in information about genetically modified foods depends on the source (Priest, Bonfadelli, & Rusanen, 2003). For example, large-scale survey research in the European Union indicates higher public confidence in doctors, university scientists, and nongovernmental organizations (e.g., consumer and environmental organizations) than in governmental actors (Gaskell, Allum, & Stares, 2003; INRA Europe, 2000). Similar rankings are found in a survey of American consumers (Lang, 2003). Most of the existing research on hazard-related trust focuses on the trust ordinary people invest in elites and experts (Johnson, 1999). There are undoubtedly several reasons for this, from theoretical imperatives to the methodological truism that ordinary people are more numerous and often easier to recruit into studies than elites. But this focus presents certain problems for both theory and practice. Ultimately, the sources these experts rely on and endorse as trustworthy have an advantage in influencing consumer opinion. So, who are the experts’ experts? And whom do the experts present to the public as trustworthy?