"Brossard, D., & Shanahan J. (2007). Perspectives on communication about agricultural biotechnology. In D. Brossard, J. Shanahan & C. Nisbett (Eds). The public, the media, and agricultural biotechnology. Wallingford, UK: CABI publishing." Excerpt below.

It can be observed that there are few hard and fast principles that have been offered in the way of "best practices" for communication about agricultural biotechnology. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2000), for instance, urges the parties to "promote and facilitate public awareness" (p. 18), and also to "consult the public" and "inform the public" about activities related to the protocol and to the products of biotechnology (Article 23). But how this is accomplished varies enormously from country to country; it is clear from the welter of different extant examples and approaches that no cookie-cutter approach will suffice for developing an approach to understanding how to communicate about biotechnology, much less understanding public opinion about it.

Especially lacking is an approach that links together the main variables involved in communication about biotechnology. While there are comprehensive reviews of some of these variables individually, there are few to our knowledge that discuss the accumulated research and link together findings into a comprehensive model that answers the following question: How do communicators and policy makers develop information and communication strategies that meet commonly agreed-upon scientific, ethical and practical standards? To begin to answer this question, we will first review some of the research, with illustrative examples from the developing world and from US and European research. More particularly, we will discuss and synthesize international research examining the potential role played by a number of variables in opinion formation about agricultural biotechnology. These variables include knowledge/awareness of agricultural biotechnology, institutional trust; mediated discourse; and risk communication.

We also discuss attitudes toward genetically engineered foods around the world and their impact on use.

Of course, there are macro-economic effects on production of GM crops, as some governments fear the loss of exports to anti-GM European states. However, effects of attitudes extend to the individual consumer level. Rousu et al. (2004) found that negative information about GM from activist groups reduces consumers' willingness to purchase GM products. However, they highlighted that better access to information from parties perceived to be reliable and disinterested third parties could negate this influence. This underlines the need for active communication perceived to be balanced, from actors who do not stand to profit from GM activity. Moon and Balasubramaniam (2003) found that consumers in the UK were willing to pay more for non-GM breakfast cereal than consumers in the US, consistent with more skeptical attitudes in the UK. The willingness was directly linked to risk and benefit perception. Other factors, such as the higher prices of GM seeds, mean a confused marketplace in many countries that has not yet taken off.