WebsterSOUTH PARK THE UNLIK.docx

Webster
SOUTH PARK: THE UNLIKELY INFLUENCE ON POLITICAL
TOLERANCE
Abstract: The history of South Park and why it is relevant to
political tolerance is explored. The hypothesis given is that
individuals who have a high level of exposure to South Park
will have a higher level of political tolerance than those who
have little to no exposure to South Park. A look at where and
how political socialization begins is presented. The evidence
found from similar popular culture entities, like Harry Potter,
The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, on their influence
towards political tolerance is shown as comparisons to South
Park. A survey given gauges 90 participants’ political tolerance
level and exposure to South Park through a series of questions.
The results were conclusive in displaying that the participants

most exposed to South Park had a high political tolerance which
was only slightly higher than those participants with little to no
exposure to South Park. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Table of Contents
Chapter One: Introduction 3
Chapter Two: Political Socialization 7
Chapter Three: Learning from Popular Culture 10
Chapter Four: Research Design 13
Chapter Five: Results 15
Chapter Six: Conclusion 19
Appendix 21
Bibliography 26

Chapter One: Introduction
The show South Park was created in 1997 by two friends Trey
Parker and Matt Stone. The brilliant duo met in college and
began their journey by making two small skits that eventually
morphed into one of the most successful, popular and 3rd
longest running cartoon show of all time. South Park is famous
for its progressive views and has even been continuously
praised by large activist groups. GLAAD nominated the creators
for their episode entitled “Big Gay Al’s Big Gay Boat Ride” in
1998 for the Outstanding TV – Individual Episode award
(IMDb, 2015). Having just finished its 18th season with a total
of 257 episodes, a movie made in 2001, 11 awards including 5
Emmys and 31 other nominations, South Park has no doubt
made an impact on the entertainment industry. But what else
could this very progressive and politically satirical show have
influenced over the long years?
Trey Parker and Matt Stone portray many social and political
conversations as utter farces. And they do this by using the
crudest and most shocking tactics possible. They absolutely do

not hold back; when it comes to their spotlight of ridicule, no
one is safe. Yet the position that the show ultimately takes is
that of tolerance. After all the insulting content, harsh language
and potty humor the viewer is struck with a positive lesson that
the four main boys learned throughout their journey. For
instance in the episode entitled “All About the Mormons”, it is
clear that the creators are severely poking fun at the Mormon
religion. However, in the end there is a speech from one of the
young boys that contradicts the ridicule and actually makes the
viewer feel stupid for even laughing at it in the first place. The
boy says,
“Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make
absolutely no sense. And maybe Joseph Smith did make it all
up. But I have a great life and a great family and I have the
book of Mormon to thank for that! The truth is, I don’t care if
Joseph Smith made it all up! Because what the church teaches
now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And
even though people in this town might think that’s stupid, I still
choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend,
Stan. But you’re so high and mighty you couldn’t look past my
religion and just be my friend back. You got a lot of growing up
to do buddy, suck my balls”.
It brings the viewer above the fluff and nonsense of an issue in
such a way that makes them feel superior to it while also
allowing them to change perspective and see the subject as a
whole. Then without the viewer even necessarily realizing it,
the message becomes so clear while also ringing truth. “It
properly offends everybody by design and by doing so it
reminds us all that it’s probably a good idea to be tolerant”
(Grossberg, 2006). It would seem almost laughable now to be
intolerant.
The method that the creators take is important for a couple of
reasons but most importantly, it is worth noting because it
targets a younger audience. The cartoon aspect along with the
crude humor makes it appealing to teens and young adults.
Carla Schulzke points out that South Park has an ability to make

arguments that are “sophisticated and reflective of scholarly
work” and this is just another reason why it is worth paying
attention to (Schulzke, 2012). A teen that is otherwise
uninterested in politics or important social matters will not be
molding their opinions and views from news sources, instead
they will be learning from a show like South Park that displays
it to them in a way they can understand. It is simple, yet still a
deeply thought out and complex theme.
It comes down to the fact that the creators of South Park are
trying to open a dialogue that is unbiased by the extremely
liberal or conservative forces. Trey Parker said in an interview
on The Charlie Rose Show, “It is that the people screaming on
this side and the people screaming on that side are the same
people, and it’s okay to be someone in the middle laughing at
both of them” (TCRS, 2005). “Those who refuse to let others
ask questions and speak their minds ought to be prevented from
doing so; otherwise, the open discussion that is so essential to a
healthy democracy will become impossible to maintain” (Curtis,
2009). That quote comes from David Valleau Curtis and Gerald
J. Erion in an article that they wrote on South Park and how it
portrays its views with an intolerance for intolerance. “We learn
something by paying close attention to the show’s tacit criticism
of overzealous left-wing and right-wing political extremists”
(Curtis, 2009). The show allows for both extremes to have their
say while simultaneously showing the viewer exactly why they
should be better than that. “Free and unfettered inquiry is the
only satisfactory method for gaining knowledge” (Curtis, 2009).
Josh Silver argues that the news media channels we have now
are dominated by the right-wing who are trying desperately to
gain control. He claims that those in charge are not asking the
right questions or maintaining a neutral sense of perspective
(Silver, 2005). What is most disturbing about this is the point
he makes about viewers who watch shows like FOX News, he
says they are highly misled with biased and inaccurate
information. It does not seem to be a secret either, at least to a
portion of the population, that news stations are biased because

they consist of people with all the exact same ideologies. So it
is reasons like this that make South Park that much more
appealing. South Park strips away the bias and filters and
presents its argument in the purest form. It is difficult to not
find that refreshing especially for young adults who are still
learning. So clearly with its appeal to the young audience,
sophisticated tolerant arguments and extreme popularity, South
Park could very well have an influence on its viewers who grew
up watching it.
The purpose of this paper is to examine whether or not South
Park influences political tolerance, which can be defined as the
ability to accept views and lifestyles that are different from
your own. In order to do so, I will analyze the different agents
of political socialization and the impacts they have on political
attitudes, especially the media. I am also going to see what
types of impacts other shows similar to South Park, like The
Daily Show or The Colbert Report, have on viewers.
Furthermore, I have created a survey to gauge participant’s
political opinions and South Park exposure. I am hopeful that
the survey will back up my hypothesis that viewers of South
Park are more politically tolerant, in that they are more able to
accept opinions that differ from their own. So I will introduce
my survey, report the results, and then conclude with my
findings and where there may be room for improvement or areas
to look at further.

Chapter Two: Learning Politics: Political Socialization
It is important to ask the question about where and how we are
influenced in growing our political attitudes. Political
socialization can be defined as a lifelong process, but very
much more relevant in a person’s younger years, where people
form their political opinions and attitudes. There are four basic
groups that are widely accepted as being the main influences:
religion, education/school, parents and the media. So what is
arguably the biggest influence? It is relevant to consider the
fact that the current younger generations may not have had the
same influence as the past and older generations. The increase
in technology and mass use of media these days especially
among young adults is worth considering.
Lindsay H. Hoffman and Tiffany L. Thomson contribute to the
debate in research they conducted that proposes the role of the
family in socialization is becoming not as prominent, whereas
the role of the media is increasing (Hoffman, 2009). In addition,
they also discuss that there are actually a few different positive
and negative effects that come from watching late night
comedies like The Daily Show or South Park which are:
“attention to traditional news sources, political learning,
candidate evaluations, political efficacy, and political cynicism”
(Hoffman, 2009). Watching these shows can give the viewer a
confidence in themselves to understand and participate in
politics (Hoffman, 2009). It argues that political cynicism,
which other scholars have claimed to be a common result of this
type of television viewing, is actually not correlated with them
(Hoffman, 2009). The overall message and the biggest take
away from this is that “nontraditional political news has a
positive effect on young adults’ internal political efficacy which
in turn positively predicts their engagement” (Hoffman, 2009).
Similarly, a study done by Matthew D. Trujillo and Elizabeth
Levy Paluck discuss an experiment that examined the impact a

television show had on people’s political attitudes. The authors
came to the conclusion that a show’s content or its portrayal of
characters interacting with government influenced the outcome
of the viewer’s opinion (Trujillo, 2012). This crucial point was
also made by the authors, “narrative entertainment media is a
potent influence channel that is met by relatively less resistance
compared to other channels” (Trujillo, 2012). This is interesting
because South Park would be under the same category as
narrative entertainment. Furthermore, it is true that the show
would not receive the critical viewpoint off the bat that a show
like FOX News would. People who sit down to watch South
Park are looking for a much different experience than those
sitting down to watch the news. Thus this leaves the opportunity
for influence open and strong.
Parents and parental upbringing also must play a large role. A
Gallup poll done in 2005 says that 71% of teens said they had
about the same political and social ideology as their parents
(Lyons, 2005). This is a hard fact to ignore, but given that the
study was done on teenagers, it is likely that they may not yet
have their own sense of identity. So this could potentially
change as they get older and increase their knowledge.
Religion is also a factor that cannot be overlooked. It is very
likely that deep rooted religious people will show the same
values in their political ideology. In fact, “the socially liberal
policy positions endorsed by the Democratic Party since the
1960s with respect to abortion, family, and homosexuality have
resulted in the steady erosion of Catholic support for
Democratic candidates” (Brooks, 2004). So clearly for religious
individuals, their politics can be influenced from their core
values. Religion is a very intimate thing for people and it is
usual for those people to base their whole lives on the religious
practices and morals they hold. It seems that when it comes to
religion there is little room for influence from outside sources
on political socialization. Although schools and classrooms can
be influential on political socialization because they offer the
possibility of beginning political discussions in the curricula

(Warren, 2011).
There are countless media outlets that are accessed by and
garnered towards young people. South Park is simply one of a
giant system. Media plays a huge part in the political
identification whereas influences like parents play more of a
role in civic engagement (Warren, 2011). “By 2015, Americans
are expected to consume media for 1.7 trillion hours, or an
average of 15.5 hours a day per person, not counting workplace
time” (Zverina, 2013). That fact is an actual game changer for
political socialization. Americans are literally force-fed
countless messages and information in a single day by the
media. There is simply no way one could argue that media does
not play a huge role, if not the largest role, in political
socialization.
Chapter Three: Learning from Popular Culture
There are many examples to look at it when it comes to popular
culture and the effect it has on people. Shows like The Daily
Show and The Colbert Report are large players but even books
like the Harry Potter series can be extremely influential.
Jon Stewart has proven time and again to be a huge voice
when it comes to politics. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has
been running since 1999 and by 2013 had an average of 2.5
million viewers nightly (TFC, 2013). It also is the second
longest running show on Comedy Central behind South Park.

Time magazine conducted a poll in 2009 that showed 44% of
respondents considered Jon Stewart to be the most trusted news
person in America (Grondin, 2012). This is a huge deal because
it again reiterates the fact that people are no longer trusting
traditional news sources to give them accurate information. Jon
Stewart absolutely has the popularity and the credibility to
morph or strengthen people’s political opinions and
understandings. It comes from his ability to speak as an
“everyman” which makes him a more relatable figure to the
public (Grondin, 2012).
Stephen Colbert is right up there with Stewart in
popularity and political influence. His show, The Colbert
Report, ran from 2005 until just recently ending in December
2014. In 2008 and in 2012, Colbert announced that he would run
for president. It was mostly a joke but during the time he was
pretending, he had a large amount of support among young
adults. The act got loads of media attention and Colbert even
appeared on a segment of Meet the Press (Reilly, 2012). If
Stephen Colbert ever did actually run for president, it would not
come as a surprise if he was very successful.
Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart use political satire that
really resonates with audiences. It not only appeals to the
audience but it also has powerful effects. Satirical fake news
had the power to reshape conventional reportage of the 2008
election and the Iraq War across multiple platforms (Reilly,
2012). Examples like this help make it clear just how much
influence the use of satire can be on people. Trey Parker and
Matt Stone regularly use this same humor in their show. Lisa
Colletta discuses satire and irony and how their current
involvement in television is self-reflexive, that “political
activity is being reduced to photo ops”, and that “Stephen
Colbert and Jon Stewart can be considered the best commentary
on television” (Colletta, 2012). She thinks that use of satire can
show a person their shortcomings, allow them to laugh at it and
then encourage them to change. This is exactly what South Park,
The Colbert Report and The Daily Show all do.

It is not just television programs that make impacts, in fact
Harry Potter has been analyzed and concluded to hold an impact
on the young people who engage in it. Anthony Gierzynski with
Kathryn Eddy explain just that in their book entitled, Harry
Potter and the Millennials. The story is riddled with diversity
and themes that directly relate to real life social issues. The
study that was conducted on Harry Potter found that extended
contact with the story can promote attitudes of tolerance and
inclusion (Paul, 2014). People who connect with characters like
Harry Potter, especially young people, feel moved by the stories
consistent attempt at being inclusive, good and love oriented. A
huge theme throughout the whole series was that the reason
Voldemort would never be able to control Harry was because
Harry knew love while Voldemort did not.
Gierzynski states it perfectly,
“Fiction – whether found in books, films, television shows, or
video games – has the power to shape our politics. All stories
contain lessons we may learn; all characters in those stories
have traits and values we may try to emulate” (Gierzynski,
2013). Stories are powerful and narrative entertainment gives its
viewer the ability to connect to the characters, feel moved by
the message and let it shape their opinions and views in the
process.

Chapter Four: Research Design
The survey I created in order to test my theory, that
individuals who are exposed to South Park will be more
politically tolerant, was twenty three questions long consisting
of demographic, political and social opinion and South Park
trivia questions. The dependent variable I used was the
respondent’s political tolerance level and my independent
variable was exposure to South Park. I asked questions on
political issues like abortion and gay marriage to measure
political tolerance, while then posing trivia questions about
South Park in order to gain a measurement of exposure to the
show. I used questions pertaining to religion and the political
stance of the respondent’s parents in order to see if there could
possibly be a different influence towards political tolerance
other than South Park. You can see the whole survey in the
appendix of this paper.
The respondents to the survey were between the ages of 18
and 25 and were recruited through a convenience sample on
Facebook and Tumblr. I posted the survey on my own Facebook
and Tumblr at the same time encouraging as many people to
take it as possible while also asking those who did, to share it
so that more people outside of my contacts would see it and
participate. I had about fifteen different people besides myself
share the survey on their Facebooks and about three people
repost it on Tumblr. Tumblr is a much more diverse social
media than Facebook, so there is a good possibility that many of
the people who took it after seeing it on Tumblr are from all
over The United States. All participants were given the reason I
was conducting a survey, given my contact information if
needed and assured of total anonymity. I also encouraged

everyone to take the survey whether they watched South Park or
not for I needed a decent amount of responders from both
backgrounds of South Park exposure in order to get the best
results possible.
There were quite a few shortcomings in the process that I
used. For instance I used the convenience sampling style to
collect responses so it is likely that a majority of the
respondents are people I know personally and who live in same
area, Northeastern United States. Most importantly, with a
convenience sample I am unable to get true representative
results. I also was probably not as thorough as I could have
been with the questions I created. I should have added questions
that asked people about themselves in order to truly gain
tolerance levels. Political tolerance can be defined as the ability
to accept views and lifestyles that are different from your own.
So if, for example, 50% of the respondents thought gay
marriage should be legal, but 40% of them were personally gay,
then that would not accurately measure a persons ability to
accept what is different from themselves.
Chapter Five: Results
In total I had 89 participants. Of those 89, three were left
incomplete. The majority were males (53.6%) with females
(46.4%) in close second. Participants between the ages of 22-25
(64.3%) took the majority and those at the ages of 18-21

(35.7%) were far less. Two participants left the gender and age
questions blank.
The Democrats (43.8%) had the most with almost half, the
independents (25.8%) came in second with about a quarter,
those who identified as ‘other’ (15.7%) were third and then
Republicans (14.6%) were the smallest group.
Liberals (41.6%) takes the biggest portion, Moderates (32.5%)
come in second, the third largest group was those who professed
not to care (14.6%) and in the smallest group were the
conservatives (11.2%).
In terms of the participant’s parent’s party identification, the
largest group had both parents as Democrats (32.6%). The
second largest group had both parents as Republicans (27%).
Some of the participants had a parent of each identification
(21.4%). A small portion had parents who had no interest in
politics (10.1%) and then some who had no idea what their
parents identified as (9%). Since only 14.6% of the respondents
consider themselves to be Republican and 43.8% considered
themselves to be Democrat, the numbers show some
inconsistency with young adults identifying with their parents.
This may be suggesting that other influences hold larger roles in
the political socialization process.
As for the religion portion of my questions, 29.1% responded
with religion being a large part of their childhood. The largest
portion said religion was a small to moderate part of their
childhood (33.7%). A slightly smaller group said religion was
there but rarely discussed (26.7%) and 10.5% said religion
played no role at all in their childhood. As far as the
respondent’s identification with religion now, 0% considered
themselves to be very religious. A few said they were religious
but it did not control their whole lives (9.3%). About a quarter
said they believed but were not active (26.7%). While the
largest portion professed to not being a religious person at all
(64%). These facts are extremely interesting because there is
definitely inconsistency in the numbers with how the
respondents were raised regarding religion and how they feel

now.
With the political and social issues, I will list the results
of the answers I believed to represent tolerance from my
participants. On the subject of abortion, a large majority (86.4)
were pro-choice. A very large majority (92.1%) were in favor of
gay marriage be legal in all states. Many respondents (70.8%)
are in favor of the complete legalization of marijuana while
another 18% were in support of marijuana being legalized for
medicinal purposes. On the subject of religious prayer being
accepted in public schools, 30.3% felt that it should be allowed.
I believe that although this could be argued from both sides, the
percentage of those who are in favor of allowing open prayer
may show more tolerance because even if they are unreligious
themselves, they are still okay with religion being expressed. Of
the 55 respondents who answered as being not religious at all,
14 also answered that religious prayer should be allowed in
public schools. This shows an open mind and acceptance for
practices that are not their own.
As for measuring the level of exposure to South Park, I
asked the participants how familiar they considered themselves
to be with the show, if they were allowed to watch it as a child,
if they had seen the South Park movie and then 4 different trivia
questions that ranged from easy to very difficult. About a third
(30.2%) claimed to be extremely familiar with the show. The
largest group (36.1%) claimed to be partially familiar. A few
claimed to not be very familiar with the show (22.1%) and
11.6% claimed to have no familiarity.
In terms of the participant’s parents allowing them to watch the
show, 29.1% said their parents would never have allowed South
Park to be watched. The majority (38.4%) said their parents did
not care or even watched it with them. While 32.6% said that
their parents would never allow it but the participant watched it
anyway.
The majority of the respondents (59.3%) have seen the South
Park movie, while 40.7% said they had not.
With the trivia questions, I will list the percentages of

respondents who answered them correctly. The first question
asked where South Park took place (81.4%). The second
question asked what the name of Stan’s father was (70.9%). The
third question asked what religion Kyle Broflovski was (81.4%).
The fourth question asked who Cartman’s father was (17.7%).
The last question, about Cartman’s father, is easily the most
difficult. And since the answer can only be found in a single
banned episode, which can be seen only if the person owns the
box-set of the 14th season or was somehow obtained illegally
online, I consider the 15 people who answered that correctly to
be the most exposed to South Park. This question also had a 2nd
best answer that still shows a large exposure to the show so the
33.7% of participants who answered with the second best are
easily the next most exposed.
The respondents who were most exposed to South Park
were much more likely to be Democrats (60%), Liberals (80%),
vote for Barack Obama (73.3%), support the legality of
abortions (100%), support the legality of gay marriage (100%)
and support the legality of marijuana (86.6%).
The respondents who were least exposed to South Park
were just a tad more likely to be Democrats (40%), not care
about their ideology (40%), equal to having voted for Barack
Obama and to not care about voting (40% and 40%), support the
legality of abortion (70%), support the legality of gay marriage
(90%), and support the legality of marijuana (70%).
It appears as though my hypothesis, that individuals with a
high exposure to South Park will have a higher level of political
tolerance than those who have little to no exposure, is correct
after looking at the results of my survey. Although the people
who were least exposed to the show still showed tolerance
levels, they were lower than those who had high exposure.
If given that my hypothesis is correct and South Park does
have a positive influence on political tolerance, it would seem
that there is a lot more to learn about satirical television.
Perhaps biased and misled news stations are no longer going to
be the only source of political messages. Programs like South

Park will attract those people who are otherwise uninterested in
politics, and teach them positive messages whether they even
realize it or not.
Chapter Six: Conclusion
South Park has been on the air since 1997 and has continuously
grown in viewership and popularity. It is a show that attracts all
ages, has won numerous awards, gains the attention of scholars
due to its reflexive and sophisticated way of portraying
messages and has a distinct tolerant tone. Trey Parker and Matt
Stone use crude, satirical humor to send the message that any
viewpoint besides the one that is reasonable and tolerant is
completely ridiculous and unintelligent. They make fun of
liberals and conservatives alike because to them, it does not
matter what you believe, it is how you treat and act towards
those who do not agree with you. Nothing is supposed to be
taken so seriously, any extremist view is wrong and thinking
that you are better than other people makes you the perfect
target of their ridicule. For instance in the episode “Smug
Alert” from season 10, the message is that extreme liberal,
hybrid driving, progressive people are so pompous that they’re
causing devastatingly damaging “smug clouds” (a play on the
concept of smog). Their approach seems to be overwhelmingly
successful and from the results of the survey I conducted, it
appears tolerance could very well be learned through watching

the show. Media plays such a large role in political
socialization, especially in modern society, and with a show as
popular and long running as South Park, it is easy to believe the
influence it could hold.
Again, my survey did have significant shortcomings. I used a
convenience sample of respondents that were collected through
sharing the survey on my Facebook, about fifteen of my close
friends Facebook’s and my Tumblr. The results are not truly
representative because of this. The questions I asked could have
been better structured in order to gauge the political tolerance
level of the participants. I also used a few questions that even
though I thought would be useful in the beginning, I ended up
not using in the end. Plus it is important to consider that maybe
the viewers of South Park are already at a higher level of
political tolerance and that is why they choose to watch the
show. Perhaps in the future more studies should be done while
using a more representative sample of the population. It could
be useful as well to look into whether or not the viewers are
politically tolerant before watching the show or after. There
could be an experiment conducted with control groups in order
to test this.

Appendix
The opening message of my survey:
My name is Carolyn Webster and I am a senior Political Science
major at West Chester University. I am currently working on my
senior research project for my major. In order to complete this,
I have created this survey so that I can gather my own data in
order to prove or disprove my hypothesis. So if you are reading
this, thank you very much for helping me!
I am looking for participants who are between the ages of 18-
25. So I ask you to please respect this and only continue if you
fall under that category. Thank you!
And finally, I fully guarantee that this survey is totally and

completely ANONYMOUS. Please answer each question to the
best of your ability and as honestly as you possibly can. Thank
you again and enjoy!
If you have any questions or concerns you may email me at
[email protected]
The survey:
1. What political ideology are you?
Conservative
Moderate
Liberal
Not sure/don't care
2. What political party do you identify with?
Republican
Democrat
Independent
Other
3. Did you vote in the 2012 Presidential election?
Yes, I voted for Obama
Yes, I voted for Romney
Yes, but I voted for someone other than Obama or Romney
No, I wasn't old enough but I would have voted for Obama
No, I wasn't old enough but I would have voted for Romney
No, I don't really care about voting
4. Do you know the political party of your parents?

Yes, both Republicans
Yes, both Democrats
Yes, one is Republican and the other Democrat
They never voted or cared about politics
No idea
5. What is your opinion on abortion?
Pro-choice
Pro-life
Unsure
6. What is your opinion on gay marriage?
It should be legal in all states
It should always be illegal
Unsure
7. Do you think that marijuana should be legalized?
Yes
Yes, but only medically
No
Unsure
8. What is your stance on the death penalty?
For it
Against it
Unsure
9. Do you think that public schools should be able to have open
religious prayer?
Yes
No

Unsure
10. Do you think that regular citizens like yourself have any
influence over what the government does?
No
Yes
Unsure
11. What is your attitude towards the federal government?
It's a joke, all politicians are liars and idiots
It's perfect
It needs work but I support it
It would be a million times better if I ran it
I have no opinion
12. Did you grow up in a religious household?
Yes, religion was a large part of my childhood
Yes, religion was a small to moderate part of my childhood
No, religion was there but it was rarely discussed
Not at all
13. How much influence does religion have on your life now?
A lot, I'm very active in my religion
Somewhat, I'm religious but it isn't my whole life
A little, I believe but I'm not very active at all
None, I'm not a religious person
14. Are you, in good humor, able to joke about all things?
Yes, anything can be funny in the proper light
No, some things should not be joked about

15. Were you allowed to watch South Park as a child?
No, my parents would never allow that
Yes, my parents didn't care or even watched it with me
No, but I watched it anyway
16. How familiar would you consider yourself to be with South
Park?
Extremely, I've seen every or almost every episode
Partially, I watch it frequently or have seen a lot of episodes
Not so much, I only watch it if nothing else is on or my friends
are watching
Not at all
17. Have you seen the South Park movie: Bigger Longer and
Uncut?
Yes
No
18. Where does South Park take Place?
I don't know
Colorado
Alaska
Canada
Ohio
19. What is Stan's fathers’ name?

I don't know
Kyle
Bob
Gerald
Randy
20. What religion is Kyle Broflovski?
Muslim
Buddhist
I don't know
Catholic
Jewish
21. Who is Cartman’s father?
I don't know
Scott Tenorman’s father
He doesn't have one
Chef
His mom
22. What is your gender?
Female
Male
Transgendered
23. What is your age?
18-21
22-25

Answers to the trivia questions:
1. South Park takes place in Colorado
2. The name of Stan’s father is Randy
3. Kyle is Jewish
4. Cartman’s father was also Scott Tenorman’s father
a. His mom was the second best answer
Bibliography
Brooks, Clem, and Jeff Manza. "A GREAT DIVIDE? Religion
And Political Change In U.S. National Elections, 1972-
2000." Sociological Quarterly 45.3 (2004): 421-450. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.
Colletta, Lisa. "Political Satire And Postmodern Irony In The
Age Of Stephen Colbert And Jon Stewart." Journal Of Popular
Culture 42.5 (2009): 856-874. Academic Search Complete. Web.
26 Feb. 2015.
Curtis, David Valleau, and Gerald J. Erion. "South Park and the
Open Society." Video Dreams. 296-303. Print.

Gierzynski, A., & Eddy, K. (2013). Harry Potter and the
Millennials: Research methods and the politics of the Muggle
generation. Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University
Press.
Hoffman, Lindsay H., and Tiffany L. Thomson. "The Effect Of
Television Viewing On Adolescents' Civic Participation:
Political Efficacy As A Mediating Mechanism." Journal Of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media 53.1 (2009): 3-21. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.
Interview with Josh Grossberg. “’South Park.’ Galactica,’
Peabody’d. “E! Online. April 5. 2006.
Lyons, Linda. "Teens Stay True to Parents' Political
Perspectives." Teens Stay True to Parents' Political
Perspectives. Gallup, 4 Jan. 2005. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.
"South Park - Awards." IMDb. IMDb.com, 1 Jan. 2015. Web. 15
Mar. 2015.
Paul, Annie Murphy. (2014, August 14). Harry Potter Casts a
Spell for Tolerance. Retrieved March 2, 2015.
Ratings - "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" Finish 1Q
2013 as #1 and #2. (2013, April 4). Retrieved April 1, 2015.
Reilly, Ian. "Satirical Fake News And/As American Political
Discourse." Journal Of American Culture 35.3 (2012): 258-
275.Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.
Schulzke, Marcus. "Contentious Language: South Park And The
Transformation Of Meaning." Journal Of Popular Film &
Television40.1 (2012): 22-31. Academic Search Complete. Web.
26 Feb. 2015.

Silver, Josh. "Media In Crisis." Social Policy 35.3 (2005): 68-
69. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.
The Charlie Rose Show. September 26, 2005.
Trujillo, Matthew D., and Elizabeth Levy Paluck. "The Devil
Knows Best: Experimental Effects Of A Televised Soap Opera
On Latino Attitudes Toward Government And Support For The
2010 U.S. Census." Analyses Of Social Issues & Public
Policy 12.1 (2012): 113-132. Academic Search Complete. Web.
26 Feb. 2015.
Warren, Ron, and Robert H. Wicks. "Political Socialization:
Modeling Teen Political And Civic Engagement." Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly 88.1 (2011): 156-
175. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.
Zverina, Jan. "UC San Diego News Center." U.S. Media
Consumption to Rise to 15.5 Hours a Day – Per Person – by
2015. UC San Diego News Center, 6 Nov. 2013. Web. 18 Mar.
2015.
Webpage
Part5/amsterdam.htmlHomeParisLondonAmsterdamHaitiContact
Us
Amsterdam has a long and
eventful history. The origins of the city lie in the 12th century,
when fishermen
living along the banks of the
River Amstel built a bridge across the waterway near the IJ,
then a large
saltwater inlet. Wooden locks

under the bridge served as a dam; protecting the village from
the rising IJ-waters,
which often flooded the early
settlement. The mouth of the river Amstel, where the Damrak
now is, formed a natural
harbor, which became important
for trading-exchange from the larger koggeships into the
smaller ships that sailed
the merchandise deeper into the
hinterland.
The oldest document referring to
the settlement of "Aemstelredamme" (Amsterdam) 'dam in the
river Amstel' comes
from a document dated October
27, 1275 CE. Inhabitants of the village were, by this document,
exempted from paying
a bridge toll in the County of
Holland by Count Floris
Thank you for visiting!
Webpage Part5/banner1.png
Webpage
Part5/contact_us.htmlHomeParisLondonAmsterdamHaitiContact
Us

Contact Us
Name:
Email:
Message:
Running Header: ACCEPTING BIOTECHNOLOGY: THE CASE
OF GMOS IN THE… 1
ACCEPTING BIOTECHNOLOGY: THE CASE OF GMOS IN
THE EU AND US 2
ACCEPTING BIOTECHNOLOGY: THE CASE OF GMOS IN
THE US AND EU

Abstract
This paper assesses the controversial and highly complex topic
of the acceptance of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in
the EU and the US. In a comparative analysis, the three most
prominent areas of research are applied to the case of
genetically modified organisms, which are categorized as public
opinion, lobbying, and institutional factors. The hypothesis in
this analysis is that the lobbying factors affect the outcome of
legislation for GMOs the most; this is based on logic as well as
the proliferation of previous research regarding these particular
influences. This analysis is supplemented by the quantitative
analysis of a public opinion survey measuring acceptance of
GMOs in the US; it tests the relationships between educational
attainment, political affiliation, political ideology, and religious
affiliation each with the acceptance of GMOs. The finding of
the comparative analysis is that the lobbying factors, which are
also closely related to the two other bodies of research, has the
strongest influence of the acceptance of GMOs in a region. The
survey yielded no specific conclusions other than possible
relationships that existed in the data.

Table of Contents
Introduction 4
The controversy over GMOs 5
Previous Research 5
Public Opinion on GMOs 7
Risk Perceptions and GMOs 9
Lobbying in GMOs 12
Lobbying in the US 12
Lobbying in the EU 14
GMO specific advocates and opposition 16
Institutional Influences 21
Precautionary Principle versus Promotion Principle 23
Product-based regulations or Process-based? 25
Research Design 28
Comparative Analysis of EU and US 28
Further Exploration into US Public Opinion 30
Survey Results 33
Assessing possible relationships in the acceptance of GMOs 34
Educational attainment 34
Political Affiliation 35
Political Ideology 36
Religious Affiliation 37
Conclusions & direction of further research 40
References 43
Appendices 47
Accepting Biotechnology: The Case of GMOs in the EU and US
Introduction
Biotechnology made its way into the agricultural world
and into the food market as a new technology in the 1990s, and

since has caused a great deal of controversy both at national and
international levels. Genetic engineering of foods was accepted
and promoted as a way to drastically improve food production
and alleviate issues such as food insecurity and reducing crop
loss, and to potentially revolutionize the agricultural industry.
Crops were created to resist pests and droughts, and now are
even being engineered to taste better and grow larger. These
genetically modified organisms, as later they came to be known
as, were promoted by some countries, but not all. In fact, many
countries, both developing and developed, have taken action at
community and governmental levels to resist genetically
modified organisms from entering in their food supply.
This resistance has been driven by the uncertainty
surrounding the technology, and led primarily by environmental
groups and consumer activists. In countries like the US,
Canada, Argentina, and China, biotechnology has been accepted
and promoted. However, some countries have strict regulations
in regards to GMOs because of the uncertainty of the new
technology. Even still, some countries have gone to the point of
banning imports, even those countries which receive food aid,
as is the case in many African countries.
The most peculiar case is the difference between the EU
acceptance of GMOs and the US acceptance of GMOs. Both are
developed countries whose governing bodies tend to favor
GMOs for economic competition in a newly arising
biotechnology sector (Rosendal, 2005; Lofstedt 2002). The EU
overall does not accept GMOs; however, within the EU there
are significant variations in acceptance rates at the national
level. In the US, the agribusiness sector is the undisputed leader
in the agricultural biotechnology industry, and there has been an
overall acceptance of GMOs.
The controversy over GMOs
Questions concerning GMOs entered the international
political awareness as crises like the mad cow disease outbreak
and other food scares occurred in Europe. Environmental and
consumer activists began to label GMOs as “Frankenfoods,”

often relating the new and uncertain foodstuffs to cloning
(Falkner, 2007). These tactics were particularly effective in
Europe, and raised questions as to whether or not GMOs were
harmful to human health. No scientific evidence has confirmed
these fears; yet, these fears still remain in areas where people
generally do not accept genetically modified organisms. These
concerns were not raised as early on in the US as it was in the
EU. The remaining controversy lies with the potential effects
GMOs have on allergenicity, toxicity, biodiversity and
antibiotic resistance, which have been affirmed by scientists.
These claims compete with the benefits presented about them
initially, concerning the production, food security, and
economic growth potential that this new technology could bring.
These negative claims, again, have held significant influence in
many European communities whereas the potential benefits have
held a stronger impact in the U.S.
Previous Research
The previous political research surrounding this topic of
genetically modified organisms identifies various influences in
the acceptance of GMOs and the outcomes of legislation
associated with it. Among these influences, the most prominent
and researched factors are the risk uncertainty levels of the
people in a region, the presence or absence of biotech sectors,
and the use of the precautionary principle. The most prolific
body of research concerns the effect that particular lobbyists
have had in each region specifically, and also gives the most
amount of evidence for a relationship. In each chapter, the
bodies of research are assessed in greater detail.
These bodies of research on GMOs will be placed in the
context of general research in which each falls, giving a holistic
view to compare the differences between the EU and the US.
Many comparative studies have been performed between the EU
and the US with regard to the acceptance of GMOs in each
region, and this tries to add to this body of research. In addition
to this, the further assessment of public opinion in the US will
be supplemented by a statistical analysis from a public opinion

survey, using a convenience sample.
This research sets out to identify the three major
influences on this acceptance of GMOs between the EU and the
US, and analyze the most influential of these political forces in
a general comparison. The three significant forces assessed
here are public opinion, lobbying, and institutional factors; I
hypothesize that the greatest influence (and therefore,
difference) in the outcome of GMO legislation are the lobbying
factors. Overall, there are many other factors that contribute to
the public opinion and institutional forces, especially in the
case of genetically modified organisms. The lobbying factors
between the EU and the US demonstrate the most significant
differences. Despite having institutions which would promote
GMOs in order to promote economic competition, lobbyists on
both anti-GMO and pro-GMO sides have successfully changed
the outcome of legislation and the acceptance of GMOs
depending on which lobbying sector is more prevalent in each
of the regions.
Public Opinion on GMOs
Public opinion regarding the hugely complex issue of
genetically engineered foods varies. The country which views
GMOs most negatively is France, where 89% of the population
believes that GMOs “are bad because of their potentially
harmful effects on health and the environment,” (Pew Research
Center, 2015). On the opposite side of the issue is the United
States, where 55% of the population believes that GMOs are
bad. France, although technically legal, has one of the strictest
moratoriums against GMOs in the world. The United States
instead has more lenient policies regarding GMOs and promotes
them as a policy instead. Somewhere in the middle of these two
stands Japan, where 76% of the population believes that GMOs
are bad. This nation too has stricter policies regarding the

existence of GMOs (Pew Research Center, 2015).
The differences and similarities in public opinion trends
between the EU and the US are important to assess. In the EU,
citizens “do not see the benefits of genetically modified
organisms, consider genetically modified foods to be probably
unsafe or even harmful and are not in favour of development of
genetically modified food,” (Europa, 2010). Additionally,
research demonstrates that people “feel somewhat strongly
about biotechnology,” and overall have a greater awareness and
salience regarding the topic than the US (Europa, 2010). The
US generally has a low knowledge on the subject, and is not
considered a salient political subject (Durant & Legge, 2005).
Demographics such as religiosity and political ideology have
been found to be a great influence of public opinion on GMOs,
both in the EU and the US (Europa, 2010; Durant & Legge,
2005). On a left to right spectrum of political ideology,
research suggests that the farther right on the spectrum, the
greater the acceptance of GMOs. Additionally, as religiosity
decreases, the acceptance of GMOs increases (Europa, 2010;
Durant & Legge, 2005). So, although there are not significant
differences in the public acceptance of GMOs (the US still has a
majority public opinion that is opposed to GMOs) there is a
significant difference in salience between the EU and the US.
The differences between the EU and US regarding public
opinion, as well as their respective regulatory choices, points to
the further discussion of public opinion on this issue, and the
possible factors that could contribute to these wide variations.
At the heart of contemporary public opinion research is how
individuals process information to form opinions about different
political issues. Factors that contribute to an individual’s
decision-making process involve cultural values, religious
values and ideologies, education, and social and economic
status, as well as any other demographic. These values and
experiences translate into public opinion when people with
shared values act (Iyengar, 2011). In addition, the way in which
public opinion is influenced by the media and the framing of

information is examined. The availability of information and
the use of heuristics influences individual perception and
accumulation of information, based on both the frequency of the
information received as well as the way in which it is presented
(ie: positively or negatively) (Iyengar, 2011; Gowda, 1999).
There is significant research that demonstrates that the way in
which information is manipulated by the media influences
public opinion (Iyengar, 2011) and instances where media
attention focuses on particular subjects over others proves to
become important political issues for the public. These factors
influence political decision-making, and thus public opinion.
Since both the EU and the US are democratic, the idea is that
public opinion influences the outcomes of legislation. In the
EU where member states vote on the passing of EC legislation
and the US where it is considered to be a representative
democracy, public opinion should translate into legislation
which is in agreement with the desires of the people. Public
opinion, therefore, idealistically has a significant influence on
the outcome and passage of legislation.
In contrast, there is research that demonstrates that public
opinion actually has very little influence on legislation, which
is important to discuss. In an analysis performed by Gilens and
Page, (2014, p. 564-581) “When the preferences of economic
elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled
for, the preferences of the average American appear to have
only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact
upon public policy,” which contradicts much of the accepted
literature discussed earlier; however, it also does not account
for the fact that much of public opinion is solely influenced by
elite opinions on separate political issues (Iyengar, 2011, p.
245; McCanne, 2014). Furthermore, the way in which risk is
perceived by individuals adds to the public perception of risk,
and influences the importance of risk regulation by the
government (Rosendal, 2005; Wohlers, 2010). These general
concepts expressed and addressed by general public opinion
research is applicable to the case of GMO legislation.

Risk perceptions and GMOs
Risk assessment and uncertainty tolerance levels are important
gauges in how the public will respond to new technologies, and
in this case, new agricultural technology. These factors
strongly influence public opinion, which, in turn, influence
regulatory measures that are put in place by government actors
(Anker, 2009; Wohlers 2010). These concepts are considered to
evaluate the cultural aspects of a society. Uncertainty tolerance
levels are a measure of how “members of a society cope with
anxiety by minimizing uncertainty” (Wohlers, 2010). Risk
perceptions are a complex measure of how people perceive and
have predispositions toward risk. The research on this topic
categorizes risk perception as balanced, cautious opportunistic
or indifferent. The uncertainty levels and risk perceptions of a
nation are affected by what the culture as a whole values, and
are used together in this theory. Strict and potentially ban-
prone policies with respect to GMO legislation are correlated
with political cultures with low uncertainty tolerance levels and
cautious risk perceptions of their legislatures (Wohlers, 2010;
Anker, 2009). Nations which fall under this category are
primarily in the EU. In line with the cautious risk perception,
the threat to the human health and the environment of the
society is considered high risk and the belief is that there is
little to gain when gambling. Law makers generally emphasize
the risks of GMOs and downplay the potential benefits
associated with GMOs in these areas. On the other hand, nations
with high uncertainty tolerance levels, like the US, followed a
mostly opportunistic risk perception model. Policymakers
exaggerate the benefits and see little threat in the flaws of
GMOs; this results in more lenient regulatory processes.
Public opinion in a nation is very important, and public opinion
in terms of the use of GMOs is certainly influenced by public
knowledge of the subject. Much of the research shows that both
types of countries, ones with strict regulations on GMOs as well
as ones with more lenient regulations on GMOs, had low public
knowledge overall. In a study performed by Wohler (2010),

each nation had different perceptions of the risks and benefits
of GMOs, leading the majorities of the populations to vary in
their opinions. However, throughout the research it is also
evident that public knowledge increased, largely in part to the
anti-GMO food campaigns throughout the 90s in the US, as well
as the Mad Cow Disease outbreaks in Europe. In a study
performed by Shanahan, Scheufele, and Lee, the authors show
that high negative media coverage of GMOs from 1998 to 2000
resulted in increased public knowledge and more negativity
toward GMOs (2001). Public knowledge of the issue rose from
more than half who reported to have little or no knowledge of
GMOs, to more than half reporting “at least some knowledge”
of GMOs (Shanahan et al, 2001). As public knowledge
increased, public opinion on GMOs became more pessimistic,
and lead to more stringent legislation—even in countries which
prior to the anti-GMO campaigns and the Mad Cow Disease
outbreak had viewed GMOs more favorably (see also Anker;
Shanahan). These studies show that public opinion and
knowledge about GMOs are influenced by the media reporting
of an issue, and the way people receive the information being
given to them. This, in turn, influences the passing of
legislation as discussed earlier.
Altogether, although public opinion is an excellent indicator of
public knowledge and assessment of values and risk perception,
it seems to be that it does not necessarily translate to
appropriate legislation, and is itself influenced by outside
factors like the media. Although it probably influences the
acceptance of GMOs, there are many other factors to take into
account. These public values do play an important role in the
other two aspects of this analysis.

Lobbying in GMOs
Lobbying is the act of trying to influence legislation, regulation
or any form of political action taken by government or
representative officials. This most often manifests itself in the
development of groups which lobby for particular interests,
groups, or ideals; therefore, interest group politics and lobbying
are almost synonymous, particularly in strong democratic
regimes (Cigler, 1995; Mazey, 1993). These groups then create
a cohesive mission and present to government officials and
other political figures their particular interests; there is
significant variation in the ways in which interest groups tend
to go about this, and it varies also at which level of government
they present their interests to. Although interest groups have a
variety of purposes, they are most actively seen in the
legislative process by physically appearing when drafting
occurs, attempting to inform both active legislators and the
public of where their interests lie (Petracca, 1992; Mazey,
1993). Actually passing legislation consists of many steps as
well as several political actors, including the public, interest
groups, campaign finances, and the administration in power. By
assessing the influences of lobbying on the outcome of
legislation, it will highlight complexities associated with
interest groups in democracies, the government actors, and how
these relate to the level of acceptance of GMOs in the EU and
the US.
Lobbying in the US
In the system of the United States, although the Congress
creates and writes the laws, the bureaucracy is responsible for
implementing and somewhat defining the ambiguous laws.
Bureaucracies often encounter such ambiguity in the writing of
the law that they try to balance their own interests with the
interests of stakeholders. Interest group theory demonstrates
that interest groups indirectly influence passed regulations by
having influence on the bureaucracy. Primarily, the interest
groups offer outside resources that are not governmental in

nature, like influencing public opinion through education of the
public, which in turn allows them to influence the bureaucracy.
Since the bureaucracies do not have the same political clout of
other branches and do not have the same level of democratic
backing, bureaucracies tend to be more receptive to the interests
of interest groups (Cigler 1995; Yackee, 2006). These
relationships can often form coalitions between industries and
government officials (or government bodies in some cases),
enabling them to gain wider support from the public and
stronger influence in terms of legislative action (Cigler, 1995,
p. 259). Therefore, interest groups influence both the public
through education of issues as well as influence legislation
through developing political relationships, creating a win-win
for all actors involved.
Aside from the bureaucracy and their role in implementing
policy, passing legislation consists of more than the mere
implementation of it; what makes it to the table in Congress is a
separate set of issues that are important to discuss on this topic
of GMOs. As discussed earlier, public opinion can influence
the success of legislation, but there have been studies to
disprove this. Studies on interest group influence also show a
lack of influence. One such study says, “Over-all, net interest
group alignments are not significantly related to the preferences
of average citizens. The net alignments of the most influential,
business oriented groups are negatively related to the average
citizen’s wishes,” demonstrating that although interest groups
have influence, the influence does not necessarily relate to the
public’s interests (Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, 2014).
The role and influence that lobbying has on legislation can also
depend on the administration in power. Although lobbyists can
ultimately influence individual actors, if a President does not
favor groups and their interests, Presidents have the ability to
steer away from these interests (Cigler, 1995, p. 303).
Additionally, because the bureaucracy is essentially influenced
by the executive branch, the bureaucracy also follows the
President’s wishes; ultimately, this highlights that the greater

significance is on how the administration in power will
influence passing of legislation and not the lobbyists. The
relationships between interest groups and government change,
and therefore the political power of the whole system will shift
as well (Petracca, 1992, p. 17).
Interested parties and individuals also influence the legislative
process through campaign contributions. This highly
controversial issue, particularly in the US, has transformed into
a robust area of research on both sides of the issue. Some
literature says that campaign finances enable people or
organizations with money to have greater access to Congress
people and/or committees, which in turn allows them to have
greater influence on the outcome of legislation (Hojnacki and
Kimball, 2001). There is also ample evidence to demonstrate
that this is not the case, and that instead no relationship exists
between campaign contributions and legislation (Petracca,
1992). The US has fewer regulations regarding campaigns
contributions than most other nations, whereas the EU has
significant time and quantity regulations on campaign
contributions. This draws a significant difference between the
capabilities that lobbyists have to influence legislation in the
US and the EU.
Lobbying in the EU
In the European Union, most of the theories on lobbying in
politics and through institutions are applicable and similar. The
actual influence of interest parties is debatable but still strong,
the institutional conflicts make the process complicated, and
campaign contributions play a role. In the instances of
campaign finance, the situation is not as severe as in the US;
however, the institutional and administrative conflicts that arise
in terms of the influence of lobbying become increasingly more
complicated.
Because the EU is a supranational government, and only works
with the participation from each individual member state,
member states have significant control over the outcome of
legislation. This is significant in terms of lobbying capabilities

in this institution because if lobbyists are capable of influencing
the officials representing each individual state, then they can
influence legislation. If interested in influencing the outcome
of the European Commission legislation (the separate
institutions will be explored in depth in the institutional
section), interest groups focus on the officials who draft
legislative proposals (Mazey, 1993, p. 10). Because of the
officials’ receptivity and accessibility at this level, it is easy for
interest groups to be heard at this level and to have a say,
particularly if their interests involve expert opinions (Mazey,
1993, p. 10). Additionally, lobbyists seek to influence the
European Court of Justice; by bringing forward individual cases
to be assessed by the EC of Justice, organized interests are
assessed, and since it overrides any national legislation.
National lobbying is easier to manage, but that EC law can
override national law if interest groups are facing issues at the
national level, demonstrating various ways for interest groups to
act. This has created a proliferation in EC lobbying as opposed
to national lobbying, especially in the case of women’s rights,
and environmental advocacy, which is applicable to this
research (Mazey, 1993; Pierce, 1992).
In the EU, however, money is not as much of a driving force in
campaigns as it is in the US; they have stricter regulations on
spending during campaigns, as well as grants that help with
other costs of campaigns that are not always directly associated
with campaigning (European Parliament, 2015). These funds are
to be used explicitly for European parties and do not include
paying for national parties. At the national level, campaign
finance varies. This changes the influence that lobbyists are
able to have; instead of supplying campaign resources as a way
for lobbyists to influence government actors, some of the costs
are taken care of and therefore have less of an influence in this
respect of lobbying.
On the other hand, there are a significant number of factors that
conflict with the influence of interest groups. First of all, the
EC policy agenda is highly uncertain, and with the amount of

people and agencies that are involved in the legislative
processes and drafting, additional items tend to arise out of
necessity (Mazey 11, 1993). The nature of lobbying in the EU is
therefore, a “multi-lateral operation which requires interest
groups to co-ordinate national and EC-level strategies,” and
highly unpredictable (Mazey, 16, 1993). Lobbying involves
many different institutions and actors, which complicates the
ability for interest groups to influence the legislation. As
suggested earlier, the general research that interest groups are
not always in line with the public further proves this point (see
page ).
Overall, lobbying can influence the outcome of legislation, and
in many instances has done so; the contributing factors between
each of the players are complex and vary depending on the
situation. Lobbying for and against GMOs seems to have had
interesting consequences in the EU and the US.
GMO specific advocates and opposition
Biotech sectors, which would promote the use of GMOs and less
stringent regulations, are a particularly influential advocate on
the outcome of GMO legislation. Researchers who analyze the
influence of these companies in the EU and the US point toward
several differences. In the EU, there are several countries with
tremendous industries in niche and traditional farming—they
concentrate on organically grown foods and regional specialties.
The public here generally sees GMOs as a threat to their current
way of living, as well as their cultural identity and superiority
in food quality (Kurzer, 2007b). This not only shapes popular
opinion, but it does not allow for a large presence of biotech
industries in these nations. Anti-GMO groups are favorable in
these countries or areas, and due to the public’s receptiveness
toward the claims of environmental hazards and human health
risks, people tend to vote to deny production of GMOs (Kurzer,
2007b).
In countries where there is a significant presence of the biotech
sector, for example, the US, tend to vote for approvals of GMO
production and scale down the legislation imposing stricter

regulations on GMOs (Rosendal, 2005). The most puzzling
question that these researchers tried to answer within this
research is how the countries which have a substantial mix of
both anti-GMO blocs and biotech sectors vote. Research found
that when there was this strong presence of the opposite sides of
the issue, that the countries either voted inconsistently on the
issue (as in the EU), or they supported GMO production
(Rosendal, 2005; Falkner, 2006; Bernauer, 2003).
Another aspect to this school of thought is the relationship
between the biotech sector and the government, and the
relationship between the green-green (anti-GMO) bloc and the
government. The green-green coalition, which consists of
NGOs for the environment and green-oriented industries who
partner with the Green Party, exists in the EU and does not exist
in the US. Furthermore, the existence of the biotech sector is
strong and is opposed by virtually nothing equal to it in the US.
Considering the fact that both the US and EU legislative
institutions are sympathetic to the passing of GMOs, the
presence of biotech sectors seem to have had a defining
influence in these matters (Kurzer, 2007a). Rosendal and
Bernauer acknowledge that the relationship between the green-
green bloc in the EU is stronger because it has existed and
capitalized on opportunity earlier than the biotech sectors in the
areas, whereas DeChazournes (2011) and Kurzer (2007a)
suggest the difference is willingness of the government to focus
on economic pluses for corporations and put health and
environmental hazards on the back burner (as in the US).
Bernauer explains this phenomenon as the strength of the
counterbalancing forces; the biotechnology early on “suffered
from low credibility” and the anti-GMO promoted
environmental and health issues which held significant
influence among the population early on (2003). This way, the
biotech sectors were not able to establish as large of a presence
in the countries where environmental activist groups established
themselves. In nations where the anti-GMO groups did not
capitalize as early, the biotech sectors became more influential

in legislation.
To assess the case of the EU even further, the influence of the
green-green bloc was significant because of several structures
set in place to allow the movement to exist. Because the EU
legislature (consisting of the European Parliament and the
Council) is sympathetic to the passing of GMOs for the
enhancement of economic competition in the global market,
significant implications on the consumer activism of the
European people has been shown (Font, 2011; Schurman, 2004).
Europe is not known for their ability to collectively act on a
political cause, particularly since there is an overall lack of
participation, and yet they effectively swayed legislation by not
buying genetically engineered food (Kurzer, 2007a; Seifert,
2006). This in turn influenced the member states to not want to
promote the use of GMOs; instead, the message of the health
risks and the environmental hazards that the green-green bloc
presented frequently and often to their individual countries was
able to push action on both the legislative end as well as the
public end, to change the outcome of the legislation of
genetically engineered foods in their favor (Kurzer, 2007a).
This demonstrates the influence that lobbying has had on the
legislation in the EU.
As stated in the US analysis of lobbying, there are more lenient
regulations in terms of the amount that PACs and related parties
are able to donate to campaigns and this therefore highlights a
powerful distinguishing factor. This is evident in the case of
GMOs: the total amount of contributions given by individuals
and political action committees was $126,498,021 for the
agribusiness sector (OpenSecrets.org, 2014). Of this money,
three-quarters of the contributions went to Republican
candidates, potentially highlighting a correlation between
political affiliation and promotion of GMOs, which will be
tested in the other part of the research (OpenSecrets.org, 2014).
The distinguishing factor here is that money holds more of an
influence in the lobbying aspect in the US than it does in the
EU, contributing more evidence that these interest groups play a

great role in the outcome of legislation.
Overall, the lobbying influences that exist in both the US and
EU are significant. General research regarding lobbying points
to a strong argument for the power that interest groups can have
in legislation. For the case of GMOs, the US has larger and
more influential interest groups in the biotech sector, which has
translated into the increased acceptance of GMOs, despite split
public opinion. In the EU, social forces as well as the strong
green-green coalition have decreased the acceptance of GMOs.
It is also important to note that there is a general perception that
GMO benefits outweigh the costs in both the institutions; this
will be used for discussion later on. These differences in
lobbying support the evidence that interest groups have played a
substantial role in the acceptance of GMOs.
Public opinion and lobbying paints a very significant picture of
the competing interests and influences at play in the case of
GMOs; the most complex influence is the institutional factors
that change the outcome of legislation concerning
biotechnology in the EU and the US.
Institutional Influences
Tied to the influence of lobbying, institutional differences

among nations can explain the differing outcomes of legislation
in regards to genetically engineered crops. The US has a
system of three separate and distinct branches; the judicial, the
legislative, and the executive. The branches take care of their
individual responsibilities, and there is no overlap among these
institutions. The only overlap that exists in the US is between
federal, state and local governments; however, here there is
generally a hierarchy of power and designated roles that each
level of government takes care of. In applying this to the case
of GMOs, the federal government has allocated the assessment
of GMOs to the Food and Drug Administration, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of
Agriculture, which are technically part of the executive branch
(MCHughen, 2009; Sheingate, 2006). Over the past several
years, however, several individual states have taken legislative
action either for or against GMOs in their states (McHughen,
2008). So, although the federal government in the executive
branch has the responsibility to assess GMOs, state level
governments have shown interest in using the legislative branch
to be stricter than the agencies have been in assessing GMOs.
A similar phenomenon can be seen in the EU, but manifested
differently.
The EU was a new concept when it was first created; a new
supranational governmental institution consisting of more than
one nation. This has had a tremendous influence on the
outcome of policy here; there are three supranational
governmental agencies whose responsibilities often coincide
with responsibilities between agencies. The Council and the
Parliament are legislative in nature, and the Court has judicial
responsibilities. The fourth institution, the Commission, acts as
both the legislator and the implementer, as opposed to the
implementer being the bureaucracy in the US (Anderson, 2014).
Additionally, the intergovernmental Council of Ministers
consists of representatives from each member state. Aside from
this, each nation has their own individual national governments
which also decide what their say will be in EU matters

(Tsebelis, 2001). In terms of assessing GMOs, there are
numerous branches and agencies that are involved in the
decision-making: from the European Parliament, the Committee
on the environment, public health and food safety; from the
Council of the European Union, the Employment, social policy,
health and consumer affairs; from the European Commission,
Health and Food Safety, and Consumer affairs; from the
European Economic and Social Committee, Agriculture, rural
development and environment section; from the Committee of
the Regions, Commission for natural resources (NAT); and from
EU agencies, European Food Safety Authority (European
Parliament/Legislative Observatory, 2015). Of particular
importance are the actors in the European Commission, because
they take particular interest in the Directives that are passed in
the EU, which is applicable to the case of GMOs.
The complexity of both institutional set ups illustrate the
complexity of the interplay between institutions and what is
actually implemented; various levels of government structures
include many different people who act in accordance to both
their individual thoughts, differing interests of their states, and
(in the case of the EU) balancing all of these with an overall
legislative process at a supranational level.
As part of this institutional analysis, it is important to
highlight the influence of risk regulation and how it applies to
genetically engineered foods. As discussed earlier, risk
assessment and uncertainty tolerances are influenced heavily by
cultural values; the dynamics of institutions trying to regulate
in coordination with the constituencies’ values influences the
way in which the legislation is actually passed. These cultural
values can include anything from religiosity versus secularism
to how the public deals with risk; both are instrumental in the
discussion of value, but as far as GMOs are concerned, mostly
risk perceptions. Risk regulation is generally defined as “the
field of regulation that attempts to identify and ameliorate
adverse effects on health and environment that may be posed by
technology,” (Anderson, 2014). The implementation and trend

toward an “anti-scientific” approach, known as the
precautionary principle, has been widely accepted as a rule
(Forsman, 2004).
Precautionary Principle versus Promotion Principle
In the case of genetically modified food legislation, general
research acknowledges the influence that the use of this
precautionary principle has on the likelihood of acceptance of
GMOs. Nations who use the precautionary principle in regards
to regulating GMOs are more likely to hold stricter regulations
and potentially ban GMOs, while those nations which do not use
the precautionary principle as strictly are less likely to ban
GMOs. The concept behind the precautionary principle is that
“where relevant scientific evidence is insufficient” people in
legislative or power positions take “precautionary” measures to
ensure the safety of human, animal and plant health (Wohlers,
2010). It is the most widely accepted and employed method for
environmental policy making, and in this case, Wohlers and
Anker argue that several nations extend it to their food law.
These nations prevent the further establishment, growth and sale
of GMOs. According to Wohlers, this manifests itself by
nations’ willingness to ensure that GMOs do not enter into
certain food supplies—or within a predetermined amount--
without proper labeling until further research concerning the
health and environmental impacts of GMOs is verified. The EU
is an excellent example of a set of countries which use the
precautionary principle strictly. An example of this in the
European Council is EC Directive 2001/18, “which governs the
deliberate release of GMOs” (as cited in Anker, 2009). This
directive allows for the deliberate but restricted release of
GMOs into the market supply strictly for scientific
experimentation.
More recently, Directive 2010/0208 (COD, 2015) was passed
which “allows Member States to restrict or prohibit the
cultivation of authorised GMOs in part or all of their territories
on grounds other than those covered by the environmental risk
assessment under the EU authorisation system and those related

to avoiding the unintended presence of GMOs in other
products,”
(http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/summary.do?id=13
81883&t=f&l=). This has extended the use of the precautionary
principle to be applied at the national level. Prior to this
Directive, the EU permitted the cultivation of GMOs within the
member states and employed strict procedural regulations of
GMOs. This changes the deliberate release at the supranational
level to a deliberate acceptance or not of GMOs at the national
level. From the inception of the European Law on GMOs, they
specifically named the precautionary principle as the guiding
principle to make decisions, and therefore employ it rather
strictly. Now, it extends to each member state, which allows for
significant variation with the EU. However, there are other
countries which do not follow the precautionary principle, or do
not follow it as strictly.
Other nations create regulations which are not nearly as
stringent as the EU. This displays itself in the US in particular,
with very few regulations on the growing of GMOs, as well as
the labeling of them. Instead, the US promotes the use of
biotech crops. These nations perceive that the benefits
outweigh the risks in terms of selling GMO products, and claim
there is still no scientific research to prove that GMO products
are inherently bad for human health, the environment, or other
plant-life. These nations focus on the consumer benefits, such
as enhanced resistance to pests, decreased costs, and increased
profit for farmers (Wohlers, 2010). The differences in research
are illustrated in whether or not the US employed the
precautionary principle only slightly or not at all. The “slight”
use of the precautionary principle in the US has usually been in
response to heavy opposition from anti-GMO lobbyist groups
working in the governments—and in these cases enacted stricter
labeling laws than before (Anker, 2009). According to Anker,
in a 2007 Memorandum with the associations which outline the
guidelines for policymaking in the US, namely the Office of
Management and Budget and the Office of Science and

Technology, this Memorandum “provided a principle…that
includes elements of the precautionary principle.” Wohlers
(2010) and Forsman (2009) argue that the US does not employ
the precautionary principle at all, that their policy making
exhibits a strictly scientific approach. Despite this, the
researchers agree that the use of the precautionary principle
influences a nation’s likelihood to ban GMOs.
Product-based regulations or Process-based?
Further institutional analysis includes the adoption of
“product-based” analysis versus “process-based” analysis in
terms of assessing GMOs in particular. “Product-based”
regulation refers to viewing the GMO itself as a product; these
governments base their analysis of a product’s use, and use the
concept of substantial equivalence. Substantial equivalence is
the idea that so long as the product has the same
characteristics—in this case nutritional components--of the non-
GMO form of the product, that it is the same (Anker, 2009).
So, product-based regulation will compare the end GMO
product to the same standards as a non-GMO product to make
sure that it can be of use. In “process-based” regulation, the
process is regulated, as opposed to the end product. The
regulation of the process demonstrates that there are more
stringent standards, following the process from the seed until it
is sold in a store. Wohlers, Anker, and DeChazournes (2013) all
agree that nations which lean toward product-based regulations
tend to be nations which do not employ the precautionary
principle and nations which lean toward process-based
regulations are the nations which do employ the precautionary
principle.
Countries like the US use the “product” form of regulating
GMOs; there are less restrictions on the products, since GMOs
are “generally considered to be safe” and are substantially
equivalent by the nations’ standards (DeChazournes, 2013).
These rulings, however, do not guarantee absolute safety
(Arvanitoyannis, 2006). This manifests itself in the promotion
of certain qualities of GMOs, such as “improved shelf-life,

processing characteristics, flavor, nutritional properties, and
agronomic characteristics such as tolerance to chemical
herbicides and resistance to pests and disease” (Wohlers, 2010).
Comparatively, nations which use “process-based” regulations
view GMOs differently. In legislative bodies where they use
process-based assessments, like European Parliament and the
European Commission in the EU, GMOs are viewed as “novel
foods.” These “novel foods” are foods which have not been
significantly consumed by humans (there is generally a date set
by the government in order for later evaluation) and are heavily
regulated to prevent human health risks (Anker, 2009). In the
EU, the process is regulated, as opposed to the end product.
These two regulations are substantially different, and result in
very different outcomes of products which are sold in their
markets.
The institutional influences that exist in the EU and the US
demonstrate a great deal of influence on the acceptance of
GMOs in a region. The institutional structures in place in both
the EU and the US are complex; the various players at each
level of the legislative process influence the differing outcomes
of GMO legislation. The various agencies in the US and the
departments in the EU that regulate GMOs deal with publics
that have varying risk perceptions and tolerances, and in turn
each employ differing risk regulation procedures. The
precautionary principle employed by the EU has allowed for
varying levels of acceptance among its member states, but have
contributed to the overall lack of acceptance in the region; the
promotion that exists within the US has contributed to the
overall acceptance in the region, despite a split public opinion.
Additionally, the use of the process based regulations in the EU
has allowed for a low acceptance of GMOs, whereas the product
based regulations have allowed for a high acceptance of GMOs
in the country. Therefore, the government’s perception of
GMOs as either a product or a process influences whether a
nation will choose to heavily regulate them or not.

Research Design
The research design of this particular research is multi-
faceted; the first part of the research was to comparatively
assess the more prominent influences on the legislation of
GMOs between the US and the EU. The hypothesis that was
explored was that the institutional factors are the strongest
influence the outcome of acceptance of GMOs. This included
exploring the potential influences of public opinion, lobbying,
and institutional forces, both generally and as they particularly
manifested themselves in the case of genetically modified
organisms. The second part of the research was to perform
analysis on a public opinion survey, which is related to the
attitudes toward GMO, and contributes to the public opinion in
the US aspect of this research. The hypotheses between the two
parts of the research do not connect; they are instead two
separate tests of hypotheses.
Comparative Analysis of the EU and US
First, by assessing the various influences on the passage of
GMOs in the US and EU, this research compares the competing
overall public opinion, lobbying, and institutional forces that
contributed to each governing body’s passage or restriction of

GMOs in the case of biotechnology. This study assesses that,
although the others potentially have influences that can
contribute to the outcomes of legislation, and most of them are
interrelated, it seems that the most influential factors are
institutional in nature.
Public opinion concerning GMOs in the EU and the US are
different. Also, there are significant variations in the public
opinion within member states of the EU. Not only is there a
relatively high rate of negative attitudes toward GMOs in the
US at 55%, but the great deal of variation of public opinion
within the EU points to other influences that probably have a
greater affect on whether or not GMOs are accepted
legislatively. That, combined with the significant research
disproving public opinion influencing the success of
implementing legislation, points to other influences having a
larger influence on the outcome of legislation.
Lobbying poses a more complex question, considering the
substantial research demonstrating probable causality between
lobbying and passing legislation. In the US, campaign finances
are not strictly regulated and there is a large presence of the
biotech sector; however in the EU, campaign finances are more
strictly regulated, and the Green party has a greater presence
than the biotech sector. This, combined with the absence of the
Green party in the US can attribute significant influence on the
kind of legislation which is passed in each governing body.
Additionally, the succession of events that ensued in each
region contributed to the prevalence of each of the sectors.
Anti-GMO activists managed to establish themselves earlier on
through the education and mobilization of the public in light of
food scares that occurred in the region. The agricultural
biotechnology sector flourished earlier because they promoted
the economic and social benefits of developing GMOs, and the
anti-GMO groups did not establish themselves as strongly as in
the EU.
There is little dispute over whether the implementation of the
precautionary principle increases the likelihood of having more

strict regulations and legislation, and therefore it has yielded a
large body of research in for the institutional analysis. Almost
all of the research points at the fact that EU evidently used the
precautionary principle in coordination with a process-based
regulatory framework in order to craft many of their directives
for assessing food safety, including 2001/18. This directive
allowed for the release of GMOs, but with strict regulation. The
passing of Directive 2010/0208, which permitted the denial of
GMOs at the national level based on environmental concerns,
added to the employment of the precautionary principle, and
allowed member states to proceed with precaution at varying
levels. The US on the other hand began with a policy of
promotion in coordination with product-based regulations, and
although it might have taken on some aspects of precaution later
on, overall has had legislation which is open to GMOs. This
area had the most significant evidence to support the influence
of institutional forces playing the most significant role.
However, one of the major points to be made is missing from
this argument.
In both the EU and the US, as stated in the introduction and the
lobbying chapters, the legislative bodies are open to GMOs for
the purposes of economic development and social aid; however,
the differences in the outcome of legislation do not reflect
similar acceptance levels of GMOs. The EU would probably not
have chosen to use the precautionary principle so strictly had
there not been such resistance from the public. This fact
demonstrates that the lobbyists in each region had advocated for
their interests, which were generally in line with public opinion,
and therefore ultimately changed the acceptance levels of
GMOs. Since there is a great deal of interplay between
lobbyists and institutions, and the lobbyists that were most
prevalent in the EU and the US respectively represented the
interests that prevailed, this logically can explain the
differences in the acceptance of GMOs in each region.
This analysis therefore fully supports my original hypothesis
that the lobbying factors contributed the most significantly to

the acceptance of GMOs. Additionally, it means that the
lobbying factors are supplemented by the institutional factors
and influences that occurred in each region.
Further exploration into US Public Opinion
In order to further examine the role that individual demographic
factors, particularly the education levels, political affiliation
and ideals, and religiosity, play into the public opinion of
GMOs, a survey was created and sent out. Empirical analysis of
public attitudes and knowledge toward genetically engineered
foods was collected in this study via an online survey, and
contains questions concerning attitudes toward, perceptions of,
and knowledge of genetically modified organisms. A complete
list of questions can be found in the Appendix of this paper.
This survey was conducted by convenience sample due to lack
of funds and access to picking a random sample. Most of the
respondents, if not all, were friends, family or fellow
classmates. Surveys were distributed via internet through email,
Facebook, and Twitter. Considering this is a non-representative
sample, this presents significant limitations because it
constitutes solely people I know or have contact through the
people I know, and therefore cannot be directly applicable.
However, it can paint a picture of the attitudes toward this
topic, even if it is not representative.
The expectations of this part of the research are that the
defining influences of attitudes toward GMOs will be
religiosity, political affiliation and ideology, and education
level. The independent variables will be defined by education
level (Q 12), political affiliation and ideology (Q 10 and 11),
and religious affiliation (Q 7); the dependent variable will be
measured by responses to whether risks outweigh benefits of
GMOs or not (Q 5). A full list of questions can be found in the
appendix of this paper. The expectations would reflect previous
research: as education level increases, the acceptance of GMOs
will also increase (Hallman, 2003); as you move farther right in
US terms, the acceptance of GMOs increases (Hallman, 2003);
as you move farther right on the political spectrum, the

acceptance of GMOs increases (Hallman, 2003); and religious
affiliation is related to decreased acceptance of GMOs
(Hallman, 2003; Europa, 2014).
Survey Results
The survey was completed by 121 participants, aged 18
and older. Of the participants, 59.5% were between the ages of
18 and 29 (N=72), 9.9% between the ages of 30 and 41 (N=12),
5.8% between the ages of 42 and 52 (N=7), and 24.8% were 53
or older (N=30). 93 participants were female, which accounted
for 76.9% of the respondents; 27 were male, accounting for
22.3% of the participants; and 1 respondent reported “other.” In
terms of political ideology, the results were interesting. Of the
respondents, 37.2% reported Conservative (N=45), 24.8%
Liberal (N=30), 32.2% neither (N=39), and 5.8% Other (N=7).
Similar to that, 33.1% reported to affiliate Republican (N=40),
18.2% Democrat (N=22), 38.8% None (N=47), and 9.9% Other
(N=12). As far as educational attainment, 7.4% respondents
completed High School (N=9), 38.8% had Some College
(N=47), 32.2% had an Undergraduate Degree (N=39), and
21.5% had a Graduate Degree (N=26). In terms of religious

affiliation, 76% of the respondents were Christian (N=92),
Muslim (N=1), (N=0) Hindu, Spiritual (N=2), 1 Buddhist, 1
Atheist, 8.3% Agnostic (N=10), and 11.6% who reported “I do
not have a religious affiliation” (N=14).
In terms of knowledge, most of the people reported at least
“some” knowledge GMOs. 21.5% reported to “hear about it a
great deal” (N=26), 42.1% reported “some” (N=51), 28.9%
reported “not much” (N=35), and 7.4% reported “not at all”
(N=9). When asked how much they know or understand about
GMOs, 15.7% reported a lot (N=19), 37.2% some (N=45),
31.4% a little (N=38), 14.9% nothing (N=18), and 1 reported
not being aware at all. Furthermore, 12.4% responded that
“benefits outweighed the risks” (N=15), 47.9% said that “risks
outweighed the benefits” (N=58), 29.8% had a “mixed opinion”
(N=36), and 9.9% reported they were “unsure” (N=12), When
asked about the likelihood of purchase given a biotechnology
food to reduce pesticide applications, they reported the
following: 14.9% (N=18) said “very likely,” 35.5% (N=43)
“somewhat likely,” 28.1% (N=34) “not too likely,” 21.5%
(N=26) “not at all likely.” When about the likelihood of
purchase based off of increased freshness of food through
biotechnology, 8.3% (N=10) responded “very likely,” 28.9%
(N=35) “somewhat likely,” 34.7% (N=42) “not too likely,”
28.1% (N=34) “not at all likely.” The final question assessed
belief in biotechnology in relation to God’s creation, and
resulted in 18.2% (N=22) “definitely disagree,” 20.7% (N=25)
“tend to disagree,” 34.7% (N=42) “tend to agree,” and 26.4%
(N=32) “definitely agree.”
Assessing possible relationships in the acceptance of GMOs
The easiest way of seeing relationships between two
variables is by cross-tabulation, which is why I chose to do this
to test the following hypotheses. Many of these hypotheses can
be related to general public opinion research, and are drawn
from that; however, there has not been significant analysis
performed on public opinion in relation to attitudes toward
GMOs. This was one of the motivations for pursuing this aspect

of the research.
Educational attainment and acceptance of GMOs. As
educational attainment increases, the acceptance of risks of
GMOs increases, where the independent variable is educational
attainment and the acceptance of GMOs is the dependent
variable.
This draws on the concepts expressed in the public opinion
section of values and demographics having an influence on
legislation; demographics influence values, and values
constitute a significant portion of risk assessment. There was
nothing explored specifically about this demographic in-depth
in the literature. The results of the cross-tabulation do not
demonstrate such a relationship; in fact, a majority of the
respondents who perceived risks outweigh the benefits either
had a graduate degree, accounting for 20.7%, or undergraduate
degree, accounting for 32.8% of the responses. However, the
distribution overall is relatively even, demonstrating that
increasing education does not necessarily increase the
likelihood of accepting risks of GMOs. (See Table B1 in
Appendix B for results).
Political affiliation and acceptance of GMOs. Political
affiliations influence the outcome of acceptance of risks of
GMOs; the more conservative, the greater the extent of
acceptance.
This hypothesis was gathered because Republicans tend to favor
businesses, and agribusiness has a strong political relationship
with Republicans as spoken about earlier in the campaign
finance section (Page 6).
The results of the cross-tabulation demonstrate some evidence
of this relationship. 13.8% of respondents that reported risks
outweighed benefits were Democrats, 32.8% had no political
affiliation, 10.3% were other, and 43.1% were Republican. For
those who reported that benefits outweighed the risks, 20% were
Democrats, 46.7% had no affiliation, 13.3% reported other, and
20% were Republican. (See Table B2 in Appendix B). There
was somewhat equal distribution among the responses of

“benefits outweigh risks,” but almost half of the respondents of
the “risks outweigh benefits” were Republican, denoting a
potential relationship between the two. However, because of
the overwhelming majority of Republican respondents, this
percentage could be largely explained by the non-representative
nature of the sample. To assess whether or not the relationship
is significant, a chi-square test was performed.
Table 1
Chi-Square on Political Affiliation
Value
df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
9.639a
9
.380
Likelihood Ratio
9.478
9
.394
N of Valid Cases
121
Note: 8 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5.
The minimum expected count is 1.19.
This table suggests that the relationship is not significant,
because the p-value is .380, which is greater than .05. This may
be due to the non-representative nature of the survey sample.
Political ideologies and acceptance of GMOs. Political
ideologies influence the outcome of the acceptance of risks of
GMOs.
This, like the political affiliation question, is related to

literature regarding political ideologies and tendency to promote
business, as well as the role that values play in risk uncertainty
tolerance (page, ). This hypothesis is further supported by
previous research that exists regarding political ideology: that
the more right on the political spectrum, the acceptance of
GMOs increases (Hallman, 2003).
In reporting “risks outweigh benefits” 44.8% of the respondents
were Conservative,
13.8% were Liberal, 32.8% were Neither, 8.6% were Other. In
reporting “benefits outweigh the risks” 26.7% were
Conservative, 33.3% were Liberal, 33.3% were Neither, and
6.7% were Other. (See Table B3 in Appendix B). Respondents
who reported “risks outweigh benefits,” were primarily
Conservative and Neither; because of the significance of the
percentage of conservatives, there could be a potential
relationship between political ideology and likelihood to accept
risks of GMOs; however, the more likely answer is that there
were just a higher number of Conservative and Neither
respondents in the survey overall, translating into higher
percentages. To test the significance of this relationship, the
chi-square test was performed again.
Table 2
Chi-Square on Political Ideologies
Value
df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
13.163a
9
.155
Likelihood Ratio
14.964
9
.092
N of Valid Cases

121
Note: 9 cells (56.3%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is .69.
The test again showed that there is no significant relationship
between the respondents’ political ideologies and the
acceptance of GMOs with a p-value of .155. This could be
related to the fact that the survey is non-representative, but
based off of these tests there is not necessarily a significant
relationship here.
Religious affiliation and acceptance of GMOs. Religious
affiliation is related to a decreased acceptance of the risks of
GMOs.
This part relates to the same demographic and values-based
decision-making that applies to public opinion. The idea that
religious affiliation would influence public opinion on
genetically modified organisms has not been researched in-
depth, but religious affiliation (or lack thereof) would logically
influence public opinion on something as basic as food
consumption. This hypothesis is also supported by previous
research regarding religiosity and acceptance of GMOs, as
spoken about earlier (Hallman, 2003).
The results of the cross-tabulation revealed that those who
responded that “risks outweighed the benefits,” 5.2% were
Agnostic, 1.7% were Atheist, 0% were Buddhist, 79.3% were
Christian, 10.9% did not have a religious affiliation, 0% were
Muslim, and 3.4% were Spiritual. The respondents who
reported “benefits outweighed risks” were 20% Agnostic, 0%
Atheist, 0% Buddhist, 66.7% Christian, 13.3% did not affiliate,
0% Muslim, and 0% Spiritual. (See Table B4 in Appendix B for
results).
Although there might be a relationship between those who
affiliate religiously and those who do not in terms of their
acceptance of GMOs, it is difficult to say; although almost 80%

WebsterSOUTH PARK THE UNLIK.docx

WebsterSOUTH PARK THE UNLIK.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to WebsterSOUTH PARK THE UNLIK.docx

Similar to WebsterSOUTH PARK THE UNLIK.docx (9)

More from melbruce90096

More from melbruce90096 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

WebsterSOUTH PARK THE UNLIK.docx