IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i10p5995-d816065.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Consumers’ Attitudes towards Food Products Derived by New Plant Breeding Techniques

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriella Vindigni

    (Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia 100, 95123 Catania, Italy)

  • Iuri Peri

    (Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia 100, 95123 Catania, Italy)

  • Federica Consentino

    (Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia 100, 95123 Catania, Italy)

  • Roberta Selvaggi

    (Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia 100, 95123 Catania, Italy)

  • Daniela Spina

    (Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia 100, 95123 Catania, Italy)

Abstract

New plant breeding techniques (NPBTs) are seen as promising and innovative tools to achieve food security and food safety. Biotechnological innovations have great potential to address sustainable food development, and they are expected in the near future to play a critical role in feeding a growing population without exerting added pressure on the environment. There is, however, a considerable debate as to how these new techniques should be regulated and whether some or all of them should fall within the scope of EU legislation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), despite the product obtained being free from genes foreign to the species. In the EU, the adoption of these methods does not rely only on the scientific community but requires social acceptance and a political process that leads to an improved regulatory framework. In this paper, we present the results of an online survey carried out in Italy with 700 randomly selected participants on consumer attitudes towards food obtained by NPBTs. By applying the decision tree machine learning algorithm J48 to our dataset, we identified significant attributes to predict the main drivers of purchasing such products. A classification model accuracy assessment has also been developed to evaluate the overall performance of the classifier. The result of the model highlighted the role of consumers’ self-perceived knowledge and their trust in the European approval process for NPBT, as well as the need for a detailed label. Our findings may support decision makers and underpin the development of NPBT products in the market.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriella Vindigni & Iuri Peri & Federica Consentino & Roberta Selvaggi & Daniela Spina, 2022. "Exploring Consumers’ Attitudes towards Food Products Derived by New Plant Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:10:p:5995-:d:816065
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/5995/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/5995/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matin Qaim, 2020. "Role of New Plant Breeding Technologies for Food Security and Sustainable Agricultural Development," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 129-150, June.
    2. John C. Beghin & Christopher R. Gustafson, 2021. "Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    3. Beghin, John C. & Gustafson, Christopher R., 2021. "Consumer valuation of and attitudes towards novel foods produced with NPETs: A review," ISU General Staff Papers 202108250700001133, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Matin Qaim, 2016. "Genetically Modified Crops and Agricultural Development," Palgrave Studies in Agricultural Economics and Food Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-137-40572-2, June.
    5. Maria Travisi, Chiara & Nijkamp, Peter & Vindigni, Gabriella, 2006. "Pesticide risk valuation in empirical economics: a comparative approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 455-474, April.
    6. Kaat de Corte & John Cairns & Richard Grieve, 2021. "Stated versus revealed preferences: An approach to reduce bias," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1095-1123, May.
    7. Gabriella Vindigni & Alexandros Mosca & Tommaso Bartoloni & Daniela Spina, 2021. "Shedding Light on Peri-Urban Ecosystem Services Using Automated Content Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-17, August.
    8. Wanki Moon & Siva K. Balasubramanian, 2004. "Public Attitudes toward Agrobiotechnology: The Mediating Role of Risk Perceptions on the Impact of Trust, Awareness, and Outrage," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 186-208.
    9. Mario Mazzocchi & Alexandra Lobb & W. Bruce Traill & Alessio Cavicchi, 2008. "Food Scares and Trust: A European Study," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 2-24, February.
    10. Hoelscher, Jamie & Mortimer, Amanda, 2018. "Using Tableau to visualize data and drive decision-making," Journal of Accounting Education, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 49-59.
    11. Matin Qaim, 2009. "The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 665-694, September.
    12. Nijkamp, Peter & Vindigni, Gabriella & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D., 2008. "Economic valuation of biodiversity: A comparative study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 217-231, September.
    13. Wanki Moon & Siva K. Balasubramanian, 2004. "Public Attitudes toward Agrobiotechnology: The Mediating Role of Risk Perceptions on the Impact of Trust, Awareness, and Outrage," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 186-208.
    14. Kai Purnhagen & Justus Wesseler, 2021. "EU Regulation of New Plant Breeding Technologies and Their Possible Economic Implications for the EU and Beyond," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1621-1637, December.
    15. Jikun Huang & Carl Pray & Scott Rozelle, 2002. "Enhancing the crops to feed the poor," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 678-684, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. António Raposo & Heesup Han, 2022. "The Multifaceted Nature of Food and Nutrition Insecurity around the World and Foodservice Business," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-3, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stéphan Marette & John Beghin & Anne‐Célia Disdier & Eliza Mojduszka, 2023. "Can foods produced with new plant engineering techniques succeed in the marketplace? A case study of apples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 414-435, March.
    2. Stéphan Marette & Anne‐Célia Disdier & Anastasia Bodnar & John Beghin, 2023. "New plant engineering techniques, R&D investment and international trade," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 349-368, June.
    3. Matin Qaim, 2020. "Role of New Plant Breeding Technologies for Food Security and Sustainable Agricultural Development," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 129-150, June.
    4. Johan Swinnen & Alessandro Olper & Senne Vandevelde, 2021. "From unfair prices to unfair trading practices: Political economy, value chains and 21st century agri‐food policy," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(5), pages 771-788, September.
    5. Liuyang Yao & Qian Zhang & Kin Keung Lai & Xianyu Cao, 2020. "Explaining Local Residents’ Attitudes toward Shale Gas Exploitation: The Mediating Roles of Risk and Benefit Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, October.
    6. Simon Chege Kimenju & Hugo De Groote, 2008. "Consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 35-46, January.
    7. Julian M. Alston & Philip G. Pardey, 2020. "Innovation, Growth, and Structural Change in American Agriculture," NBER Chapters, in: The Role of Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Economic Growth, pages 123-165, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Kouser, Shahzad & Qaim, Matin, 2012. "Valuing financial, health and environmental benefits of Bt cotton in Pakistan," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126544, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Jae-Hwan Han & R. Wes Harrison, 2007. "Factors Influencing Urban Consumers' Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(4), pages 700-719.
    10. Moon, Wanki & Balasubramanian, Siva K. & Rimal, Arbindra, 2006. "WTP and WTA for Non-GM and GM Food: UK Consumers," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21057, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.
    12. Jerrod Penn & Hannah Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Public Knowledge of Monarchs and Support for Butterfly Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-16, March.
    13. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    14. Götz, Linde & Svanidze, Miranda & Tissier, Alain & Brand Duran, Alejandro, 2022. "Consumers’ willingness to Buy CRISPR gene-edited tomatoes: Evidence from a choice experiment case study in Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 14(2).
    15. Han, Y. & Lam, J. & Guo, P. & Gou, Z., 2019. "What Predicts Government Trustworthiness in Cross-border HK-Guangdong Nuclear Safety Emergency Governance?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1989, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    16. Harrison, R. Wes & Han, Jae-Hwan, 2005. "The Effects of Urban Consumer Perceptions on Attitudes for Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 36(2), pages 1-10, July.
    17. à frica Martínez-Poveda & Margarita Brugarolas Mollá-Bauzá & Francisco José del Campo Gomis & Laura Martínez Carrasco Martínez & Asunción Agulló Torres, 2019. "Consumer Perception of Gm Foods. Profiles of Potential Consumers and Non-Consumers in Spain," Current Investigations in Agriculture and Current Research, Lupine Publishers, LLC, vol. 7(3), pages 942-952, August.
    18. Tilman Reinhardt, 2023. "The farm to fork strategy and the digital transformation of the agrifood sector—An assessment from the perspective of innovation systems," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 819-838, June.
    19. John C. Beghin & Christopher R. Gustafson, 2021. "Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    20. John C. Beghin & Heidi Schweizer, 2021. "Agricultural Trade Costs," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 500-530, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:10:p:5995-:d:816065. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.