IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/aesjfr/405322.html

Consumer Attitudes toward the Use of Gene Technology in Breakfast Products: Comparison between College Students from the U.S. and China

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Nanying
  • Houston, Jack
  • Colson, Gregory
  • Liu, Zimin

Abstract

Second-generation Genetically Modified (GM) crops are associated with consumer-oriented benefits such as improvement of nutritional quality. Given such an evolving market environment, this paper presents differences in consumer preferences and valuations for genetically modified breakfast grain products. The perception of consumers from a developing country, China, is discussed and compared to attitudes in a developed country, the U.S. The survey results reveal that there are notable differences in the attitude and perception of college students across these two countries. Purchase intent for GM foods was low, unless a benefit was promised, and some modifications are viewed more positively than others. Overall, it appears that GM foods may be acceptable in the U.S. and Chinese market. The findings in this study have potential implications for establishing various GM marketing strategies and information campaigns.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Nanying & Houston, Jack & Colson, Gregory & Liu, Zimin, 2015. "Consumer Attitudes toward the Use of Gene Technology in Breakfast Products: Comparison between College Students from the U.S. and China," Journal of Food Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 4(6).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aesjfr:405322
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/405322/files/51480-191206-1-PB.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Theo Arentze & Tao Feng & Harry Timmermans & Jops Robroeks, 2012. "Context-dependent influence of road attributes and pricing policies on route choice behavior of truck drivers: results of a conjoint choice experiment," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1173-1188, November.
    2. Frith, Michael J., 2019. "Modelling taste heterogeneity regarding offence location choices," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    3. Abdullah, Sabah & Mariel, Petr, 2010. "Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4570-4581, August.
    4. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    5. Robert Turner, 2013. "Using contingent choice surveys to inform national park management," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 120-138, June.
    6. Venkatesh Shankar & Pablo Azar & Matthew Fuller, 2008. "—: A Multicategory Brand Equity Model and Its Application at Allstate," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 567-584, 07-08.
    7. Birgit Stoltenberg & Vladimir Manewitsch & Matthias Unfried, 2023. "How much is the (labelled) pig? Effectiveness of and willingness to pay for the German animal husbandry label," NIM Working Paper wpaper-003, Nürnberg Institut für Marktentscheidungen e.V..
    8. Kalouptsidis, N. & Psaraki, V., 2010. "Approximations of choice probabilities in mixed logit models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(2), pages 529-535, January.
    9. Pepermans, Guido, 2011. "The value of continuous power supply for Flemish households," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 7853-7864.
    10. Kruse, Tobias & Atkinson, Giles, 2022. "Understanding public support for international climate adaptation payments: Evidence from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    11. Chang, Jae Bong & Lusk, Jayson L., 2009. "Fairness and food choice," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 483-491, December.
    12. Meyer, Samantha B. & Coveney, John & Henderson, Julie & Ward, Paul R. & Taylor, Anne W., 2012. "Reconnecting Australian consumers and producers: Identifying problems of distrust," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 634-640.
    13. Li, Weibo & Kamargianni, Maria, 2018. "Providing quantified evidence to policy makers for promoting bike-sharing in heavily air-polluted cities: A mode choice model and policy simulation for Taiyuan-China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 277-291.
    14. Jang, Kitae & Chung, Koohong & Yeo, Hwasoo, 2014. "A dynamic pricing strategy for high occupancy toll lanes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 69-80.
    15. Papoutsi, Georgia & Nayga, Rodolfo & Lazaridis, Panagiotis & Drichoutis, Andreas, 2013. "Nudging parental health behavior with and without children's pestering power: Fat tax, subsidy or both?," MPRA Paper 52324, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Deely, John & Hynes, Stephen, 2020. "Preferences for Blue-Green or Grey Infrastructure to Reduce Flood Risk: A Choice Experiment," Working Papers 309506, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    17. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Trine Kjær, 2012. "Disentangling WTP per QALY data: different analytical approaches, different answers," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 222-237, March.
    18. repec:sss:wpaper:201407 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    20. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., . "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49.
    21. Toşa, Cristian & Sato, Hitomi & Morikawa, Takayuki & Miwa, Tomio, 2018. "Commuting behavior in emerging urban areas: Findings of a revealed-preferences and stated-intentions survey in Cluj-Napoca, Romania," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 78-93.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:aesjfr:405322. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.ccsenet.org/ .

    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.