IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i5p1342-d210787.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perception and Attitude toward GM Technology among Agribusiness Managers in China as Producers and as Consumers

Author

Listed:
  • Haiyan Deng

    () (School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China)

  • Ruifa Hu

    () (School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China)

  • Carl Pray

    () (Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA)

  • Yanhong Jin

    () (Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA)

Abstract

China is one of the biggest consumers of genetically modified (GM) products, importing maize, soybeans and canola, and producing GM cotton. The cultivation of GM food crop, however, is still not permitted. Many studies argue that consumers’ attitude toward GM food safety is a major barrier to GM food crop production in China. Recent studies suggest that special interest groups such as biotechnology scientists with an economic interest in biotechnology are more supportive of the technology than groups with nothing to gain. Others believe that agribusiness groups influence the debate about GM food production. This is the first study that examined agribusiness managers’ attitudes toward GM biosafety and their support for GM crop production. The sample was 160 firms in the seed, pesticide, feed and food processing industries. We found most agribusiness leaders are concerned about GM food consumption and oppose GM crop production. Using regression models, we found business managers’ attitudes toward GM crop cultivation are more supportive if they expect to profit, if they are already using GM crops in their firm or are doing research on GM crops.

Suggested Citation

  • Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu & Carl Pray & Yanhong Jin, 2019. "Perception and Attitude toward GM Technology among Agribusiness Managers in China as Producers and as Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:5:p:1342-:d:210787
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1342/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1342/
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mingyang Zhang & Chao Chen & Wuyang Hu & Lijun Chen & Jintao Zhan, 2016. "Influence of Source Credibility on Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods in China," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(9), pages 1-16, September.
    2. Omid M. Ghoochani & Mansour Ghanian & Masoud Baradaran & Erfan Alimirzaei & Hossein Azadi, 2018. "Behavioral intentions toward genetically modified crops in Southwest Iran: a multi-stakeholder analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 233-253, February.
    3. Jayson L. Lusk & Keith H. Coble, 2005. "Risk Perceptions, Risk Preference, and Acceptance of Risky Food," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 393-405.
    4. Hubbell, Bryan J. & Marra, Michele C. & Carlson, Gerald A., 2000. "Estimating The Demand For A New Technology: Bt Cotton And Insecticide Policies In The Southeast," Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy, June 24-25, 1999, Washington, D.C. 26016, Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance.
    5. Matin Qaim & Alain de Janvry, 2003. "Genetically Modified Crops, Corporate Pricing Strategies, and Farmers' Adoption: The Case of Bt Cotton in Argentina," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 814-828.
    6. W. Bruce Traill, 2004. "Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 31(2), pages 179-204, June.
    7. Jeng‐Tung Chiang & Chen‐Yen Lin & Tsu‐Tan Fu & Chen‐Hsin Chen, 2012. "Using Stated Preference and Prior Purchase Intention in the Estimation of Willingness to Pay a Premium for Genetically Modified Foods," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 103-117, January.
    8. Bryan J. Hubbell & Michele C. Marra & Gerald A. Carlson, 2000. "Estimating the Demand for a New Technology: Bt Cotton and Insecticide Policies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(1), pages 118-132.
    9. McFadden, Brandon & Lusk, Jayson, 2016. "What Consumers Don’t Know about GM Food," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235325, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Bett, Charles & Ouma, James Okuro & Groote, Hugo De, 2010. "Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 332-340, August.
    11. Gary D. Thompson & Julia Kidwell, 1998. "Explaining the Choice of Organic Produce: Cosmetic Defects, Prices, and Consumer Preferences," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(2), pages 277-287.
    12. Kristine M. Grimsrud & Jill J. McCluskey & Maria L. Loureiro & Thomas I. Wahl, 2004. "Consumer Attitudes to Genetically Modified Food in Norway," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 75-90, March.
    13. Kynda R. Curtis & Klaus Moeltner, 2007. "The effect of consumer risk perceptions on the propensity to purchase genetically modified foods in Romania," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(2), pages 263-278.
    14. Yulian Ding & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2012. "The Impact of Generalized Trust and Trust in the Food System on Choices of a Functional GM Food," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 54-66, January.
    15. 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.
    16. Breustedt, Gunnar & Muller-Scheessel, Jorg & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2008. "Forecasting the Adoption of GM Oilseed Rape: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," 82nd Annual Conference, March 31 - April 2, 2008, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK 36771, Agricultural Economics Society.
    17. Yue Zhang & Yingying Sun, 2018. "The Effect of Ideology on Attitudes toward GM Food Safety among Chinese Internet Users," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    18. Gunnar Breustedt & Jörg Müller‐Scheeßel & Uwe Latacz‐Lohmann, 2008. "Forecasting the Adoption of GM Oilseed Rape: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 237-256, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    genetically modified foods; perception and attitude; industries; managers and consumers; China;

    JEL classification:

    • Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics
    • Q0 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General
    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q3 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:5:p:1342-:d:210787. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (XML Conversion Team). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.