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, March.
    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.
    2. Hamam, Manal & Raimondo, Maria & Spina, Daniela & Király, Gábor & Di Vita, Giuseppe & D’Amico, Mario & Tóth, József, 2023. "Climate Change Perception and Innovative Mitigation Practices Adopted by Hungarian Farms," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 15(3), September.
    3. Bing Zhu, Ananya Phunthasaen, Chainarong Rungruengarporn, Salila Pinpak, 2024. "Understanding Thai Consumers' Intentions to Purchase Genetically Modified Foods," Research on World Agricultural Economy, Nan Yang Academy of Sciences Pte Ltd (NASS), vol. 5(4), October.
    4. Katie Henderson & Bodo Lang & Joya Kemper & Denise Conroy, 2024. "Exploring diverse food system actor perspectives on gene editing: a systematic review of socio-cultural factors influencing acceptability," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(2), pages 883-907, June.
    5. Federica Consentino & Iuri Peri & Mattia Litrico & Daniela Spina & Gabriella Vindigni, 2024. "Mapping young farmers’ choice to pursue Geographical Indication in a rural context: application of fuzzy cognitive map," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, December.
    6. Mohammed Naweed Mohamed & Magdeleen Cilliers & Jhill Johns & Jan-Hendrik Groenewald, 2025. "South African Consumer Attitudes Towards Plant Breeding Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-19, July.
    7. Zhu, Bing; Phunthasaen, Ananya; Rungruengarporn, Chainarong; Pinpak, Salila, 2024. "Understanding Thai Consumers' Intentions to Purchase Genetically Modified Foods," Research on World Agricultural Economy, Nan Yang Academy of Sciences Pte Ltd (NASS), vol. 5(4), October.

    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. Edenbrandt, Anna Kristina & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan, 2024. "Can gene-editing accelerate the protein shift? Consumer acceptance of an upcycled meat-substitute," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    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. Shahzad Kouser & Matin Qaim, 2013. "Valuing financial, health, and environmental benefits of Bt cotton in Pakistan," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 323-335, May.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Magdiel Pablo-Cano & Anastacio Espejel-García & Arturo Hernández-Montes & Landy Hernández-Rodríguez, 2024. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Attributes of Sustainability, Origin and Production Process in Raicilla," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-13, October.
    13. Shahida Anusha Siddiqui & Zarnab Asif & Misbah Murid & Ito Fernando & Danung Nur Adli & Andrey Vladimirovich Blinov & Alexey Borisovich Golik & Widya Satya Nugraha & Salam A. Ibrahim & Seid Mahdi Jafa, 2022. "Consumer Social and Psychological Factors Influencing the Use of Genetically Modified Foods—A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-22, November.
    14. Marie Abbey & Alan G. Smith & Chengyan Yue & Corissa Marson & Yufeng Lai & Carrie Stowers, 2025. "Measuring specialty crop grower willingness to pay for genetic modification and genetic editing," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(3), pages 615-632, July.
    15. Qaim, Matin, 2014. "Evaluating nutrition and health impacts of agricultural innovations," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 185785, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    16. Owusu, Rebecca & Dadzie, Samuel Kwesi Ndzebah, . "Heterogeneity in consumer preferences for organic and genetically modified food products in Ghana," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(2).
    17. Canavari, Maurizio & Tisselli, Farid & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2009. "Italian Consumer Acceptance of Nutritionally Enhanced GM Food," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51651, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. John C. Beghin & Heidi Schweizer, 2021. "Agricultural Trade Costs," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 500-530, June.
    19. 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.
    20. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.

    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: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.