IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v43y2016i5p703-736..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumers’ evaluation of biotechnologically modified food products: new evidence from a meta-survey

Author

Listed:
  • Sebastian Hess
  • Carl Johan Lagerkvist
  • William Redekop
  • Ashkan Pakseresht

Abstract

Biotechnological modification of food products is still controversial, and the conditions in which consumers accept biotechnological modification of food products are not yet well understood. Therefore, 1,713 original questions posed to respondents in 214 different studies were meta-analysed. The results showed that questions with positive (negative) connotations about biotechnology tended to be associated with positive (negative) measures of evaluation. Studies in the European Union (EU) asked more often about perceived riskiness than studies in other countries. When this was controlled for, EU consumers appeared no more adverse to biotechnological modification than other consumers. Consumer evaluations were largely insensitive to the type of food product. Price discounts, increased production and various perceived risks induced negative evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Sebastian Hess & Carl Johan Lagerkvist & William Redekop & Ashkan Pakseresht, 2016. "Consumers’ evaluation of biotechnologically modified food products: new evidence from a meta-survey," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(5), pages 703-736.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:43:y:2016:i:5:p:703-736.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/erae/jbw011
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ashkan Pakseresht & Brandon R McFadden & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2017. "Consumer acceptance of food biotechnology based on policy context and upstream acceptance: evidence from an artefactual field experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(5), pages 757-780.
    2. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "Food values and heterogeneous consumer responses to nanotechnology," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 289-313, September.
    3. D Adeline Yeh & Miguel I Gómez & Harry M Kaiser, 2019. "Signaling impacts of GMO labeling on fruit and vegetable demand," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-16, October.
    4. Lusk, Jayson L. & McFadden, Brandon R. & Wilson, Norbert, 2018. "Do consumers care how a genetically engineered food was created or who created it?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 81-90.
    5. Francisco J. Areal & Laura Riesgo, 2021. "EU Inspections of GM Content in Food and Feed: Are They Effective?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-18, September.
    6. Yulian Ding & Jianyu Yu & Yangyang Sun & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Yunyun Liu, 2023. "Gene‐edited or genetically modified food? The impacts of risk and ambiguity on Chinese consumers' willingness to pay," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 414-428, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    meta-analysis; biotechnology; framing effects; mixed effects model;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    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:oup:erevae:v:43:y:2016:i:5:p:703-736.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    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.