IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ohswps/28315.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who Are Proponents And Opponents Of Genetically Modified Foods In The United States?

Author

Listed:
  • Ganiere, Pierre
  • Chern, Wen S.
  • Hahn, David E.

Abstract

A national telephone survey was conducted in the U.S. in April 2002 to assess the consumer acceptance of genetically modified (GM) foods. Attitudes towards GM foods were studied through the use of a multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) method, analyzing the interrelationships among many variables. This method was combined with a cluster analysis to construct a typology of consumers' attitudes. Four distinct behaviors were finally extracted - proponents, non-opponents, moderate opponents and extreme opponents. We estimated that only 35% of the surveyed population was opposed to GM foods. The consumer attitude towards GM foods was found more complex than the usual acceptance / rejection responses; consumers are looking for incentives and GM proponents are likely to choose the non-GM alternative if no benefit is perceived.

Suggested Citation

  • Ganiere, Pierre & Chern, Wen S. & Hahn, David E., 2004. "Who Are Proponents And Opponents Of Genetically Modified Foods In The United States?," Working Papers 28315, Ohio State University, Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ohswps:28315
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.28315
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/28315/files/wp040037.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.28315?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kinsey, Jean D. & Wolfson, Paul J. & Katsaras, Nikolaos & Senauer, Benjamin, 2001. "Data Mining: A Segmentation Analysis Of U.S. Grocery Shoppers," Working Papers 14335, University of Minnesota, The Food Industry Center.
    2. Alexander E. Saak & David A. Hennessy, 2002. "Planting Decisions and Uncertain Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Crop Varieties," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(2), pages 308-319.
    3. Noussair, Charles & Robin, Stephane & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2002. "Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 47-53, March.
    4. Carl Eckart & Gale Young, 1936. "The approximation of one matrix by another of lower rank," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 1(3), pages 211-218, September.
    5. Michael Greenacre, 2008. "Correspondence analysis of raw data," Economics Working Papers 1112, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jul 2009.
    6. Hallman, William K. & Metcalfe, Jennifer, 1994. "Public Perceptions Of Agricultural Biotechnology: A Survey Of New Jersey Residents," Research Reports 18170, Rutgers University, Food Policy Institute.
    7. Michael Greenacre & Rafael Pardo, 2006. "Subset Correspondence Analysis," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 35(2), pages 193-218, November.
    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. Ganiere, Pierre & Chern, Wen S. & Hahn, David E. & Chiang, Fu-Sung, 2004. "Consumer Attitudes towards Genetically Modified Foods in Emerging Markets: The Impact of Labeling in Taiwan," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 7(3), pages 1-20.

    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. Ganiere, Pierre & Chern, Wen S., 2004. "Consumer Acceptance Of Genetically Modified Foods: A Profile Of American Consumers," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19972, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Ganiere, Pierre & Chern, Wen S. & Hahn, David E. & Chiang, Fu-Sung, 2004. "Consumer Attitudes towards Genetically Modified Foods in Emerging Markets: The Impact of Labeling in Taiwan," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 7(3), pages 1-20.
    3. Huffman, Wallace & Rousu, M. & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 1009. "Are U.S. Consumers Tolerant of GM Foods?," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12336, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Huffman, Wallace E. & Shogren, Jason F. & Rousu, Matthew C. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2003. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Food Labels in a Market with Diverse Information: Evidence from Experimental Auctions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(3), pages 1-22, December.
    5. Michael Greenacre & Paul Lewi, 2009. "Distributional Equivalence and Subcompositional Coherence in the Analysis of Compositional Data, Contingency Tables and Ratio-Scale Measurements," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 26(1), pages 29-54, April.
    6. Huffman, Wallace & Rousu, Matthew & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2002. "Should the United States Regulate Mandatory Labeling for Genetically Modified Foods?," ISU General Staff Papers 200210280800001246, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Julie Josse & Marie Chavent & Benot Liquet & François Husson, 2012. "Handling Missing Values with Regularized Iterative Multiple Correspondence Analysis," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 29(1), pages 91-116, April.
    8. Michael Greenacre & Patrick J. F Groenen & Trevor Hastie & Alfonso Iodice d’Enza & Angelos Markos & Elena Tuzhilina, 2023. "Principal component analysis," Economics Working Papers 1856, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    9. Cajo Braak, 1990. "Interpreting canonical correlation analysis through biplots of structure correlations and weights," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 55(3), pages 519-531, September.
    10. Shizuhiko Nishisato, 1996. "Gleaning in the field of dual scaling," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 61(4), pages 559-599, December.
    11. Torres Lacomba, Anna, 2003. "A comparison between correspondence analysis and categorical conjoint measurement," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB wb037117, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    12. Michel Tenenhaus & Forrest Young, 1985. "An analysis and synthesis of multiple correspondence analysis, optimal scaling, dual scaling, homogeneity analysis and other methods for quantifying categorical multivariate data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 91-119, March.
    13. Svetlana Zhuchkova & Aleksei Rotmistrov, 2022. "How to choose an approach to handling missing categorical data: (un)expected findings from a simulated statistical experiment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 1-22, February.
    14. McFadden, Brandon R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2013. "Effects of Cost and Campaign Advertising on Support for California’s Proposition 37," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-13, August.
    15. Sewell, Daniel K., 2018. "Visualizing data through curvilinear representations of matrices," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 255-270.
    16. Kohei Adachi & Nickolay T. Trendafilov, 2016. "Sparse principal component analysis subject to prespecified cardinality of loadings," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 1403-1427, December.
    17. Eric Beh & Luigi D’Ambra, 2009. "Some Interpretative Tools for Non-Symmetrical Correspondence Analysis," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 26(1), pages 55-76, April.
    18. Karavolias, Joanna & House, Lisa A., "undated". "Impact of Producer and Use of Biotechnology on Consumer Willingness to Pay: Discounts Required for Oranges Produced with Biotechnology," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259981, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Pilar García Gómez & Ángel López Nicolás, 2005. "Socio-economic inequalities in health in Catalonia," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 175(4), pages 103-121, december.
    20. Michael Greenacre, 2011. "A Simple Permutation Test for Clusteredness," Working Papers 555, Barcelona School of Economics.

    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:ohswps:28315. 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://edirc.repec.org/data/daohsus.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.