IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Risk Perceptions, Social Interactions and the Influence of Information on Social Attitudes to Agricultural Biotechnology

Listed author(s):
  • Veeman, Michele M.
  • Adamowicz, Wiktor L.
  • Hu, Wuyang

We assess Canadian’s risk perceptions for genetically modified (GM) food and probe influences of socio-economic, demographic and other factors impinging on these perceptions. An internet-administered questionnaire with two stated choice split-sample experiments that approximate market choices of individual grocery shoppers is applied to elicit purchase behavior from 882 respondents across Canada. Data are collected to assess the influence on respondents’ choices for a specific food product (bread) of 1) product information which varies in content and by source and 2) information provided through labeling. These data also enable: a) analysis of trade-offs made by consumers between possible risks associated with GM ingredients and potential health or environment benefits in food and b) assessment of influences on respondents’ search for/access of product information. We rigorously document the extent and type of variation in Canadian consumers’ attitudes and risk perceptions for a selected GM food. This is pursued in analysis of experiment 1) data using a latent class model to analyze 445 consumers’ choices for bread products. We identify four distinct groups of Canadian consumers: 51% (value seekers) valued additional health or environmental benefits and were indifferent to GM content; traditional consumers (14 %) preferred their normally-purchased food; fringe consumers (4%) valued the health attribute and could defer consumption. Another 32 % (anti-GM) strongly opposed GM ingredients in food irrespective of introduced attributes. Thus there is a dichotomy in Canadian attitudes to GM content in food: a small majority of the sample (55 per cent) perceive little or no risk from GM food, but this is strongly opposed by 46% of respondents. Differences in gender, number of children in the household, education, and age are associated with the likelihood of segment membership. We also report on the search for information on characteristics of the GM food by a sample of 445 respondents with opportunity for voluntary access to related information through hyperlinks in the survey. Slightly less than half actually sought such information. Gender, employment status, rural or urban residency and the number of children in the household all affected the probability that respondents would access information. A further research component examines product choices made in the context of two common GM labeling policies: mandatory and voluntary labeling. We find these two types of strategies to have distinctive impacts on consumers and on measures of social welfare. Knowledge of these may help policy makers to make more informed analyses of the alternative labeling policies. Specific findings also provide base-line measures of Canadians’ attitudes to risks of GM technology in the context of food and environmental risks, as well as documenting the importance of context influences and reference points on consumers’ preferences for GM food. We also develop methodological improvements for accurately estimating the value of information on a negative attribute. The project built upon initial findings from a previous AARI project (#AARI Project #2000D037) and is complemented by research supported through a Genome Prairie GE3LS (Genetics, Ethics, Environment, Economics, Law and Society) project: “Commercialization and society: its policy and strategic implications.”

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology in its series Project Report Series with number 24052.

in new window

Date of creation: 2005
Handle: RePEc:ags:ualbpr:24052
Contact details of provider: Postal:
515 General Services Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AlbertaT6G 2H1

Phone: (780) 492-4225
Fax: (780) 492-0268
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. 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(03), December.
  2. 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.
  3. Punj, Girish N & Staelin, Richard, 1983. " A Model of Consumer Information Search Behavior for New Automobiles," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 366-380, March.
  4. Matthew C. Rousu & Wallace E. Huffman & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2004. "Estimating the Public Value of Conflicting Information: The Case of Genetically Modified Foods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(1), pages 125-135.
  5. Wallace E. Huffman & Matthew Rousu & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2004. "Who Do Consumers Trust for Information: The Case of Genetically Modified Foods?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1222-1229.
  6. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
  7. P. A. Kuperis & M. M. Veeman & W. L. Adamowicz, 1999. "Consumer's Responses to the Potential Use of Bovine Somatotrophin in Canadian Dairy Production," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 47(2), pages 151-163, 07.
  8. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
  9. Sallie James & Michael Burton, 2003. "Consumer preferences for GM food and other attributes of the food system," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(4), pages 501-518, December.
  10. Veeman, Michele M., 2001. "Consumers, Public Perceptions And Biotechnology," Staff Paper Series 24079, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
  11. Wuyang Hu & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Labelling Genetically Modified Food: Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Value of Information," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(1), pages 83-102, 03.
  12. Jutta Roosen & Jayson L. Lusk & John A. Fox, 2003. "Consumer demand for and attitudes toward alternative beef labeling strategies in France, Germany, and the UK," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 77-90.
  13. Diane McCann-Hiltz & Michele Veeman & Wiktor Adamowicz & Wuyang Hu, 2004. "Agricultural Biotechnology: A Comparison of Consumers' Preferences for Selected Policy Options," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 52(3), pages 333-350, November.
  14. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
  15. Urbany, Joel E, 1986. " An Experimental Examination of the Economics of Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 257-271, September.
  16. Charles Noussair & StÈphane Robin & Bernard Ruffieux, 2004. "Do Consumers Really Refuse To Buy Genetically Modified Food?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(492), pages 102-120, 01.
  17. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Veeman, Michele M. & White, Elspeth, 2004. "Financial And Health Costs Of Pesticide Use In Growing Conventional And Genetically Modified Potatoes In Prince Edward Island," NAREA-CAES Conference, June 20-23, 2004, Halifax, Nova Scotia 34199, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society;Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association.
  18. Maute, Manfred F. & Forrester, William Jr., 1991. "The effect of attribute qualities on consumer decision making: a causal model of external information search," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 643-666, December.
  19. Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 296-312, March.
  20. Srinivasan, Narasimhan & Ratchford, Brian T, 1991. " An Empirical Test of a Model of External Search for Automobiles," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 233-242, September.
  21. George J. Stigler, 1961. "The Economics of Information," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 69, pages 213-213.
  22. Alan Schwartz & Louis L. Wilde, 1985. "Product Quality and Imperfect Information," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 52(2), pages 251-262.
  23. Vanwechel, Tamara & Wachenheim, Cheryl J. & Schuck, Eric C. & Lambert, David K., 2003. "Consumer Valuation Of Genetically Modified Foods And The Effect Of Information Bias," Agribusiness & Applied Economics Report 23620, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ualbpr:24052. 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: (AgEcon Search)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.