IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ualbpr/24060.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Genetically Modified Foods: Consumers' Attitudes And Labeling Issues

Author

Listed:
  • Veeman, Michele M.
  • Adamowicz, Wiktor L.

Abstract

Consumers' attitudes to genetically modified (GM) food ingredients and their reactions to and preferences for labeling of GM food are topical issues for Canadian food policy and are the subjects of this study. This project included several components. The first of these was an assessment of public attitudes to biotechnology and to GM food based on evidence from polls and other studies. These show increasing awareness and some increase in wariness of GM food, in Canada and elsewhere. In the second component of the project, analysis of survey data on Alberta consumers' preferences for different policy approaches to GM food was undertaken. This analysis indicates a preference by Alberta residents for GM food policy to emphasize the provision of more information to consumers, through labeling, over a policy that would provide for more rigorous inspection; even so, more inspection was favored by many respondents. More regulation that would restrict biotechnology was the least favoured of the three options that were presented to Alberta respondents. In a third component of the project, a case study on individual's attitudes to and preferences for GM ingredients in two selected food items (one of which was a nacho chip and the other of which was bread) was pursued through focus groups that were conducted in Edmonton, Alberta in 2002. This indicated highly varied attitudes and responses to GM food in general and to the selected products in particular. Attitudes to and preferences for environmental and health benefits that might be introduced through biotechnology were explored in these groups. Some 50 percent of focus group respondents indicated a willingness to buy the identified GM products, at a price discount. The fourth and final component of the project involved two sections of a Canada- wide survey, conducted in early 2003. These components queried respondents' assessments of the importance of various food safety risks and various environmental issues associated with food and agriculture, as well as attitudes to labelling policy. Overall, Canadians tended to see agricultural biotechnology as more of an environmental risk than a food risk and numbers of other food and environmental issues were seen to be more risky by many respondents. However the use of genetic modification/engineering in food production was seen as a very high risk issue by about one-fifth of respondents. Respondents also indicated a strong desire for public involvement in biotechnology policy, voted strongly for mandatory labeling and disagreed that labeling is not needed if the product's quality remains unchanged. An appreciable majority of respondents expressed a degree of skepticism concerning the use of voluntary labeling. The findings of this project have served as a basis for subsequent more extensive and detailed assessment of Canadian consumers' risk preferences and trade-offs in the context of specific product GM labelling policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Veeman, Michele M. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2004. "Genetically Modified Foods: Consumers' Attitudes And Labeling Issues," Project Report Series 24060, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ualbpr:24060
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.24060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/24060/files/pr040001.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.24060?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. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1990. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Correction," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(1), pages 189-190, February.
    2. Lee, Lung-Fei, 1992. "On Efficiency of Methods of Simulated Moments and Maximum Simulated Likelihood Estimation of Discrete Response Models," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(4), pages 518-552, December.
    3. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    4. Lusk, Jayson L. & Fox, John A., 2002. "Consumer Demand For Mandatory Labeling Of Beef From Cattle Administered Growth Hormones Or Fed Genetically Modified Corn," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(01), pages 1-12, April.
    5. 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, July.
    6. David F. Layton & Gardner Brown, 2000. "Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(4), pages 616-624, November.
    7. Tegene, Abebayehu & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C. & Shogren, Jason F., 2003. "The Effects Of Information On Consumer Demand For Biotech Foods: Evidence From Experimental Auctions," Technical Bulletins 33577, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. Lin, Chung-Tung Jordan, 1995. "Demographic And Socioeconomic Influences On The Importance Of Food Safety In Food Shopping," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 1-9, October.
    9. Veeman, Michele M., 2001. "Consumers, Public Perceptions And Biotechnology," Staff Paper Series 24079, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    10. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    11. Huffman, Wallace E. & Shogren, Jason F. & Rousu, Matthew C. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2001. "The Value To Consumers Of Gm Food Labels In A Market With Asymmetric Information: Evidence From Experimental Auctions," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20553, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. 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.
    13. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    14. Lin, Chung-Tung Jordan, 1995. "Demographic and Socioeconomic Influences on the Importance of Food Safety in Food Shopping," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 190-198, October.
    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. Bodo Steiner & Fei Gao & Jim Unterschultz, 2010. "Alberta Consumers’ Valuation of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Red Meat Attributes: A Choice Experimental Approach," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(2), pages 171-189, June.
    2. Rodríguez-Entrena, Macario & Salazar-Ordóñez, Melania & Sayadi, Samir, 2013. "Applying partial least squares to model genetically modified food purchase intentions in southern Spain consumers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 44-53.
    3. Kubitzki, S. & Henseleit, M. & Herrmann, R., 2010. "Informationsgewinn und Markttransparenz durch Labeling? – Eine kritische Würdigung der neuen Lebensmittelkennzeichnung „Ohne Gentechnik“," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 45, March.

    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. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    2. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    3. Chhandita Das & Christopher M. Anderson & Stephen K. Swallow, 2009. "Estimating Distributions of Willingness to Pay for Heterogeneous Populations," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(3), pages 593-610, January.
    4. repec:rza:wpaper:249 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2012. "Does one size fit all? Heterogeneity in the valuation of community forestry programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 85-94.
    6. 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, March.
    7. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
    8. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    9. Seul-Ye Lim & Hyo-Jin Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2017. "South Korean Household’s Willingness to Pay for Replacing Coal with Natural Gas? A View from CO 2 Emissions Reduction," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-9, December.
    10. Corsi, Alessandro & Frontuto, Vito & Novelli, Silvia, 2022. "Relational goods and direct purchase from farmers: estimating the value of the relationship between consumers and producers," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 25(2), March.
    11. Zhenshan Chen & Stephen K. Swallow & Ian T. Yue, 2020. "Non-participation and Heterogeneity in Stated: A Double Hurdle Latent Class Approach for Climate Change Adaptation Plans and Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 35-67, September.
    12. Siikamki, Juha, 2001. "Valuing Benefits of Finnish Forest Biodiversity Conservation: Fixed and Random Parameter Logit Models for Pooled Contingent Valuation and Contingent Rating/Ranking Survey Data," Western Region Archives 321696, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    13. Hu, Wuyang, 2008. "Modeling Yeah- and Nay-Saying to Alternatives in Conjoint Experiments," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6346, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Scarpa, Riccardo & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George & Buongiorno, Joseph, 2000. "Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-250, May.
    15. Ricardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2006. "Utility in WTP Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," Working Papers in Economics 06/15, University of Waikato.
    16. Hyo-Jin Kim & Seul-Ye Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2017. "Are Korean Households Willing to Pay a Premium for Induction Cooktops over Gas Stoves?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-10, August.
    17. Britwum, Kofi & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2019. "Consumer willingness to pay for food safety interventions: The role of message framing and issue involvement," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Veeman, Michele M. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Hu, Wuyang, 2005. "Risk Perceptions, Social Interactions and the Influence of Information on Social Attitudes to Agricultural Biotechnology," Project Report Series 24052, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    19. 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.
    20. Lim, Seul-Ye & Kim, Hyo-Jin & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2017. "Public's willingness to pay a premium for bioethanol in Korea: A contingent valuation study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 20-27.
    21. Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.

    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:ags:ualbpr:24060. 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/drualca.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.