IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gbl/wpaper/200901.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the impact of trust on consumer willingness to purchase GM food : evidence from a European survey

Author

Listed:
  • Rousselière, D.
  • Rousselière, S.

Abstract

Many researches try to explain consumer’s acceptance and opposition to GMO with focus on social factors. With a causal or an associationist theoretical model, different authors put forward the notion of trust as determining to define the position of individuals. Because as in the present case we could fear the simultaneity of decisions (trust, risk perceptions and acceptability), we have to take into account this endogeneity risk. With data from a European Survey (Eurobarometer 64.3 2005), multivariate probit was used to specify the importance of trust in the various organizations involved in the public debate on the acceptance of genetically modified foods on behalf of the “ordinary citizens”. We discuss this portrait of European citizens that shows them to be increasingly optimistic about biotechnology, while being divided on this question.

Suggested Citation

  • Rousselière, D. & Rousselière, S., 2009. "On the impact of trust on consumer willingness to purchase GM food : evidence from a European survey," Working Papers 200901, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
  • Handle: RePEc:gbl:wpaper:200901
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://gael.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/sites/gael/files/doc-recherche/WP/A2009/gael2009-01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lorenzo Cappellari & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2006. "Calculation of multivariate normal probabilities by simulation, with applications to maximum simulated likelihood estimation," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 6(2), pages 156-189, June.
    2. Maurizio Canavari & Rodolfo Nayga, 2009. "On consumers' willingness to purchase nutritionally enhanced genetically modified food," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(1), pages 125-137.
    3. Fiona Steele & Anna Vignoles & Andrew Jenkins, 2007. "The effect of school resources on pupil attainment: a multilevel simultaneous equation modelling approach," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 170(3), pages 801-824.
    4. Boisvert, Valerie & Vivien, Franck-Dominique, 2005. "The convention on biological diversity: A conventionalist approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 461-472, June.
    5. Michael Burton & Dan Rigby & Trevor Young, 2001. "Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 28(4), pages 479-498, December.
    6. Wallace E. Huffman, 2003. "Consumers' Acceptance of (and Resistance to) Genetically Modified Foods in High-Income Countries: Effects of Labels and Information in an Uncertain Environment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1112-1118.
    7. Olivier Godard, 1998. "Sustainable Development And The Process Of Justifying Choices In A Controversial Universe," Post-Print hal-00622855, HAL.
    8. James O. Bukenya & Natasha R. Wright, 2007. "Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified tomatoes," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(1), pages 117-130.
    9. 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.
    10. Cook, A. J. & Kerr, G. N. & Moore, K., 2002. "Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 557-572, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Lorenzo Cappellari & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2003. "Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 3(3), pages 278-294, September.
    13. House, Lisa & Lusk, Jayson L. & Jaeger, Sara & Traill, W. Bruce & Moore, Melissa & Valli, Carlotta & Morrow, Bert & Yee, Wallace M.S., 2004. "Objective And Subjective Knowledge: Impacts On Consumer Demand For Genetically Modified Foods In The United States And The European Union," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20125, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. 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, January.
    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. Seya, Hajime & Nakamichi, Kumiko & Yamagata, Yoshiki, 2016. "The residential parking rent price elasticity of car ownership in Japan," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 123-134.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    BIOTECHNOLOGY; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; TECHNOLOGY; EUROPEAN SURVEY DATA; GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD; MULTIVARIATE PROBIT; TRUST;

    JEL classification:

    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • L66 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Food; Beverages; Cosmetics; Tobacco

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:gbl:wpaper:200901. 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: (Agnès Vertier). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inragfr.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.