IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Open Mind Wants More: Opinion Strength and the Desire for Genetically Modified Food Labeling Policy


  • Sonja Radas
  • Mario Teisl

    () (The Institute of Economics, Zagreb)


There are two opposing viewpoints regarding consumers' acceptance of genetically modified (GM) foods and their desire for the labeling of these foods. Some suggest consumers are unconcerned and do not desire any GM labeling while others indicate the opposite. The mixed results may be because consumers are capable of making finer distinctions than surveys have called for, and appear to have evaluation schemes that are quite sensitive to information about the potential benefits and risks associated with GM foods. Using a mix of statistical approaches, we find consumers are quite different and nuanced in terms of their preferences for GM labeling policy. Consumers with less-defined views require mandatory labeling of the most stringent type and require the most amount of information to be placed on labels. In contrast, consumers with stronger viewpoints (either pro- or con-GM) are more relaxed in their labeling and information requirements.

Suggested Citation

  • Sonja Radas & Mario Teisl, 2007. "An Open Mind Wants More: Opinion Strength and the Desire for Genetically Modified Food Labeling Policy," Working Papers 0702, The Institute of Economics, Zagreb.
  • Handle: RePEc:iez:wpaper:0702

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no


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

    Cited by:

    1. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2011. "On mandatory labeling of animal welfare attributes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 430-437, June.
    2. Jerome Vanclay & John Shortiss & Scott Aulsebrook & Angus Gillespie & Ben Howell & Rhoda Johanni & Michael Maher & Kelly Mitchell & Mark Stewart & Jim Yates, 2011. "Customer Response to Carbon Labelling of Groceries," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 153-160, March.

    More about this item


    labeling policy; cluster analysis;

    JEL classification:

    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy
    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:iez:wpaper:0702. 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: (Doris Banicevic). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    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.