Search results

This study aimed to investigate the impact of information about traceability and new detection methods for identifying genetically‐modified organisms in food, on consumer attitudes towards genetically‐modified food and consumer trust in regulators in Italy, Norway and England. It further aimed to investigate public preferences for labelling of genetically‐modified foods in these three countries.

A questionnaire was designed to investigate public attitudes toward genetically‐modified food and trust in different information sources. Participants were recruited in Italy, Norway and England for this study. A between subjects design was used, where each participant was randomly allocated to either the experimental “information condition”, or the control “no information condition”.

Receiving information about new detection methods and traceability did not directly influence consumer attitudes towards genetically‐modified foods or trust in regulators. However, response to the development of an effective system of traceability for genetically‐modified food and ingredients throughout the food chain was positive. People's preferences for labelling of genetically‐modified food were “process‐based”, in that there was a desire for all food produced using genetic modification or containing genetically‐modified ingredients to be labelled.

An open and transparent system of labelling regarding genetically‐modified foods and ingredients, coupled with effective traceability mechanisms, is likely to provide the best basis for consumer choice regarding the consumption of genetically‐modified foods. This information will be useful for both national and international regulators, and the various sectors of the food industry. The study provides useful information about likely public reaction to new EU labelling and traceability regulations.

Some researchers argue that consumers’ lack of knowledge is an important factor increasing risk for a new product derived from emerging agricultural technology. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the potential impacts and the differential effects of subjective and objective perceptions on Chinese consumers’ preferences for the application of a novel biotechnology.

Taking transgenic technology as an example and employing data from a survey of 1,000 consumers in Jiangsu Province, the authors develop a mixed-process regression model based on Fishbein’s multiple attributes attitude model.

The results suggest that there are apparent differences between Chinese consumers’ subjective perceptions and objective perceptions concerning transgenic technology and genetically modified (GM) food, and there exists certain selective perceptions of the emerging biotechnology. Having a subjective perception concerning transgenic technology has a positive effect on consumers’ overall attitudes, whereas subjective and objective perceptions concerning GM foods have a negative effect on consumers’ overall attitudes. Self-identification generated from subjective perception occupies a dominant position in determining consumers’ attitudes.

Consumers’ attitudes regarding an agricultural product depend on their perception of the attributes of the technology used to produce such a product. This study attempts to distinguish and empirically test urban consumers’ subjective perceptions (self-assessed or perceived) and objective perceptions (obtained from a test) about transgenic technology and GM foods and the impact of these four types of perception on the consumers’ attitudes regarding the application of transgenic technology. In this paper, the authors construct a mixed-process regression model to address the possible endogeneity of the perception variables.

To analyze several complex issues which are being addressed by biotechnological research and identify possible solutions to some concrete problems.

The objectives are achieved by the use of detailed data and literature search, decision analysis, case studies and personal involvement in research conferences on this and closely related problem areas. The approach to the topic is critical and constructive based on own work and that of colleagues and other analysts.

Significant issues are waiting to be properly addressed in decision making within the field of modern biotechnology; this applies to the USA as well as Europe. However, controversies about insufficient risk assessments, inadequate risk management or ethical acceptability in different applications of biotechnology co‐exist with controversies about their needs. Technology, politics and values must be integrated. Inadequacies in decision making may be at least partly resolved by proper planning mechanisms, the use of think tanks and applied foresight analysis.

Better understanding of a more general problem, i.e. gaps in the framework in the introduction of biotechnology into the food sector must be pursued, as public reactions to this new technology and its usage will likely increase, as will fears associated with it. New ideas are needed. Future work must identify ways and means for assessment and evaluation of “think tanks” and their proper use if these are to be applied.

This paper will provide a very useful source of information on a complex and increasingly important subject for a target audience consisting of: decision makers in government, biotech companies, international and national experts, researchers and graduate students. It will broaden the practical understanding in the use of biotechnology.

The paper fulfils an identified information/resources need and offers insight and practical help to organizations and individuals involved with biotechnological research, applications and decision making.

Seeks to answer the question “whose interests are being served by the laws of purporting to regulate genetically modified organisms?“ Considers the interests of the seed/chemical multinational companies, trade and investment for the countries in which these companies operate and the innovation of science and technology. Covers the European interests with regards to the single internal market and the conflict this can cause between economic and environmental/health interests. Looks at the issues from the US perspective and world trade. Continues by covering nature and the environment followed by health and safety and the rights of consumers. Assesses the regulations of the European community in order to find what protection is available.

Explores the scope for using genetically modified organisms by undertaking a survey which considered awareness (knowledge) of and policy implications for both the UK food retailer and manufacturer. Uses interviews and a postal questionnaire. Finds that the UK food retailing industry is generally well‐informed, while in contrast to the retailers, food manufacturers are, in general, poorly informed and show a lack of awareness of possible products and the implications their usage may have for their companies. Few are abreast of research and development in this area. Both retailers and food manufacturers believe that biotechnology could be applied beneficially to many aspects of food production, and are aware of the many consumer concerns and issues which need to be addressed.

European regulations for labelling the genetically modified commodity crops Round‐up Ready Soya and Bt Maize have been agreed and came into force on 1 September 1998. The regulation requires labelling of ingredients that contain genetically modified DNA or modified protein. Labelling is not required where processing has resulted in modified DNA or protein being destroyed. With the aim of providing consumer information and ensuring consumer choice, UK industry had phased in labelling of genetically modified soya and maize protein since January 1998, ahead of the EU regulation being agreed. This voluntary labelling was on the basis of guidelines drawn up by an IGD Working Group. The voluntary guidelines are very similar to the EU labelling regulation. Under the terms of the labelling regulation, further discussions are necessary in Europe to agree a list of ingredients that will not require labelling on the basis that no modified DNA or protein is present, with the aim that these ingredients do not need to be tested each time they are used. Where efforts have been taken to source the non‐genetically modified varieties, the concept of a threshold has been put forward to allow for adventitious mixing with the genetically modified crop. Further discussions are necessary to agree where the threshold should be set. It is expected that the regulation will be the basis for labelling future genetically modified products.

This study sets out to assess public awareness and perception of genetically modified (GM) foods in Trinidad, West Indies.

Respondents (113) were interviewed by structured questionnaire on demographics, awareness, perceived risks, perceived benefits, labelling, availability of GM foods and responsibility for information.

Some respondents (31.0 per cent) had not heard of GM foods. Most (64.6 per cent) respondents were willing (“very” or “somewhat”) to purchase GM foods, if considered healthier than conventionally‐produced foods or to purchase GM foods if they were safe (47.8 per cent). Food labels were important for warnings (31.4 per cent), information (30.4 per cent) and advertising (15.3 per cent). Some major perceived risks of GM foods were the toxic effects on health (41.6 per cent) and allergenic effects (28.3 per cent). Some benefits of GM were for increased productivity of crops and food availability (43.8 per cent), improved health and in disease control (27.9 per cent), economics (21 per cent), pest resistance (18.8 per cent) and improved nutrition (16 per cent). Most respondents (41.1 per cent) felt that the Government was responsible for giving information on GM foods. The public was indifferent (p>0.05) as to whether GM foods should be grown in Trinidad and Tobago. The level of education and gender were not (p>0.05) influential factors on responses.

Although the sample size was small, the findings could be used to target effective public education and bio‐safety policies.

The aim of this paper is to understand young consumers' (students') opinions about the mandatory labeling policy for genetically modified foods (GMF), and in-depth analysis of determinants of young consumer support for this policy.

Consumer survey was conducted by using a face to face interview method for a sample of 298 students. The hypotheses of this study are risk benefit perceptions and concerns about the current labeling policy likely to determine students' support for mandatory labeling of GMF. The questionnaire employed for the survey mainly focuses on the questions such as students' perceptions about GMF and opinions about current labeling policy in India. Probit model was used to analyze the determinants of young consumers' support for this policy.

The authors found that 58 per cent of the students support mandatory labeling of GMF and 39 per cent of the students are willing to pay 10-15 per cent more price for foods under this policy. Young consumers who have knowledge about GM technology are more likely to support this policy. Young consumers' dissatisfaction with the current labeling, and demand for information about food production have a positive influence on support for this policy. Those young consumers who use food labels regularly are likely to support this policy and young consumers' trust in university for truthful information about GMF has a positive influence. Whereas, students' risk benefits perception and moral concerns about GMF have an insignificant influence.

Limitations of the study are that it focused only on university students and used small sample size. Hence, further studies are recommended for overall consumer representative sample.

The findings of this study will be helpful for further research on consumers and mandatory labeling of GMF in India, and also provide some useful information for marketing of GMF in India.

To the authors' knowledge this is the first study that analyzes the determinants of young consumers' support for mandatory labeling policy for GMF in India.

Purpose – Despite the existence of hundreds of studies and several review articles on consumer preferences for genetically modified (GM) food, it remains difficult to ascertain the current state of knowledge on the topic. The purpose of this chapter is to distill some of the key findings from the body of research on consumer preferences for GM food.

Approach – In reviewing key pieces of literature, including two meta-analyses, the chapter identifies four key unresolved questions and includes discussions on how the questions might be resolved.

Findings – The chapter identifies four questions in need of additional thought and research. The questions relate to (1) why the market for GM-free food is so small in the United States despite the large estimated willingness-to-pay premiums for GM-free food, (2) why consumers remain so uninformed about biotechnology despite their seemingly high levels of aversion, (3) why economists have generally ignored the information-content of GM food policies, and (4) why it is so difficult to determine why U.S. and European consumers have seemingly reacted so differently to GM foods.

Value – This chapter should be useful to those interested in learning about the current state of knowledge on consumer preferences for GM food, and to those seeking to identify areas in need of additional research.

Genetically modified (GM) food is currently being intensely debated in Ireland and throughout Europe. Academic scientists are important players in both the public discourse and in the public policy formulation process. This paper reveals and explores the perceptions and attitudes of Irish university based academic scientists to issues regarding GM food. Most notably, 79.1 per cent of respondents stated that there should be no immediate complete ban of all GM foods and their production. The majority of respondents (70.1 per cent) believed it unlikely that within the next 20 years a substantial reduction in world hunger would occur, due to developments within modern biotechnology. Important opinions and standpoints of Irish academic scientists, which the public, industry and policy makers often look to for informed opinion on matters of a scientific content, are discussed. Results also show that the Irish Science community representatives’ pro‐GM food stance at the National Public Consultation process was justified as it reflected the majority view among respondents.