Search results

This paper aims to examine consumers’ opinions and behavioral intentions toward foods labeled as containing genetically modified (GM) (transgenic) ingredients across plant and animal-based categories. In light of marketplace changes (i.e. labeling requirements), we explore behavioral measures based on labeling options.

Three studies, one online projective survey using a convenience sample of consumers and two experiments conducted with Amazon mTurk adult US participants, are included.

Consumers have negative associations with GM products vs non-GM and are more likely to purchase unlabeled GM products. GM products may offer positive economic, societal and environmental benefits. However, the need for labeling overshadows these benefits and presence of GM labeling increased avoidance. Furthermore, changes in product opinion mediate consumers’ purchase intention and willingness to pay.

GM labeling negatively influences consumers’ opinions and behavioral intentions. This is important for legislators and marketers concerned with counter-labeling effects (e.g. Non-GMO Project Verified).

Debates on efficacy of labeling, inclusion disclosure of ingredients, short-term risks and long-term implications are ongoing globally. Consumer reception and purchase intention can only be changed through governmental and corporate transparency.

Widespread misinformation about GM foods, presence in our food supply, impact on health, economy, environment and the marketplace still exists. The findings reflect consumers’ responses to changes proposed by the 2016 National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard legislation.

With the paucity of research on consumer response to the release of a GM animal product into the food supply, this work breaks new ground as the first to examine the impact of disclosure of GM animal-based food type.

This study employs a focus group methodology to examine the factors affecting the acceptability of gene technology in food production, using genetically modified (GM) farmed salmon as a focus for the research. The results identified a small group of “triers” ‐ willing to try any GM food product, and a small group of “refusers” ‐ rejecting the technology and derivative products. For the middle majority of “undecided” consumers, the decision to accept or reject GM food products was based on a number of interrelated factors, associated with the food product and the benefits conferred.

The purpose of this paper is to measure Canadian attitudes towards genetic engineering in food, for both plant-based and livestock, assess trust towards food safety and overall regulatory system in Canada.

This exploratory study is derived from an inductive, quantitative analysis of primary data obtained from an online survey of adults, aged 18 and over, living in Canada for at least 12 months. An online survey was widely distributed in both French and English. Data were collected from 1,049 respondents. The sample was randomized using regional and demographic benchmarks for an accurate representation of the Canadian population. The completion rate of the survey was 94 per cent. Based on the sampling design, the margin of error is 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

Consumers misunderstand the nature of genetic engineering or do not appreciate its prevalence in agrifood or both. In total, 44 per cent of Canadians are confused about health effects of genetically engineered foods and ingredients. In total, 40 per cent believe that there is not significant testing on genetically engineered food to protect consumers. In total, 52 per cent are uncertain on their consumption of genetically engineered food, despite its prominence in the agrifood marketplace. Scientific literacy of respondents on genetic engineering is low. While Canadians are divided on purchasing genetically engineered animal-based products, 55 per cent indicated price is the most important factor when purchasing food.

More research is required to better appreciate the sociological and economic dimensions of incorporating GM foods into our lives. Most importantly, longitudinal risks ought to be better understood for both plant- and animal-based GM foods and ingredients. Additional research is needed to quantify the benefits and risks of GM crops livestock, so business practices and policies approach market expectations. Significantly, improving consumers’ scientific literacy on GM foods will reduce confusion and allow for more informed purchasing decisions. Indeed, a proactive research agenda on biotechnologies can accommodate well-informed discussions with public agencies, food businesses and consumers.

This exploratory study is one of the first to compare consumers’ perceptions of genetic engineering related to animal and plant-based species in Canada since the addition of genetically modified salmon to the marketplace.

Food products developed using genetically modified (GM) animals may soon be introduced in Europe and beyond. Their successful commercialisation depends on consumer acceptance, and so it is timely to review the existing literature in this respect. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

A systematic review identified 42 English language peer reviewed papers assessing public opinion of GM animals associated with food production. Thematic analysis was applied to the results to identify and explain consumer attitudes.

Publication peaked in 2004, and declined thereafter. European consumers were less accepting of GM animal technology than the US and Asian consumers, although the latter reported more ethical concern. Risk and benefit perceptions, ethical concerns (e.g. related to animal welfare) may explain negative consumer attitudes towards animals in food production.

There is a lack of data on consumer attitudes to GM animals applied to food production, in particular in relation to consumers in emerging economies and developing countries. This is problematic as applications of GM animal products are about to enter the market.

There is a need to track changes in public opinion as GM food production animals are further developed. The introduction and commercialisation of applications with specific characteristics may further shape consumer attitudes.

Methods need to be developed to involve consumers and other stakeholders in shaping future applications of agri-food applications of GM animals.

The review collates existing quantitative and qualitative knowledge regarding the drivers of consumer attitudes towards GM animals used in food production using systematic review methodology.

The purpose of this paper is to examine Chinese consumers’ level of perception of genetically modified (GM) foods and the determinants of their willingness to pay (WTP) for Fad-3 GM lamb, a newly developed GM product.

Based on a randomized choice experiment involving 576 consumers in Beijing, the authors adopt a double-bounded contingent valuation method to estimate consumers’ WTP for Fad-3 GM lamb, as well as the causal impact of (randomized) product-information disclosure on it.

The econometric result indicates that the randomly disclosed product information describing details about Fad-3 GM lamb, the potential risks associated with the consumption of it, and the related governmental regulation policies raised consumers’ WTP by 6.2 yuan per Jin (or US$2/kilogram).

This paper provides new experimental evidence of the effect of product-information disclosure on consumers’ WTP for a newly developed GM food product.

Since the moment genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically modified (GM) foods first came into the market, there has been a continuous debate between those who are supporters and opponents of them. This paper aims to identify the rationale of acceptance or denial of GM foods into the market.

The Health Belief Model (HBM) successfully elucidates the consumer decision-making process for food selection. The questionnaire for this field of research consists of three parts. The first part refers to socioeconomic information, like sex, monthly income and educational level. The second part contains questions derived from the HBM. Interviewees had to use a 1-5 Likert scale for their answers, with 1 representing Total Denial, 3 for Neutral and 5 for Total Agreement. Finally, the third part consists of one question about the willingness to pay for GM foods or not.

There are significant differences between Greek consumers and consumers from other European countries – the most important one being their focus on food safety and nutritional issues – with their importance not being reduced by possible pricing discounts. Increase in the market share of GM food can occur only if special focus will be given in the implementation of promotion strategies verifying about the safety of use and increased nutritional value of them, having as a second priority, the implementation of an aggressive pricing policy towards non-GM foods.

This is an original field research, identifying the rationale of the food selection in the Greek market towards GM foods.

The aim of this research is, first, to explore consumer beliefs, attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified (GM) food and second, based on this exploration, to develop a hypothetical model which can explain and predict consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to GM food. For this twofold purpose, qualitative research and a review of relevant, mainly European, literature are combined. The qualitative research comprises focus group discussions with consumers and in‐depth interviews with representatives of interested parties. The developed model suggests differences between premium branded and generic GM food products regarding the formation of attitudes and purchase intentions.

Fish is considered a healthy and pure food. However, modern aquaculture introduced a range of potentially controversial issues, which may impact public perceptions. The purpose of this paper is to compare consumer perceptions of the production and consumption of wild and farmed fish in Europe.

In total, 28 focus groups were conducted in the capitals of seven European countries: France, Italy, Germany, Greece, Norway, Spain and the UK, between January‐March 2009. Data were analyzed with the qualitative software Atlas/ti.

Focus group discussions centre on a broad range of themes: economic risks and benefits, environmental concerns, human health issues, trust and nature. Europeans weigh up the scientific risks and benefits of farmed versus wild fish. However, when considering non‐scientific concerns, such as trust and nature, consumers prefer wild to farmed fish. Respondents have less trust in the production and consumption of farmed fish than in their wild counterparts, as the former are perceived as unnatural and unfamiliar.

Results have implications for the development of public communication strategies. The predicted growth of aquaculture highlights the importance of communicating the risks and benefits of farmed fish and fish farming effectively. The authors' findings show that a communication needs to incorporate moral and ethical risk dimensions, as these are the distinguishing areas leading to consumer preference of wild over farmed fish.

Aims to address the important but little researched question of why so many firms fail and so few succeed in their pursuit of opportunities.

By reporting investment behaviour and performance among firms in the turbulent seafood industry, it was possible to raise important questions that guide the analysis of why some firms succeed while many fail in pursuing opportunities. Based on in‐depth interviews with top managers, the thinking and behaviour of one successful firm are analysed and compared with other less successful firms in the filleting branch of the seafood industry.

Shows with that the opportunity‐seeking behaviour of unsuccessful firms is influenced by over‐optimism, the success of other firms, and pressure to follow the “herd”. But also that the success of one firm addressed specifically is based on deep‐seated knowledge expressed as a simple rule that cuts through the various influences and guides its pursuit of opportunities.

The study focuses on a single industry and is limited to technology investments in manufacturing firms. An important implication is that, in turbulent environments, salient and positive information may easily overshadow the actual risk in pursuing apparently clear‐cut opportunities. This implies that opportunities and their associated threat(s) should be scrutinized carefully.

Provides insights into the under‐researched question of why so many firms fail and so few succeed in their pursuit of opportunities.