MATEI, Daniela (author), BRUMĂ, Ioan Sebastian (author), TANASĂ, Lucian (author), and Senior Researcher, Ph.D., Romanian Academy -Iaşi Branch, Gh. Zane"Institute of Economic and Social Research
Researcher, Ph.D., Romanian Academy -Iaşi Branch, Gh. Zane"Institute of Economic and Social Research
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2016
Published:
Romania: Apollonia University of Iasi, Communication Sciences Faculty
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 164 Document Number: D08309
10 pages, Biotechnology use in food production has been a polarizing topic that has encountered resistance from some consumers. The discovery of genome editing biotechnology, in which no foreign genetic material is introduced into the host organism while making accurate and efficient changes in genomes, has the potential to revolutionize food biotechnology in a more socially acceptable and less polarizing fashion. The success and adoption of gene-edited foods, however, ultimately depends on consumer acceptance. This study reports the results of a geographically disperse Chinese consumer acceptance study (n = 835) in which individuals evaluated rice and pork products that were bio-engineered to address two significant hazards that have recently garnered international attention: cadmium contamination in rice and African swine fever. We explore the role that food technology neophobia has on consumer acceptance and assess how information on the differences between transgenic and gene editing technologies affects consumer preferences. While averse to the use of biotechnology in food products, consumers were considerably more accepting of products that have undergone genome editing rather than transgenic modification. We find differential impacts of information provision on preferences between pork and rice products and on preferences for product provenance. Our analysis indicates that a reduction in consumers’ fear of novel food technologies can substantially increase consumer valuation and market acceptance of bioengineered food products and reinforces the need to consider attitudes in measuring acceptance of novel food products.
29 pages., Findings of a survey among consumers indicated that consumers recognize different kinds of functional foods, are willing to pay a premium for their purchase, and perceive possible health value. However, they appeared anxious about the health benefits these foods communicate in their labels.
Chakrabarti, Anwesha (author), Campbell, Benjamin L. (author), Shonkwiler, Vanessa (author), and Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut
Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development, University of Georgia
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2019-03
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 16 Document Number: D10441
16 pages., As consumer demand for food labeling becomes increasingly important, producers and retailers
can include various labeling to attract new customers. This study investigates Connecticut
consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for mushrooms marketed with various labels using
a latent class approach to identify classes within the market. Results reveal three market segments
(price/GMO-label, locally/organically grown, and traditional mushroom varieties). Overall, only
a third of consumers valued the “locally grown” or “organic” labels, so charging a premium for
these labels might alienate a majority of consumers. Finally, GMO labeled mushrooms are
discounted, but the non-GMO label receives little value.
9 pages., Via online journal., Food labels legislated by the U.S. government have been designed to provide information to consumers. It has been asserted that the simple disclosures “produced using genetic engineering” on newly legislated U.S. food labels will send a signal that influences individual preferences rather than providing information. Vermont is the only US state to have experienced mandatory labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) via simple disclosures. Using a representative sample of adults who experienced Vermont’s mandatory GE labeling policy, we examined whether GE labels were seen by consumers and whether the labels provided information or influenced preferences. Nearly one-third of respondents reported seeing a label. Higher income, younger consumers who search for information about GE were more likely to report seeing a label. We also estimated whether labels served as information cues that helped reveal consumer preferences through purchases, or whether labels served as a signal that influenced preferences and purchases. For 50.5% of consumers who saw a label, the label served as an information cue that revealed their preferences. For 13% of those who saw the label, the label influenced preferences and behavior. Overall, for 4% of the total sample, simple GE disclosures influenced preferences. For a slight majority of consumers who used a GE label, simple disclosures were an information signal and not a preference signal. Searching for GE information, classifying as female, older age and opposing GE in food production significantly increased the probability that GE labels served as an information source. Providing such disclosures to consumers may be the least complex and most transparent option for mandatory GE labeling.
