Wolf, M. McGarry (author) and Domegan, C. (author)
Format:
Book chapter
Publication Date:
2002
Published:
International
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: C21692
Notes:
Pages 25-37 in Vittorio Santaniello, Robert E. Evenson and David Zilberman (eds.), Market development for genetically modified foods. CABI Publishing, Oxon, United Kingdom. 318 pages.
Posted at: http://www.joe.org/2005august/rb3.shtml, Electronic journal., Statewide survey among food shoppers in Oregon revealed that 77% reported household purchase of organic food in the past 6 months. "Environmentally minded consumers are a potential organic market if trust is maintained."
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: C21762
Notes:
Pages 191-203 in George Baourakes (ed.), Marketing trends for organic food in the 21st Century. World Scientific Publishing Co., Pte. Ltd., Singapore. 338 pages.
Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas (author), Marks, Leonie A. (author), and Vickner, Steven S. (author)
Format:
Book chapter
Publication Date:
2004
Published:
Netherlands
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: C21742
Notes:
Pages 23-39 in Robert E.Evenson and Vittorio Santaniello (eds.), Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods. CABI Publishing, Oxon, United Kingdom. 235 pages.
Agricultural Economics (Amsterdam, Netherlands), This paper develops a model of differentiated consumers to examine the consumption effects of genetic modification (GM) under alternative labelling regimes and segregation enforcement scenarios. Analytical results show that if consumers perceive GM products as being different than their traditional counterparts, GM affects consumer welfare and, thus, consumption decisions. When the existence of market imperfections in one or more stages of the supply chain prevents the transmission of cost savings associated with the new technology to consumers, GM results in welfare losses for consumers. The analysis shows that the relative welfare ranking of the `no labelling' and `mandatory labelling' regimes depends on: (i) the level of consumer aversion to GM products; (ii) the size of marketing and segregation costs under mandatory labelling; (iii) the share of the GM product in total production; and (iv) the extent to which GM products are incorrectly labelled as non-GM products.
Heimbach, James T. (author) and Stokes, Raymond C. (author)
Format:
Research report
Publication Date:
1979-10
Published:
USA: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (Public Health Service), Food and Drug Administration, Bureau of Foods, Division of Consumer Studies, Washington, D.C.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: C22609
