Genetically modified food and consumer risk responsibility: The effect of regulatory design and risk type on cognitive information processing

Abstract

The use of agro-biotechnology has raised consumer concerns about environmental, health, socio-economic and ethical risks. This study examines how regulatory policies regarding genetically modified (GM) food production affect consumers’ cognitive information processing, in terms of perceived risk, self-control, and risk responsibility. There is further analysis of whether the effect of policy design is moderated by risk type. Data was generated in a field experiment (n = 547), including four different policy scenario treatments (banned, research and development, import, and full commercialization). The results reveal that policy scenarios where GM food is available on the market are associated with higher levels of perceived risk and lower levels of self-control compared with policies where GM food is banned. There was no evidence of policy scenarios affecting consumer willingness to assign personal risk responsibility. However, among participants who indicated health risks as their main concern, there was an effect from the policy scenario on self-risk responsibility as mediated through perceived risk and self-control. The results suggest that health-conscious consumers tend to attribute less responsibility to themselves in situations where a genetically modified product was commercialized. These findings indicate a need to clarify guideline recommendations for health-related risks associated with foods derived from biotechnology.

Modeling adoption of genetically modified foods: Application of Rough Set Theory and Flow Network Graph

“…Consequently, we point to consumers' concerns, occupational status, and consumer autonomy as other important aspects of consumer decision-making toward GMFs. Furthermore, this study adds to the current belief among scholars (Chen et al, 2019;Pakseresht et al, 2021) that the "food-orientation" function is an important direction for future research and it would be beneficial to identify influential factors regarding GMFs acceptance.…”

“…The influence of consumers' concerns on the adoption of GMFs has been studied in prior research to some extent. For example, findings by scholars (Hakim et al, 2020;Davies et al, 2021;Pakseresht et al, 2021;Zheng and Wang, 2021) reveal that consumers' concerns positively affect consumer adoption of GMFS. Additionally, findings from Frewer et al (2011) confirm that those foods characterized as being "bioactive" boost to ; x = means that consumer has master degree; x = means that consumer is student; x = means that consumer's perception of CSR is low; x = means that consumer's perception of CSR is medium; x = means that consumer's concerns about GMFs is high; x = means that consumer's promotion focus toward GMFs is high; x = means that consumer's prevention focus toward GMFs is high; x = means that consumer's autonomy to choose GMFs is high; x = means that consumer's competence to choose GMFs is high; x = means that consumer's relatedness to choose GMFs is high; d = means that consumer's intention to use GMFs is low.…”