Product attributes and consumer acceptance of nutritionally enhanced genetically modified foods

Abstract

Using data from a national survey, this study analyses US consumers’ acceptance of genetically modified foods that provide additional nutritional benefits. Using an ordered probit model, this study examines the relation between the willingness to consume genetically modified foods and consumers’ economic, demographic and value attributes. Empirical results suggest that despite having some reservations, especially about the use of biotechnology in animals, American consumers are not decidedly opposed to food biotechnology. Consumers’ economic and demographic variables are only weakly related to their acceptance of food biotechnology, especially when technology involves plant‐to‐plant DNA transfer. However, public trust and confidence in various private and public institutions are significantly related to their acceptance of food biotechnology. Overall, consumer acceptance of bioengineered foods is driven primarily by public perceptions of risks, benefits and safety of these food products.

Attitudes, values, and socio‐demographic characteristics that predict acceptance of genetic engineering and applications of new technology in Australia

“…Such responses have not been successful, however [8,27]. Experimental findings have not supported the use of information-based persuasion attempts [28] or free access to both pro-and anti-GM arguments [29] as means of increasing acceptance of GM; nor are there grounds to believe that support for GM, for example, increases reliably with education level or knowledge of science [7,13,30]. Apparent community rejection of the official line on GM has, in turn, been attributed to a lack of trust in organizations or individuals involved in GM research or products [13,28,31], although recent analyses depict trust as a component rather than a determinant of attitudes [27,[32][33][34].…”

“…Women have shown greater levels of concerns in relation to novel food processing [37] and been found to be less willing than men to consume GM food [30].…”

Global Takeoff of New Products: Culture, Wealth, or Vanishing Differences?

“…Religiosity or religiousness has been measured in prior literature through the use of variables such as church attendance, frequency of prayer, belief in God, belief in the authority of the Bible, and self-appraised level of religiousness (Hossain and Onyango 2004, Lindridge 2005, Wilkes et al 1986). Because we require a measure that is suitable across countries, some of whom have many different religions, we construct a unified measure of religiosity using two items which we obtain from the World Values Survey.…”

“…Power distance Extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions accept unequal distribution of power (Hofstede 2001, Carl et al 2004 Better communication and lower barriers between segments may encourage the faster adoption of new products (Carl et al 2004) H2: New products take off faster in countries that are low on power distance than in countries that are high on power distance Religiosity Extent to which individuals rely on a faith-based, nonscientific body of knowledge to govern their daily lifestyle and practices Emphasize on spiritual benefits over material possessions and conflict between mainstream religious beliefs and acceptance of scientific principles, experimentation, and learning may slow adoption of new products (Miller andHoffmann 1995, Hossain andOnyango 2004) H3: New products take off slower in countries that are high on religiosity than in countries that are low on religiosity Greater wealth enables faster adoption of new products early on when prices and risks are high Tellis 1998, Rogers 1995) H5A: New products take off faster in countries with a higher level of economic development than in countries with a lower level of economic development…”

Comparing Open‐Ended Choice Experiments and Experimental Auctions: An Application to Golden Rice

“…Zimmermann and Qaim (2004) point out that quality improvements generally increase consumer demand, but this presupposes that consumers recognize and appreciate the quality improvement. Hossain and Onyango (2004) find that consumers' acceptance of GM foods is driven primarily by their perceptions of risk, benefit, and safety of the technology. Bredahl (2001) finds that consumers do not distinguish between risks and benefits of the technology itself and risks and benefits of the resulting products.…”