Abstracts
This paper analyzes the awareness and attitudes of the Chinese public toward genetically modified (GM) foods with different types of labeling and evaluates the impact of public confidence in the government management of GM food labeling has on their attitude. From 2015 to 2016, we conducted a series of surveys to collect data from 1730 respondents, which included consumers, farmers, media, and local agricultural officials in agricultural departments. The results show ~60% of the Chinese public do not know that they usually consume or purchase GM products or products containing GM ingredients. Nearly 80% of the Chinese public are accepting foods labeled as not containing GM ingredients, 57% are accepting foods without labeling, and ~40% are accepting GM-labeled foods. The respondents with a lack of confidence in the government are less likely to embrace GM foods. Those that are more aware of GM products are more likely to accept GM labeled foods. The group having the most positive attitude toward GM-labeled foods is the media, followed by agricultural officials, while the group having the most negative attitude toward GM labeled foods is farmers. Our findings provide an empirical basis to inform GM food labeling policy discussions and possible revisions, which may promote the development of GM foods in China.
Most soybean oil consumed in China is made from imported genetically modified (GM) soybeans, while livestock are fed imported GM soy meal and GM corn. However, no GM food crops are allowed to be planted in China at present. That puts China in a confusing situation where GM foods can be eaten but cannot be grown. Many studies suggest that it is partially due to Chinese consumers’ and government officials’ opposition to GM technology. This is the first study that examines different stakeholders’ and journalists’ attitudes toward the commercialization of GM non-food crops and GM food crops and investigates the attitude gaps with respect to these crops. From 2015 to 2016, surveys were conducted face-to-face and by email with 1730 respondents, including 1460 consumers, 54 farmers, 70 journalists, and 146 agricultural officials. We find that nearly 60% of respondents are supportive of the commercialization of GM non-food crops, but less than 30% of respondents support the commercialization of GM food crops. Around 50% of respondents have no confidence in the government’s management of biotechnology, while only 17% have confidence in the government’s management. Those with lack of confidence in the government’s management are less likely to support the commercialization of GM crops.
China’s pesticide industry has played an important role in the growth of agricultural productivity in both China and worldwide, but its development is hampered by production inefficiency and the lack of innovation of active ingredients. To improve innovation and the productivity of the pesticide industry, the Chinese government has implemented a series of policies to stimulate private research and development (R&D) and firm innovation. Using the firm-level panel data of the Annual Survey of Industrial Firms (ASIF) collected by the National Bureau of Statistics in 2001–2007, this study examines the linkages between R&D investment, innovation, and productivity with a focus on the role of government policies. The results show that pesticide firms with a higher intensity of R&D investment were associated with a higher patent intensity, and more innovated firms were associated with a higher productivity. Public research, intellectual property enforcement, production subsidy, foreign direct investment (FDI), and being export oriented were positively associated with the innovation and productivity of pesticide firms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.