Emerging technologies applied to food products often evoke controversy about their safety and whether to label foods resulting from their use. As such, it is important to understand the factors that influence consumer desires for labeling and their willingness-to-buy (WTB) these food products. Using data from a national survey with US consumers, this study employs structural equation modeling to explore relationships between potential influences such as trust in government to manage technologies, views on restrictive government policies, perceptions about risks and benefits, and preferences for labeling on consumer's WTB genetically modified (GM) and nano-food products. Some interesting similarities and differences between GM-and nano-food emerged. For both technologies, trust in governing agencies to manage technologies did not influence labeling preferences, but it did influence attitudes about the food technologies themselves. Attitudes toward the two technologies, as measured by risk-benefit comparisons and comfort with consumption, also greatly influenced views of government restrictive policies, labeling preferences, and WTB GM or nano-food products. For differences, labeling preferences were found to influence WTB nano-foods, but not WTB GM foods. Gender and religiosity also had varying effects on WTB and labeling preferences: while gender and religiosity influenced labeling preferences and WTB for GM foods, they did not have a significant influence for nano-foods. We propose some reasons for these differences, such as greater media attention and other heuristics such as value-based concerns about ''modifying life'' with GM foods. The results of this study can help to inform policies and communication about the application of these new technologies in food products.
With the unique mimicry of the sensory experiences of meats, the plant‐based meat alternatives (PBMA) appeal to consumers outside the traditional vegetarian demographics. This study analyzes market expenditure data from 2017 to 2020 to evaluate the demand for PBMA in relation to meats. Results show that PBMA is a complement for beef and pork while a substitute for chicken, turkey, and fish. Although the current market demand for PBMA is still incomparable with meats, the growth of PBMA sales is significant. This study sheds light on marketing strategies and policies toward the future of PBMA and the fresh meat sector.
This study investigates heterogeneous consumer preferences for nanofood and genetically‐modified (GM) food and the associated benefits using the results of choice experiments with 1,117 US consumers. We employ a latent class logit model to capture the heterogeneity in consumer preferences by identifying consumer segments. Our results show that nano‐food evokes fewer negative reactions compared with GM food. We identify four consumer groups: ‘Price Oriented/Technology Adopters’, ‘Technology Averse’, ‘Benefit Oriented’, and ‘New Technology Rejecters’. Each consumer group has a distinctive demographic background, which generates deeper insights into the diversified public acceptance of nano‐food and GM food. Our results have policy implications for the adoption of new food technologies.
Producers' decisions, such as crop insurance, contract agreement, and technology adoption, involve considerable risk and uncertainty. Particularly, specialty crop production is more vulnerable to risk and requires more intensive management than commodity crop production, while risk mitigation tools for specialty crop production are comparatively limited. We apply Prospect Theory (PT) to analyze risk preferences of U.S. producers, and further compare the preference differences between commodity crop and specialty crop producers. Reference dependent, diminishing sensitivity, loss aversion, and probability weighting, as well as certain farm characteristics and producer demographics, are found to have a significant impact on grower risk attitudes. In addition, we do not observe significant differences in the base PT estimates between commodity crop and specialty crop producers. However, the relationships between risk behavior and individual characteristics vary between the two types of producers, which shed lights on the development of agricultural policies and provide implications for the design of contract and insurance.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.