Do Consumers Really Refuse to Buy Genetically Modified Food?

Noussair, Charles; Robin, Stéphane; Ruffieux, Bernard

doi:10.1046/j.0013-0133.2003.00179.x

Cited by 245 publications

(163 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

139

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on previous research, therefore, it appears that consumers: (1) prefer having a market that offers choice among conventional, organic, and rBST-free milk, and (2) are willing to pay significant premiums for organic milk, and somewhat smaller premiums for rBST-free milk compared with conventional milk. Consumers' reluctance to embrace rBST as a beneficial technology, as well as the presence of conflicting information regarding the safety of rBST in milk, also bears many similarities to consumers' reactions to the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and other biotechnology in food production (e.g., Noussair, Robin, and Ruffieux 2004;and Lusk, Feldkamp, and Schroder 2004).…”

Section: Chapter 2 Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To this end, the procedures followed those of Noussair, Robin, and Ruffieux (2004); participants were informed that the best strategy for each round was to place a bid equal to the cash value (B t = π t ) since that would result in the participants receiving the greatest possible payoff for each round regardless of the price. To reinforce this message, at the conclusion of each round of Part A, participants were given the chance to view the bids from all of the subjects in the round, the random price, and the payoff outcomes.…”

Section: Chapter 3 Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does Production Labeling Stigmatize Conventional Milk?

Kanter

Messer

Kaiser

2009

American J Agri Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Production labeling is a common approach for differentiating otherwise similar products in the marketplace. While these labels may convey positive messages to consumers about the new product, they may simultaneously stigmatize the conventionally-produced product by highlighting perceived problems. The net economic result for producers can be negative since consumers may decrease their willingness to pay for the conventional product that dominates the market, while the new product has a relatively small market share. This research identifies this stigma effect in the case of milk, where the introduction of rBST-Free and organic milk reduces consumers' willingness to purchase conventional milk.In this thesis, the question of whether production labeling is driving consumer's bias against conventional milk is investigated in an experimental setting by eliciting the willingness to pay in a sample of Cornell University staff and graduate students for milk produced via different production methods and of varying fat contents. Through altering the order in which participants bid for the different types

show abstract

Section: Chapter 2 Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Chapter 3 Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Production Labeling Stigmatize Conventional Milk?

Kanter

Messer

Kaiser

2009

American J Agri Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, with the installation of an explicit non-GM food market in the EU since 1999, it has become difficult to estimate whether members of the public will behave as consumers rather than as citizens, and let price, packaging, availability, the convenience of preparation, brand names and/or other moral concerns determine their choices to buy or not GM agro-food products. Generally, "surveys place respondents in the role of citizens, who make judgments from society's point of view, rather than consumers, who make actual purchase decisions" (Brom, 2000;Noussair et al, 2004). Even then, the acceptability of buying those products continues to show a large degree of heterogeneity within EU countries (Lusk et al, 2006;Spence and Townsend, 2006).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The interplay between societal concerns and the regulatory frame on GM crops in the European Union

Devos

Reheul

Waele

et al. 2006

Environ. Biosafety Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recapitulating how genetic modification technology and its agro-food products aroused strong societal opposition in the European Union, this paper demonstrates how this opposition contributed to shape the European regulatory frame on GM crops. More specifically, it describes how this opposition contributed to a de facto moratorium on the commercialization of new GM crop events in the end of the nineties. From this period onwards, the regulatory frame has been continuously revised in order to slow down further erosion of public and market confidence. Various scientific and technical reforms were made to meet societal concerns relating to the safety of GM crops. In this context, the precautionary principle, environmental post-market monitoring and traceability were adopted as ways to cope with scientific uncertainties. Labeling, traceability, co-existence and public information were installed in an attempt to meet the general public request for more information about GM agro-food products, and the specific demand to respect the consumers' and farmers' freedom of choice. Despite these efforts, today, the explicit role of public participation and/or ethical consultation during authorization procedures is at best minimal. Moreover, no legal room was created to progress to an integral sustainability evaluation during market procedures. It remains to be seen whether the recent policy shift towards greater transparency about value judgments, plural viewpoints and scientific uncertainties will be one step forward in integrating ethical concerns more explicitly in risk analysis. As such, the regulatory frame stands open for further interpretation, reflecting in various degrees a continued interplay with societal concerns relating to GM agro-food products. In this regard, both societal concerns and diversely interpreted regulatory criteria can be inferred as signaling a request -and even a quest -to render more explicit the broader-than-scientific dimension of the actual risk analysis.

show abstract

“…The main application is perhaps within food economics, where both SP surveys and experiments have been used to elicit preferences for food attributes and the effects of information on consumer choices (see, e.g., Noussair et al, 2004;Lusk et al, 2006).…”

Section: Hypothetical Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics?

Carlsson

2010

Environ Resource Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We discuss the design of stated preference (SP) surveys in light of findings in behavioral economics such as context dependence of preferences, learning, and differences between revealed and normative preferences. More specifically, we discuss four different areas: (i) revealed and normative preferences, (ii) learning and constructed preferences, (iii) context dependence, and (iv) hypothetical bias. We argue that SP methods would benefit from adapting to some of the findings in behavioral economics, but also that behavioral economics may gain insights from studying SP methods.

show abstract

Do Consumers Really Refuse to Buy Genetically Modified Food?

Cited by 245 publications

References 30 publications

Does Production Labeling Stigmatize Conventional Milk?

Does Production Labeling Stigmatize Conventional Milk?

The interplay between societal concerns and the regulatory frame on GM crops in the European Union

Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About