Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences for Nanotechnology and Genetic‐modification Technology in Food Products

Yue, Chengyan; Zhao, Shuoli; Kuzma, Jennifer

doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12090

Cited by 41 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many studies have also found that consumers are willing to pay (WTP) a premium for GM food labeling or to avoid GM foods (reviewed in Colson and Rousu 2013). In a recent study using choice experiments, we found that US consumers are willing to pay more to avoid both GM and nano-foods, with a higher premium to avoid GM foods than nano-foods (Yue et al 2014). The political context for GM food labeling in the United States is becoming more and more contentious as state mandatory labeling bills are proposed, publicly challenged, and fiercely opposed by agri-business companies (Allen and Cummins 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Investigating factors influencing consumer willingness to buy GM food and nano-food

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Investigating factors influencing consumer willingness to buy GM food and nano-food

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding production practices, consumers are generally willing to pay a premium for organic or nongenetically modified products as well as reduced use of hormones and antibiotics compared to some conventional practices or no given information (Ding, Veeman, & Adamowicz, ; Lim et al, ; Miller et al, ; Ortega et al, ; Probst et al, ; Wu et al, ; Zanoli et al, ). Recently, these practices have also considered nanotechnology (Erdem, ; Yue, Zhao, & Kuzma, ). Preferences differ by consumer segmentation including purchase habits, product types, socio‐demographics (e.g., Arnoult, Lobb, & Tiffin, ; Van Loo, Caputo, Nayga, Meullenet, & Ricke, ), and concerns over production practices (Chung, Briggeman, & Han, ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consistent with this view, UK consumers favour the idea of combining FT and organic labels (Sirieix et al, 2013). There is also an increasing amount of literature examining environmental eco‐labels or certification (Tait et al, ; Ubilava et al, ; Van Loo, Caputo, Nayga, Seo, & Verbeke, ) and improved environmental standards in food production (Moser, Schaefers, & Meise, ; Viegas et al, ; Yue et al, ; Tait, Saunders, & Guenther, ). Many of these studies found a positive WTP for environmental attributes, particularly for domestic products (Ortega et al, ; Uchida, Onozaka, Morita, & Managi, ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, these practices have also considered nanotechnology (Erdem, 2015;Yue, Zhao, & Kuzma, 2015). Preferences differ by consumer segmentation including purchase habits, product types, socio-demographics (e.g., Arnoult, Lobb, & Tiffin, 2010;Van Loo, Caputo, Nayga, Meullenet, & Ricke, 2011), and concerns over production practices (Chung, Briggeman, & Han, 2012).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Estimation of consumer willingness‐to‐pay for social responsibility in fruit and vegetable products: A cross‐country comparison using a choice experiment

Miller

Tait

Saunders

et al. 2017

J of Consumer Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Choice experiments are used to assess consumer preferences and willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) for different food attributes worldwide. These studies also include credence attributes which are the product attributes that are not immediately observable to consumers without appropriate information and labelling, such as animal welfare, food safety, and social responsibility. Although choice experiment application has considered many of these attributes, studies focused on social responsibility are scant. Building on previous work comparing developed and developing countries, this paper focuses on WTP estimation for social responsibility. Surveys of fruit and vegetable consumers were conducted in United Kingdom (UK), Japan, India, and Indonesia in 2015. Results indicate WTP for an increase from minimum to improved standard for social responsibility ranges from 16% to 30% (median), and 6% to 26% (median) from improved to a high standard. Premiums vary between countries but, overall, demonstrate the significant importance of social responsibility consideration in consumer choices. Significant differences on WTP were observed between Japan and other countries, as well as between UK and Indonesia for the improved social responsibility standard, and across UK, Indonesia, and India for the high standard. Findings contribute to increasing understanding of consumer preferences across countries, revealing significant preference heterogeneity towards social responsibility.

show abstract

“…A recent study showed that although the public is skeptical of the use of nanomaterials in food (for improving safety or enhance nutrition), is in better standing compared to the GMOs. [92••]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nanotechnology to the rescue: using nano-enabled approaches in microbiological food safety and quality

Eleftheriadou

Pyrgiotakis²,

Demokritou³

2017

Current Opinion in Biotechnology

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food safety and quality assurance is entering a new era. Interventions along the food supply chain must become more efficient in safeguarding public health and the environment and must address numerous challenges and new consumption trends. Current methods of microbial control to assure the safety of food and minimize microbial spoilage have each shown inefficiencies. Nanotechnology is a rapidly expanding area in the agri/feed/food sector. Nano-enabled approaches such as antimicrobial food-contact surfaces/packaging, nano-enabled sensors for rapid pathogen/contaminant detection and nano-delivered biocidal methods, currently on the market or at a developmental stage, show great potential for the food industry. Concerns on potential risks to human health and the environment posed by use of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) in food applications must, however, be adequately evaluated at the developmental stage to ensure consumer's acceptance.

show abstract

Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences for Nanotechnology and Genetic‐modification Technology in Food Products

Cited by 41 publications

References 60 publications

Investigating factors influencing consumer willingness to buy GM food and nano-food

Investigating factors influencing consumer willingness to buy GM food and nano-food

Estimation of consumer willingness‐to‐pay for social responsibility in fruit and vegetable products: A cross‐country comparison using a choice experiment

Nanotechnology to the rescue: using nano-enabled approaches in microbiological food safety and quality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About