How consumers use mandatory genetic engineering (GE) labels: evidence from Vermont

Abstract

Food labels legislated by the U.S. government have been designed to provide information to consumers. It has been asserted that the simple disclosures "produced using genetic engineering" on newly legislated U.S. food labels will send a signal that influences individual preferences rather than providing information. Vermont is the only US state to have experienced mandatory labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) via simple disclosures. Using a representative sample of adults who experienced Vermont's mandatory GE labeling policy, we examined whether GE labels were seen by consumers and whether the labels provided information or influenced preferences. Nearly one-third of respondents reported seeing a label. Higher income, younger consumers who search for information about GE were more likely to report seeing a label. We also estimated whether labels served as information cues that helped reveal consumer preferences through purchases, or whether labels served as a signal that influenced preferences and purchases. For 50.5% of consumers who saw a label, the label served as an information cue that revealed their preferences. For 13% of those who saw the label, the label influenced preferences and behavior. Overall, for 4% of the total sample, simple GE disclosures influenced preferences. For a slight majority of consumers who used a GE label, simple disclosures were an information signal and not a preference signal. Searching for GE information, classifying as female, older age and opposing GE in food production significantly increased the probability that GE labels served as an information source. Providing such disclosures to consumers may be the least complex and most transparent option for mandatory GE labeling.

GMO Food Labels Do Not Affect College Student Food Selection, Despite Negative Attitudes towards GMOs

“…Additionally, it lends support to the work of Bovay and Alston [ 38 ], who assert that the upcoming mandatory GM labeling law in the U.S. will likely be a costly addition to food products and will receive limited attention/use by consumers. In fact, a recent study examining the impact of mandatory bioengineered (BE) labeling used in Vermont indicates that while the label did serve as a useful information source for some consumers, the majority (~66%) did not notice the BE label, limiting its effectiveness [ 39 ]. Moreover, the diversity of methodologies and populations studied in previous literature further complicates the identification of factors that might be influencing the observed non-concordance between attitudes and behavior [ 14 , 16 , 24 ].…”

Attitude and labelling preferences towards gene-edited food: a consumer study amongst millennials and Generation Z

“…GM-free) label (Liaukonyte et al , 2013). With regard to interest in such a label, the available evidence indicates that those who are younger, highly educated, male and more risk-averse are less likely to be supportive (DeLong and Grebitus, 2017; Kolodinsky et al , 2018) – echoing determinants of attitudes towards GM food. In contrast, women and those with lower levels of education were more likely to highlight the importance of GM food labels (DeLong and Grebitus, 2017).…”

Neither, either, or both? Who sees GM and non‐GM food labels?

“…In 2016 Vermont required a simple disclosure, "produced or partially produced using genetic engineering" on several categories of foods (Vermont General Assembly, 2014). Respondent samples from Vermont have been used in several studies as the test case for the impacts of mandatory labels on consumer behavior and markets and the Vermont experience has been cited by others investigating the impact of mandatory labeling policies (Bovay & Alston, 2018;Dai et al, 2006;Dunham, 2016;Esposito & Kolodinsky, 2007;Kolodinsky, 2008;Kolodinsky & Lusk, 2018;Kolodinsky et al, 2004Kolodinsky et al, , 2019Wang et al, 1998;Yeh et al, 2019). In addition to products that already meet the NBFDS standard, voluntary labels with a simple disclosure have persisted in the state.…”

“…Because there were no positive labels in the marketplace at this time, these were non-GM labels, which were more often looked at by women and people under the age of 65 years, when compared to men and older people. Kolodinsky et al (2019) found that immediately after the implementation of the Vermont mandatory GM labeling law, 34% of respondents reported seeing the "produced or partially produced using genetic engineering label. "…”

“…Bovay and Alston (2018) speculate about the market implications if consumers are or are not indifferent to NBFDS disclosure statements, and McCluskey et al (2018) provide an overview of the expansive literature about the potential market impacts of mandatory GM labeling policy. Regardless of whether the GM disclosure is positive (contains) or negative (free from), there is very little US-based published research focused on GM labels in an actual marketplace (Kolodinsky & Lusk, 2018;Kolodinsky et al, 2019). 2 Any estimate of consumer or producer welfare, food prices, consumer choice, or positive/negative impacts on the economy are debatable if only a small fraction of consumers see (and use) the label information.…”