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

Abstract

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.

What is the problem? A literature review on challenges facing the communication of nanotechnology to the public

“…They want labeling for all types of food and are also willing to pay for this, since they believe that labeling facilitates informed decisions related to risk management. Consumers also believe that they have a right to be informed (Brown and Kuzma 2013; Yue et al 2015).…”

“…(iii) Develop targeted audience-specific communication When considering solutions, the focus is on targeted communication based on an understanding that the public is fragmented and that different audiences respond to information in different ways. Targeted nanotechnology communication is tailored to the understandings, values, needs, and knowledge of particular groups, with the aim of helping them understand nanotechnology and gain the tools needed to make well-balanced decisions for themselves (Duncan 2011;Ho et al 2010Ho et al : 2710Pillai and Bezbaruah 2017: 41;Yue et al 2015). Targeted communication is understood by its advocates as helping empower the public by providing information, so that members of the public might become informed despite their knowledge limitations (Simons et al 2009(Simons et al : 1596.…”

Risk and benefit perceptions of human enhancement technologies: The effects of Facebook comments on the acceptance of nanodesigned food

“…Research showed attitudes toward nanotechnology to be moderately positive across many areas of application. Benefits were expected to occur predominantly in relation to medicines and health, and technological development, rather than to agriculture and food (Boholm & Larsson, 2019;Capon et al, 2015;Conti, Satterfield, & Harthorn, 2011;Frewer, 2017;Frewer et al, 2014;Giles, Kuznesof, Clark, Hubbard, & Frewer, 2015;Priest, 2009;Siegrist et al, 2007;Yue, Zhao, Cummings, & Kuzma, 2015). Food-related applications were also more likely to raise societal concern than other applications, and the application of nanotechnology in food was perceived to be less beneficial than in food packaging (Capon et al, 2015;Siegrist et al, 2007;Siegrist et al, 2008).…”

“…Factors that affect acceptance at the individual level include risk and benefit perceptions, emotions, the perceived ability to cope with the risk, trust in the food industry and confidence in the competence of governmental technology management (Capon et al, 2015;Frewer et al, 2014;Kuttschreuter, 2006;Martensen, Brockenhuus-Schack, & Zahid, 2018;Siegrist et al, 2007;Siegrist et al, 2008;Viscecchia, De Devitiis, Carlucci, Nardone, & Santeramo, 2018;Yue et al, 2015).…”

“…In the acceptance of nanotechnology in foods, risk and benefit perceptions play an important role, as do perceived controllability, ethical concerns regarding environmental impact and animal welfare. Factors that affect acceptance at the individual level include risk and benefit perceptions, emotions, the perceived ability to cope with the risk, trust in the food industry and confidence in the competence of governmental technology management (Capon et al, ; Frewer et al, ; Kuttschreuter, ; Martensen, Brockenhuus‐Schack, & Zahid, ; Siegrist et al, ; Siegrist et al, ; Viscecchia, De Devitiis, Carlucci, Nardone, & Santeramo, ; Yue et al, ).…”