Preference for oils with different types of genetic modifcations in Temuco, Araucanía Region, Chile

Abstract

Preference for oils with different types of genetic modifications in Temuco, Araucanía Región, Chile. Cien. Inv. Agr. 37(1):17-28. Considering that attitudes towards biotechnology depend on the type of modification used, a study was performed to determine the importance of the type of Genetic Modification (GM) in preferences for oil purchased by consumers in Temuco (Araucanía Region, Chile) and the existence of different market segments using a survey of 400 people. A conjoint analysis demonstrated that the type of GM (70.3%) was more important than the price of the oil (29.7%). Four segments were distinguished using an analysis of hierarchical conglomerates, but the type of GM was the most important factor in all segments. Two groups preferred oil without GM and oil with GM that reduces the use of pesticides and rejected oil with GM that increases calcium content; the larger of these groups (42.8%) preferred to pay a lower price, while the other (16.8%) they preferred higher priced oils. One group (27.2%) rejected all types of GM. The smallest group (13.2%) rejected oil without GM and preferred oil with GM that reduces the use of pesticides and oil with GM that increases calcium. All of the groups rejected oil with GM that reduces production costs. The groups were differentiated by the family size, lifestyle, ethnic origin, reading of the labels on foodstuffs, and the variety of oil habitually consumed. The absence of GM in oils is desirable for the majority of consumers (86.8%); however, a high proportion (72.8%) would accept oils with GM that reduces the use of pesticides.

Preferences for sunflower oil produced conventionally, produced with nanotechnology or genetically modified in the Araucanía Region of Chile

“…This result and the rejection of GM oil in Groups 1, 2 and 3 is consistent with studies conducted in North America that indicated a greater acceptance of nanotechnology than GM (Currall et al, 2006;Priest, 2006;Cobb and Macoubrie, 2004); this preference might be related to the perception of GM by many people as unnatural (Stampfli et al, 2010). Likewise, the rejection of GM oil confirms the results from previous studies conducted both in developed countries (O'Brien et al, 2012;Bellows et al, 2010;Terawaki, 2008) and in Chile (Schnettler et al, 2010(Schnettler et al, , 2008) that reported a greater consumer preference for foods without GM and a rejection of TF. Because the acceptance of foods produced with new technologies is directly associated with consumers' perception of the risks and benefits of the associated technology (Frewer et al, 2011;Rollin et al, 2011;Siegrist et al, 2008;Siegrist et al, 2007), these results suggest that the participants perceived GM products as riskier than those produced with nanotechnology; furthermore, this perception occurred despite the fact that a definition of nanotechnology, which included the potential benefits and risks associated with its use, was given before presenting the stimuli of the conjoint analysis.…”

“…Typically, results suggest that GM agri-food technology is associated with high perceived risks and relatively low perceived benefits (Frewer et al, 2011). This is why numerous studies have reported a greater consumer preference for foods without GM and a rejection of transgenic foods (TF) (O'Brien et al, 2012;Bellows et al, 2010;Schnettler et al, 2010Schnettler et al, , 2008Terawaki, 2008). However, there is also evidence of the existence of consumer groups with positive attitudes towards TF, but they are principally found in developing countries (De Steur et al, 2010;Kimenju and De Groote, 2008).…”

Acceptance of a food of animal origin obtained through genetic modification and cloning in South America: a comparative study among university students and working adults

“…The lower frequency of daily milk consumption in Group 4 by the WA subsample seems to confirm that the preferences for GM foods are related to food consumption habits (Schnettler et al, 2010). The greater presence of people that did not know the meaning of an animal being GM in Group 1 of the WA subsample could partly explain the rejection of GM and the acceptance of cloning.…”

“…According to the conjoint analysis (Table 3) for the entire sample, the attribute of greatest importance during the purchase process was the production technology, followed by the price, brand, fat content, and finally the package. The signs of the utility values indicate preference for milk from a conventional animal in keeping with previous studies that have evaluated the acceptance of GM foods (International Food Information Council, 2014;Lähteenmäki et al, 2003;Mucci et al, 2004;Siegrist, 2008;Schnettler et al, 2010Schnettler et al, , 2012 in both developed and developing countries, and cloned (Aizaki et al, 2011;Creative Research, 2008;International Food Information Council, 2008;Brooks & Lusk, 2010, 2011Saeed et al, 2015) in developed countries. Nevertheless, in the case of GM foods, it contradicts the results of studies carried out both in developing (Costa et al, 2000;Kimenju & De Groote, 2008;De Steur et al, 2010) and developed countries (Cox et al, 2011).…”

“…It has been reported that developing countries tend to have positive attitudes towards novel food technologies, in particular towards GM (Rollin et al, 2011), and among the developing countries there is evidence of consumer groups that have a positive attitude towards GM foods, like in China (De Steur et al, 2010), Kenya (Kimenju & De Groote, 2008) or Brazil (Costa et al, 2000), but in other developing nations the perceptions are generally more negative than positive, like in Argentina (Mucci et al, 2004) and Chile (Schnettler et al, 2010(Schnettler et al, , 2012. The term "genetically modified animals" is rather broad, and may apply to animals fed with feed containing GM additives Acceptance of a food of animal origin obtained through genetic modification and cloning in South America: a comparative study among university students and working adults Berta SCHNETTLER 1 or enzymes, those given GM vaccines and hormones, and those that are GM themselves (Novoselova et al, 2007).…”