Product attributes, consumer benefits and public approval of genetically modified foods

Abstract

The use of biotechnology in food production has generated considerable debate involving the benefits and risks associated with its use. Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods is a critical factor that will affect the future of this technology. Using data from a national survey, this study examines how public acceptance of food biotechnology is related to consumers’ socioeconomic and value attributes as well as the benefits associated with the use of this technology. Empirical results suggest that consumer acceptance of food biotechnology increases considerably when the use of this technology brings tangible benefits for the public. Consumers with different socioeconomic and demographic attributes have diverging views of food biotechnology only when its use brings specific benefits to them. When the use of genetic technology confers no additional benefit, public attitudes towards genetically modified foods are driven primarily by their scientific knowledge, views of scientists and corporations associated with biotechnology as well as public trust and confidence in government.

Structural equation modelling of consumer acceptance of genetically modified (GM) food in the Mediterranean Europe: A cross country study

“…Therefore, trust in government and scientists are considered to be an important determinant of acceptance of GM food technology (Hossain et al, 2003;Hossain & Onyango, 2004;. In order to define the construct "trust", we use questions regarding consumers' confidence on university, industry scientists, and EU institutions.…”

“…When asking about the product utility, risk, moral acceptance and whether to encourage GM food technology, respondents are divided on three main groups as also stated in previous literature (Gaskell et al, 2004;Hossain et al, 2003). However, the percentages of the groups differ among countries (see Fig.2).…”

Beware of Feedback Effects Among Trust, Risk and Public Opinion: Quantitative Estimates of Rational versus Emotional Influences on Attitudes Toward Genetic Modification

“…Most are widely used in other studies of public opinion on biotechnology issues (Hossain et al, 2003; Hallman, 2000; Plutzer, Maney and O'Connor, 1998). We take them as fixed, causally prior to the other variables we consider here.…”

Market Potential of Folate Biofortified Rice in China

“…Due to its health benefits, this GM food product of the second generation is expected to be more appreciated than its first generation counterparts and may be able to compensate for the negative perception that might be associated with the GM food technology (Frewer et al, 1997a;Lähteenmäki et al, 2002;Hossain et al, 2003;Lusk et al, 2005;O'Conner et al, 2005;Anand et al, 2007;Schnettler et al, 2008a). Scientific research to underpin the larger GM food acceptance when health benefits are present, is scarce (Lusk, 2003), but steadily growing.…”

“…As taste as such is not an objective of biofortification, there is little evidence of sensory differences between biofortified and conventional staple crops (Engel et al, 2002). Stevens and Winter-Nelson (2008) however, found negative reactions to the flavor and aroma of provitamin A-biofortified maize, which is expected to influence consumer acceptance (Hossain et al, 2003). Product attributes related to preserving and processing GM food, such as the shelf life, and the duration and the sensory quality of cooking, could also play a role (Bonti-Ankomah and Yiridoe, 2006;De Groote and Kimenju, 2008;Prom-u-thai et al, 2009).…”