A Study of Consumer Behaviour towards Genetically Modified Foods and the Moderating Effects of Health Consciousness

Abstract

With growing environmentalism and health concerns, people have become more conscious of the types of food they consume and the way they are processed. The principle of the present research paper is to explore the behaviour of consumers towards genetically modified (GM) foods and the moderating role of health consciousness. The rationale behind the present study is to address the gap in the past research work wherein most of the researchers have emphasized on major factors that influence consumption of GM foods such as product acceptance, information, higher income and ethical consumption.

Findings

This paper explores the effect of consumer’s health consciousness on their GM food purchase. The key purpose of the study is to explore the influence of health consciousness of consumers in moderating consumer attitude towards their behaviour in context of GM food products.

The results suggest that information provided by the government and the trusted regulatory help consumers to form positive attitude towards GM foods.

Practical implications

The findings suggest that the marketer should revolve advertisement and marketing strategies around the issues pertaining consumer’s health consciousness. Moreover, government and other trusted regulatory must ensure consumers that GM food are healthy and superior to conventional food.

Originality/value

This is one of the primary studies to examine the moderating effect of a health consciousness that bears on GM foods. Its empirical findings are projected to benefit the sustained expansion of GM foods.

Keywords

Consumer attitude towards GM Foods health consciousness dimensions of consumer attitude towards GM Foods consumer behaviour

Introduction

The modern-day consumer is in a dilemma to decide the ‘right’ balance between benefits and risks of new innovations. Each innovation has a considerable amount of risks attached to it, and it is a brainstorming exercise for experts to decide about their safety and security after considering their pros and cons (Slovic, 2000). Regulations by government on sale of genetically modified (GM) foods have raised public awareness about them. However, there is an extensive research suggesting the benefits of GM foods (Angulo, 2003; Badrie, Titre, Jueanville, & Calix, 2006; Curtis, 2004).

GM Food Products

GM foods are derived from GM organisms (GMOs) that have specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques. James (2007) mentions in his study that these foods are expected to resolve the crisis of food shortage in the world and will also improve economic growth. Konig, Cockburn, Crevel and Debruyne (2004), however, argue that any alteration in the naturalness of the food product will pose harmful effects, and genetic engineering (Menon & Kahn, 2003) may cause allergy and may have long-term effects on the environment as a whole. Consumer perception of risks vis-à-vis benefits associated in the production process are generally reported high with regard to GM foods and effect consumer’s acceptance or rejection of GM foods (De Liver, 2005; Van Den Heuvel, 2006). Past studies have mentioned that consumers are willing to try GM foods at the right price (Knight, 2007; Noussair, 2004; Townsend, 2004).

Literature Review

Consumers nowadays are not only concerned about food-related risks but also technological impact on the environment associated with production processes and animal health effects (Miles, 2001). Consumers accept technological innovations differently. It is their attitude that explains that some people are in favour of these innovations while others are against them (Miles, 2001). Past studies have mentioned that consumers’ attitude towards GM foods is determined both by their beliefs regarding the production technology and related to the resulting food product (Bredahl, 2001; Frewer, 1999).

In Italy, New Zealand, and Britain, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) has been used to study consumer intentions regarding GM foods (Cook, 2002; Saba, 2002). However, Sparks (1992) conducted a study in Britain to investigate the expectations of consumers from GM foods rather than their behavioural intentions. Sparks (2002) later examined purchase behavioural intentions of certain specific GM foods (pork and tomatoes) if they become available in Britain.

Noussair (2004) conducted a study in France to investigate consumer’s willingness to pay for GM foods and found that 65 per cent of the respondents were willing to buy GM foods at some price whereas other studies reported negative behaviour of consumers towards GM foods in Britain (Gaskell, 2004; Noussair, 2004).

Moon (2001) employed contingent valuation technique in his study to investigate consumer behaviour in the UK. The findings revealed that 13.3 per cent of the respondents were willing to accept GM foods even at higher prices, whereas 13.8 per cent of the participants will buy GM foods when they are offered at lower prices.

Townsend (2004) conducted a study in Britain where participants were required to taste GM foods and were asked to compare them in terms of their appearance, colour and taste with their conventional counterparts. Around 93 per cent of the respondents tasted GM apple even though they were not forced to do so. The apples used were alike and the rationale behind conducting the experiment was to examine whether people would be willing to try GM apple or not.

A similar study was conducted by La¨hteenma¨ki (2002) in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden where the participants were offered GM cheese. It was found that majority of the participants were willing to try GM cheese and around two-thirds of them wanted to take some cheese home. Thus, overall results in Britain were mixed with respect to consumer behaviour towards GM food.

Consumer Attitude towards GM Foods

Previous studies have documented that consumers are dubious about GM foods due to the lack of awareness and information about benefits and risks associated with GM foods (Bredahl, 2001; Fortin, 2003). House (2004) in his study has mentioned that consumers look for the labelling, certification and information about GM foods.

Uzogara (2000) in his study argued that it is the price that helps to form positive attitude towards GM foods as they are not as expensive as their conventional counterparts due to increased productivity and lesser need of fertilizers and pesticides. However, Noussair (2004) argued that if the consumers are well informed about GM foods, they will have favourable attitude towards them and would be more willing to pay even higher prices for them.

Hossain et al. (2003) conducted an empirical survey and found that consumers willingly accept GM technology when the benefit of such technology is tangible for the public. He also mentioned that consumer’s attitude towards GM foods is primarily determined by knowledge, awareness, perception to risks, opinion of scientists and trust in government. Consumer opinion about biotechnology helps in framing policies and effective labelling (Lusk, 2002). However, many scientific reports have concluded that GM foods are authorized and have undergone risk assessments by scientific experts and thus are not likely to pose any risks for human health (EFSA, 2006; European Union [EU], 2000; GAO, 2002; Kleter, 2005; Review, 2003; WHO, 2005).

Thus, it is the consumer’s perception about the risks and benefits associated with GM foods that influences its acceptance or rejection (De Liver, 2005; Van Den Heuvel, 2006). Saher (2006) in his study explored that it is the consumer’s superstition that often led to their negative attitude towards such foods.

Past research studies have mentioned that culture and geographic regions also influence consumer attitude towards GM foods (Bredahl, 2001; Curtis, 2004; Gaskell, 2004). These studies have mentioned that consumers in Europe have a negative attitude towards GM foods, and they do not like the inclusions of GMOs in their foods (Bredahl, 2001; Durant, 1998; EU, 2000; Frewer, 1999). The behaviour of the food industry has changed due to the consumer’s resistance and have incurred huge costs of differentiating GM from non-GM foods (Baker, 1993; Lin, 2004, 2007; Qaim, 2009).

Shaw (2002) in his study pointed that it is the limited level of awareness that has led to negative attitude of consumers towards GM foods. The EU has imposed rules on GM labelling for all GM food products to allow consumers to make an informed choice (EFSA, 2006). However, no universal consent has been there whether there should be labelling of GM foods or not. (O’Fallon, 2007); (Huffman, 2003; Thorpe, 2005). O’Fallon (2007) in his study has mentioned that there is very less amount of empirical work on the impact of labelled GM foods on consumer purchase behaviour.

Previous research work have documented that consumers lack information about GM foods and hence have negative attitude towards them which further influences their purchase behaviour. Savadori (2004) in his study highlighted that more and more information on the benefits of GM foods will help people have a positive attitude towards them. However, information possessed may not necessarily result in actual purchase as the final decision is further influenced by availability and higher price (Angulo, 2003).

International Food Information Council (IFIC) by Cogent Research (April 2003), conducted a survey in the USA and found that 69 per cent of the consumers would buy GM foods for animal welfare, 56 per cent for better taste and freshness whereas only 1 per cent had a food safety concern. Similarly, a survey conducted by Chen (2007) in Taiwan explored that GM fruits/vegetables have a longer shelf life which has a positive impact on consumer attitude towards GM foods.

Loureiro and Hine (2004) in his study found that the consumers’ attitude towards GM foods is influenced by their moral and ethical values, that is, their perception of whether the use of GM foods is right or wrong for themselves as well as for the environment, whereas Vilella-Vila (2005) highlighted the significance of knowledge and information on consumer’s perception of GM foods.

Previous studies have pointed that Spanish, European and US consumers possess low level of knowledge and thus they are dubious about GM foods which further influences their attitude towards them (De Liver, 2005; Martinez, 2004; Vilella-Vila, 2005).

In this context, Frewer (1999) argued that since most of the information about GM foods is provided by mass media, consumers’ perception depends on the degree of trust that individuals have in them. He emphasized on the need of authentic labelling and certification by trusted authorities and scientific experts to provide consumers with accurate information so that they make an informed decision.

However, Vilella-Vila (2005) argued that merely providing information about GM foods is not sufficient for consumers to build their perception. Tenbült (2005) further added that consumers are hesitant to buy GM foods as they consider it as an unnatural intervention.

Consumer Purchase Behaviour

Once the consumer has gained relevant information related to price, availability, information, labelling, sustainable production, store environment and so on about the product, she evaluates the product as per her expectations from the product and in some cases after consulting from her peer group, the consumer might be intent to buy the product, or buy it for trying out and possibly for usage also.

However, Ajzen (2003) argued that it is not necessary that the consumer’s positive attitude towards sustainable food products will be followed by an intention to buy, in contrast with the theory of reasoned action, specifically in the case of food products. Also, when it comes to paying the extra amount for these products, consumers adopt a passive role in making their purchase decision (Grunert & Juhl, 1995). Byoungho (2005) mentioned that the consumer’s satisfaction with the particular product is directly related to their attitude, which will further impact their intention to purchase. Fortin (2003) further examined that consumers show more positive attitude towards GM foods, if positive trade-offs are more prominent in the purchase decision process.

Thogersen (2001) in his study mentioned that, it is an individual’s habits, attitude, preferences and situations that determine his sustainable behaviour. Jager (2000) model of consumer behaviour provided a structure to examine intentions of consumers towards sustainable food products. Values, needs, and motivations, information and knowledge and behavioural control emerged to be the main determinants of behavioural intention with respect to consumption of sustainable goods.

Influence of Moderating Variable on Consumer Behaviour

Gone are the days when food was consumed just to satisfy hunger. In the era of health consciousness amongst consumers, food is consumed to provide nutritional benefits, to protect oneself from diseases and for improving physical and mental well-being of the consumers (Roberfroid, 2002; Tregear, Dent, & Mcgregor, 1994). The growing awareness of health is not only because of socio-demographic changes but also due to scientific innovations, environmental issues and sustainability, which has made health the prime concern while buying a food product (Aschemann, 2008; Magnusson, 2003; Wandel, 1997).

After a comprehensive review of prospective health impacts from consumption of GM foods, Donaldson (1999) concluded that there was no substantiation proving that GM foods are harmful to health. He further pointed that many of the health issues are found in conventional foods. Both Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) (2000) reported that the presence of new genes will not cause any food-related risk. Thus, health consciousness moderates consumer liking of GM foods (Figure 1). In this hypothetical relation, health consciousness is considered a moderator.

Figure 1.

Source: Author’s own.

Objectives of the Study

The lack of adequate insight in consumer decision-making for GM foods forms the underlying principle for the present research. Thus, its objectives are:

To evaluate the relationship between consumers’ attitude and their behaviour towards GM food products and the moderating effect of health consciousness.

To draw the strategic propositions for the marketer.

Hypotheses

The present research works with the following hypotheses:

H1: Health consciousness moderates the relationship between consumer attitude and purchase behaviour towards GM food products.

H1.1: Consumer attitude towards GM benefits on their purchase behaviour is moderated by health consciousness among consumers.

H1.2: Consumer attitude and purchase behaviour towards GM-related beliefs is moderated by health consciousness among consumers.

H1.3: Consumer attitude towards GM effects on their purchase behaviour is moderated by health consciousness among consumers.

H1.4: Consumer attitude and their purchase behaviour towards GM safety issues is moderated by health consciousness among consumers.

Research Methodology

This section outlines the methodology adopted for empirically investigating the model proposed in the previous section. A discussion on the research design and statistical tools used for analysis is given in this section. The data was collected through a primary survey by designing a questionnaire. Various Research papers and reports related to GM foods were also referred. Table 1 presents the demographic details of surveyed respondents.

Respondent Statistics

Table 1.

Sample Profile of Respondents (N = 632)

Demographic Variables	Groupings	No. of Respondents	Percentage
Gender	Female	286	45.20
	Male	348	55
Age Group	18–24	213	33.70
	25–35	188	29.74
	36–50	116	18.35
	51–60	57	9.01
	Above 60	63	9.96
Marital Status	Single	283	44.77
	Married	351	55.53
If Married, No. of Children	No Children	43	6.80
	1	100	15.82
	2	145	22.94
	More than 2	72	11.39
Qualification	High School	130	20.56
	Graduate	142	22.46
	Postgraduate	179	28.32
	Professional	185	29.27
Monthly Family Income	Less than ₹50,000	42	6.64
	₹50,000–100,000	188	29.74
	₹100,000–200,000	239	37.81
	₹200,000 and above	167	26.42

Source: Author’s own.

Reliability Testing

The reliability results are presented in Table 2

Table 2.

Reliability Results for Scales Used in the Study

Sl. No.	Variable		Cronbach Alpha Value
1.	Purchase behaviour of consumers		0.802
2.	Consumer attitude towards GM food products:	GM benefits	0.697
		GM beliefs	0.600
		GM effects	0.635
		GM safety issues	0.690
3.	Health consciousness (moderator)		0.812

Source: Author’s own.

In the context of consumer product purchase behaviour, Cronbach alpha was 0.802 which is more than 0.70. However, in case of consumer attitude towards GM foods, Cronbach alpha value came out to be 0.697, 0.600, 0.635 and 0.690 for GM benefits, GM-related beliefs, GM effects and GM safety issues, respectively.

In case of the moderating variable, health consciousness, alpha value came out to be 0.812 which is within the acceptable limit for further analysis.

Factor Analysis

After applying factor analysis, the four-factor structure with explained variance of 53.346 per cent was obtained, which was further subjected to reliability testing. The results are reported in Table 3. All the four factors had their alpha value more than 0.6 which showed that the scale is reliable. These factors were named as:

Table 3.

Results of Factor Analysis of Scale Measuring Dimensions of Consumer Attitude towards GM foods

Factors	Factor Loadings	Cronbach’s Alpha	Explained Variance
GM Benefits	0.765	0.697	21.536
	0.700
	0.681
	0.559
GM Beliefs	0.768	0.600	15.417
	0.695
	0.639
GM Effects	0.738	0.635	9.010
	0.691
	0.673
	0.462
GM Safety Issues	0.796	0.690	7.383
	0.773
Total Explained Variance			53.346

Source: Author’s own.

GM benefits: It measures benefits of GM foods on consumer’s health and society as a whole, that is, along with the nutritional benefits, it also solves the problem of world hunger.

GM-related Beliefs: It measures consumer’s attitude towards GM foods. Consumers are of the opinion that though these foods are the result of an unnatural intervention, at the same time they have longer shelf life and are disease resistant as compared to their conventional counterparts.

GM Effects: Consumers are of the perception that GM foods contain harmful additives and may pose some hazardous risk to society as well as to the environment.

GM safety issues: This dimension of the consumer’s attitude suggests that consumers do not consider consumption of GM foods as harmful.

Analysis

To test the hypotheses, correlation and moderation analyses are used.

The mean score for GM Beliefs is highest with mean value of 5.73 followed by GM safety issues and GM benefits with mean value of 5.42 and 5.36, respectively as mentioned in Table 4. This suggests that consumers are more concerned about risks and benefits associated with GM foods and evaluate them on the basis of their safety issues.

Table 4.

Descriptive Statistics for Consumer Behaviour and Antecedent Variables

Variables		Mean	SD
Consumer Product Purchase Behaviour		2.82	1.400
Attitude towards GM Foods:	GM Benefits	5.36	1.002
	GM Beliefs	5.73	0.928
	GM Effects	4.51	1.218
	GM Safety Issues	5.42	1.150

Source: Author’s own.

Consumer’s product purchase behaviour and GM Effects reported higher standard deviation values of 1.400 and 1.218, respectively.

Correlation Analysis

Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation has been used to examine correlation between consumers’ behavioural dimensions and their attitude towards GM foods.

Table 5 suggests that consumers’ attitude towards GM foods in context of GM safety issues is most strongly correlated with their product purchase behaviour with correlation value of 0.484 which suggests that consumers’ purchase behaviour is influenced by GM safety issues.

Moderation Analysis

The above mentioned model highlights that the moderator influences the relationship between consumer’s attitude and their behaviour towards GM. To investigate the role of health consciousness in moderating the relationship between consumer’s attitude and consumer behaviour towards GM foods, three models were tested with the help of hierarchical regression analysis.

Model 1: BEHAVi = a+ β1 (ATTi) + e

Model 2: BEHAVi = a+ β1 (ATTi) + β2 (HCi) + e

Model 3: BEHAVi = a+ β1 (ATTi) + β2 (HCi) + βi(ATT × HCi) + e

where BEHAV was a measure of consumer’s product purchase behaviour. HC was the measure of consumer’s health consciousness and ATT was the measure of dimensions of consumer’s attitude towards GM foods viz, GM Benefits, GM Beliefs, GM Effects and GM Safety issues.

Effect of Health Consciousness as a Moderator on the Relationship between Consumer Attitude and Purchase Behaviour towards GM Foods (H1)

It has been postulated that the relationship between consumer attitude and their purchase behaviour towards GM foods are moderated by health consciousness. The results are reported in Table 6. The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) value is less than 5 and Tolerance Level (TOL) value is greater than 0.1 in all the regression equations, hence the variables are not significantly collinear (Josiassen, 2011; Sharma, 1995). The results of the analysis are reported as under

Table 5.

Correlation Analysis between Consumer Behaviour and Attitude towards GM Foods

Variables		Mean (SD)	Product Purchase Behaviour
			Correlation	p value
Attitude towards GM foods:	GM benefits	5.36 (1.020)	0.335	0.000
	GM beliefs	5.73 (0.932)	0.314	0.000
	GM effects	4.51 (1.220)	0.154	0.000
	GM safety issues	5.42 (1.150)	0.484	0.000

Source: Author’s own.

Table 6.

Health Consciousness Moderates the Effect of Consumer’s Attitude towards GM Foods Based on Consumer’s Product Purchase Behaviour

Consumer Attitude towards GM Foods	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3			Tolerance	VIF
	R2	F value	Standardized β1 (p value)	R2	F value	Standardized β2 (p value)	R2	F value	Standardized β3 (p value)
GM benefits	0.292	246.991	0.540 (0.000)	0.337	152.21	0.447 (0.000)	0.125	101.496	−0.021 (0.538)	0.988	1.012
GM beliefs	0.148	104.152	0.385 (0.000)	0.233	89.773	0.326 (0.000)	0.299	60.503	−0.048 (0.188)	0.982	1.018
GM effects	0.061	38.838	0.248 (0.000)	0.163	55.416	0.180 (0.000)	0.195	38.476	−0.084 (0.020)	0.964	1.037
GM safety issues	0.120	82.176	0.347 (0.000)	0.216	79.549	0. 290 (0.000)	0.278	55.165	0.077 (0.045)	0.954	1.041

Source: Author’s own.

GM Benefits: Moderated regression analysis was used to study the moderating effect of health consciousness on the relationship between consumer’s attitude and their purchase behaviour towards GM Benefits.

Consumer attitude is extensively related to their purchase behaviour (Model 1: β(GM1) = 0.540; Model 2: β(GM2) = 0.447) as mentioned in Table 6.

In case of Model 3, for the variable consumer attitude, β coefficient is –0.021 but p value is not significant at p < 0.05. A negative β value indicates that a comprehensive analysis is required to gain deeper insights to examine the moderating effect of health consciousness on the relationship between consumer’s attitude and their purchase behaviour towards GM Benefits.

It implies that health consciousness does not moderate the relationship between consumer attitude towards GM benefits and their purchase behaviour for GM foods. Hence, H1.1 stands rejected.

GM Beliefs: Consumer attitude and their purchase behaviour show significant relationship before and after interaction as mentioned in Table 7 (Model 1: β(GM2) = 0.385; Model 2: β(GM2) = 0.326 with p < 0.05). After introducing interaction term in Model 3, β coefficient for GM foods is −0.048 whereas p value is insignificant at p < 0.050. The results suggest that health consciousness does not moderate the relationship between consumer attitude towards GM beliefs and their purchase behaviour. Hence, H1.2 stands rejected.

GM Effects: Table 5 shows that consumer attitude is significantly and positively related to consumer purchase behavior (Model 1: β(GM1) = 0.248; Model 2: β(GM2) = 0.180).

After introducing interaction term in Model 3, β coefficient for GM foods is −0.08493 and p value is significant at p < 0.050. Hence, H1.3 stands accepted.

Similarly, R2 increased from 6.1 per cent to 19.5 per cent by the introduction of health consciousness as a moderator with p < 0. This is further tested for significant differences in the values at high, medium, and low levels of the Moderator Value (MV) scores using simple slope analysis (Aiken & West, 1991).

Figure 2 presents the moderation effect of health consciousness. It can be observed that in context of GM effects, respondents who consider that GM foods are a risk to society and the environment do not buy GM foods. They consider GM foods as hazardous to health and evaluate them on the basis of their ill effects on health. It can be further observed that the slope of regression line is greater in case of consumers who are less concerned about their health.

Figure 2.

Source: Author’s own.

GM Safety Issues: There is a significant relationship between consumer attitude towards safety issues and their purchase behaviour before and after the interaction term (Model 1: β(GM1) = 0.347; Model 2: β(GM2) = 0.267).

However in Model 3, β coefficient is 0.077 and p value is 0.045. Similarly, R2 is increased from 12 per cent to 27.5 per cent with p < 0.01. This is further tested for differences in the values at high, medium and low levels of the MV scores using simple slope analysis (Aiken & West, 1991).

The moderation effect of health consciousness is depicted graphically in Figure 3. It can be observed that in the context of GM safety issues, respondents who do not consider GM Foods as harmful and believe that there is no high risk associated with GM food products tend to buy GM foods. It was also found that the slope of the regression line is greater in case of consumers who are more health conscious and tend to consider GM foods as healthy foods compared to consumers with less inclination towards health consciousness.

Figure 3.

Source: Author’s own.

Conclusion

This study provides a better understanding of what moderates the consumer attitude towards GM foods. Empirical results indicate that the consumer’s concerns about health are the determinants for a consumer to form a positive attitude towards GM foods. The findings are consistent with many previous studies (Badrie et al., 2006; Bredahl, 2001; Knight, 2007; Qaim, 2009; Zhong, 2003).

While investigating the role of health consciousness as a moderator in the relationship between consumer attitude and consumer purchase behaviour towards GM foods, it was found that health consciousness does not moderate the effect of GM benefits and GM beliefs towards consumer’s purchase behaviour but p value is significant at 0.050 in case GM effects and GM safety issues which implied consumers considering GM foods as safe for consumption will tend to buy them whereas those who are considering them harmful shall not be willing to accept them. The results are in line with the study conducted by Badrie et al. (2006) and Chen (2007) who suggested that consumers prefer GM foods as they consider them as healthier than their counterparts and are willing to take healthy actions and this shapes their positive attitude towards GM foods and thus influences their buying behaviour. Thus, a marketer must try to gain out of this situation as he can charge a higher price from those consumers who will buy GM food items because they perceive it to be a healthy alternative.

Despite this, a study conducted by Bredahl (2001) mentioned GM foods as a harmful additive and that consumers who are health conscious shall not buy them. Thus, to uplift the market of GM food items, the marketer could try to improve the health knowledge of the consumers by organizing free seminars, workshops or by advertising that GM foods are not unhealthy.

Based on the findings, a marketer while interacting with consumers should cater to the issues regarding food safety risks and health consciousness amongst consumers. Government and trusted authorities must provide consumers with authentic evidences suggesting benefits of GM foods.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ajzen

(2003). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. NJ: Prentice Hall, Englewood-Cliffs.

Aiken

L.S.

& West

S.G.

(1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. SAGE Publishing: Thousand Oaks, C.A.

Angulo

A. G.

(2003). Food safety and consumers’ willingness to pay for labeled beef in Spain. Paper presented at the 83rd EAAE Seminar, Chania, 4–6 September.

Aschemann

(2008). Determinants of choice regarding food with nutrition and health claims. Paper presented at the 12th Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE).

Badrie

Titre

Jueanville

& Calix

F. D.

(2006). Public awareness and perception of genetically modified/engineered foods in Trinidad, West Indies. British Food Journal, 108(3), 192–199.

Baker

(1993). Measuring food safety preferences: Identifying consumer segments. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 18(2), 277–287.

Benbrook

(2009). Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the United States: The first thirteen years. Retrieved from http://www.organiccenter.org/reportfiles/13Years20091126_ExSumFrontMatter.pdf

Bredahl

(2001). Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods—Results of a cross national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24(1), 23–61.

Chen

(2007). Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic foods in Taiwan: Moderating effects of food-related personality traits. Food Quality and Preference, 18, (1008–1021).

10.

Cook

A. J.

(2002). Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5), 557–572.

11.

Curtis

K. M.

(2004). Consumer acceptance of genetically modified food products in the developing world. AgBioForum, 7(1–2), 70–95.

12.

De Liver

Y. V.

(2005). Unpacking attitudes towards genetically modified food. Appetite, 45(3), 242–249.

13.

Durant

J. B.

(1998). Biotechnology in the public sphere—A European sourcebook. London, UK: Science Museum.

14.

EFSA (2006). European Food Safety Authority. Retrieved from www.efsa.eu.int/science/gmo/

15.

European Union (EU) (2000). The Europeans and Biotechnology-Eurobarometer. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

16.

Fishbein

(1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

17.

Fortin

(2003). Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods in New Zealand. British Food Journal, 105(1), 42–58.

18.

Frewer

(1999). Public perceptions of genetically modified foods in Europe. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 6(2), 108–115.

19.

GAO (2002). United States General Accounting Office report to congressional requesters: Genetically modified foods (GAO-02-566). Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02566.pdf

20.

Gaskell

G. A.

(2004). GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 24(1), 185–194.

21.

Grunert

S. C.

& Juhl

H. J.

(1995). Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods. Journal of economic psychology, 16(1), 39–62.

22.

House

L. L.

(2004). Objective and subjective knowledge: Impacts on consumer demand for genetically modified foods in the United States and the European Union. AgBioForum, 7, 113–123.

23.

Huffman

(2003). Consumer’s acceptance of (and resistance to) genetically modified foods in high-income countries: Effects of labels and information in an uncertain environment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85, 1112–1232.

24.

James

(2007). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2006 (ISAAA Brief No. 35). Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.

25.

Josiassen

& Assaf

(2010). Country-of-origin contingencies: their joint influence on consumer behaviour. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 22(3), 294–313.

26.

Kleter

G. P.

(2005). Health considerations regarding horizontal gene transfer of microbial transgenes present in genetically modified crops. Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, 2005(4), 326–352.

27.

Knight

J. M.

(2007). Genetically modified food acceptance: An experiment in six countries. Nature Biotechnology, 25(5), 507–528.

28.

Konig

Cockburn

Crevel

R. W.

& Debruyne

(2004). Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42(7), 1047–1088.

29.

La¨hteenma¨ki

L. G.-L.

(2002). Acceptability of genetically modified cheese presented as a real product alternative. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 523–534.

30.

Lin

C.-H. H.-Y.

(2007). Integrating technology readiness into technology acceptance. The TRAM model. Psychology & Marketing, 24(7), 641–657.

31.

Lin

(2004). Segregation of non-biotech corn and soybeans: Who bears the cost? In Evenson

R. A.

(Ed.), The regulation of agricultural biotechnology (pp. 221–230). Wallingford, CT: CABI Publishing.

32.

Loureiro

M. H.

& Hine

(2004). Preferences and willingness to pay for GM labelling policies. Food Policy, 29(5), 467–483.

33.

Lusk

(2002). Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods. Food Technology, 56(10), 32–47.

34.

Martinez

Mollá-Bauzá

M. B.

Martinez

L. M.

& Del Campo

F. J.

(2004, September). Imagen Percibida De Los Alimentos Transgénicos. In Un Estudio Exploratorio. Paper at V Congreso de la Asociación Espanola de Economı a Agraria (pp. 15–17).

35.

Miles

(2001). Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards. Food Quality and Preference, 12(1), 47–61.

36.

Moon

(2001). Public perceptions and willingness-to-pay a premium for non-GM foods in the US and UK. AgBioForum, 4(3–4), 221–231.

37.

Noussair

C. R.

(2004). Do consumers really refuse to buy genetically modified food? The Economic Journal, 114(492), 102–121.

38.

O’Fallon

M. J.

(2007). To buy or not to buy: Impact of labeling on purchasing intentions of genetically modified foods. Hospitality Management, 26(1), 117–130.

39.

Qaim

(2009). The benefits of genetically modified crops and costs of inefficient regulation. The Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1, 665–693.

40.

Saba

(2002). Consumer attitudes toward the use of gene technology in tomato production. Food Quality and Preference, 13(1), 13–21.

41.

Saher

M. L.-K.

(2006). Attitudes towards genetically modified and organic foods. Appetite, 46(3), 324–331.

42.

Savadori

L. S.

(2004). Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1289–1299.

43.

Shaw

Hogg

Wilson

Shiu

& Hassan

(2006). Fashion victim: the impact of fair trade concerns on clothing choice. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14(4), 427–440.

44.

Sharma

S. R.

(1981). Identification and Analysis of Moderating Variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 291–300.

45.

Slovic

(2000). The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan.

46.

Sparks

(1992). Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior: Assessing the role of identification with green consumerism. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(4), 1388–1399.

47.

Sparks

(2002). The role of moral judgments within expectancy-value-based attitude-behavior models. Ethics and Behavior, 12(4), 299–321.

48.

Tenbült

P. D.

(2005). Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite, 45(1), 47–50.

49.

Thogersen

(2006). Predicting Consumer Choices of Organic Food: Results from the CONDOR Project. In (Eds.) Andreasen

C.B.

Elsgaard

Sondergaard

Sorensen

and Hansen

, Proceedings of European Joint Organic Congress (pp. 30–31). Odense, Denmark.

50.

Thorpe

(2005). When goliaths clash: US and EU differences over the labeling of food products derived from genetically modified organisms. Agriculture and Human Values, 21(4), 287–298.

51.

Townsend

(2004). Psychological determinants of willingness to taste and purchase genetically modified food. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1385–1393.

52.

Uzogara

S. G.

(2000). The impact of genetic modification of human foods in the 21st century: A review. Biotechnology Advances, 18(3), 179–206.

53.

Van Den Heuvel

T. V.

(2006). Why preferences change: Beliefs become more salient through provided (genomics) information. Appetite, 47(3), 343–351.

54.

Vilella-Vila

M. C.-F.

(2005). Consumers involvement and acceptance of biotechnology in the European Union: A specific focus on Spain and the UK. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(2), 108–118.

55.

Wandel

& Bugge

(1997). Environmental concern in consumer evaluation of food quality. Food quality and preference, 8(1), 19–26.

56.

WHO (2005). Modern food biotechnology, human health and development: An evidence-based. Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/biotech_en.pdf

57.

Zhong

F. M.

(2003). GM foods: A Nanjing case study of Chinese consumers awareness and potential attitudes. AgBioforum, 5(4), 136–144.