Genetically modified and socially responsible foods: A significant relationship for consumer’s preferences

Author/s Daniela Covino, Flavio Boccia, Immacolata Viola
Publishing Year 2022 Issue 2021/2
Language English Pages 13 P. 371-383 File size 250 KB
DOI 10.3280/RISS2021-002024
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The aim of the present study is to underline and syntetize a possible consumer be-haviour and willingness to pay towards a particular type of genitally modified food linked to specific indications on the label about the implementation of corpo-rate social responsibility initiatives by manufacturing companies. Through a quan-titative model on a sample of hundreds Italian families, it was possible to consider possible consumers’ preferences regarding that consumption through a choice ex-periment and to verify the drivers of that purchase and preference heterogeneity across consumers’ choice, and the willingness to pay, for the products with those features. Indications obtained from the relationships between the variables ana-lyzed also form a topic for future studies and useful for companies’ strategies.

Keywords: behavior, biotechnology, choice experiment, health, marketing.

  1. Adams S.J. (2002). Educational Attainment and Health: Evidence from a Sample of Older Adults. Education Economics, 10(1): 97-109.
  2. Alpízar F., Carlsson F. and Martinson P. (2003), Using Choice Experiments for Non-market Valuation. Economic Issues, 8(1): 83-110.
  3. Amaru S. (2014). A natural compromise: a moderate solution to the GMO and ‘natural’ labelling disputes. Food and Drug Law Journal, 69(4): 575-601.
  4. Boccia F. and Punzo G. (2021). A choice experiment on consumer perception of three generations of genetically modified foods. Appetite, 161: 105158.
  5. Boccia F. and Sarnacchiaro P. (2020). Chi-squared automatic interaction detector analysis on a choice experiment: An evaluation of responsible initiatives on consumers’ purchasing behaviour. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27 (2): 1143-1151.
  6. Boccia F. (2015). Genetically Modified Organisms: What Issues in the Italian Market?. Quality – Access to Success, 16 (145): 105-110.
  7. Boccia F. and Covino, D. (2016), Innovation and sustainability in agri-food companies: the role of quality, Rivista di Studi sulla Sostenibilità, 1: 131-141.
  8. Boccia F., Covino D. and Sarnacchiaro, P. (2018). Genetically modified food versus knowledge and fear: A Noumenic approach for consumer behaviour. Food Research International, 111: 682-688.
  9. Boccia F., Ianuario S. and Sarno V. (2013). The Italian environmental performance: the role of Ecosystem Vitality. Quality - Access to Success, 14 (137): 95-100.
  10. Coast J., Al-Janabi H., Sutton E.J., Horrocks S.A., Vosper A.J., Swancutt D.R. and Flynn T.N. (2012). Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Economics, 21(6): 730-741.
  11. Colombo S., Hanley N. and Louviere J. (2009). Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture. Agricultural Economics, 40 (3): 307-322.
  12. Costa-Font M. and Gil J.M. (2009). Structural equation modelling of consumer acceptance of genetically modified (GM) food in the Mediterranean Europe: A cross country study. Food Quality and Preference, 20: 399-409.
  13. Covino D. and Boccia F. (2014). Environmental management and global trade’s effects. Quality – Access to Success, 15 (138): 79-83.
  14. Covino D. and Boccia F. (2016). Potentialities of new agri-biotechnology for sustainable nutrition. Rivista di Studi sulla Sostenibilità, 2: 97-106.
  15. Cranfield J., Henson S. and Masakure O. (2011). Factors Affecting the Extent to which Consumers Incorporate Functional Ingredients into their Diets. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62 (2): 375-392.
  16. Črne-Hladnik H., Peklaj C., Košmelj K., Hladnik A. and Javornik B. (2009). Assessment of Slovene secondary school students’ attitudes to biotechnology in terms of usefulness, moral acceptability and risk perception. Public Understanding of Science, 18(6): 747-758.
  17. Dannenberg A. (2009). The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food - A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 68(8-9): 2182-2192.
  18. Deisingh A.K. and Badrie N. (2005). Detection approaches for genetically modified organisms in foods. Food Research International, 38(6): 639-649.
  19. Di Vaio A., Boccia F., Landriani L. and Palladino R. (2020). Artificial intelligence in the agri-food system: Rethinking sustainable business models in the COVID-19 scenario. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(12): 4851.
  20. Finucane M.L. and Holup J.L. (2005). Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified food: An overview of the literature. Social Science and Medicine, 60(7): 1603-1612.
  21. Gao Z. and Schroeder T. C. (2009). Effects of label information on consumer willingness-to-pay for food attributes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(3): 795-809.
  22. Gracia A., Loureiro M.L. and Nayga Jr R.M. (2009). Consumers’ valuation of nutritional information: a choice experiment study. Food Quality and Preference, 20(7): 463-471.
  23. Greene W.H. and Hensher D.A. (2010). Modeling ordered choices: A primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Hailu G., Boecker A., Henson S. and Cranfield J. (2009). Consumer valuation of functional foods and nutraceuticals in Canada. A conjoint study using probiotics. Appetite, 52(2): 257-265.
  25. Hanley N., Wright R.E. and Adamowicz V. (1998). Using Choice Experiments to value the Environment. Environmental and Resource Economics, 11(3): 413-428.
  26. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M. and Greene W.H. (2005). Applied choice analysis: a primer, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Hu W., Adamowicz W.L. and Veeman M.M. (2009). Consumers’ preferences for GM food and voluntary information access: a simultaneous choice analysis. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(2): 241-267.
  28. Jagadeesan P. and Salem S.B. (2015). Transgenic and cloned animals in the food chain – are we prepared to tackle it?. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 95(14): 2779-2782.
  29. James J.S. (2004). Consumer knowledge and acceptance of agricultural biotechnology vary. California Agriculture, 58(2): 99-105.
  30. Kim Y.G., Jang S.Y., Kyoung A. and Kim J. (2014). Application of the theory of planned behavior to genetically modified foods: Moderating effects of food technology neophobia. Food Research International, 62: 947-954.
  31. Kontoleon A. and Yabe M. (2003). Assessing the impacts of alternative ‘opt-out’formats in choice experiment studies: consumer preferences for genetically modified content and production information in food. Journal of Agricultural Policy and Resources, 5(1): 1-43.
  32. Lassoued R. and Giannakas K. (2010). Economic Effects of the Consumer‐oriented Genetically Modified Products in Markets with a Labelling Regime. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(3): 499-526.
  33. Lazarowitz R. and Bloch I. (2005). Awareness of societal issues among high school biology teachers teaching genetics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(5-6): 437-457.
  34. Li J. and Powdthavee N. (2015). Does more education lead to better health habits? Evidence from the school reforms in Australia. Social Science & Medicine, 127: 83-91.
  35. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A. and Swait J.D. (2000). Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  36. Lusk J.L., Bruce Traill W., House L.O., Valli C., Jaeger S.R., Moore M. and Morrow B. (2006). Comparative advantage in demand: experimental evidence of preferences for genetically modified food in the United States and European Union. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(1): 1-21.
  37. McFadden D. (1973). Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behaviour. In Zarembka P. (ed.). Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic press.
  38. Montuori P., Triassi M. and Sarnacchiaro P. (2012). The consumption of genetically modified foods in Italian high school students. Food Quality and Preference, 26: 246-251.
  39. Morrison M., Bennett J., Blamey R. and Louviere J. (2002). Choice modeling and tests of benefit transfer. American journal of agricultural economics, 84(1): 161-170.
  40. Pardo R., Midden C. and Miller J.D. (2002). Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union, Journal of Biotechnology, 98(1): 9-24.
  41. Pino G., Amatulli C., De Angelis M. and Peluso A.M. (2016). The influence of corporate social responsibility on consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward genetically modified foods: evidence from Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112: 2861-2869.
  42. Pomarici E., Boccia F. and Catapano D. (2012). The wine distribution systems over the world: An explorative survey. New Medit, 11(4): 23-32.
  43. Revelt D. and Train K. (1998). Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4): 647-657.
  44. Ribeiro T.G., Barone B. and Behrens J.H. (2016). Genetically modified foods and their social representation. Food Research International, 84: 120-127.
  45. Rommens C.M. (2010). Barriers and paths to market for genetically engineered crops. Biotechnology Journal, 8(2): 101-111.
  46. Ronteltap A., Van Trijp J.C.M., Renes R.J. and Frewer L.J. (2007). Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: Lessons for the future of nutrigenomics. Appetite, 49(1): 1-17.
  47. Royzman E., Cusimano C. and Leeman R.F. (2017). What lies beneath? Fear vs. disgust as affective predictors of absolutist opposition to genetically modified food and other new technologies. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(5): 466-480.
  48. Ryan M. and Gerard K. (2003). Using discrete choice experiments to value health care: current practice and future prospects. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2(1): 55-64.
  49. Sadler T.D. and Zeidler D.L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1): 71-93.
  50. Sarnacchiaro P. and Boccia F. (2018). Some remarks on measurement models in the structural equation model: an application for socially responsible food consumption. Journal of Applied Statistics, 45(7): 1193-1208.
  51. Sarno V. and Barmo M. (2014). Sustainability management in the agri-food companies: a practical guide. Quality - Access to Success, 15(141): 96-99.
  52. Sarno V. and Malgeri Manzo R. (2016). Italian companies’ attitude towards GM crops. Nutrition and Food Science, 46(5): 685-694.
  53. Sarnacchiaro P. and Boccia F. (2018). Some remarks on measurement models in the structural equation model: an application for socially responsible food consumption. Journal of Applied Statistics, 45(7): 1193-1208.
  54. Scholderer J. and Frewer L.J. (2003). The biotechnology communication paradox: experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. Journal of consumer policy, 26(2): 125-157.
  55. Smart R.D., Blum M. and Wesseler J. (2017). Trends in approval times for genetically engineered crops in the United States and the European Union. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(1): 182-198.
  56. Šorgo A. and Ambrožič-Dolinšek J. (2010). Knowledge of, attitudes toward, and acceptance of genetically modified organisms among prospective teachers of biology, home economics, and grade school in Slovenia. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 38(3): 141-150.
  57. Souyoul S.A., Saussy K.P. and Lupo M.P. (2018). Nutraceuticals: A Review. Dermatology and Therapy, 8(1): 5-16.
  58. Spence A. and Townsend E. (2006). Examining consumer behavior toward genetically modified (GM) food in Britain. Risk Analysis, 26(3): 657-670.
  59. Tonsor G.T., Schroeder T.C., Fox J.A. and Biere A. (2005). European preferences for beef steak attributes. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 367-380.
  60. Valente M. and Chaves C. (2018). Perceptions and valuation of GM food: A study on the impact and importance of information provision. Journal of cleaner production, 172: 4110-4118.
  61. Van Loo E.J., Caputo V., Nayga Jr R.M., Meullenet J.F. and Ricke S.C. (2011). Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic chicken breast: Evidence from choice experiment. Food Quality and Preference, 22(7): 603-613.
  62. Vega D.C. and Alpίzar F. (2011). Choice Experiments in Environmental Impact Assessment: The Case of the Toro 3 Hydroelectric Project and the Recreo Verde Tourist Center in Costa Rica. Environment for Development, 11(4): 1-26.
  63. Verbeke W. (2005). Consumer acceptance of functional foods: socio-demographic, cognitive and attitudinal determinants. Food quality and preference, 16(1): 45-57.
  64. Wunderlich S. and Gatto K.A. (2015). Consumer perception of genetically modified organisms and sources of information. Advances in Nutrition, 6(6): 842-851.
  65. Yang Y.T. and Chen B. (2016). Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 96(6): 1851-1855.
  66. Yunta E.R., Herrera C.V., Misseroni A., Milla L.F., Outomuro D., Lemus I.S., Lues M.F. and Stepke F.L. (2005). Attitudes towards genomic. Research in four Latin American countries. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 8(3).

Daniela Covino, Flavio Boccia, Immacolata Viola, Genetically modified and socially responsible foods: A significant relationship for consumer’s preferences in "RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA'" 2/2021, pp 371-383, DOI: 10.3280/RISS2021-002024