Suchergebnisse

Genetically modified (GM) foods represent a significant technical and commercial breakthrough, but they have also revealed a major weakness in product development and commercialization in the global agri-food system. Although the biotechnology industry has developed a number of new technologies and products and marketed them effectively to producers, the biotechnology industry has almost completely ignored the need to market these products to consumers. One facet of the marketing literature suggests that innovative products need to be proactively positioned in the market either as a replacement for what exists or as an addition. The literature suggests that innovations like GM foods must be placed in the market in such a way as to allow consumers to test and compare the new products against existing products. We suggest that although the biotechnology industry did this effectively with producers and for a few output-trait whole foods, it has relied on the concept of substantial equivalence embedded in regulatory regimes to justify ignoring the concerns of consumers for most of the GM foods currently in the market. The industry has been almost universally unwilling to proactively market input-trait GM foods to consumers. This has created a variety of consumer responses, ranging from indifference in much of North America to citizen demands for tighter government regulation and mandatory labeling, to consumer boycotts in the EU and other countries. This paper reviews the relevant marketing literature, examines the few cases where new GM foods have been proactively marketed, and draws the conclusion that it may be necessary to more clearly and fully market GM foods to consumers. This has implications for future introductions of other innovative food products. ; Includes bibliographical references

This article focuses on the economics of labeling genetically modified (GM) foods and some implications of GM-labeling policies. Food labels are one potentially important source of information about attributes of food that consumers can use in their decision-making processes, but there are both economic and political concerns involved in deciding what can and should be included on these food labels.

Abstract

Anti‐genetically modified (GM) food organizations have often incited consumers to boycott conventional groceries and donate money to their cause. Using telephone survey data from 1008 Canadians, this study examines differences in attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and behaviours of anti‐GM food activists and non‐activists, then uses multivariate probit analysis to determine which of these characteristics predict the likelihood of such active participation in the anti‐GM movement. Food production knowledge and general concerns about health and the environment did not predict anti‐GM activism, while anti‐corporate sentiments, fear of globalization and belief that GM foods are fundamentally unnatural had the greatest predictive power.


Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This paper suggests a rethinking of the existing research about Genetically Modified (GM) food. Since the first batch of GM food was commercialised in the UK market, GM food rapidly received and lost media attention in the UK. Disagreement on GM food policy between the US and the EU has also drawn scholarly attention to this issue. Much research has been carried out intending to understand people-s views about GM food and the shaping of these views. This paper was based on the data collected in twenty-nine semi-structured interviews, which were examined through Erving Goffman-s idea of self-presentation in interactions to suggest that the existing studies investigating "consumer attitudes" towards GM food have only considered the "front stage" in the dramaturgic metaphor. This paper suggests that the ways in which people choose to present themselves when participating these studies should be taken into account during the data analysis.

Over the past decade, the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) have implemented widely divergent regulatory systems to govern the production and consumption of genetically modified (GM) agricultural crops. In the US, many GM varieties have been commercially produced and marketed, while in the EU few varieties have been approved: a de facto moratorium limited EU production, import and domestic sale of most GM crops from late 1998 to April 2004, and since then strict labelling regulations and a slow approval process are having a similar effect. The EU policies have substantially altered trade flows and led in September 2003 to the WTO establishing a WTO Dispute Settlement panel to test the legality of European policy towards imports of GM foods. This paper seeks to better understand the economic forces behind the different regulatory approaches of the US and the EU. It uses a model of the global economy (GTAP) to examine empirically how GM biotechnology adoption would affect the economic welfare of both adopting and non-adopting countries in the absence of alternative policy responses to this technology, and in their presence. These results go beyond earlier empirical studies to indicate effects on real incomes of farm households, and suggest the EU moratorium on GM imports helps EU farmers even though it requires them to forego the productivity boost they could receive from the new GM biotechnology. ; We acknowledge with thanks funding support from Australia's Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Research Council.

Over the past decade, the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) have implemented widely divergent regulatory systems to govern the production and consumption of genetically modified (GM) agricultural crops. In the US, many GM varieties have been commercially produced and marketed, while in the EU few varieties have been approved: a de facto moratorium limited EU production, import and domestic sale of most GM crops from late 1998 to April 2004, and since then strict labelling regulations and a slow approval process are having a similar effect. The EU policies have substantially altered trade flows and led in September 2003 to the WTO establishing a WTO Dispute Settlement panel to test the legality of European policy towards imports of GM foods. This paper seeks to better understand the economic forces behind the different regulatory approaches of the US and the EU. It uses a model of the global economy (GTAP) to examine empirically how GM biotechnology adoption would affect the economic welfare of both adopting and non-adopting countries in the absence of alternative policy responses to this technology, and in their presence. These results go beyond earlier empirical studies to indicate effects on real incomes of farm households, and suggest the EU moratorium on GM imports helps EU farmers even though it requires them to forego the productivity boost they could receive from the new GM biotechnology. ; We acknowledge with thanks funding support from Australia's Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Research Council.

Analytical perspectives -- Making Europe safe for agbiotech, generating dissent -- Opening up risks, disputing un/sustainable agriculture -- Channelling participation, testing public representations -- Regulating risk, testing EU reforms -- Scaling up GM crops, testing commercial operators -- Labelling GM products, testing free choice -- Segregating GM crops, contesting future agricultures -- Conclusion: testing European democracy.

Abstract

We report on the search for information on a genetically modified food by a sample of Canadian consumers. In the course of a computer‐based survey on consumer choices, some 445 respondents, drawn from a large representative panel of Canadian consumers, had the opportunity for voluntary access to information related to a genetically modified food through hyperlinks. Slightly less than half actually sought the information. The economic construct of benefit–cost reasoning was applied to assess possible reasons for the different patterns of information access seen in the study. Gender, employment status, rural or urban residency and the number of children in the household affected the probability that respondents would access information.


Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.