Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating factors influencing consumer willingness to buy GM food and nano-food

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Nanoparticle Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Emerging technologies applied to food products often evoke controversy about their safety and whether to label foods resulting from their use. As such, it is important to understand the factors that influence consumer desires for labeling and their willingness-to-buy (WTB) these food products. Using data from a national survey with US consumers, this study employs structural equation modeling to explore relationships between potential influences such as trust in government to manage technologies, views on restrictive government policies, perceptions about risks and benefits, and preferences for labeling on consumer’s WTB genetically modified (GM) and nano-food products. Some interesting similarities and differences between GM- and nano-food emerged. For both technologies, trust in governing agencies to manage technologies did not influence labeling preferences, but it did influence attitudes about the food technologies themselves. Attitudes toward the two technologies, as measured by risk–benefit comparisons and comfort with consumption, also greatly influenced views of government restrictive policies, labeling preferences, and WTB GM or nano-food products. For differences, labeling preferences were found to influence WTB nano-foods, but not WTB GM foods. Gender and religiosity also had varying effects on WTB and labeling preferences: while gender and religiosity influenced labeling preferences and WTB for GM foods, they did not have a significant influence for nano-foods. We propose some reasons for these differences, such as greater media attention and other heuristics such as value-based concerns about “modifying life” with GM foods. The results of this study can help to inform policies and communication about the application of these new technologies in food products.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker DA, Bagozzi RP (1979) Unobservable variables in structural equation models with an application in industrial selling. J Mark Res 16:147–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen W, Cummins R (2012). Monsanto threatens to sue Vermont if legislators pass a bill requiring GMO food to be labeled. AlterNet, April 4th. Accessed 3 March 2014

  • AMOS (2013) AMOS for windows, 21st edn. SPSS Inc., Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle J (2005) Amos 6.0 user’s guide. Marketing Department, SPSS Incorporated

  • Bagozzi RP (1994) Structural equation models in marketing research: Basic principles. In: Bagozzi RP (ed) Principles of marketing research. Blackwell, Cambridge, pp 317–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler PM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 107:238–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley JC, Kramer VL, Priest SH (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation. J Nanopart Res 10:549–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bieberstein A, Roosen J, Marette S, Blanchemanche S, Vandermoere F (2013) Consumer choices for nano-food and nano-packaging in France and Germany. Eur Rev Agric Econ 40:73–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen KA (1998) Structural equation models. Wiley Online Library

  • Bouwmeester H, Dekkers S, Noordam MY, Hagens WI, Bulder AS, De Heer C, Ten Voorde SE, Wijnhoven SW, Marvin HJ, Sips AJ (2009) Review of health safety aspects of nanotechnologies in food production. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 53:52–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bredahl L (1999) Consumers cognitions with regard to genetically modified foods: results of a qualitative study in four countries. Appetite 33:343–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown J, Kuzma J (2013) Hungry for information: public attitudes toward food nanotechnology and labeling. Rev Policy Res 30:512–548

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardello AV, Schutz HG, Lesher LL (2007) Consumer perceptions of foods processed by innovative and emerging technologies: a conjoint analytic study. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 8:73–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmines EG, McIver JP (1981) Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures. In: Bohrnstedt GW, Borgatta EF (eds) Social measurement: current issues. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 65–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Caswell JA (1998) Should use of genetically modified organisms be labeled? AgBioForum 1:22–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Food Safety (2014) U.S. Polls on GE Food Labeling. Available at http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/us-polls-on-ge-food-labeling

  • Chen M-F (2008) An integrated research framework to understand consumer attitudes and purchase intentions toward genetically modified foods. Br Food J 110:559–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen M-F, Li H-L (2007) The consumer’s attitude toward genetically modified foods in Taiwan. Food Qual Prefer 18:662–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chern WS, Rickertsen K, Tsuboi N, Fu T-T (2002) Consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for genetically modified vegetable oil and salmon: a multiple-country assessment. AgBioForum 5:105–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Colson G, Rousu M (2013) What do consumer surveys and experiments reveal and conceal about consumer preferences for genetically modified foods? GM Crops Food 4(3):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook AJ, Fairweather JR (2007) Intentions of New Zealanders to purchase lamb or beef made using nanotechnology. Br Food J 109:675–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean M, Raats MM, Grunert KG, Lumbers M (2009) Factors influencing eating a varied diet in old age. Public Health Nutr 12:2421–2427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor BD, Smith JC (2010) US Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-238. Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States, 2009

  • Dudo A, Choi D-H, Scheufele DA (2011) Food nanotechnology in the news. Coverage patterns and thematic emphases during the last decade. Appetite 56:78–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly AH, Chaiken S (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Orlando

    Google Scholar 

  • Finucane ML, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Flynn J, Satterfield TA (2000) Gender, race, and perceived risk: the ‘white male’ effect. Health Risk Soc 2:159–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford D, Ferrigno L (2014) Vermont governor signs GM food labeling into law, CNN News, 8 May

  • Frewer LJ, Scholderer J, Bredahl L (2003) Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: the mediating role of trust. Risk Anal 23:1117–1133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer L, Lassen J, Kettlitz B, Scholderer J, Beekman V, Berdal KG (2004) Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1181–1193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer LJ, van der Lans IA, Fischer AR, Reinders MJ, Menozzi D, Zhang X, van den Berg I, Zimmermann KL (2013) Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Food Sci Technol 30:142–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganiere P, Chern WS, Hahn D (2006) A continuum of consumer attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the United States. J Agric Resour Econ 31:129–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunert KG, Bredahl L, Scholderer J (2003) Four questions on European consumers’ attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 4(4):435–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallman WK (2012) Public perceptions of GM foods. The Food Policy Institute at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, White Paper

  • Harris (2012) Nanotechnology Awareness may be low, but opinions are strong. The Harris Poll #52, September 6, 2012

  • Hellier PK, Geursen GM, Carr RA, Rickard JA (2003) Customer repurchase intention: a general structural equation model. Eur J Mark 37:1762–1800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoban TJ (1998) Trends in consumer attitudes about agricultural biotechnology. AgBioForum 1:4

    Google Scholar 

  • Hossain F, Onyango B, Adelaja A, Schilling B, Hallman W (2004) Consumer acceptance of food biotechnology: willingness to buy genetically modified food products. J Int Food Agribus Market 15:53–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang M-Y, Huston SA, Perri M (2013) Consumer preferences for the predictive genetic test for alzheimer disease. J Genet Couns 23:172–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huffman WE (2003) Consumers’ acceptance of (and resistance to) genetically modified foods in high-income countries: effects of labels and information in an uncertain environment. Am J Agric Econ 85:1112–1118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huffman WE, Shogren JF, Rousu M, Tegene A (2003) Consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food labels in a market with diverse information: evidence from experimental auctions. J Agric Resour Econ 28:481–502

    Google Scholar 

  • International Food Information Council (2014) IFIC survey: consumer perceptions of food technology, 16th Ed., The International Food Information Council Foundation, www.foodinsight.org. Accessed March 2014

  • Kalaitzandonakes N, Marks LA, Vickner SS (2007) Consumer response to mandated labeling of genetically modified foods, labeling genetically modified food: the philosophical and legal debate. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Katare B, Yue C, Hurley T (2013) Consumer willingness to pay for nano-packaged food products: evidence from eye-tracking technology and experimental auctions, 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4–6, 2013, Washington, DC, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association

  • Kim RB (2009) Factors influencing Chinese consumer behaviour when buying innovative food products. Agric Econ 55:436–445

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopicki A (2013) Strong support for labeling modified foods. New York Times, July 27, 2013

  • Kuzma J, Priest S (2010) Nanotechnology, risk, and oversight: learning lessons from related emerging technologies. Risk Anal 30(11):1688–1698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loureiro ML, Hine S (2004) Preferences and willingness to pay for GM labeling policies. Food Policy 29:467–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Poveda A, Molla-Bauza MB, del Campo Gomis FJ, Martinez LM-C (2009) Consumer-perceived risk model for the introduction of genetically modified food in Spain. Food Policy 34:519–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire WJ (1969) The nature of attitudes and attitude change. Handb Soc Psychol 3:136–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaelidou N, Hassan LM (2010) Modeling the factors affecting rural consumers’ purchase of organic and free-range produce: a case study of consumers’ from the Island of Arran in Scotland, UK. Food Policy 35:130–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millsap RE, Kwok O-M (2004) Evaluating the impact of partial factorial invariance on selection in two populations. Psychol Methods 9:93–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monica JC Jr (2008) FDA labeling of cosmetics containing nanoscale materials. Nanotechnol Law Bus 5:63–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon W, Balasubramanian SK (2001) Public perceptions and willingness-to-pay a premium for non-gm foods in the US and UK. AgBioForum 4:221–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Noussair C, Robin S, Ruffieux B (2002) Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels? Econ Lett 75:47–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2004) Safety of genetically engineered foods. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2009) Review of federal strategy for nanotechnology-related environmental, health, and safety research. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally JC, Bernstein I (1978) Psychometry theory. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer C (2003) Risk perception: another look at the ‘white male’ effect. Health Risk Soc 5(1):71–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips DM, Hallman WK (2013) Consumer risk perceptions and marketing strategy: the case of genetically modified food. Psychol Market 30(9):739–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF (2005) Trust in risk regulation: cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Anal 25:199–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (2014) Consumer products inventory: an inventory of nanotechnology-based consumer products introduced on the market. Available at http://www.nanotechproject.org/cpi/. Last Accessed 16 Sept 2014

  • Roco MC, Mirkin CA, Hesam MC (2010) Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020: retrospective and outlook. WTEC Study on Nanotechnology Research Directions, World Technology Evaluation Center, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Entrena M, Salazar-Ordóñez M, Sayadi S (2013) Applying partial least squares to model genetically modified food purchase intentions in southern Spain consumers. Food Policy 40:44–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roe B, Teisl MF (2007) Genetically modified food labeling: the impacts of message and messenger on consumer perceptions of labels and products. Food Policy 32:49–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousu M, Monchuk D, Shogren J, Kosa K (2005) Consumer perceptions of labels and the willingness to pay for ‘second-generation’ genetically modified products. J Agric Appl Econ 37:647–657

    Google Scholar 

  • Saba A, Vasallo M (2002) Consumer attitudes toward the use of gene technology in tomato production. Food Qual Prefer 13(1):107–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders C, Guenther M, Tait P, Saunders J (2013) Assessing consumer preferences and willingness to pay for NZ food attributes in China, India and the UK, Proceedings of the 87th Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society, University of Warwick, United Kingdom, pp 8–10

  • Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Shih T, Kajsa Dalrymple E, Ho SS (2008) Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Nanotechnol 4:91–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw D, Shiu E (2002) An assessment of ethical obligation and self-identity in ethical consumer decision-making: a structural equation modelling approach. Int J Consum Stud 26:286–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal 20:195–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Keller C (2011) Labeling of nanotechnology consumer products can influence risk and benefit perceptions. Risk Anal 31:1762–1769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Cousin M-E, Kastenholz H, Wiek A (2007) Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49:459–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H (2009) Acceptance of nanotechnology foods: a conjoint study examining consumers’ willingness to buy. Br Food J 111:660–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SPSS (2013) SPSS for Windows, 21st edn. SPSS Inc, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Teisl MF, Garner L, Roe B, Vayda ME (2003) Labeling genetically modified foods: how do US consumers want to see it done? AgBioForum 6:6

    Google Scholar 

  • Toma L, McVittie A, Hubbard C, Stott AW (2011) A structural equation model of the factors influencing British consumers’ behaviour toward animal welfare. J Food Prod Market 17:261–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) (2012) Acreage Report, June 29

  • Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2011) The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: the hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature. Public Underst Sci 20(2):195–206.

  • Verdurme A, Viaene J (2003a) Consumer attitudes towards GM food: literature review and recommendations for effective communication. J Int Food Agribus Market 13:77–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verdurme A, Viaene J (2003b) Consumer beliefs and attitude towards genetically modified food: basis for segmentation and implications for communication. Agribusiness 19:91–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worsley A, Wang WC, Hunter W (2013) Gender differences in the influence of food safety and health concerns on dietary and physical activity habits. Food Policy 41:184–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yawson RM, Kuzma J (2010) Systems mapping of consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology. J Consum Policy 33:299–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yue C, Zhuo S, Kuzma J (2014) Heterogeneous consumer preferences for nanotechnology and genetic-modification technology in food products. J Agric Econ. doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12090

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou G (2013) Nanotechnology in the food system: consumer acceptance and willingness to pay. Theses and Dissertations-Agricultural Economics, Paper 10

  • Zhou G, Hu W, Schieffer J, Robbins, L (2013) Public acceptance of and willingness to pay for nanofood: case of canola oil. In 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4–6, 2013, Washington, DC (No. 149662)

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the USDA Grant NIFA 2012-70002-19403 awarded to the Food Policy Research Center of the University of Minnesota, and in part, by the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University. All opinions are of the authors and not the USDA-FPRC or GES center. The authors would like to thank Jonathan Brown, Ph.D. student at the University of Minnesota, for early assistance in helping to develop the survey instrument.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Applied Economics and Horticultural Science, Bachman Endowed Chair in Horticultural Marketing, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, 1970 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA

    Chengyan Yue

  2. Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, 1994 Buford Avenue, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA

    Shuoli Zhao

  3. Division of Communication Research, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

    Christopher Cummings

  4. Genetic Engineering & Society Center, North Carolina State University, 5147 Hunt Library, Centennial Campus, 1070 Partners Way, Suite 5100, Campus Box 7565, Raleigh, NC, 27606-7565, USA

    Jennifer Kuzma

Authors
  1. Chengyan Yue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shuoli Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher Cummings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jennifer Kuzma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Kuzma.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 23 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yue, C., Zhao, S., Cummings, C. et al. Investigating factors influencing consumer willingness to buy GM food and nano-food. J Nanopart Res 17, 283 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-015-3084-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-015-3084-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation