1 / 23

Risk Attitudes and GM Foods: Will Canadian Consumers buy Bread with GM Ingredients?

Risk Attitudes and GM Foods: Will Canadian Consumers buy Bread with GM Ingredients?. Symposium 2004: Cooperative Chair Program June 2,2004 Michele Veeman, Wiktor Adamowicz, Wuyang Hu Lori Srivastava, Anna Huennemeyer

taji
Download Presentation

Risk Attitudes and GM Foods: Will Canadian Consumers buy Bread with GM Ingredients?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Risk Attitudes and GM Foods: Will Canadian Consumers buy Bread with GM Ingredients? Symposium 2004: Cooperative Chair Program June 2,2004 Michele Veeman, Wiktor Adamowicz, Wuyang Hu Lori Srivastava, Anna Huennemeyer Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Edmonton Alberta T6G-2H1; email contact: michele.veeman@ualberta.ca University of Alberta

  2. Risk Attitudes and GM Foods • A report on a Genome Prairie GE3LS project: • Why? lack of knowledge on how people’s risk perceptions, for food in particular, as expressed in people’s behavioural trade-offs. • What are the implications of people’s responses to risk in this context? University of Alberta

  3. Risk Attitudes and GM Foods Theoretical framework: • Economics, sociology and psychology; • Focus on decision making under risk as seen through people’s choices • Major methods: • Focus groups • Computer-aided survey instrument • Choice experiment formats University of Alberta

  4. Conceptual Framework: Choice factors influencing beliefs about products, attributes and their values and uncertainties: • Qualitative Risk Characteristics: familiarity/ knowledge; control; voluntary vs imposed risk; benefits from the choice • Consumers’ Characteristics: socio-economic & demographic;magnitude of issue in overall decision making; value system (cultural & ethical); general knowledge and experience; trust in source of goods & information; inter-actions • Information Characteristics: information presentation; framing; reference points; trust in source; objective information about risks/benefits • Larger Social and Political Concerns University of Alberta

  5. Survey Development: focus groups • We tested concepts, wording and proposed survey methods in focus group discussions: • Two different foods were used : a tortilla chip (snack food) and bread (basic food). Bread was chosen for the formal survey. • What do people look for when they buy these foods? • Would group members would buy such GM foods? Why? University of Alberta

  6. Survey Application • An international market research firm was contracted to pretest and apply the developed survey to a sample from their internet-based panel; 882 respondents drawn from their panel of 40,000 households; incentive; screener; completed in January 2003. • The sample of 882 respondents is reasonably representative of the Canadian population.. University of Alberta

  7. Four Part Survey Structure: • Part 1: establish basic preferences for bread: “your own preferred bread” • Part 2: Split sample with random assignment to two experiments ( A: information search & B: labelling). • Part 3: Knowledge; attitudes: risk & trust • Part 4: Socio-economic characteristics. University of Alberta

  8. Experiment A Design : Information effects on choice • GMO present/absent: “with GMO” • Health attribute present/absent: “with healthy vitamins” • Environmental attribute present/absent: “environmentally friendly” • Price compared to base choice • 7 information scenarios University of Alberta

  9. Experiment B Design: GM labelling effects on choice • Attributes: Brand name; Type of flour/bread; Price; GM included /excluded in listed ingredients; • Labelling: Mandatory (positive statement) : Voluntary (negative statement) : Mixed University of Alberta

  10. Ratings from 1 (“very high”) to 4 (“almost no risk”) or “don’t know” to questions on “how risky is..” particular agricultural/food issues concerning environmental safety and food safety. Part 3 of Survey: Respondents’ risk ratings University of Alberta

  11. Most risky (very high risk) of agriculture on the environment • water pollution by chem runoffs (61%); • herbicide/pesticide resistance (50%); • agricultural waste disposal (41%); • soil erosion (28%); • GM effect on environment (27%); • effects of ag. on biodiversity (26%); • water pollution by chem runoffs (61%); University of Alberta

  12. Most risky issues for food: • bacteria contamination (41%); • pesticide residuals (41%); • use of antibiotics (36%); • mad cow disease (32%); • fat & cholesterol in food (24.9%); • GM use (21%); • food additives (15%) University of Alberta

  13. Many agreed on the following types of statements: • “Canada should advance GM/GE to prevent or cure diseases” (A: 67%; D:22%) • “GM/GE in agriculture is unnatural” (A: 54%; D: 37%) • I would sample foods from GM/GE (A:56%; D: 35%) University of Alberta

  14. Opinions were less clear on the following types of statements: • GM/GE in livestock will worsen animal welfare (A:38%;D:35%) • Foods from GM/GE crops are less risky than foods from GM/GE animals (A:23%; D:43%) • GM leads to harmful market concentration (A: 42%;D: 34%) University of Alberta

  15. There was stronger disagreement with these statements: • “Prefer cheaper foods from GM crops over more expensive foods” (A: 33% D 57%). • “ Feeding animals with GM/GE feed is not a concern” (A: 33%; D: 57%) • “Benefits for the environment of GM/GE crops outweigh risks” (A: 32%; D: 44%) University of Alberta

  16. Are people well informed? • Few (3.5%) said they were very well informed about GM/GE foods; more (41%) felt somewhat informed; many (44%) felt not very informed or not at all informed (11%) • Asked how often they discussed GM food, 4% responded: “frequently”; 52% “from time to time” and 42% “never” University of Alberta

  17. Attitudes & Activism • “GM Content affects my food choices”: Y: 40%; N: 53%; • “I purposefully avoid GM foods”: Y: 11%; N:87%; • “I donate to oppose GM”: Y:4%; N:92%; • “I have lobbied against GM food”: Y:3%; N:96%; University of Alberta

  18. Other “voting” responses strongly favoured: • Public involvement in GM/GE food policy; • Mandatory GM/GE labelling; University of Alberta

  19. Risk Attitudes and GM Foods: Will Canadian Consumers buy Bread with GM Ingredients? • Our data indicates yes—many Canadians would buy this bread, especially if it were sold at a discount and there are benefits from introduced health or environmental benefits. • However, there is much difference in attitudes and a sizeable group is very strongly opposed to GM/GE food/bread. University of Alberta

  20. Latent class model analysis shows four consumer groups relative to GM bread. • Value Seekers (51%), indifferent to GM content & seek health/environmental and price benefits • Anti-GM Group (32%) will not buy even if there are these benefits; • Traditionalists (14%), will not buy GM; • Fringe Consumers (4%) seek health benefits, irrespective of GM University of Alberta

  21. Our other and continuing work focuses on: • Who seeks information and why? [only about half of the respondents voluntarily sought the further information made available in our internet experiment] • How did the different types and sources of voluntarily accessed information affect their choices? University of Alberta

  22. Some of our conclusions: • Identification of GM benefits to health and environments are important to stated choices • Even so, there is considerable heterogeneity in responses University of Alberta

  23. In conclusion • Thank you for your interest in this study We acknowledge financial assistance to this project from: • Genome Canada • Genome Prairie • Alberta Agriculture Research Institute University of Alberta

More Related