Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
to Buy GM Food
Efthimia Tsakiridou
Asterios Tsioumanis
George Papastefanou
Konstadinos Mattas
INTRODUCTION
METHODOLOGY
Model Description
personal values (Table 1). These seven units were used as independent
variables in the following analysis.
Logistic regression was employed for each country to estimate
the factors that influence consumers’ WTB GM food. Logistic regres-
sion, similar to a linear regression model but suited to models using
dichotomous dependent variable, is widely used to predict the presence
Dependent Variable
WTBUYGM (willing to buy a product containing GM ingredients):
if YES = 1, if NO = 0.
Independent Variables
MALE if male = 1, otherwise = 0
FEMALE if female = 1, otherwise = 0
AGE 18-25 If 18-25 years old = 1, otherwise = 0
AGE 26-35 If 26-35 years old = 1, otherwise = 0
AGE 36-45 If 36-45 years old = 1, otherwise = 0
AGE 46-55 If 46-55 years old = 1, otherwise = 0
AGE 56-65 If 56-65 years old = 1, otherwise = 0
AGE 66-M If > 65 years old = 1, otherwise = 0
ED-LOW (education level): if primary school = 1, otherwise = 0
ED-MEDIUM (education level): if high school = 1, otherwise = 0
ED-HIGH (education level): if university graduate = 1, otherwise = 0
INC-LOW (net income per month): if less than 1,000 € = 1, otherwise = 0
INC-MEDIUM (net income per month): if 1,000-under 2,000 € = 1, otherwise = 0
INC-HI (net income per month): if 2,000-under 3,000 € = 1, otherwise = 0
INC-HIHI (net income per month): if more than 3,000 € = 1, otherwise = 0
WITHPART If living with partner = 1, otherwise = 0
PRBEL1 Belief: GM food healthier and better quality than conventional food
PRBEL2 Belief: GM food is associated with allergy and health threats
EVPRBEL1 Value that GM food is healthier and better quality than conventional
food
EVPRBEL2 Value that GM food is associated with allergy and health threats
PROCBEL1 Belief: GM technology increases food supply and reduces food
prices
PROCBEL2 Belief: GM technology is associated with environmental hazards
EPRBEL1 Value that GM technology increases food supply and reduces food
prices
EPRBEL2 Value that GM technology is associated with environmental
hazards
VALENJOY Inclination towards life enjoyment
VALAMBIT Inclination towards being ambitious
VALRISK Inclination towards taking risks
VALOWNDE Inclination towards planning his/her activities on his/her own
VALHPEOP Inclination towards helping people
VALTRADI Inclination towards traditional way of living
VALPEACE Inclination towards living in peace and harmony
Tsakiridou et al. 75
In the section to follow, the results in the overall model are presented in
details, followed by a comparison between results regarding individual
countries (Germany and Greece). This is to avoid tedious repetitions,
though detailed results are given in the respective tables for all the studied
cases.
RESULTS
All surveyed respondents, 235 males (54.3%) and 198 females (45.7%),
are over eighteen years old, 41% within the age group of 26 to 45. In
addition, 53.1% of the respondents are married and 66.3% hold a uni-
versity degree. Notably, only 17% of the respondents express their
WTB GM food.
WTB model estimations suggest that socioeconomic factors, beliefs
and personal values affect consumers’ WTB GM food (Table 3). The
reference consumer in the three models (overall, Germany and Greece)
is a primary school graduate, male, over 65 years old, with a net month-
ly income less than 1,000€. In the logistic equation this reference con-
sumer is represented by the constant term.
In the overall model, findings indicate that middle aged consumers
(between 36 and 45 years) are less willing to buy GM food while con-
sumers who live with a partner (WITHPART) appear to be more willing
to buy GM food. In addition, consumers are willing to buy or not GM
food according to their beliefs. If they believe that GM food is healthier
than conventional food (PRBEL1) are willing to buy GM food or the
other way around (PRBEL2). Beliefs on the importance or not of GM
technology also affect consumers’ WTB. Valuing that GM technology
increases food supply and reduces prices (EPRBEL1) affects positively
the WTB GM food while a belief that GM technology causes environ-
mental hazards (EPRBEL2) corresponds to a negative effect on the WTB
GM food. Consumer’s inclination towards life enjoyment (VALENJOY)
is associated with a negative WTB GM food. Respondents who like to take
risks (VALRISK) and to plan their activities on their own (VALOWNDE)
are willing to buy GM food.
Results obtained from the Germany model estimation suggest that income
(INC-HIHI, INC-HI, INC-MEDIUM) and partnership (WITHPART) are
positively associated with WTB GM food, while age (A26-35) has a
negative effect on WTB GM food. As far as beliefs are concerned, find-
ings suggest that both consumers who believe that GM food cause
allergy and health threats (PRBEL2) and consumers who value that GM
76 JOURNAL OF FOOD PRODUCTS MARKETING
Note: The coefficient is significant at the *5% and **10% levels, respectively.
Tsakiridou et al. 77
are less WTB GM food. The belief that GM technology is associated with
environmental hazards and is a harmful to natural production negatively
affects German consumers’ WTB GM food and does not influence
Greek consumers’ WTB GM food. The belief that GM technology
increases food supply and reduces food prices is found to affect posi-
tively German consumers’ WTB GM food and has no effect on Greek
consumers’ WTB GM food.
WTB GM food is influenced by consumers’ personal values as well.
Inclination for life enjoyment negatively affects consumers’ WTB in both
countries though it is significant only for the German consumers. Helping
people and living in peace and harmony are values affecting negatively
the WTB in both countries but the parameter is significant only for the
Greek consumers. Being ambitious is a value with a positive influence on
Greek consumers’ WTB GM food. Taking risks is a value with a positive
effect on WTB GM food for both the German and the Greek consumers.
CONCLUSIONS
The present study deals with the complexity between public’s view
on GM food and consumers’ WTB such food products. An attempt was
Tsakiridou et al. 79
made to collate data and information from consumers with diverse cul-
tures in different countries, Germany and Greece. A broad range of fac-
tors affecting WTB GM food are considered. These factors can be
grouped into two main clusters, personal beliefs and values, and various
socioeconomic factors. The investigation was accomplished mainly by
introducing a modified TPB model, which it was applied using the en-
tire data (overall model) and then exclusively country’s data, Germany
and Greece.
In the overall model, the general hypothesis that beliefs, personal val-
ues (self-identity) and socioeconomic characteristics help to explain
consumers’ WTB GM food was confirmed. This consumers’ belief that
GM food is associated with health threats and allergy influence nega-
tively the WTB. On the contrary, beliefs that GM could be of better
quality and beneficial to health comparing to conventional food produc-
tion affect positively the WTB GM food. Generally speaking, WTB
model estimates suggest that both socioeconomic factors and beliefs
and values affect consumers’ WTB though with some variation between
different cultures. The similarity of some of the results across the two
countries is noteworthy. In many cases the factors that significantly
influence WTB GM are the same in the two countries, showing that
some stable mechanisms are at work in determining consumer accep-
tance or not of GM food.
Comparing factors influencing WTB in Greece and Germany sepa-
rately, it was found that, additional to utility (beliefs direct personal ef-
fects), identity outcomes (risk taking) are important for WTB GM food
in both cultures. Consumers in both countries generally form a negative
opinion towards GM food and cannot easily acknowledge and accept
potential benefits from buying GM food. However, Greek consumers
are more reluctant to buy GM food and more sceptic towards potential
risks associated with GM than German respondents.
An overall conclusion derived from the present study is that the
acceptance of GM food is strongly influenced by consumers’ beliefs
and personal values. This suggestion may bring forth interesting con-
siderations. Understanding the public’s range of views on technological
advances (GM) in food products is important to understand and antici-
pate potential acceptance problems, or, one step further, to take con-
sumer or public desires and concerns into account in the development
of technological advances. In addition, differences among the two
countries indicate that further inter-country research is required to iden-
tify the range of variation towards the acceptance of GM foods and to
formulate a more effective marketing strategy on GM food.
80 JOURNAL OF FOOD PRODUCTS MARKETING
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Hu-
man Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Bagozzi, R.P., Wong, N., Abe, S. and Bergami, M. (2000). Cultural and situational
contingencies and the theory of reasoned action: Application to fast food restaurant
consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2), 97-106.
Bredahl, L., Grunert, G. and Frewer, L. (1998). Consumer attitudes and decision mak-
ing with regards to genetically engineered food products–A review of the literature
and a presentation of models for future research. Journal of Consumer Policy, 21,
251-277.
Burton, M., Rigby, D., Young, T. and James, S. (2001). Consumer attitudes to geneti-
cally modified organisms in food in the UK. European Review of Agricultural Eco-
nomics, 28(4), 479-498.
Chern, W.S. and Rickertsen, K. (2004). A comparative analysis of consumer acceptance
of GM Foods in Norway and in the United States. In Evenson, R.E. and Santaniell, V.
(Eds). Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods, Wallingford, UK:
CABI Publishing, 95-110.
Cook, A.J., Kerr, G.N. and Moore, K. (2002). Attitudes and intentions towards pur-
chasing GM food. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 557-572.
Fortin, D.R. and Renton, M.S. (2003). Consumer acceptance of genetically modified
foods in New Zealand. British Food Journal, 105(1-2), 42-58.
Grunert, K.G., Lahteenmaki, L., Nielsen, N.A., Poulsen, J.B., Ueland, O. and Astrom,
A. (2001). Consumer perceptions of food products involving genetic modifica-
tion-results from a qualitative study in four Nordic countries. Food Quality and
Preference, 12, 527-542.
Harrison, R.W., Boccaletti, S. and House, L. (2004). Risk perceptions of urban Italian
and United States consumers for genetically modified foods. AgBioForum, 7(4),
195-201.
Jaeger, S.R., Lusk, J.L., House, L.O., Valli, C., Moore, M., Morrow, B. and Traill,
W.B. (2004). The use of non-hypothetical experimental markets for measuring the
acceptance of genetically modified foods. Food Quality and Preference, 15(7/8),
701-714.
Kaneko, N. and Chern, W.S. (2004). Willingness to pay for non-genetically modified
food: Evidence of hypothetical bias from an auction experiment in Japan. Paper
presented at the AAEA annual meeting, Denver, Colorado, August 1-4.
Kuznesof, S. and Ritson, C. (1996). Consumer acceptability of genetically modified
foods with special reference to farmed salmon. British Food Journal, 98(4/5),
39-47.
Loureiro, M.L., Mccluskey, J.J. and Mittelhammer, R.C. (2002). Will consumers pay a
premium for eco-labelled apples? Journal of Consumer Affairs, 36(2), 203-219.
Maddala, G. (1983), Limited Depended and Quantitative Variables in Econometrics,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malhotra, N.K. (1993). Marketing research: An applied orientation. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International Inc.
Tsakiridou et al. 81
Miles, S. and Frewer, L.J. (2001). Investigating specific concerns about different food
hazards. Food Quality and Preference, 12, 47-61.
Moon, W., Rimal, A. and Balasubramanian, S.K. (2004). Willingness-to-accept and
willingness-to-pay for GM and non-GM food: UK Consumers. Paper presented at
the AAEA annual meeting, Denver, Colorado, August 1-4.
Rimal, A., Moon, W. and Balasubramanian, S. (2004). An evaluation of consumer
acceptance of genetically modified food: Willingness-to-pay (WTP) vs. Willingness-
to-accept (WTA). Paper presented at the SAEA annual meeting, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
February 14-18.
Saba, A. and Vassallo, M. (2002). Consumer attitudes toward the use of gene technol-
ogy in tomato production. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 13-21.
Verdurme, A. and Viaene, J. (2003). Exploring and modelling consumer attitudes
towards genetically modified food. Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal, 6(2), 95-110.
doi:10.1300/J038v13n02_05