consumer acceptance of gm foods

8/7/2019 consumer acceptance of GM foods

1/14

Consumers Acceptance and Willingnessto Buy GM Food

Efthimia Tsakiridou

Asterios Tsioumanis

George Papastefanou

Konstadinos Mattas

ABSTRACT. In this study, taking into account the increasing consumersinterest in quality and food safety, an attempt was made to study how

consumers beliefs and values associated to Genetically Modified (GM)food and GM production process affect the acceptance and therefore the

willingness-to-buy GM food. A survey was simultaneously conducted intwo countries, Germany and Greece, using personal interviews, to iden-tify and assess the factors that influence consumers willingness-to-buy

GM food. Findings revealed that consumers acceptance of GM food isstrongly influenced by their beliefs and values and the reasoning of theirbehavior in both countries is based on the same underpinnings. However,

noteworthy differences between the two countrieshave been recorded as

well. Finally, understanding the publics range of views on technological

Efthimia Tsakiridou is Lecturer, Asterios Tsioumanis is Researcher, and KonstadinosMattas is Professor, all at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of Agriculture,Department of Agricultural Economics, Greece.

George Papastefanou is Researcher, Center for Survey Research and Methodology(ZUMA), Mannheim, Germany.

Address correspondence to: Konstadinos Mattas, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,School of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics, P.O. Box 225, 541 24Thessaloniki, Greece (E-mail: [email protected]).

Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 13(2) 2007Available online at http://jfpm.haworthpress.com

2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J038v13n02_05 69
mailto:[email protected]://jfpm.haworthpress.com/http://jfpm.haworthpress.com/mailto:[email protected]


2/14

advance in food production is very important to understand and antici-pate potential acceptance problems. doi:10.1300/J038v13n02_05 [Articlecopies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service:1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: Website: 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rightsreserved.]

KEYWORDS. Benefits and risks, consumer beliefs, dichotomous choicemodel, genetically modified food, personal values, socioeconomic char-acteristics

INTRODUCTION

Today, public views on Genetically Modified (GM) food vary largely,preventing their acceptance in worldwide markets and influencingconsumers willingness-to-buy them. The relation between public views,acceptance and WTB (willingness-to-buy) GM food is very compli-cated and very controversial issue. Consumers seem reluctant to acceptthe presence of GM products in food markets, since they relate GM pro-duction process with negative health and environmental aspects (risks)(Fortin and Renton, 2003; Kaneko and Chern, 2004). Several factors,among them consumers attitudes, socioeconomic characteristics andcultural background can influence publics view on GM food and con-sequently consumers acceptance of these products in local and world

markets, and the investigation of all those factors can contribute tounderstand the acceptance or not of GM food.

So far, studies conducted on GM food are focusing on measuringeither consumer attitudes towards GM food (Kuznesof and Ritson,1996;Burton et al., 2001; Grunert et al., 2001; Saba and Vassallo, 2002;Cook et al., 2002; Verdurme and Viaene, 2003; Fortin and Renton,2003; Jaeger et al., 2004) or consumersWTB GM food (Loureiro et al.,2002; Kaneko and Chern, 2004; Moon et al., 2004; Rimal et al., 2004).However, consumers acceptance of GM food is affected by a broadmix of factors like consumers attitudes (beliefs, personal values), socio-economic characteristicsand cultural background (Grunert et al., 2001).Sequentially, the whole range of those interconnected factors deter-mines the level of WTB food products.

In addition, WTB GM food may differ substantially among countriesand societies with different cultural patterns (Chern and Rickertsen,2004; Harrison et al., 2004). Therefore, examining whether WTB GM

70 JOURNAL OF FOOD PRODUCTS MARKETING
mailto:[email protected]://www.haworthpress.com/http://www.haworthpress.com/mailto:[email protected]


3/14

food differs between countries, new insights in consumer behavioranalysis can be gained (Bagozzi et al., 2000). This study was conductedin two EU countries, Germany and Greece. Germany represents amodern central and north European culture characterized by loose fam-ily bonds and Greece represents a traditional south culture with strongfamily bonds contemplative to tradition and ethics.

The aim of the present study is to identify and examine, via the Theoryof Planned Behavior (TPB), consumers attitudes (beliefs and personalvalues), socioeconomic characteristics and cultural background thatinfluence the acceptance of GM food and consequently the WTB forGM food. Data were collated from Germany and Greece and the factorsthat are considered as potential parameters are beliefs about benefits

and risks of GM food and GM production process, personal values(self-identity) and various socioeconomic factors. In the next sectioninformation regarding the followed methodologies is given, followedby the discussion of the derived results. Finally, the paper ends up withthe conclusion section.

METHODOLOGY

Model Description

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) has been used by researchers

in studying consumer food choices and attitudes towards GM food(Bredahl et al., 1998; Grunert et al., 2001; Saba and Vassallo, 2002;Fortin and Renton, 2003). The TPB model offers a tool to predict andunderstand human behaviorand to explain behavior intentions that maybe subjected to a degree of personal control (Ajzen, 1991). The TPBpostulates three conceptually independent determinants of intention.The first one is the attitude toward the behavior, referring to what extenta person displays a favourable or unfavourable evaluation of the behav-ior in question. The second determinant is the subjective norm thatrefers to the perceived social pressure to perform or not a certain behav-ior. Finally, the third determinant is the degree of perceived behavioralcontrol that refers to the perceived easiness or difficulty of performingthe behavior, and this determinant is assumed to reflect past experi-

ence and anticipated impediments and obstacles. The more favourablethe attitude and the subjective norm with respect to a certain behaviorand the greater the perceived behavioral control, the stronger should be

Tsakiridou et al. 71


4/14

the consumers intention to perform the behavior under consideration(Ajzen, 1991).

In the classic TPB model a favorable attitude is based on utility out-comes (kind of microeconomic rationality model), which means thatbenefit beliefs will add to the favourability of GM food, while risk orcost beliefs will lower the favourability. The model of WTB GM foodcomprises the components of TPB model and a self-identity, as an addi-tionaldeterminant of intention. Self-identity is interpreted as a label thatpeople use to describe themselves (how important they consider per-sonal values) (Cook et al., 2002). Self-identity was included as an addi-tional item in the model as differences in attitudes towards GM foodhave not been explained adequately in most cases using only socioeco-

nomic variables. Strong national differences in attitudes towards GMfood render the effort to clarify the skewed relationship connectingcultural factors with attitudes towards GM food.

In the present study, the TPB model is employed to estimate consum-ers WTB GM food. It is assumed that WTB is a function of (1) the per-ceived benefits and risks of GM food and GM production process,(2) the self-given importance in evaluating benefits and risks of GMfoodandGM production process, (3) personal values (self-identity) and(4) socioeconomic factors.

Sampling and Sample Description

The survey was conducted simultaneously in Germany and Greece inthe spring of 2003. Respondents were selected countrywide by randomsampling procedure. A total of 433 usable questionnaires were col-lected, namely 204from Germany and 229from Greece. The dependentvariable, WTB, is a dichotomy (dummy) variable, since two categoriesof willingness are presented, a consumer may either be willing to buy orwilling not to buy GM food. Socioeconomic factors included in themodel were considered as dummy variables (Table 2). Five-point Likertscaling (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree) for variables rele-vant to beliefs and (1 = Very unimportant to 5 = Very important) forvariables relevant to evaluation of beliefs was used.

A Principal Component Factor Analysis (PCA), with varimax rota-tion, was used in order to group the variables according to their rele-

vance. The internal consistency of each factor within each section wasassessed by calculating the Cronbachs alpha coefficient (Malhotra,1993). The results of factor analysis yielded seven units relevant to



5/14

personal values (Table 1). These seven units were used as independentvariables in the following analysis.

Logistic regression was employed for each country to estimatethe factors that influence consumers WTB GM food. Logistic regres-sion, similar to a linear regression model but suited to models usingdichotomous dependent variable, is widely used to predict the presence


TABLE 1. Factor Analysis on Consumers Values

Factor interpretation (% variance explained) Loading Variables included in the factor

VALENJOY: Inclination towards lifeenjoyment (16%)

0.749 It is important to him/her toenjoy life

0.703 It is important to him/her to doenjoyable things

VALAMBIT: Inclination towards beingambitious (13%)

0.732 It is important to him/her to besuccessful

0.795 It is important to be better thanthe others

0.689 It is important to be ambitious

VALRISK: Inclination towards takingrisks (10%)

0.821 He is always looking foradventures

0.720 He l ikes taking risks

0.721 It is important to him/her tohave an exciting life

VALOWNDE: Inclination towards planninghis/her activities on his/her own (9%)

0.387 It is important to him/her tomake his/her own decisions

0.447 He/she wants to plan his/heractivities on his/her own

VALHPEOP: Inclination towards helpingpeople (8%)

0.785 It is important to him to helpthe people around him

0.521 It is important to him to beresponsive to the needs of hisfriends

VALTRADI: Inclination towards traditionalway of living (7%)

0.768 It is important to follow tradi-tional customs

0.442 It is important to him to live insecure surroundings

0.788 He thinks that is best to dothings in a traditional way

VALPEACE: Inclination towards living inpeace and harmony (6%)

0.733 He thinks that all peopleirrespectively of their race ornation should live in harmony

0.759 It is important to the person tobring forward peace betweenall groups in the world


6/14

or absence of a characteristic or outcome based on values of a set ofpredictor variables. Logistic regression coefficients can be used to esti-mate odds ratios for each of the independent variable in the model(Maddala, 1983). Table 2 provides the description of the variables includedin the model.


TABLE 2. Description of the Variables Used in the WTB Model

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 = 0AGE 18-25 If 18-25 years old = 1, otherwise = 0

AGE 26-35 If 26-35 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): i f 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 foodPRBEL2 Belief: GM food is associated with allergy and health threats

EVPRBEL1 Value that GM food is healthier and better quality than conventionalfood

EVPRBEL2 Value that GM food is associated with allergy and health threats

PROCBEL1 Belief: GM technology increases food supply and reduces foodprices

PROCBEL2 Belief: GM technology is associated with environmental hazards

EPRBEL1 Value that GM technology increases food supply and reduces foodprices

EPRBEL2 Value that GM technology is associated with environmentalhazards

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 ownVALHPEOP Inclination towards helping people

VALTRADI Inclination towards traditional way of living

VALPEACE Inclination towards living in peace and harmony


7/14

In the section to follow, the results in the overall model are presented indetails, followed by a comparison between results regarding individualcountries (Germany and Greece). This is to avoid tedious repetitions,though detailed results are given in the respective tables for all the studiedcases.

RESULTS

All surveyedrespondents, 235males (54.3%) and198females (45.7%),are over eighteen years old, 41% within the age group of 26 to 45. Inaddition, 53.1% of the respondents are married and 66.3% hold a uni-

versity degree. Notably, only 17% of the respondents express theirWTB GM food.WTB model estimations suggest that socioeconomic factors, beliefs

and personal values affect consumers WTB GM food (Table 3). Thereference 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 willingto buy GM food. In addition, consumers are willing to buy or not GMfood according to their beliefs. If they believe that GM food is healthier

than conventional food (PRBEL1) are willing to buy GM food or theother way around (PRBEL2). Beliefs on the importance or not of GMtechnology also affect consumers WTB. Valuing that GM technologyincreases food supply and reduces prices (EPRBEL1) affects positivelythe WTB GM food while a belief that GM technology causes environ-mental hazards (EPRBEL2) corresponds to a negative effect on the WTBGM food. Consumers inclination towards life enjoyment (VALENJOY)is associatedwitha negativeWTBGM food. Respondentswholike to takerisks (VALRISK) and to plan their activities on their own(VALOWNDE)are willing to buy GM food.

Resultsobtainedfrom theGermanymodelestimationsuggest that income(INC-HIHI, INC-HI, INC-MEDIUM) and partnership (WITHPART) arepositively 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 causeallergy and health threats (PRBEL2) and consumers who value that GM



8/14


TABLE 3. GM Food WTB Estimates

Overall model Germany Greece

Variable B Coefficient B Coefficient Standard Error B Coefficient Standard Error

FEMALE 0.28 0.256 0.879 0.010 0.493

AGE 18-25 0.31 0.479 1.650 0.525 1.480

AGE 26-35 1.30 2.674** 1.536 0.380 1.376

AGE 36-45 2.49 0.354 1.657 1.343 1.266

AGE 46-55 1.33 0.463 1.646 0.980 1.310

AGE 56-65 0.52 0.700 1.241 2.253** 1.336

ED-LOW 0.11 0.409 1.350 0.349 0.906

ED-HIGH 0.47 0.291 1.362 0.173 0.796

INC-MEDIUM 1.55 3.035** 1.687 0.512 1.501

INC-HI 1.08 3.166* 1.579 0.478 1.535

INC-HIHI 1.85 2.509** 1.513 1.431* 1.430

WITHPART 1.40 2.282** 1.312 1.366* 0.590

PRBEL1 0.33 0.329 0.303 0.097 0.137

PRBEL2 0.98 0.883* 0.344 0.420* 0.153

EVPRBEL1 0.03 0.206 0.165 0.056 0.119

EVPRBEL2 0.03 0.186 0.295 0.480* 0.259

PROCBEL1 0.03 0.062 0.222 0.079 0.126

PROCBEL2 0.21 0.408 0.288 0.277* 0.127

EPRBEL1 0.90 0.921* 0.363 0.073 0.140

EPRBEL2 0.44 0.535** 0.306 0.025 0.194

VALENJOY

1.06

0.875** 0.521

0.309 0.511

VALAMBIT 0.08 0.121 0.288 0.419* 0.213

VALRISK 0.28 0.491* 0.221 0.293* 0.192

VALOWNDE 0.88 0.161 0.592 -0.191 0.247

VALHPEOP 0.11 0.026 0.434 1.307* 0.622

VALTRADI 0.16 0.101 0.313 0.188 0.224

VALPEACE 0.16 0.063 0.289 0.478* 0.383

CONSTANT 0.97 1.909 6.967 0.096 5.535

Model Statistics(Overall)

Model Statistics (Germany) Model Statistics (Greece)

LR = 107.83R

2(Cox & Snell) = 0.37

R2(Nagelkerke) = 0.71

Right predictions = 90.6%

LR = 62.067R

2(Cox & Snell) = 0.484



LR = 148.474R

2(Cox & Snell) = 0.232



Note: The coefficient is significant at the *5% and **10% levels, respectively.


9/14

technology causes environmental hazards (EPRBEL2) are not willingto buy GM food. On the contrary, a valuation that GM technologyincreases food supply and reduce food prices (EPRBEL1) corresponds toa positive effect on WTB GM food. Respondents inclination towardslife enjoyment (VALENJOY) is associated with a negative effect onWTB GM food, while tendency in taking risks (VALRISK) positivelyaffects WTB GM food.

Results obtained from the model estimation for Greece indicate thatWTB GM food is positively influenced by income (INC-HIHI) and age(A56-65) and negatively associated with partnership (WITHPART).Consumers beliefs that GM food causes allergy and health threats(PRBEL2) and that GM technology causes environmental hazards

method (PROCBEL2) are negatively associated with WTB GM food.Respondents value that GM technology causes environmental hazards(EPRBEL2) has a negative effect on WTB GM food. Consumers whoconsider the promotion of the welfare of others important (VALHPEOP)and seek peace and harmony (VALPEACE) are not willing to buy GMfood. In addition, respondents who consider important to be ambi-tious (VALAMBIT) as well as those who like taking risks in their life(VALRISK) are willing to buy GM food.

The results suggest that the estimated models for Germany, Greeceand overall are capable of making over 95.4, 86.8 and 90.6% respec-tively correct predictions on consumers WTB GM food. The estimatedlog-likelihood ratios are significant at a 0.01 significance level. In addi-tion, the R-square values indicate that the estimated model is statisti-

cally valid and fits the data reasonably well (Table 3).Comparing the findings of the estimated models between German

and Greek consumers intriguing similarities and disparities can be noticed(Table 4). The same sets of socioeconomic characteristics significantlyinfluence WTB GM food in both countries, although the direction of theeffect may notbe the same inboth cases. Specifically, living with a part-ner (married or unmarried), influence German consumers WTB posi-tively and Greek consumers WTB negatively. The positive signs ofvariables related to income (INC-HIHI, INC-HI, INC-MEDIUM) forGerman consumers indicate that consumers of medium and higherincome classes are willing to buy GM food, while this holds only for thehigher income class (INC-HIHI) Greek consumers.

Variables related to belief that GM food consumption and GM

production process is associated with risks have a negative effect onconsumers WTB GM food in both countries. Both German and Greekconsumers who believe that GM food causes allergy and health threats



10/14

are less WTB GMfood. The belief that GMtechnology is associatedwithenvironmental hazards and is a harmful to natural production negativelyaffects German consumers WTB GM food and does not influenceGreek consumers WTB GM food. The belief that GM technologyincreases food supply and reduces food prices is found to affect posi-

tively German consumers WTB GM food and has no effect on Greekconsumers WTB GM food.

WTB GM food is influenced by consumers personal values as well.Inclination for life enjoyment negatively affects consumers WTB in bothcountries thoughit is significant only for theGermanconsumers. Helpingpeople and living in peace and harmony are values affecting negativelythe WTB in both countries but the parameter is significant only for theGreek consumers. Being ambitious is a value with a positive influence onGreek consumers WTB GM food. Taking risks is a value with a positiveeffectonWTB GMfoodfor both the German and the Greek consumers.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study deals with the complexity between publics viewon GM food and consumers WTB such food products. An attempt was


TABLE 4. Comparison Between the Two Country Models

Variables Germany Greece

AGE 26-35

AGE 56-65

Income () 1,000-2,000

Income () 2,000-3,000

Income () MORE THAN 3,000

Living with partner

Belief: GM food is associated with allergy and health threats

Value that GM food is associated with allergy and health threats

Belief: GM technology is associated with environmental hazards

Value that GM technology increases food supply and reduces foodprices

Value that GM technology is associated with environmental hazards Inclination to enjoy life

Inclination to be ambitious

Inclination to take risks

Inclination to help people

Inclination to live in peace and harmony


11/14

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 begrouped into twomain clusters, personal beliefs andvalues, andvarioussocioeconomic factors. The investigation was accomplished mainly byintroducing a modified TPB model, which it was applied using the en-tire data (overall model) and then exclusively countrys data, Germanyand Greece.

In theoverall model, thegeneral hypothesis that beliefs, personal val-ues (self-identity) and socioeconomic characteristics help to explainconsumers WTB GM food was confirmed. This consumers belief thatGM food is associated with health threats and allergy influence nega-

tively the WTB. On the contrary, beliefs that GM could be of betterquality andbeneficial to healthcomparingto conventional food produc-tion affect positively the WTB GM food. Generally speaking, WTBmodel estimates suggest that both socioeconomic factors and beliefsand values affect consumers WTB though with some variation betweendifferent cultures. The similarity of some of the results across the twocountries is noteworthy. In many cases the factors that significantlyinfluence WTB GM are the same in the two countries, showing thatsome 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 negativeopinion towards GM food and cannot easily acknowledge and acceptpotential benefits from buying GM food. However, Greek consumersare more reluctant to buy GM food and more sceptic towards potentialrisks associated with GM than German respondents.

An overall conclusion derived from the present study is that theacceptance of GM food is strongly influenced by consumers beliefsand personal values. This suggestion may bring forth interesting con-siderations.Understanding thepublics range of views on technologicaladvances (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 developmentof 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 toformulate a more effective marketing strategy on GM food.



12/14

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 productsA 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 analysisof consumer acceptance

of GMFoods inNorway andin 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 consumerspaya

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.



13/14

Miles, S. and Frewer, L.J. (2001). Investigating specific concerns about different foodhazards. Food Quality and Preference, 12, 47-61.

Moon, W., Rimal, A. and Balasubramanian, S.K. (2004). Willingness-to-accept andwillingness-to-pay for GM and non-GM food: UK Consumers. Paper presented atthe AAEA annual meeting, Denver, Colorado, August 1-4.

Rimal, A., Moon, W. and Balasubramanian, S. (2004). An evaluation of consumeracceptance 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 attitudestowards genetically modified food. Qualitative Market Research: An International

Journal, 6(2), 95-110.

doi:10.1300/J038v13n02_05



14/14

consumer acceptance of gm foods

Documents