Consumer response to functional foods produced by conventional, organic, or genetic manipulation

Agribusiness

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 155-166

  Larue, Bruno ^a   West, Gale E ^b   Gendron, Carole ^c   Lambert, Rémy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

^b LAVAL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c AGRICULTURE AND AGRI FOOD CANADA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 13444271386     PISSN: 07424477     EISSN: 15206297     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/agr.20006     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Best, S.G., (1997). Stratégie pour convaincre les consommateurs. Biofutur, 172, 29-31.
2. Einsiedel, E.F., (2000). Biotechnology and the Canadian public: 1997 and 2000. Report to the Office of Consumer Affairs (Industry Canada) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Calgary, Alberta: Faculty of Communication and Culture, University of Calgary.
3. Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., and Shepherd, R., (1997). Public concern in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit and ethics. Science, Technology and Human Values, 22, 98-124.
4. Halbrendt, C., Pesek, J., Parsons, A., and Lindner, R., (1995). Using conjoint analysis to assess consumer’s acceptance of pST-supplemented pork. In J.A.Caswell (Ed.), Valuing food safety and nutrition (pp. 129-153). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
5. Hategekimana, B., and Trant, M., (2002). Adoption and diffusion of new technology in agriculture: Genetically modified corn and soybeans. Ottawa, Ontario: Agriculture Division of Statistics Canada.
6. Hoban, T.J., (1996). Trends in consumer attitudes about biotechnology. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 27(1), 1-10.
7. Hoban, T.J., (1998). International acceptance of agricultural biotechnology. In R.W.F.Hardy & J.B.Segelken (Eds.), Agricultural Biotechnology and Environmental Quality: Gene Escape and Pest Resistance (pp. 59-74). Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council.
8. Hoban, T.J., and Kendall, P.A., (1992). Consumer attitudes about the use of biotechnology in agriculture and food production. Raleigh, NC: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University.
9. INRA (Europe). (1991). Eurobaromètre 35.1: L’opinion des européens concernant la biotechnologie en 1991. Brussels: INRA (Europe), European Coordination Office.
10. INRA (Europe). (1993). Eurobaromètre 39.1: Biotechnologie et génie génétique: Ce qu’en pensent les Européens en 1993. Brussels: INRA (Europe), European Coordination Office.
11. INRA (Europe). (1997). Eurobaromètre 46.1: Les Européens et la biotechnologie moderne. Brussels: INRA (Europe), European Coordination Office.
12. INRA (Europe). (2000). Eurobaromètre 52.1: Les Européens et la biotechnologie. Brussels: INRA (Europe), European Coordination Office.
13. International Food Information Council (IFIC). (2001). U.S. consumer attitudes toward food biotechnology. Wirthlin Group Quorum Surveys. Retrieved April 2002 from http://ific.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=19241
14. Louviere, J., Hensher, D.A., and Swait, J.D., (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Lusk, J.L., Daniel, M.S., Mark, D.R., and Lusk, C.L., (2001). Alternative calibration and auction institutions for predicting consumer willingness to pay for nongenetically modified corn chips. Journal of Agricultural Resource Economics, 26(1), 40-57.
16. McFadden, D., (1989). A method of simulated moments for estimation of discrete choice models without numerical integration. Econometrica, 57, 995-1026.
17. Moschini, G., (2001). Biotech: Who wins? Economic benefits and costs of biotechnology innovations in agriculture. The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 2(1), 93-117.
18. Noussair, C., Robin, S., and Ruffieux, B., (2002). Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels? Economics Letters, 75(1), 47-53.
19. Nunes, L.C., Cunha-e-Sa, M.A., Ducla-Soares, M.M., Rosado, M.A., and Day, B.H., (2001). Identifying non-consistent choice behavior in recreation demand models. Economics Letters, 72(3), 403-410.
20. Optima. (1994). Rapport d’enquête: Analyse de l’attitude des consommateurs face à la nouvelle industrie de la biotechnologie. Ottawa, Ontario: OPTIMA Conseillers en recherches sociales appliquees, Inc.
21. Poppy, G., (2000). GM crops: Environmental risks and non-target effects. Trends in Plant Science, 5(1), 4-6.
22. Revelt, D., and Train, K., (1998). Mixed logit with repeated choices: Households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 647-657.
23. Train, K., (1998). Recreation demand models with taste difference over people. Land Economics, 74(2), 230-239.
24. Train, K.E., (1999). Halton sequences for mixed logit. Retrieved June 2001 from the University of California, Berkeley, Web site: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/users/train/papers/html
25. West, G.E., Gendron, C., Larue, B., and Lambert, R., (2002a). Consumers’ valuation of functional properties of foods: Results from a Canada-wide survey. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50, 541-558.
26. West, G.E., Larue, B., Gendron, C., and Scott, S., (2002b). Consumer confusion over the significance of meat attributes: The case of veal. Journal of Consumer Policy, 25, 65-88.