Effects of labeling a product eco-friendly and genetically modified: A cross-cultural comparison for estimates of taste, willingness to pay and health consequences

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 50, Issue , 2016, Pages 65-70

  Sörqvist, Patrik ^a   Marsh, John E ^a,b   Holmgren, Mattias ^a   Hulme, Rebecca ^b   Haga, Andreas ^a   Seager, Paul B ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GÄVLE   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cross culture comparison; Eco label effect; Environment; Genetically modified; GM label effect

Indexed keywords

EID: 84956518198     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.01.007     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Anderson J.C., Wachenheim C.J., Lesch W.C. Perceptions of genetically modified and organic foods and processes. Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management & Economics 2006, 9:180-194.
2. Bobbio A., Manganelli A.M. Measuring social desirability responding. A short version of Paulhus' BIDR 6. TPM 2011, 18:117-135.
3. Costa-Font M., Gil J.M., Traill W.B. Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy 2008, 33:99-111.
4. Enax L., Krapp V., Piehl A., Weber B. Effects of social sustainability signaling on neural valuation signals and taste-experience of food products. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 2015, 9:247.
5. Hilbeck A., Binimelis R., Defarge N., Steinbrecher R., Székács A., Wynne B. No scientific consensus on GMO safety. Environmental Sciences Europe 2015, 27:4.
6. ISAAA (2013). Annual report executive summary, global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops 2013. ISAAA Brief 46-2013.
7. James, C. (2011). ISAAA Brief 43, global status of commercialized biotech/gm crops: 2011. ISAAA Briefs, Ithaca, New York: International service for the acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).
8. Kikulwe E.M., Wesseler J., Falck-Zepeda J. Attitudes, perceptions, and trust. Insight from a consumer survey regarding genetically modified banana in Uganda. Appetite 2011, 57:401-413.
9. Lee W.J., Shimizu M., Kniffin K.M., Wansink B. You taste what you see: Do organic labels bias taste perceptions?. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 29:33-39.
10. Lehrman A., Johnson K. Swedish farmers attitudes, expectations and fears in relation to growing genetically modified crops. Environmental Biosafety Research 2008, 7:153-162.
11. Litt A., Shiv B. Manipulating basic taste perception to explore how product information affects experience. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2012, 22:55-66.
12. Lotz S., Christandl F., Fetchenhauer D. What is fair is good: Evidence of consumers' taste for fairness. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 30:139-144.
13. Montuori P., Triassi M., Sarnacchiaro P. The consumption of genetically modified foods in Italian high school students. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 26:246-251.
14. Murrell F. What is genetically modified food, why is it controversial and how do I know if I'm eating it?. Journal of the HEIA 2014, 20:1-8.
15. Pew Research Center (2015). Public and scientist's views on science and society. Available: <>. http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_ScienceandSociety_Report_012915.pdf.
16. Piqueras-Fiszman B., Spence C. Sensory expectations based on product-extrinsic food cues: An interdisciplinary review of the empirical evidence and theoretical accounts. Food Quality and Preference 2015, 40:165-179.
17. Pirani E., Secondi L. Eco-friendly attitudes: What European citizens say and what they do. International Journal of Environment Research 2011, 5:67-84.
18. Poortinga W., Pidgeon N.F. Exploring the structure of attitudes toward genetically modified food. Risk Analysis 2006, 26:1707-1719.
19. Ronald P. Plant genetics, sustainable agriculture and global food security. Genetics 2011, 188:11-20.
20. Rousseau S. The role of organic and fair trade labels when choosing chocolate. Food Quality and Preference 2015, 44:92-100.
21. Samant S.S., Soe H.-S. Quality perception and acceptability of chicken breast meat labeled with sustainability claims vary as a function of consumers' label-understanding level. Food Quality and Preference 2016, 49:151-160.
22. Schultz P.W. The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2001, 21:327-339.
23. Sörqvist P., Haga A., Holmgren M., Hansla A. An eco-label effect in the built environment: Performance and comfort effects of labeling a light source environmentally friendly. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2015, 42:123-127.
24. Sörqvist P., Haga A., Langeborg L., Holmgren M., Wallinder M., Marsh J.E. The green halo: Mechanisms and limits of the eco-label effect. Food Quality and Preference 2015, 43:1-9.
25. Sörqvist P., Hedblom D., Holmgren M., Haga A., Langeborg L., Kågström J. Who needs cream and sugar when there is eco-labeling? Taste and willingness to pay for "eco-friendly" coffee. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e80719.
26. Spence A., Townsend E. Examining consumer behavior toward genetically modified (GM) food in Britain. Risk Analysis 2006, 26:657-670.
27. Williams P.D., Hammitt J.K. Perceived risks of conventional and organic produce: Pesticides, pathogens, and natural toxins. Risk Analysis 2001, 21:319-330.