This study examines consumer attitudes in the U.S. toward genetically modified food over time. Five surveys conducted by the International Food Information Council (1999 - 2001) are used to determine what factors significantly influence consumers' willingness to try food products genetically modified to reduce pesticide usage or improve taste.Consumer/Household Economics,

House, Lisa

Lusk, Jayson L.

Medina, Carolina

Schmidt, David B.

Toner, Cheryl

English

Research Papers in Economics

U.S. Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Biotechnology  
 
Carolina Medina, Lisa House, David Schmidt, Jayson Lusk, Cheryl Toner
1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association 
Annual Meeting, Tulsa, Oklahoma, February 18, 2004  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copyright 2004 by Medina, House, Schmidt, Lusk and Toner.  All rights reserved.  Readers may 
make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided 
that this copyright notice appears on all such copies. 
                                                 
1 Carolina Medina is a graduate student in Soil and Water Science at the University of Florida, Lisa House is an 
Associate Professor of Food and Resource Economics at the University of Florida, David Schmidt is Senior Vice 
President, Food Safety and Global Relations with the International Food Information Council, Jayson Lusk is an 
Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics at Purdue University, and Cheryl Toner is with the International 
Food Information Council. U.S. Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Biotechnology 
 
Abstract 
This study examines consumer attitudes in the U.S. toward genetically modified food 
over time. Five surveys conducted by the International Food Information Council (1999  - 2001) 
are used to determine what factors significantly influence consumers’ willingness to try food 
products genetically modified to reduce pesticide usage or improve taste. 
 
Introduction 
Much research has examined consumer attitudes in the United States toward genetically 
modified (GM) food. However, there is a dearth of information concerning the attitudes of 
consumers in differentiated groups and information that can be compared over time. The 
objective of this research is to examine U.S. consumer attitudes over time towards foods 
genetically modified to reduce pesticide usage or to improve taste.  
The data in this study was collected by The International Food Information Council 
(IFIC). IFIC has conducted regular telephone surveys of the US population asking questions 
about biotechnology since 1997. This study uses surveys conducted approximately every 8-9 
months from 1999 trough 2001.  Surveys conducted prior to and including January 2001 were 
conducted by Wirthlin Group Quorum Survey. IFIC began using Cogent Research after January 
2001. This is significant because certain data that might be useful to the study (income and race) 
were not collected prior to the September 2001 survey. This article is divided into three sections.  The first is a summary of the data collected by 
IFIC.  The second section is an econometric analysis of this data, followed by an interpretation of 
the analysis. 
 
Summary of Data 
To gain an understanding of the base knowledge level of respondents, respondents were 
asked to indicate whether or not they had heard about biotechnology and if they correctly 
identify that there are currently foods in the supermarket that have been produced using 
biotechnology. According to the survey, more than half of Americans had heard “some or a 
little” about biotechnology (Figure 1).  Over the five surveys, an average of 42.2% of consumers 
believed there were foods modified by biotechnology in the supermarkets as compared to 34.4% 
that believed there were not (Figure 2).  Nearly one quarter of respondents indicated they were 
not sure if these foods were currently in the supermarket.  
Respondents were also asked if they would purchase products that were produced using 
biotechnology for a variety of reasons.  These results suggest consumers are more willing to buy 
products that have been modified in some way to be protected from insect damage and require 
fewer pesticide applications (Figure 3) than products modified to taste better or fresher (Figure 
4). This is likely the result of perceiving pesticide to be a health risk.  Information on the 
demographic profile of the survey respondents by survey is provided in Table 1.   
 
Results 
Ordered probit models were used to determine what factors influenced whether or not a 
respondent was willing to try a product that had been genetically modified to reduce pesticide usage or to improve taste and freshness.  Factors used as independent variables included the 
respondents age, education level, marital status, whether children were in the home, gender, 
location of residence, self-rated knowledge of biotechnology and whether they believed 
genetically modified foods were currently in the grocery store (another measure of knowledge). 
Table 2 presents the results from the ordered probit model for consumer willingness to try 
foods modified to reduce pesticide usage and Table 3 presents the results from the model for 
consumer willingness to try foods modified to taste better or fresher.  Respondents were grouped 
into five age categories: age 34 and below, age 35-44, age 45-54, age 55-64, and above 65 years 
of age.  Respondents in the oldest age category were 5.0% less likely to strongly agree that they 
would try a product genetically modified to reduce pesticide usage than respondents in the 
youngest category.  Those in the oldest category were 1.6% and 2.7% more likely to disagree, or 
strongly disagree respectively, than the youngest respondents. Those respondents in the other age 
groups were not statistically different from those in the youngest group. There were no 
significant age effects in the model for foods modified to taste better or fresher.  These results 
may indicate that the oldest consumers, who are more likely to have health problems, may be 
more concerned about the impact of pesticides on health, making them more likely to accept 
these products, but not the products modified for taste. 
Compared to respondents with an advanced college degree, respondents with less 
education were significantly less likely to strongly agree they would try foods modified to reduce 
pesticide usage.  Respondents in the lowest level of education (less than high school) were the 
least likely to indicate they would strongly agree (12% less likely than those with the advanced 
college degree).  Respondents with a high school degree and some college were 4.9% and 4.7% 
less likely to strongly agree, respectively.  For products that were modified to taste better or fresher, education was again significant.  Respondents in the lowest level of education were 11% 
less likely to strongly agree that they would buy any product produce trough biotechnology to 
taste better or fresher. Respondents with a high school degree, some college and a 4-year college 
degree were 9.4%, 9.2% and 6% less likely to strongly agree, respectively.  
Marital status did not impact consumer willingness to try either type of product, but 
consumers with children under the age of 18 in the home were 4.3% less likely than consumers 
without children in the home to strongly agree they would try a product genetically modified to 
taste better or fresher. 
Compared to male respondents, female respondents were 8.8% less likely to strongly 
agree that they would try a product genetically modified to taste better or fresher and 3% less 
likely to strongly agree that they would try a product genetically modified food to reduce 
pesticide usage.  
There were regional differences in willingness to try genetically modified products.   
Respondents living in the Northeast region were 4.4% less likely to strongly agree that they 
would try a product genetically modified to reduce pesticide usage than respondents living in the 
Western region. Respondents living in the Northeast and North Central region were 7% and 
3.6% less likely to strongly agree, respectively, that they would try a product genetically 
modified to taste better or fresher than respondents living in the Western region.  There were no 
significant differences between consumers living in the South and West regions. 
In order to test the effect of knowledge and exposure on willingness to try products that 
were genetically modified to reduce pesticide usage, respondents were asked two questions: 
whether they had heard a lot, some, little or nothing at all about biotechnology and if they 
believed genetically modified foods were currently in the grocery stores. Respondents who indicated they had heard a lot about biotechnology were 10% and 9.2% more likely to strongly 
agree that they would try products genetically modified to reduce pesticide usage and to taste 
better or fresher, respectively.  Knowledge of whether or not products are currently in the 
grocery store or not was not related to willingness to try the products. 
Finally, the time variable was significant in both equations, indicating that willingness to 
try products genetically modified to reduce pesticide usage or to improve taste has decreased 
over the time period in this analysis. However, the decrease has not been very large, with 
respondents 1.4% and 2.0% more likely to strongly disagree that they would try products 
genetically modified to reduce pesticides or taste better, respectively, for each 8 month time 
period between surveys. 
 
Conclusions 
Results to this study show both positive and negative signs for the future of food 
biotechnology in the U.S.  On the positive side, education and exposure to information about 
genetic modification increased respondent willingness to try genetically modified products. On 
the negative side, acceptance does appear to be decreasing over time, though at a relatively slow 
rate.  Results of the analysis of the IFIC data are consistent with results from other studies of 
U.S. acceptance of food biotechnology.  For instance, Moon and Balasubramanian also found 
both knowledge and awareness were positively associated with acceptance and Langer (2001) 
and Hoban (1998) identified US women as less accepting of biotechnology than men.  
An interesting finding is the regional differences in acceptance.  In this study, consumers 
in the Northeast and North Central census regions were less accepting of genetically modified 
food products than consumers in the West and South census regions.  Many studies have found differences between the United States and the European Union, and even within the European 
Union (i.e. Gaskell, 2000; INRA, 1993; Marlier, 1992; Zechendorf, 1998; Lusk et al, submitted), but 
few have identified significant differences in regions within the United States. 
 
 
 
 References: 
Gaskell, G. “Agricultural Biotechnology and Public Attitudes in the European Union.” 
AgBioForum Vol. 3 No. 2&3(2000):87-96. 
Gaskell, G., M. Bauer, J. Duran, and N. Allum. “Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically 
Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S.” Science, Vol. 285 (July 1999): 384-388. 
Hamstra, A. M. Biotechnology in foodstuffs – towards a model of consumer acceptance. The 
Hague: The SWOKA Institute, 1991. 
Hoban, T.  “Trends in Consumer Attitudes about Agricultural Biotechnology.”  AgBioForum, 
Vol. 1, No. 1.  Summer 1998. 
INRA (1993). Eurobarometer 39.1. Biotechnology and genetic engineering: what the Europeans 
think about it in 1993. Written for The European Commission. 
Isaac, G. and P. Phillips. “Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy.” 
Proceedings of NE-165 Conference, William Lesser, ed. June 1999:675-691. 
Langer, G. “Behind the Label: Many Skeptical of Bio-Engineered Foods.” ABCNews.com, June 
19, 2001 <http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/poll010619.html>. 
Lusk, J. L., House, L. O., Valli, C., Jaeger, S. R., Moore, M., Morrow, B. and Traill, W. B. 
(submitted).  Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer 
acceptance of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auctions in the 
United States, England and France.  European Review of Agricultural Economics. 
Marlier, E. (1992). Eurobarometer 35.1: Opinions of Europeans on biotechnology. In J. Durant 
(ed.) Biotechnology in public – a review of recent research, pp. 52-108. Science Museum 
for the European Federation of Biotechnology, London. 
Moon, W. & Balasubramanian, S.K. Public perceptions and willingness-to-pay a premium for 
non-GM foods in the US And UK. AgBioForum, 4(3&4) (2001):221-231. 
Zechendorf, B.  “Agricultural Biotechnology: Why Do Europeans Have Difficulty Accepting it?  
AgBioForum, Vol 1, No. 1.  Summer 1998. 
  
Figure 1: How much respondents have heard or read about biotechnology*. 
 
0
10
20
30
40
A Lot Some A Little Nothing
%
Feb-99 Oct-99 May-00 Jan-01 Sep-01
* Phrasing of question in survey: “As you may know, some food products and medicines are being developed with 
the help of new scientific techniques. The general area is called "biotechnology" and includes tools such as genetic 
engineering. Biotechnology is also being used to improve crop plants. How much have you heard or read about 
biotechnology?” 
 
 
Figure 2. Awareness of biotechnology currently in supermarkets*. 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Yes No Unsure
%
Feb-99 Oct-99 May-00 Jan-01 Sep-01
* Phrasing of question in survey: “As far as you know, are there any foods produced through biotechnology in the 
supermarket now?” 
 Figure 3. Respondents likelihood to purchase foods modified to reduce pesticide use* 
0
10
20
30
40
50
Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not Very Likely Not Likely at All
%
Feb-99 Oct-99 May-00 Jan-01 Sep-01
* Phrasing of question in survey: “All things being equal, how likely would you be to buy a variety of produce, like 
tomatoes or potatoes, if it had been modified by biotechnology to be protected from insect damage and required 
fewer pesticide applications? Would you be very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely to buy 
these items?” 
 
Figure 4. Respondents likelihood to purchase foods modified to taste better or fresher*. 
0
10
20
30
40
50
Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not Very Likely Not Likely at All
%
Feb-99 Oct-99 May-00 Jan-01 Sep-01
* Phrasing of survey question: “All things being equal, how likely would you be to buy a variety of produce, like 
tomatoes or potatoes, if it had been modified by biotechnology to taste better or fresher? Would you be very 
likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely to buy these items?”  
Figure 5.  Support or opposition of current FDA policy*. 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
Neither Somewhat
Oppose
Strongly
Oppose
Unsure
%
Feb-99 Oct-99 May-00 Jan-01 Sep-01
*  Phrasing of question in survey: “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires special labeling when a 
food is produced under certain conditions: when biotechnology's use introduces an allergen or when it substantially 
changes the food's nutritional content, like vitamins or fat, or its composition. Otherwise special labeling is not 
required. Would you say that you support or oppose this policy of FDA?” Table 1: Summary of demographics of respondents to surveys. 
 February  (%) 
1999 
October (%) 
1999 
May    (%) 
2000 
January (%) 
2001 
September (%) 
2001 
Age       
34  and  below  25.72 26.74 31.55 29.70 22.79 
35-44  20.55 21.36 19.15  17.8  15.92 
45-54  21.25 16.27 16.86  17.6  17.41 
55-64  14.60 13.27 14.39  12.7  15.32 
65 and above  17.88  22.36  18.05  22.2  28.56 
Education       
Less than 
High School 
 22.45  22.44  22.45  22.4  19.84 
Graduated 
High School 
28.7  31.00 33.56 34.00 34.00 
Some  College  29.3  25.63 24.52 24.00 22.14 
Graduated 
College 
11.70 11.76 11.72  11.7  14.96 
Advanced 
College 
Degree 
7.85 9.17 7.75  7.9  8.97 
Marital 
Status 
     
Single  18.98 18.28 21.45  23.9  24.33 
Married  55.90 55.75 52.63  51.7  51.65 
Other  25.12 25.97 25.92  24.4  24.02 
Has children 
under the age 
of 18 in house 
76.76 78.02 72.32  73.5  72.32 
Gender       
%  Female 52.0  52.0 51.98 52.0 51.84 
Location       
North  East  20.9 20.4 20.8 19.9 20.3 
North  Central  24.0 23.6 22.4 23.6 25.4 
South  33.9 34.3 35.9 35.6 38.6 
West  21.2 21.7 20.9 20.9 15.6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Table 2. Empirical results from ordered probit model for reducing pesticide usage 
Variable Name  Probit    Marginal Effects in percentage (%) 
 
Coefficient 
(Standard 
errors in 
parentheses) 
Strongly 
Agree Agree  Disagree 
Strongly 
Disagree 
Age  Category         
 34 AND BELOW  0.083  -3.0  0.4  0.1  1.6 
  (0.053)       
 35-44   0.058  -2.1  0.3  0.7  1.1 
  (0.053)       
 45-54   0.042  -1.5  0.2  0.5  0.8 
  (0.059)       
 55-64   0.139**  -5.0  0.7  1.6  2.7 
  (0.057)       
Education  Level         
LESS THAN HIGH 
SCHOOL 0.324*  -11.7  1.7  3.8  6.3 
  (0.079)       
HIGH SCHOOL DEGREE  0.134**  -4.9  0.7  1.6  2.6 
  (0.056)       
SOME COLLEGE  0.129**  -4.7  0.7  1.5  2.5 
  (0.055  )       
4 YEAR COLLEGE 
DEGREE 0.109  -3.9  0.6  1.3  2.1 
  (0.057  )       
Demographics         
GENDER 0.077**  -2.8  0.4  0.9  1.5 
  (0.035)       
SINGLE 0.017  -0.6  0.1  0.2  0.3 
  (0.050  )       
MARITAL -0.046  1.7  -0.2  -0.5  -0.9 
  (0.045)       
HAVE  CHILDREN  UNDER         
AGE 18   0.022  -0.8  0.1  0.3  0.4 
  (0.041)       
Region         
NORTH EAST  0.122**  -4.4  0.6  1.4  2.4 
  (0.052)       
NORTH CENTRAL  0.065  -2.3  0.3  0.8  1.3 
  (0.051)       
SOUTH 0.045  -1.6  0.2  0.5  0.9 
  (0.045)       
Knowledge         HEARD LOT ABOUT           
GMFOOD -  0.275*  10.0  -1.4  -3.2  -5.3 
  (0.061)       
HEARD SOME ABOUT           
GMFOOD -  0.081  2.9  -0.4  -1.0  -1.6 
  (0.053)       
HEARD LITTLE ABOUT           
GMFOOD -  0.040  1.5  -0.2  -0.5  -0.8 
  (0.048)       
GMFOOD IN STORE  0.028  -1.0  0.2  0.3  0.6 
  (0.048)       
NO GMFOOD IN STORE  0.034  -1.2  0.2  0.4  0.7 
  (0.046)       
DATE  0.074* -2.7  0.4  0.9  1.4 
  (0.012)       
p value: * =0.01or less;  
             ** =0.01-0.05;  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Table 3. Empirical results from ordered probit model for tasting better or fresher 
Variable Name  Probit    Marginal Effects in percentage (%) 
 
Coefficient 
(Standard 
errors in 
parentheses) 
Strongly 
Agree Agree  Disagree 
Strongly 
Disagree 
Age  Category         
 34 AND BELOW  -0.022  0.6  0.2  -0.3  -0.6 
  (0.051)       
 35-44   0.015  -0.4  -0.1  0.2  0.4 
  (0.052)       
 45-54   0.006  -0.2  -0.1  0.1  0.2 
  (0.058)       
 55-64   0.019  -0.5  -0.2  0.2  0.5 
  (0.057)       
Education  Level         
LESS THAN HIGH 
SCHOOL  0.375* -10.8  -3.4 4.2  10.1 
  (0.075)       
HIGH SCHOOL DEGREE  0.326*  -9.4  -2.9  3.6  8.8 
  (0.055)       
SOME COLLEGE  0.319*  -9.2  -2.9  3.5  8.6 
  (0.053)       
4 YEAR COLLEGE 
DEGREE 0.208*  -6.0  -1.9  2.3  5.6 
  (0.056  )       
Demographics         
GENDER 0.303*  -8.8  -2.7  3.4  8.1 
  (0.034)       
SINGLE 0.087  -2.5  -0.8  1.0  2.3 
  (0.048)       
MARITAL -0.055  1.6  0.5  -0.6  -1.5 
  (0.046)       
HAVE  CHILDREN  UNDER         
AGE 18   0.150*  -4.3  -1.4  1.7  4.0 
  (0.040)       
Region         
NORTH EAST  0.241*  -7.0  -2.2  2.7  6.5 
  (0.051)       
NORTH CENTRAL  0.125**  -3.6  -1.1  1.4  3.4 
  (0.050)       
SOUTH 0.071  -2.1  -0.6  0.8  1.9 
  (0.045)       Knowledge         
HEARD LOT ABOUT           
GMFOOD -  0.318*  9.2  2.9  -3.5  -8.5 
  (0.060)       
HEARD SOME ABOUT           
GMFOOD -  0.070  2.0  0.6  -0.8  -1.9 
  (0.052)       
HEARD LITTLE ABOUT           
GMFOOD  -  0.015  0.0 0.0 0.0  0.0 
  (0.047)       
GMFOOD IN STORE  -0.017  -0.5  -0.2  0.2  0.5 
  (0.048)       
NO GMFOOD IN STORE  0.056  -1.6  -0.5  0.6  1.5 
  (0.045)       
DATE  0.074* -2.1  -0.7  0.8  2.0 
  (0.012)       
p value: * =0.01or less;  
             ** =0.01-0.05;  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

24.02 Has children under the age of 18 in house 76.76 78.02 72.32 73.5 72.32 Gender %

Agricultural Biotechnology and Public Attitudes in the

Agricultural Biotechnology: Why Do Europeans Have Difficulty Accepting it?

Behind the Label: Many Skeptical of Bio-Engineered Foods.” ABCNews.com,

Biotechnology in foodstuffs – towards a model of consumer acceptance. The Hague: The SWOKA Institute,

Eurobarometer 35.1: Opinions of Europeans on biotechnology.

Eurobarometer 39.1. Biotechnology and genetic engineering: what the Europeans think about it in 1993. Written for The European Commission.

Public perceptions and willingness-to-pay a premium for non-GM foods in the US And UK.

Trends in Consumer Attitudes about

Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods

U.S. CONSUMER ATTITUDES TOWARD FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY

U.S. CONSUMER ATTITUDES TOWARD FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics