Consumer/Household Economics, Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety,

Hallman, William K.

Hebden, W. Carl

Shin, Hyun Kwan

English

Research Papers in Economics

CHOICES
The magazine of food, farm, and resource issues
4th Quarter 2005 • 20(4) CHOICES 243
A publication of the
American Agricultural
Economics Association
4th Quarter 2005 • 20(4)
©1999–2005 CHOICES. All rights reserved. Articles may be reproduced or electronically distributed as long as attribution to Choices and the American
Agricultural Economics Association is maintained. Choices subscriptions are free and can be obtained through http://www.choicesmagazine.org.
Consumer Responses to GM Foods:
Why are Americans so Different?
by W. Carl Hebden, Hyun Kwan Shin, and William K. Hallman
While transgenic science remains a major source of con-
troversy around the globe, genetically modified (GM)
food is everywhere in the United States. From the high
fructose corn syrup in our colas to the soy protein in our
energy bars, almost every processed food contains a small
quantity of ingredients derived from GM crops. And while
many in the food industry are not keen to label products
that contain GM food, they make no attempt to hide or
disguise it either. GM food is here, it has been here for a
long time, and Americans consume it in large quantity –
even if we do not know it.
Where GM food is concerned, the two primary differ-
ences between America and most of the world might seem
to contradict. On the one hand, we are the chief producers
and consumers of GM crops, and on the other hand we
seem to know less about its presence in our lives than
many of our counterparts living in other nations.
While Americans perform better than European and
Asian consumers on quizzes about the genetic concepts
behind GM foods (Hallman, Hebden, et al., 2003; Hall-
man, Jang, Hebden, & Shin, 2005; Huang, Bai, Pray, &
Tuan, 2004; Gaskell, Allum, & Stares, 2003), Americans
remain relatively unaware of agricultural biotechnology
itself (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 2005).
As is frequently pointed out, less than half of Americans
realize that foods containing GM ingredients are sold in
supermarkets and less than one in three believe that they
have personally consumed GM foods. Those who know
GM foods are sold in supermarkets are also confused as to
which products are on the shelf. Many seem convinced
that they are eating GM tomatoes and GM chicken, nei-
ther of which is for sale in the United States (Hallman,
Hebden, Cuite, Aquino, & Lang, 2004). 
It is also unlikely that many Americans are aware that
there is a worldwide controversy surrounding the foods
they eat every day. Little more than a third of Americans
have heard of European demonstrations against GM
foods, and less than a quarter were aware of the recent
refusal of African nations to accept US GM food aid.
(Hallman, et al., 2004).
Though Americans claim they are interested in various
topics related to agricultural biotechnology, GM food has
seemingly slipped from the pages of science fiction and
onto our plates with little fanfare or controversy, and it
remains there, largely unrecognized and unnoticed by
those who consume it. Only about one in five Americans
say they have discussed the topic more than once or twice
with anyone (Hallman et al., 2004), a figure comparable
to that of the United Kingdom, Greece, Portugal, Spain,
and Belgium, though considerably less than Europe as a
whole (where GM foods are conspicuously absent) and
substantially less than such countries as Germany and
Denmark where reported discussion is at its highest
(Gaskell, Allum, & Stares, 2003). 
Opinions about the application of biotechnology vary
around the world, but the strongest opposition to the
technology is concentrated within Europe and many Asian
countries. The majority of Europeans believe GM foods
are risky, not useful, and not to be encouraged (Gaskell,
Allum, & Stares, 2003). Other research shows that Euro-
pean consumers are far less willing even to consume beef
from cattle fed on GM corn (Lusk, Roosen, & Fox, 2002).
It has been suggested that European rejection of GM
foods is related to fear of the unknown and avoidance of
risk (Laros & Steenkamp, 2004), though Poortinga and
Pidgeon (2005) have also suggested that European rejec-
tion of GM foods may be less due to risk perception and
fear than the absence of tangible benefits. Indeed, Arvani-
toyannis and Krystallis (2005) have found that while
Greek consumer attitudes are overwhelmingly negative
toward GM foods, this is not necessarily the final word on
the matter, and that there are some market segments that244 CHOICES 4th Quarter 2005 • 20(4)
may be receptive to the potential
benefits of GM foods. Korean con-
s u m e r s ,  w h o  h a v e  p r o v e n  t o  b e
strongly fearful of GM products, do
show signs of bending under the
promise of benefits (Hallman et al.,
2005). 
Consumer opinion is a powerful
driver in governmental policy toward
GM food around the globe. The
response to GM foods (by both con-
sumers and regulators) is very impor-
tant for the US export market, which
has lost millions of dollars due to
European resistance (Pew Initiative
on Food and Biotechnology, 2003).
The manifestation of E.U. opposi-
tion began with an outright ban on
the importation of these products
and remains, opponents suggest, as a
stifling labeling policy today. These
policy decisions, it has been argued,
may have also had a negative eco-
nomic impact on the European
Union (van Meijl & van Tongeren,
2004). 
Similarly, U.S. agricultural
exports to countries like South Korea
have plummeted from several million
tons of corn exported several years
ago to virtually nothing today
(Korean Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry, 2004) due to recently insti-
tuted GM labeling policies strongly
influenced by consumer sentiment. 
In addition to the European
Union restrictions, countries includ-
ing Australia, New Zealand, South
Korea, China, Japan and others have
introduced mandatory labeling poli-
cies that complicate trade with the
United States which currently has no
mechanisms in place to track geneti-
cally modified components from
farm to fork. While it would be rela-
tively easy to identify a shipment of
grain, for instance, that is entirely
composed of modified organisms,
this becomes much more difficult
when dealing with products that have
been mixed during shipment, are so
finely processed as to remove all
traces of modified DNA, or pro-
cessed food products that may have
been “contaminated” as a result of
one of the aforementioned scenarios.
The stark difference in policy
between the United States and its
trading partners has caused a mud-
dled trade situation that may only
become more confusing with the
increasing production of GM foods
and shifting international policies
(Phillips, 2003).
Explanation of Differences 
Some literature suggests that cultural
determinants play an important role
in the consumer’s approval of a spe-
cific technology, and that beliefs
about its benefits and risks are rooted
in more general knowledge and atti-
tudes toward nature and technology
and are therefore difficult to change
(Bredahl, 2001). More specifically,
Siegrist (1999) found that an indi-
vidual’s assessment of gene technol-
ogy is affected by both their world
view and by their perceptions of ben-
efit and risk of the technology.
Because these views are also culturally
constrained, it is possible that inter-
national differences in opinion
toward GM food are embedded in
these cultural attitudes.
Another important influence may
be related to the scale and structure
of agriculture in the United States
and Europe. Agriculture in the
United States typically occurs on
farms that are set apart both physi-
cally and psychologically from the
urban centers where most of the pop-
ulation lives and also from the ‘natu-
ral’ parks and other recreational areas
where those urban dwellers go ‘to get
away.’ In the United States, farms are
private property, often posted against
trespass. In contrast, in many parts of
Europe, farms are much smaller and
situated closer to population centers
and often adjacent to or in the midst
of ‘natural’ areas. While still consid-
ered private property, many countries
have laws that permit hikers to cross
agricultural lands so long as they do
no harm. This structural difference
may help to explain why many in
Europe see what happens on farms as
occurring ‘in nature’ and why many
in America see farming as quite sepa-
rate from nature.
Another important factor may be
the sources in which consumers place
their trust. European public opinion
polls suggest that Europeans, particu-
larly those in the Northern regions of
Europe, tend to trust consumer and
environmental groups while invest-
ing relatively little trust in “estab-
lished” institutions such as academia
and government (Zechendorf, 1998).
This is important because consumer
and environmentally oriented action
groups tend to frame agricultural
biotechnology in a highly negative
light. In contrast, Americans tend to
trust scientific and academic sources
of information while tending to have
very little trust in consumer and
environmental groups (Lang, &
Hallman, 2005). 
These cultural attitudes toward
trust can play an important role in
consumers’ evaluation of risk.
Research suggests, for instance, that
while American consumers say they
would like GM foods to be labeled,
they remain confident in the current
policy of the FDA that does not
require such labeling (Loureiro &
Hine, 2004). This is consistent with
the historically high level of trust
American consumers have had for
regulatory agencies like the USDA
and FDA. Moreover, Harrison, Boc-
caletti, & House (2004) found that
trust in regulators plays an important4th Quarter 2005 • 20(4) CHOICES 245
role in willingness to purchase GM
food.
Finally, most consumers receive
information about complex scien-
tific concepts like agricultural bio-
technology through the media
(Hoban & Kendall, 1993). While
how the information about such
issues is presented can be important,
the mere presence or absence of an
issue within the media plays a large
part in public awareness and partici-
pation in that topic (McCombs &
Shaw, 1972). Perhaps American con-
sumers seem apathetic toward GM
foods simply because they have not
been exposed to a great deal of infor-
mation about it. 
The American press has not cov-
ered this topic extensively with the
exception of a few “spikes” in cover-
age revolving around specific events
(McInerney, Bird, & Nucci, 2004).
The European press, however, has
covered the biotechnology issues
rather extensively, and this has had an
effect on public awareness, opinion
and policy (Durant, Bauer &
Gaskell, 1998), driving European
consumers to be both cognizant of
the technology and wary of it. Simi-
larly, in South Korea, where consum-
ers know less about the science
behind GM foods than Americans,
awareness of the technology’s exist-
ence and the issues surrounding it are
superior to that of the United States,
quite possibly due to greater atten-
tion by the Korean media (Hallman,
Jang, Hebden, & Shin, 2005).
Conclusion
Consumer opinion can be a powerful
driver for public policy. Negative atti-
tudes toward GM foods in Europe
and Asia have caused a contentious
and confusing trade situation and the
loss of valuable export markets. Dif-
ferences in culture, perceptions of
nature and agriculture, trust and
media treatment, and the interaction
between these all seem to play influ-
ential roles in consumer opinion
around the world. As such, interna-
tional differences in public opinion
about GM foods represent a clash of
cultures, politics, and policies. As the
gaps between these become narrowed
with increasing internationalization
of trade, communications, and cul-
ture, it is unclear how much longer
Americans will be oblivious to the
abundance of GM crops grown in
fields across the Nation or to the
appearance of GM foods on their
plates. 
For More Information
Arvanitoyannis, I., & Krystallis, A. 
(2005). Consumers’ beliefs, atti-
tudes and intentions towards 
genetically modified foods, based 
on the ’perceived safety vs. bene-
fits’ perspective. International 
Journal of Food Science & Technol-
ogy 40(4): 343-360.
Bredahl, L. (2001). Determinants of 
consumer attitudes and purchase 
intentions with regard to geneti-
cally modified foods: Results of a 
cross-national survey. Journal of 
Consumer Policy, 24, 23-61.
Durant, J., Bauer, M., & Gaskell, G. 
(1999). Biotechnology in the 
Public Sphere: A European 
Source Book. London, UK: Sci-
ence Museum Press.
Gaskell, G., Allum, N.C., & Stares, 
S.R. (2003). Europeans and Bio-
technology in 2002: Eurobarom-
eter 58.0. Brussels: European 
Commission.
Hallman, W.K., Jang, H.M., Heb-
den, C.W., & Shin, H.K. (2005). 
Consumer Acceptance of GM 
Food: A Cross Cultural Compari-
son of Korea and the United 
States. Forthcoming report. Food 
Policy Institute. Rutgers Univer-
sity.
Hallman, W.K., Hebden, W.C., 
Cuite, C.L., Aquino, H.L., & 
Lang, J.T. (2004). Americans and 
GM Food: Knowledge, Opinion 
& Interest in 2004. (Food Policy 
Institute Report No. RR-1104-
007). New Brunswick, NJ: Rut-
gers University, Food Policy Insti-
tute. Available online: http://
www.foodpolicyinstitute.org/
docs/reports/
NationalStudy2004.pdf
Harrison, R.W., Boccaletti, S., & 
House, L. (2004). Risk percep-
tions of urban Italian and United 
States consumers for genetically 
modified foods. AgBioForum, 
7(4), 195-201. Available online: 
http://www.agbioforum.org. 
Hoban, T., & Kendall, P. (1993). 
Consumer Attitudes about Food 
Biotechnology. North Carolina 
Cooperative Extension Service.
Huang, J., Bai, J., Pray, C., & Tuan, 
F. (2004). Public Awareness, 
Acceptance of and Willingness to 
Buy Genetically Modified Foods 
in China. (unpublished report – 
Rutgers University).
Korean Ministry of Agriculture and 
Forestry. (2004). Statistic Service. 
Available online: http://
www.maf.go.kr.
Lang, J. T., & Hallman, W. K. 
(2005). Who Does the Public 
Trust? The Case of Genetically 
Modified Food in the United 
States. Risk Analysis, 25(5), 1241-
1252.
Laros, F. J. M., & Steenkamp, J. E. 
M. (2004). Importance of fear in 
the case of genetically modified 
food. Psychology & Marketing, 
21(11), 889-908.
Loureiro, M. L., & Hine, S. (2004). 
Preferences and willingness to 
pay for GM labeling policies. 
Food Policy, 29 (5), 467-483. 246 CHOICES 4th Quarter 2005 • 20(4)
Lusk, J., Roosen, J., & Fox, J. 
(2002). Demand for beef from 
cattle administered growth hor-
mones or fed genetically modi-
fied corn: A comparison of 
consumers in France, Germany, 
the United Kingdom, and the 
United States. American Journal 
of Agricultural Economics, 85(1), 
16-29.
McInerney, C., Bird, N., & Nucci, 
M. (2004). The Flow of Scien-
tific Knowledge From Lab to the 
Lay Public: the Case of Geneti-
cally Modified Food. Science 
Communication, 26, 75-106.
McCombs, M. E., and Shaw, D. L. 
(1972). The agenda-setting func-
tion in mass media. Public Opin-
ion Quarterly, 26, 176-87. 
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotech-
nology (2003). U.S. vs. E.U.: An 
examination of the trade issues 
surrounding genetically modi-
fied food. Available online: http:/
/pewagbiotech.org/resources/
issuebriefs/europe.pdf 
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotech-
nology (2005). Public sentiment 
about genetically modified food: 
November 2005 update. Avail-
able online: http://pewagbio-
tech.org/research/2005update/
2005summary.pdf.
Phillips, P.W.B. (2003). Policy, 
national regulation and interna-
tional standards for GM foods. 
In: P.G. Pardey, & B. Koo (eds), 
Biotechnology and Genetic 
Resource Policies. (1-5). Washing-
ton D.C.: International Food 
Policy Research Institute.
Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. 
(2005). Trust in Risk Regula-
tion: Cause or Consequence of 
the Acceptability of GM Food? 
Risk Analysis, 25(1), 199-209.
Siegrist, M. (1999). A causal model 
explaining the perception and 
acceptance of gene technology. 
Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 29(10), 2093-2106.
van Meijl, H., & van Tongeren, F. 
(2004). International diffusion of 
gains from biotechnology and the 
European Union's common agri-
cultural policy. Agricultural Eco-
nomics, 31 (2-3), 307-316.
Zechendorf, B. (1998). Agricultural 
biotechnology: Why do Europe-
ans have difficulty accepting it? 
AgBioForum, 1(1), 8-13. Avail-
able online: http://www.agbiofo-
rum.org.
W. Carl Hebden is Research Analyst,
Hyun Kwan Shin is Visiting Scholar,
and William K. Hallman is Director,
respectively, Food Policy Institute,
Rutgers, the State University of New
Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
The research described here was sup-
ported by a grant provided to the Rut-
gers Food Policy Institute by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA),
under the Initiative for the Future of
Agricultural Food Systems (IFAFS)
grant #2002-52100-11203 ‘Evalu-
ating Consumer Acceptance of Food
Biotechnology in the United States,’
Dr. William K. Hallman, Principal
Investigator. The opinions expressed
in the article are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect official
positions or policies of the USDA, the
Food Policy Institute, or Rutgers Uni-
versity.

Consumer Responses to GM Foods: Why are Americans so Different?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics