MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1590736799 · doi:10.7939/r35h7bv4h

Genetically Modified Foods: Consumers' Attitudes and Labeling Issues

2004· article· en· W1590736799 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michele M. Veeman, Wiktor Adamowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Report Series · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarketingFocus groupPreferenceBusinessFood productsGenetically modified organismBiotechnologyEconomicsFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consumers' attitudes to genetically modified (GM) food ingredients and their reactions to and preferences for labeling of GM food are topical issues for Canadian food policy and are the subjects of this study. This project included several components. The first of these was an assessment of public attitudes to biotechnology and to GM food based on evidence from polls and other studies. These show increasing awareness and some increase in wariness of GM food, in Canada and elsewhere. In the second component of the project, analysis of survey data on Alberta consumers' preferences for different policy approaches to GM food was undertaken. This analysis indicates a preference by Alberta residents for GM food policy to emphasize the provision of more information to consumers, through labeling, over a policy that would provide for more rigorous inspection; even so, more inspection was favored by many respondents. More regulation that would restrict biotechnology was the least favoured of the three options that were presented to Alberta respondents. In a third component of the project, a case study on individual's attitudes to and preferences for GM ingredients in two selected food items (one of which was a nacho chip and the other of which was bread) was pursued through focus groups that were conducted in Edmonton, Alberta in 2002. This indicated highly varied attitudes and responses to GM food in general and to the selected products in particular. Attitudes to and preferences for environmental and health benefits that might be introduced through biotechnology were explored in these groups. Some 50 percent of focus group respondents indicated a willingness to buy the identified GM products, at a price discount. The fourth and final component of the project involved two sections of a Canada- wide survey, conducted in early 2003. These components queried respondents' assessments of the importance of various food safety risks and various environmental issues associated with food and agriculture, as well as attitudes to labelling policy. Overall, Canadians tended to see agricultural biotechnology as more of an environmental risk than a food risk and numbers of other food and environmental issues were seen to be more risky by many respondents. However the use of genetic modification/engineering in food production was seen as a very high risk issue by about one-fifth of respondents. Respondents also indicated a strong desire for public involvement in biotechnology policy, voted strongly for mandatory labeling and disagreed that labeling is not needed if the product's quality remains unchanged. An appreciable majority of respondents expressed a degree of skepticism concerning the use of voluntary labeling. The findings of this project have served as a basis for subsequent more extensive and detailed assessment of Canadian consumers' risk preferences and trade-offs in the context of specific product GM labelling policies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.164 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Report SeriesSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207