Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 4110e4118

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Perceptions and valuation of GM food: A study on the impact and

importance of information provision
Marieta Valente a, *, Cristina Chaves b
a ~o and NIMA, Universidade do Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal
Escola de Economia e Gesta
b
Faculdade de Economia, Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-464 Porto, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Given the scientific uncertainties and differing arguments for and against genetically modified food,
Received 3 May 2016 perceptions and valuation may depend on information about their different and conflicting potential
Received in revised form effects. In this study we explore generic attitudes towards genetically modified organisms, particularly in
13 December 2016
food, and adopt an economic contingent valuation approach to highlight the relevance of information
Accepted 6 February 2017
Available online 7 February 2017
provision. The study focuses on young college students, who are more scientifically informed than the
rest of the population. It explores perceptions and economic valuation of genetically modified food, and
exposes respondents randomly to three information treatments concerning genetically modified or-
Keywords:
GM food
ganisms’ impacts (negative, positive or mixed). Applying the contingent valuation methodology allows
Consumers’ perceptions us to expose individuals to a situation where they can express their willingness to accept a genetically
Public awareness modified ingredient in exchange for lower prices. We observe that exposing respondents to critical ar-
Contingent valuation guments about this kind of food negatively affects their economic valuations, whereas positive or mixed
Information provision information have no impact. Albeit the conclusions are limited in terms of generalizability to the rest of
Public policy the population, the results suggest there may still be scope for information provision. Furthermore, both
policy-makers and firms may benefit from a more informed public. Policy-makers can gauge public
opinion to legitimize policy options and firms can shape market decisions based on more informed and
stable consumer preferences.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The ongoing sustainability debate highlights how sustainable
consumption and production are connected. The fact is that many
advances have occurred on the supply side, and which in turn also
underlines the key role consumers can play (Blok et al., 2015). The
relation between sustainable consumption and production is often
virtuous and there is scope for the role of government in mutually
reinforcing it where there are, for example, system failures such as
in terms of information (Stevens, 2010). In the broader sustain-
ability debate, public policy can indeed foster the relation between
production and consumption.
In the specific case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs),
this relation has not been straightforward in most cases (Pino et al.,
2016). On the one hand, there is no consensus about the role that
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mvalente@eeg.uminho.pt (M. Valente), cristina.chaves@fep.
up.pt (C. Chaves).
GMOs can play within the sustainability challenge and, on the other
hand, the role public policy should play in relation to GMOs. Public
policy in terms of information is not likely to smooth the relation
between the production side and demand. In fact, information
policies can draw consumers away from GMOs and there is even
evidence that labelling policies can influence the perception of
safety of genetically modified (GM) food (Costanigro and Lusk,
2014; Kolodinsky, 2008; Lusk and Rozan, 2008).
In the meantime, at least in the European Union (EU), the pre-
cautionary principle (PP) has been invoked in relation to GMOs,
which has slowed down GMOs adoption. However, as of January
2015 rather than an EU-wide policy, each member state can decide
whether to continue with the restrictions that stem from the
application of the PP.
At this stage it is relevant for each member state to understand
the acceptability of GMOs within their borders. Studies show
wariness of GMOs in Europe (e.g. European Commission, 2010) and
research has highlighted that providing different types of addi-
tional information to survey respondents can affect attitudes and
behavior (e.g. Rousu et al., 2007). As such, we argue the importance

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.042
0959-6526/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Valente, C. Chaves / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 4110e4118
of national public policies informing the public in general and po-
tential consumers as to the certainties and uncertainties, costs and
benefits of GMOs. An informed population can make informed
choices concerning not only national policies, such as maintaining
the restrictions or not, supporting more or less permissive regula-
tion, but also consumption choices in the marketplace. Further-
more, informed consumers with stable preferences can make
certain investments by firms in (non-)GMOs more or less viable.
In this study we propose to contribute to this debate by
exploring the potential impacts of information provision so as to
argue for a widespread information policy. In this research we
analyze generic attitudes and perceptions towards GMOs, and
move beyond opinions towards market behavior, by using the well-
established economics technique of non-market valuation of GM
attributes in food. A questionnaire was carried out in an EU member
state (Portugal) to explore, firstly, perceptions and attitudes to-
wards GMOs, and, secondly, economic value associated with GM
food. Thirdly, and based on other studies about GMOs, we examine
the impact of exposing respondents to information about GMOs
(negative, positive or mixed - that is, combining both negative and
positive arguments) to establish whether those perceptions and
values are prone to persuasion.
With this study we address several issues which we deem
relevant for the current debate about GMOs. First we aim to
contribute to the literature on controlled impacts of information
about GMOs, by exposing a specific group of individuals to infor-
mation about their merits, their demerits or both (mixed infor-
mation). Additionally, the impact of negative or mixed information
provision has been addressed in the literature much less frequently
than supportive information.
We hypothesize that attitudes and economic acceptability of
GMOs are not definitive and put forward the hypotheses that
exposing individuals to negative information on GMOs can poten-
tially decrease their acceptance, whereas exposing them to positive
information may increase their acceptance. As for mixed informa-
tion, as it presents arguments on both sides, we do not expect it to
influence respondents.
Secondly, we focus on a particular group rather than the whole
population. The present study was carried out with a specific group
of people, namely university students between the ages of 18e30,
who provide us with the glimpse of the next generation of con-
sumers, with an expectedly above-average income in line with
above-average qualifications; given that these are university stu-
dents, we also expect them to be more scientifically informed on
average than the general population. By using a convenient
mechanism (namely a university’s mailing list for recruitment and
an online survey for administration of the questionnaires), we
explore how this group perceives GMOs, how their attitudes
compare with the rest of the population, both in Portugal and
Europe, and whether exposing respondents to positive, negative or
mixed information on GMOs impacts attitudes and valuation of GM
food.
The focus on this population group aims to capture attitudes and
information impacts on a more scientifically aware group, generally
more prepared than the average population to critically analyze the
pros and cons of different issues, and with the potential to shape
market outcomes through consumption choices. However, we
propose using this exploratory study as a basis for future research,
arguing that the same methodology may be applied to other groups
of interest or national representative samples so as to inform public
policy and firms.
1
The Eurobarometer is a public opinion survey carried out across all EU member
states and is commissioned by the European Commission.
4111
Our sample is at the initial stage more supportive of GMOs than
average respondents in the Eurobarometer 1 on biotechnology
(European Commission, 2010), and while positive and mixed in-
formation has no statistically significant effect on valuations, we
find that negative information reduces the acceptability of GM
food. Given these results for this particular group, we argue that
there is scope for public policy to engage the public in terms of
information provision. This should occur before gauging public
opinion and before defining national public policy towards GMOs,
both to legitimize national options towards GMOs and to empower
potential consumers in the marketplace. As Scholderer and Frewer
(2003, p. 125) argue, this should not be a matter of “attempting to
align their views with those held by expert communities” but
rather of “engaging the public in the debate”.
This article is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly contextu-
alizes the topic of GMOs in terms of policy issues and then discusses
the relevance of applying economic valuation techniques con-
cerning GMOs. In section 3, we present the methodology adopted
and discuss the different parts of the questionnaire administered.
Section 4 describes the sample in terms of attitudes and percep-
tions and presents the results from the hypothetical valuation
scenario. We then explore the impact of the different information
treatments on valuation. Finally, in section 5 results are discussed
and section 6 concludes.
2. Framework
2.1. GMOs and public opinion within a policy context
GMOs in general and GM food in particular represent a
controversial topic within the scientific community and in terms of
public opinion. Scholderer (2005, p. 263) summarizes the recent
history of GMOs as “first they were hailed as a triumph of modern
science, then abandoned as a threat to consumer health and the
environment, now resurrected and about to enter the European
food markets”. In terms of policy, different countries have adopted
different regulatory strategies concerning the release of GMOs
(Vigani and Olper, 2013) often invoking contrasting arguments,
with some countries imposing mandatory labelling policies, while
others simply prohibiting their use, and with the same GM food
being granted or refused authorization (Busch, 2002; Kvakkestad
and Vatn, 2008). This debate is not confined to developed coun-
tries as pointed out by Kothamasi and Vermeylen (2011, p. 536):
“since the 1998s, the rhetorical GM wars have moved to the south
focusing on issues such as food security in developing countries”.
In Europe the debate about the (dis)merits of GMOs is all the
more timely as since January 2015, each member can impose a ban
or restriction on GM crops, which will result in different public
policies towards GMOs within the EU (Directive 2015/412/EU2). For
each EU member state to design specific national policies that
reflect the public opinion on this topic, it is important to under-
stand the attitudes and perceptions of residents. If, as we argue,
public opinion is not definitive, then the first step that policy
makers should take is to inform the public about the different as-
pects of the technology as well as the merits and demerits of the
different policies towards GMOs. According to Costa-Font and
Mossialos (2005a, 2005b), there is evidence in Europe that con-
sumers who are less informed about GMOs seem to react following
a “precautionary” or “self-protective” attitude and become more
wary of their use. These results highlight the need for information
2
Directive 2015/412/EU, amending Directive 2001/18/EC as regards the possi-
bility for EU Member States to constrain or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their
territory (OJ L 2015.68.001).
4112 M. Valente, C. Chaves / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 4110e4118
policies so that informed consumers and citizens can form stable
preferences and decision-makers may choose accordingly.
A country may decide to continue to enforce the precautionary
principle simply banning GMOs. On the contrary, it may loosen
restrictions, and ultimately allow consumers to decide in the
marketplace. In fact, GMOs are a policy area where the PP is
commonly invoked, rather than the polluter-pays principle or the
prevention principle. As argued in the report on the PP by UNESCO
COMEST (2005, p. 7): “the emergence of increasingly unpredictable,
uncertain, and unquantifiable but possibly catastrophic risks such
as those associated with Genetically Modified Organisms, climate
change etc., has confronted societies with the need to develop a
third, anticipatory model to protect humans and the environment
against uncertain risks of human action”, as such the “emergence of
the PP has marked a shift from postdamage control (civil liability as
a curative tool) to the level of a pre-damage control (anticipatory
measures) of risks”. The PP is often called upon in the presence of
scientific uncertainty and irreversibility in causing damages (Myhr
and Traavik, 2002), which is the case of allowing the cultivation of
GM crops, given the potential for cross-contamination with con-
ventional crops (Notarnicola et al., 2012). Yet, the enforcement of
the PP in relation to GMOs has been subject to debate and is not
uncontroversial. Tagliabue (2016) for instance asserts that the
principle may be easily misunderstood or, depending on the pur-
poses, willfully misused.
In the EU the PP is applied “where scientific information is
insufficient, inconclusive, or uncertain and where there are in-
dications that the possible effects on the environment, or human,
animal or plant health may be potentially dangerous and incon-
sistent with the chosen level of protection” (European Commission,
2000, p. 7). Measures to restrain or forbid the spread of GMOs may
be based on such reasoning. Public support for the enforcement of
PP or for loosening restrictions should not be the deciding factor in
issues where scientific evidence is available, but it legitimizes
public options in representative democracies.
Furthermore, given that the technology behind GMOs and GM
food is evolving and is rather complex, it is likely that public per-
ceptions are not yet definitive and are still volatile, which makes it
all the more relevant to more thoroughly study them to be able to
have a clearer grasp of public opinion.
Not only public policy but also business decisions depend on the
perceptions and valuation of (non-)GM food by individuals.
Research on attitudes and behavior towards GM food has shown
that individuals express concern and reluctance when surveyed,
but in the marketplace are less concerned about GM food and
willing to buy it for a sufficiently low price (ConsumerChoice
Consortium, 2008; Desaint and Varbanova, 2013; Sleenhoff and
Osseweijer, 2013). As Costa-Font et al. (2008) argue, actual pur-
chase behavior of GM food is a result of a complex decision making
process, that ultimately combines not only attitudes (which stem
from individual characteristics, as well as information and trust
concerning GMOs) but also price. To account for the economic
acceptability of GMOs, in our study, we move beyond questions
about attitudes and perceptions to a market-based scenario, albeit
hypothetical. Our study combines survey questions with a contin-
gent valuation (CV) question to explore the impact of information
provision. In the next subsection, we present the method and re-
view studies, which apply it to GMOs.
2.2. The contingent valuation method and GMOs
Valuation methods are commonly used in Economics when
there are no markets for a given good or service, and researchers
are interested in attaching a monetary value (Carson, 2000). Spe-
cifically stated preference methods, such as the contingent
valuation method (CVM), elicit an economic value from re-
spondents relative to a hypothetical scenario presented often in a
questionnaire (Bateman et al., 2002; Bateman and Willis, 1999;
Brown, 2003; Carson, 2000). CVM is used to either assess the
willingness to pay (WTP) of individuals for goods or services or the
willingness to accept (WTA) a welfare-reducing situation. This is
useful for example to conduct benefit-cost analysis as the method
allows for the inclusion of people’s preferences (Hanley et al.,
2009).
A panel of experts legitimized the use of CVM by providing
guidelines for its application and concluding it can even “produce
estimates reliable enough to be the starting point of a judicial
process of damage assessment” (Arrow et al., 1993, p. 4610). A
competent application of the CVM involves several design consid-
erations such as care with elicitation formats, administration mode
and consideration of potential biases, as well as thorough design of
the survey (Haab and McConnell, 2002; Whitehead, 2006).
The CVM has been extensively used in areas related to the
environment, and in the particular case of Portugal, it has been
applied to issues of landscape valuation (Cunha-e-Sa  et al., 2012;
Marta-Pedroso et al., 2007), natural area preservation (Madureira
et al., 2011; Nunes, 2002), fauna conservation (Botelho and Pinto,
2002), waste management (Ferreira and Marques, 2015), renew-
able energy (Botelho et al., 2016), and water quality (Pinto et al.,
2016). To the best of our knowledge, an application of CVM to
GMOs in Portugal has not been undertaken.
In this paper, we design an economic valuation question which
concerns specifically the inclusion of a GMO ingredient and its
economic value. In this study we are neither interested in the actual
economic value attached to GM food, nor on extrapolating the
valuation results to the aggregate population. We focus instead on
how this valuation varies across a relatively homogenous group and
assess whether attitudes translated into economic valuations (more
specifically the WTA a GM ingredient) are affected by the provision
of information.
We opt for a CV question since it resembles a market situation
and goes beyond mere perceptions, towards market behavior.
Desaint and Varbanova (2013), while not dismissing surveys as a
research instrument, emphasize the need for other approaches to
studying public opinion towards GMOs such as observing actual
choices. This becomes evident for example in a study carried out on
behalf of the European Commission that shows that attitudes to-
wards GM food differ from actual market behaviors
(ConsumerChoice Consortium, 2008). In the case of the market
scenario we constructed, this is not possible as the good does not
exist, so we elicit a market-framed choice instead.
There are several studies involving GM food using the stated
preferences methodology, either contingent valuation or the choice
experiment methodology, which find a price premium for non-GM
food compared to GM food (e.g. Grimsrud et al., 2004; Moon and
Balasubramanian, 2004). When analyzing both hypothetical valu-
ation surveys as well as incentivized auctions, a price premium is
consistently estimated across elicitation mechanisms (e.g. both
hypothetical and real stakes) and food types (Colson and Rousu,
2013; Dannenberg, 2009; Lusk, 2011; Lusk et al., 2005). Of partic-
ular relevance to our study, is the result reported by Lusk et al.
(2005) that while the estimates for prime premiums vary signifi-
cantly across studies, student samples do not systematically bias
results relative to more representative samples.
Some valuation studies on GMOs specifically focus on infor-
mational considerations and how providing information to partic-
ipants impacts the GM price premium, more commonly GMO
supportive (positive) information. Lusk et al. (2004) expose par-
ticipants randomly to sectorial benefits of GMOs and observe that
information on the environmental benefits of GMOs causes
 M. Valente, C. Chaves / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 4110e4118
consumers to reduce their WTA bids for GM food, i.e. makes them
more receptive to GMOs. On the contrary, information on positive
health effects or positive impacts in developing countries is not
behaviorally relevant. Jaeger et al. (2004) also only address the
impact of positive information, and find that it lowers the discount
required to purchase GM food. Scholderer and Frewer (2003) and
Frewer et al. (2003) report no impact of positive information on
attitudes and the former even observe a decline in the probability
of buying GM food.
Moving beyond just studying the impact of supportive infor-
mation, both Wachenheim et al. (2007) and Rousu et al. (2007)
implement auctions to elicit the WTP for GM and non-GM food
items and randomly expose participants to supportive and critical
(negative) information on GMOs. Wachenheim et al. (2007) use a
student sample and only convey information on environmental
impacts, in some cases supportive information and in the other
cases negative information finding no clear impact on valuations. In
a study closer to our design, Rousu et al. (2007) expose participants
to comprehensive information sets that cover several issues
(“general information, scientific impact, human impact, financial
impact and environmental impact” (Rousu et al., 2007, p. 416). The
sample used in their study is randomly selected from the general
population. While overall in the study GM food items are on
average discounted relative to their non-GM alternatives, when
exposed to GMO supportive information participants are actually
willing to pay a small premium for some GM varieties. On the
contrary, when exposed to the critical information or both critical
and supportive, participants discount GM alternatives.
Using a different setup of a conventional CV survey, rather than
an experimental auction, and an expectedly more knowledgeable
sample, we further explore how supportive, critical and mixed in-
formation impact choices concerning GM food.
3. Questionnaire and implementation
We design a questionnaire to gauge perceptions of respondents
about GMOs in general and GM food in particular and then intro-
duce them to a valuation scenario. To explore how prone to
manipulation perceptions and valuations they are, we expose re-
spondents randomly to three short summaries of the debate sur-
rounding GMOs and then compare how these information
treatments impact responses.
The questionnaire has four parts and starts with attitudinal
questions, followed by the valuation scenario. Then participants are
randomly exposed to an information treatment and again faced
with the valuation scenario. Finally, the questionnaire includes
background questions on socio-demographic characteristics.
In the first part, we explore attitudes towards GMOs and general
perceptions on the topic. The first question ascertains whether
respondents had heard of GMOs previously and thought of their
impacts on food and health. Then, we ask if they had searched for
information about GMOs, if this information was sufficient and
which source was most trusted. The questionnaire includes ques-
tions similar to the European Eurobarometer on biotechnology
(European Commission, 2010) so as to be able to compare re-
sponses in the sample with both the Portuguese and the European
Eurobarometer results and explore if there is a bias in our results in
terms of more or less support for GM food. In particular several
statements concerning GMOs and GM food are presented and re-
spondents are asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale their agree-
ment (completely disagree, disagree, indifferent, agree, completely
agree).
Second, we design an economic valuation question which con-
cerns the inclusion of a GMO ingredient in a food item and the
economic value that respondents attribute to it. We opt to design a
4113
CV question around a hypothetical scenario concerning the pur-
chase of a V5 box of breakfast cereals. The valuation concerns the
WTA a discount in case one of the boxes includes GM ingredients e
the characteristics of the breakfast cereals are listed and only differ
because one of the brands (X) includes the indication that “this
product does not contain genetically modified ingredients” and the
other brand (Y) indicates that “this product is made with genetically
modified corn”. A picture with the nutritional content is included for
each brand with the indication described above. The valuation
question is phrased as: “Please consider the following situation.
Suppose you go to the grocery store to buy a box of chocolate breakfast
cereals. You see Cereals X which is your favorite brand. 1 kg box costs
V5. There is another brand available (Cereal Y). Cereal X and Y only
differ in the type of corn used in the production, all else being identical
(flavor and nutritional content). Now consider that the grocery store is
offering a discount on Cereal Y. What is the minimum discount you
would be willing to accept to buy these cereals? The following options
are available: V0; intervals of V0.10 from ]V0; V0.10] to ]V1.90;
V2.00]; more than V2.00; and “I would not buy these cereals”.
The valuation part takes place in two stages. First, the re-
spondents were asked to answer the questionnaire without any
extra information provided. In the second stage we randomly
presented participants with information about GMOs. After indi-
cating their birth month, the respondent was conducted to one of
three information treatments presented according to the month,
which approximates a random exposure to information. We design
one treatment with critical information about GMOs (which we
will refer to as negative information), another with supportive in-
formation (positive) and finally one with mixed information about
three dimensions (health impacts, economy and environment). We
compile some arguments commonly used by opponents and ad-
vocates of GMOs (e.g. Lusk et al., 2004; Notarnicola et al., 2012;
Rousu et al., 2007). In terms of the information treatments used
in our study, the main negative and positive arguments are
included in Table 1. The mixed treatment combines both informa-
tion sets. The actual text used is included in the appendix.
After reading through the information provided, respondents
were asked if they wished to change their previous valuation and
were presented with the valuation question again. The difference
between the two stages was that they had received additional in-
formation in the second stage of the questionnaire.
This study focus on a particular group, namely young people
(18e30 years old) attending university, that is individuals with
above-average academic qualifications that are likely to be more
informed about biotechnology issues. The use of convenience
samples of university studies has been criticized for example by
Peterson and Merunka (2014), in that it limits generalizability and
reproducibility.
On the other hand, some studies on GM food valuation already
present findings specific to university students. Moreover, in terms
of valuation of GM food, Lusk et al. (2005) find no differences in
their meta-analysis between college students and the general
population.
However, we acknowledge that the group targeted in our study
is likely to be more open to GMOs than the rest of the population.
That goes in line with Grimsrud et al. (2004), where that type of
respondents are more accepting of GM food in terms of requiring a
lower discount to buy a GM variety.
Nonetheless, we emphasize that the aim of our study is not to
generalize the effects of information on GMO acceptance within the
sample to the general population and claim the effects would be
similar. By gauging the perception within this group we are in fact
focusing on the next generation of consumers with above average
qualifications and expectedly above average future incomes, which
is itself worthy of interest.
4114 M. Valente, C. Chaves / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 4110e4118

Table 1
Negative and positive information treatments.

Treatment Health Economy Environment

Negative There are health damages, for instance GM seeds cannot be stored; they have to be purchased every In the long run an increasingly amount of herbicide is
there is higher allergenic potential in GM year and furthermore mostly from one company. Farmers needed (even though it may decrease in the short
food (example: the case of GM soya). are thus dependent from its market position, facing run), expanding the pollution of soil and water.
increased costs.
Positive GM food has increased nutritious value to Bigger crop yields and improved resistance to extreme Use of harmful pesticides and herbicides is reduced
supply daily food needs (especially weather conditions allows increased profits and better due to a greater resistance from GMOs to insects and
important in undernourished living conditions for farmers particularly in less developed other pests.
populations). countries.

4. Results Table 2
Opinion of GM food in our sample, in Portugal and in Europe.
4.1. Sample GM food … sample Portugal Europe

is good for the economy [p ¼ 0.284]

The study was carried out via an internet questionnaire in April (totally) disagree 32 35 50
2013, with recruitment occurring through a Portuguese university’s indifferent/no reply 46 36 19
mailing list (University of Porto in Northern Portugal), and had 97 (totally) agree 22 29 31
helps people in developing countries [p ¼ 0.534]
valid replies. The average age in our sample is 22.8 years (median
(totally) disagree 24 30 37
23) with 37.6% male respondents. In terms of the highest level of indifferent/no reply 40 34 20
education attained by respondents, 59.8% already had an under- (totally) agree 36 36 43
graduate degree and 40.2% had completed secondary education. To is fundamentally unnatural [p ¼ 0.028]**
control for environmental interest of respondents we asked if they (totally) disagree 38 21 20
indifferent/no reply 19 22 10
were taking or had taken a course related to environmental issues,
(totally) agree 43 57 70
which 51.5% had. is safe for future generations [p ¼ 0.081]*
(totally) disagree 28 42 58
indifferent/no reply 36 33 21
4.2. Attitudes and perceptions (totally) agree 36 25 21
is good for you and your family [p ¼ 0.029]**
(totally) disagree 31 49 54
The present exploratory study aims firstly to characterize atti- indifferent/no reply 32 26 16
tudes and perceptions towards GM food, by comparing responses in (totally) agree 37 25 30
the sample to the Eurobarometers on attitudes towards biotech- benefits some people but puts others at risk [p ¼ 0.045]**
nology (European Commission, 2010) and attitudes towards the (totally) disagree 28 20 25
indifferent/no reply 20 35 18
environment (European Commission, 2011).
(totally) agree 53 45 57
The Eurobarometer 2010 shows widespread awareness of GM does no harm to the environment [p ¼ 0.006]***
food with 84% of European respondents confirming they had heard (totally) disagree 52 33 53
about them. In Portugal the share of informed respondents is 59%. indifferent/no reply 36 39 24
However, only 19% of respondents list the use of GMOs in farming (totally) agree 12 28 23

as one of the top 5 environmental concerns (and 13% in Portugal)
according to the Eurobarometer 2011. In our sample, 98% of re-
spondents have previously heard of GMOs and 66% have previously
thought of the impacts of GMOs on food and health matters. In
terms of information on GMOs, 40% of respondents state they had
looked for information and their most trusted source is the scien-
tific community (82%).
Table 2 presents the frequencies of replies for our sample, as for
the Portuguese and European samples. We have performed Pearson
chi2 independence tests comparing our sample and the Portuguese
Eurobarometer 2010 responses and report the p-value in the table.
The perceptions of sample respondents concerning the relation
between GM food and the economy match the responses for
Portugal. As for GM food and its impact on the national economy,
more people disagree than agree that it can have a positive impact.
On the contrary, more respondents believe GM food can help
developing countries than those who disagree.
We clearly observe differences between our sample and general
Eurobarometer 2010 sample, suggesting more support for GMOs
amongst respondents in our study. For example when asked to
comment on the claim that “GM food is fundamentally unnatural”
the general European sample reports 70% of agreement, 57% for the
Portuguese sub-sample, whereas in our sample only 43% the re-
spondents agree. Also in terms of safety for oneself and others, 58%
of Europeans disagree that “GM food is safe for future generations”,
42% of Portuguese do so, but in our sample only 28% of respondents
Note: the p-value refers to the Pearson chi2 test of independence between this
study’s sample and the Portuguese Eurobarometer sample; the number of asterisks
refers to the conventional levels of statistical significance. Data from the sample
refers to our study and data for Portugal and Europe is from the European
Commission (2010).
disagree. Concerning the statement “GM food is good for you and
your family” 54% of Europeans disagree, 49% of Portuguese, and
only 31% disagree in the sample. Our sample thus seems biased
towards the support of GMOs relative to the Portuguese and the
overall European Eurobarometer 2010 sample.
In terms of how respondents perceive the relation between the
environment and GM food, there appears to be, however, concern
for the impacts, since 52% of respondents indicate that GM food can
do harm, which is in line with the opinion of 53% of Europeans.
In terms of how certain individual characteristics affect the
perception of GMOs we hypothesize that having an academic in-
terest in environmental issues would bias respondents against
GMOs. However, when comparing agreement with the statement
“GM food does no harm to the environment” and taking an envi-
ronmentally related course, we do not find a statistically significant
relation (Pearson chi2 ¼ 1.27 p ¼ 0.53).
As illustrated in Fig. 1, 65% respondents support biotechnology
involving food. In terms of acceptance and risks of GM food,
opinions are split: on the one hand, roughly one third support GM
food as long as the majority of people agrees and consider risks are
 M. Valente, C. Chaves / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 4110e4118
Fig. 1. Support for GM food.
bearable; on the other hand, the same share opposes these
statements.
Overall, we find the opinions in the sample do not differ
significantly from the Portuguese Eurobarometer response in terms
of economic impact of GM food, with more people believing it helps
developing countries than the share who claim it helps the Portu-
guese economy. In terms of perception of the risk of GM food for the
respondents, their family and future generations, this study’s re-
spondents are more likely to support GM food than Portuguese and
European respondents, when directly asked for their attitudes.
We next present the results from the valuation question, which
creates a hypothetical market situation and elicits a monetary value
for a GM ingredient, to later briefly expose respondents to infor-
mation on GMOs and present the valuation question again.
4.3. Valuation of GM ingredient
4.3.1. Before information treatments
After the attitudes questions, the questionnaire includes the
previously presented valuation question geared towards studying
behavioral choices regarding GM food.
The results from the WTA question are in Fig. 2. We find that
23.7% of respondents would not buy these GM cereals. On the
contrary, 4.1% would not require a discount to buy them. Of those
who indeed have a positive WTA (72.2% of all respondents), for 14%
it is below 0.50 euros (which is 10% of the hypothetical good’s price)
but for 21.4% it is higher than 2 euros (which is 40% of the hypo-
thetical good’s price). These results illustrate that GM food is
perceived to be of lower quality by the majority of respondents, as
most of them require a discount to buy the item. The elicited WTA
varies across individuals.
4.3.2. After information treatments
Respondents are assigned to information treatments according
to the month of birth with 39, 27 and 31 respondents in the
negative, positive and mixed information treatments respectively.
Fig. 2. Distribution of replies to the WTA scenario (% of total).
4115
We expose respondents to the three brief information summaries
described above and observe that 26.8% change their replies to the
WTA valuation scenario. In each treatment there are respectively
38.5%, 22.4% and 12.9% respondents who change their responses.
When comparing these proportions using tests of independence,
there is support for the dependence between treatment and
changing behavior or not (Pearson test p-value ¼ 0.056).
Inspecting the WTA decision after the information exposure, we
find that 38.5%, 18.5% and 25.8% of individuals would not buy the
GM food in the negative, positive and mixed information treat-
ments respectively (Table 3). These shares are consistent with the
information provided, with the negative information respondents
being more averse to buying than the positive information re-
spondents. Furthermore, we can compare these shares before and
after the information treatments and observe only a statistically
significant increase in the negative information treatment
(following a Pearson test of independence: p-value ¼ 0.082). When
performing the same test for the mixed and the positive informa-
tion shares before and after the information exposure, we find no
statistically significant differences (Pearson test of independence
for positive information p-value ¼ 0.340, mixed information: p-
value ¼ 0.767).
Finally, we can analyze the WTA of those individuals who would
buy the GM food after the information treatments to see if the
information provided affects this economic value. We only find
statistically significant differences between stated values for the
negative information, where WTA increases relative to the initial
valuation question, following a non-parametric within-subject
comparison (Wilcoxon test for negative information: p-
value ¼ 0.015, positive information: p-value ¼ 0.851, mixed infor-
mation: p-value ¼ 0.529; similarly for a t-test of equality between
valuations: p-value ¼ 0.034, p-value ¼ 0.739, p-value ¼ 0.377,
respectively).
5. Discussion of results
In this study we apply a questionnaire to analyze individuals’
perception of GMOs both in terms of attitudes and economic
valuation. While the implementation was exploratory in terms of
the sampling methods, and does not intend to be extrapolated to
the general population, we aim to draw tentative suggestions for
public policy design concerning GMOs, which is all the more rele-
vant after the changes in European policy in early 2015.
We focused on young university students (18e30 years old) for
this study, as these are likely to be more accurately informed than
the average population about scientific issues, given the field’s
continuous developments. In fact our sample had almost all heard
of GMOs prior to the questionnaire. We observe that the sample is
less biased against GMOs in relation to the Portuguese and Euro-
pean results in the Eurobarometer 2010 in terms of attitudes. For
example, Grimsrud et al. (2004) also find that younger with above-
average education respondents were more accepting of GMOs.
Notwithstanding this bias, respondents clearly show differences in
their economic valuation of GM food, illustrated in the spread of
WTA responses and the fact that almost one quarter would not buy
the item. It should be noted that we do not aim to estimate the
Table 3
Share of respondents not willing to buy the GM food.
Before After
Negative 20.5% 38.5%
Positive 29.6% 18.5%
Mixed 22.6% 25.8%
4116 M. Valente, C. Chaves / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 4110e4118
economic value of GMOs or make inferences to the general popu-
lation. On the contrary, by focusing on a relatively homogenous
group, we can test whether exposure to additional information
impacts behavior, minimizing issues of sample background
heterogeneity.
We extended the study by providing different types of infor-
mation on GMOs. We not only include a treatment with a summary
of supportive information (as is the case of most other studies), but
expose participants to a negative information treatment and a
treatment where both positive and negative information is pro-
vided. There is no clear consensus in the literature about the impact
of positive, negative or balanced information in samples. We find
that providing participants with information on the potential
negative impacts of GMOs leads them to change their initial valu-
ations more than with other information treatments and makes
them less willing to buy GM food. It also increases the required
discount to accept GM cereals. On the contrary, positive or mixed
information do not change valuations as observed in most studies.
These results are in line with the evidence reviewed in the meta-
analysis by Hess et al. (2016, p. 729) who conclude that “re-
spondents on average react more strongly with negative attitudes
to potential risks from biotechnology, than with positive attitudes
to potential benefits”.
It should be noted that the population group targeted by our
study is likely to interpret information more easily than other
groups, so it is not clear whether in a more representative sample,
the same effects would be observed. However, our results indicate
that even amongst more scientifically aware individuals, which are
also more receptive to GMOs when compared to EU and Portuguese
Eurobarometer respondents, negative information can engender
changes in choices. Furthermore, the meta-analysis by Lusk et al.
(2005) does not present differences in valuation between univer-
sity students and the general population. Therefore, although the
conclusions cannot be inferred to the general population, the study
highlights that, within a relatively homogenous group, individuals
respond asymmetrically to information provision.
6. Conclusions
Given the observed results, we argue that providing additional
information to individuals is potentially behaviorally relevant,
which is all the more striking as our sample consists of more
informed individuals than the average population.
Our results show that in this particular group, negative infor-
mation about GMOs is behaviorally relevant while positive or
mixed information has no effect. We acknowledge that it is not
straightforward that these results will hold in the general popula-
tion, given that we focused on a particular population group and
given the limited sample size. Rather it consists of an exploratory
study within a relatively homogenous group about the potential
that information can have to change opinions about the impacts of
GMOs when they seem to be not definitive. We argue that there is
still scope to ascertain whether additional information impacts
individuals’ attitudes towards GMOs.
However, advocating information policies does not necessarily
mean convincing the public of the dangers of GMOs, as suggested
by our results, or increasing acceptance of GMOs. It is rather a
matter of engaging the public and empowering consumers in the
marketplace.
We propose that the result of behavioral relevance of informa-
tion on GMOs, albeit of limited generalizability, calls for informa-
tion policies. Information policies have the merit of allowing
informed citizens to support or not government policies via dem-
ocratic representation, legitimizing the further application of the
precautionary principle or the loosening of restrictions on GMOs.
On the other hand, it is also in the interest of firms involved in
the supply of (non-)GM food that consumers exhibit more stable
preferences so as to justify making long-term investment decisions.
With a possible loosening of restrictions, GM food may prove to be
economically viable in the marketplace. In our study, some in-
dividuals are willing to buy a GM alternative at a lower price, which
corresponds to the WTA we elicited. Alternatively, some may be
willing to pay a price premium for non-GM food. Understanding
these economic valuations is crucial to ascertain the economic
viability of (non-) GM food. Policy makers can thus ensure that
consumers have access to complete information about benefits and
costs of GMOs, which in turn empowers consumers to be able to
make more informed choices. While our study finds that in an
informed and homogenous group negative information is behav-
iorally relevant, it is possible that in other population groups other
types of information matter. Therefore, unless there is an a priori
political agenda for or against GMOs, both types of information
should be made available to citizens and consumers. However, it
may be the case that given the still on-going scientific debate about
the net impact of GMOs on human health and the environment,
that negative information reinforces the perceptions of riskiness by
the public over the perceived benefits.
Our study does not aim to make extrapolations about the type of
relevant information and the direction of attitude change, rather to
highlight the behavioral relevance of information on this still
controversial topic. Further research, framed by the methodology
we propose and relying on other populations may continue to
enrich the debate surrounding GMOs and their role in the sus-
tainability challenge.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the editor and three anonymous
referees for helpful comments and suggestions. The authors also
acknowledge the research assistance of Sara Costa in administering
the questionnaire and collecting the data. This research received no
specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial,
or not-for-profit sectors.
Appendix. Information scenarios
Negative information
Please read carefully the following information about some
disadvantages of genetically modified organisms.
Health: Some genetically modified foods contain more allergens
than other foods, so may be worse for human health. Soy, for
example, contains about 16 allergenic proteins and their genetically
engineered or transgenic variant has a significantly higher con-
centration (about 27%), which may cause allergies and more
problems in the digestive tract.
Economy: Transgenic seeds have to be purchased every year,
unlike traditional varieties that can be stored. Furthermore, there is
only a big company to commercialize the seeds and the herbicide
for them. Thus, farmers are dependent on this company and its
prices, incurring in increasing costs.
Environment: Although in the early stages of transgenic seeds
use, the amount of herbicide used decreases, in the following years
its quantity may have to be increased, and the final concentration
may be higher than the conventional variety, thus increasing soil
and water pollution.
Positive information
Please read carefully the following information which briefly
 M. Valente, C. Chaves / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 4110e4118
refers to some advantages of genetically modified organisms
(GMOs), also known as transgenics.
Health: The transgenic varieties of foods can be more nutritious.
Vitamins and minerals may be added to food allowing people to
fulfil their daily needs. This is especially important for people with
limited resources who sometimes rely on one crop per year.
Economy: In transgenic varieties, more abundant crops and
resistance to more extreme weather conditions can contribute to a
higher profit and better living conditions for farmers, particularly in
developing countries.
Environment: Transgenic plants have a greater resistance to
insects and other pests which reduces the need for pesticides and
herbicides (which typically are used in large quantities and infil-
trating the land and water).
Mixed information
Please read carefully the following information on genetically
modified organisms.
Health: Transgenic varieties of foods can be more nutritious;
vitamins and minerals can be increased so that people who have a
limited access to food can fulfill their daily needs. However, some
genetically modified foods contain more allergens and can there-
fore be worse for human health. Soy, for example, contains about 16
allergenic proteins and its transgenic variant has a far higher con-
centration (about 27%) which may cause allergies and other prob-
lems over the digestive tract.
Economy: Transgenic varieties allow more abundant crops and
resistant to more extreme weather conditions, which contributes to
a higher profit and better living conditions for farmers, particularly
in developing countries. But reverse of the situation also occurs, in
that transgenic seeds have to be purchased every year, unlike
traditional varieties that can be stored. Moreover, there is only one
large company selling seeds and herbicides that are effective with
these seeds, and as such farmers are permanently dependent on
that company, and may incur increasing costs.
Environment: Transgenic plants have a greater resistance to
insects and other pests which reduces the need for pesticides that
typically are used in large quantities and that infiltrate the soil and
ground water. However, there are researchers who claim that
although at the beginning the amount of herbicide used is lower for
the transgenic varieties, in the following years the amount may
need to be increased leading to a higher final concentration.
References
Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., 1993. Report
of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 58, 4601e4614.
Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M.,
Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., 2002. Economic Valuation with Stated
Preference Techniques: a Manual. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.
Bateman, I.J., Willis, K.G., 1999. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and
Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing
Countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Blok, V., Long, T.B., Gaziulusoy, A.I., Ciliz, N., Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., Csutora, M.,
Boks, C., 2015. From best practices to bridges for a more sustainable future:
advances and challenges in the transition to global sustainable production and
consumption: introduction to the ERSCP stream of the special volume. J. Clean.
Prod. 108 (Part A), 19e30.
Botelho, A., Lourenço-Gomes, L., Pinto, L., Sousa, S., Valente, M., 2016. Using stated
preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power
plants in Portugal. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 18, 1323e1337.
Botelho, A., Pinto, L.C., 2002. Hypothetical, real, and predicted real willingness to
pay in open-ended surveys: experimental results. Appl. Econ. Lett. 9, 993e996.
Brown, T.C., 2003. Introduction to stated preference methods. In: Champ, P.A.,
Boyle, K.J., Brown, T.C. (Eds.), A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 99e110.
Busch, L., 2002. The homiletics of risk. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 15, 17e29.
Carson, R.T., 2000. Contingent valuation: a user’s guide. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34,
1413e1418.
4117
Colson, G., Rousu, M.C., 2013. What do consumer surveys and experiments reveal
and conceal about consumer preferences for genetically modified foods? GM
Crops Food 4, 158e165.
ConsumerChoice Consortium, 2008. Do Europeans Buy GM Foods? Final Report
European Commission: Framework 6. Project no. 518432.
Costa-Font, J., Mossialos, E., 2005a. ‘Ambivalent’ individual preferences towards
biotechnology in the European Union: products or processes? J. Risk Res. 8,
341e354.
Costa-Font, J., Mossialos, E., 2005b. Is dread of genetically modified food associated
with the consumers’ demand for information? Appl. Econ. Lett. 12, 859e863.
Costa-Font, M., Gil, J.M., Traill, W.B., 2008. Consumer acceptance, valuation of and
attitudes towards genetically modified food: review and implications for food
policy. Food Policy 33, 99e111.
Costanigro, M., Lusk, J.L., 2014. The signaling effect of mandatory labels on genet-
ically engineered food. Food Policy 49 (Part 1), 259e267.
Cunha-e-Sa , M.A., Madureira, L., Nunes, L.C., Otrachshenko, V., 2012. Protesting and
justifying: a latent class model for contingent valuation with attitudinal data.
Environ. Resour. Econ. 52, 531e548.
Dannenberg, A., 2009. The dispersion and development of consumer preferences
for genetically modified food d a meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 68, 2182e2192.
Desaint, N., Varbanova, M., 2013. The use and value of polling to determine public
opinion on GMOs in Europe: limitations and ways forward. GM crops food 4,
183e194.
European Commission, 2000. Communication from the Comission on the Precau-
tionary Principle COM(2000) 1 Final. Commission of the European Commu-
nities, Brussels.
European Commission, 2010. Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010-Winds of
Change? (Eurobarometer 341-Biotechnology) a Report to the European Com-
mission’s Directorate-General for Research, Directorate-General for Research
Science in Society and Food, Agriculture & Fisheries, & Biotechnology. European
Commission, Brussels (Oct).
European Commission, 2011. Special Eurobarometer 365-Attitudes of European
Citizens towards the Environment. Conducted by TNS Opinion & Social at the
request of Directorate-General for the Environment.
Ferreira, S., Marques, R.C., 2015. Contingent valuation method applied to waste
management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 99, 111e117.
Frewer, L.J., Scholderer, J., Bredahl, L., 2003. Communicating about the risks and
benefits of genetically modified foods: the mediating role of trust. Risk Anal. 23,
1117e1133.
Grimsrud, K.M., McCluskey, J.J., Loureiro, M.L., Wahl, T.I., 2004. Consumer attitudes
to genetically modified food in Norway. J. Agric. Econ. 55, 75e90.
Haab, T.C., McConnell, K.E., 2002. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources:
the Econometrics of Non-market Valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Chel-
tenham, UK.
Hanley, N., Barbier, E.B., Barbier, E., 2009. Pricing Nature: Cost-benefit Analysis and
Environmental Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.
Hess, S., Lagerkvist, C.J., Redekop, W., Pakseresht, A., 2016. Consumers’ evaluation of
biotechnologically modified food products: new evidence from a meta-survey.
Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 43, 703e736.
Jaeger, S.R., Lusk, J.L., House, L.O., Valli, C., Moore, M., Morrow, B., Traill, W.B., 2004.
The use of non-hypothetical experimental markets for measuring the accep-
tance of genetically modified foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 15, 701e714.
Kolodinsky, J., 2008. Affect or information? Labeling policy and consumer valuation
of rBST free and organic characteristics of milk. Food Policy 33, 616e623.
Kothamasi, D., Vermeylen, S., 2011. Genetically modified organisms in agriculture:
can regulations work? Environ. Dev. Sustain. 13, 535e546.
Kvakkestad, V., Vatn, A., 2008. Regulating the release of GMOs: contrasts between
the European Union and Norway. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 26, 968e981.
Lusk, J., 2011. Chapter 10 consumer preferences for genetically modified food. In:
Carter, C.A., Moschini, G., Sheldon, I. (Eds.), Genetically Modified Food and
Global Welfare. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK, pp. 243e262.
Lusk, J.L., House, L.O., Valli, C., Jaeger, S.R., Moore, M., Morrow, J.L., Traill, W.B., 2004.
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. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 31, 179e204.
Lusk, J.L., Jamal, M., Kurlander, L., Roucan, M., Taulman, L., 2005. A meta-analysis of
genetically modified food valuation studies. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 30, 28e44.
Lusk, J.L., Rozan, A., 2008. Public policy and endogenous beliefs: the case of
genetically modified food. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 33, 270e289.
Madureira, L., Nunes, L.C., Borges, J.G., Falc~ ao, A.O., 2011. Assessing forest manage-
ment strategies using a contingent valuation approach and advanced visual-
isation techniques: a Portuguese case study. J. For. Econ. 17, 399e414.
Marta-Pedroso, C., Freitas, H., Domingos, T., 2007. Testing for the survey mode effect
on contingent valuation data quality: a case study of web based versus in-
person interviews. Ecol. Econ. 62, 388e398.
Moon, W., Balasubramanian, S.K., 2004. Is there a market for genetically modified
foods in Europe? contingent valuation of GM and non-GM breakfast cereals in
the United Kingdom. AgBioForum (The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Manage-
ment and Economics) 6, 128e133.
Myhr, A.I., Traavik, T., 2002. The precautionary principle: scientific uncertainty and
omitted research in the context of GMO use and release. Journal of Agricultural
and Environmental Ethics 15, 73e86.
Notarnicola, B., Hayashi, K., Curran, M.A., Huisingh, D., 2012. Progress in working
towards a more sustainable agri-food industry. Journal of Cleaner Production
28, 1e8.
4118 M. Valente, C. Chaves / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 4110e4118
Nunes, P.A.L.D., 2002. Measuring the economic benefits of protecting the Parque
Natural do Sudoeste Alentejano e Costa Vicentina from commercial tourism
development: results from a contingent valuation survey. Portuguese Economic
Journal 1, 71e87.
Peterson, R.A., Merunka, D.R., 2014. Convenience samples of college students and
research reproducibility. Journal of Business Research 67, 1035e1041.
Pino, G., Amatulli, C., De Angelis, M., Peluso, A.M., 2016. The influence of corporate
social responsibility on consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward genetically
modified foods: evidence from Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (Part 4),
2861e2869.
Pinto, R., Brouwer, R., Patrício, J., Abreu, P., Marta-Pedroso, C., Baeta, A., Franco, J.N.,
Domingos, T., Marques, J.C., 2016. Valuing the non-market benefits of estuarine
ecosystem services in a river basin context: testing sensitivity to scope and
scale. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 169, 95e105.
Rousu, M., Huffman, W.E., Shogren, J.F., Tegene, A., 2007. Effects and value of veri-
fiable information in a controversial market: evidence from lab auctions of
genetically modified food. Economic Inquiry 45, 409e432.
Scholderer, J., 2005. The GM foods debate in Europe: history, regulatory solutions,
and consumer response research. Journal of Public Affairs 5, 263e274.
Scholderer, J., Frewer, L.J., 2003. The biotechnology communication paradox:
experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. Journal of Consumer
Policy 26, 125e157.
Sleenhoff, S., Osseweijer, P., 2013. Consumer choice. GM Crops & Food 4, 166e171.
Stevens, C., 2010. Linking sustainable consumption and production: the govern-
ment role. Natural Resources Forum 34, 16e23.
Tagliabue, G., 2016. The Precautionary principle: its misunderstandings and misuses
in relation to “GMOs”. New Biotechnology 33, 437e439.
UNESCO COMEST, 2005. The Precautionary Principle, World Commission on the
Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST). United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris.
Vigani, M., Olper, A., 2013. GMO standards, endogenous policy and the market for
information. Food Policy 43, 32e43.
Wachenheim, C., Lambert, D., Van Wechel, T., 2007. Willingness to pay for geneti-
cally modified foods under differing information scenarios. Journal of Food
Products Marketing 13, 57e77.
Whitehead, J., 2006. A practitioner’s primer on the contingent valuation method. In:
Alberini, A., Kahn, J. (Eds.), Handbook on Contingent Valuation. Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, UK, pp. 66e91.