Consumer reaction to information on the labels of genetically modified food

Sebastian-Ponce, Miren Itxaso; Sanz-Valero, Javier; Wanden-Berghe, Carmina

doi:10.1590/S0034-8910.2014048004914

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Reviews • Rev. Saúde Pública 48 (1) • Feb 2014 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-8910.2014048004914 copy

Consumer reaction to information on the labels of genetically modified food

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

OBJECTIVE

: To analyze consumer opinion on genetically modified foods and the information included on the label.

METHODS

: A systematic review of the scientific literature on genetically modified food labeling was conducted consulting bibliographic databases (Medline – via PubMed –, EMBASE, ISI-Web of knowledge, Cochrane Library Plus, FSTA, LILACS, CINAHL and AGRICOLA) using the descriptors “organisms, genetically modified” and “food labeling”. The search covered the first available date, up to June 2012, selecting relevant articles written in English, Portuguese or Spanish.

RESULTS

: Forty articles were selected after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All of them should have conducted a population-based intervention focused on consumer awareness of genetically modified foods and their need or not, to include this on the label. The consumers expressed a preference for non-genetically modified products, and added that they were prepared to pay more for this but, ultimately, the product bought was that with the best price, in a market which welcomes new technologies. In 18 of the articles, the population was in favor of obligatory labelling, and in six, in favor of this being voluntary; seven studies showed the consumer knew little about genetically modified food, and in three, the population underestimated the quantity they consumed. Price was an influencing factor in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

: Label should be homogeneous and clarify the degree of tolerance of genetically modified products in humans, in comparison with those non-genetically modified. Label should also present the content or not of genetically modified products and how these commodities are produced and should be accompanied by the certifying entity and contact information. Consumers express their preference for non-genetically modifiedproducts and they even notice that they are willing to pay more for it, but eventually they buy the item with the best price, in a market that welcomes new technologies.

Food Labeling; Food, Genetically Modified; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Food Security; Health Promotion

Article	Intervention	Population	Location	Year	Main conclusions
Dannenberg et al¹⁵15 Dannenberg A, Scatasta S, Sturm B. Mandatory versus voluntary labeling of genetically modified food: evidence from an economic experiment. Agric Econ. 2011;42(3):373-86. DOI:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010.00520.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010... 2011	Groups	n = 1,64; 84♀, 77♂ Age: 18-26 = 24; 26-40 = 57; 41-65 = 71; 66-75 = 9 University graduates = 41 Income: < 2,500 euros = 124; ≥ 2,500 euros = 36	Germany	2007	To give the respondents confidence it was explained that specific and effective mandatory labeling existed. A single, uniform label was suggested concerning non-GM^a: (non-GM, 100% GM-free).
Bett et al⁶6 Bett C, Ouma JO, De Groote H. Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food. Food Policy. 2010;35(4):332-40. DOI:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.01.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.0... (2010)	Personal interview	n = 39; 3♀, 36♂ Mean age: industrial workers = 45 years old; Supermarket workers = 36 years old. Education: < sec = 16; ≥ sec = 23	Kenya	2006-2007	The respondents found traceability important, but they preferred not to label due to costs and possible adverse consumer reactions. Los
Kim²⁵25 Kim RB. A multi-attribute model of Japanese consumer’s purchase intention for GM foods. Agric Econ Czech. 2010;56(10):449-59. (2010)	Questionnaire	n = 202	Japan	2003-2004	The more attention the population paid to labels, the lower the desire to consume GM
Todt et al⁶⁰60 Todt O, Muñoz E, González M, Ponce G, Estévez B. Consumer attitudes and the governance of food safety. Public Underst Sci. 2009;18(1):103-14. DOI:10.1177/0963662507078019 https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507078019... (2009)	Telephone survey	n = 1,002 Age: ≥ 18 years old	Spain	2004	The respondents were in favor of specific labeling for GM, arguing the consumers’ right to know and to make decisions.
Veeman et al⁶¹61 Veeman MM, Hu W, Adamowicz WL. Consumers’ preferences for GM food and voluntary information access: a simultaneous choice analysis. Can J Agric Econ. 2009;57(2):241-67. DOI:10.1111/j.1744-7976.2009.01150.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2009... (2009)	Internet survey	n = 445	Canada	2003	The presence of labeled GM was associated with a high loss of utility, and lack of a label lead to gains in utility. Consumers were safer and more confident in a scene of voluntary labelling than in a situation where labeling was mandatory, or no labeling.
Shehata⁵³53 Shehata S. Attitudes of Japanese and Hawaiian consumers toward labeling genetically modified fruits. In: Martorell S, Guedes Soares C, Barnett J, editors. Safety, reliability and risk analysis: theory, methods and applications. London: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group; 2008. p.2285-8. (2008)	Telephone survey (Hawaii) Personal interview (Japan)	Hawaii n = 538; 229♀, 309♂ Age: < 18 = 23; 18-30 = 93; 31-50 = 165; 56-60 = 122; > 60 = 134 Education: < sec = 264; ≥ sec = 272 Income: < 60,999$ = 306; ≥ 61,000$ = 176 Japan n = 493	Hawaii and Japan	2006-2007	Both the Hawaiians ad the Japanese surveyed firmly believed that GM fruit should be labelled.
Ramón et el⁴⁷47 Ramon D, Diamante A, Calvo MD. Food biotechnology and education. Electron J Biotechnol. 2008;11(5 Spec Iss):1-5. DOI:10.2225/vol11-issue5-fulltext-7 https://doi.org/10.2225/vol11-issue5-ful... (2008)	Questionnaire before and after information	n = 500; 300♀, 200♂ Mean age: 17.4 years old	Spain	2007	Young Spaniards were strongly in favor of labeling/ they did not think it was a good idea to label conventional foods as GM free. They were moderately receptive to GM, but wanted to be better informed by the label.
Radas et al⁴⁶46 Radas S, Teisl MF, Roe B. An open mind wants more: opinion strength and the desire for genetically modified food labeling policy. J Consum Aff. 2008;42(3):335-61. DOI:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2008.00111.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2008... (2008)	Mail survey	N = 2.387 (375+2.012) Maine n = 375; 187♀, 188♂ Mean age: 50 years old White = 334; black = 19; other = 22 Mean income: 64.000$ Rest of the USA n = 2,012; 1,046♀, 996♂ Mean age: 50 years old White = 1.509; black = 241; other = 262 Mean income: 55,000$	Maine and the rest of the USA	2002	The respondents were in favor of labeling GM. GM labels were viewed as more credible than those of non-GM. Including contact information would resolve some of this uncertainty.
Lusk et al³¹31 Lusk JL, Rozan A. Public policy and endogenous beliefs: the case of genetically modified food. J Agric Resour Econ. 2008;33(2):270-89. (2008)	Mail survey	n = 501	USA	2004	Those who declared that the government should impose mandatory labeling found that GM was less safe and wanted to buy and consume less GM than those who believed that the no labeling policy was correct.
Scholder et al⁵²52 Scholder EP, Bone PF. Stained by the label? Stigma and the case of genetically modified foods. J Public Policy Mark. 2008;27(1):69-82. DOI:10.1509/jppm.27.1.69 https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.27.1... (2008)	Personal interview	n = 210; 116♀, 94♂ Age: 18-44 = 158; > 44 = 52 race: white = 153; other = 57 Education: ≥ sec = 124 Mean income: between 25,000-34,999$	USA.		Labeling should be voluntary, because if not, there would be stigma towards GM products.
Batrinou et al⁴4 Batrinou AM, Spiliotis V, Sakellaris G. Acceptability of genetically modified maize by young people. Br Food J. 2008;110(3):250-9. DOI:10.1108/00070700810858664 https://doi.org/10.1108/0007070081085866... (2008)	Personal interview	n = 229; 124♀, 105♂ Mean age: 21.1 years old	Greece	2004-2005	GM products evoked negative attitudes (some even refusing to try GM foods) and people sa products which were certified by a public agency as more credible.
Chembezi et al¹²12 Chembezi DM, Chaverest EL, Wheelock G, Sharma GC, Kebede E, Tegegne F. An econometric evaluation of producers’ preferences for mandatory labeling of genetically modified food products. J Food Distrib Res. 2008;39(1):36-44. (2008)	E Personal interview	n = 1,887 Mean age: 58 years old	USA	2002	The majority of respondents were in favor of mandatory labeling, although only half were in total agreement. Producers of principle food cultivation (rice, fruit and vegetables) were more in favor of mandatory monitoring.
Bukenya et al¹⁰10 Bukenya JO, Wright NR. Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified tomatoes. Agribusiness. 2007;23(1):117-30. DOI:10.1002/agr.2010 https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.2010... (2007)	Personal interview	n = 310	USA	2003	The more important labeling was to the consumer, the lower their desire to buy GM. The need for labeling was the result of perception, attitude and knowledge of the technology. Consumers were prepared to pay more for non-GM products, if they were labeled.
Man-ser et al³²32 Man-ser J, Tsu-tan F, Huang CL. A conjoint/logit analysis of consumers’ responses to genetically modified tofu in Taiwan. J Agric Econ. 2007;58(2):330-47. DOI:10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00100.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007... (2007)	Personal interview	n = 940; 461♀, 479♂ age: 21-30 = 244; 31-50 = 470, > 50 = 226	Taiwan	2004	Labeling GM would be useful for Taiwanese consumers of tofu, who stated their aversion or acceptant of this product.
Huffman et al²³23 Huffman WE, Rousu M, Shogren JF, Tegene A. The effects of prior beliefs and learning on consumers’ acceptance of genetically modified foods. J Econ Behav Organ. 2007;63(1):193-206. DOI:10.1016/j.jebo.2005.04.019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2005.04.0... (2007)	Groups	n = 172; 107♀, 65♂ Mean age: 49.5 years old Mean education: ≥ 2 years of college Mean income: 57,000$	USA	2001	The type of information provided to participants influenced their desire for GM labeling. No evidence was found that consumers could easily distinguish GM products in a market where labelling was mandatory. This demonstrated to the investigators that voluntary labeling was the best policy, in the US. There was no evidence that consumers called for GM products with 1% GM compared with 5% GM, which supports the proposed policy of a permitted 5% tolerance level, which would be cheaper for producers. Consumers were prepared to pay more to avoid GM products. This quantity did not vary according to the proportion of GM content. The label affects the desire to pay for the product; lower for GM.
Abdulkadri et al¹1 Abdulkadri AO, Pinnock S, Tennant PF. Public perception of genetic engineering and the choice to purchase genetically modified food in Jamaica. J Food Agric Environ. 2007;5(2):8-12. (2007)	Telephone survey	n = 128; 68♀, 60♂	Jamaica	2002	The respondents were strongly in favor of GM labeling and the stronger the opinion that they should be labeled, the lower the desire to buy GM.
Carlsson et al¹¹11 Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Lagerkvist CJ. Consumer benefits of labels and bans on GM foods: choice experiments with Swedish consumers. Am J Agric Econ. 2007;89(1):152-61. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.00969.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007... (2007)	Mail survey	n = 757 Age: 20-75 years old	Sweden	2004	Respondents were prepared to pay more to ensure total prohibition of GM. But when shopping and non-GM products were more expensive this affirmation was not put into practice.
Februhartanty et al¹⁸18 Februhartanty J, Widyastuti TN, Iswarawanti DN. Attitudes of agricultural scientists in Indonesia towards genetically modified foods. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2007;16(2):375-80. (2007)	Personal interview	n = 400; 186♀, 214♂ Age: 18-29 = 189; 30-39 = 84; 40-49 = 84, 50-59 = 27, ≥ 60 = 16 Education: undergraduate = 131 postgraduate = 269	Indonesia	2003	The vast majority of the respondents stated that information should be provided on the label. The majority said it was an excellent idea to clearly label GM products and it was the task of the regulatory authorities to label.
Tenbült et al⁵⁹59 Tenbült P, De Vries N, Dreezens E, Martijn C. Categorizing genetically modified food products: effects of labeling on information processing. Br Food J. 2007;109(4):305-14. DOI:10.1108/00070700710736552 https://doi.org/10.1108/0007070071073655... (2007)	Groups. Two studies	Study 1: n = 74; 43♀, 31♂ Mean age: 40.04 years old Study 2: n = 166; 140♀, 26♂ Mean age: 20.77 years old	Holland		It was difficult to classify GM products. Those who classified non GM products did so with more reliable criteria than those who classified GM products (vague perception, non-specific cognitive load regarding GM)
Gaivoronskaia et al²⁰20 Gaivoronskaia G, Hvinden B. Consumers with allergic reaction to food: perception of and response to food risk in general and genetically modified food in particular. Sci Technol HumValues. 2006;31(6):702-3. DOI:10.1177/0162243906291867 https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243906291867... (2006)	Mail survey	n = 488; 287♀, 201♂ Allergic = 251; Non allergic = 237 Age: 18-29 = 86; 30-49 = 212; 50-69 = 148; ≥ 70 = 42 Education: < sec = 273; ≥ sec = 215	Norway	2003	The vast majority of those surveyed (both with and without allergies) stated that a voluntary labeling system was not useful.
Nayga et al⁴¹41 Nayga Jr RM, Fisher MG, Onyangob B. Acceptance of genetically modified food: comparing consumer perspectives in the US and South Korea. Agric Econ. 2006;34(3):331-41. DOI:10.1111/j.1574-0864.2006.00129.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0864.2006... (2006)	USA : telephone survey South Korea: Personal interview	USA n = 1.201; 673♀, 528♂ Education: ≥ sec = 664 Income: ≥ 50,000$ = 600 South Korea n = 1,054; 516♀, 538♂ Age: 20-29 = 232; 30-39 = 358; 40-49 = 306; 50-59 = 158 Education: = sec = 495; > sec = 443 Income: < 20 million won = 221; 20-30 million won = 295; 40 million won = 242	USA South Korea	2003	Consumers who considered GM labeling to be necessary were less likely to approve genetic modification.
Ganiere et al²¹21 Ganiere P, Chern WS, Hahn D. A continuum of consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods in the US. J Agric Resour Econ. 2006;31(1):129-49. (2006)	Telephone survey	n = 256; 198♀♀, 58♂♂ Age: 20-24 = 6; 25-34 = 53; 35-44 = 43; 45-54 = 46; 55-59 = 16; 60-64 = 16; ≥ 65 = 50	USA	2002	A third of consumers interviewed were opposed to GM and this opposition appeared to be associated with support of mandatory labeling.
Badrie et al²2 Badrie N, Titre M, Jueanville M, D’Heureux-Calix F. Public awareness and perception of genetically modified/engineered foods in Trinidad, West Indies. Br Food J. 2006;108(3):192-9. DOI:10.1108/00070700610651016 https://doi.org/10.1108/0007070061065101... (2006)	Personal interview	n = 113; 66♀♀, 47♂♂ Age: 18-21 = 47; 22-33= 34; 34-45 = 19; 46-60 = 13 Education: prim (1-5 years old) = 2; sec (6-12 years old) = 57; tert (13-16 years old) = 54	Trinidad and Tobago	2003	Half of the respondents felt that labeling GM should be allowed and found warnings, information and advertising on the label to be important.
Lü²⁹29 Lü L. Chinese public understanding of the use of agricultural biotechnology: a case study from Zhejiang Province of China. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2006;7(4):257-66. DOI:10.1631/jzus.2006.B0257 https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.2006.B0257... (2006)	Two stage intervention: - questionnaire - interview: alone and in group (discussion)	n = 2,006 Age: 16-65 years old	China	2003	All participants were in favor of labeling GM products. Educational level was the determining factor in this review.
Bánáti et al³3 Bánáti D, Szabó JA. Knowledge and acceptance of genetically modified foodstuffs in Hungary. Acta Biol Szeged. 2006;50(3-4):115-9. (2006)	Questionnaire after information	n = 556 256 of these people had a university degree in science and food technology	Hungary		No differences between the views of professionals and consumers were found, and the vast majority of respondents felt that GM labeling was absolutely necessary.
Lusk et al³⁰30 Lusk JL, House LO, Valli C, Jaeger SR, Moore M, Morrow B, et al. Consumer welfare effects of introducing and labeling genetically modified food. Econ Lett. 2005;88(3):382-8. DOI:10.1016/j.econlet.2005.03.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2005.0... (2005)	Groups	n = 372♀	USA , England and France	2002	European participants considered a GM labeling policy beneficial, also found in the U.S.
Miles et al³⁶36 Miles S, Ueland O, Frewer LJ. Public attitudes towards genetically-modified food. Br Food J. 2005;107(4):246-62. DOI:10.1108/00070700510589521 https://doi.org/10.1108/0007070051058952... (2005)	Questionnaire after information	Italia n = 416; 207♀, 209♂ Mean age: 43.4 years old Norway n = 315; 161♀, 152♂ Mean age: 42.32 years old England n = 402; 202♀, 200♂ Mean age: 43.03 years old	Italy, Norway and England	2001	The participants had a greater desire to develop an effective traceability system to increase confidence and control over GM.
Knight et al²⁶26 Knight JG, Mather DW, Holdsworth DK. Genetically modified crops and country image of food exporting countries. Br Food J. 2005;107(9):653-62. DOI:10.1108/00070700510615035 https://doi.org/10.1108/0007070051061503... (2005)	3 stage study: -1^st part: interview importers/distributors - 2^nd part: interview consumers - 3^rd part: Point of sale data	1^st part, n = 17 2^nd part, n = 474 3^rd part, n = 409	1^st part Germany, Italy, UK, Holland and Greece 2^nd part New Zealand 3^rd part New Zealand		1^st part: there was no relationship between the countries cultivating GM and desire to import from these countries 2^nd part: there was no relationship between the countries cultivating GM and desire to buy these products at the supermarket 3^rd part: negative consumer attitudes towards GM concept, did not result in adverse effects on purchasing behavior.
Baumann et al⁵5 Baumann A, Osman M, Burton M, Lumley S. Understanding Western Australian consumers’ views: acceptance of food produced using gene technology: a case of herbicide tolerant canola (Brassica napus L.). Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2005;12(1):56. DOI:10.1065/espr2005.01.003 https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2005.01.003... (2005)	Telephone survey	n = 280	Australia	2002-2003	The majority of respondents were in favor of GM labeling.
Marks et al³³33 Marks L, Kalaitzandonakes NG, Vickner S. Consumer purchasing behaviour towards GM foods in the Netherlands. In: Evenson RE, Santaniello V, editors. Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods. Wallingford (UK): CABI Publishing; 2004. p.23-39. (2004)	Point of sale data		Holland	1997-2001	No significant change was observed in response to GM labeling purchase.
McGarry Wolf et al³⁴34 McGarry-Wolf M, McDonell J, Domegan C, Yount H. Consumer attitudes towards GM food in Ireland and the USA. In: Evenson RE, Santaniello V, editors. Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods. Wallingford (UK): CABI Publishing; 2004. p.143-54. (2004)	Two stage personal interview	1^st stage: n = 882 2^nd stage: n = 324	USA and Ireland	1999-2000	1^st part: Irish consumers were in favor of mandatory GM labeling and had lower intention of buying GM. 2^nd part: US consumers desire for mandatory GM labeling increased
Loureiro et al²⁸28 Loureiro ML, Hine S. Preferences and willingness to pay for GM labeling policies. Food Policy. 2004;29(5):467-83. DOI:10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.07.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.0... (2004)	Personal interview	n = 334; 184♀, 150♂ Mean age: 50.27 years old Mean education: < sec = 174, ≥ sec = 160	USA	2001-2002	Families on low incomes, those with higher education and those who were very concerned about the possible effects of GM on their children, were willing to pay for mandatory labeling. Mandatory labeling did not appear to be economically sustainable by citizens due to the high costs associated with traceability, testing and segregation.
Irani et al²⁴24 Irani T, Sinclair J. The effect of labeling genetically modified food on perceptions of accountability. J Appl Commun. 2004;88(1):29-42. (2004)	Personal interview	n = 342	USA		When the product was identified as containing GM, purchase attitudes toward it were less than when it was labeled as GM-free.
Mucci et al⁴⁰40 Mucci A, Hough G. Perceptions of genetically modified foods by consumers in Argentina. Food Qual Prefer. 2004;15(1):43-51. DOI:10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00021-1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00... (2003)	Groups	n = 40; 20♀, 20♂ Age: 20-50 years old	Argentina		No GM labeling was considered dangerous and worrying because of the possibility that the product produce allergies or environmental change: consumers wanted to see GM products labeled.
Brown et al⁹9 Brown JL, Ping Y. Consumer perception of risk associated with eating genetically engineered soybeans is less in the presence of a perceived consumer benefit. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103(2):208-14. DOI:10.1053/jada.2003.50029 https://doi.org/10.1053/jada.2003.50029... (2003)	Groups	Intervention 1: RRS n = 150, 106♀, 44♂ Mean age: 43.9 years old Race: white =140, Afro-American = 10 Education: = sec = 59, > sec = 91 Intervention 2: omega-3 n = 150; 105♀, 45♂ Mean age: 45.6 years old Race: white = 137, Afro-American = 13 Education: = sec = 56, > sec = 94	USA		Voluntary labeling of GM increased consumer confidence. The information on the positive effects of GM did not replace the desire for GM labeling The “genetically modified” legend was preferred.
Zhong et al⁶³63 Zhong F, Marchant MA, Ding Y, Lu K. GM Foods: a Nanjing case study of Chinese consumers’ awareness and potential attitudes. AgBioForum. 2002;5(4):136-44. (2002)	Telephone survey Investigation in newspapers	n = 480 personas n = 4 papers	China	2002 Review of newspapers from 1995 to 2001	Respondents thought that GM should be labeled, and argued that the fact that the products were labeled would not change their attitude to GM. Stories about GM in newspapers began to appear from 1995, and from 1998 more stories, and therefore more articles against GM began to appear.
Noussair et al⁴³43 Noussair C, Robin S, Ruffieux B. Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels? Econ Lett. 2002;75(1):47-53. DOI:10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00594-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00... (2002)	Groups	n = 112; 60, 52 Mean age: 33 years old	France	1999	The studies indicated that despite the hostility towards GM in Europe, sales were not declining even when the label indicated that it was GM. They wanted lower prices for GM. Consumers were not aware of the label as they did not pay attention to that: standardization of labeling is recommended.
Teisl et al⁵⁸58 Teisl MF, Halverson L, O’Brien K, Roe B, Ross N, Vayda M. Focus group reactions to genetically modified food labels. AgBioForum. 2002;5(1):6-9. (2002)	Groups	n = 56; 39♀, 17♂ Age: < 50 = 37; ≥ 50 = 18 Education: Low level of education n = 11 Medium/High level of education = 45	USA		The population showed great skepticism towards GM-free logos, which were seen as a marketing strategy. Most said they wanted mandatory labeling, preferring that neutral labels and contact information be included. The provision of information on both sides of the container, simpler in the front and more detailed on the rear was preferred. Another view was that the FDA should be in charge of this labeling program.
Subrahmanyan et al⁵⁶56 Subrahmanyan S, Cheng PS. Perceptions and attitudes of Singaporeans towards genetically modified food. J Consum Aff. 2000;34(2):269-90. DOI:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2000.tb00094.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2000... (2000)	Questionnaire after information	n = 417; 213♀, 204♂ Age: 15-19 = 155; 20s = 102; 30s = 63; 40s = 49; 50s = 38; ≥ 60 = 10 Education: < sec = 4, sec = 93, > sec = 320	Singapore		Most participants wanted the GM to be labeled in order to decide whether or not to consume these products.
Bredhal⁸8 Bredahl L. Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods: results of a cross-national survey. Aarhus (Denmark): Centre for Market Surveillance, Research and Strategy for the Food Sector; 2000. (Working Paper, 69). (2000)	Groups	n = 2.031 Denmark n = 505 Intervention with GM yoghurt n = 250; 150♀, 100♂ Mean age: 45.1 years old Intervention with GM beer n = 255; 84♀, 171♂ Mean age: 44.0 years old Germany n = 516 Intervention with GM yoghurt n = 258; 150♀, 108♂ Mean age: 43.2 years old Intervention with GM beer n = 258; 72♀, 186♂ Mean age: 44.9 years old United Kingdom n = 499 Intervention with GM yoghurt n = 250; 230♀, 20♂ Mean age: 39.7 years old Intervention with GM beer n = 249; 67♀, 182♂ mean age: 37.7 years old Italy n = 511 Intervention with GM yoghurt n = 256; 110♀, 146♂ mean age: 39.0 years old Intervention with GM beer n = 255; 102♀, 153♂ Mean age: 37.5 years old	Denmark, Germany, Italy, united Kingdom		There were no differences in accepting products containing GM in the final product (yoghurt) compared with those which did not contain it (beer), by which the researchers understood that the interviewees did not understand the difference between GM products ad GM itself, and thought there had been a mix up.

Faculdade de Saúde Pública da Universidade de São Paulo Avenida Dr. Arnaldo, 715, 01246-904 São Paulo SP Brazil, Tel./Fax: +55 11 3061-7985 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revsp@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence
: Javier Sanz-Valero. Departamento de Enfermería Comunitaria, Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública e Historia de la Ciencia. Universidad de Alicante. Campus de Sant Vicent del Raspeig. Apdo. Correos 99, 03080, Alicante, España. E-mail: javier.sanz@ua.es