See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321637672

An examination of millennials' attitudes toward genetically modified organism

(GMO) foods: Is it Franken-food or super-food?

Article  in  International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology · January 2017

DOI: 10.1504/IJARGE.2017.088403

CITATIONS READS

20 4,649

4 authors, including:

Stefan Linnhoff Hannah M Russell

Murray State University Texas A&M University
14 PUBLICATIONS   159 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   74 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Murphy Smith
Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi
156 PUBLICATIONS   2,167 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Analysis of GMO food products companies: financial risks and opportunities in the global agriculture industry View project

Human Trafficking: A Global Multi-Billion Dollar Criminal Industry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Murphy Smith on 07 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

An Examination of Millennials’ Attitudes toward Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)
Foods: Is it Franken-Food or Super-Food?

Stefan Linnhoff
Assistant Professor
Department of Marketing
Murray State University
Murray, KY 42071-3314
Email: slinnhoff@murraystate.edu
Tel: 270- 809-6208

Elena Volovich
Graduate Student
Department of Marketing
Murray State University
Murray, KY 42071-3314
Email: evolovich@murraystate.edu

Hannah M. Martin
Graduate Student
Hutson School of Agriculture
Murray State University
Murray, KY 42071
hmartin6@murraystate.edu

L. Murphy Smith*
Dill Distinguished Professor
Department of Accounting
Murray State University
Murray, KY 42071-3314
Email: msmith93@murraystate.edu
Tel: 270-809-4297

*Corresponding author

i
 An Examination of Millennials’ Attitudes toward Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)
Foods: Is it Franken-Food or Super-Food?

Abstract

Millennials, people born between about 1980 and 2000, are expected to have a major
impact on the future of the world's economy and society in general. This study reports on a
survey of Millennials in the United States regarding attribute dimensions of GMO foods, such as
health benefits, safety, and environmental friendliness. Potential benefits of GMO foods include
improving agricultural productivity, e.g. insect resistant and drought resistant crops, and
alleviating world hunger, particularly in developing countries. At the same time, opponents of
GMO foods are concerned about unknown consequences. Understanding the benefits and
concerns of GMO foods is important for the agricultural sector and for society overall. Results of
this study indicate that Millennials tend to be somewhat skeptical about GMO foods. Thus, to
effectively market GMO foods, agricultural producers, distributors, and food retailers will need
to provide, via corporate websites, news releases to media, and other venues, sufficient
information that alleviates consumer concerns.

Keywords: Genetically Modified Organism, GMO, Genetically Engineered Foods, Millennials.

JEL Codes: O13, Q00, Q18

ii
 An Examination of Millennials’ Attitudes toward Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)
Foods: Is it Franken-Food or Super-Food?

Introduction

Genetically modified foods are a controversial societal issue with both strong advocates

and harsh critics. GMO (genetically modified organism) foods have been lauded as a world-

changing technological advancement in agriculture. At the same, opponents of GMOs fear their

potential unpredictable consequences. They say that the potential negatives outweigh the positive

outcomes. GMO food advocates hail GMOs as a solution for pressing global problems like

climate change and world hunger. No one opposes GMO benefits such as drought-resistant and

insect-resistant crops, which have the potential of improving food supplies and the quality human

life (Associated Press, 2015; Ziegler, 2014; Biello, 2011; Stein et al., 2006).

This study explores attitudes of Millennials in the United States regarding food that is

derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs), also referred to as GM foods. GMO-laden

food products appeared in grocery stores in the U.S. in 1994 (Woolsey, 2012). GMOs have

become a part of almost every chain supermarket, with the most ubiquitous GM foods being soy-

, corn-, and wheat-based products. Multiple graphs on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s

website show an increase in GM corn acreage and soybeans acreage, accounting for 85 percent

of corn produced and 93 percent of soybeans produced (Fernandez-Cornejo, 2013).

How much does Generation Y know about GMOs? How does it perceive GMOs, what

factors are to be considered by food marketers to address this generation adequately? In the era

of “microwave mentality”, where instant gratification is an ongoing trend (Petrillo, 2015), do

agricultural crops that produce multiple amounts of harvest in shorter periods of time with high

resistance to pests and bugs rate highly with young people?

1
 While there has been considerable research on Millennials per se, there is still much

unknown about this generational group, including their perspectives on the very important topic

of GMOs and GM foods. Research suggests that this generation is far more complex than

previously thought (Linnhoff, Smith & Smith, 2014). This study seeks to expand the attitude

profile of this generation in general and specifically endeavors to fill the gap in research on

Millennials’ attitudes regarding GM foods.

Research Purpose

This paper utilizes a sample of U.S. college students to evaluate how Millennials, also

known as Generation Y, view genetically modified foods in terms of attributes commonly

associated with organic food, namely healthy, safe, environmentally beneficial, and ethical

(Linnhoff, 2008; Linnhoff & Albers-Miller, 2005; Carrigan, Szmigin & Wright, 2004).

Furthermore, this study examines the heightened interest in authenticity of Millenials (Chhabra,

2010) as well as the generation’s innovativeness (Gaskell, 2014). Use of college student samples

in research is widely practiced, and depending on the subject matter such samples may be more

or less representative of the population (cf., Seock & Chen-Yu, 2007; Segal et al., 2005;

Peterson, 2001). In this study, a sample of college students, who are Millennials, is regarded as

fairly representative of the population of Millennials (Ristino, 2013; Chhabra, 2010; Detre et al.,

2010; Connaway et al., 2008).

Prior Research

Research by Le Marrea, K.N., Witteb, C.L., Burkinke, T.J., Grünhagend, M. & Wellse,

G.J. (2007), in a cross-cultural study, examine perspectives toward GMOs, specifically food

crops, to assess whether French and Americans have significantly different views. Findings were

that first and second generation GMOs are less accepted by French than by American

2
respondent. At the same time, respondents in both countries recognize a direct benefit from

second generation GM foods with at minimum a reduced negative attitude toward them. The

study also reported factors that respondents indicate would make them more likely to purchase

GM foods.

Like Le Marrea et al. (2007), Colson and Rousu (2004) find that, in general, American

consumers (a variety of ages was surveyed) are more accepting of genetically modified foods

than European consumers, which sets the framework for overall perception of GMOs by

Millennials in the U.S. versus Europe. Genetically modified foods are presented as the solution

to the rising population and to world hunger. With so many young Americans engaging in

activism of some sort, GMOs should rate very highly in this framework of mind. Moreover,

Millennials in general are technology-savvy and like incorporating technology in their daily lives

(Jonas-Dwyer & Pospisil, 2004). An inference from this characteristic of Millennials would be

that they would approve of the use of genetically engineered organisms and genetically modified

food.

Grassroots protests that took place in 2013 in the U.S. and to a smaller degree,

internationally, aspired to bring attention to GMO labeling and to advocate for consumers’ right

to know were mostly led by younger people. The Web is filled with youth-powered “green” and

organic-food oriented movements such as http://youthpolitcal.wordpress.com and

http://www.teensturninggreen.org. This indicates the presence of GMO awareness by the

millennial generation. While being pro-technology, Millennials are also seeking healthy

alternatives to so-called fast food. Millennials are turning to fruit and vegetables, and prefer to

buy these at farmers markets versus conventional grocery stores (Detre et al., 2010). Millennials

do so because the prices at farmers market may be more affordable and there is a greater variety

3
and better quality of produce. On the other hand, there is evidence that in many places,

consumers may be willing to pay more for organic foods, particularly if they are regarded as

safer than GM foods. ON the other hand, consumers seem largely unwilling to pay more for GM

foods, even if there is better flavor and nutritional value (Loureiro & Bugbee, 2005).

The biggest reason behind GMO protests, most of which took place in California, was the

lack of a general GMO label in the U.S. and the desire of consumers to have the right to know

whether the foods they are consuming have GMOs or not. Looking deeper into the traits and

preferences of Generation Y, and based on the available research, females are more likely to pay

attention to labels on food products and to be aware of organic, green or healthy attributes

associated with the particular food (Furlow & Knott, 2009). Interestingly, a study by Radas et al.

(2008) found that consumers with less precise perspectives prefer mandatory labeling of the most

stringent type, while consumers with stronger perspectives, both advocates and detractors, were

more relaxed in their labeling preferences.

To generate more favorable attitudes toward GM foods, food producers and distributors

will need to effectively present factual information via corporate websites, news releases to

media, and other venues, such that negative consumer perceptions, particularly regarding

misinformation, can be dispelled. Opponents of GM foods have caused many consumers to have

concerns despite approvals by regulators and scientists, and despite the benefits of GM foods in

terms of improving crop yields and thereby reducing world hunger. Public opinion and

regulatory approval seem to be improving for GM foods both in the U.S. and even in Europe

(Jogalekar, 2014; Castle, 2014).

In China, a study by Zhang and Liu (2015) examined consumer's attitude towards GM

foods and found that attitudes are significantly affected by benefit perceptions and risk

4
perceptions, but are mainly affected by benefit perceptions. Another study done in China by

Shao, Cai, & Chen (2014) found that most consumers and retailers lack a clear understanding of

GM foods, and that public acceptance of GM foods is low. Not specifically about GM foods, but

the importance of building consumer trust, an Australian study examined techniques employed

by major supermarkets to alleviate criticisms regarding their food ethics, market control and

connection to producers (Phillipov, 2015). The success of GM food products will ultimately

depend on consumer trust.

To better understand the controversy between supporters and detractors of GM foods, a

brief review of one the most well-known GM foods is useful. Perhaps no single GM food item is

more representative of the controversy than Golden Rice. After more than 30 years, this GM

food has yielded only positive outcomes and no negative health consequences. The origin of

Golden Rice goes back to a 1984 meeting of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). At

that time there were no GM crops. Researchers were still exploring how to locate genes and

move them among organisms. One day after the formal IRRI sessions were ended, some plant

breeders (masters of the old-style way to improve crops) were asked if GM technology were to

work, what gene would they pick to include in rice. After some discussion, a renowned plant

breeder, Peter Jennings said that would be “Yellow endosperm.” Jennings explained that the

endosperm a rice grain is the chief part of what’s eaten and the color yellow indicates the

manifestation of beta-carotene, the source of vitamin A (Ziegler, 2014; Charles, 2013). Thus,

Yellow endosperm would be rice that includes vitamin A.

The plant breeders at the IRRI meeting in 1984 discussed many possible benefits of

adding new genes to rice. For example, they discussed benefits such as resisting disease or

surviving drought. Jennings settled on the addition of Vitamin A as most desirable because of its

5
nutritional benefits. Golden Rice has been genetically engineered for its enrichment in vitamin

A. Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) can result in a variety of serious health problems, including loss

of sight. Approximately 8 million preschool-age children die every year from this specific

deficiency (Ronald, 2014). One study reported that improved vitamin A nutritional status

attained from eating Golden Rice could prevent thousands of young children’s deaths annually

(Stein, 2006).

Positive effects of Golden Rice would be the most profound for the lowest income

groups. Ziegler (2014) identifies that globally the most serious nutrient deficiencies in the human

diet are iron, zinc, iodine, and vitamin A. Vitamin A is necessary for the visual system, growth,

development, and a healthy immune system. The deficiency in Vitamin A is most prevalent in

young children as well as pregnant and nursing women. Even after significant efforts, such as

capsule supplementation, dietary modification, fortifying commonly used foods, and optimal

breastfeeding practices, Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) continues to affect approximately 190

million preschool aged children and 19 million pregnant women in the developing world (Ziegler

2014).

While Golden Rice has many proponents, there are also detractors, including Greenpeace

International (Greenpeace, 2014). Greenpeace argues that there are other approaches to

combating VAD, such as food supplements, food fortification, and home gardening. In other

words, other sources of vitamin A could be fostered. In addition, the organization is concerned

that if Golden Rice is widely used that it will mix with non-GM rice. As a result, people that are

opposed to GM foods will not be willing to buy the rice produced by farmers who have

unintentionally (or intentionally) mixed the GM Golden Rice with other non-GM (organic) rice.

Thus, the rice farmer would lose access to certain markets where GM foods are not accepted.

6
 The debate over Golden Rice and other GM foods, notably genetically engineered (GE)

crops has left many scientists confounded. A 2015 survey by the Pew Research Center found that

88 percent of the scientists indicated genetically modified foods are safe to eat, which contrasts

with just 37 percent of the saying GM foods are safe. Almost all the scientists, 97 percent, said

that the problem was related to a lack of science and math education (Associated Press, 2015).

From a business standpoint, consumers’ attitudes toward GMO foods are critical. In

scientific debates, there is almost never a 100 percent agreement, but even if every scientist

regarded GMO foods as a safe product, the perceptions of the general public may remain at odds

with the scientific evidence. In that case, past research has shown that many consumers are

willing to pay even more for products that are believed to have health benefits, such as organic,

non-GMO products (Lefèvre, 2014; Loureiro and Hine, 2002).

At its heart, the debate over GMO foods, mostly carried out in the highly developed

countries of the West, will have major implications on the poorest people in the developing

world. While there has already been extensive research on GMO foods, the hope is that if more

research studies and enough research studies are done, that truth will prevail, as to whether GMO

foods are beneficial or detrimental (Linnhoff, Volovich, & Smith, 2014). An analogy might be

drawn to the approval process of pharmaceutical products, in which regulators balance benefits

of new products against potentially harmful side effects. Do the benefits of GMO foods outweigh

the potentially harmful side effects? A corresponding question is whether people on both sides of

the debate can accept truth if research reveals it. On the issue of seeking truth, one of the most

famous cases from history involves the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate, who asked Jesus of

Nazareth, "What is truth?" In that story, Pilate knew the truth, but he would not act on it for

political reasons (What is Truth, 2015).

7
 A New York Times article quoted Michael Purugganan, a professor of genomics and

biology and the dean for science at New York University, who said that there is much

misinformation regarding GMOs that is accepted as fact by people. He pointed out in a media

outlet in the Philippines that the genes inserted to make the vitamin are not a strange

manufactured material but genes also found in squash, carrots and melons. Purugganan, who was

raised in a middle-class family in Manila, felt compelled to say that much of the criticism of

GMOs in the Western world lacks understanding of how really terrible the nutrition situation is

in developing countries (Harmon, 2013).

Research Question

RQ: How do members of the millennial generation perceive genetically modified

(GM) foods in terms of their attributes, such as health, safe, environmentally

beneficial, ethical, authentic, and innovative?

Sample Selection and Methodology

To obtain data for the study, a survey was devised and diseminated among college

students. Students taking classes at a college of business were identified as a suitable population

from which to obtain a sample for survey purposes. Most students currently attending colleges

and universities were born between 1975 and 2000 and are thus members of the same

demographic cohort known as Generation Y or Millennials (definitions of Millennials available

at: Financial Times Lexicon, 2014; Greenberg, 2008; and Howe & Strauss, 2000). The

expectation is that members of this group share common characteristics per generational theory

established by prior research (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Strauss, Howe, & Markiewicz, 2006).

The sample includes 102 participants. The sample’s median age range was 24-26. The

sample consisted of 86.3% undergraduates and 13.7% graduate students. There existed about an

8
equal balance between female (52.9%) and male respondents (47.1%). Complete sample

demographics are provided in Table 1.

[Insert Table 1 about here]

Measures and Data Collection

An online survey programmed in Surveymonkey was employed as the data collection

instrument. The benefits of online surveys have been criticized in the past (Fricker & Schonlau,

2002). However, the emergence of online survey platforms, such as Qualtrics, Surveymonkey

and Zoomerang, has rendered most of this criticism obsolete. Compared to “paper and pencil

surveys”, online questionnaires have the advantage of eliminating confounding sources and of

the occurrence of missing data. Utilizing an online survey is a cost and time efficient research

tool.

Respondents were asked to answer to questions using a 5-point Likert scale, anchored at

``strongly disagree” and ``strongly agree.” Items had been previously examined and reviewed in

a pretest, during the summer 2013. Furthermore, a constant sum scale was included to account

for the weight and relevance of the attributes: safe, healthy, environmentally beneficial,

innovative, ethical, and authentic. Survey respondents were prompted to distribute points to these

attributes that had to sum up to 100 points total. A synopsis of the survey items, questions and

constructs, is provided in Appendix A.

Once the online surveys had been devised, the links to the online surveys were embedded

in emails and sent to students via email list servers. Data collection took place in November

2013. Having concluded the data collection within two weeks in fall 2013, reliability tests were

run to clean the data of items that undermined Cronbach’s α and thus the internal consistency of

9
the proposed constructs. Indeed, the finalized set of items utilized render generally adequate

results per Cronbach’s α.

Results

Answers to the research question regarding Millennials perceptions of genetically

modified foods in terms of attributes (e.g. healthy and safe) are presented in this section.

One-Sample T-Test

Data was analyzed employing SPSS (PASW) 18.0. First, one sample t-tests were

performed to analyze if responses to the constructs were different from “3”, representing the

neutral point on the 5-point Likert scale. The results provided in Table 2 indicate generally

significant values. Participants showed slightly unfavorable views on GMOs in terms of the

aspects safety (M=2.87, p=0.124), health (M=2.58, p<0.05), environmentally beneficial

(M=2.76, p<0.05), ethical (M=2.81, p<0.05) and authentic (M=2.76, p<0.05). The fact that

survey takers assumed a standpoint for innovative that was only barely favorable (M=3.10,

p<0.05) suggests only moderate enthusiasm for this particular technological advancement.

[Insert Table 2 about here]

Results show insignificance for the variable “label awareness”, which measured the

respondents’ interest in checking nutritional information. The mean (M=3.13, p=0.124) implies a

certain lack of concern for this item. This result corresponds to the suboptimal interest of

consumers in studying food labeling commonly reported in the literature (Lusk, 2012; Miller &

Cassady, 2012; Rousu et al., 2004)

Independent Sample T-Test, Differences between the Sexes

Divergent response patterns between men and women were anticipated. In order to

compare the responses, independent samples t-tests were performed. The results indicate

10
significant response differences for only two of the eight constructs, namely the attributes of safe

and healthy. Regarding health, both males and females lean slightly toward perceiving GMO

food unfavorably. Nevertheless, female responses were significantly lower, i.e. more unfavorable

(M = 2.48; SD = 0.42) than male responses (M = 2.70; SD = 0.50), t(102)=2.40, p=0.05). The

effect size, as indexed by Cohen’s (1988) coefficient d, was found to have a medium level (d =

0.50).

Females tend to have stronger disagreement than males regarding statements associating

GM foods with being safe, healthy, environmentally beneficial, authentic, and ethical. On the

other hand, both sexes showed neutral response patterns with regards to innovative (females:

M=3.10; males: M=3.11,p=0.96) and label awareness (females: M=2.70; males: M=2.84,

p=0.76). Finally, females displayed a slightly higher inclination to purchase GMO-free foods

than males (females: M=3.67; males: M=3.47; p=0.18).

Independent Sample T-Test, Differences between Buyers & Non-Buyers of Organic Food

An independent sample t-test was conducted to detect divergences between buyers and

non-buyers of organic food. Certified organic food must not contain GMOs. In four out of eight

cases, significantly varying response patterns were identified: consumers of organic food rated

GM foods lower than non-buyers with respect to safe (buyers: M = 2.78; SD = 0.57; non-buyers:

M = 2.96; SD = 0.46), t(102)=2.46, p<0.05), healthy (buyers: M = 2.51; SD = 0.51; non-buyers:

M = 2.65; SD = 0.43), t(102)=2.40, p<0.05) and innovative (buyers: M = 2.97; SD = 0.72; non-

buyers: M = 3.17; SD = 0.53), t(102)=-1.59, p<0.05). Furthermore, buyers of organic food

demonstrated higher label awareness (M = 3.36; SD = 0.77) than non-buyers (M = 2.92; SD =

0.91; t(102)=2.64, p<0.01). In view of the existence of the certified organic food label, this result

is not surprising.

11
 Multiple Linear Regression

Multiple regression analysis was used to test whether the attributes of safe, healthy,

environmentally beneficial, innovative, ethical, and label awareness as well sex, marital status,

student status, children, and age would significantly predict participants' ratings of interest in

buying GM-free food. Results are shown in Table 3. Results of the regression indicate that the

predictors explained 49.1% of the variance (R2 = 0.491, F(7,94)) = 7.15, p<0.01). More

specifically, the DV was significantly predicted by the attributes healthy (β = -0.349, p<0.1

(p=0.068)) and authentic (β = -0.443, p<0.01) as well as marital status (single / divorced or

married; β = 0.389, p<0.05 (p=0.05). Label awareness was borderline significant applying the p<

0.1 level (β = 0.115, p=0.11, borderline). Results for the constructs of safe, environmentally

beneficial, innovative, ethical as well as for the categorical variables sex, student status, children,

and age were found to be insignificant.

[Insert Table 3 about here]

Table 4 illustrates the quadratic function for the variables with significant changes in R2

via scatterplots. Regarding the attribute of ‘safe’, the curved lines seem to suit the data points

better. The quadratic model suggests that the purchase intent to buy GMO-Free food would not

diminish past a certain low point. In other words, even among participants who held rather

favorable perceptions of GMOs in terms of safety, they are not opposed to buying GMO-free

items. On the other hand, the intent to buy GMO-free increases exponentially with unfavorable

views on GMOs in regards to safety. The shape and rationale of the curves for healthy and

ethical are similar; the less favorable the views were on GMOs, the higher the level of intent to

buy GMO-free foods. A summary of key findings is provided in Table 5. In this table, the gender

12
effect, for example, is particularly notable, with significant differences identified between male

and female respondents.

[Insert Table 4 and Table 5 about here]

Summary and Conclusions

This study examined perspectives of Generation Y, also called Millennials, regarding

genetically modified organisms (GMOs), specifically GM foods. Being a very large generational

group, their perspectives are expected to have a major impact on acceptance of GMOs and GM

food products. Overall, Millennials have somewhat unfavorable views toward GM foods.

Females tend to be more skeptical about GMOs and GM foods than males. Males are generally

neutral in attitude. To generate more favorable attitudes toward GMO foods, agricultural

producers, distributors, and food retailers will need to provide through corporate websites, news

releases to media, and other venues sufficient information that alleviates consumer concerns.

Opponents of GM foods, more so in Europe than in the U.S., have caused many consumers to

have concerns despite approvals by regulators and scientists, and despite the benefits of GM

foods in terms of improving crop yields and thereby reducing world hunger.

Six attributes were shown to be factors affecting Millennials’ attitudes toward GM food,

in order of ranking: healthy/ first, safe/ second, innovative/ third, beneficial to the environment/

fourth, ethical/ fifth, and authentic/ sixth. Not surprisingly, buyers of organic food expressed a

higher level of unfavorable views than non-organic buyers. Furthermore, although all six

attributes showed significant correlations with ‘intent to purchase GM-free foods’, only the

attributes of authentic, safe, healthy, and ethical were found to be significant predictors. Among

demographic-related findings, married participants showed higher skepticism toward GM foods

13
than unmarried participants. Views on GM food were not related to student classification

(freshman, sophomore, etc.), children, or age.

Limitations and Future Research

The study is limited by the time frame and the characteristics of the sample respondents.

Data is collected in just one year. The current study could be extended longitudinally. A future

study could compare its results to the current study, thereby to measure changes in perspectives

regarding GM foods over time. The sample is limited to 102 respondents who are mostly

younger and unmarried members of Generation Y, also called Millennials. The study is limited

to the extent that this sample represents the population of Millennials. This study could be

extended in a future study that obtains data from other universities or countries. In regard to

different countries, a future study could examine whether perspectives differ between Millennials

in GMO-growing countries compared to non-GMO-growing countries.

While this study includes a variety of analyses (e.g. comparing sexes and comparing

buyers v. non-buyers of certified organic food), future studies could include other possible

analyses. In the sample, only 21percent are over age 26 (Millennials include those up to age 32)

and only 16 percent are married and only 16 percent have children. These demographic factors

could affect influence interpersonal decision-making and opinion-forming. Future studies could

include additional older Millennials and more who are married and who are parents.

14
 References

Associated Press. (2015). Polls show scientists, general public far apart on nuclear power, GMOs, climate,
more. Associated Press. Posted on 29 January 2015. Retrieved on 3 July 2015 from
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2015/01/polls_shows_scientists_general_public_far_apart_on_nu
clear_power_gmos_climate_mo.html.

Biello, David. 2011. Coming to a cornfield near You: Genetically induced drought-resistance. Scientific
American. Posted on 13 May 2011. Retrieved on 3 July 2015 from
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/corn-genetically-modified-to-tolerate-drought/.

Carrigan, M., Szmigin, I., & Wright, J. (2004). Shopping for a better world? An interpretive study of the
potential for ethical consumption within the older market. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(6), 401-417.

Castle, S. (2014). Modified corn a step closer to approval in Europe. New York Times. Posted on 11
February 2014. Retrieved on 4 March 2014 from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/business/international/modified-corn-a-step-closer-to-approval-in-
europe.html?_r=0.

Charles, D. (2013). In A Grain Of Golden Rice, A World Of Controversy Over GMO Foods. National
Public Radio. Posted on 7 March 2013. Retrieved on 3 November 2014 from:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/03/07/173611461/in-a-grain-of-golden-rice-a-world-of-controversy-
over-gmo-foods.

Chhabra, D. (2010). Back to the past: a sub-segment of Generation Y's perceptions of authenticity. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 18(6), 793-809.

Connaway, L., Radford, M., Dickey, T , Williams, J. & Confer, P. (2008). Sense-making and
synchronicity: information-seeking behaviors of millennials and baby boomers. Libri, 58(2), 123-135.

Detre, J.D., Mark, T.B., & Clark, B.M. (2010). Understanding why college-educated Millennials shop at
farmers markets: An analysis of students at Louisiana State University. Journal of Food Distribution
Research, 41(3).

Fernandez-Cornejo, J. (2013, July 9). Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the U.S. United States
Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Retrieved on 1 March 2014 from:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-
in-ge-adoption.aspx#.UwktbYXHj0V.

Financial Times Lexicon (2014), Definition of Generation Y. Financial Times Lexicon. Retrieved on 31
January 2014 from: http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=generation-Y.

Fricker, R., & Schonlau, M. (2002). Advantages and disadvantages of Internet research surveys: Evidence
from the literature. Field Methods, 14(4), 347-367.

Furlow, N., & Knott, C. (2009). Who’s reading the label? Millennials’ use of environmental product labels.
Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 10, 85.

15
Greenberg, E. (2008). Generation We: How Millennial youth are taking over America and changing.
Emeryville, CA: Pachatusan.

Gaskell, Adi. (2014). Millennials Are Perceived as More Innovative (and Why That's Bad). Social Media
Today. Posted on 13 November 2014. Retrieved on 16 July 2015 from
http://www.socialmediatoday.com/content/millennials-are-perceived-more-innovative-and-why-thats-bad.

Greenpeace (2014). Golden Rice. Greenpeace International. Retrieved on 3 November 2014 from:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-
engineering/Greenpeace-and-Golden-Rice/.

Harmon, A. (2013). Golden Rice: Lifesaver? New York Times. Posted on 24 August 2013. Retrieved on 3
November 2014 from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/sunday-review/golden-rice-
lifesaver.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&.

Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. Toronto, CA:
Vintage/Random House.

Jogalekar, A. (2014). Scientific American comes out in favor of GMOs, and I agree. Scientific American.
Posted on 6 September 2013. Retrieved on 4 March 2014 from: Website:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/09/06/scientific-american-comes-out-
in-favor-of-gmos/.

Jonas-Dwyer, D., & Pospisil, R. (2004, July). The millennial effect: Implications for academic
development. In Proceedings of the 2004 annual international conference of the Higher Education Research
and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA), 356-366.

Lefèvre, Mélanie. (2014). Do Consumers Pay More for What They Value More? The Case of Local Milk-
based Dairy Products in Senegal. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 43(1), 158-177.

Linnhoff, S and Albers-Miller, N. (2005). Food as prevention or cure: A 45 country analysis of government
regulations of the labeling of organic, enhanced and genetically -modified nutraceutials,” Society for
Marketing Advances 2005 Conference, Proceedings, 172-173.

Linnhoff, S., Smith, K.T. and Smith, L.M. (2014). A comparison of work-life balance perspectives of
future business professionals in the USA and Germany. International Journal of Business and
Globalisation, 13(3), 322-353.

Linnhoff, Stefan, Volovich, E. & Smith, L.M. (2014). An Examination of Millennials’ Attitudes Toward
Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) Foods: Is it Franken-Food or Super-Food? International
Conference of the Allied Academies (March 27), Nashville, TN. Received the Distinguished Research
Award.

Loureiro, M.L. & Bugbee, M. (2005). Enhanced GM Foods: Are Consumers Ready to Pay for the Potential
Benefits of Biotechnology? The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(1), 52-70.

16
Loureiro, M.L., and Hine, S. (2002). Discovering Niche Markets: A Comparison of Consumer Willingness
to Pay for Local, Organic, and GMO-Free Products. Journal of Agricultural Applied Economics, 34(3),
477-487.

Lusk, J.L. (2012). Consumer information and labeling, in US programs affecting food and agricultural
marketing, Armbruster and R.D. Knutson (eds). New York: Springer
Science + Business Media. Available online at: http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4614-4930-
0/page/1.

Le Marrea, K.N., Witteb, C.L., Burkinke, T.J., Grünhagend, M. & Wellse, G.J. (2007). A Second
Generation of Genetically Modified Food: American versus French Perspectives. Journal of Food Products
Marketing, 13(1), 81-100.

Miller, L. M. S., & Cassady, D. L. (2012). Making healthy food choices using nutrition facts panels: The
roles of knowledge, motivation, dietary modifications goals, and age. Appetite, 59(1), 129-139.

Ristino, Laurie A. (2013). Back to the New: Millennials and the Sustainable Food Movement. Vermont
Journal of Environmental Law, 15(1), 1-30. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2365549
(Retrieved on 3 July 2015).

Peterson, Robert A. (2001). On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research: Insights from a
Second‐Order Meta‐analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 450-461.

Petrillo, K. (2015). The Power of Now: Marketing the Trend of Instant Gratification. Yahoo Small
Business. Retrieved on 22 January 2015 from: https://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/power-now-
marketing-trend-instant-gratification-175013514.html.

Phillipov, Michelle. (2015). Helping Australia Grow: Supermarkets, television cooking shows, and the
strategic manufacture of consumer trust. Agriculture and Human Values. Posted on 18 August 2015.
Retrieved on 11 September 2015 from: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-015-9643-6?no-
access=true.

Radas, S., Teisl, M., & Roe, B. (2008). An Open Mind Wants More: Opinion Strength and the Desire for
Genetically Modified Food Labeling Policy. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 42(3), 335-361.

Ronald, P. C. 2014. Lab to Farm: Applying Research on Plant Genetics and Genomics to Crop
Improvement. PLOS Collection. Retrieved on 3 November 2014 from:
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001878.

Rousu, M., Huffamn, W., Curtiss, C., Shogren, J., & Tegene, A. (2004). Are United States consumers
tolerant of genetically modified foods? Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 26(1), 19-31.

Seock, Yoo-Kyoung and Chen-Yu, Jessie H. (2007). Website Evaluation Criteria Among US College
Student Consumers with Different Shopping Orientations and Internet Channel Usage. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(3), 204-212. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1061903 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2006.00502.x (Retrieved on 3 July 2015).

17
Shao, Y. T., Cai, H. J., & Chen, G. (2014). Acceptance Survey of GM Food in China. Journal of Food and
Nutrition Research, 2(11), 846-849. Retrieved on 11 September 2015 from:
http://pubs.sciepub.com/jfnr/2/11/14.

Stein A.J., Sachdev, H.P.S., & Qaim, M. (2006). Genetic engineering for the poor: Golden Rice and public
health in India. World Development, 36, 144–158.

What is Truth (2015). What is Truth? Retrieved on 23 October 2015 from:

http://www.whatistruth.org.uk/whatistruth.php.

Woolsey, G. (2012). GMO timeline: A history of genetically modified foods. RosebudMag. Retrieved on
18 February 2014 from: rosebudmag.com/truth-squad/gmo-timeline-a-history-of-genetically-modified-
foods.

Zhang, Meng & Liu, Guo-Liang. (2015). The effects of consumer's subjective and objective knowledge on
perceptions and attitude towards genetically modified foods: objective knowledge as a determinant.
International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 50(5), 1198–1205. Retrieved on 12 September 2015
from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijfs.12753/abstract.

Ziegler, R.S. (2014). Biofortification: Vitamin A Deficiency and the Case for Golden Rice. Chapter 19 of
Plant Biotechnology: Experience and Future Prospects, A. Ricroch et al. (eds.), Springer International
Publishing Switzerland. Retrieved on 3 November 2014 from: link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-
319-06892-3_19.

18
 Table 1: Demographic profile of the sample

Demographic N = 102
characteristic
Frequency Percentage
Sex
Men 48 47.1
Women 54 52.9
Age
18-20 29 28.4
21-23 45 44.1
24-26 7 6.9
27-29 6 5.9
30-32 2 2.0
33-35 4 3.9
39-41 4 3.9
>41 5 4.9
Number of children
0 86 84.3
≥1 16 15.7
Citizenship
US 87 85.3
Permanent resident 2 2
alien (green card)
Other 13 12.7
Student status
Freshman 1 1
Sophomore 11 10.8
Junior 31 30.4
Senior 45 44.1
Graduate 14 13.7
Marital status
Single or divorced 86 84.3
Married 16 15.7

19
 Table 2: One sample t-test results

One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3*
Constructs Sig.
M t
(2-tailed)
Safety 2.8741 -2.422 .017**
Health 2.5824 -8.920 .000*
Environmentally beneficial 2.7696 -3.459 .001*
Ethical 2.8113 -4.584 .000*
Innovativeness 3.1059 2.099 .038**
Authenticity 2.7627 -4.616 .000*
Nutritional label knowledge 3.1340 1.553 .124
Intention to buy “GMO Free”
3.5735 7.800 .000*
labeled products
Notes:
*p < 0.01, p<0.05**, p<0.1
*
5-point Likert scale, anchored at “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree”

20
Table 3: Multiple linear regression results of Attributes

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Sig.
Variables B SE B β

Safe -.167 .161 -.118 .301

Healthy -.349 .189 -.222 .068***
Environm -.006 .112 -.005 .958
Authent -.443 .144 -.310 .003**
INNO -.142 .099 -.121 .155
ETH -.063 .102 -.054 .538
Label awareness .115 .072 .134 .1131
sex4 .016 .119 .011 .896
4
marital status .389 .195 .192 .05*
student status4 .004 .069 .005 .957
4
Children .196 .202 .097 .333
4
Age .023 .034 .134 .508
R2 0.4912
F 7.151***3
Notes:
a. Dependent Variable: GMO_FREE_Purchase_intent
* p<0.05, ** p<0.1, p<0.01***
1
The overall neutral response pattern undermined “label awareness” to become a better predictor of the DV.
2
49.1% of the DV’s variance is explained by the set of predictors.
3
The equation as a whole (including all IVs) is statistically significant in explaining the DV at the p<0.01 level, i.e.
very good model fit.
4
Categorical variables; multiple regression is superior to other techniques, namely factorial ANOVA, because both
continuous and categorical variables may be included in the analysis.

21
Table 4: Multiple regression – curvilinear analysis - scatter plot interpretation
DV: Purchase Intent to Buy GMO Free

observed

linear
Notes:

 The purchase intent to buy GMO-free

quadratic
food would not diminish past a certain
low point – and actually slightly
increase.
 Even participants who held rather
favorable perceptions of GMOs in
un-safe safe terms of safety would not exclude
buying GMO-free items.
 The intent to buy GMO-free increases
GMO - Safety exponentially with unfavorable views
on GMOs in regards to safety.
DV: Purchase Intent to Buy GMO Free

Notes:

 Even participants who held rather

favorable perceptions of GMOs in
terms of health would not exclude
buying GMO-free items.
 The intent to buy GMO-free increases
exponentially with unfavorable views
on GMOs in regards to health.

un-healthyhealthy

GMO - Health
DV: Purchase Intent to Buy GMO Free

 Similar mechanics compared to curves

above.
 The intent to buy GMO-free increases
exponentially with unfavorable views on
GMOs in regards to ethical.

un-ethical ethical

GMO – Ethical

22
Table 4 – Concluded.

The intent to buy GMO-free increases

DV: Purchase Intent to Buy GMO Free

exponentially with the degree of label

awareness. A slight increase of intent does exist
with increasingly lower awareness of label
awareness. This might be due to a certain level
of social desirability bias. A certain sense of
uncertainty might have emerged in those
participants who usually do not care too much
about nutritional labels, leading them to
indicate they would seek to find security by
lower higher expressing intent to buy GMO free foods.

Nutritional label awareness

23
Table 5: Summary of key findings
One
Pearson Multiple linear & Frequen-
sample Independent sample T-tests
correlation hierarchical regression cies
T-test

buying Perceived
predictors of GMO-free
sexes certified sign. Correlation relevance
purchase intent rank
organic food
all N continuous IVs
with Cate-
with
males females no yes label gorical only Quadra
DV Mean
aware. IVs linear -tic
Safe (S) n n D n D yes no x 1
Healthy (H) D D D D D yes no x 6
environ. (E) D n D n D yes yes 4
Ethical (Et) n n D n D yes no x 5
Inno (I) n n n n n yes yes 3
Auth (A) D n D n D yes yes x 2
label aware. n n n yes x
GMO free PI
yes yes yes n/a n/a
(DV) yes
marital status yes
sex no
student status no
children no
age no
Notes:
n neither agree nor disagree (≈2.80 ≥ n ≤ 3.20)
F leaning toward a favorable view of GM foods
D leaning toward a dis-favorable view of GM foods
Bold font indicates comparably lower (higher} mean value
Label awaren. yes, no, or neutral

24
 Appendix

Table A1: Synopsis – constructs and survey items

Operationalization / survey items
Con- Cron- No. 5-point Likert scale, anchored at “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree”
struct bach's of un-favorable Attitude towards GMO food favorable
α items Item

Q42_1 S-GM food is safer.

Q42_2 S-GM food protects from “mad cow disease.”
Q42_3 S-The regulations on GM2 food protect consumers.
Q42_4 S-Production of GM food is monitored by the US government.
Q42_5 S-GM food is low in chemical residues from pesticides and antibiotics. 1
Q42_6 S-There exists an official “GMO FREE” label.
safe

0.78 12 Q42_7 S-There exists an official “GMO inside” label

Q42_8 S-The use of the "GMO inside" label is obligatory.
Q42_9 S-Producers of GM food must meet with certain minimum legal standards of production. 1
Q42_10 S-GM food is safer for me & my family.
Q42_11 S-GM animal feed should not be given to livestock1
Q42_12 S-GM organisms should not be used in agriculture1

Q42_13 S-The risks of GM products are overrated.

Q36_1 H-GM food is healthier.
Q36_2 H-GM food has better ingredients.
Q36_3 H-GM food is high in vitamins.
Q36_4 H-GM food helps to prevent disease.
Q36_5 H-GM food is better for me & my family.
healthy

Q36_6 H-GM food can change the cells of my body.

Q36_7 H-GM food does not contain preservatives.
0.81 15 Q36_8 H-GM food can help to fight disease
Q36_9 H-GM food increases the risk of getting sick1
Q36_10 H-GM food is harmful to infants (babies, toddlers) 1

25
Table A1 – Continued.

Q36_11 H-GM food might cause cancer1

Q36_12 H-GM food can cause allergies1
Q36_13 H-GM food is healthier than GMO FREE food
Q36_14 H-GMO FREE food is healthier than GM food1
Q36_15 H-GM food is more nutritious.
Q43_1 ENV-GMO-FREE food production is better for the environment. 1
beneficial
environm

0.61 4 Q43_2 ENV-GM food is beneficial to the environment.

Q43_3 ENV-The production of GM food is less wasteful of natural resources.
Q43_4 ENV-GM food production uses less pesticides
Q43_6 ETH-The production of GM food is not motivated by economic reasons.
Q43_8 ETH-GM food production helps to fight world hunger
ethical

0.71 5 Q43_9
ETH-GM food supports a good cause.
Q43_10 ETH-GM food production helps to prevent climate change
Q43_11 ETH-GM food production helps to solve mankind's problems.
Q45_2 AUTH-GM food is unnatural1
Q45_3 AUTH-GM food is artificial.
Q45_4 AUTH-GM food production is against nature. 1
Q45_5 AUTH-GM food is impure. 1
Q45_6 AUTH-GM food is against the natural order. 1
authentic

0.89 20
AUTH-GMO FREE food production means turning one’s mind back to traditional methods of
Q45_7
agriculture. 1
Q45_8 AUTH-GMO FREE food production means making products the way they should be. 1
Q45_9 AUTH-GM food production is legitimate.
Q45_10 AUTH-GM food production harms the natural foundations of life. 1
Q41_6 AUTH-GM food is related to mass consumption. 1

26
 Table A1 – Concluded.

Q41_7 AUTH-GMO FREE food production means to be in harmony with nature. 1

Q41_8 AUTH-GM food production helps to preserve nature.
Q41_9 AUTH-GMO-FREE food production means to be truthful to nature. 1
Q41_10 AUTH-GM food production tampers with nature. 1
Q41_11 AUTH-GM food production harms nature's original state. 1
Q41_12 AUTH-GM food is "fake food".1
Q41_13 AUTH-GM food production is out of touch with nature. 1
Q41_14 AUTH-GMO-FREE food production helps to preserve nature's balance. 1
Q41_15 AUTH-GM food is not authentic. 1
Q41_16 AUTH-GM food is pretending to be natural. 1
Q41_1 INNO-GM food production is innovative.
innovative

0.71 4 Q41_2 INNO-GM food production is cutting edge.

Q41_3 INNO-GM food production is progressive.
Q41_5 INNO-Rejecting GM food production is backward minded.
Q18_1 Labels-I regularly read product labels with the list of ingredients and nutritional info
awareness

0.79 3 Q18_2
Label

Labels-I find myself checking the list of ingredients and nutritional info even for small items.
Q18_3 Labels-It is important to me to get the best ingredients for the products I buy
Purchase intent

Q15_1 PI-How likely would you to buy a product labeled "GMO INSIDE" if it were available to you?
- GMO-free

0.51 2
PI-How likely would you to buy a product labeled "GMO FREE" if it were available to you?
Q16

Notes: 1 reverse coded to reduce response bias and to warrant unidirectionality

2 GM = genetically modified; abbreviations were not employed in the actual survey
3 Cronbach's α / Internal consistency (benchmarks; details are disputed; Field, 2013; Kline, 1999)

α ≥ 0.9 Excellent
0.7 ≤ α < 0.9 Good
0.6 ≤ α < 0.7 Acceptable
0.5 ≤ α < 0.6 Poor
α < 0.5 Unacceptable

27

View publication stats