Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 3 (2021) 100098

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Agriculture and Food Research

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-agriculture-and-food-research/

Canadian consumer opinions regarding food purchase decisions

Diego Maximiliano Macall, Claire Williams, Savannah Gleim, Stuart J. Smyth *
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Agricultural biotechnology produced genetically modified (GM) crops, not only provide economic benefits to
Consumers farmers, but are beneficial to the environmental, human health, and consumers. At a time when no tool in
GM crops agriculture can be overlooked when dealing with increasing environmental, food security, and economic pres-
Biotechnology
sures, what do Canadian consumers think of GM food, following over 20 years of consumption? This article
Price premium
presents the results of a 2018 survey of 506 English-speaking Canadian consumers, about GM food, food labels
and purchasing decisions. Results show the two most important factors that impact Canadian consumer food
purchase decisions are: price and place of origin (Canadian made). Canadian consumers are responding to surveys
about their willingness to consume GM food products in diametric opposition to their actual purchasing behavior.
That is, consumers say they mistrust GM foods, but when consumers are making food purchase decisions in
grocery stores, price is the key purchase determining factor.

1. Introduction industry's task of disseminating knowledge about GM crops and food

The rapid adoption of agricultural biotechnology, specifically the
near full adoption of genetically modified (GM) varieties of canola, corn
and soybeans in Canadian food production, has resulted in their inclusion
in a wide variety of processed food products. Canada has voluntary
labelling regulations, allowing food companies the ability to decide
whether or not to label food products in regard to whether they contain
GM ingredients or not. While some consumer-based organizations have
consistently called for GM labels to be mandatory, federal regulators have
refused to accommodate these requests, stating that labeling information
must be based on scientifically validated evidence or changes to nutri-
tional composition [1]. The refusal to change food product labels
regarding the use of GM products and ingredients, confirms the demands
to do so are not grounded in science. While the majority of consumers
surveyed about their preferences for the labelling of GM food products
support labelling [2], in-store purchase behaviors fail to quantify this
correlation.
While consumer-based organizations indicate the majority of con-
sumers want GM food products to be labelled, there is evidence that
Canadian consumers would be willing purchase GM potatoes if offered a
price discount, [3]. It has long been known that personal beliefs and
understanding, among other attributes, underpin attitudes towards food
derived from GM crops [4]. These attributes complicate the agriculture
derived therefrom, as no single strategy can address the heterogeneity of
consumer concerns and opinions. However, it is also important to note
that the opinions expressed by consumers do not always reflect their
actual consumption behavior [5]. It has been shown that voiced negative
attitudes toward GM foods (in surveys), is not a reliable indicator for
what consumers actually purchase [6].
In addition to consumer opinion, the agricultural industry has to
consider the role media plays in the GM food debate, and the trust people
place in their domestic media [7]. In fact, rarely has any technology in
the agri-food sector attracted as much media attention as GM crops and
foods. The way the media and anti-biotechnology organizations portray
GM foods is a challenge for the agricultural industry as a whole, which is
interested in reassuring consumers about the safety of the tools and
technologies it employs to produce food products. To a significant extent,
the media has played a role in shaping negative consumer opinions to-
wards GM food [8–10].
Consumer opinions and tastes change over time. Opinions about GM
crops and food are no exception. But what do Canadian consumers
currently think about GM food (biotech food)? This article investigates
which food purchase decision factors are important to Canadian con-
sumers, when making in-store food purchase decisions. The article con-
cludes a comprehensive two-year survey and analysis of Canadian
consumer opinions and perspectives about plant breeding and food safety

* Corresponding author. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5A8, Canada.
E-mail addresses: diego.macall@usask.ca (D.M. Macall), clw208@mail.usask.ca (C. Williams), savannah.gleim@usask.ca (S. Gleim), stuart.smyth@usask.ca
(S.J. Smyth).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2020.100098
Received 11 November 2020; Received in revised form 14 December 2020; Accepted 14 December 2020
2666-1543/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
D.M. Macall et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 3 (2021) 100098

[11,12]. The article begins with a literature review on the effects food Table 1
labels play in influencing consumer purchasing decisions, the method- Sample demographics compared to 2016 Canadian census results.
ology is then explained and demographics are presented. Results are Survey Statistics 2016 Census
discussed and policy implications are offered, prior to the conclusion.
Percentage male/female 50.0/48.8 49.1/50.9
Average age 49.9 41.0
2. The influence of labels on food purchasing decisions Highest level of education Technical/college/ Technical/college/
university university
Median household income $92,294 $70,336
Food labels are an important way for products to be differentiated
Percentage married/common- 59.8 57.6
[13]. From a marketing standpoint, food labels are vital information law
signals to customers, especially for new products and first-time cus- Average number of children in 0.4 0.6
tomers, as consumers are more likely to buy a product if they find a label household
appealing (Latiff et al., 2015). The choice of words used in the food label Source: [30].
to advertise and promote the packaged content [14], also plays a role in a
consumer's decision to purchase a product. This is particularly true for
practically change purchasing behaviour when ranked against other food
health-conscious consumers, as they are more likely to scrutinize avail-
factors?
able label information to see whether a food product meets their nutri-
tional requirements [15]. Similarly, those who read labels carefully are
3. Methodology and demographics
more likely to buy organic labelled products [16], which is not surprising
given the public perception that these food products are seen to offer
This study received ethics approval from the University of Saskatch-
health benefits over conventionally produced ones [17], when nutri-
ewan's Office of Ethics (BEH 17–290). The survey was administered via
tional evidence confirms no support for this [18]. [19] show the
email through Voxco, a Canadian owned and operated survey-building
conundrum that labelling GM food products entails. There is clearly a
platform, and responses were stored by Ekos, a Canadian research plat-
need for as much transparency as possible along the food production
form. Two screener questions which restricted participation were
chain, to build and maintain consumer trust in food safety and regula-
created. That is, participants were required to be at least 18 years of age,
tions, which would encourage the application of GM food labels, how-
and that they spend at least $30 a week on groceries. This ensured that
ever consumers generally have negative opinions about GM crops and
responses on purchasing decisions be completed by those familiar with
food products, reducing the incentive to label these products accordingly.
the food product purchasing process.
Although GM crops offer environmental and health benefits, labelling
In terms of being representative of the larger Canadian society, our
food products derived from these crops overshadows the benefits,
sample is comparable to the 2016 census, the most recent Canadian
increasing the tendencies for product avoidance. It is the lack of con-
census, in the categories of gender, education, marital status and children
sumer understanding of food production in general and food processing
living at home (Table 1). The average survey respondent age is slightly
techniques specifically, that increases the strength of preferences [17,
above the national Canadian average, by nine years and has a higher
20–22].
household median income, by $22,000. The survey was not translated
Consumers wish to make an informed choice regarding their food
into French; therefore, the results of this survey are reflective of only
product purchasing decisions [23]. Similarly, especially when it comes to
english-speaking Canadians. The sample is geographically representative
food, the decision not only of which products to buy, but also which
of Canada, based on 2016 census of provincial populations.
brands, is heavily influenced by everyone in the household [24]. As a
No surveys were removed from the analysis (N ¼ 506), and descrip-
result, parents and guardians are less likely to choose items that may have
tive statistics on the answers were done with the Statistical Package for
some risk associated with them [14]. This adds value to food labels,
the Social Sciences (SPSS). The survey took place in July 2018, and
which allows consumers to make informed purchasing decisions that
comprised 20 questions of varied format, and was designed to gather
conform to their ideals, values and beliefs [15,23]. It is therefore the
Canadian consumer opinions on GM food and food product purchasing
responsibility of labels to provide accurate and transparent wording to
decisions. Definitions of what constituted a genetically modified or bio-
speed up the decision-making process [25]. Regrettably, there are third
fortified food were not provided, given the surveys’ focus on factors
partying labelling initiatives, such as those offer for a fee by the
affecting in-store purchase decisions. When options were made available
Non-GMO Project, that deliberately mislabels food products that have no
to respondents, their order was randomized. At times, respondents were
GM equivalent, such as tomatoes, pasta, grapes and salt, for example.
asked to answer multiple items within a single query. Thus, aggregated
Information on food product labels is not the only important aspect
responses for these questions varied greatly and often exceeded 100% for
for consumers. The amount of time spent reading the information on a
the entire question, but not for a single item.
label and deciding to purchase a specific food product is influenced by
type of product [24], to such an extent, that marketing has more of an
4. Results and discussion
effect than brand on whether a product will be purchased [26]. As a
result, it is important to analyze all factors that can influence the food
Ultimately, Canadian consumers hold the most power in accepting or
product purchasing process. These are often broken down into intrinsic
rejecting technologies adopted along the agricultural production chain.
factors, such as specific ingredients and domestic regulations, and
When participants were asked about what label information they looked
extrinsic factors, such as price and label information [17]. While intrinsic
at when purchasing food, most reported that they often or almost always
factors influence purchasing decisions [17], extrinsic factors are often
look at the ingredients listed (55%), while 58% reported that they often
more important in the decision making process. One such factor is price,
or almost always seek nutritional information, and only 33% reported to
which weighs significantly on diet quality and type between high-income
often or almost always look at the means by which the item was produced
and low-income households [26–28]. While price can occasionally create
(Fig. 1). Overall, respondents showed interest in seeking information
tiers of food production quality, excluding the presence of biotechnology
about the food they consume or purchase. However, respondents are
from a community has little effect on the prioritized factors; consumers in
more concerned with the origin of the food they consume or purchase,
the European Union, for example, who primarily discourage GM food
than with the means with which it is produced. Moreover, asked as to
from entering the commercial market, rank location, cost, safety, and
whether or not they purchase GM food, 36% of respondents claimed not
palatability as their top four food purchasing decision influencers [29].
to know whether they did or not, with another 34% reporting that they
Therefore, with such vocal media preference for organic and non-GM
did. This question was followed by asking whether or not respondents
grown food [8], the question becomes: how much does biotechnology

2
D.M. Macall et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 3 (2021) 100098

Fig. 1. Frequency respondents inspect each attribute for information about the food they consume or purchase.

Fig. 2. GM product purchase decision based on differentiated traits.

were worried about GM foods. In line with many other studies, a majority
of those surveyed, 52% reported to being worried about GM, and another
34% and 14% reported that they were not worried and did not know,
respectively.
The survey inquired if respondents would consider purchasing a GM
food product if it offered certain advantages (Fig. 2). Respondents are
unlikely to buy a GM product at a higher price compared to non-GM one,
even if it offers them an enhanced nutritional profile. Consumers are
quite price sensitive, as they indicate they would likely/very likely buy a
GM product with increased nutrition if the price was the same as a non-
GM product. This is an interesting result; it would suggest that what is
really driving consumer purchase decisions is not the production method,
it is actually the price of the product. This trend became more apparent as
more attributes were enumerated. Until lastly, respondents reported to
being very likely to purchase a GM product if it was offered at a lower
price than a non-GM product. While Fig. 1 identified that 52% of con-
sumers were worried about consuming GM food products, Fig. 2 shows
that 46% consumers would willingly purchase such products, provided

3
D.M. Macall et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 3 (2021) 100098

Fig. 3. Characteristic level of importance in making food purchasing decisions.

they were more cheaply priced than non-GM products.
The survey instrument presented respondents with a poster depicting
a fictitious biofortified blueberries product. It was made clear to re-
spondents that the product and the company were fictitious, and that real
blueberries have not been biofortified. Based on this fictitious product,
respondents were asked to answer three questions. Initially, respondents
were presented with eight attributes that biofortified berries had, and
non-biofortified berries lacked. Respondents were asked to select all at-
tributes likely to influence their decisions to purchase the biofortified
berries. A majority of respondents (56%) indicated the main attribute
determining their decision whether or not to buy biofortified berries
would be that they be Canadian grown. Just as with other products, place
of origin (made in Canada) is an important attribute that weighs in the
purchasing decisions of Canadian consumers.
Respondents were asked whether there was any additional informa-
tion they would have liked to see on the fictitious advertisement. Those
that indicated that they would have (N ¼ 385, 77%) were given the op-
portunity to briefly write in what additional information that would have
been. Most respondents seeking further information expressed disdain
for, or confusion about, the term ‘biofortified’. There was no clear ma-
jority of ‘written in’ opinions, but only 4.6% of those seeking further
information expressed preference for the term ‘GM blueberries’ to the
term ‘biofortified blueberries.’
The survey asked what sources of information about the fictious

Fig. 4. Frequency with which respondents research the following products beyond what the label informs.

4
D.M. Macall et al.
Fig. 5. Willingness to purchase GM or bioengineered products from the following food categories.
blueberries did respondents consider to be useful. Respondents could
choose any combination of websites, pamphlets, QR codes, television
commercials, a professional at a booth in a grocery store, an in-store
product sample or write in any other source. Most respondents (53%)
indicated that ‘in-store product samples’ would be a useful source of
information. This indicates consumers are open to the idea of trying a
sample of a new product inside a grocery store. The next source of in-
formation respondents indicated was a website (38%). Asked whether
respondents would purchase ‘biofortified blueberries’ if they were the
same price as non-biofortified ones, 72% indicated they would. Of those
who indicated they would not, they were asked if they would purchase
biofortified blueberries if these were priced 10% lower than non-
biofortified ones, 86% of indicated they would not. While the majority
of consumers indicate they are price sensitive to GM food products, of
those indicating that they would not purchase a biofortified product at an
equivalent price, only 14% of these consumers could be enticed to pur-
chase biofortified blueberries if they were priced lower than conven-
tional ones. To determine the discount range necessary to entice
respondents who refused to purchase biofortified blueberries at a 10%
discount to purchase them, a series of discount ranges were presented to
them. Ninety percent would not purchase them at any discount rate, and
only a modest 5% of them would purchase biofortified blueberries at a
greater than 25% discount compared to non-biofortified blueberries.
Thus, a small percentage of consumers who are opposed to the purchase
of GM or biofortified products, are very unlikely to be enticed through
lower prices to purchase such products.
Participants were presented with a series of product characteristics
and were asked to indicate the level of importance of each, in their food
product purchasing decisions (Fig. 3). The characteristics respondents
indicated were the three most important were: nutrition (85%), price
(80%) and safety (78%). However, when respondents were asked to rank
the set of factors that were most important to them, from most to least
important, price was the top factor, with the others being appearance,
nutrition, quality, safety, organic, or biofortified. Again, this serves to
refute the 52% of consumers who expressed concern about purchasing
5
Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 3 (2021) 100098
GM food products, as process was listed as the last factor of importance
when making a purchase decision.
Subsequently, respondents were queried regarding the frequency
with which they read food labels. Twenty-two percent always reported to
reading the labels of food products they purchased, 41% indicated that
they often read food labels, 27% sometimes, 8% rarely, and 1% never.
The survey further inquired about the frequency with which respondents
read the available label information of the following products: fresh
produce, raw meat products, snack foods (chips, pudding, etc.), other
non-perishables excluding snacks, foods (canned food, jars, dry goods,
etc.), frozen goods, oven-ready meals. Thirty-two percent of respondents
reported that for oven-ready meals they almost always read the food
label, and only 16% did the same for fresh produce. This indicates that
consumers seem more interested in knowing the contents and nutritional
profile of prepared and frozen meals.
The survey investigated what product information was researched
beyond what the food label indicated (Fig. 4). Responses for this question
are revealing. For all products, a clear majority of respondents never or
rarely research a product beyond what the food label indicates or informs
about the product. Thus, marketers or firms wanting to inform consumers
about their products, must know that they are constrained to the infor-
mation that fits on a food label. This further reinforces that if consumers
are unable to identify the process used to create a specific food product,
they are very unlikely to invest further time and effort outside of the
grocery store to gain this information.
Respondents were asked to choose between various two-option
combinations of products listed as genetically modified, biofortified,
certified organic, and non-genetically modified, indicating which one
they would prefer to purchase. It was made clear that option A and B are
priced the same. Unsurprisingly, 42% of respondents indicated that they
would first prefer to purchase certified organic, and 61% placed geneti-
cally modified as the last option they would prefer to purchase. This same
question was asked for fish product purchases. Again, respondents were
asked to choose between various two option combinations of genetically
modified (GM) fish, farmed fish, and wild-caught fish, and indicate which
D.M. Macall et al.
Fig. 6. Dietary regimens of respondents.
they would prefer to purchase. Again, consumers expressed that they
firstly preferred wild-caught fish (82%), and lastly GM fish (80%).
Respondents were presented with a second fictious food product – a
label for a box of crackers – and asked to answer questions based on the
label. The first question asked respondents to circle the top three pieces of
information which influence their likelihood to purchase the product.
The nutrition fact table was the most circled (62%), followed by the
whole grain certification (43%), and in third place was fiber content
(42%). Respondents were prompted to indicate any additional informa-
tion they would have liked to see on the label. Interestingly, compared to
biofortified blueberries, not as many respondents (9.6%) indicated they
would have liked to see more information. Most written opinions
expressed desire to know country of origin and price of the product.
Asked to consider purchasing GM or bioengineered products in
various food categories (Fig. 5), respondents were mostly reluctant. Re-
spondents were more open to the idea of GM or bioengineering fresh
fruits and vegetable products, than dairy, meat or seafood. Those who
expressed willingness to purchase GM or bioengineered products were
asked to consider purchasing these products if they were: a higher price
than non-GM, the same price as non-GM, a lower price than non-GM. For
all products, respondents indicated that they did not know at what price
range they would consider purchasing GM or bioengineered products
over non-GM products.
Participants were asked whether they would purchase a product if it
had a nutritional warning label (i.e. high in saturated fat, high in sugar,
low in vitamin D, etc.). Thirty-three percent said they were unlikely to do
so, 19% said they were not likely at all to purchase it, and 24% said they
were neither likely nor unlikely to purchase the product. The survey
asked respondents to rank the order of their purchasing preferences for
fruits and vegetables (grocery store fresh produce, farmers' market pro-
duce, frozen produce, canned produce, or home grown produce). Re-
spondents firstly preferred home grown produce, followed by farmers’
market produce, grocery store fresh produce, frozen produce, and lastly
canned produce.
Finally, respondents were asked whether they, or someone in their
household was vegetarian, vegan, soy free, dairy free, gluten free,
pescatarian, nut free, seafood or shellfish free, no dietary restrictions,
other, or preferred not to say (Fig. 6). Results indicate that a very small
percentage of Canadian consumers identified with these attributes.
6
Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 3 (2021) 100098
5. Policy implications
The results of this survey supports the position of the Canadian gov-
ernment that foods only need to be labelled for GM content or in-
gredients, if there was a scientifically validated increase in risk or a
change in nutritional composition. Additionally, the results support the
existing literature about the differences between consumers stated and
revealed shopping preferences. As an example [2], study of Canadian
consumer preferences for GM labelling found 78% of Canadians wanted
such labels. This survey found that only one in three consumers place
value on process labels and that the majority of consumers would pur-
chase GM food products with nutritional or environmental benefits, as
long as the product was not more expensive than a non-GM alternative.
The question this raises is, what does this mean for the Canadian food
industry? The results clearly confirm that price, nutrition and origin and
the key factors when consumers make in-store purchase decisions. While
consumers may express their preferences for organic or non-GM food
products, these preferences do not hold up when consumers are in gro-
cery stores. Ultimately, consumers want safe, cheap and nutritious food
products, with only a small minority willing to pay price premiums to
purchase specialty labelled niche market products, such as organic or
non-GM.
Canada has not made GM labelling a mandatory requirement for food
products, expressing preference for voluntary labelling. The results of
this research supports voluntary labelling as the correct policy choice.
There is a small minority of consumers that always prefer to purchase
non-GM products and their demands are being met by the provision of
products labelled as organic or non-GM. The vast majority of consumers
have expressed the preference that they do not want to spend additional
money purchasing organic or non-GM products with the same nutritional
value.
Perhaps the most important policy observation from this research is
the receptivity of consumers for products of biotechnology with
improved nutrition or reduced environmental impacts. Canadian con-
sumers are indicating they support innovation in the agricultural and
food industry in the provision of new products, such as biofortified foods.
While the stated preferences of consumers for organic or non-GM foods
may create uncertainty for firms in the food industry regarding the
commercialization of new biotechnology, biofortified or GM food prod-
ucts, the revealed preferences of consumers within grocery stores serves
D.M. Macall et al.
to reduce levels of uncertainty. Firms need to be innovative and invest-
ment in innovative new food products should be based on what con-
sumers purchase decisions are being made within grocery stores, rather
than the opinions expressed by consumers when they are not inside a
grocery store.
6. Conclusion
It is clear that those surveyed prefer to buy organic or natural prod-
ucts over GM or bioengineered products. However, it is also clear that
this preference is set aside (an attitude-behaviour gap) when the price of
GM products is lowered compared to a non-GM product, or when the GM
product offers a nutritional advantage over a non-GM product. Thus,
consumers are open to purchasing GM food products when offered a price
reduction over conventional food products. Interestingly, those surveyed
expressed their willingness to try a GM product if a sample was given to
them in a grocery store. Thus, though a clear preference for organic or
natural products exists, the door is not completely shut on GM or bio-
engineered products. An indication that consumer opinion is no longer
ironclad against the idea of GM food products. Moreover, Canadian
consumers are very skeptical about canned products and prefer fresh
fruits and vegetables, and obliged to do so, are more open to GM in fruits
and vegetables than in canned products.
The results indicate that while the majority of consumers express
concerns or reservations about the purchase and consumption of GM food
products in their responses to consumer attitude surveys, these prefer-
ences do not extend to their purchase decisions within grocery stores.
While the majority of respondents to this survey, stated their preference
is to avoid GM food products, results reveal the overwhelmingly key
purchase decision factor is price, which is closely followed by nutrition.
Production processes fall well down the list of important food purchase
factors. Based on these results, food products containing GM ingredients
are more readily purchased than organic or natural food products, given
the lower prices for products that are not organic or natural.
Canadian consumers are also content with the information on the
food labels of the products they purchase. This implies trust in the food
safety standards to which food products adhere to in Canada. However,
for marketers, this contentment is a challenge because rarely do con-
sumers independently seek further information about the food products
they consume. Meaning that marketers need to find very creative ways to
communicate all the information about a product on a limited space.
An important finding from this survey and one that was somewhat
unexpected, is that Canadian consumers are very interested in the place
of origin of the food products they consume. Not only do they prefer
Canadian made or produced food products, some went so far as to write-
in that they would have liked to know what parts of Canada food prod-
ucts originated from. Respondents expressed a sense of ‘food nation-
alism’, in stating that the place of origin of the food products they
purchased is important to them. In purchasing products made locally,
consumers are expressing their desire to support their local communities.
A consumer trend that is increasingly evident the world over.
Declaration of competing interest
We declare that none of the authors has any conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgment
This research was funded through the Canada First Research Excel-
lence Fund (CFREF) grant that established the Plant Phenotyping and
Imaging Research Centre (P2IRC) project, and the Genome Canada Ca-
nadian Triticum Applied Genomics (CTAG2).
Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 3 (2021) 100098
References
[1] Environment, Climate Change Canada, Summary of information submitted by the
public to the New Substances program on the environmental and human health
risks of the AquAdvantage® salmon. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-cl
imate-change/services/managing-pollution/evaluating-new-substances/voluntar
y-public-engagement-initiative/aquadvantage-salmon/summary-public-commen
ts.html, 2019. (Accessed 31 October 2020).
[2] Health Canada, Report on consumer views of genetically modified foods. http
s://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-ef/health/2016/0
42-15-e/report.pdf, 2016. (Accessed 31 October 2020).
[3] V. Muringai, X. Fan, E. Goddard, Canadian consumer acceptance of gene-edited
versus genetically modified potatoes: a choice experiment approach, Can. J. Agric.
Econ./Revue Canadienne D'agroeconomie 68 (1) (2020) 47–63.
[4] T. Ribeiro, B. Barone, J. Behrens, Genetically modified foods and their social
representation, Food Res. Int. 84 (2016) 120–127.
[5] M.D. de Barcellos, A. Krystallis, M.S. de Melo Saab, J.O. Kügler, K.G. Grunert,
Investigating the gap between citizens' sustainability attitudes and food purchasing
behaviour: empirical evidence from Brazilian pork consumers, Int. J. Consum. Stud.
35 (4) (2011) 391–402.
[6] S. Sleenhoff, P. Osseweijer, Consumer choice: linking consumer intentions to actual
purchase of GM labeled food products, GM Crops Food 4 (3) (2013) 166–171.
[7] M. Vilella-Vila, J. Costa-Font, Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and
attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food, J. Soc. Econ. 37 (5) (2008)
2095–2106.
[8] N. Kalaitzandonakes, L.A. Marks, S.S. Vickner, Media coverage of biotech foods and
influence on consumer choice, Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86 (5) (2004) 1238–1246.
[9] Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, The importance of
communicating empirically based science for society. https://www.cast-science.org
/publication/the-importance-of-communicating-empirically-based-science-for
-society/, 2020. (Accessed 31 October 2020).
[10] C.D. Ryan, A.J. Schaul, R. Butner, J.T. Swarthout, Monetizing disinformation in the
attention economy: the case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Eur.
Manag. J. 38 (1) (2020) 7–18.
[11] C. Williams, S. Gleim, S.J. Smyth, Canadian perspectives on food security and plant
breeding, CABI Agric. Biosci (2020) (Under Review).
[12] C. Williams, S. Gleim, S.J. Smyth, Canadian consumer risk perceptions of food
production, J. Agric. Food Inf. (2020). Forthcoming.
[13] M. Shen, L. Shi, Z. Gao, Beyond the food label itself: how does color affect attention
to information on food labels and preference for food attributes? Food Qual. Prefer.
64 (2018) 47–55.
[14] M.J. Marchisotto, L. Harada, O. Kamdar, B.M. Smith, S. Waserman, S. Sicherer,
R.S. Gupta, Food allergen labeling and purchasing habits in the United States and
Canada, J. Allergy Clin. Immunol.: In Pract. 5 (2) (2017) 345–351.
[15] K.L. Hawley, C.A. Roberto, M.A. Bragg, P.J. Liu, M.B. Schwartz, K.D. Brownell, The
science on front-of-package food labels, Publ. Health Nutr. 16 (3) (2013) 430–439.
[16] T. Laureti, I. Benedetti, Exploring pro-environmental food purchasing behaviour: an
empirical analysis of Italian consumers, J. Clean. Prod. 172 (2018) 3367–3378.
[17] N. Loebnitz, G. Schuitema, K.G. Grunert, Who buys oddly shaped food and why?
Impacts of food shape abnormality and organic labeling on purchase intentions,
Psychol. Market. 32 (4) (2015) 408–421.
[18] C. Smith-Spangler, M.L. Brandeau, G.E. Hunter, J.C. Bavinger, M. Pearson,
P.J. Eschbach, V. Sundaram, H. Liu, P. Schirmer, C. Stave, I. Olkin, D.M. Bravata,
Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives? Ann. Intern.
Med. 157 (5) (2012) 348–366.
[19] S. Lefebvre, L.A. Cook, M.A. Griffiths, Consumer perceptions of genetically modified
foods: a mixed-method approach, J. Consum. Market. (2019).
[20] K. Blaine, S. Kamaldeen, D. Powell, Public perceptions of biotechnology, J. Food
Sci. 67 (9) (2002) 3200–3208.
[21] A. Gatica-Arias, M. Valdez-Melara, G. Arrieta-Espinoza, F.J. Albertazzi-Castro,
J. Madrigal-Pana, Consumer attitudes toward food crops developed by CRISPR/
Cas9 in Costa Rica, Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 139 (2) (2019) 417–427.
[22] S. Henson, M. Annou, J. Cranfield, J. Ryks, Understanding consumer attitudes
toward food technologies in Canada, Risk Anal.: Int. J. 28 (6) (2008) 1601–1617.
[23] J. Guthrie, L. Mancino, C.T.J. Lin, Nudging consumers toward better food choices:
policy approaches to changing food consumption behaviors, Psychol. Market. 32 (5)
(2015) 501–511.
[24] D. Marin, Research regarding the purchase decision process of consumer of food
products, Sci. Papers Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 48 (1) (2015) 328–332.
[25] N.J. Temple, J. Fraser, Food labels: a critical assessment, Nutrition 30 (3) (2014)
257–260.
[26] R. Pechey, P. Monsivais, Supermarket choice, shopping behavior, socioeconomic
status, and food purchases, Am. J. Prev. Med. 49 (6) (2015) 868–877.
[27] G. Turrell, T. Blakely, C. Patterson, B. Oldenburg, A multilevel analysis of
socioeconomic (small area) differences in household food purchasing behaviour,
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 58 (3) (2004) 208–215.
[28] N. Sanlier, S.S. Karakus, Evaluation of food purchasing behaviour of consumers
from supermarkets, Br. Food J. (2010).
[29] European Food Safety Authority, Special eurobarometer wave EB91.3 report: food
safety in the EU. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/corporate_publi
cations/files/Eurobarometer2019_Food-safety-in-the-EU_Full-report.pdf, 2019.
(Accessed 2 November 2020).
[30] Statistics Canada, Data products, 2016 census. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census
-recensement/2016/dp-pd/index-eng.cfm, 2016. (Accessed 15 August 2020).