IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v30y2005i4p399-418.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors underlying support or opposition to biotechnology among Australian food consumers and implications for retailer-led food regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Lockie, Stewart
  • Lawrence, Geoffrey
  • Lyons, Kristen
  • Grice, Janet

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Lockie, Stewart & Lawrence, Geoffrey & Lyons, Kristen & Grice, Janet, 2005. "Factors underlying support or opposition to biotechnology among Australian food consumers and implications for retailer-led food regulation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 399-418, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:30:y:2005:i:4:p:399-418
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306-9192(05)00044-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lynn Frewer & Richard Shepherd, 1995. "Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 12(1), pages 48-57, December.
    2. Wojciech J. Florkowski & Catherine Halbrendt & Chung L. Huang & Lesa Sterling, 1994. "Socioeconomic Determinants of Attitudes Toward Bioengineered Products," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 16(1), pages 125-132.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Li Li & John Robert Bautista, 2019. "Examining Personal and Media Factors Associated with Attitude towards Genetically Modified Foods among University Students in Kunming, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    3. Sarah Wheeler, 2009. "Exploring the influences on Australian agricultural professionals’ genetic engineering beliefs: an empirical analysis," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 422-439, August.
    4. Britwum, Kofi & Bernard, John C., 2018. "A field experiment on consumer willingness to accept milk that may have come from cloned cows," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-8.
    5. Antonopoulou, Lina & Papadas, Christos T. & Targoutzidis, Antonis, 2009. "The Impact Of Socio-Demographic Factors And Political Perceptions On Consumer Attitudes Towards Genetically Modified Foods: An Econometric Investigation," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. House, Lisa & Lusk, Jayson L. & Jaeger, Sara & Traill, W. Bruce & Moore, Melissa & Valli, Carlotta & Morrow, Bert & Yee, Wallace M.S., 2004. "Objective And Subjective Knowledge: Impacts On Consumer Demand For Genetically Modified Foods In The United States And The European Union," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20125, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. David Smith & J. Skalnik & Patricia Skalnik, 1997. "The bST debate: The relationship between awareness and acceptance of technological advances," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 14(1), pages 59-66, March.
    3. Sukant Misra & Donna Grotegut & Kyle Clem, 1997. "Consumer attitude toward Recombinant Porcine Somatotropin," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 11-20.
    4. Hwang, Yun Jae & Roe, Brian E. & Teisl, Mario F., 2005. "An Empirical Analysis of United States Consumers' Concerns about Eight Food Production and Processing Technologies," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19128, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Grunert, Klaus G. & Lähteenmäki, Liisa & Nielsen, Niels A. & Poulsen, Jacob B. & Ueland, Oydis & Åström, Annika, 2000. "Consumer perception of food products involving genetic modification: Results from a qualitative study in four Nordic countries," MAPP Working Papers 72, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, The MAPP Centre.
    6. Lai, Yue & Florkowski, Wojciech J. & Huang, Chung L. & Bruckner, Bernhard & Schonhof, Ilona, 1997. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Improved Attributes of Fresh Vegetables: A Comparison Between Atlanta and Berlin," 1997 Annual Meeting, July 13-16, 1997, Reno\ Sparks, Nevada 35914, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    7. Marin, Floriana & Notaro, Sandra, 2007. "Consumer attitudes toward GM food with hypothetical functional characteristics," 105th Seminar, March 8-10, 2007, Bologna, Italy 7878, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Díaz Donate, Mónica & Bernabéu Cañete, Rodolfo, 2012. "Consumer attitudes to organic foods. A Spanish case study/Actitud del consumidor hacia los alimentos orgánicos. Estudio del caso español," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 30, pages 755(20)-755, Agosto.
    9. Tran, Van & Yiannaka, Amalia & Giannakas, Konstantinos, 2016. "Consumer Perceptions And Willingness-To-Pay For Nanotechnology Applications That Enhance Food Safety," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235918, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. L. J. Frewer & C. Howard & D. Hedderley & R. Shepherd, 1996. "What Determines Trust in Information About Food‐Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 473-486, August.
    11. Macfarlane, Ronald, 2002. "Integrating the consumer interest in food safety: the role of science and other factors+," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 65-80, February.
    12. Qingbin Wang & Catherine Halbrendt & Jane Kolodinsky & Fred Schmidt, 1997. "Willingness to pay for rBST-free milk: a two-limit Tobit model analysis," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(10), pages 619-621.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:30:y:2005:i:4:p:399-418. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.