IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fan/ecaqec/vhtml10.3280-ecag2006-001007.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Atteggiamento dei consumatori nei confronti dell'evoluzione del sistema agro-alimentare: l'introduzione di alimenti geneticamente modificati

Author

Listed:
  • Antonio Seccia
  • Antonio Stasi
  • Luigi Roselli

Abstract

L’atteggiamento dei consumatori nei confronti di alimenti che contengono OGM o sono ottenuti da OGM e gli alimenti che contengono ingredienti ottenuti da OGM (di seguito designati complessivamente con l’espressione "alimenti geneticamente modificati" o “alimenti GM”) rappresenta un tema di grande attualità per il sistema agro-alimentare europeo. Le esigenze dei consumatori, caratterizzate da una crescente importanza assegnata alle caratteristiche sia dei processi produttivi sia degli alimenti finali, impongono un’ampia ed attenta analisi dei possibili effetti sui comportamenti di acquisto che l’introduzione di alimenti GM nel sistema agro-alimentare potrebbe generare. La diffusione della coltivazione di varietà di piante GM, principalmente in Paesi extraeuropei (USA, Canada ed Argentina), e l’immissione sul mercato mondiale di prodotti OGM destinati anche all’alimentazione umana, ha generato accesi dibattiti in Europa pro e contro l’adozione di questa nuova tecnologia, per i possibili effetti negativi per i consumatori e sull’ambiente. L’UE sin dai primi anni 90 ha cercato di definire una normativa sugli OGM capace di garantire la protezione della salute dei cittadini e dell'ambiente e al tempo stesso creare un mercato unificato della biotecnologia. L’obiettivo di questo lavoro è di valutare, alla luce del quadro normativo vigente in materia di alimenti GM, l’atteggiamento dei consumatori nei confronti di alcune caratteristiche del sistema agro-alimentare (di seguito designati come “attributi”) e in particolare dell’introduzione nei mercati finali di alimenti geneticamente modificati. Per valutare l’atteggiamento dei consumatori, in termini quantitativi oltre che qualitativi, si intende misurare la loro disponibilità a pagare (DAP) pro o contro delle variazioni (presenza/assenza o aumento/diminuzione) degli attributi considerati rispetto allo status quo, utilizzando la metodologia del choice modelling. Si tratta, in altri termini, del tentativo di fornire
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Antonio Seccia & Antonio Stasi & Luigi Roselli, 2006. "Atteggiamento dei consumatori nei confronti dell'evoluzione del sistema agro-alimentare: l'introduzione di alimenti geneticamente modificati," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 10(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:fan:ecaqec:v:html10.3280/ecag2006-001007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/Scheda_Rivista.aspx?IDArticolo=27493&Tipo=ArticoloPDF
    Download Restriction: Single articles can be downloaded buying download credits, for info: https://www.francoangeli.it/DownloadCredit
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. GianCarlo Moschini, 2001. "Economic Benefits and Costs of Biotechnology Innovations in Agriculture," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 01-wp264, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    2. Moschini, GianCarlo, 2001. "Biotech--Who Wins? Economic Benefits and Costs of Biotechnology Innovations in Agriculture," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 2(1), pages 1-25.
    3. Alexander E. Saak, 2002. "Identity Preservation and False Labeling in the Food Supply Chain," Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) Publications (archive only) 02-wp295, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, October.
    5. repec:fpr:2020br:2(4 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. John A. Miranowski & Bruce A. Babcock, 2004. "Genetic Information in Agricultural Productivity and Product Development," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 73-87.
    7. Sobolevsky, Andrei & Moschini, GianCarlo & Lapan, Harvey E., 2002. "Genetically Modified Crop Innovations and Product Differentiation: Trade and Welfare Effects in the Soybean Complex," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10098, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    8. Michael Burton & Dan Rigby & Trevor Young, 2001. "Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 28(4), pages 479-498, December.
    9. David S. Bullock & Marion Desquilbet & Elisavet Nitsi, 2001. "The economics of non-GMO segregation," Post-Print hal-02392210, HAL.
    10. James, Clive & Krattiger, Anatole F., 1999. "The role of the private sector: biotechnology for developing-country agriculture problems and opportunities," 2020 vision briefs 2(4), International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    11. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2004. "Willingness to pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 04-070/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    12. Gollier, Christian & Jullien, Bruno & Treich, Nicolas, 2000. "Scientific progress and irreversibility: an economic interpretation of the 'Precautionary Principle'," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 229-253, February.
    13. Grimsrud, Kristine M. & McCluskey, Jill J. & Loureiro, Maria L. & Wahl, Thomas I., 2002. "Consumer Attitudes Towards Genetically Modified Foods In Norway," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety: Evidence from a Survey of Milan, Italy, Residents," Working Papers 2004.100, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    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. Maurizio Canavari & Rodolfo Nayga, 2009. "On consumers' willingness to purchase nutritionally enhanced genetically modified food," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(1), pages 125-137.

    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. Mario F. Teisl & Julie A. Caswell, 2003. "Information Policy and Genetically Modified Food: Weighting the Benefits and Costs," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 4, March.
    2. Anna Paola Antonazzo & Mariantonietta Fiore & Piermichele La Sala & Francesco Cont?, 2015. "Assessing perceptions of wine tourists on organic wine," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 17(2), pages 57-76.
    3. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., 2014. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    4. Bruno Larue & Gale E. West & Carole Gendron & Rémy Lambert, 2004. "Consumer response to functional foods produced by conventional, organic, or genetic manipulation," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(2), pages 155-166.
    5. Jeff Luckstead & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Heather A. Snell, 2023. "US domestic workers' willingness to accept agricultural field jobs," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 1693-1715, September.
    6. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2009. "Managing environmental risk in agriculture: a systematic perspective on the potential of quantitative policy-oriented risk valuation," International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(1/2/3), pages 27-46.
    7. Line Bjørnskov Pedersen & Astrid Kiil & Trine Kjær, 2011. "Soccer Attendees’ Preferences for Facilities at the Fionia Park Stadium: An Application of the Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 12(2), pages 179-199, April.
    8. Alfnes, Frode & Steine, Gro, 2005. "None-of-These Bias in Stated Choice Experiments," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24761, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Kaneko, Naoya & Chern, Wen S., 2006. "Identification of Consumer Segments and Its Implication on the Willingness-to-Pay Distribution: The Case of Demand for Non-Genetically Modified Vegetable Oil in the United States," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21194, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Fan, Xiaoli & Muringai, Violet, 2018. "Effect of Information on Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Potatoes in Canada," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274073, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    12. Schreiner, Julia Anette, 2018. "Saving the breeds: German Farmers’ preferences for Endangered Dairy Breed conservation programs," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276866, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    13. Kaneko, Naoya & Chern, Wen S., 2005. "Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods in Taiwan: Is Positive Discount the Same as Negative Premium?," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19491, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Onyango, Benjamin M. & Govindasamy, Ramu & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2004. "An Application Of Choice Modeling To Measure U.S. Consumer Preferences For Genetically Modified Foods," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19964, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Jong-Wen Wann & Chia-Yung Kao & Yu-Chen Yang, 2018. "Consumer Preferences of Locally Grown Specialty Crop: The Case of Taiwan Coffee," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, July.
    16. Taing, William & Ahmadi-Esfahani, Fredoun Z., 2009. "GM technology and the Australian canola," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48191, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    17. Harvey E. Lapan & Giancarlo Moschini, 2004. "Innovation and Trade with Endogenous Market Failure: The Case of Genetically Modified Products," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(3), pages 634-648.
    18. Wongprawmas, Rungsaran & Canavari, Maurizio, 2015. "Heterogeneity in consumer preferences for food safety lavel in Thailand," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202744, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder & Joost M. E. Pennings & James Mintert, 2009. "Consumer Valuations of Beef Steak Food Safety Enhancement in Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the United States," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(3), pages 395-416, September.
    20. Wang, Shuxian & Wu, Linhai & Zhu, Dian & Wang, Hongsha & Xu, Lingling, 2014. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food attributes: The case of pork," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 165639, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • C01 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - Econometrics

    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:fan:ecaqec:v:html10.3280/ecag2006-001007. 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: Stefania Rosato (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/sommario.aspx?IDRivista=214 .

    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.