IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i8p2935-d349569.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Genetically Edited Food Among Youth in Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Mohamed Farid

    (Graduate School of Technology Management—MOT, Ritsumeikan University, Osaka 567-8570, Japan)

  • Jianfei Cao

    (Graduate School of Technology Management—MOT, Ritsumeikan University, Osaka 567-8570, Japan)

  • Yeongjoo Lim

    (Faculty of Business Administration, Ritsumeikan University, Osaka 567-8570, Japan)

  • Teruyo Arato

    (Hokkaido University Hospital, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-8648, Japan)

  • Kota Kodama

    (Graduate School of Technology Management—MOT, Ritsumeikan University, Osaka 567-8570, Japan)

Abstract

Genetically edited food utilizes new techniques that may decrease all of the risks associated with genetically modified food, or “GMO” food. Safety and labeling regulations for genetically edited food are still new, and it is challenging for the consumer to differentiate it from conventional food. Although genetically edited food has the potential for reducing the risks associated with the gene introduction process, consumer perceptions toward it are still unclear. The research has compared the regulations governing GMO food and genetically edited food in Japan, Europe, and the United States. We found that the genetically edited food regulations in Japan are the most science-based, in the meaning that genetically edited food products are allowed to be sold without any safety evaluation. Based on the difference among regions, we further studied the potential acceptance level for such products among Japanese consumers, where regulation seemed science-based as policy. To understand the factors that may affect the adoption of genetically edited food among youth in Japan, we utilized the structural equation modeling (SEM) method with 180 surveys of Japanese university students to measure six factors: Knowledge, Attitude Towards Technology, Perceived Benefits, Perceived Risks, Trust, and Willingness to Purchase. The survey was conducted twice with an intervention in the middle to measure the effect of science communication, and we found significant differences when comparing the two datasets. The results of this survey indicate the importance of increasing knowledge and the positive role of science communication in increasing the adoption and trust of biotechnology products, such as genetically edited food.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohamed Farid & Jianfei Cao & Yeongjoo Lim & Teruyo Arato & Kota Kodama, 2020. "Exploring Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Genetically Edited Food Among Youth in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-22, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:8:p:2935-:d:349569
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/8/2935/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/8/2935/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jill J. McCluskey & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes & Johan Swinnen, 2016. "Media Coverage, Public Perceptions, and Consumer Behavior: Insights from New Food Technologies," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 467-486, October.
    2. Nick F. Pidgeon & Wouter Poortinga & Gene Rowe & Tom Horlick‐Jones & John Walls & Tim O'Riordan, 2005. "Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 467-479, April.
    3. Moon, Wanki & Balasubramanian, Siva K., 2001. "A Multi-Attribute Model Of Public Acceptance Of Genetically Modified Organisms," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20745, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Wilhelm Klümper & Matin Qaim, 2014. "A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-7, November.
    5. United Nations UN, 2015. "Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," Working Papers id:7559, eSocialSciences.
    6. Heidi Ledford, 2019. "CRISPR conundrum: Strict European court ruling leaves food-testing labs without a plan," Nature, Nature, vol. 572(7767), pages 15-15, August.
    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. Shen-Long Yang & Feng Yu & Kai Li & Ting-Ting Rao & Da-Peng Lian, 2022. "No Control, No Consumption: Association of Low Perceived Control and Intention to Accept Genetically Modified Food," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-13, June.
    2. Shahida Anusha Siddiqui & Zarnab Asif & Misbah Murid & Ito Fernando & Danung Nur Adli & Andrey Vladimirovich Blinov & Alexey Borisovich Golik & Widya Satya Nugraha & Salam A. Ibrahim & Seid Mahdi Jafa, 2022. "Consumer Social and Psychological Factors Influencing the Use of Genetically Modified Foods—A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-22, November.
    3. Jianfei Cao & Karin Kurata & Yeongjoo Lim & Shintaro Sengoku & Kota Kodama, 2022. "Social Acceptance of Mobile Health among Young Adults in Japan: An Extension of the UTAUT Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-16, November.

    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. Paulina Schiappacasse & Bernhard Müller & Le Thuy Linh, 2019. "Towards Responsible Aggregate Mining in Vietnam," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Pina Puntillo, 2023. "Circular economy business models: Towards achieving sustainable development goals in the waste management sector—Empirical evidence and theoretical implications," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(2), pages 941-954, March.
    3. Schlör, Holger & Venghaus, Sandra & Hake, Jürgen-Friedrich, 2018. "The FEW-Nexus city index – Measuring urban resilience," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 382-392.
    4. Jean-Louis Combes & Alexandru Minea & Pegdéwendé Nestor Sawadogo, 2019. "Assessing the effects of combating illicit financial flows on domestic tax revenue mobilization in developing countries," CERDI Working papers halshs-02019073, HAL.
    5. Nelson, Ewan & Warren, Peter, 2020. "UK transport decoupling: On track for clean growth in transport?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 39-51.
    6. Ibrahim Ari & Muammer Koc, 2018. "Sustainable Financing for Sustainable Development: Understanding the Interrelations between Public Investment and Sovereign Debt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-25, October.
    7. R. Ebrahimi & S. Choobchian & H. Farhadian & I. Goli & E. Farmandeh & H. Azadi, 2022. "Investigating the effect of vocational education and training on rural women’s empowerment," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Benjamin Nölting & Bettina König & Anne B. Zimmermann & Antonietta Di Giulio & Martina Schäfer & Flurina Schneider, 2022. "Dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic: an opportunity to reflect on sustainability research," Sustainability Nexus Forum, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 11-27, December.
    9. Rashmi Jaipal, 2017. "Psychology at the Crossroads," Psychology and Developing Societies, , vol. 29(2), pages 125-159, September.
    10. PK Gupta, 2018. "An Assessment of Relative Risks to Human/Ecological Health Biotech Crops versus Other Human Activities," Current Investigations in Agriculture and Current Research, Lupine Publishers, LLC, vol. 1(2), pages 51-62, February.
    11. Bárbara Galleli & Elder Semprebon & Joyce Aparecida Ramos dos Santos & Noah Emanuel Brito Teles & Mateus Santos de Freitas-Martins & Raquel Teodoro da Silva Onevetch, 2021. "Institutional Pressures, Sustainable Development Goals and COVID-19: How Are Organisations Engaging?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-21, November.
    12. Sagarika Dey & Priyanka Devi, 2019. "Impact of TVET on Labour Market Outcomes and Women’s Empowerment in Rural Areas: A Case Study from Cachar District, Assam," Indian Journal of Human Development, , vol. 13(3), pages 357-371, December.
    13. Rostami-Tabar, Bahman & Ali, Mohammad M. & Hong, Tao & Hyndman, Rob J. & Porter, Michael D. & Syntetos, Aris, 2022. "Forecasting for social good," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1245-1257.
    14. Maria Sassi, 2020. "A SEM Approach to the Direct and Indirect Links between WaSH Services and Access to Food in Countries in Protracted Crises: The Case of Western Bahr-el-Ghazal State, South Sudan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-13, November.
    15. Seebacher, Moritz, 2023. "Pathways to progress: The complementarity of bicycles and road infrastructure for girls’ education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    16. Christina Tsouti & Christina Papadaskalopoulou & Angeliki Konsta & Panagiotis Andrikopoulos & Margarita Panagiotopoulou & Sofia Papadaki & Christos Boukouvalas & Magdalini Krokida & Katerina Valta, 2023. "Investigating the Environmental Benefits of Novel Films for the Packaging of Fresh Tomatoes Enriched with Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Compounds through Life Cycle Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-22, May.
    17. Olga Stepanova & Magdalena Romanov, 2021. "Urban Planning as a Strategy to Implement Social Sustainability Policy Goals? The Case of Temporary Housing for Immigrants in Gothenburg, Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    18. Alberto Bertossi & Stefania Troiano & Francesco Marangon, 2022. "Where is sustainability? An assessment of vending products," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(1), pages 155-180.
    19. Michel, Hanno, 2020. "From local to global: The role of knowledge, transfer, and capacity building for successful energy transitions," Discussion Papers, Research Group Digital Mobility and Social Differentiation SP III 2020-603, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    20. Hervé Corvellec & Johan Hultman & Anne Jerneck & Susanne Arvidsson & Johan Ekroos & Niklas Wahlberg & Timothy W. Luke, 2021. "Resourcification: A non‐essentialist theory of resources for sustainable development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 1249-1256, November.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:8:p:2935-:d:349569. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.