Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
agricultural genetic engineering
agricultural genetic engineering
agricultural genetic engineering
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: agricultural genetic engineering
Biotechnology has been lauded as the future of agriculture. However, the business leaders and scientists involved in biotech did not predict how controversial genetically modified foods would be. Despite all the promises and merits proclaimed by research by different biotech companies and the governments like reduced pesticide usage, higher crop yields, the controversy surrounding its application to food production persists in many nations. One of the key issues that have surrounded the GM debate is the labeling of GM products. While some countries require the labeling of such products, others do not. This paper examines how labeling of genetically modified foods affects consumer willingness to purchase such products. By reviewing past research on the issue, the paper unearths that labeling is an important considerations for consumers when buying genetically modified products. The paper argues that labeling of GM products significantly affects the willingness of consumers to buy such products.
The increasing controversy over GM food products and consumers’ attempt to make better food purchasing decisions have raised interest in new objective information, including food labeling. Labeling has become a crucial public policy issue all over the globe. In the US particularly, truthful labeling has been used to offer consumers with information on calories, nutrients, as well as food ingredients (Caswell 23). However, the federal government requires explicit labeling in cases where a genetically modified food has different characteristics relative to the non-GM version of the product. In contrast, the European Commission demands each member state to implement a legislation requiring labeling of all new products that contain GM organisms...
... middle of paper ...
...or in not only determining the consumer’s decision to buy the product, but also how much he or she is willing to pay for it.
Works Cited
Caswell, Josh. "Should Use of Genetically Modified Organisms Be Labeled?"AgBioForum 1998 1:22-24.
Huffman, Wallace, Jason Shogren, Matthew Rousu and Abebayehu Tegene. Consumer Willingness To Pay For Genetically Modified Food Labels In Market With Diverse Information: Evidence From Experimental Auctions. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2003 28(3): 481-502.
List, Joseph and Jason Shogren. "Price Information and Bidding Behavior in Repeated Second- Price Auctions."American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1999 81:942-49.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering. 2001. Online. 7 December 2013.
A trip to any supermarket in Canada will reveal nothing out of ordinary, just the usual of array of fresh and packaged goods displayed in an inviting manner to attract customers. Everything appear familiar and reassuring, right? Think again. A closer microscopic inspection discloses something novel, a fundamental revolution in food technology. The technology is genetic engineering (GE), also known as biotechnology. Blue prints (DNA) of agricultural crops are altered and “spliced” with foreign genes to produce transgenic crops. Foods harvested from these agricultural plants are called, genetically modified (GM). Presently, Canada has no consumer notification; GM foods are being slipped to Canada’s foods without any labels or adequate risk assessments. This essay argues that GM foods should be rigorously and independently tested for safety; and, consumers be given the right to choose or reject GM foods through mandatory labels. What is the need for impartial examination of safety of transgenic foods? And why label them? GM foods are not “substantially equivalent” to conventional foods, genetic engineering of agricultural crops is not a mere extension of traditional plant breeding, and finally, there are human health implications associated with it.
This is the where there is use of some attraction to the consumers and in this case the use of an ...
Their price must be one that is attainable and reasonable for the offerings. The Kotler & Keller text suggests that facilities analyze competitors and their offerings, estimate their own costs, and determine demand, in order to set the appropriate price.
A very valid point brought up by Clause (Say ‘no’), Hemphill, and Banerjee (both G.M.O. and the U.S.), is that consumers already have an easy and effective option to steer clear from GMOs: buying organic products. Through Hemphill’s and Banerjee’s article, we are informed that United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) “presently offers an organic certification for crops and processed food products, which by definition prohibits the use of GMO ingredients” (Page 455-466). This is certainly a label that has the ability to help concerned customers know exactly what they are eating. The co-authors call this solution the “Voluntary Labeling Strategy.” There is, however, one issue with this: not all products that don't contain GMOs qualify as organic. The resolution lies in an upcoming proposal from the U.S. Food and Drug administration (FDA). It's called “Voluntary Guidelines” and it allows, but doesn't force, GMO-free products to display a label of their own. I believe that this is a much smarter option than labeling every item containing GMOs because it is not binding by law, which would provide consumers with all of the benefits they need to choose the right foods for their preferences, while saving on all of the unnecessary extra costs discussed
The technological advances are increasing each year, and electronics are not the only things upgraded. The food eaten in the United States has also been touched by science in the form of GMOs. Although GMOs have been in the US food industry for almost twenty years, consumers should have the right to know what is in our food with mandatory GMO labeling.
Our attitudes toward GMO foods range from hostility to indifference. GMO foods, like pesticide-resistant Roundup Ready soybeans and fast-growing salmon, seem to exist primarily to pad corporate pockets. Most people are not aware that they are eating GMO foods. The greater percentage of the population is just looking at the price tag instead of what is in the food product. This technology has the potential to provide sustainable nutrient rich food sources throughout the ages if the science is not abused for the food industry’s
Senauer, Benjamin. “Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered (GE) Foods: The Showdown Begins.” Choices. 2013. Web. 2 May. 2014.
Just as the market for GM foods has increased, the level of opposition has increased as well, even up to the point of terrorist action against producers, growers, and sellers of genetically modified foods. So the question is posed, will GM foods be the future or the failure of our agricultural system? Key Interests Represented On the surface, there are two main actors in the conflict over GM foods: those who are for, and those who are against. Unfortunately, the situation is not nearly as polarized as that, with many key players falling in the middle of the spectrum. The first and most obvious supporters of GM products are the biotech companies who produce and patent GM products.
Food is an essential part of everyday life without it one could not survive. Every day we make choices on what we put in to our bodies. There are countless varieties of food to choose from to meet the diverse tastes of the increasing population. Almost all food requires a label explaining the ingredients and the nutritional value allowing consumers to make informed decisions on what they are consuming. However, many may not be considering where that food is coming from or how it has been produced. Unfortunately, there is more to food than meets the eye. Since 1992, “ the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ruled, based on woefully limited data, that genetically modified foods were ‘substantially equivalent’ to their non-GM counterparts” (Why to Support Labeling). GM food advocates have promised to create more nutritious food that will be able to grow in harsh climate conditions and eventually put an end to world hunger in anticipation of the growing population. There is very little evidence to support these claims and study after study has proven just the opposite. GM crops are not only unsafe to consume, but their growing practices are harmful to the environment, and multinational corporations are putting farmers out of business.
From the Flavr Savr ™ tomato to the more recent genetically modified corn, genetic engineering has been around for about 20 years. Now, do you really know what GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are? Do you understand both the pros and the cons are? Are you positive that GMOs mat or may not affect your health or the enviroment? If you answered no to any of these questions I strongly suggest you continue reading.
The demand for non-GMO foods is on a great rise all around the world. "Non-GMO products accounted for $550 billion of the 5 trillion global food and beverage retail market in 2014". Many people, in today's times, are being offset by negative perceptions of GMO products. Numerous consumers have pre-dispositions and attitudes when it comes to their intentions of purchasing GMO foods. Consumers believe that "scientifically altered crops could be unethical and unsafe".
This implies that the consumer would have to be compensated, or paid, to even consider consuming a certain good.
at the time of manufacturing the product, distributing the product or selling the product or services. Consumers have various choices in the market or various offerings; it is the communication that makes impact on their purchase decisions.
Value can mean different things to different people; it is measured by a product’s performance and by the elements it is made up of which customers are prepared to pay for. (Hanson et al, 2008)
Every consumer has a unique way of measuring benefits versus costs and will sometimes pay for higher quality items and other times buy the low costs items, depending on which has the highest value to them.