- Lead Auditor
- Quality Assurance Team EA Region - Antwerp - Quality Assurance Supervisor
- General Manager Australia
- Einkaufskoordinator/in - Austria
- Chief plant protection agronomist
- Сhief agronomist
- Head of Sales for Mexico and Latin America
- Finance Manager for a Leading International Fresh Produce Business
- Sales Consultants Fertilizer - various European countries
- Product & Efficiency Manager - Role Based in Holland with regular trips to the UK
Top 5 -yesterday
Top 5 -last month
Top 5 -last week
University of Florida study:
"Consumers see ‘organic’ and ‘non-GM’ food labels as synonymous"
When Congress approved the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard in June 2016, lawmakers allowed companies two years until June 2018, to label their genetically modified (GM) food by text, symbol or an electronic digital link such as a QR code. The QR code is a machine-readable optical label that displays information when scanned.
Besides QR codes, companies can label GM foods by adding words like: “contains genetically modified ingredients” in plain text on the packages, said Brandon McFadden, a UF/IFAS assistant professor of food and resource economics, and lead author of the study.
McFadden and Purdue University agricultural economics professor Jayson Lusk conducted their research to find the best ways to communicate whether a food has GM ingredients. This research has implications for which foods consumers will buy, McFadden said.
To gauge consumers’ willingness to pay for food labeled as GM vs. non-GM, researchers conducted a national survey of 1,132 respondents.
Specifically, researchers wanted to know how much consumers were willing to spend on food labeled as “USDA Organic” vs. that labeled “Non-GMO Project Verified.” Genetically modified material is not allowed in food labeled “USDA Organic,” while “Non-GMO Project” means the food has no more than 0.9 percent GM characteristics, according to the study.
Researchers measured respondents’ willingness to pay for a box of 12 granola bars and a pound of apples. Granola bars represent a manufactured food commonly differentiated by its absence of GM material, while apples are a fresh fruit that requires companies to tell if they contain GM material, the study said.
In this study, when consumers looked at packages of Granola bars labeled “non-GMO Project,” they were willing to spend 35 cents more than for the boxes that had text that read, “contains genetically engineered ingredients.” With the “USDA Organic” label, consumers were willing to pay 9 cents more.
With apples, respondents were willing to pay 35 cents more for those labeled “non-GMO Project” and 40 cents more for those labeled “USDA Organic.”
Participants’ responses led McFadden to conclude that consumers don’t distinguish definitions of the two food labels.
“For example, it’s possible that a product labeled, ‘Non-GMO Project Verified’ more clearly communicates the absence of GM ingredients than a product labeled ‘USDA Organic,’” said McFadden.
In addition to a willingness to pay for GM- and non-GM foods, researchers wanted to know how QR codes impact choices for foods labeled as containing GM ingredients. They also wanted to know how much consumers were willing to pay for food labeled as GM if that information came from a Quick Response – or QR – code. Study results showed consumers are willing to pay more for genetically modified food if the information is provided by a QR code.
“This finding indicates that many of the study respondents did not scan the QR code,” McFadden said.
That’s because if all respondents scanned the QR code, there would not be a significant difference in their willingness to pay, he said. Since there is a significant difference, one can assume that many respondents did not scan the QR code, McFadden said.
“However, it is important to remember that this study is really a snapshot, and it is possible that over time, consumers will become more familiar with QR codes and be more likely to scan them,” he said.
The new study is published in the journal Applied Economics: Perspectives and Policy.
Source: University of Florida (Brad Buck)
Publication date :
Receive the daily newsletter in your email for free | Click here
Other news in this sector:
- 10/16/2018 New Tiny Tim's mini avocado bag launched
- 10/15/2018 Spain: New packaging format that reduces plastic use by 99%
- 10/12/2018 Denmark introduces climate label for food
- 10/10/2018 South Africa: Woolworths to trial plastic bag free store
- 10/10/2018 First software for optimal selection of fruit and veg packaging
- 10/09/2018 Corn grower and shipper offering new eco-friendly corn trays
- 10/09/2018 Lidl Ireland to remove black plastic packaging from fruit & vegetables
- 10/08/2018 Winscribe: resealable top seal packaging
- 10/08/2018 Coop tests organic vegetables without packaging
- 10/08/2018 Market Check: Greenpeace targets disposable bags
- 10/08/2018 Tesco will scrap 'best before' dates on fruit and vegetable lines
- 10/04/2018 Two new solutions by Plastica Sud at Fruit Attraction 2018
- 10/04/2018 New Zealand retailer New World enters war against plastic waste
- 10/03/2018 Organto streamlines receiving and packaging operations
- 09/28/2018 Produce packaging company and labeling system manufacturer enter partnership
- 09/27/2018 UK: Postal service tells public to stop mailing chip bags
- 09/25/2018 Mela Val Venosta renews its co-branding with Disney
- 09/25/2018 Shelf life extension packaging now available for meal kits
- 09/24/2018 Mela Val Venosta renews its co-branding with Disney
- 09/24/2018 France: Paprec Recyclage and Groupe Guillin speed up recycling of PET plastic food trays