Consumer Acceptance of Genome-Edited Foods in Japan
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses
2.1. Effect of Technology Awareness and Information Credibility on Willingness to Buy
2.2. Effect of Technology Awareness and Perceived Usefulness on Willingness to Buy
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Data Collection
3.2. Genome-Edited Foods Acceptability Model
4. Results
Genome-Edited Foods Acceptance Model
5. Discussion
5.1. Genome-Edited Foods Acceptance
5.2. Limitations
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bishop, T.F.; Van Eenennaam, A.L. Genome Editing Approaches to Augment Livestock Breeding Programs. J. Exp. Biol. 2020, 223, jeb207159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Metje-Sprink, J.; Menz, J.; Modrzejewski, D.; Sprink, T. DNA-Free Genome Editing: Past, Present and Future. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 9, 1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gao, W.; Xu, W.T.; Huang, K.L.; Guo, M.Z.; Luo, Y.B. Risk Analysis for Genome Editing-Derived Food Safety in China. Food Control 2018, 84, 128–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miladinovic, D.; Antunes, D.; Yildirim, K.; Bakhsh, A.; Cvejić, S.; Kondić-Špika, A.; Jeromela, A.M.; Opsahl-Sorteberg, H.G.; Zambounis, A.; Hilioti, Z. Targeted Plant Improvement Through Genome Editing: From Laboratory to Field. Plant Cell Rep. 2021, 40, 935–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ricroch, A. Global Developments of Genome Editing in Agriculture. Transgenic Res. 2019, 28, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wentworth, J.; Rapley, D. Genome-Edited Food Crops. UK Parliament POSTnote, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. 2022. Available online: https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0663/ (accessed on 24 April 2023).
- Global Agricultural Information Network. Government of Nigeria Approved National Biosafety Guideline on Gene Editing. 2021. Available online: https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/nigeria-government-nigeria-approved-national-biosafety-guideline-gene-editing (accessed on 24 April 2023).
- Sprink, T.; Wilhelm, R.; Hartung, F. Genome Editing Around the Globe: An Update on Policies and Perceptions. Plant Physiol. 2022, 190, 1579–1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW), Japan. Foods Made With New Biotechnology. (In Japanese). Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/11130500/000657810.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2023).
- Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan. Information and Communications in Japan. 2020. Available online: https://www.soumu.go.jp/johotsusintokei/whitepaper/eng/WP2020/2020-index.html (accessed on 24 April 2023).
- Hibino, A.; Nakamura, F.; Furuhashi, M.; Takeuchi, S. How Can the Unnaturalness of Cellular Agricultural Products Be Familiarized?: Modelling Public Attitudes Toward Cultured Meats in Japan. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Motoki, K.; Park, J.; Spence, C.; Velasco, C. Contextual Acceptance of Novel and Unfamiliar Foods: Insects, Cultured Meat, Plant-Based Meat Alternatives, and 3D Printed Foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 96, 104368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Motoki, K.; Ishikawa, S.I.; Spence, C.; Velasco, C. Contextual Acceptance of Insect-Based Foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 85, 103982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takeda, K.F.; Yazawa, A.; Yamaguchi, Y.; Koizumi, N.; Shineha, R. Comparison of Public Attitudes Toward Five Alternative Proteins in Japan. Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 105, 104787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sato, K.; Ishizuka, N. Japanese Attitude Toward Insects as Food: The Role of Tradition. Appetite 2023, 180, 106341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shew, A.M.; Nalley, L.L.; Snell, H.A.; Nayga, R.M., Jr.; Dixon, B.L. CRISPR Versus GMOs: Public Acceptance and Valuation. Glob. Food Sec. 2018, 19, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, R.-D. Predicting Intentions to Purchase Organic Food: The Moderating Effects of Organic Food Prices. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 183–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Customer Affairs Agency (CAA), Government of Japan. Genetically Modified Food. (In Japanese). Available online: https://www.caa.go.jp/policies/policy/consumer_safety/food_safety/food_safety_portal/genetically_modified_food/ (accessed on 24 April 2023).
- Robinson, C.; Leonhardt, J.M. Consumer Innovativeness and Loyalty to Non-GMO Foods: The Role of Cognitive and Affective Beliefs. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2018, 24, 39–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wunderlich, S.; Gatto, K.A. Consumer Perception of Genetically Modified Organisms and Sources of Information. Adv. Nutr. 2015, 6, 842–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vecchione, M.; Feldman, C.; Wunderlich, S. Consumer Knowledge and Attitudes About Genetically Modified Food Products and Labelling Policy. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 66, 329–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmieri, N.; Simeone, M.; Russo, C.; Perito, M.A. Profiling Young Consumers’ Perceptions of GMO Products: A Case Study on Italian Undergraduate Students. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2020, 21, 100224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Y.; Kim, S.; Arora, N. GMO Labeling Policy and Consumer Choice. J. Mark. 2022, 86, 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, Z.; Xiao, Y.; Xu, J. How Does Information Exposure Affect Public Attitudes Toward GMO in China? The Mediating and Moderating Roles of Conspiracy Belief and Knowledge. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 955541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, B.L.; Campbell, J.H.; Berning, J.P. GMO Turfgrass Introduction to the Market: Acceptance and Market Simulations for Connecticut Consumers. HortScience 2021, 56, 809–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLeod, A. (Ed.) World Livestock 2011: Livestock in Food Security; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2011; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i2373e/i2373e.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2023).
- Post, M.J. Cultured Meat From Stem Cells: Challenges and Prospects. Meat Sci. 2012, 92, 297–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tuomisto, H.L. The Eco-friendly Burger: Could Cultured Meat Improve the Environmental Sustainability of Meat Products? EMBO Rep. 2019, 20, e47395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mancini, M.C.; Antonioli, F. Exploring Consumers’ Attitude Towards Cultured Meat in Italy. Meat Sci. 2019, 150, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, M.; Li, L.; Bai, J. Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat in Urban Areas of Three Cities in China. Food Control 2020, 118, 107390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hadi, J.; Brightwell, G. Safety of Alternative Proteins: Technological, Environmental and Regulatory Aspects of Cultured Meat, Plant-Based Meat, Insect Protein and Single-Cell Protein. Foods 2021, 10, 1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, I.N.; Sharma, A.; Mattila, A.S. The Impact of Supermarket Credibility on Purchase Intention of Novel Food. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 64, 102754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y. Consumer Insights on the Best Ways to Communicate New Zealand’s Food Safety Message to Chinese Consumers. Master’s Thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, 2019. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10523/9065 (accessed on 24 April 2023).
- Rupprecht, C.D.D.; Fujiyoshi, L.; McGreevy, S.R.; Tayasu, I. Trust Me? Consumer Trust in Expert Information on Food Product Labels. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020, 137, 111170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraus, A. Development of Functional Food with the Participation of the Consumer. Motivators for Consumption of Functional Products. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2015, 39, 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frewer, L.; Scholderer, J.; Lambert, N. Consumer Acceptance of Functional Foods: Issues for the Future. Br. Food J. 2003, 105, 714–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Amico, M.; Di Vita, G.; Monaco, L. Exploring Environmental Consciousness and Consumer Preferences for Organic Wines Without Sulfites. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 120, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryant, C.; Dillard, C. The Impact of Framing on Acceptance of Cultured Meat. Front. Nutr. 2019, 6, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Maehle, N.; Skjeret, F. Microalgae-Based Food: Purchase Intentions and Willingness to Pay. Future Foods 2022, 6, 100205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodwin, J.N.; Shoulders, C.W. The Future of Meat: A Qualitative Analysis of Cultured Meat Media Coverage. Meat Sci. 2013, 95, 445–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- CAA. Summary of Consumer Opinion Survey on Genetically Modified Foods. 2017. (In Japanese). Available online: https://www.caa.go.jp/policies/policy/food_labeling/other/pdf/genetically_modified_food_170426_0006.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2023).
- National Institute of Science and Technology Policy Library. Analysis of Determinants of Social Acceptance of New Technology. 2021. Available online: https://nistep.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=pages_view_main&active_action=repository_view_main_item_detail&item_id=6731&item_no=1&page_id=13&block_id=21 (accessed on 24 April 2023).
- Sharma, S.; Kaur, R.; Singh, A. Recent Advances in CRISPR/Cas Mediated Genome Editing for Crop Improvement. Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 2017, 11, 193–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simona, R.; Saba, A. The Perception of Risks Associated with Food-Related Hazards and the Perceived Reliability of Sources of Information. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2004, 39, 491–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dillen, S.M.E.; Hiddink, G.J.; Koelen, M.A.; De Graaf, C.; Van Woerkum, C.M.J. Perceived Relevance and Information Needs Regarding Food Topics and Preferred Information Sources among Dutch Adults: Results of a Quantitative Consumer Study. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2004, 58, 1306–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joe, M.; Lee, S.; Ham, S. Which Brand Should Be More Nervous about Nutritional Information Disclosure: McDonald’s or Subway? Appetite 2020, 155, 104805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filho, T.L.; Lucia, S.M.D.; Lima, R.M.; Scolforo, C.Z. A Qualitative Study on the Perceptions and Attitudes of Brazilians Toward Irradiated Foods. J. Sens. Stud. 2015, 30, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eden, S. Food Labels as Boundary Objects: How Consumers Make Sense of Organic and Functional Foods. Public Underst. Sci. 2011, 20, 179–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Díaz, L.D.; Fernández-Ruiz, V.; Cámara, M. An International Regulatory Review of Food Health-Related Claims in Functional Food Products Labeling. J. Funct. Foods 2020, 68, 103896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabei, Y.; Shimura, S.; Kwon, Y.; Itaka, S.; Fukino, N. Analyzing Twitter Conversation on Genome-Edited Foods and Their Labeling in Japan. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 535764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Waris, I.; Ali, R.; Nayyar, A.; Baz, M.; Liu, R.; Hameed, I. An Empirical Evaluation of Customers’ Adoption of Drone Food Delivery Services: An Extended Technology Acceptance Model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buaprommee, N.; Polyorat, K. The Antecedents of Purchase Intention of Meat with Traceability in Thai Consumers. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 2016, 21, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baglione, S.L.; Tucci, L.A.; Stanton, J.L. Self-Reported Nutritional Knowledge and the Acceptance of Health-Related Food Benefit Claims. Br. Food J. 2012, 114, 453–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choe, J.Y.; Cho, M.S. Food Neophobia and Willingness to Try Non-Traditional Foods for Koreans. Food Qual. Prefer. 2011, 22, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kishimoto, K.; Washio, Y.; Yoshiura, Y.; Toyoda, A.; Ueno, T.; Fukuyama, H.; Kato, K.; Kinoshita, M. Production of a Breed of Red Sea Bream Pagrus major with an Increase of Skeletal Muscle Mass and Reduced Body Length by Genome Editing with CRISPR/Cas9. Aquaculture 2018, 495, 415–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cairns, G. Evolutions in food marketing, quantifying the impact, and policy implications. Appetite 2013, 62, 194–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kusá, A.; Urmínová, M.; Darázs, T.; Šalgovičová, J. Testing of Standardized Advertising Slogans Within the Marketing Communication of Sustainable and Local Foods in Order to Reveal Consumer Preferences. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 703223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grasso, S.; Monahan, F.J.; Hutchings, S.C.; Brunton, N.P. The effect of health claim information disclosure on the sensory characteristics of plant sterol-enriched turkey as assessed using the Check-All-That-Apply (CATA) methodology. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 57, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Y.; He, Y. Information disclosure decisions in an organic food supply chain under competition. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 292, 125976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Percentage out of 550 Respondents | |
---|---|
Gender | |
Men | 48.5 |
Women | 51.5 |
Age | |
20~29 | 12.0 |
30~39 | 21.0 |
40~49 | 25.0 |
50~59 | 25.0 |
60~69 | 14.0 |
70 and above | 3.0 |
Career | |
Government employee | 5.6 |
Manager/Executive | 2.2 |
Company employee (clerical) | 17.8 |
Company employee (technical) | 11.3 |
Company employee (other) | 14.4 |
Self-employed | 4.7 |
Freelance | 1.6 |
Homemaker | 14.9 |
Temporary worker | 11.8 |
Student | 1.8 |
Others | 2.0 |
Unemployed | 11.8 |
Latent Variable | Observed Variable | M | SD | α | AVE | CR | MSV |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Willingness to buy genome-edited foods | Willingness to buy 1 | 2.73 | 1.03 | 0.963 | 0.89 | 0.96 | 0.26 |
Willingness to buy 2 | 2.71 | 1.02 | |||||
Willingness to buy 3 | 2.75 | 1.08 | |||||
Perceived usefulness | Perceived usefulness 1 | 2.73 | 1.01 | 0.887 | 0.75 | 0.90 | 0.22 |
Perceived usefulness 2 | 2.58 | 0.96 | |||||
Perceived usefulness 3 | 2.90 | 0.96 | |||||
Information credibility | Information credibility 1 | 2.92 | 0.98 | 0.811 | 0.70 | 0.82 | 0.14 |
Information credibility 2 | 2.74 | 1.01 | |||||
Awareness of genome editing technology | Awareness 1 | 1.91 | 1.05 | 0.956 | 0.81 | 0.95 | 0.39 |
Awareness 2 | 1.96 | 1.04 | |||||
Awareness 3 | 1.94 | 1.05 | |||||
Awareness 4 | 1.96 | 1.01 | |||||
Awareness 5 | 2.00 | 1.06 |
Willingness to Buy Genome-Edited Foods | Perceived Usefulness | Information Credibility | Awareness of Genome Editing Technology | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Willingness to buy genome-edited foods | 1 | 0.786 | 0.860 | 0.180 |
Perceived usefulness | 1 | 0.941 | 0.227 | |
Information credibility | 1 | 0.209 | ||
Awareness of genome editing technology | 1 |
Path | Path Coefficient | Standard Errors | t-Value | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Awareness of genome-editing technology → Information credibility | 0.201 | 0.035 | 4.348 | 0.000 |
Awareness of genome-editing technology → Perceived usefulness | 0.055 | 0.024 | 2.044 | 0.041 |
Perceived usefulness →Willingness to buy genome-edited foods | 0.201 | 0.066 | 3.436 | 0.000 |
Information credibility → Perceived usefulness | 0.821 | 0.048 | 19.956 | 0.000 |
Information credibility → Willingness to buy genome-edited foods | 0.679 | 0.089 | 10.151 | 0.000 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Shigi, R.; Seo, Y. Consumer Acceptance of Genome-Edited Foods in Japan. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129662
Shigi R, Seo Y. Consumer Acceptance of Genome-Edited Foods in Japan. Sustainability. 2023; 15(12):9662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129662
Chicago/Turabian StyleShigi, Ryoma, and Yuna Seo. 2023. "Consumer Acceptance of Genome-Edited Foods in Japan" Sustainability 15, no. 12: 9662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129662
APA StyleShigi, R., & Seo, Y. (2023). Consumer Acceptance of Genome-Edited Foods in Japan. Sustainability, 15(12), 9662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129662