Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods: Traits, Labels, and Diverse Information - Transgenic Horticultural Crops: Challenges and Opportunities - page 202

perspective —a.collection.of.statements.and.information.on.genetic.modiication.
from.Greenpeace,.a.leading.environmental.group;.and.(3).the. independent, third-
party (veriiable information) perspective —a. statement. on. genetic. modiication.
approved. by. a. third-party. group,. consisting. of. a. variety. of. people. knowledge-
able. about. GM. goods,. including. scientists,. professionals,. religious. leaders,. and.
academics,.who.do.not.have.a.inancial.stake.in.GM.foods..We.limited.the.infor-
mation. statements. to. one. page. and. organized. the. information. under. ive. differ-
ent.headings,.General.Information,. Scientiic.Impact,. Human.Impact,. Financial.
Impact,.and.Environmental.Impact,.to.reduce.the.information.load.on.participants.
(Appendices.A.and.B)..Information.treatments,.consisting.of.one-to-three.of.the.
above.information.types,.were.injected.into.each.of.the.sessions.or.experimental.
trials.. For. example,. in. the. irst. set. of. experiments,. the. information. treatments.
were:.(1).only.the.industry.perspective;.(2).only.the.environmental.group.perspec-
tive;. (3). industry. and. environmental. perspectives;. (4). environmental. and. third-
party. perspectives;. (5). industry,. environmental,. and. third-party. perspectives..
Information. treatments. were. randomly. assigned. sessions. without. replacement..
When.a.session.received.industry.and.environmental.perspectives,.the.order.was.
randomized..When.a.session.received.the.third-party.perspective,.it.was.always.
displayed.last.
In. the. 2001. Des. Moines. and. St.. Paul. experiments,. each. experimental. unit.
(or. session). of. 13-16. individuals/consumers. participated. in. only. two.rounds. of.
bidding.on.experimental.food.items..The.rounds.were.differentiated.by.the.food.
label..In.one.round,.which.could.be.round.1.or.2.depending.on.the.experimental.
unit,. participants/consumers. bid. on. three. food. products,. each. with. a. conven-
tional.food.label.that.stated.only.the. type of food .and. weight ..In.the.other.round,.
participants.bid.on.the.same.three.food.products.with.a.GM.label,.which.differed.
from. the. conventional. food. label. by. the. inclusion. of. only. one. extra. sentence:.
“This.product.is.made.using.genetic.modiication.(GM)”.(Figure.9.2)..Each.ses-
sion. or. experimental. unit. received. an. information. treatment. chosen. randomly.
from.the.six.available.treatments..A.total.of.172.individuals.participated.in.these.
experiments.
In.the.2007.Des.Moines.and.Harrisburg.experiments,.each.experimental.unit.(or.
session). of. 13-16. individuals/consumers. participated. in. four. rounds. of. bidding.on.
experimental.food.items..The.rounds.were.differentiated.by.the.composition.of.the.
food.label,.which.had.seven.variants.including.a.baseline.with.no.information.(with.
a.maximum.of.four.used.in.any.session).(Figure.9.3).
Although. all. bidders. in. a. session. or. round. of. bidding. saw. the. same. food.
labels,. they. received. different. information. treatments. in. the. Des. Moines. and.
Harrisburg. experiments.. The. Des. Moines. and. Harrisburg. experiments. were.
unique.in.not.only.distinguishing.the.type.of.GMO,.but.also.for.injecting.a.treat-
ment.with.“No Information.”.Also,.the.exact.wording.of.the.three.types.of.infor-
mation.was.modified.to.be.appropriate.to.the.emphasis.of.these.experiments;.for.
example,.the.industry.perspective.and.third-party.perspective.described.the.key.
differences. between. “Transgenic”.and.“Intragenic. GM.Products”. (Appendices.
A.and.B).