Data collection. Data collection was conducted prior to the analysis of this study. The survey was administered to 550 men and women in their 20s to 70s living in Japan. The survey period was one month in August 2021. The survey was conducted via the Internet. Respondents were briefed on the study and considered subject consent of participation before beginning their responses. Online survey was designated to only respondents with subject consent participated in the survey. Based on the regulation of the Ethics Committee of Tokyo University of Science, this study is not subject to informed consent and ethical review. Nine questions on personal attributes, 24 questions on genome-edited foods, and 7 questions on package design were prepared in the form of questionnaires and asked for answers. A five-point scale was used for the questions on genome-edited foods.
Based on the regulations of the Ethics Committee of Tokyo University of Science, this study did not require an ethics review. It contained no questions that could cause psychological trauma. However, all necessary precautions were taken to maintain the anonymity of all the participants.
Genome-edited foods acceptability model. We conducted this study to build a GE food acceptance model of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). For the analysis, we used the analysis software Amos17. GFI, AGFI, and RMSEA were employed as goodness-of-fit indexes to confirm the accuracy of the model. The correspondence between each latent variable, observed variable, and questionnaire item is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Latent variables and observed variables
latent variable
|
observed variable
|
Questionnaires
|
Consumer acceptance of genome-edited foods
|
Tasty
|
If genome-edited food tastes good, I'm willing to buy it.
|
Healthy
|
If genome-edited food is healthy, I'm willing to buy it.
|
Reasonable price
|
If genome-edited foods were less expensive, I'd buy them.
|
Perceived usefulness
|
Sustainability
|
I think genome-edited food will help stabilize the food supply.
|
Health benefits
|
I think genome-edited food can be useful for people's health.
|
Industrial development
|
I think genome editing technology is a useful technology for the development of the agriculture and food industries.
|
Reliability of information
|
Change of attitude due to reliable information
|
I think my attitude on genome-edited food can be changed by reliable information.
|
Authorized safety check
|
I'd be willing to buy genome-edited food if authorizers had approved its safety.
|
Awareness of genome editing technology
|
Awareness of technology
|
I know about genome editing technology.
|
Awareness of genome-edited foods
|
I know of foods produced with genome editing technology.
|
Difference from GMO
|
I know the difference between genome editing technology and genetic modification technology.
|
Benefits of Technology
|
I know the benefits of genome editing technology.
|
Technology Risks
|
I know the risks posed by genome editing technology.
|
The explanations for each latent variable are as follows.
Consumer acceptance of genome-edited foods. We defined it in this manner because the observed variable that was a factor was the condition of willingness to buy GE foods. The observed variables that consumers look for in purchasing GE foods and criteria they use to make purchase decisions were related to this latent variable.
Perceived usefulness. We defined it in this manner because the observed variables that were factors were related to the benefits of GE foods. This latent variable was related to the observed variables related to the benefits that GE foods provide to the world and those which people perceive.
Information credibility. We defined it in this manner because the observed variable that was a factor was related to consumer psychology and behavior caused by the disclosure of information related to GE foods. Consumers are expected to obtain information on novel foods because they are unfamiliar and not widespread in society. Therefore, the disclosure of information from the provider side is considered to be a major factor in acceptance, which is why this latent variable was set.
Awareness of genome-editing technology. We defined it in this manner because many of the observed variables that were factors were related to GE technology.
Consumers’ preference for information disclosure. We conducted a conjoint analysis to determine consumer preferences for the package design of GE food products. In this study, a conjoint analysis was conducted using the stated preference method. The four attributes were functional information, GE food, GE technology, and price. In addition, two levels were set for functional information, GE food, and GE technology, with and without, and the three price levels were set at 150 yen, 180 yen, and 210 yen. The utility function for choosing commodity i is denoted by (1).
The d in (3) is a dummy variable that takes the value 1 when respondent j chooses product i. The estimation results (coefficients and t-values) for each attribute are obtained from (3) using the maximum likelihood method. This result confirms whether and to what extent each package attribute is efficacious in the purchase of the product. From this result, the marginal willingness to pay for each attribute can also be calculated. For example, the marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) when the attribute increases by one unit is shown in (4).