Welcome To Website IAS

Hot news
Achievement

Independence Award

- First Rank - Second Rank - Third Rank

Labour Award

- First Rank - Second Rank -Third Rank

National Award

 - Study on food stuff for animal(2005)

 - Study on rice breeding for export and domestic consumption(2005)

VIFOTEC Award

- Hybrid Maize by Single Cross V2002 (2003)

- Tomato Grafting to Manage Ralstonia Disease(2005)

- Cassava variety KM140(2010)

Centres
Website links
Vietnamese calendar
Library
Visitors summary
 Curently online :  16
 Total visitors :  7479653

US consumers confused with `organic` and `non-gm` food labels, survey shows
Thursday, 2017/11/16 | 07:59:30

Figure: Author, A huge Gator fan, Brad grew up in Gainesville, loves movies, sports and finding great stories to tell. He also derives great satisfaction from completing the New York Times crossword puzzle. bradbuck@ufl.edu

 

Many consumers are getting confused with the "organic" and "non-GMO" labels, according to a national survey conducted by scientists at the University of Florida and Purdue University.

 

In June 2016, the Congress approved the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard which allows companies to label GM foods by text, symbol, or QR codes. Economics experts, Brandon McFadden from the University of Florida, and Jayson Lusk from Purdue University, together with their team surveyed 1,132 respondents to find the best ways to communicate whether a food contain GM products. The researchers measured the consumers' willingness to pay for a dozen granola bars and a pound of apples. Results showed that consumers are willing to spend 35 cents more for products with non-GMO project verified label compared to those with GM label; while they are willing to pay 9 cents more for products with USDA organic label. For apples, they are willing to pay more for those with USDA organic label compared to those with non-GMO project label. The respondents' answers may imply that the consumers do not understand the difference between the two labels.

 

They also found that consumers are willing to pay more for GM food if the information is provided by a QR code. According to McFadden, this finding implies that several respondents did not scan the QR code. If all consumers used the QR code, there would not be a significant difference in their willingness to pay. 

 

Read more about the study from the University of Florida.

Back      Print      View: 380

[ Other News ]___________________________________________________
  • Beyond genes: Protein atlas scores nitrogen fixing duet
  • 2016 Borlaug CAST Communication Award Goes to Dr. Kevin Folta
  • FAO and NEPAD team up to boost rural youth employment in Benin, Cameroon, Malawi and Niger
  • Timely seed distributions in Ethiopia boost crop yields, strengthen communities’ resilience
  • Parliaments must work together in the final stretch against hunger
  • Empowering women farmers in the polder communities of Bangladesh
  • Depression: let’s talk
  • As APEC Concludes, CIP’s Food Security and Climate Smart Agriculture on Full Display
  • CIAT directly engages with the European Cocoa Industry
  • Breeding tool plays a key role in program planning
  • FAO: Transform Agriculture to Address Global Challenges
  • Uganda Holds Banana Research Training for African Scientists and Biotechnology Regulators
  • US Congress Ratifies Historic Global Food Security Treaty
  • Fruit Fly`s Genetic Code Revealed
  • Seminar at EU Parliament Tackles GM Crops Concerns
  • JICA and IRRI ignites a “seed revolution” for African and Asian farmers
  • OsABCG26 Vital in Anther Cuticle and Pollen Exine Formation in Rice
  • Akira Tanaka, IRRI’s first physiologist, passes away
  • WHO calls for immediate safe evacuation of the sick and wounded from conflict areas
  • Farmer Field School in Tonga continues to break new ground in the Pacific for training young farmers

 

Designed & Powered by WEBSO CO.,LTD