April 17, 2002 -- Despite their high level of opposition to genetically modified (GM) foods, most Europeans aren't concerned enough to read
ingredient lists on food packaging, according to a study funded by organizations as divergent as Monsanto and Greenpeace. As a result
of the study, the researchers are advising European nations to
put a large label on the foods indicating they contain genetically modified
ingredients in addition to putting the information in the list of
ingredients.

Although 80 percent to 90
percent of Europeans say they don't want GM foods,
manufacturers who sell both genetically modified and conventional products
have noticed that the two versions sell about the same.

"Opinion surveys capture the respondent in the role of a voter, not in the
role of a consumer," says Charles Noussair, associate professor of
economics at Purdue University. "The two behaviors can be quite different, as
many studies have shown."

Noussair and colleagues in Europe conducted experiments to investigate the
paradox.

The results were published in the most recent issue of the academic journal
Economic Letters.

The study found that consumers didn't notice a food contained GM products even after they were seated and left for three minutes
with nothing to but to look at the ingredient label.

In the study, consumers were given 150 francs (US $21) and asked to bid on
a product. The consumers bid on large chocolate bars made by a major
multinational company that produces both GM and
non-GM foods.

Consumers could bid on what they thought the product was worth in a process
akin to a game on "The Price is Right." In this case, however, the game is
actually a sophisticated survey technique called the Vickery Auction, named
after William Vickery, who won the 1996 Nobel Prize in economics.

The study found that even after they were told the chocolate bars contained
GM ingredients, most of the consumers participating in the
research were willing to buy the GM foods, but only if the
price was about one-third less than conventional products.

The study and subsequent report was funded by a partnership of 37
organizations, corporations and governmental agencies under the aegis
of the French agricultural ministry. Both Monsanto and Greenpeace were among the sponsors.

Noussair says the research shows that labeling would allow a separate market
for GM foods in Europe.

"We believe there would be a market for genetically modified foods in Europe
if they had a distinct advantage, such as reduced cost," Noussair says.
"This situation might very well be different in the United States, where
such distinct and separate markets may not exist."

Despite the recommendation, Noussair says that some economists are opposed
to unnecessary labels and segregated markets.

"It's very costly to keep genetically modified and non-genetically modified
crops and foods separate in the production stream," he says. "To an
economist it creates a deadweight expense if there is no reason for doing
it. However, given our data, we think that there is good reason to have
separate production tracks in Europe."

The study was conducted in 16 sessions in Grenoble, France. That city was
chosen because surveys have shown their views toward genetically modified
foods are very similar to those of the Europeans overall.

"French responses are very, very close to the European average," Noussair
says. "They are more vocal about their views on the issue, but their views
are approximately the same."