Most scientists claim that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in foods are safe for human consumption and offer societal benefits such as better nutritional content. In contrast, many consumers remain skeptical about their safety. Against this backdrop of diverging views, the authors investigate the impact of different GMO labeling policy regimes on products consumers choose. Guided by the literature on negativity bias, structural alignment theory, and message presentation, and based on findings from four experiments, authors show that consumer demand for GM foods depends on the labeling regime policymakers adopt. Both absence-focused (“non-GMO”) and presence-focused (“contains GMO”) labeling regimes reduce the market share of GM foods, with the reduction being greater in the latter case. GMO labels reduce the importance consumers place on price and enhance their willingness-to-pay for non-GM products. Results indicate that specific label design choices policymakers implement (in the form of color and style) also affect consumer responses to GM labeling. Consumer attitudes toward GMOs moderate this effect – consumers with neutral attitudes toward GMOs are influenced most significantly by the label design.

大多数科学家声称食品中的转基因生物 (GMO) 可供人类食用是安全的，并提供社会效益，例如更好的营养成分。相比之下，许多消费者仍然对其安全性持怀疑态度。在这种不同观点的背景下，作者调查了不同的转基因标签政策制度对消费者选择的产品的影响。以消极偏见、结构对齐理论和信息呈现方面的文献为指导，并根据四项实验的结果，作者表明消费者对转基因食品的需求取决于政策制定者采用的标签制度。以缺失为重点（“非转基因”）和以存在为重点（“包含转基因”）的标签制度都会减少转基因食品的市场份额，后者的减少幅度更大。转基因标签降低了消费者对价格的重视，增强了他们对非转基因产品的支付意愿。结果表明，政策制定者实施的特定标签设计选择（以颜色和样式的形式）也会影响消费者对转基因标签的反应。消费者对转基因生物的态度缓和了这种影响——对转基因生物持中性态度的消费者受标签设计的影响最大。