GMO and Non-GMO Labeling Effects: Evidence from a Quasi-Natural Experiment

References

• Abadie A, Diamond A, Hainmueller J (2010) Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s tobacco control program. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 105(490):493–505.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abadie A, Diamond A, Hainmueller J (2015) Comparative politics and the synthetic control method. Amer. J. Political Sci. 59(2):495–510.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alé-Chilet J, Moshary S (2022) Beyond consumer switching: Supply responses to food packaging and advertising regulations. Marketing Sci. 41(2):243–270.Link, Google Scholar
• Annenberg Public Policy Center (2016) Americans support GMO food labels but don’t know much about safety of GM foods. Technical report, Annenberg Public Policy Center, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
• Arkhangelsky D, Athey S, Hirshberg DA, Imbens GW, Wager S (2021) Synthetic difference-in-differences. Amer. Econom. Rev. 111(12):4088–4118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barahona N, Otero C, Otero S, Kim J (2020) Equilibrium effects of food labeling policies. Preprint, submitted September 23, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3698473.Google Scholar
• Bollinger B, Liebman E, Hammond D, Hobin E, Sacco J (2022) Educational campaigns for product labels: Evidence from on-shelf nutritional labeling. J. Marketing Res. 59(1):153–172.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bovay J, Alston JM (2016) GM labeling regulation by plebiscite: Analysis of voting on proposition 37 in California. J. Agric. Resources Econom. 41(2):161–188.Google Scholar
• Bovay J, Alston JM (2018) GMO food labels in the United States: Economic implications of the new law. Food Policy 78:14–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brasher P (2016) Kellogg’s, Mars to start labeling GMOs amid Senate deadlock. Accessed January 16, 2021, https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/6731-kellogg-s-mars-to-start.-labeling-gmos-amid-senate-deadlock.Google Scholar
• Dannenberg A, et al. (2009) The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food: A meta-analysis. Ecology Econom. 68(8-9):2182–2192.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Darby MR, Karni E (1973) Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. J. Law Econom. 16(1):67–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Doudchenko N, Imbens GW (2016) Balancing, regression, difference-in-differences and synthetic control methods: A synthesis. NBER Working Paper No. w22791, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Environmental Working Group (2016) Big food companies spend millions to defeat GMO labeling. Accessed September 25, 2020, https://www.ewg.org/research/big-food-companies-spend.-millions-defeat-gmo-labeling.Google Scholar
• Ferman B, Pinto C (2021) Synthetic controls with imperfect pretreatment fit. Quant. Econom. 12(4):1197–1221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Food Business News (2019) Non-GMO Project growth ‘extreme and consistent’. Accessed October 22, 2020, https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/14368-non-gmo-project-growth-extreme.-and-consistent.Google Scholar
• Jin GZ, Leslie P (2003) The effect of information on product quality: Evidence from restaurant hygiene grade cards. Quart. J. Econom. 118(2):409–451.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Ritov I, Schkade D, Sherman SJ, Varian HR (1999) Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues. Elicitation of Preferences (Springer, Berlin), 203–242.Google Scholar
• Kim S, Lee C, Gupta S (2020) Bayesian synthetic control methods. J. Marketing Res. 57(5):831–852.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim Y, Kim S, Arora N (2022) GMO labeling policy and consumer choice. J. Marketing 86(3):21–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lusk JL, Jamal M, Kurlander L, Roucan M, Taulman L (2005) A meta-analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies. J. Agricultural Resource Econom. 30(1):28–44.Google Scholar
• Moorman C (1998) Market-level effects of information: Competitive responses and consumer dynamics. J. Marketing Res. 35:82–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moorman C, Ferraro R, Huber J (2012) Unintended nutrition consequences: Firm responses to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. Marketing Sci. 31(5):717–737.Link, Google Scholar
• Narita F, Yin R (2018) In search of information: Use of Google trends data to narrow information gaps for low-income developing countries. Internat. Monetary Fund 286(1):1–51.Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences (2016) Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects (National Academies Press, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center (2018) Public perspectives on food risks. Report, released November 19, 2018, 1–43, https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2018/11/19/public-perspectives-on-food-risks/.Google Scholar
• Rao A, Wang E (2017) Demand for “healthy” products: False claims and FTC regulation. J. Marketing Res. 54(6):968–989.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rojas C, Wang E (2021) Do taxes on soda and sugary drinks work? Scanner data evidence from Berkeley and Washington State. Econom. Inquiry 59(1):95–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seiler S, Tuchman A, Yao S (2021) The impact of soda taxes: Pass-through, tax avoidance, and nutritional effects. J. Marketing Res. 58(1):22–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith VL (1991) Rational choice: The contrast between economics and psychology. J. Political Econom. 99(4):877–897.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sunstein CR (2020) Are food labels good? Food Policy 99:101984.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taylor RL, Kaplan S, Villas-Boas SB, Jung K (2019) Soda wars: The effect of a soda tax election on university beverage sales. Econom. Inquiry 57(3):1480–1496.Crossref, Google Scholar
• USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (2018) National bioengineered food disclosure standard. Accessed February 20, 2020, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/21/2018-27283/national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard#p-88.Google Scholar