<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
 <record>
  <leader>00000cab a22000004cb4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">IPP-00000220401</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="003">IPP</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20170322173719.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">170322s2005    xx     d | ||r |||||   ||</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">Socio-demographics and psychographics as discriminators of consumers' acceptance or rejection of genetically modified foods</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">Socio-demographics and psychographics as discriminators of consumers' acceptance or rejection of genetically modified foods</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="264" ind1="#" ind2="1">
   <subfield code="c">2005</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1="#" ind2="#">
   <subfield code="a">This study aimed to determine the influences of consumers' socio-demographic and psychographics on acceptability of Genetically Modified Foods. Respondents of the study were 205 faculty members and 33 students from selected State Colleges and Universities in Region III. The data were obtained using survey questionnaire and Focus Group Discussions. The results revealed that respondents were basically Roman Catholics, early adults and earning an average annual income of 226,574 Php (faculty members) and 127,311 Php (students). Most faculty respondents have masters degrees and in the technical fields owing to the nature of the study. The Multivariate Discriminant Analysis revealed that respondents who generally showed acceptance of GMF were faculty members with higher educational attainment and higher income and who are Roman Catholics. On the other hand, the characteristics of those who are likely to reject GMF were the consumers with lower educational attainment, lower family income and Born Again Christians. Recommendations included massive education campaign on GMF for farmers and consumers with lower educational attainment and family income; most especially for women who are mainly responsible for meal planning, long term study on ecological and biological impact of GMF, and greater transparency in food labeling.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">Genetically modified foods</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1="2" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">Food--Biotechnology</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1="2" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">College students as consumers</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">Attitudes</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1="2" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">University faculty</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">Attitudes</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="#">
   <subfield code="t">Journal of the Philippine Association for Technology in Home Economics in State Colleges and Universities, Inc.</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">Vol. 6, no. 1 (Apr. 2005), 16-24</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="852" ind1="#" ind2="#">
   <subfield code="a">UPD</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">DCHE</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1="#" ind2="#">
   <subfield code="a">Article</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1="#" ind2="#">
   <subfield code="a">FI</subfield>
  </datafield>
 </record>
</collection>
