Transparency in the food aisle: the influence of procedural justice on views about labeling GM foods

Issues of transparency lay at the center of the debate surrounding the labeling of genetically modified (GM) food products in the USA. These issues include not only the argument that consumers should be allowed to make purchasing choices based on full disclosure of product ingredients but also that they should have access to the process that makes decisions about labeling. This study examines the influence of procedural justice on perceived decision legitimacy and decision support regarding GM food labeling decisions. Using a 2 × 2 factorial design, participants recruited from an online Qualtrics panel (N = 450) were randomly assigned to read a fictitious news article about an agricultural company’s decision about whether to label their food products as having GM ingredients. Articles varied by the company’s labeling decision (label versus no label) and whether the company listened to public input prior to making the decision (public input versus no public input). The results showed significant main effects on decision support and perceived legitimacy for articles that mentioned public input. Specifically, when participants read articles stating that the company made its decision after listening to public input, they were more supportive of the decision and perceived the decision as more legitimate. Moreover, this main effect occurred irrespective of whether or not the company’s decision was to label GM foods. Our results confirm the influence of procedural justice perceptions in fostering support and perceived legitimacy for controversial risk-related decisions.