Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Improving the Nutrient Content of Food through Genetic Modification: Evidence from Experimental Auctions on Consumer Acceptance

Contents:

Author Info

  • Colson, Gregory
  • Huffman, Wallace E.
  • Rousu, Matthew C.

Abstract

This paper assesses consumers’ acceptance of nutritionally enhanced vegetables using a series of auction experiments administered to a random sample of adult consumers. Evidence suggests that consumers are willing to pay significantly more for fresh produce with labels signaling enhanced levels of antioxidants and vitamin C achieved by moving genes from within the species, as opposed to across species. However, this premium is significantly affected by diverse information treatments injected into the experiments.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/117201
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Western Agricultural Economics Association in its journal Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

Volume (Year): 36 (2011)
Issue (Month): 2 (August)
Pages:

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:117201

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://waeaonline.org/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Bayesian analysis; experimental auction; food products; genetic modification; Consumer/Household Economics; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Koop,Gary & Poirier,Dale J. & Tobias,Justin L., 2007. "Bayesian Econometric Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521671736, October.
  2. Fox, John A. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Shogren, Jason F., 2002. "Consumer Preferences for Food Irradiation: How Favorable and Unfavorable Descriptions Affect Preferences for Irradiated Pork in Experimental Auctions," Staff General Research Papers 5207, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  3. Shogren, Jason F. & Shin, Seung Youll & Hayes, Dermot J. & Kliebenstein, James, 1994. "Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," Staff General Research Papers 701, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  4. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
  5. Andreas Ortmann & Ralph Hertwig, 2002. "The Costs of Deception: Evidence From Psychology," Game Theory and Information 0203001, EconWPA.
  6. John A. List & Michael K. Price, 2013. "Using Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics," NBER Working Papers 19289, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  7. Foster, William & Just, Richard E., 1989. "Measuring welfare effects of product contamination with consumer uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 266-283, November.
  8. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2007. "Exchange Asymmetries Incorrectly Interpreted as Evidence of Endowment Effect Theory and Prospect Theory?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1449-1466, September.
  9. Mario Mazzocchi & Gianluca Stefani & Spencer J. Henson, 2004. "Consumer Welfare and the Loss Induced by Withholding Information: The Case of BSE in Italy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 41-58.
  10. Jay R. Corrigan & Matthew C. Rousu, 2006. "The Effect of Initial Endowments in Experimental Auctions," Working Papers 0601, Kenyon College, Department of Economics.
  11. Frode Alfnes & Kyrre Rickertsen, 2005. "European Consumers' Willingness to Pay for U.S. Beef in Experimental Auction Markets: Reply," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(1), pages 258-260.
  12. Mario F. Teisl & Nancy E. Bockstael & Alan Levy, 2001. "Measuring the Welfare Effects of Nutrition Information," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(1), pages 133-149.
  13. Mazzocchi, Mario & Stefani, Gianluca, 2002. "Consumer Welfare and the Loss Induced by Withheld Information: The Case of BSE in Italy," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24927, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  14. Moschini, GianCarlo & Lapan, Harvey E. & Sobolevsky, Andrei, 2000. "Roundup Ready Soybeans and Welfare Effects in the Soybean Complex," Staff General Research Papers 1799, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  15. Lusk,Jayson L. & Shogren,Jason F., 2007. "Experimental Auctions," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521855167, October.
  16. Frode Alfnes & Kyrre Rickertsen, 2003. "European Consumers' Willingness to Pay for U.S. Beef in Experimental Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 396-405.
  17. Elizabeth Hoffman & Dale J. Menkhaus & Dipankar Chakravarti & Ray A. Field & Glen D. Whipple, 1993. "Using Laboratory Experimental Auctions in Marketing Research: A Case Study of New Packaging for Fresh Beef," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 318-338.
  18. Rousu, Matthew & Huffman, Wallace & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2002. "The Value of Verifiable Information in a Controversial Market: Evidence from Lab Auctions of Genetically Modified Food," Staff General Research Papers 10009, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  19. repec:ags:ajaeap:48785 is not listed on IDEAS
  20. Shogren, Jason F. & Margolis, Michael & Koo, Cannon & List, John A., 2001. "A random nth-price auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 409-421, December.
  21. Emmanuel Guerre & Isabelle Perrigne & Quang Vuong, 2000. "Optimal Nonparametric Estimation of First-Price Auctions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(3), pages 525-574, May.
  22. Ho-Chuan Huang, 2001. "Bayesian analysis of the SUR Tobit model," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(9), pages 617-622.
  23. Huang, Cliff J & Sloan, Frank A & Adamache, Killard W, 1987. "Estimation of Seemingly Unrelated Tobit Regressions via the EM Algorithm," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 5(3), pages 425-30, July.
  24. Jay R. Corrigan & Dinah Pura T. Depositario & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Ximing Wu & Tiffany P. Laude, 2006. "Comparing Open-Ended Choice Experiments and Experimental Auctions: An Application to Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(3), pages 837-853.
  25. Rousu, Matthew & Huffman, Wallace & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2007. "Effects and Value of Verifiable Information in a Controversial Market: Evidence from Lab Auctions of Genetically Modified Food," Staff General Research Papers 12702, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  26. Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh & Justin M. Holley, 2001. "An Environmental-Economic Assessment of Genetic Modification of Agricultural Crops," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 01-025/3, Tinbergen Institute.
  27. Bonetti, Shane, 1998. "Experimental economics and deception," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 377-395, June.
  28. Wuyang Hu & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Labelling Genetically Modified Food: Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Value of Information," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(1), pages 83-102, 03.
  29. W. Bruce Traill, 2004. "Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 31(2), pages 179-204, June.
  30. Nobile, Agostino, 2000. "Comment: Bayesian multinomial probit models with a normalization constraint," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 335-345, December.
  31. Charles Noussair & StÈphane Robin & Bernard Ruffieux, 2004. "Do Consumers Really Refuse To Buy Genetically Modified Food?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(492), pages 102-120, 01.
  32. Huang, Ho-Chuan (River), 1999. "Estimation of the SUR Tobit model via the MCECM algorithm," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 25-30, July.
  33. Lusk, Jayson L. & Pruitt, J.R. & Norwood, Bailey, 2006. "External validity of a framed field experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 285-290, November.
  34. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Schroeder, Ted C. & Fox, John A. & Biere, Arlo W., 2005. "European Preferences for Beef Steak Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(02), August.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Huffman, Wallace, 2008. "Rising Food and Energy Prices: Projections for Labor Markets 2008-18 and Beyond," Staff General Research Papers 13000, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  2. Huffman, Wallace, 2009. "Technology and Innovation in World Agriculture: Prospects for 2010-2019," Staff General Research Papers 13060, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  3. Marette, Stéphan & Roosen, Jutta & Blanchemanche, Sandrine & Feinblatt-Mélèze, Eve, 2010. "Functional food, uncertainty and consumers' choices: A lab experiment with enriched yoghurts for lowering cholesterol," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 419-428, October.
  4. Anne-Célia Disdier & Stéphan Marette, 2012. "Taxes, minimum-quality standards and/or product labeling to improve environmental quality and welfare: Experiments can provide answers," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 337-357, June.
  5. Zilberman, David & Kaplan, Scott & Kim, Eunice & Waterfield, Gina, 2013. "Lessons from the California GM Labeling Proposition on the State of Crop Biotechnology," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149851, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:117201. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.