IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlaare/158284.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of Cost and Campaign Advertising on Support for California’s Proposition 37

Author

Listed:
  • McFadden, Brandon R.
  • Lusk, Jayson L.

Abstract

Proposition 37 would have required genetically engineered food in California to be labeled. This paper reports the results of a survey designed to determine Californians’ voting intentions prior to the vote, perceptions about the prevalence of genetically engineered foods in the United States, willingness to pay for a mandatory label, and effectiveness of advocacy advertising. Overall, Californians had inaccurate knowledge about the prevalence of genetically engineered foods, and stated they were willing to pay up to 13.8% higher food costs on average for a mandatory label. Findings suggest that the effectiveness of opposition advertising was likely a formative factor in the defeat of Proposition 37.

Suggested Citation

  • McFadden, Brandon R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2013. "Effects of Cost and Campaign Advertising on Support for California’s Proposition 37," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-13, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:158284
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.158284
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/158284/files/JARE_Aug2013__3_McFadden_p174.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.158284?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brooks, Kathleen R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2012. "Public and Private Preferences for Animal Cloning Policies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1-17.
    2. Joseph C. Cooper & Michael Hanemann & Giovanni Signorello, 2002. "One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(4), pages 742-750, November.
    3. Noussair, Charles & Robin, Stephane & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2002. "Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 47-53, March.
    4. Matthew Rousu & Wallace E. Huffman & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2007. "Effects And Value Of Verifiable Information In A Controversial Market: Evidence From Lab Auctions Of Genetically Modified Food," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(3), pages 409-432, July.
    5. 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," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 75-95, January.
    6. 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.
    7. Rousu, Matthew C. & Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Valuing Conflicting Public Information About a New Technology: The Case of Irradiated Foods," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 1-11, December.
    8. 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, March.
    9. Dhar, Tirtha & Foltz, Jeremy D., 2004. "Milk by Any Other Name... Consumer Benefits from Labeled Milk," Working Papers 201547, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Food System Research Group.
    10. John Loomis, 2011. "What'S To Know About Hypothetical Bias In Stated Preference Valuation Studies?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 363-370, April.
    11. Lusk, Jayson L. & House, Lisa O. & Valli, Carlotta & Jaeger, Sara R. & Moore, Melissa & Morrow, Bert & Traill, W. Bruce, 2005. "Consumer welfare effects of introducing and labeling genetically modified food," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 382-388, September.
    12. Marks, Leonie A. & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G. & Allison, Kevin & Zakharova, Ludmila, 2003. "Media Coverage Of Agrobiotechnology: Did The Butterfly Have An Effect?," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 21(1), pages 1-20.
    13. S.S. Vickner, 2004. "Media Coverage of Biotech Foods and Influence on Consumer Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1238-1246.
    14. 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, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(2), pages 179-204, June.
    15. Joseph C. Cooper & Michael Hanemann & Giovanni Signorello, 2002. "One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(4), pages 742-750, November.
    16. Hamilton, Stephen F. & Sunding, David L. & Zilberman, David, 2003. "Public goods and the value of product quality regulations: the case of food safety," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(3-4), pages 799-817, March.
    17. Vanwechel, Tamara & Wachenheim, Cheryl J. & Schuck, Eric C. & Lambert, David K., 2003. "Consumer Valuation Of Genetically Modified Foods And The Effect Of Information Bias," Agribusiness & Applied Economics Report 23620, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Bovay, John & Alston, Julian M., 2016. "GM Labeling Regulation by Plebiscite: Analysis of Voting on Proposition 37 in California," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(2), May.
    2. Gina Waterfield & Scott Kaplan & David Zilberman, 2020. "Willingness to Pay versus Willingness to Vote: Consumer and Voter Avoidance of Genetically Modified Foods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(2), pages 505-524, March.
    3. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas & Lusk, Jayson & Magnier, Alexandre, 2018. "The price of non-genetically modified (non-GM) food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 38-50.
    4. Huffman Wallace & McCluskey Jill, 2017. "Food Labels, Information, and Trade in GMOs," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 1-9, January.
    5. Christina Biedny & Trey Malone & Jayson L. Lusk, 2020. "Exploring Polarization in US Food Policy Opinions," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3), pages 434-454, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jay Corrigan & Matthew Rousu, 2008. "Estimating the value consumers derive from product labeling," Framed Field Experiments 00192, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Colson, Gregory & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2011. "Improving the Nutrient Content of Food through Genetic Modification: Evidence from Experimental Auctions on Consumer Acceptance," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-22, August.
    3. Brooks, Kathleen R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2012. "Public and Private Preferences for Animal Cloning Policies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1-17.
    4. repec:ken:wpaper:0802 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Disdier, Anne-Célia & Marette, Stéphan, 2012. "How do consumers in developed countries value the environment and workers’ social rights in developing countries?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-11.
    6. Gina Waterfield & Scott Kaplan & David Zilberman, 2020. "Willingness to Pay versus Willingness to Vote: Consumer and Voter Avoidance of Genetically Modified Foods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(2), pages 505-524, March.
    7. Colson, Gregory, 2009. "Improving nutrient content through genetic modification: Evidence from experimental auctions on consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for intragenic foods," ISU General Staff Papers 200901010800001872, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    8. Alexandre Magnier & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes & Jayson Lusk, 2022. "Changes in Consumer Preferences toward Non‐GM Foods within an Information‐Rich Environment: The Case of the Washington State Ballot Initiative," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(1), pages 489-510, March.
    9. Liaukonyte, Jura & Streletskaya, Nadia A. & Kaiser, Harry M., 2015. "Noisy Information Signals and Endogenous Preferences for Labeled Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 1-24, May.
    10. Frank van Tongeren & John Beghin & Stéphane Marette, 2009. "A Cost-Benefit Framework for the Assessment of Non-Tariff Measures in Agro-Food Trade," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 21, OECD Publishing.
    11. Rousu, Matthew C. & Marette, Stéphan & Thrasher, James F. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2014. "The economic value to smokers of graphic warning labels on cigarettes: Evidence from combining market and experimental auction data," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 123-134.
    12. David M. Bruner & William L. Huth & David M. McEvoy & O. Ashton Morgan, 2011. "Accounting for Taste: Consumer Valuations for Food-Safety Technologies," Working Papers 11-09, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    13. Xue, Hong & Mainville, Denise Y. & You, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2009. "Nutrition Knowledge, Sensory Characteristics and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pasture-Fed Beef," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49277, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. 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.
    15. Veeman, Michele M. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Hu, Wuyang, 2005. "Risk Perceptions, Social Interactions and the Influence of Information on Social Attitudes to Agricultural Biotechnology," Project Report Series 24052, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    16. Hellyer, Nicole Elizabeth & Fraser, Iain & Haddock-Fraser, Janet, 2012. "Food choice, health information and functional ingredients: An experimental auction employing bread," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 232-245.
    17. Vincenzina Caputo & Achilleas Vassilopoulos & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. & Maurizio Canavari, 2013. "Welfare Effects of Food Miles Labels," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 311-327, July.
    18. Lusk, Jayson L. & Rozan, Anne, 2008. "Public Policy and Endogenous Beliefs: The Case of Genetically Modified Food," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 1-20.
    19. Disdier, Anne-Célia & Marette, Stéphan & Millet, Guy, 2013. "Are consumers concerned about palm oil? Evidence from a lab experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 180-189.
    20. Rousu, Matthew C. & Nonnemaker, James & Farrelly, Matthew, 2009. "The Value of Countermarketing Information to Smokers: Evidence from Field Auctions," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49219, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    21. Marette Stéphan & Roosen Jutta & Blanchemanche Sandrine, 2011. "The Combination of Lab and Field Experiments for Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 2(3), pages 1-36, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:158284. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/waeaaea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.