IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v40y2011i02p218-232_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in WTP and Consumer Demand for Organic and Non-GM Fresh and Processed Foods

Author

Listed:
  • He, Na
  • Bernard, John C.

Abstract

Auction experiments were used to examine demand and premium differences between organic, non-OM (genetically modified), and conventional versions for two pairs of fresh and processed foods. Results showed processed foods had greater substitutability among the versions than fresh products. Conventional versions were the least price sensitive, while non-OM versions were the most sensitive. Significant premium differences were found between fresh and processed foods for sweet com and tortilla chips, but not for potatoes and potato chips. Results from random effects models mirrored these findings. In general, the extent of premium differences between fresh and processed versions appears dependent on the food product.

Suggested Citation

  • He, Na & Bernard, John C., 2011. "Differences in WTP and Consumer Demand for Organic and Non-GM Fresh and Processed Foods," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(2), pages 218-232, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:40:y:2011:i:02:p:218-232_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1068280500008029/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Schott, Lenna & Bernard, John, 2015. "Comparing Consumer's WIllingness to Pay for Conventional, Non-Certified Organic and Organic Milk from Small and Large Farms," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 46(3), pages 1-20, November.
    2. Carlson, Andrea & Jaenicke, Edward, 2016. "Changes in Retail Organic Price Premiums from 2004 to 2010," Economic Research Report 242448, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Martha A. Starr, 2015. "The Economics of Ethical Consumption," Working Papers 2015-01, American University, Department of Economics.
    4. Savchenko, Olesya M. & Kecinski, Maik & Li, Tongzhe & Messer, Kent D. & Xu, Huidong, 2018. "Fresh foods irrigated with recycled water: A framed field experiment on consumer responses," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 103-112.
    5. Eva Tebbe & Korbinian von Blanckenburg, 2018. "Does willingness to pay increase with the number and strictness of sustainability labels?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(1), pages 41-53, January.
    6. McFadden, Brandon R. & Malone, Trey, 2018. "How will mandatory labeling of genetically modified food nudge consumer decision-making?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 186-194.
    7. András István Kun & Marietta Kiss, 2021. "On the Mechanics of the Organic Label Effect: How Does Organic Labeling Change Consumer Evaluation of Food Products?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-25, January.
    8. Tatiana Drugova & Kynda R. Curtis & Sherzod B. Akhundjanov, 2020. "Are multiple labels on food products beneficial or simply ignored?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(4), pages 411-427, December.
    9. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Willingness-to-pay for natural, organic, and conventional foods: The effects of information and meaningful labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 214-232.
    10. Uddin, Azhar & Gallardo, R. Karina, 2021. "Consumers' willingness to pay for organic, clean label, and processed with a new food technology: an application to ready meals," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(3), March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:agrerw:v:40:y:2011:i:02:p:218-232_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/age .

    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.