IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i7p3805-d530648.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Acceptance of Gene-Edited versus Genetically Modified Foods in Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Eunae Son

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea)

  • Song Soo Lim

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea)

Abstract

Food made with gene-editing has received considerable attention in recent years because it is claimed to be a little different from traditional genetically modified breeding methods concerning safety. However, consumer acceptance of these novel foods and their potential market uptake remains to be answered. This study aims to assess differences in the acceptance of gene-edited and genetically modified foods in Korea. The choice-based conjoint analysis is adopted to estimate part-worth functions for the soybean oil attributes with 200 surveyed samples. The estimated part-worth values reveal how much each attribute affects consumers’ decision-making. Estimated results suggest that consumers tend to accept gene-editing more than genetically modified foods. The acceptance of novel technology is shown to correspond closely to the degree of consumers’ scientific knowledge, highlighting the importance of revealing relevant information regarding the technology. Results also show that country of origin is a significant food-specific attitudinal factor in shaping consumer preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Eunae Son & Song Soo Lim, 2021. "Consumer Acceptance of Gene-Edited versus Genetically Modified Foods in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-17, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:7:p:3805-:d:530648
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/7/3805/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/7/3805/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vermeulen, Bart & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2008. "Models and optimal designs for conjoint choice experiments including a no-choice option," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 94-103.
    2. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    3. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, December.
    4. Manalo, Alberto B., 1990. "Assessing The Importance Of Apple Attributes: An Agricultural Application Of Conjoint Analysis," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-7, October.
    5. Halbrendt, Catherine K. & Wirth, Ferdinand F. & Vaughn, Gerald F., 1991. "Conjoint Analysis Of The Mid-Atlantic Food-Fish Market For Farm-Raised Hybrid Striped Bass," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-9, July.
    6. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    7. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    8. Ståle Navrud & Kirsten Grønvik Bråten, 2007. "Consumers' Preferences for Green and Brown Electricity : a Choice Modelling Approach," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 117(5), pages 795-811.
    9. Christoph, Inken B. & Roosen, Jutta & Bruhn, Maike, 2006. "Willingness to pay for genetically modified food and non-food products," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21303, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Baker, Gregory A. & Burnham, Thomas A., 2001. "Consumer Response To Genetically Modified Foods: Market Segment Analysis And Implications For Producers And Policy Makers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-17, December.
    11. Berning, Joshua & Campbell, Ben, 2017. "Consumer Preference and Market Simulations of Food and Non-Food GMO Introductions," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252733, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    12. Bohm, Peter, 1972. "Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 111-130.
    13. 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.
    14. Delmond, Anthony R. & McCluskey, Jill J. & Yormirzoev, Mirzobobo & Rogova, Maria A., 2018. "Russian consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 91-100.
    15. S. V. Ciriacy-Wantrup, 1947. "Capital Returns from Soil-Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(4_Part_II), pages 1181-1196.
    16. Jayson L. Lusk, 2003. "Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 840-856.
    17. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    18. Lusk, Jayson L. & Jamal, Mustafa & Kurlander, Lauren & Roucan, Maud & Taulman, Lesley, 2005. "A Meta-Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 1-17, April.
    19. Peter Bohm, 1972. "Estimating the demand for public goods: An experiment," Framed Field Experiments 00126, The Field Experiments Website.
    20. John Fox & Jayson Lusk, 2003. "Value elicitation in laboratory and retail environments," Framed Field Experiments 00185, The Field Experiments Website.
    21. Lusk, Jayson L. & Fox, John A., 2003. "Value elicitation in retail and laboratory environments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 27-34, April.
    22. Kessels, Roselinde & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2008. "Optimal designs for conjoint experiments," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(5), pages 2369-2387, January.
    23. Halbrendt, C.K. & Wirth, F.F. & Vaughn, G.F., 1991. "Conjoint Analysis of the Mid-Atlantic Food-Fish Market for Farm-Raised Hybrid Striped Bass," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 155-163, July.
    24. Susan Miles & Christine Hafner & Suzanne Bolhaar & Eloina González Mancebo & Montserrat Fernández‐Rivas & André Knulst & Karin Hoffmann‐Sommergruber, 2006. "Attitudes Towards Genetically Modified Food with a Specific Consumer Benefit in Food Allergic Consumers and Non‐food Allergic Consumers," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(7), pages 801-813.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    2. Astrid Dannenberg & Sara Scatasta & Bodo Sturm, 2009. "Keine Chance für genetisch veränderte Lebensmittel in Deutschland? Eine experimentelle Analyse von Zahlungsbereitschaften," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 10(2), pages 214-234, May.
    3. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    4. Hein, Maren & Goeken, Nils & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2022. "Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 630-651.
    5. Balaine, Lorraine & Gallai, Nicola & Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos, 2020. "Trading off environmental goods for compensations: Insights from traditional and deliberative valuation methods in the Ecuadorian Amazon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    6. Holland, Daniel & Wessells, Cathy R., 1998. "Predicting Consumer Preferences for Fresh Salmon: The Influence of Safety Inspection and Production Method Attributes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 1-14, April.
    7. Levitt, Steven D. & List, John A., 2009. "Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-18, January.
    8. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    9. Lusk, Jayson L. & Jamal, Mustafa & Kurlander, Lauren & Roucan, Maud & Taulman, Lesley, 2005. "A Meta-Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 1-17, April.
    10. Del Valle Mesa, Laura, 2018. "Barreras institucionales de la puesta en valor del patrimonio: El caso del Real de la almadraba de Nueva Umbría/Institutional Barriers of the Put in Value of the Heritage: The Case of the Real de la A," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 36, pages 825-850, Septiembr.
    11. Le Coent, Philippe & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2017. "Compensating Environmental Losses Versus Creating Environmental Gains: Implications for Biodiversity Offsets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-129.
    12. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    13. Grebitus, Carola & Jensen, Helen H. & Roosen, Jutta, 2013. "US and German consumer preferences for ground beef packaged under a modified atmosphere – Different regulations, different behaviour?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 109-118.
    14. Houman Hashemzadeh & Alireza Karbasi & Hosein Mohammadi & Ali Firoozzare & Flavio Boccia, 2022. "Investigating the Effect of Nudges on Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Corn Oil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, October.
    15. Jaffry, Shabbar & Pickering, Helen & Ghulam, Yaseen & Whitmarsh, David & Wattage, Prem, 2004. "Consumer choices for quality and sustainability labelled seafood products in the UK," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 215-228, June.
    16. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    17. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-39, January.
    18. Lukas Kornher & Martin Schellhorn & Saskia Vetter, 2019. "Disgusting or Innovative-Consumer Willingness to Pay for Insect Based Burger Patties in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, March.
    19. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason Shogren, 2011. "Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 413-433, March.
    20. Aluisio Goulart Silva & Maurizio Canavari & Alcido Elenor Wander, 2018. "Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for integrated production label on common beans," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 20(1), pages 11-28.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:7:p:3805-:d:530648. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.