IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i19p7876-d418063.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Information Values on the Consumer’s Valuation of non-GM Material: The Case of Cooking Oil in Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Kyungsoo Nam

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, Korea University, Seoul 20841, Korea)

  • Heesun Lim

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, Korea University, Seoul 20841, Korea)

  • Byeong-il Ahn

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, Korea University, Seoul 20841, Korea)

Abstract

This paper analyzes the changes in consumer preference that may occur when the current Genetically Modified (GM) crops policy is strengthened by applying mandatory labeling to all processed food that uses GM crops as raw materials. We estimate the change in consumers’ willingness to pays for cooking oil before and after providing the information on GM raw material contained in the currently marketed cooking oil to consumers. To this end, a hypothetical cooking oil product using non-GM raw materials is set up, and consumers are classified into high and low awareness groups for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and those who prefer and do not prefer organic foods. The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) analyses show the amount of willingness to pay before providing the information for high and low awareness groups for GMOs increases from 23.8 dollars and 18.0 dollars per 1.8 L to 25.6 dollars and 20.3 dollars, respectively. The value of the information on GM raw materials of a consumer group with high prior knowledge of GMOs is estimated to be 1.8 dollars, and the value of the information of a consumer group with low prior knowledge is estimated to be 2.4 dollars per 1.8 L. The willingness to pay (WTP) change according to the information provision of the group with the highest prior knowledge of GMOs is estimated to be 0.6 dollars, and the WTP change is estimated to be 3.6 dollars for the group with lowest prior knowledge. This implies that the lower the prior knowledge possessed by a consumer, the higher the value of information on GM raw materials elicited.

Suggested Citation

  • Kyungsoo Nam & Heesun Lim & Byeong-il Ahn, 2020. "Information Values on the Consumer’s Valuation of non-GM Material: The Case of Cooking Oil in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-19, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:19:p:7876-:d:418063
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/19/7876/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/19/7876/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    2. Lopez-Feldman, Alejandro, 2012. "Introduction to contingent valuation using Stata," MPRA Paper 41018, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    4. Wilhelm Klümper & Matin Qaim, 2014. "A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-7, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Jikun Huang & Ruifa Hu & Scott Rozelle & Carl Pray, 2008. "Genetically Modified Rice, Yields, and Pesticides: Assessing Farm-Level Productivity Effects in China," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(2), pages 241-263, January.
    7. Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    8. Akhter Ali & Awudu Abdulai, 2010. "The Adoption of Genetically Modified Cotton and Poverty Reduction in Pakistan," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 175-192, February.
    9. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Livingston, Michael J. & Mitchell, Lorraine & Wechsler, Seth, 2014. "Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States," Economic Research Report 164263, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Francisco J. Areal & Laura Riesgo, 2021. "EU Inspections of GM Content in Food and Feed: Are They Effective?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-18, 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. Rodrigo Abed & Haroon Sseguya & James Flock & Silvanus Mruma & Hamisi Mwango, 2020. "An Evolving Agricultural Extension Model for Lasting Impact: How Willing Are Tanzanian Farmers to Pay for Extension Services?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-13, October.
    2. Marie-Pier Schinck & Chloé L’Ecuyer-Sauvageau & Justin Leroux & Charlène Kermagoret & Jérôme Dupras, 2020. "Risk, Drinking Water and Harmful Algal Blooms: A Contingent Valuation of Water Bans," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(12), pages 3933-3947, September.
    3. Paul Vincelli, 2016. "Genetic Engineering and Sustainable Crop Disease Management: Opportunities for Case-by-Case Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-22, May.
    4. Lopez-Feldman, Alejandro, 2012. "Introduction to contingent valuation using Stata," MPRA Paper 41018, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Hanke Ndau & Elizabeth Tilley, 2018. "Willingness to Pay for Improved Household Solid Waste Collection in Blantyre, Malawi," Economies, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-21, October.
    6. Acey, Charisma & Kisiangani, Joyce & Ronoh, Patrick & Delaire, Caroline & Makena, Evelyn & Norman, Guy & Levine, David & Khush, Ranjiv & Peletz, Rachel, 2019. "Cross-subsidies for improved sanitation in low income settlements: Assessing the willingness to pay of water utility customers in Kenyan cities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 160-177.
    7. Artem Korzhenevych & Charles Kofi Owusu, 2021. "Renewable Minigrid Electrification in Off-Grid Rural Ghana: Exploring Households Willingness to Pay," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    8. Deutschmann, Joshua W. & Postepska, Agnieszka & Sarr, Leopold, 2021. "Measuring willingness to pay for reliable electricity: Evidence from Senegal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    9. Vilela, Thais & Malky Harb, Alfonso & Mendizábal Vergara, Carla, 2022. "Chileans' willingness to pay for protected areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    10. Musiliu O. Oseni, 2017. "Self-Generation and Households' Willingness to Pay for Reliable Electricity Service in Nigeria," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4).
    11. Changsok Yoo & Yelim Kim & Jee Hoon Sohn, 2021. "Evaluating the Social Cost of Conflict between New Media and Society: The Case of Gaming Disorder in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-13, July.
    12. Santi Sanglestsawai & Roderick M. Rejesus & Jose M. Yorobe Jr., 2015. "Economic impacts of integrated pest management (IPM) farmer field schools (FFS): evidence from onion farmers in the Philippines," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 149-162, March.
    13. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Kofi Britwum & Amalia Yiannaka, 2019. "Labeling food safety attributes: to inform or not to inform?," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 7(1), pages 1-21, December.
    15. Soon, Jan-Jan & Ahmad, Siti-Aznor, 2015. "Willingly or grudgingly? A meta-analysis on the willingness-to-pay for renewable energy use," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 877-887.
    16. Chen, Rui & Liu, Maggie Wenjing & Guan, Yuhong & Zheng, Yuhuang, 2020. "Female responses to genetically modified foods: Effects of the menstrual cycle and food risk concerns," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 608-618.
    17. K.S. , A. & Khan, T. & Kishore, A., 2018. "Willingness to pay for Weather Based Crop Insurance in Punjab," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277516, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Mirzobobo Yormirzoev & Ramona Teuber & Daniil Baranov, 2018. "Is Tajikistan a Potential Market for Genetically Modified Potatoes?," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(1), pages 216-226.
    19. Wilhelm Klümper & Matin Qaim, 2014. "A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-7, November.
    20. Dahal, Ram P. & Grala, Robert K. & Gordon, Jason S. & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Munn, Ian A., 2018. "Estimating the willingness to pay to preserve waterfront open spaces using contingent valuation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 614-626.

    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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:19:p:7876-:d:418063. 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.