Consumer Attitudes, Labeling Regimes and the Market Success of Food Nanotechnology
AbstractThe study explores the market and welfare effects of the introduction of a food nanotechnology innovation under different labeling regimes. An analytical framework of heterogeneous consumers who differ in their attitudes towards interventions in the production process and imperfectly competitive producers is developed to analyze the effects of food nanotechnology under different labeling regimes while considering different consumer preferences for food nanotechnology. Analytical results show that high consumer valuation of the enhanced attributes of nanofoods can lead to consumer acceptance of nanofoods even when consumers are averse to nanotechnology. In most cases, the introduction of food nanotechnology leads to a reduction in the prices and quantities of the existing food alternatives with the price and quantity decreases being greater when nanotechnology adoption costs are low. When this happens, welfare is lower for non-adopting producers and greater for nanofood adopters and for all consumers; consumers who benefit the most from the introduction of food nanotechnology are those who switch their consumption to nanofoods. Finally, labeling regulation has an adverse impact on consumer welfare when consumers are averse to food nanotechnology. Under this case, producers of substitute food products experience welfare gains at the expense of nanofood producers. The results, yet, are intriguingly divergent if consumers have no knowledge of or are indifferent to food nanotechnology in the absence of labeling. Moreover, if consumers perceive food nanotechnology as less invasive than conventional food technology, welfare gains and losses might be realized by different groups of consumers and producers depending on the relative magnitude of the model parameters.
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Agricultural and Applied Economics Association in its series 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. with number 151262.
Date of creation: 2013
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Phone: (414) 918-3190
Fax: (414) 276-3349
Web page: http://www.aaea.org
More information through EDIRC
food nanaotechnology; nanofood; heterogeneous consumers; consumer attitudes; consumer and producer welfare; nanofood labeling; Consumer/Household Economics; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; Marketing;
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-AGR-2013-07-05 (Agricultural Economics)
- NEP-ALL-2013-07-05 (All new papers)
- NEP-MKT-2013-07-05 (Marketing)
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.:
- AndrÃ©a Bieberstein & Jutta Roosen & Stephan Marette & Sandrine Blanchemanche & Frederic Vandermoere, 2013.
"Consumer choices for nano-food and nano-packaging in France and Germany,"
174779, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, France.
- Andrea Bieberstein & Jutta Roosen & Stéphan Marette & Sandrine Blanchemanche & Frederic Vandermoere, 2013. "Consumer choices for nano-food and nano-packaging in France and Germany," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 40(1), pages 73-94, February.
- Gary D. Thompson & Julia Kidwell, 1998. "Explaining the Choice of Organic Produce: Cosmetic Defects, Prices, and Consumer Preferences," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(2), pages 277-287.
- Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.