IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/rutfwp/18181.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Measuring U.S. Consumer Preferences For Genetically Modified Foods Using Choice Modeling Experiments: The Role Of Price, Product Benefits And Technology

Author

Listed:
  • Onyango, Benjamin M.
  • Govindasamy, Ramu
  • Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr.

Abstract

Food biotechnology promises to deliver a wide range of enhanced consumer benefits. This study models consumer's willingness to trade-off the potential risks of GM foods with the possibility of extracting significant benefits. The results of the choice modeling experiments reflect how different attributes of price, product benefits, and technology influence consumer demand for genetically modified food products. The results suggest that direct health, environmental, and production related benefits have a positive effect on choice. The results also generally show that genetic modification is viewed negatively, with use of bacterium and animal based genetic modification being viewed more negatively than the use of plant based genetic modification.

Suggested Citation

  • Onyango, Benjamin M. & Govindasamy, Ramu & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2004. "Measuring U.S. Consumer Preferences For Genetically Modified Foods Using Choice Modeling Experiments: The Role Of Price, Product Benefits And Technology," Research Reports 18181, Rutgers University, Food Policy Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:rutfwp:18181
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.18181
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/18181/files/wp040017.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.18181?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. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    2. Feldmann, Matthew P. & Morris, Michael L. & Hoisington, David, 2000. "Genetically Modified Organisms: Why All The Controversy?," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 15(1), pages 1-5.
    3. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C. & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1995. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments versus Contingent Valuation," Staff Paper Series 24126, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    4. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    5. Senauer, Benjamin, 2001. "The Food Consumer In The 21st Century: New Research Perspectives," Working Papers 14346, University of Minnesota, The Food Industry Center.
    6. Moon, Wanki & Balasubramanian, Siva K., 2001. "A Multi-Attribute Model Of Public Acceptance Of Genetically Modified Organisms," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20745, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. John M. Antle, 1999. "The New Economics of Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 993-1010.
    8. Michael Burton & Dan Rigby & Trevor Young, 2001. "Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 28(4), pages 479-498, December.
    9. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    10. Hallman, William K. & Adelaja, Adesoji O. & Schilling, Brian J. & Lang, John T., 2002. "Public Perceptions Of Genetically Modified Foods: Americans Know Not What They Eat," Research Reports 18176, Rutgers University, Food Policy Institute.
    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. Karantininis, Kostas & Hajderllari, Eliona, 2015. "Extracting the Kyoto Rents: Nitrogen Efficient GMO Rice in China," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211831, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu & Carl Pray & Yanhong Jin, 2019. "Perception and Attitude toward GM Technology among Agribusiness Managers in China as Producers and as Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.

    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. Onyango, Benjamin M. & Govindasamy, Ramu & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2004. "An Application Of Choice Modeling To Measure U.S. Consumer Preferences For Genetically Modified Foods," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19964, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Onyango, Benjamin M. & Govindasamy, Ramu, 2005. "South Korean Public Preferences for Genetically Modified Foods: A Random-Parameter Model," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 36(1), pages 1-9, March.
    3. Teratanavat, Ratapol P. & Hooker, Neal H., 2005. "Exploring Consumer Valuation and Preference Heterogeneity for Functional Foods Using a Choice Experiment: A Case Study of Tomato Juice Containing Soy in Ohio," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19556, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Gary Madden & Michael Simpson & Scott Savage, 2002. "Broadband Delivered Entertainment Services: Forecasting Australian Subscription Intentions," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 78(243), pages 422-432, December.
    5. Falck-Zepeda, José & Kilkuwe, Enoch & Wesseler, Justus, 2008. "Introducing a genetically modified banana in Uganda: Social benefits, costs, and consumer perceptions," IFPRI discussion papers 767, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    7. Hiselius, Lena Winslott, 2004. "Using Choice Experiments to Assess Peoples' Preferences for Railway Transports of Hazardous Materials," Working Papers 2004:6, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    8. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    9. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    10. Adam Finn & Stuart McFadyen & Colin Hoskins, 2003. "Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 177-192, November.
    11. Darren Hudson & Karina Gallardo & Terry Hanson, 2005. "Hypothetical (Non)Bias In Choice Experiments: Evidence From Freshwater Prawns," Experimental 0503003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    13. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria, 2005. "Consumer's preferences for organic food in Argentina," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1291, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    14. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    15. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    16. Chuan-zhong Li & Jari Kuuluvainen & Eija Pouta & Mika Rekola & Olli Tahvonen, 2004. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Natura 2000 Nature Conservation Programs in Finland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 361-374, November.
    17. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    18. Petrolia, Daniel R. & Walton, William C. & Sarah, Acquah, 2014. "A National Survey of Consumer Preferences for Branded Gulf Oysters and Risk Perceptions of Gulf Seafood," Research Reports 190586, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    19. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Schroeder, Ted C., 2003. "European Consumer Preferences For U.S. And Domestic Beef: Willingness To Pay For Source Verification, Hormone-Free, And Genetically Modified Organism-Free Beef," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 21974, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.

    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:rutfwp:18181. 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/fprutus.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.