IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/arerjl/10210.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

U.S. Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Food Labeled 'Genetically Modified'

Author

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

Abstract

This study analyzes U.S. consumers' choice of cornflakes under five different labeling statements. Using a nationwide survey and choice modeling framework, results indicate that consumers value labeling statements differently, depending on the information contained on the label. The random parameter logit model results indicated that, compared to cornflakes that have no label information, cornflakes labeled "contains no genetically modified corn" have a value of 10 percent more, the label "USDA approved genetically modified corn" has a value of 5 percent more, and the label "corn genetically modified to reduce pesticide residues in your food" has a value of 5 percent more. The results also suggest that consumers negatively valued the label "contains genetically modified corn," paying 6.5 percent less, and the label "may contain genetically modified corn," paying 1 percent less than the product that has no label information.

Suggested Citation

  • Onyango, Benjamin M. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Govindasamy, Ramu, 2006. "U.S. Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Food Labeled 'Genetically Modified'," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 35(2), pages 1-12, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:arerjl:10210
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.10210
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/10210/files/35020299.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.10210?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. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Lagerkvist, Carl Johan, 2004. "Consumer benefits of labels and bans on genetically modified food - An empirical analysis using Choice Experiments," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20370, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1998. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 109-129, November.
    3. Murray Fulton & Konstantinos Giannakas, 2004. "Inserting GM Products into the Food Chain: The Market and Welfare Effects of Different Labeling and Regulatory Regimes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 42-60.
    4. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    5. Céline Bonnet, 2001. "Assessing consumer response to Protected Designation of Origin labelling: a mixed multinomial logit approach," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 28(4), pages 433-450, December.
    6. Jutta Roosen & Jayson L. Lusk & John A. Fox, 2003. "Consumer demand for and attitudes toward alternative beef labeling strategies in France, Germany, and the UK," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 77-90.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. Rousu, Matthew & Huffman, Wallace E., 2001. "GM Food Labeling Policies of the U.S. and Its Trading Partners," ISU General Staff Papers 200109300700001345, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    10. Wallace E. Huffman, 2003. "Consumers' Acceptance of (and Resistance to) Genetically Modified Foods in High-Income Countries: Effects of Labels and Information in an Uncertain Environment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1112-1118.
    11. Li Quan & McCluskey Jill J & Wahl Thomas I., 2004. "Effects of Information on Consumers' Willingness to Pay for GM-Corn-Fed Beef," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 2(2), pages 1-18, May.
    12. He, Senhui & Fletcher, Stanley M. & Rimal, Arbindra, 2003. "Consumer Evaluation Of The Desirability Of Four Types Of Information On Food Labels," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(1), pages 1-3, March.
    13. Wuyang Hu & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Labelling Genetically Modified Food: Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Value of Information," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(1), pages 83-102, March.
    14. Hallman, William K. & Hebden, W. Carl & Aquino, Helen L. & Cuite, Cara L. & Lang, John T., 2003. "Public Perceptions Of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study Of American Knowledge And Opinion," Research Reports 18174, Rutgers University, Food Policy Institute.
    15. McCluskey, Jill J. & Loureiro, Maria L., 2003. "Consumer Preferences And Willingness To Pay For Food Labeling: A Discussion Of Empirical Studies," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(3), pages 1-8, November.
    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. Li, Ji & Hooker, Neal H., 2009. "Documenting Food Safety Claims and Their Influence on Product Prices," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(3), pages 311-323, December.
    2. Yulian Ding & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2012. "The influence of attribute cutoffs on consumers' choices of a functional food," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 39(5), pages 745-769, December.
    3. Dannenberg, Astrid, 2009. "The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food -- A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2182-2192, June.
    4. Simon Chege Kimenju & Hugo De Groote, 2008. "Consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 35-46, January.

    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. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Govindasamy, Ramu, 2005. "U.S. Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Labeling Information on Genetically Modified Foods: An Application of Choice Modeling," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19490, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Wang, Shuxian & Wu, Linhai & Zhu, Dian & Wang, Hongsha & Xu, Lingling, 2014. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food attributes: The case of pork," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 165639, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Wu, Linhai & Wang, Shuxian & Zhu, Dian & Hu, Wuyang & Wang, Hongsha, 2015. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food quality and safety attributes: The case of pork," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 121-136.
    4. Kontoleon Andreas & Yabe Mitsuyasu, 2006. "Market Segmentation Analysis of Preferences for GM Derived Animal Foods in the UK," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-38, December.
    5. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    6. 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.
    7. J Blasch & B van der Kroon & P van Beukering & R Munster & S Fabiani & P Nino & S Vanino, 2022. "Farmer preferences for adopting precision farming technologies: a case study from Italy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(1), pages 33-81.
    8. 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.
    9. Lilavanichakul, Apichaya & Boecker, Andreas, 2013. "Consumer Acceptance of a New Traceability Technology: A Discrete Choice Application to Ontario Ginseng," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 16(4), pages 1-26, November.
    10. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2004. "A Choice Experiment Model For Beef Attributes: What Consumer Preferences Tell Us," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19931, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Leonie Burgess & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney & Jordan Louviere, 2012. "Design of Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 42, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. 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).
    13. Liaukonyte, Jura & Streletskaya, Nadia A. & Kaiser, Harry M., 2015. "Noisy Information Signals and Endogenous Preferences for Labeled Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 1-24, May.
    14. Wang, Xuehong & Bennett, Jeff & Xie, Chen & Zhang, Zhitao & Liang, Dan, 2007. "Estimating non-market environmental benefits of the Conversion of Cropland to Forest and Grassland Program: A choice modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 114-125, June.
    15. Otsuka, Tokio & Mitomo, Hitoshi, 2013. "User benefits and operator costs of mobile number portability in Japan and impact on market competitiveness," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 345-356.
    16. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas & Mørkbak, Morten Raun, 2015. "Latent characteristics and preferences for income redistribution," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 113001, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. Swait, Joffre, 2001. "A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cutoffs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 903-928, November.
    18. Danny Campbell & W. Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 401-417, November.
    19. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Rietveld, Piet & van Ommeren, Jos N., 2013. "Consumer valuation of changes in driving range: A meta-analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 27-45.
    20. Sara Scatasta & Justus Wesseler & Jill Hobbs, 2007. "Differentiating the consumer benefits from labeling of GM food products," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 37(2‐3), pages 237-242, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Demand and Price Analysis;

    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:ags:arerjl:10210. 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/nareaea.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.