IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v121y2023ics0306919223001276.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Food for thought: Assessing the consumer welfare impacts of deploying irreversible, landscape-scale biotechnologies

Author

Listed:
  • Jones, Michael S.
  • Brown, Zachary S.

Abstract

Genetically engineered insects have gained attention as regionally deployed pest control technologies, with substantial applications in agriculture for combatting intractable crop pests and diseases. One potential tool is a ‘gene drive’, using CRISPR-based gene editing. In gene drive, preferentially inherited, engineered traits are spread throughout a geographic area to reduce pest populations or inhibit disease transmission, while also potentially reducing pesticide use and crop prices. But the self-perpetuating nature of gene drives presents a consequence, in that consumers could eventually be limited to only host crops grown in the presence of these genetically engineered insects. In this study, we analyze potential consumer welfare impacts of these technologies using discrete choice experiment data from a representative sample of U.S. adults, examining preferences regarding gene drive use to control spotted wing drosophila in blueberries and Asian citrus psyllid in orange juice (OJ) production. We find smaller average discounts for gene drives versus increased conventional pesticide use or genetically modified crops. Only 27% and 25% of blueberry and OJ consumers, respectively, are estimated to derive disutility from gene drives. However, gene drive disutility for these consumers is so large that elimination of non-drive options from their choice sets results in negative (blueberries) or neutral (OJ) effects to aggregate consumer welfare when weighed against gains to other consumers from reduced prices. Positive welfare effects are recovered by retaining availability of non-gene-drive products. We argue that this type of analysis will be increasingly important as landscape-level biotechnologies are deployed to address challenges to agricultural sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Jones, Michael S. & Brown, Zachary S., 2023. "Food for thought: Assessing the consumer welfare impacts of deploying irreversible, landscape-scale biotechnologies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:121:y:2023:i:c:s0306919223001276
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102529
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919223001276
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102529?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ashley E. Larsen & Steven D. Gaines & Olivier Deschênes, 2017. "Agricultural pesticide use and adverse birth outcomes in the San Joaquin Valley of California," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    3. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    4. Smith, Travis A. & Lin, Biing-Hwan & Huang, Chung L., 2008. "Organic Premiums of U.S. Fresh Produce," 2008 Conference, April 21-22, 2008, St. Louis, Missouri 37626, NCCC-134 Conference on Applied Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management.
    5. R. Guy Reeves & Martin Phillipson, 2017. "Mass Releases of Genetically Modified Insects in Area-Wide Pest Control Programs and Their Impact on Organic Farmers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, January.
    6. Jayson L. Lusk & Darren Hudson, 2004. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 152-169.
    7. 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.
    8. Brandon R. McFadden & Brittany N. Anderton & Kelly A. Davidson & John C. Bernard, 2021. "The effect of scientific information and narrative on preferences for possible gene‐edited solutions for citrus greening," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1595-1620, December.
    9. Balcombe, Kelvin & Burton, Michael & Rigby, Dan, 2011. "Skew and attribute non-attendance within the Bayesian mixed logit model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 446-461.
    10. Jennifer Kuzma, 2021. "Procedurally Robust Risk Assessment Framework for Novel Genetically Engineered Organisms and Gene Drives," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1144-1165, October.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, September.
    12. David Hensher & William Greene, 2010. "Non-attendance and dual processing of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: a latent class specification," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 413-426, October.
    13. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "The Power of Stories: Narratives and Information Framing Effects in Science Communication," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(4), pages 1271-1296, August.
    14. Nurcan Atalan-Helicke, 2015. "The halal paradox: negotiating identity, religious values, and genetically engineered food in Turkey," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(4), pages 663-674, December.
    15. Andrew Hammond & Paola Pollegioni & Tania Persampieri & Ace North & Roxana Minuz & Alessandro Trusso & Alessandro Bucci & Kyros Kyrou & Ioanna Morianou & Alekos Simoni & Tony Nolan & Ruth Müller & And, 2021. "Gene-drive suppression of mosquito populations in large cages as a bridge between lab and field," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-9, December.
    16. Lusk, Jayson L. & McFadden, Brandon R. & Wilson, Norbert, 2018. "Do consumers care how a genetically engineered food was created or who created it?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 81-90.
    17. Xiaoli Fan & Miguel I. Gómez & Shady S. Atallah & Jon M. Conrad, 2020. "A Bayesian State‐Space Approach for Invasive Species Management: The Case of Spotted Wing Drosophila," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(4), pages 1227-1244, August.
    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. Jean-Claude Baraka Munyaka & Olivier Gallay & Mohammed Hlal & Edward Mutandwa & Jérôme Chenal, 2024. "Optimizing the Sweet Potato Supply Chain in Zimbabwe Using Discrete Event Simulation: A Focus on Production, Distribution, and Market Dynamics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-29, October.

    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. Sandra Notaro & Maria De Salvo & Roberta Raffaelli, 2022. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for Alpine Pastures: A Discrete Choice Experiment Accounting for Attribute Non-Attendance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Hu, Yang & House, Lisa A. & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "How do consumers respond to labels for crispr (gene-editing)?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    3. Malte Welling & Ewa Zawojska & Julian Sagebiel, 2022. "Information, Consequentiality and Credibility in Stated Preference Surveys: A Choice Experiment on Climate Adaptation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(1), pages 257-283, May.
    4. Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Campbell, Danny, 2014. "Behavioral implications of providing real incentives in stated choice experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 102-116.
    5. Tavárez, Héctor & Álamo, Carmen & Cortés,Mildred, 2020. "Differentiated coffees and their potential markets in Puerto Rico: An economic valuation approach," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(02), December.
    6. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    7. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2014. "Putting One's Money Where One's Mouth is: Increasing Saliency in the Field," Monash Economics Working Papers 43-14, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    8. De Marchi, E. & Cavaliere, A. & Banterle, A., 2018. "Consumer choice behavior for cisgenic food: exploring attribute processing strategies and the role of time preference," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277393, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Trey Malone & Jayson L. Lusk, 2019. "Releasing The Trap: A Method To Reduce Inattention Bias In Survey Data With Application To U.S. Beer Taxes," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(1), pages 584-599, January.
    10. Kar Ho Lim & Wuyang Hu, 2023. "Contextual reference price in choice experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(4), pages 1288-1306, August.
    11. Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, M. Rodolfo Jr. & Sacchi, Giovanna & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2016. "Attribute non-attendance or attribute-level non-attendance? A choice experiment application on extra virgin olive oil," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236035, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Mohammed Alemu & Morten Mørkbak & Søren Olsen & Carsten Jensen, 2013. "Attending to the Reasons for Attribute Non-attendance in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 333-359, March.
    13. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole J. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-17, December.
    14. Brent, Daniel A. & Gangadharan, Lata & Leroux, Anke & Raschky, Paul, 2016. "Putting Your Money Where Your Month Is," 2016 Conference (60th), February 2-5, 2016, Canberra, Australia 235377, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. 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.
    16. Götz, Linde & Svanidze, Miranda & Tissier, Alain & Brand Duran, Alejandro, 2022. "Consumers’ willingness to Buy CRISPR gene-edited tomatoes: Evidence from a choice experiment case study in Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 14(2).
    17. John C. Beghin & Christopher R. Gustafson, 2021. "Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    18. Richard Yao & Riccardo Scarpa & John Rose & James Turner, 2015. "Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 433-455, November.
    19. Vincenzina Caputo & Achilleas Vassilopoulos & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. & Maurizio Canavari, 2013. "Welfare Effects of Food Miles Labels," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 311-327, July.
    20. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "The Power of Stories: Narratives and Information Framing Effects in Science Communication," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(4), pages 1271-1296, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural biotechnology; Gene drives; Choice experiment; Consumer welfare; Spotted wing drosophila; Asian citrus psyllid;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services

    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:eee:jfpoli:v:121:y:2023:i:c:s0306919223001276. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    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.