IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v69y2017icp82-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer valuation of information about food safety achieved using biotechnology: Evidence from new potato products

Author

Listed:
  • McFadden, Jonathan R.
  • Huffman, Wallace E.

Abstract

This study focuses on the role of food labels and information for affecting consumers’ valuation of food safety achieved through application of biotechnological (biotech) methods. In 2002, potato products cooked to a high temperature were first reported to contain the human carcinogen acrylamide. Research discoveries using genetic engineering can substantially reduce carcinogenic-forming potential, and thereby increase food safety of potato products. Adult consumers from three distant regions of the U.S. were the subjects in lab auctions of potato products. They engaged in distinct rounds of bidding, first without packaged information and again after receiving information about the food safety risks and benefits of new biotech potato products. The study finds that willingness-to-pay (WTP) for these new potato products are not significantly different from conventional potato products under no information. However, exposure to a scientific perspective and scientific plus industry perspectives increases participants’ willingness-to-pay for the new potato products and reduces willingness-to-pay for conventional products. Exposure to the negative perspective on the new technology significantly reduces willingness-to-pay. Consumer valuation of the new potato products is affected by food labels, information, and consumer attributes. A consumer information program could be needed to gain consumer acceptance of these potato products or other foods that have been genetically modified to increase certain food safety dimensions.

Suggested Citation

  • McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Consumer valuation of information about food safety achieved using biotechnology: Evidence from new potato products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 82-96.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:69:y:2017:i:c:p:82-96
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.03.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919217301756
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.03.002?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. Shogren, Jason F. & Margolis, Michael & Koo, Cannon & List, John A., 2001. "A random nth-price auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 409-421, December.
    2. Dermot J. Hayes & Jason F. Shogren & Seung Youll Shin & James B. Kliebenstein, 1995. "Valuing Food Safety in Experimental Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(1), pages 40-53.
    3. Marette, Stéphan & Roosen, Jutta & Blanchemanche, Sandrine & Feinblatt-Mélèze, Eve, 2010. "Functional food, uncertainty and consumers' choices: A lab experiment with enriched yoghurts for lowering cholesterol," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 419-428, October.
    4. repec:feb:artefa:0106 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Colson, Gregory & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2011. "Improving the Nutrient Content of Food through Genetic Modification: Evidence from Experimental Auctions on Consumer Acceptance," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-22, August.
    6. Fox, John A. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kliebenstein, James B., 1996. "Experimental Methods In Consumer Preference Studies," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 1-7, July.
    7. Hayes, D. J. & Fox, J. A. & Shogren, J. F., 2002. "Experts and activists: how information affects the demand for food irradiation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 185-193, April.
    8. Gregory Colson & Jay R. Corrigan & Carola Grebitus & Maria L. Loureiro & Matthew C. Rousu, 2016. "Which Deceptive Practices, If Any, Should Be Allowed in Experimental Economics Research? Results from Surveys of Applied Experimental Economists and Students," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(2), pages 610-621.
    9. Ulrike Malmendier & Young Han Lee, 2011. "The Bidder's Curse," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 749-787, April.
    10. repec:ken:wpaper:0601 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. anonymous, 2009. "Fed chairman discusses regulatory reform," Financial Update, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, vol. 22(1).
    12. List, John A., 2009. "An introduction to field experiments in economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 439-442, June.
    13. Matthew Rousu & Wallace E. Huffman & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2007. "Effects And Value Of Verifiable Information In A Controversial Market: Evidence From Lab Auctions Of Genetically Modified Food," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(3), pages 409-432, July.
    14. repec:ken:wpaper:0801 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Fox, John A & Hayes, Dermot J & Shogren, Jason F, 2002. "Consumer Preferences for Food Irradiation: How Favorable and Unfavorable Descriptions Affect Preferences for Irradiated Pork in Experimental Auctions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 75-95, January.
    16. Matthew C. Rousu & Gregory Colson & Jay R. Corrigan & Carola Grebitus & Maria L. Loureiro, 2015. "Deception in Experiments: Towards Guidelines on use in Applied Economics Research," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 524-536.
    17. repec:feb:artefa:0089 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. McFadden, Brandon R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2015. "Cognitive biases in the assimilation of scientific information on global warming and genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 35-43.
    19. Joann Peck & Suzanne B. Shu, 2009. "The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived Ownership," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(3), pages 434-447.
    20. Oecd & Nea, 2009. "National Legislative and Regulatory Activities," Nuclear Law Bulletin, OECD Publishing, vol. 2009(1), pages 99-115.
    21. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 73-106.
    22. Oecd & Nea, 2009. "International Regulatory Activities," Nuclear Law Bulletin, OECD Publishing, vol. 2009(1), pages 135-139.
    23. J.F. Shogren & T.M. Hurley, 1999. "Experiments in Environmental Economics," Chapters, in: Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh (ed.), Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics, chapter 76, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    24. John List, 2008. "Informed consent in social science," Artefactual Field Experiments 00086, The Field Experiments Website.
    25. Schmitz, John D. & Menkhaus, Dale J. & Whipple, Glen D. & Hoffman, Elizabeth & Field, Ray A., 1993. "Impact Of Changing Consumer Preferences On Willingness-To-Pay For Beef Steaks In Alternative Retail Packaging," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 24(2), pages 1-14, September.
    26. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    27. Schmitz, John D. & Menkhaus, Dale J. & Whipple, Glen D., 1993. "Impact Of Changing Consumer Preferences On Willingness-To-Pay For Beef Steaks," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 24(1), pages 1-2, February.
    28. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Community Development, 2009. "A Summary of Consumer Protection Regulatory Changes," e-Perspectives, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, vol. 9(3).
    29. Colson, Gregory & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2011. "Improving the Nutrient Content of Food through Genetic Modification: Evidence from Experimental Auctions on Consumer Acceptance," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-22, August.
    30. Jay R. Corrigan & Matthew C. Rousu, 2006. "The Effect of Initial Endowments in Experimental Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(2), pages 448-457.
    31. Matthew C. Rousu & Robert H. Beach & Jay R. Corrigan, 2008. "The Effects of Selling Complements and Substitutes on Consumer Willingness to Pay: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(2), pages 179-194, June.
    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. Lusk, Jayson L., 2019. "Viewpoint: The costs and benefits of deception in economic experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 2-4.
    2. Onur Sapci & Ayse Sapci, 0. "Consumer Perception of Food Expiration Labels: “Sell By” Versus “Expires On”," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 0, pages 1-17.
    3. Onur Sapci & Ayse Sapci, 2020. "Consumer Perception of Food Expiration Labels: “Sell By” Versus “Expires On”," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 46(4), pages 673-689, October.
    4. Tariq H. Malik & Jae Chul Choi, 2021. "Social Media Versus Personal Experience in the Consumer’s Apprehension on Imported Food Security and Safety Dilemma," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.
    5. Toiba, Hery & Noor, Arif Yustian Maulana & Rahman, Moh Shadiqur & Hartono, Rachman & Asmara, Rosihan & Retnoningsih, Dwi, 2023. "Consumers’ Preference and Future Consideration Toward Organic Instant Noodles: Evidence from Indonesia," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 15(1), January.
    6. Huffman Wallace & McCluskey Jill, 2017. "Food Labels, Information, and Trade in GMOs," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 1-9, January.
    7. Jianhua Wang & Hanyu Diao & Lulu Tou, 2019. "Research on the Influence Mechanism of Rational Consumers’ Food Safety Supervision Satisfaction," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-16, March.
    8. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    9. Van Asselt, Joanna & Nian, Yefan & Soh, Moonwon & Gao, Zhifeng & Morgan, Stephen N, 2020. "Do Plastic Warning Labels Reduce Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Plastic Packaging?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304503, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Lusk, Jayson L., 2020. "Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    11. Savchenko, Olesya M. & Kecinski, Maik & Li, Tongzhe & Messer, Kent D. & Xu, Huidong, 2018. "Fresh foods irrigated with recycled water: A framed field experiment on consumer responses," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 103-112.
    12. H. Holly Wang & Jing Yang & Na Hao, 2022. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Rice from Remediated Soil: Potential from the Public in Sustainable Soil Pollution Treatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-22, July.
    13. John Bovay, 2023. "Food safety, reputation, and regulation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 684-704, June.
    14. Zheng, Qiujie & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Yang, Wei & Tokunaga, Kanae, 2022. "Do U.S. consumers value genetically modified farmed salmon?," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322154, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Ding, Ye & Nayga Jr, Rodolfo M. & Zeng, Yinchu & Yang, Wei & Arielle Snell, Heather, 2022. "Consumers’ valuation of a live video feed in restaurant kitchens for online food delivery service," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).

    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. David M. Bruner & William L. Huth & David M. McEvoy & O. Ashton Morgan, 2011. "Accounting for Taste: Consumer Valuations for Food-Safety Technologies," Working Papers 11-09, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    2. Bruner, David M. & Huth, William L. & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2014. "Consumer Valuation of Food Safety: The Case of Postharvest Processed Oysters," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 300-318, August.
    3. Brown, Jennifer & Cranfield, John A.L. & Henson, Spencer J., 2003. "Misassessed Risk In Consumer Valuation Of Food Safety: An Experimental Approach," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22194, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Anne Rozan & Anne Stenger & Marc Willinger, 2004. "Willingness-to-pay for food safety: An experimental investigation of quality certification on bidding behaviour," Framed Field Experiments 00197, The Field Experiments Website.
    5. Colson, Gregory & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2011. "Improving the Nutrient Content of Food through Genetic Modification: Evidence from Experimental Auctions on Consumer Acceptance," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-22, August.
    6. Azucena GRACIA & Tiziana DE-MAGISTRIS, 2015. "The role of participants' competitiveness in consumers' valuation for food products using experimental auctions," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 61(10), pages 484-491.
    7. Sean F. Ellis & Maik Kecinski & Kent D. Messer & Clive Lipchin, 2022. "Consumer perceptions after long‐term use of alternative irrigation water: A field experiment in Israel," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 1003-1020, June.
    8. Eric Giraud-Héraud & Maria Aguiar Fontes & Alexandra Seabra Pinto, 2014. "Crise sanitaires de l'alimentation et analyses comportementales," Working Papers hal-00949126, HAL.
    9. 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.
    10. Borrello, M. & Cecchini, L. & Vecchio, R. & Caracciolo, F. & Cembalo, L. & Torquati, B., 2022. "Agricultural landscape certification as a market-driven tool to reward the provisioning of cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    11. Jura Liaukonyte & Nadia A. Streletskaya & Harry M. Kaiser, 2015. "The Long-Term Impact of Positive and Negative Information on Food Demand," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 63(4), pages 539-562, December.
    12. Fiona Thorne & John A. (Sean) Fox & Ewen Mullins & Michael Wallace, 2017. "Consumer Willingness‐to‐Pay for Genetically Modified Potatoes in Ireland: An Experimental Auction Approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(1), pages 43-55, January.
    13. Rousu, Matthew C. & Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Valuing Conflicting Public Information About a New Technology: The Case of Irradiated Foods," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 1-11, December.
    14. repec:ken:wpaper:0601 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Rousu, Matthew C. & Monchuk, Daniel C. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kosa, Katherine M., 2005. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for "Second-Generation" Genetically Engineered Products and the Role of Marketing Information," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1-11, December.
    16. Marette, Stéphan & Roosen, Jutta & Blanchemanche, Sandrine & Feinblatt-Mélèze, Eve, 2010. "Functional food, uncertainty and consumers' choices: A lab experiment with enriched yoghurts for lowering cholesterol," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 419-428, October.
    17. Watanabe Masahide & Kawata Yukichika, 2017. "What Extent of Welfare Loss is Caused by the Disparity between Perceived and Scientific Risks? A Case Study of Food Irradiation," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 17(1), pages 1-17, February.
    18. Yukichika Kawata & Masahide Watanabe, 2018. "Economic feasibility of Campylobacter†reduced chicken: Do consumers have high willingness to pay?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 222-239, March.
    19. Jay Corrigan, 2005. "Is the Experimental Auction a Dynamic Market?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(1), pages 35-45, May.
    20. Gregory Colson & Jay R. Corrigan & Carola Grebitus & Maria L. Loureiro & Matthew C. Rousu, 2016. "Which Deceptive Practices, If Any, Should Be Allowed in Experimental Economics Research? Results from Surveys of Applied Experimental Economists and Students," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(2), pages 610-621.
    21. Loureiro, Maria L. & Gracia, Azucena & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2013. "Do experimental auction estimates pass the scope test?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 7-17.

    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:69:y:2017:i:c:p:82-96. 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.