IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v41y2025i3p615-632.html

Measuring specialty crop grower willingness to pay for genetic modification and genetic editing

Author

Listed:
  • Marie Abbey
  • Alan G. Smith
  • Chengyan Yue
  • Corissa Marson
  • Yufeng Lai
  • Carrie Stowers

Abstract

In contrast to the widespread adoption of agricultural commodities modified using biotechnology, the adoption rate of bioengineered specialty crops by growers remains low. The use of bioengineered crops has been controversial since their introduction in the 1990s due to concerns about their potentially harmful effects to human health, the environment, and other socioeconomic issues. To identify grower preferences, perceived opportunities, and barriers to growing bioengineered crops, we surveyed Minnesota specialty crop growers using a web‐based survey. The survey measured whether adoption rates are influenced by the specific trait of the modification, the method of bioengineering (genetically modified [GM] vs. genetically edited [GE]), or the end use of the crop being grown (ornamental vs food). Overall willingness‐to‐pay for both GM and GE potatoes was significantly lower than for conventional potatoes, and nearly a quarter (25%) of our respondents never chose a bioengineered option no matter the benefits. Results were similar for petunias, but fewer respondents (18%) refused to consider the bioengineering option. The type of bioengineering did not have as significant an impact on adoption rate as price or end use. The bioengineered ornamental crop had a higher willingness to adopt than the bioengineered food crop. [EconLit Citations: Q160 Agricultural R & D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services. O330 Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes].

Suggested Citation

  • Marie Abbey & Alan G. Smith & Chengyan Yue & Corissa Marson & Yufeng Lai & Carrie Stowers, 2025. "Measuring specialty crop grower willingness to pay for genetic modification and genetic editing," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(3), pages 615-632, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:41:y:2025:i:3:p:615-632
    DOI: 10.1002/agr.21911
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21911
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/agr.21911?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. Chengyan Yue & Shuoli Zhao & Jennifer Kuzma, 2015. "Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences for Nanotechnology and Genetic-modification Technology in Food Products," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 308-328, June.
    2. Esther Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Marcel Jonker & Elly Stolk, 2015. "Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 373-384, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    5. Beghin, John C. & Gustafson, Christopher R., 2021. "Consumer valuation of and attitudes towards novel foods produced with NPETs: A review," ISU General Staff Papers 202108250700001133, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. 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.
    7. Gianna Short & Chengyan Yue & Marie Abbey & Neil Anderson & Nicholas Phelps & Paul Venturelli & Zata Vickers, 2018. "Consumer preferences for aquaponic produce: Implications from an experimental auction," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 742-755, October.
    8. Onyango, Benjamin M. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2004. "Consumer Acceptance of Nutritionally Enhanced Genetically Modified Food: Relevance of Gene Transfer Technology," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 1-17, December.
    9. Veldstra, Michael D. & Alexander, Corinne E. & Marshall, Maria I., 2014. "To certify or not to certify? Separating the organic production and certification decisions," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P2), pages 429-436.
    10. Philippos Karipidis & Sotiria Karypidou, 2021. "Factors that Impact Farmers’ Organic Conversion Decisions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-24, April.
    11. repec:icf:icfjag:v:07:y:2010:i:3:p:7-17 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Philip M. Fernbach & Nicholas Light & Sydney E. Scott & Yoel Inbar & Paul Rozin, 2019. "Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(3), pages 251-256, March.
    13. Li, Zongyu & Gallardo, R. Karina & McCracken, Vicki & Yue, Chengyan & Whitaker, Vance & McFerson, James R., 2020. "Grower Willingness to Pay for Fruit Quality versus Plant Disease Resistance and Welfare Implications: The Case of Florida Strawberry," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Joseph Seong & Simone Valle De Souza & April Athnos & H. Christopher Peterson, 2026. "Who is willing to pay a premium for leafy greens produced by indoor agriculture? A comparative choice experiment with US consumers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(1), pages 3-28, January.
    2. Shahida Anusha Siddiqui & Zarnab Asif & Misbah Murid & Ito Fernando & Danung Nur Adli & Andrey Vladimirovich Blinov & Alexey Borisovich Golik & Widya Satya Nugraha & Salam A. Ibrahim & Seid Mahdi Jafa, 2022. "Consumer Social and Psychological Factors Influencing the Use of Genetically Modified Foods—A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-22, November.
    3. 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).
    4. Jonathan Sicsic & Serge Blondel & Sandra Chyderiotis & François Langot & Judith E. Mueller, 2023. "Preferences for COVID-19 epidemic control measures among French adults: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(1), pages 81-98, February.
    5. Khachatryan, Hayk & Wei, Xuan & Rihn, Alicia, . "Effects of pollinator related information on consumer preference for neonicotinoid labeling," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(6).
    6. 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.
    7. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    8. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Bliemer, Michiel C.J., 2019. "Information theoretic-based sampling of observations," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 181-197.
    9. Frick, Bernd & Barros, Carlos Pestana & Prinz, Joachim, 2010. "Analysing head coach dismissals in the German "Bundesliga" with a mixed logit approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 151-159, January.
    10. Epstein, Andrew J., 2010. "Effects of report cards on referral patterns to cardiac surgeons," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 718-731, September.
    11. Huse, Cristian & Lucinda, Claudio & Cardoso, Andre Ribeiro, 2020. "Consumer response to energy label policies: Evidence from the Brazilian energy label program," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    12. Ju-Hee Kim & Younggew Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2021. "Using a choice experiment to explore the public willingness to pay for the impacts of improving energy efficiency of an apartment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(5), pages 1775-1793, October.
    13. Deka, Devajyoti & Carnegie, Jon, 2021. "Predicting transit mode choice of New Jersey workers commuting to New York City from a stated preference survey," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    14. Scheufele, Gabriela & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2010. "Ordering effects and strategic response in discrete choice experiments," Research Reports 107743, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    15. Zhiwei Liu & Jianrong Liu, 2023. "Shared Autonomous Vehicles as Last-Mile Public Transport of Metro Trips," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-15, October.
    16. Christian A. Oberst & Reinhard Madlener, 2015. "Prosumer Preferences Regarding the Adoption of Micro†Generation Technologies: Empirical Evidence for German Homeowners," Working Papers 2015.07, International Network for Economic Research - INFER.
    17. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    18. Stefania Troiano & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Federico Nassivera, 2019. "Households’ Preferences for a New ‘Climate-Friendly’ Heating System: Does Contribution to Reducing Greenhouse Gases Matter?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    19. Stephane Hess & John W. Polak, 2004. "An analysis of parking behaviour using discrete choice models calibrated on SP datasets," ERSA conference papers ersa04p60, European Regional Science Association.
    20. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.

    More about this item

    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:wly:agribz:v:41:y:2025:i:3:p:615-632. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    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.