IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v42y2026i1p29-50.html

Consumer acceptance and valuation of quality‐improved food products derived by genome editing technology. A case study of rice in Vietnam

Author

Listed:
  • Nguyen Thi Hao
  • Seifeddine Ben Taieb
  • Masahiro Moritaka
  • Susumu Fukuda

Abstract

Unlike genetic modification, genome editing (GE) technologies can be used to yield transgene‐free outcomes, which is an important aspect in promoting consumer acceptance of GE foods. In addition, with the advent of the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/Cas9 (CRISPR/Cas9) system, which is known to be exceptional among genome editing tools, GE has numerous potential applications in plant breeding technology to create diverse desirable traits, especially consumer‐targeted traits such as improved product quality and nutrition. It is expected that the GE foods market will overtake that of genetically modified (GM) foods. Although few GE products have been introduced to the market, some studies have already evaluated consumer acceptance and valuation of GE foods in comparison with GM and conventional foods. However, these studies mainly focused on traits relevant to cultivation efficiency and ignored consumer preferences for desirable traits. Further, it has been shown that consumers evaluate GE foods somewhat higher than GM foods; yet, as observed for GM foods, consumers expect a discounted price for GE foods. GE application for consumer‐targeted traits could, however, have a potentially positive effect on consumer acceptance. This study was conducted to evaluate consumer acceptance and valuation of quality‐improved consumer‐targeted GE products. We defined the determinants and estimated the willingness to pay a price premium for GE rice compared to GM and conventional rice by using the double‐bounded contingent valuation method under different information treatments. The survey was conducted in Vietnam, where consumers have not been exposed to information regarding GE via social media that could lead to a biased perspective. This context is ideal for investigating the effect of information provision during the introductory stage of GE products to the market. Our main findings suggest that consumers will widely accept quality‐improved GE foods targeted at consumer preferences, as well as the positive influence of in‐depth information provision on potential consumer acceptance. [EconLit Citations: Q10: Agriculture: General].

Suggested Citation

  • Nguyen Thi Hao & Seifeddine Ben Taieb & Masahiro Moritaka & Susumu Fukuda, 2026. "Consumer acceptance and valuation of quality‐improved food products derived by genome editing technology. A case study of rice in Vietnam," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(1), pages 29-50, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:42:y:2026:i:1:p:29-50
    DOI: 10.1002/agr.21929
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21929
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/agr.21929?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. Barbara J. Kanninen & M. Sami Khawaja, 1995. "Measuring Goodness of Fit for the Double-Bounded Logit Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(4), pages 885-890.
    2. 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.
    3. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Efficiency vs Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 169-180, September.
    4. Lynn J. Frewer & Joachim Scholderer & Lone Bredahl, 2003. "Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1117-1133, December.
    5. Mohamed Farid & Jianfei Cao & Yeongjoo Lim & Teruyo Arato & Kota Kodama, 2020. "Exploring Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Genetically Edited Food Among Youth in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-22, April.
    6. Subir Bairagi & Samarendu Mohanty & Marie Claire Custodio, 2019. "Consumers’ preferences for rice attributes in Cambodia: a choice modeling approach," Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 9(2), pages 94-108, May.
    7. Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2007. "The effects of prior beliefs and learning on consumers' acceptance of genetically modified foods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 193-206, May.
    8. 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.
    9. Huffman, Wallace E. & Shogren, Jason F. & Rousu, Matthew C. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2003. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Food Labels in a Market with Diverse Information: Evidence from Experimental Auctions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(3), pages 1-22, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    12. Wim Verbeke, 2005. "Agriculture and the food industry in the information age," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(3), pages 347-368, September.
    13. Jae-Hwan Han & R. Wes Harrison, 2007. "Factors Influencing Urban Consumers' Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(4), pages 700-719.
    14. Han, Jae-Hwan & Harrison, R. Wes, 2006. "Consumer Valuation of the Second Generation of Genetically Modified (GM) Foods with Benefits Disclosure," 2006 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2006, Orlando, Florida 35277, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    15. Chien, Yu-Lan & Huang, Cliff J. & Shaw, Daigee, 2005. "A general model of starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 362-377, September.
    16. David Zilberman & Tim G. Holland & Itai Trilnick, 2018. "Agricultural GMOs—What We Know and Where Scientists Disagree," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.
    17. Bugbee, Marcia & Loureiro, Maria L., 2003. "A Risk Perception Analysis Of Genetically Modified Foods Based On Stated Preferences," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22017, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Delmond, Anthony R. & McCluskey, Jill J. & Yormirzoev, Mirzobobo & Rogova, Maria A., 2018. "Russian consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 91-100.
    19. 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.
    20. Ellen Townsend & Scott Campbell, 2004. "Psychological Determinants of Willingness to Taste and Purchase Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1385-1393, October.
    21. Carolina González & Nancy Johnson & Matin Qaim, 2009. "Consumer Acceptance of Second‐Generation GM Foods: The Case of Biofortified Cassava in the North‐east of Brazil," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 604-624, September.
    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. Gautam, Ruskin & Gustafson, Christopher R. & Brooks, Kathleen R., "undated". "Label Position and it Impacts on WTP for Products Containing GMO," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258105, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. 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.
    3. Haab, Timothy C., 1998. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a "Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up" Questionnaire: A Comment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 190-194, March.
    4. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2015. "Contingent valuation of community forestry programs in Ethiopia: Controlling for preference anomalies in double-bounded CVM," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 79-89.
    5. Kaneko, Naoya & Chern, Wen S., 2005. "Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Oil, Cornflakes, and Salmon: Evidence from a U.S. Telephone Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1-19, December.
    6. Azlina, A.A. & Kamaludin, Mahirah & Sin, Moe Shwe, 2018. "Willingness to Pay for Renewable Energy: Evidence from Malaysian’s Households," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 52(3), pages 143-151.
    7. Fan, Linlin & Stevens, Andrew W. & Thomas, Betty, 2022. "Consumer purchasing response to mandatory genetically engineered labeling," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    8. Kang, Heechan & Haab, Timothy C. & Interis, Matthew G., 2013. "Identifying inconsistent responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation with follow-up questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 396-411.
    9. Caputo, Vincenzina & Kilders, Valerie & Lusk, Jayson L., 2025. "The effect of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS) on consumer preferences and acceptance of bioengineered and gene-edited food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    10. Graça, Manjate, 2018. "Scope effects in contingent valuation: an application to the valuation of irrigation water quality improvements in Infulene Valley, Mozambique," Research Theses 334752, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    11. Bindu Paudel & Deepthi E. Kolady & David Just & Evert Van der Sluis, 2023. "Determinants of consumer acceptance of gene‐edited foods and its implications for innovators and policymakers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 623-645, July.
    12. Anne-Célia Disdier & Stéphan Marette, 2012. "Taxes, minimum-quality standards and/or product labeling to improve environmental quality and welfare: Experiments can provide answers," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 337-357, June.
    13. Dambala Gelo & Steven F. Koch, 2011. "Contingent Valuation of Community Forestry Programs in Ethiopia: Observing Preference Anomalies in Double-Bounded CVM," Working Papers 201124, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    14. Yulian Ding & Jianyu Yu & Yangyang Sun & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Yunyun Liu, 2023. "Gene‐edited or genetically modified food? The impacts of risk and ambiguity on Chinese consumers' willingness to pay," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 414-428, May.
    15. Marette Stéphan & Roosen Jutta & Blanchemanche Sandrine, 2011. "The Combination of Lab and Field Experiments for Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 2(3), pages 1-36, August.
    16. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Willingness-to-pay for natural, organic, and conventional foods: The effects of information and meaningful labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 214-232.
    17. Konishi, Yoshifumi & Adachi, Kenji, 2011. "A framework for estimating willingness-to-pay to avoid endogenous environmental risks," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 130-154, January.
    18. repec:rza:wpaper:272 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Liu, Pengcheng, 2009. "Consumers’ WTA for GM rice cookie: an experiment study in China," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51771, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Paudel, Bindu & Kolady, Deepthi Elizabeth & Just, David R. & Van Der Sluis, Evert, 2021. "Determinants of consumer acceptance of genetically modified and gene-edited foods: Market and policy implications," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313905, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    21. Hans D. Steur & Jeroen Buysse & Shuyi Feng & Xavier Gellynck, 2013. "Role of Information on Consumers’ Willingness-to-pay for Genetically-modified Rice with Health Benefits: An Application to China," Asian Economic Journal, East Asian Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 391-408, December.

    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:42:y:2026:i:1:p:29-50. 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.