IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea02/19889.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are Us Consumers Tolerant Of Gm Foods?

Author

Listed:
  • Rousu, Matthew C.
  • Huffman, Wallace E.
  • Shogren, Jason F.
  • Tegene, Abebayehu

Abstract

Many countries require labeling for GM food products. These countries often have different levels of genetic modification that they will tolerate before a food product must be labeled as genetically modified. For example, the European Union and Australia allow up to one percent of any ingredient in a food product to be GM before the product must be labeled as genetically modified. Japan allows 5% of any ingredient to be genetically modified before the product must be labeled as such. The United States currently does not require mandatory labeling of GM labeled foods and has no standards for what percentage of an ingredient in a food product can be genetically modified for the product to still be labeled non-GM. For the official "organic" certification by the United States, a food product must be genetically modified and there is no tolerance for any genetically modified content. This paper presents empirical evidence on consumers' value for non-GM foods that are certified to have no GM content and non-GM foods that could have ingredients that were up to one or five percent genetically modified. We estimate values using a laboratory auction experiment performed on 44 randomly chosen adult consumers in the Des Moines, IA, area, grouped in 3 experimental units. They participated in a random nth-price auction experiment, in which they bid on three familiar neutral food items that may be genetically modified. Using statistical design and econometric analysis, this paper will estimate the average value of tolerance levels to consumers, measured as the difference in the auction price of a certified non-GM food and a non-GM food that had a tolerance of one or five percent. This paper has two findings. We find evidence indicating consumers place value in a certified non-GM food product, as opposed to a non-GM food product with a tolerance. We find no evidence, however, that consumers value a product with a tolerance of one percent more than they value a product with a tolerance of five percent. Due to decreased firm costs of complying with a tolerance of five percent, we find evidence that if the United States decides to enact a tolerance standard, a five percent tolerance may be better than a one percent tolerance. This information could be useful to policy makers who are considering whether to write in an acceptable tolerance level for genetically modified material.

Suggested Citation

  • Rousu, Matthew C. & Huffman, Wallace E. & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2002. "Are Us Consumers Tolerant Of Gm Foods?," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19889, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea02:19889
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/19889
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shogren, Jason F. & Seung Y. Shin & Dermot J. Hayes & James B. Kliebenstein, 1994. "Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 255-270, March.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Noussair, Charles & Robin, Stephane & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2002. "Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 47-53, March.
    5. Klein, Nicole L. & Brester, Gary W., 1997. "Economic Impacts of the Zero Tolerance Directive on the Cost Structure of Beef Packing Companies," 1997 Annual Meeting, July 13-16, 1997, Reno\Sparks, Nevada 35743, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    6. Lusk, Jayson L. & Daniel, M. Scott & Mark, Darrell R. & Lusk, Christine L., 2001. "Alternative Calibration And Auction Institutions For Predicting Consumer Willingess To Pay For Nongenetically Modified Corn Chips," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(01), July.
    7. David Lucking-Reiley & John A. List, 2000. "Demand Reduction in Multiunit Auctions: Evidence from a Sportscard Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 961-972, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Jack Knetsch & Fang-Fang Tang & Richard Thaler, 2001. "The Endowment Effect and Repeated Market Trials: Is the Vickrey Auction Demand Revealing?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(3), pages 257-269, December.
    10. Kinsey, Jean D. & Wolfson, Paul J. & Katsaras, Nikolaos & Senauer, Benjamin, 2001. "Data Mining: A Segmentation Analysis Of U.S. Grocery Shoppers," Working Papers 14335, University of Minnesota, The Food Industry Center.
    11. John A. List & Jason F. Shogren, 1999. "Price Information and Bidding Behavior in Repeated Second-Price Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(4), pages 942-949.
    12. Rousu, Matthew & Huffman, Wallace & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2002. "The Value of Verifiable Information in a Controversial Market: Evidence from Lab Auctions of Genetically Modified Food," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10009, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    13. Jason F. Shogren & John A. Fox, 1996. "Consumer Preferences for Fresh Food Items with Multiple Quality Attributes: Evidence from an Experimental Auction of Pork Chops," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(4), pages 916-923.
    14. Huffman, Wallace E. & Shogren, Jason F. & Rousu, Matthew C. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2001. "The Value To Consumers Of Gm Food Labels In A Market With Asymmetric Information: Evidence From Experimental Auctions," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20553, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Shoemaker, Robbin A. & Harwood, Joy L. & Day-Rubenstein, Kelly A. & Dunahay, Terry & Heisey, Paul W. & Hoffman, Linwood A. & Klotz-Ingram, Cassandra & Lin, William W. & Mitchell, Lorraine & McBride, W, 2001. "Economic Issues In Agricultural Biotechnology," Agricultural Information Bulletins 33735, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    16. Hammitt, James K & Graham, John D, 1999. "Willingness to Pay for Health Protection: Inadequate Sensitivity to Probability?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 33-62, April.
    17. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, January.
    18. W. Kip Viscusi & Wesley A. Magat & Joel Huber, 1987. "An Investigation of the Rationality of Consumer Valuations of Multiple Health Risks," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(4), pages 465-479, Winter.
    19. Carlson, Andrea & Kinsey, Jean D. & Nadav, Carmel, 1998. "Who Eats What, When, And From Where?," Working Papers 14312, University of Minnesota, The Food Industry Center.
    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. D Rigby & M Burton, 2003. "Modeling Indifference and Dislike: A Bounded Bayesian Mixed Logit Model of the UK Market for GM Food," The School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 0327, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    2. Wachenheim, Cheryl J. & Vanwechel, Tamara, 2004. "The Influence Of Environmental-Impact Information On Consumer Willingness To Pay For Products Labeled As Free Of Genetically Modified Ingredients," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 35(02), July.

    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:aaea02:19889. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.