IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea13/149662.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Public Acceptance of and Willingness to Pay for Nanofood: Case of Canola Oil

Author

Listed:
  • Zhou, Guzhen
  • Hu, Wuyang
  • Schieffer, Jack
  • Robbins, Lynn

Abstract

Nanotechnology has tremendous potential in food and agriculture. Few economic studies focused on specific products made using nanotechnology, let alone food or food related products. Using a national choice experiment survey, this analysis examines consumers’ valuations for nano-attributes. As implied, consumers were willing to pay less for canola oil if it was produced from nanoscale-modified seed; less if the final products were packed with nanotechnology-enhanced packaging technique; and no significant difference was found for oil that was designed with health enhancing nano-engineered oil drops, which would require interaction with the human digestive system. Additionally, the results revealed unobserved heterogeneities among respondents in their willingness-to-pay for canola oil attributes. Findings from this study will help bridge the gap between scientific innovation and public policy and social-economic concerns. Implications for government policy that can be efficiently used to monitor and regulate these technologies were also investigated.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhou, Guzhen & Hu, Wuyang & Schieffer, Jack & Robbins, Lynn, 2013. "Public Acceptance of and Willingness to Pay for Nanofood: Case of Canola Oil," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149662, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:149662
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/149662
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    2. Wuyang Hu & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Labelling Genetically Modified Food: Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Value of Information," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(1), pages 83-102, March.
    3. Roosen, Jutta & Bieberstein, Andrea & Marette, Stephan & Blanchemanche, Sandrine & Vandermoere, Frederic, 2011. "The Effect of Information Choice and Discussion on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay for Nanotechnologies in Food," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), August.
    4. Kar H. Lim & Wuyang Hu & Leigh J. Maynard & Ellen Goddard, 2013. "U.S. Consumers’ Preference and Willingness to Pay for Country-of-Origin-Labeled Beef Steak and Food Safety Enhancements," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 61(1), pages 93-118, March.
    5. Erik Meijer & Jan Rouwendal, 2006. "Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 227-244.
    6. Søren Olsen, 2009. "Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 591-610, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Choice experiment; Mixed Logit model; Nanotechnology application; Willingness to Pay; Agribusiness; Agricultural and Food Policy; Consumer/Household Economics; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; Marketing; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods; Q13; Q16;

    JEL classification:

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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea13:149662. 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.