IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Consumer Acceptance of GM Applications in the Pork Production Chain: A Choice Modelling Approach

Listed author(s):
  • Novoselova, Tatiana A.
  • van der Lans, Ivo A.C.M.
  • Meuwissen, Miranda P.M.
  • Huirne, Ruud B.M.
Registered author(s):

    This study evaluates consumer acceptance of different GM applications in the pork production chain. In general, results indicate that consumers prefer conventional pork over pork for which genetic modification was applied. However, the negative impact of the GM applications is compensated by improvements in quality, increased animal welfare, a lower impact on the environment, less residues and a price discount. Of these benefits, increased animal welfare has the most positive effect on consumer choices. With substantial monetary compensation and presence of various benefits the consumers will attach higher utility to the GM pork than to the conventional pork. The amount of monetary compensation is dependent on the type of GM application.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/24527
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by European Association of Agricultural Economists in its series 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark with number 24527.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: 2005
    Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae05:24527
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.eaae.org
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as
    in new window


    1. Michael Burton & Dan Rigby & Trevor Young, 2001. "Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 28(4), pages 479-498, December.
    2. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    3. Wallace E. Huffman & Matthew Rousu & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2004. "Who Do Consumers Trust for Information: The Case of Genetically Modified Foods?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1222-1229.
    4. Louviere, Jordan J., 1991. "Experimental choice analysis: Introduction and overview," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 291-297, December.
    5. Wuyang Hu, 2004. "Trading off health, environmental and genetic modification attributes in food," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 31(3), pages 389-408, September.
    6. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    7. Frode Alfnes, 2004. "Stated preferences for imported and hormone-treated beef: application of a mixed logit model," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 31(1), pages 19-37, March.
    8. Cook, A. J. & Kerr, G. N. & Moore, K., 2002. "Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 557-572, October.
    9. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C. & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1995. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments versus Contingent Valuation," Staff Paper Series 24126, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    10. Dan Rigby & Michael Burton, 2005. "Preference heterogeneity and GM food in the UK," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 32(2), pages 269-288, June.
    11. Lusk, Jayson L. & Moore, Melissa & House, Lisa & Morrow, Bert, 2001. "Influence Of Brand Name And Type Of Modification On Consumer Acceptance Of Genetically Engineered Corn Chips: A Preliminary Analysis," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA), vol. 4(04).
    12. W. Bruce Traill, 2004. "Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 31(2), pages 179-204, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:eaae05:24527. 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)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.