IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae09/49986.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for New Genetically Modified Food Products: Evidence from Experimental Auctions of Intragenic and Transgenic Foods

Author

Listed:
  • Colson, Gregory
  • Huffman, Wallace E.

Abstract

Early GM traits were obtained by transferring genes across species, largely from soil bacteria. Part of the consumer resistance to them has been their transgenic nature. Recently, breakthroughs have occurred using intragenic bioengineering where genes are moved long distances within a specie, for example in potato, and without antibiotic markers. The objective of this research is to assess consumers’ acceptance and willingness to pay (WTP) for new intragenic fresh potato, tomato, and broccoli with higher levels of antioxidants and vitamin C, which are consumer traits. To elicit consumer valuations, a new series of experimental auctions were conducted in 2007 that built upon methodology developed in our earlier research. WTP was assessed in a multi-round n-th price auction with seven labeling treatments and five information treatments. We show for the first time that consumers are willing to pay significantly more for intragenic GM vegetables with enhanced levels of antioxidants and vitamin C than for a plain-labeled product and marginally more than for a GM-free product. Supporting earlier research, consumers’ WTP for GM food products is affected by the type of information available to them when they are making their decisions. The findings suggest potential success for future intragenic GM fresh produce.

Suggested Citation

  • Colson, Gregory & Huffman, Wallace E., 2009. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for New Genetically Modified Food Products: Evidence from Experimental Auctions of Intragenic and Transgenic Foods," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 49986, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae09:49986
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/49986/files/GMIAAEChina112508allab.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    3. Lusk, Jayson L. & Pruitt, J.R. & Norwood, Bailey, 2006. "External validity of a framed field experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 285-290, November.
    4. Giancarlo Moschini & Harvey Lapan & Andrei Sobolevsky, 2000. "Roundup ready® soybeans and welfare effects in the soybean complex," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 33-55.
    5. Ho-Chuan Huang, 2001. "Bayesian analysis of the SUR Tobit model," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(9), pages 617-622.
    6. Mario Mazzocchi & Gianluca Stefani & Spencer J. Henson, 2004. "Consumer Welfare and the Loss Induced by Withholding Information: The Case of BSE in Italy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 41-58.
    7. Jayson L. Lusk & Matthew Rousu, 2006. "Market Price Endogeneity and Accuracy of Value Elicitation Mechanisms," Chapters,in: Using Experimental Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, chapter 2 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    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. Mario F. Teisl & Nancy E. Bockstael & Alan Levy, 2001. "Measuring the Welfare Effects of Nutrition Information," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(1), pages 133-149.
    10. Mazzocchi, Mario & Stefani, Gianluca, 2002. "Consumer Welfare and the Loss Induced by Withheld Information: The Case of BSE in Italy," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24927, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. John A. List & Michael K. Price, 2013. "Using Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics," NBER Working Papers 19289, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. 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.
    13. Jay R. Corrigan & Matthew C. Rousu, 2006. "The Effect of Initial Endowments in Experimental Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(2), pages 448-457.
    14. Foster, William & Just, Richard E., 1989. "Measuring welfare effects of product contamination with consumer uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 266-283, November.
    15. Frode Alfnes & Kyrre Rickertsen, 2005. "European Consumers' Willingness to Pay for U.S. Beef in Experimental Auction Markets: Reply," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(1), pages 258-260.
    16. Nobile, Agostino, 2000. "Comment: Bayesian multinomial probit models with a normalization constraint," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 335-345, December.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Frode Alfnes & Kyrre Rickertsen, 2003. "European Consumers' Willingness to Pay for U.S. Beef in Experimental Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 396-405.
    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. Marette, Stéphan & Roosen, Jutta & Blanchemanche, Sandrine & Feinblatt-Mélèze, Eve, 2010. "Functional food, uncertainty and consumers' choices: A lab experiment with enriched yoghurts for lowering cholesterol," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 419-428, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Gregory Colson & Jay R. Corrigan & Carola Grebitus & Maria L. Loureiro & Matthew C. Rousu, 2016. "Which Deceptive Practices, If Any, Should Be Allowed in Experimental Economics Research? Results from Surveys of Applied Experimental Economists and Students," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(2), pages 610-621.
    4. Huffman, Wallace, 2009. "Technology and Innovation in World Agriculture: Prospects for 2010-2019," Staff General Research Papers Archive 13060, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. Huffman, Wallace, 2008. "Rising Food and Energy Prices: Projections for Labor Markets 2008-18 and Beyond," Staff General Research Papers Archive 13000, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. repec:eee:jfpoli:v:69:y:2017:i:c:p:82-96 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Ran, Tao & Yue, Chengyan & Rihn, Alicia, 2015. "Are Grocery Shoppers of Households with Weight-Concerned Members Willing to Pay More for Nutrtional Information on Food?," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 46(3), November.
    8. Zilberman, David & Kaplan, Scott & Kim, Eunice & Waterfield, Gina, 2013. "Lessons from the California GM Labeling Proposition on the State of Crop Biotechnology," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149851, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. 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

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety;

    JEL classification:

    • Q10 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - General
    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions

    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:iaae09:49986. 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/iaaeeea.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.