IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/nbaesp/313220.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumer valuation of and attitudes towards novel foods produced with new plant engineering techniques: A review

Author

Listed:
  • Beghin, John C.
  • Gustafson, Christopher R.

Abstract

We review the emerging international body of evidence on attitudes and willingness to pay (WTP) for novel foods produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques (NPETs). NPETs include genome/gene editing, cisgenesis, intragenesis, RNA interference and others. These novel foods are often beneficial for the environment and human health and more sustainable under increasingly prevalent climate extremes. These techniques can also improve animal welfare and disease resistance when applied to animals. Despite these promising attributes, evidence suggests that many, but not all consumers, discount these novel foods relative to conventional ones. Our systematic review sorts out findings to identify conditioning factors which can increase the acceptance of and WTP for these novel foods in a significant segment of consumers. International patterns of acceptance are identified. We also analyze how information and knowledge interact with consumer acceptance of these novel foods and technologies. Heterogeneity of consumers across cultures and borders, and in attitudes towards science and innovation emerges as key determinants of acceptance and WTP. Acceptance and WTP tend to increase when beneficial attributes—as opposed to producer-oriented cost-saving attributes—are generated by NPETs. NPETs improved foods are systematically less discounted than transgenic foods. Most of the valuation elicitations are based on hypothetical experiments and surveys and await validation through revealed preferences in actual purchases in food retailing environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Beghin, John C. & Gustafson, Christopher R., 2021. "Consumer valuation of and attitudes towards novel foods produced with new plant engineering techniques: A review," Staff Papers 313220, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Agricultural Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:nbaesp:313220
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.313220
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/313220/files/unl%20ag%20econ%20wp%202021%205%20revised%20beghin-gustafson.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.313220?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Valerie Kilders & Vincenzina Caputo, 2021. "Is Animal Welfare Promoting Hornless Cattle? Assessing Consumer’s Valuation for Milk from Gene‐edited Cows under Different Information Regimes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 735-759, September.
    2. An, Henry & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Lloyd-Smith, Patrick, 2019. "Strategic behavior in stated preferences and the demand for gene-edited canola oil," 2019 Annual Meeting, July 21-23, Atlanta, Georgia 290837, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Stephan S. Marette & Anne-Célia Disdier & John C Beghin, 2020. "A Comparison of EU and US consumers' willingness to pay for gene-edited food: Evidence from apples," PSE Working Papers halshs-02872222, HAL.
    4. Nlend Nkott, Anny Lucrèce & Temple, Ludovic, 2021. "Societal acceptability conditions of genome editing for upland rice in Madagascar," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    5. Violet Muringai & Xiaoli Fan & Ellen Goddard, 2020. "Canadian consumer acceptance of gene‐edited versus genetically modified potatoes: A choice experiment approach," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(1), pages 47-63, March.
    6. Jayson L. Lusk, 2003. "Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 840-856.
    7. David W. Bullock & William W. Wilson & Joseph Neadeau, 2021. "Gene Editing Versus Genetic Modification in the Research and Development of New Crop Traits: An Economic Comparison," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(5), pages 1700-1719, October.
    8. 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.
    9. Shew, Aaron M. & Nalley, Lawton L. & Danforth, Diana M. & Dixon, Bruce L. & Nayga, Rodolpho M. Jr & Delwaide, Anne-Cecile, 2015. "Are all GMO’s the same? Consumer acceptance of cisgenic rice in India," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 204869, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Brandon R. McFadden & Brittany N. Anderton & Kelly A. Davidson & John C. Bernard, 2021. "The effect of scientific information and narrative on preferences for possible gene‐edited solutions for citrus greening," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1595-1620, December.
    11. Naoko Kato-Nitta & Tadahiko Maeda & Yusuke Inagaki & Masashi Tachikawa, 2019. "Expert and public perceptions of gene-edited crops: attitude changes in relation to scientific knowledge," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-14, December.
    12. Kai Purnhagen & Justus Wesseler, 2021. "EU Regulation of New Plant Breeding Technologies and Their Possible Economic Implications for the EU and Beyond," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1621-1637, December.
    13. Stéphan Marette & John Beghin & Anne‐célia Disdier & Eliza Mojduszka, 2021. "Can foods produced with new plant engineering techniques succeed in the marketplace? A case study of apples [Les aliments produits à l'aide de nouvelles techniques d'ingénierie végétale peuvent-ils," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) hal-03454724, HAL.
    14. 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.
    15. Henrik Mielby & Peter Sandøe & Jesper Lassen, 2013. "Multiple aspects of unnaturalness: are cisgenic crops perceived as being more natural and more acceptable than transgenic crops?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 30(3), pages 471-480, September.
    16. Lusk, Jayson L. & Jamal, Mustafa & Kurlander, Lauren & Roucan, Maud & Taulman, Lesley, 2005. "A Meta-Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 1-17, April.
    17. Stephan Marette & Anne-Célia Disdier & John Beghin, 2020. "A Comparison of EU and US consumers' willingness to pay for gene-edited food: Evidence from apples," PSE Working Papers halshs-02872222, HAL.
    18. Jerrod M Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1186-1206.
    19. Lusk, Jayson L. & McFadden, Brandon R. & Wilson, Norbert, 2018. "Do consumers care how a genetically engineered food was created or who created it?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 81-90.
    20. Gregory Colson & Wallace E. Huffman, 2011. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Foods with Product-Enhancing Nutritional Attributes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(2), pages 358-363.
    21. 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.
    22. J. Ross Pruitt & Kaitlyn M. Melton & Marco A. Palma, 2021. "Does Physical Activity Influence Consumer Acceptance of Gene Edited Food?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-12, July.
    23. Matin Qaim, 2020. "Role of New Plant Breeding Technologies for Food Security and Sustainable Agricultural Development," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 129-150, June.
    24. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    25. Elena Escrig-Olmedo & Maria Jesus Munoz-Torres & Maria Angeles Fernandez-Izquierdo, 2010. "Socially responsible investing: sustainability indices, ESG rating and information provider agencies," International Journal of Sustainable Economy, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(4), pages 442-461.
    26. Narh, Alfred B. & Nalley, Lawton L. & Price, Heather & Shew, Aaron M. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2019. "A Multi-Country Study of the Willingness-to-Consume Alternative (RNAi, CRISPR and Cisgenic) Genetically Modified Food," 2019 Annual Meeting, July 21-23, Atlanta, Georgia 290933, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    27. Shew, Aaron M. & Nalley, Lawton L., 2015. "Indian Acceptance of Cisgenic Rice: Are all GMOs the same?," GMCC-15: Seventh GMCC, November 17-20, 2015, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 211492, International Conference on Coexistence between Genetically Modified (GM) and non-GM based Agricultural Supply Chains (GMCC).
    28. Tiziana de-Magistris & Azucena Gracia & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2013. "On the Use of Honesty Priming Tasks to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1136-1154.
    29. Alfnes, Frode & Guttormsen, Atle G. & Steine, Gro & Kolstad, Kari, 2006. "Ajae Appendix: Consumers’ Willingness To Pay For The Color Of Salmon: A Choice Experiment With Real Economic Incentives," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1-8, November.
    30. De Marchi, Elisa & Cavaliere, Alessia & Banterle, Alessandro, 2021. "Identifying Motivations for Acceptance of Cisgenic Food: Results from a Randomized Controlled Choice Experiment," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 47(1), January.
    31. Philip M. Fernbach & Nicholas Light & Sydney E. Scott & Yoel Inbar & Paul Rozin, 2019. "Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(3), pages 251-256, March.
    32. Anna K. Edenbrandt & Christian Gamborg & Bo J. Thorsen, 2018. "Consumers’ Preferences for Bread: Transgenic, Cisgenic, Organic or Pesticide†free?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(1), pages 121-141, February.
    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. Stéphan Marette & John Beghin & Anne‐célia Disdier & Eliza Mojduszka, 2021. "Can foods produced with new plant engineering techniques succeed in the marketplace? A case study of apples [Les aliments produits à l'aide de nouvelles techniques d'ingénierie végétale peuvent-ils," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) hal-03454724, HAL.
    2. Marette, Stéphan (Paris-Saclay) & Disdier, Anne-Célia (PSE) & Bodnar, Anastasia (USDA OCE) & Beghin, John C (UNL), 2021. "New Plant Engineering Techniques, R&D Investment, and International Trade," Staff Papers 313493, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    3. Gabriella Vindigni & Iuri Peri & Federica Consentino & Roberta Selvaggi & Daniela Spina, 2022. "Exploring Consumers’ Attitudes towards Food Products Derived by New Plant Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, May.
    4. Linde Götz & Miranda Svanidze & Alain Tissier & Alejandro Brand Duran, 2022. "Consumers’ Willingness to Buy CRISPR Gene-Edited Tomatoes: Evidence from a Choice Experiment Case Study in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-12, January.
    5. Shahida Anusha Siddiqui & Zarnab Asif & Misbah Murid & Ito Fernando & Danung Nur Adli & Andrey Vladimirovich Blinov & Alexey Borisovich Golik & Widya Satya Nugraha & Salam A. Ibrahim & Seid Mahdi Jafa, 2022. "Consumer Social and Psychological Factors Influencing the Use of Genetically Modified Foods—A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-22, November.
    6. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.
    7. Götz, Linde & Svanidze, Miranda & Tissier, Alain & Brand Duran, Alejandro, 2022. "Consumers’ willingness to Buy CRISPR gene-edited tomatoes: Evidence from a choice experiment case study in Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.

    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. Stéphan Marette & John Beghin & Anne‐célia Disdier & Eliza Mojduszka, 2021. "Can foods produced with new plant engineering techniques succeed in the marketplace? A case study of apples [Les aliments produits à l'aide de nouvelles techniques d'ingénierie végétale peuvent-ils," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) hal-03454724, HAL.
    2. 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.
    3. J. Ross Pruitt & Kaitlyn M. Melton & Marco A. Palma, 2021. "Does Physical Activity Influence Consumer Acceptance of Gene Edited Food?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-12, July.
    4. Götz, Linde & Svanidze, Miranda & Tissier, Alain & Brand Duran, Alejandro, 2022. "Consumers’ willingness to Buy CRISPR gene-edited tomatoes: Evidence from a choice experiment case study in Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    5. Stephan S. Marette & Anne-Célia Disdier & John C Beghin, 2020. "A Comparison of EU and US consumers' willingness to pay for gene-edited food: Evidence from apples," PSE Working Papers halshs-02872222, HAL.
    6. Linda Ferrari, 2022. "Farmers' attitude toward CRISPR/Cas9: The case of blast resistant rice," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(1), pages 175-194, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Maria Cristina Yunes & Zimbábwe Osório-Santos & Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk & Maria José Hötzel, 2021. "Gene Editing for Improved Animal Welfare and Production Traits in Cattle: Will This Technology Be Embraced or Rejected by the Public?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, April.
    9. Yan Heng & Sungeun Yoon & Lisa House, 2021. "Explore Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Biotechnology Produced Fruit: An International Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-10, November.
    10. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    11. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    12. Valerie Kilders & Vincenzina Caputo, 2021. "Is Animal Welfare Promoting Hornless Cattle? Assessing Consumer’s Valuation for Milk from Gene‐edited Cows under Different Information Regimes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 735-759, September.
    13. Lusk, Jayson L. & McFadden, Brandon R. & Wilson, Norbert, 2018. "Do consumers care how a genetically engineered food was created or who created it?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 81-90.
    14. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    15. Adalja, Aaron & Hanson, James & Towe, Charles & Tselepidakis, Elina, 2015. "An Examination of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local Products," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 253-274, December.
    16. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. Serena Mandolesi & Emilia Cubero Dudinskaya & Simona Naspetti & Francesco Solfanelli & Raffaele Zanoli, 2022. "Freedom of Choice—Organic Consumers’ Discourses on New Plant Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.
    18. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    19. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    20. Celine Michaud & Daniel Llerena & Iragael Joly, 2013. "Willingness to pay for environmental attributes of non-food agricultural products: a real choice experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 40(2), pages 313-329, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics;

    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:nbaesp:313220. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/daunlus.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 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/daunlus.html .

    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.