IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uersab/33663.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumer Acceptance of Biotechnology: Lessons From the rbST Experience

Author

Listed:
  • Aldrich, Lorna M.
  • Blisard, Noel

Abstract

The controversial introduction of rbST, a laboratory version of bST, a growth hormone that stimulates milk production in cows, may provide hopeful lessons for other foods produced by biotechnology. Milk sales remained steady after rbST became available to dairy farmers, even though a multitude of public opinion surveys documented widespread concern about food safety and biotechnology, and some analysts predicted a drop in milk consumption of up to 20 percent. The undiminished consumer demand for milk may indicate that consumers will also accept other animal food products from biotechnology. The rbST experience suggests that, while scientific evidence of food safety will not prevent controversy over biotech foods, controversy will not necessarily inhibit consumer demand for the food.

Suggested Citation

  • Aldrich, Lorna M. & Blisard, Noel, 1998. "Consumer Acceptance of Biotechnology: Lessons From the rbST Experience," Agricultural Information Bulletins 33663, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uersab:33663
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.33663
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/33663/files/ai987471.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.33663?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Darby, Michael R & Karni, Edi, 1973. "Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 67-88, April.
    2. Kinsey, Jean D. & Senauer, Benjamin, 1997. "Food Marketing in an Electronic Age: Implications for Agriculture," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 12(2), pages 1-4.
    3. Nelson, Philip, 1974. "Advertising as Information," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(4), pages 729-754, July/Aug..
    4. Agarwal, Manoj K & Ratchford, Brian T, 1980. "Estimating Demand Functions for Product Characteristics: The Case of Automobiles," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 7(3), pages 249-262, December.
    5. Caswell, Margriet F. & Fuglie, Keith O. & Klotz, Cassandra A., 1994. "Agricultural Biotechnology: An Economic Perspective," Agricultural Economic Reports 262025, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. Blisard, Noel & Blaylock, James R. & Smallwood, David, 1996. "Fluid Milk and Cheese Advertising," Staff Reports 278800, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Barragán-Ocaña, Alejandro & del-Valle-Rivera, María del Carmen, 2016. "Rural development and environmental protection through the use of biofertilizers in agriculture: An alternative for underdeveloped countries?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 90-99.
    2. GianCarlo Moschini, 2008. "Biotechnology and the development of food markets: retrospect and prospects," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 331-355, September.
    3. Wolf, Christopher A. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Understanding U.S. Consumer Demand for Milk Production Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-17.
    4. Ufer, Danielle & Ortega, David L. & Wolf, Christopher A. & Swanson, Janice & McKendree, Melissa, 2022. "Market Acceptance of Animal Welfare-Improving Biotechnology: Gene-Editing and Immunocastration in U.S. Pork," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 47(2), May.
    5. Lee Ann Jackson & Michele T. Villinski, 2002. "Reaping What We Sow: Emerging Issues and Policy Implications of Agricultural Biotechnology," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(1), pages 3-14.
    6. Schupp, Alvin R. & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & O'Neil, Carol E. & Prinyawiwatkul, Witoon & Makienko, Igor, 2005. "The Impact of an "Exotic" Label on Consumer Willingness to Taste Test, Purchase, and Price a New Meat Product," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 36(2), pages 1-11, July.
    7. Pluske, Johanna M. & Burton, Michael P. & Rigby, Dan & Vercoe, Philip E., 2009. "Cattle breeding in Northern Australia: Revealing how consumers react to new technologies," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48167, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Butler, Leslie J. & Henriques, Irene, 2001. "Adoption and Diffusion of Biotechnology: rbST in California," 2001 Conference (45th), January 23-25, 2001, Adelaide, Australia 125548, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Pluske, Jo & Burton, Michael & Rigby, Dan & Vercoe, Phil, 2013. "Cattle breeding in Northern Australia: Revealing how consumers react to alternative technologies," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 21, pages 1-15.
    10. Davies, Terry & Konisky, David M., 2000. "Environmental Implications of the Foodservice and Food Retail Industries," Discussion Papers 10761, Resources for the Future.
    11. Han, Jae-Hwan & Harrison, R. Wes, 2004. "A Multinomial Logit Model Of Consumer Perceptions For Biotech Food Labeling," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20157, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Runge, C. Ford & Jackson, Lee Ann, 1999. "Labeling, Trade And Genetically Modified Organisms (Gmos): A Proposed Solution," Working Papers 14402, University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.

    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. J. K. Pappalardo, 2022. "Economics of Consumer Protection: Contributions and Challenges in Estimating Consumer Injury and Evaluating Consumer Protection Policy," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 201-238, June.
    2. Dhaval M. Dave, 2013. "Effects of Pharmaceutical Promotion: A Review and Assessment," NBER Working Papers 18830, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Eunae Jung & Hyungun Sung, 2017. "The Influence of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Outbreak on Online and Offline Markets for Retail Sales," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-23, March.
    4. Xujin Pu & Huanzhen Zhang, 2016. "Voluntary Certification of Agricultural Products in Competitive Markets: The Consideration of Boundedly Rational Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-13, September.
    5. Marco Costanigro & Yuko Onozaka, 2020. "A Belief‐Preference Model of Choice for Experience and Credence Goods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 70-95, February.
    6. Charity, Nabwire Ephamia Juma, 2016. "Economic Analysis Of Consumers’ Awareness And Willingness To Pay For Geographical Indicators And Other Quality Attributes Of Honey In Kenya," Research Theses 265574, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    7. Sharon Horsky, 2006. "The Changing Architecture of Advertising Agencies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 367-383, 07-08.
    8. Olivier Gergaud & Florine Livat, 2004. "Team versus individual reputations: a model of interaction and some empirical evidence," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla04015, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    9. Michael Hutter, 2011. "Experience Goods," Chapters, in: Ruth Towse (ed.), A Handbook of Cultural Economics, Second Edition, chapter 29, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Fabrice Etilé & Sabrina Teyssier, 2012. "Signaling Corporate Social Responsibility: Third-Party Certification vs. Brands," PSE Working Papers halshs-00736551, HAL.
    11. Keisuke Hattori & Keisaku Higashida, 2012. "Misleading advertising in duopoly," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 45(3), pages 1154-1187, August.
    12. Jack Hirshleifer & John G. Riley, 1976. "The New Economics of Information," UCLA Economics Working Papers 074, UCLA Department of Economics.
    13. Etilé, Fabrice & Teyssier, Sabrina, 2013. "Corporate social responsibility and the economics of consumer social responsibility," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 94(2).
    14. Robert B. Ekelund & Mark Thornton, 2019. "Extreme Credence and Imaginary Goods," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 47(3), pages 361-371, September.
    15. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Panagiotis Lazaridis & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2009. "Would consumers value food-away-from-home products with nutritional labels?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(4), pages 550-575.
    16. Dacinia Crina Petrescu & Iris Vermeir & Ruxandra Malina Petrescu-Mag, 2019. "Consumer Understanding of Food Quality, Healthiness, and Environmental Impact: A Cross-National Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-20, December.
    17. Verbeke, Wim & Ward, Ronald W., 2003. "Importance of EU Label Requirements: An Application of Ordered Probit Models to Belgium Beef Labels," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22077, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Giannakas, Konstantinos & Fulton, Murray, 2002. "Consumption effects of genetic modification: what if consumers are right?," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 97-109, August.
    19. Jie Wu & Zefu Wu & Kathryn Rudie Harrigan, 2019. "Process quality management and technological innovation revisited: a contingency perspective from an emerging market," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1871-1890, December.
    20. Kubitzki, Sabine & Krischik-Bautz, Stephanie, 2011. "Weiß der Verbraucher wirklich, welche Qualität er kauft? Eine Studie zur Qualitätserwartung an Prüfzeichen," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 60(1).

    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:uersab:33663. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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/ersgvus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.