IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genstf/201108010700001371.html

Improving the Nutrient Content of Food through Genetic Modification: Evidence from Experimental Auctions on Consumer Acceptance

Author

Listed:
  • Colson, Gregory J.
  • Huffman, Wallace E.
  • Rousu, Matthew C.

Abstract

This paper assesses consumers’ acceptance of nutritionally enhanced vegetables using a series of auction experiments administered to a random sample of adult consumers. Evidence suggests that consumers are willing to pay significantly more for fresh produce with labels signaling enhanced levels of antioxidants and vitamin C achieved by moving genes from within the species, as opposed to across species. However, this premium is significantly affected by diverse information treatments injected into the experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Colson, Gregory J. & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2011. "Improving the Nutrient Content of Food through Genetic Modification: Evidence from Experimental Auctions on Consumer Acceptance," ISU General Staff Papers 201108010700001371, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:isu:genstf:201108010700001371
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/edc9f11b-36ae-4e56-a09e-04fa6662cf35/content
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ran, Tao & Yue, Chengyan & Rihn, Alicia, 2015. "Are Grocery Shoppers of Households with Weight-Concerned Members Willing to Pay More for Nutritional Information on Food?," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 46(3), pages 1-18, November.
    2. John C. Beghin & Christopher R. Gustafson, 2021. "Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Azucena GRACIA & Tiziana DE-MAGISTRIS, 2015. "The role of participants' competitiveness in consumers' valuation for food products using experimental auctions," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 61(10), pages 484-491.
    5. 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.
    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. Dila Ikiz & R. Karina Gallardo & Amit Dhingra & Seanna Hewitt, 2018. "Assessing consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for novel sliced packed fresh pears: A latent class approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 321-337, March.
    8. 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.
    9. R. Karina Gallardo & Ines Hanrahan & Chengyan Yue & Vicki A. McCracken & James Luby & James R. McFerson & Carolyn Ross & Lilian Carrillo†Rodriguez, 2018. "Combining sensory evaluations and experimental auctions to assess consumers’ preferences for fresh fruit quality characteristics," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 407-425, March.
    10. Gustafson, Christopher R. & Meerza, Syed Imran Ali, 2023. "The Impact of Information on Valuation in Experimental Auctions: A Comparison of Between and Within Subject Designs," OSF Preprints 3g4m5, Center for Open Science.
    11. 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.
    12. Yang, Y. & Hobbs, J., 2018. "Information Framing Effects in Biotechnology Communication A Comparison between Logical-scientific and Narrative Information," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277010, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Gautam, Ruskin & Gustafson, Christopher R. & Brooks, Kathleen R., "undated". "Label Position and it Impacts on WTP for Products Containing GMO," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258105, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. repec:osf:osfxxx:3g4m5_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Consumer valuation of information about food safety achieved using biotechnology: Evidence from new potato products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 82-96.
    16. 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.
    17. Jane Kolodinsky & Sean Morris & Orest Pazuniak, 2019. "How consumers use mandatory genetic engineering (GE) labels: evidence from Vermont," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(1), pages 117-125, March.
    18. Yulian Ding & Jianyu Yu & Yangyang Sun & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Yunyun Liu, 2023. "Gene‐edited or genetically modified food? The impacts of risk and ambiguity on Chinese consumers' willingness to pay," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 414-428, May.

    More about this item

    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:isu:genstf:201108010700001371. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Curtis Balmer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.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.