IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v44y2017i5p757-780..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer acceptance of food biotechnology based on policy context and upstream acceptance: evidence from an artefactual field experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Ashkan Pakseresht
  • Brandon R McFadden
  • Carl Johan Lagerkvist

Abstract

The European Commission recently proposed new rules allowing ‘opt-outs’ by member states from a Europe-wide approval system for genetically modified (GM) foods. An artefactual field experiment was performed in Sweden to test whether changing the policy context and acceptance by upstream actors influenced consumer acceptance of a GM product with direct tangible health benefits and indirect environmental benefits. The results indicated that acceptance was lower in more restrictive policy scenarios and higher in less restrictive contexts. Moreover, acceptance of upstream actors was policy context-dependent and differed between participants opposed to or accepting the technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashkan Pakseresht & Brandon R McFadden & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2017. "Consumer acceptance of food biotechnology based on policy context and upstream acceptance: evidence from an artefactual field experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(5), pages 757-780.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:44:y:2017:i:5:p:757-780.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/erae/jbx016
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aerni, Philipp & Scholderer, Joachim & Ermen, David, 2011. "How would Swiss consumers decide if they had freedom of choice? Evidence from a field study with organic, conventional and GM corn bread," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 830-838.
    2. 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.
    3. Sebastian Hess & Carl Johan Lagerkvist & William Redekop & Ashkan Pakseresht, 2016. "Consumers’ evaluation of biotechnologically modified food products: new evidence from a meta-survey," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(5), pages 703-736.
    4. John Crespi & Stéphan Marette, 2003. "“Does Contain” vs. “Does Not Contain”: Does it Matter which GMO Label is Used?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 327-344, November.
    5. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John & Greaves, Stephen, 2014. "Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 164-177.
    6. Palacios-Huerta, Ignacio & Santos, Tano J., 2004. "A theory of markets, institutions, and endogenous preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3-4), pages 601-627, March.
    7. Deaton, Angus & Cartwright, Nancy, 2018. "Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 2-21.
    8. Wim Verbeke, 2005. "Agriculture and the food industry in the information age," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(3), pages 347-368, September.
    9. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2005. "Assessing Consumer Preferences for Country-of-Origin Labeling," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 1-14, April.
    10. Xie, Jing & Hyeyoung, Kim & House, Lisa, 2014. "Valuing Information on GM Foods in the presence of Country-of-Origin Labels," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 4(3), pages 1-14, February.
    11. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With a Response to Commentors," CESifo Working Paper Series 4543, CESifo.
    12. Davis, Douglas D. & Holt, Charles a., 1993. "Experimental economics: Methods, problems and promise," Estudios Económicos, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos, vol. 8(2), pages 179-212.
    13. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With A Response To Camerer," NBER Working Papers 19666, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Angus Deaton & Nancy Cartwright, 2016. "Understanding and Misunderstanding Randomized Controlled Trials," Working Papers august_25.pdf, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Research Program in Development Studies..
    15. Hamilton, Stephen F. & Sunding, David L. & Zilberman, David, 2003. "Public goods and the value of product quality regulations: the case of food safety," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(3-4), pages 799-817, March.
    16. Ratneshwar, Srinivasan & Shocker, Allan D & Stewart, David W, 1987. "Toward Understanding the Attraction Effect: The Implications of Product Stimulus Meaningfulness and Familiarity," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(4), pages 520-533, March.
    17. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    18. Alexa Spence & Ellen Townsend, 2006. "Examining Consumer Behavior Toward Genetically Modified (GM) Food in Britain," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 657-670, June.
    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. Dan Jiang & Guangling Zhang, 2021. "Marketing Clues on the Label Raise the Purchase Intention of Genetically Modified Food," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Changxin Yu & Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu, 2019. "Attitude Gaps with Respect to GM Non-Food Crops and GM Food Crops and Confidence in the Government’s Management of Biotechnology: Evidence from Beijing Consumers, Chinese Farmers, Journalists, and Gov," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Elisa De Marchi & Alessia Cavaliere & Alessandro Banterle, 2021. "Consumers' Choice Behavior for Cisgenic Food: Exploring the Role of Time Preferences," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 866-891, June.
    4. De Marchi, E. & Cavaliere, A. & Banterle, A., 2018. "Consumer choice behavior for cisgenic food: exploring attribute processing strategies and the role of time preference," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277393, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    2. Ashkan Pakseresht & Anna Kristina Edenbrandt & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2021. "Genetically modified food and consumer risk responsibility: The effect of regulatory design and risk type on cognitive information processing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    3. Zhao, Li & Gu, Haiying & Yue, Chengyan & Ahlstrom, David, 2013. "Consumer welfare and GM food labeling: A simulation using an adjusted Kumaraswamy distribution," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 58-70.
    4. Vellore Arthi & James Fenske, 2018. "Polygamy and child mortality: Historical and modern evidence from Nigeria’s Igbo," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 97-141, March.
    5. Andreas C Drichoutis & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2020. "Economic Rationality under Cognitive Load," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(632), pages 2382-2409.
    6. Jörg Peters & Jörg Langbein & Gareth Roberts, 2018. "Generalization in the Tropics – Development Policy, Randomized Controlled Trials, and External Validity," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 33(1), pages 34-64.
    7. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    8. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    9. Vicky Chemutai & Hubert Escaith, 2017. "Measuring World Trade Organization (WTO) Accession Commitments and their Economic Effects," Journal of International Commerce, Economics and Policy (JICEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(02), pages 1-27, June.
    10. McFadden, Brandon R. & Malone, Trey, 2018. "How will mandatory labeling of genetically modified food nudge consumer decision-making?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 186-194.
    11. Sutherland, Alex & Ariel, Barak & Farrar, William & De Anda, Randy, 2017. "Post-experimental follow-ups—Fade-out versus persistence effects: The Rialto police body-worn camera experiment four years on," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 110-116.
    12. Christiane Bradler & Robert Dur & Susanne Neckermann & Arjan Non, 2013. "Employee Recognition and Performance: A Field Experiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 13-038/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    13. Donatella Baiardi & Riccardo Puglisi & Simona Scabrosetti, 2012. "Individual Attitudes on Food Quality and Safety: Empirical Evidence on EU Countries," DEM Working Papers Series 014, University of Pavia, Department of Economics and Management.
    14. John List, 2021. "2021 Summary Data of Artefactual Field Experiments Published on Fieldexperiments.com," Artefactual Field Experiments 00749, The Field Experiments Website.
    15. Robin Maialeh, 2019. "Generalization of results and neoclassical rationality: unresolved controversies of behavioural economics methodology," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1743-1761, July.
    16. Elena Rosculete & Elena Bonciu & Catalin Aurelian Rosculete & Elena Teleanu, 2018. "Detection and Quantification of Genetically Modified Soybean in Some Food and Feed Products. A Case Study on Products Available on Romanian Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, April.
    17. Andrea Albertazzi, 2022. "Individual cheating in the lab: a new measure and external validity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 37-67, July.
    18. Stranieri, Stefanella & Banterle, Alessandro, 2015. "Consumer Interest in Meat Labelled Attributes: Who Cares?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 18(4), pages 1-18, November.
    19. Wendy J. Umberger & Dawn D. Thilmany McFadden & Amanda R. Smith, 2009. "Does altruism play a role in determining U.S. consumer preferences and willingness to pay for natural and regionally produced beef?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 268-285.
    20. Dannenberg, Astrid & Weingärtner, Eva, 2023. "The effects of observability and an information nudge on food choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

    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:oup:erevae:v:44:y:2017:i:5:p:757-780.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.