Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods

236 Pages·2004·1.32 MB·English

by  Robert E Evenson, Vittorio Santaniello

Consumer - Chap 00 Prelims 5/3/04 15:54 Page i
Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods
Consumer - Chap 00 Prelims 5/3/04 15:54 Page iii
Consumer Acceptance of
Genetically Modified Foods
Edited by
Robert E. Evenson
Economic Growth Center
Department of Economics
Yale University
Connecticut, USA
and
Vittorio Santaniello
Dipartimento di Economia e Istituzioni
Universita degli Studi Roma ‘Tor Vergata’
Rome, Italy
CABI Publishing
Consumer - Chap 00 Prelims 5/3/04 15:54 Page iv
CABI Publishing is a division of CAB International
CABI Publishing CABI Publishing
CAB International 875 Massachusetts Avenue
Wallingford 7th Floor
Oxon OX10 8DE Cambridge, MA 02139
UK USA
Tel: [phone] Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
E-mail:
Consumer - Chap 00 Prelims 5/3/04 15:54 Page v
Contents
Contributors vii
Acknowledgements ix
Introduction xi
PART I: STUDIES UTILIZING PRICE AND EXPENDITURE DATA
1 Do Agricultural Commodity Prices Respond to GMO Bans? 1
Joe L. Parcell and Nicholas G. Kalaitzandonakes
2 Consumer Acceptance and Labelling of GMOs in Food Products: 9
a Study of Fluid Milk Demand
Kristin Kiesel, David Buschena and Vincent Smith
3 Consumer Purchasing Behaviour towards GM Foods in 23
The Netherlands
Leonie Marks, Nicholas G. Kalaitzandonakes and Steven Vickner
PART II: STUDIES UTILIZING EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
4. The Welfare Effects of Implementing Mandatory GM Labelling 41
in the USA
Wallace E. Huffman, Matthew Rousu, Jason F. Shogren and
Abebayehu Tegene
5 Using Simulated Test Marketing to Examine Purchase Interest in Food 53
Products that are Positioned as GMO-free
Marianne McGarry Wolf, Angela Stephens and Nicci Pedrazzi
PART III: STUDIES UTILIZING WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY METHODS
6. Measuring the Value of GM Traits: the Theory and Practice of 61
Willingness-to-pay Analysis
Simbo Olubobokun and Peter W.B. Phillips
7. Willingness to Pay for GM Food Labelling in New Zealand 73
William Kaye-Blake, Kathryn Bicknell and Charles Lamb
v
Consumer - Chap 00 Prelims 5/3/04 15:54 Page vi
vi Contents
8 Contingent Valuation of Breakfast Cereals Made of Non-biotech 83
Ingredients
Wanki Moon and Siva Balasubramanian
9 A Comparative Analysis of Consumer Acceptance of GM Foods in 95
Norway and in the USA
Wen D. Chern and Kyrre Rickertsen
10 Comparing Consumer Responses toward GM Foods in Japan and 111
Norway
Jill J. McCluskey, Kristine M. Grimsrud and Thomas I. Wahl
11 Willingness to Pay for GM Foods: Results from a Public Survey in 117
the USA
Hsin-Yi Chen and Wen S. Chern
PART IV: STUDIES OF CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE
12 A Comparison of Consumer Attitudes Towards GM Food in Italy and 131
the USA
Marianne McGarry Wolf, Paola Bertolini and Jacob Parker-Garcia
13 Consumer Attitudes Towards GM Food in Ireland and the USA 143
Marianne McGarry Wolf, Juliana McDonnell, Christine Domegan and
Heidi Yount
14 Attitudes toward GM Food in Colombia 155
Douglas Pachico and Marianne McGarry Wolf
15 Consumer Acceptance and Development Perspectives of Functional 163
Food in Germany
Heiko Dustmann and H. Weindlmaier
16 Factors Explaining Opposition to GMOs in France and the Rest of 169
Europe
Sylvie Bonny
PART V: STUDIES OF ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES
17 Introducing Novel Protein Foods in the EU: Economic and 189
Environmental Impacts
Xueqin Zhu, Ekko van Ierland and Justus Wesseler
18 Consumer Attitudes Towards GM Foods: the Modelling of Preference 209
Changes
Chantal Pohl Nielsen, Karen Thierfelder and Sherman Robinson
Index 231
Consumer - Chap 00 Prelims 5/3/04 15:54 Page vii
Contributors
Balasubramanian, S., Department of Marketing, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL
62901, USA.
Bertolini, P., Dip. Economia Politica, Facolt`a di Economia, Moderna, Italy.
Bicknell, K., Commerce Division, PO Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury 8150, New
Zealand.
Bonny, S., INRA, UMR d’Economie Publique INRA-INAPG, BP1, 78850 Grignon, France.
Buschene, D., Department of Agricultural Economics, Montana State University, Bozeman,
MT 59717, USA.
Chen, H.-Y., Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, The
Ohio State University, Agricultural Admin Building, 2120 Fyffe Road, Columbus, OH
43210-1067, USA.
Chern, W.S., Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, The
Ohio State University, Agricultural Admin Building, 2120 Fyffe Road, Columbus, OH
43210-1067, USA.
Domegan, C., National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
Dustmann, H., Forschungszentrum für Milch und Lebensmittel Weihenstephan, Technische
Universität, München, Germany.
Grimsrud, K.M., Department of Food Sciences, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G
2W1.
Huffman, W.E., Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
Kalaitzandonakes, N.G., The Economics and Management of Agrobiotechnology Center
(EMAC), University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211, USA.
Kaye-Blake, W., Commerce Division, PO Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury 8150, New
Zealand.
Kiesel, K., Department of Agricultural Economics, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT
59717, USA.
Lamb, C., Commerce Division, PO Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury 8150, New
Zealand
Marks, L., The Economics and Management of Agrobiotechnology Center (EMAC), University
of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211, USA.
McCluskey, J.J., Department of Agricultural Economics, Washington State University, 211J
Hubert Hall, Pullman, WA 99163, USA.
vii
Consumer - Chap 00 Prelims 5/3/04 15:54 Page viii
viii Contributors
McDonnell, J., National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
Moon, W., Department of Agribusiness Economics, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale,
IL 62901, USA.
Nielsen, C.P., Danish Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Economics, Rolighedsvej 25,
1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
Olubobokum, S., Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Saskatchewan, 51
Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Canada S7W 5AB.
Pachico, D., International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), AA 6713, Cali, Colombia.
Parcell, J.L., The Economics and Management of Agrobiotechnology Center (EMAC),
University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211, USA.
Parker-Garcia, J., Agribusiness Department, California Polytechnic State University, San
Luis Obispo, CA 93407, USA
Pedrazzi, N., Agribusiness Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis
Obispo, CA 93407, USA.
Phillips, P.W.B., Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Saskatchewan, 51
Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Canada S7W 5AB.
Rickertsen, K., Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Agricultural University of
Norway, Aas, Norway.
Robinson, S., International Food Policy Research Institute, 2033 K Street NW, Washington,
DC 20006, USA.
Rousu, M., RTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709,
USA.
Shogren, J.F., Department of Economics and Finance, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY
82070, USA.
Smith, V., Department of Agricultural Economics, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT
59717, USA.
Stephens, A., Agribusiness Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis
Obispo, CA 93407, USA.
Tegene, A., Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, US Department
of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20036, USA.
Thierfelder, K., US Naval Academy, USA.
van Ierland, E., Environmental Economics and Natural Resources Group, Wageningen
University, Hollandsweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Vickner, S., Department of Agricultural Economics, 400 Charles E. Barnhart Bldg, University
of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546-0276, USA.
Wahl, T.I., International Marketing Program for Agricultural Commodities and Trade
(IMPACT) Center, Washington State University, Hulbert Hall, Rm 123, PO Box 646214,
Pullman, WA 99164-6210, USA.
Weindlmaier, H., Forschungszentrum für Milch und Lebensmittel Weihenstephan, Technische
Universität, München, Germany.
Wesseler, J., Environmental Economics and Natural Resources Group, Wageningen
University, Hollandsweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Wolf, M.M., Agribusiness Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis
Obispo, CA 93407, USA.
Yount, H., Agribusiness Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis
Obispo, CA 93407, USA.
Zhu, X., Environmental Economics and Natural Resources Group, Wageningen University,
Hollandsweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Consumer - Chap 00 Prelims 5/3/04 15:54 Page ix
Acknowledgements
The chapters in this volume were originally presented at the Sixth International Conference of
the International Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology Research (ICABR), held at Ravello,
Italy, in July 2002. They have since been edited and revised.
The editors acknowledge sponsorship by the following:
● CEIS – University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’
● Economic Growth Center, Yale University
ix
Consumer - Chap 000 Intro 5/3/04 15:54 Page xi
Introduction
Consumer Acceptance of Genetically
Modified Foods
1 2
Robert E. Evenson and Vittorio Santaniello
1Economic Growth Center, Department of Economics, Yale University, Connecticut,
USA; 2Dipartimento di Economia & Instituzioni, Universita degli Studi Roma ‘Tor
Vergata’, Rome, Italy
Consumers of food have expressed concerns years after almost universal scientific agree-
regarding the health risks of genetically modified ment on its benefits). And this was for a
(GM) foods. These concerns vary by country, process that had clear health benefits. Virtually
being most pronounced in Europe and least all GM crops and food products in the market
pronounced in North America (at least by popu- today have cost advantages to producers but
lar perception). These differences in consumer few endow food products with enhanced qual-
perceptions are partly related to the degree of ity or health benefits.
confidence in existing food safety regulation sys- It is also not surprising that consumer atti-
tems. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tudes are tied to other political issues.
in the USA is generally regarded to attract more Fluoridation of drinking water (another case of
consumer confidence than is the case for consumer resistance), for example, was often
European counterpart systems. linked to fears of government control. The
It is of some interest to note that several ‘Frankenfoods’ politicization of GM foods and
years of GM food consumption experience the linkage of GM foods to environmental issues
have now been realized. Each year approxi- [regulated by the Environmental Protection
mately 5000 deaths and 375,000 hospitaliza- Agency (EPA) in the USA] is a case in point.
tions from food-borne illnesses (food The contrast between consumer accep-
poisoning) occur in the USA. But none has tance of GM foods and GM health products is
been linked to GM food consumption (many particularly striking. Approximately 250 GM
of the foods are GM but the deaths and ill- health products are now in varying stages of
nesses have not been linked to GM content). testing and in many cases therapeutic use.
But, this experience is not given very much The rate of product development is truly extra-
weight by consumers. Nor is opposition and ordinary. Yet, these products have produced
scepticism regarding new foods or changes in little controversy. In some cases they are said
food-processing technology a new phenome- to raise ‘ethical’ issues (a mild form of opposi-
non. The pasteurization of milk, for example, tion in most cases). In most cases these prod-
was greeted with great scepticism and con- ucts are given ‘life-saving’ and ‘life-enhancing’
cern. Today, the health benefits of pasteuriza- attributes, and they enjoy broad acceptance.
tion are not debated, but full acceptance of But it is also clear that in food markets the
pasteurization was not attained until after 40 ‘customer is always right’. The strategy of
years of experience with pasteurization (20 agrobiotechnology firms in resisting labelling
© CAB International 2004. Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food
(eds R.E. Evenson and V. Santaniello) xi
Consumer - Chap 000 Intro 5/3/04 15:54 Page xii
xii Introduction
and related regulations (identity preservation milk demanded. This result is obtained for dif-
and traceability) on the grounds that GM ferent fat content and container size cate-
foods approved by the FDA and the EPA do gories. The study also concluded that the
not have safety and environmental risks positive consumer preferences for rBGH-free
greater than foods in general did not recog- milk persisted over time.
nize this market dictum. (Food industry firms Chapter 3 reports a study of consumer
would have acted very differently.) The oppo- expenditure response to GM-free labelling in
sition to voluntary labelling in the USA was supermarkets in The Netherlands. Weekly
probably a factor in the development of point-of-purchase data for four separate food
mandatory labelling and traceability regula- categories, including products with GM labels,
tions in the European Union (EU). were analysed. Over the period analysed, GM
This volume provides a compilation of labelling was introduced, then removed as the
recent studies of consumer attitudes. These supermarkets sourced non-GM ingredients
studies utilized different methods and evidence (i.e. all products became GM-free). This study
and the volume is organized to reflect this. differs from the study of Chapter 2 in that the
Part I reports evidence from studies utilizing labelling was for GM food products, not for
price and expenditure data in a ‘before–after’ GM-free products.
assessment associated with the EU ban on new The study asked whether consumers
GM food approval in 1998. Part II reports responded negatively to products when they
evidence from studies utilizing experimental were labelled as GM products. The study con-
methods. Part III includes studies utilizing cluded that consumers in The Netherlands did
‘contingent evaluation’ or ‘willingness-to-pay’ not respond negatively to the GM-labelled
methods. Part IV reports evidence from studies products.
in the consumer marketing tradition. Part II of this volume includes two studies
Part I includes three chapters utilizing price utilizing experimental evidence to infer con-
data to infer the potential discounts/premiums sumer acceptance or ‘tolerance’ of GM food.
that might emerge in GM/non-GM markets. Chapter 4 (Huffman et al.) sets up experi-
In Chapter 1, Parcell and Kalaitzandonakes ments designed to compare mandatory and vol-
utilize Chicago Board of Trade soybean futures untary labelling practices. The EU has a
prices to infer price effects associated with mandatory labelling requirement that all foods
announced GM bans by a consortium of seven with any ingredients in the food with at least 1%
major European food retailers. Eight ban content be labelled as a GM product. The US
announcements were evaluated over the FDA in contrast issued a ‘Guideline for Industry’
period January 1999 to December 2001. statement in January 2001 stating that GM
The study did find a negative but very small labelling is not required unless the GM product
impact of ban announcements on soybean has different characteristics to its non-GM ver-
prices, but concluded that the market quickly sion. But firms do have the option of voluntarily
adjusted to the ban information. A non-GMO labelling products as ‘GM-free’ or non-GM.
soybean contract was also analysed. Some The experimental design called for a set of
evidence for a positive ban announcement experimental auctions in which adult con-
effect for these products is reported. sumers are randomly assigned to treatment
In Chapter 2, Kiesel et al. analyse the groups and submit bids on actual foods that
impact of voluntary labelling (i.e. of non- differ only by the types of labels on the foods.
GMO or recombinant bovine growth hor- The study concluded that a voluntary
mone (rBGH)-free labelling) on fluid milk labelling system is more efficient than a
consumption in the USA. The authors utilize mandatory labelling system. This is because
national-level supermarket scanner data for the identity preservation traceability and
fluid milk demand over a 13-week period for related costs associated with voluntary
January 1998 and December 1999. Fat con- labelling are lower. But more importantly,
tent and container size categories were used consumers in the auctions treat non-labelled
in the study. products as though they are GM products.
This study concluded that rBGH-free Chapter 5 (Wolf et al.) uses a simulated
labelling increases the quantity of rBGH-free test marketing methodology to examine the