Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T07:06:12.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer Willingness to Pay for “Second-Generation” Genetically Engineered Products and the Role of Marketing Information

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Matthew C. Rousu ,
Daniel C. Monchuk ,
Jason F. Shogren  and
Katherine M. Kosa
Matthew C. Rousu
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, PA
Daniel C. Monchuk
Affiliation:
Department of Economics Finance, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS
Jason F. Shogren
Affiliation:
Natural Resource Conservation and Management in the Department of Economics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY
Katherine M. Kosa
Affiliation:
RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC
Get access

Abstract

Environmental and consumer groups have called for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered (GE) food products in the United States, stating that consumers have the “right to know.” Herein, we use a nonhypothetical field experiment to examine the willingness to pay for GE-labeled products, using the only second-generation GE product currently on the U.S. market—GE cigarettes. Our results suggest consumers pay less for GE-labeled cigarettes when marketing information is absent. But, when presented with marketing information on the attributes of the cigarette, we find no evidence that consumers pay less for GE-labeled cigarettes.

Keywords

auctionsBDM mechanismcigarettesfield experimentgenetically engineered foodssecond-generationC91Q18
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , December 2005 , pp. 647 - 657
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Becker, G.M., DeGroot, H.H., and Marschak, J.. “Measuring Utility by a Single Response Sequential Method.” Behavioral Science 9(July 1964):226–36.Google Scholar
Chern, W.S., Rickertsen, K., Tsuboi, N., and T.-T. Fu. “Consumer Acceptance and Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Vegetable Oil and Salmon: A Multiple-Country Assessment.” Ag-bioforum 5(2002): 105–12.Google Scholar
Cherry, T., Crocker, T., and Shogren, J.F.. “Rationality Spillovers.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45(2003):63–84.Google Scholar
Corrigan, J.R., and Rousu, M.. “Posted Prices, Affiliated Values, and the Top-Dog Effect: Evidence from Experimental Auctions.” RTI working paper, 2003a.Google Scholar
Corrigan, J.R., and Rousu, M.. “The Effect of Initial Endowments in Experimental Auctions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2006, in press.Google Scholar
Fox, J.A., Hayes, D.J., and Shogren, J.F.. “Consumer Preferences for Food Irradiation: How Favorable and Unfavorable Descriptions Affect Preferences for Irradiated Pork in Experimental Auctions.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 24(2002):75–95.Google Scholar
Frewer, L.J., Scholderer, J., and Bredahl, L.. “Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust.” Risk Analysis 23(2003): 1117–33.Google Scholar
Friends of the Earth. “The Need for Labeling Genetically Engineered Foods.” Internet site: http://www.foe.org/safefood/factshtgelabel.htm (Accessed March 2001).Google Scholar
Greenpeace International. “We Want Natural Food!” Internet site: http://www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/ (Accessed March 2001a).Google Scholar
Greenpeace International. “7. Public Concern.” Internet site: http://www.greenpeace.org/%7Egeneng/reports/food/intrfo07.htm (Accessed March 2001b).Google Scholar
Greenpeace International. “11. The Potential for Allergic Reactions.” Internet site: http://www.greenpeace.org/%7Egeneng/reports/food/intrfo11.htm (Accessed March 2001c).Google Scholar
Grimsrud, K., McCluskey, J.J., Loureiro, M.L., and Wahl, T.I.. “Consumer Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food in Norway.” IMPACT Center technical working paper. Pullman, WA: International Marketing Program for Agricultural Commodities and Trade, 2003.Google Scholar
Hayes, D.J., Shogren, J.F., Shin, S.Y., and Kliebenstein, J.B.. “Valuing Food Safety in Experimental Auction Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77(February 1995):40—53.Google Scholar
Hoban, Thomas J. “Trends in Consumer Attitudes about Agricultural Biotechnology.” Agbioforum 1(1998):3–7.Google Scholar
Huffman, W.E., Rousu, M., Shogren, J.F., and Tegene, A.. “Consumer Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Food Labels in a Market with Diverse Information: Evidence from Experimental Auctions.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 28(December 2003a): 481–502.Google Scholar
Huffman, W.E., Rousu, M., Shogren, J.F., and Tegene, A.. “The Public Good Value of Information from Agribusinesses on Genetically Modified Foods.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(December 2003b): 1309–15.Google Scholar
List, J.A., and Shogren, J.F.. “Price Information and Bidding Behavior in Repeated Second-Price Auctions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81 (November 1999):942–9.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L. “Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(November 2003):840–56.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., Daniel, M.S., Mark, D.R., and Lusk, C.L.. “Alternative Calibration and Auction Institutions for Predicting Consumer Willingness to Pay of Nongenetically Modified Corn Chips.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26(July 2001a):40–57.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., Fox, J.A., Schroeder, T.C., Mintert, J., and Koohmaraie, M.. “In Store Valuation of Steak Tenderness.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(August 2001b):539–50.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., House, L.O., Valli, C., Jaeger, S.R., Moore, M., Morrow, B., and Traill, W.B.. “Effect of Information about Benefits of Biotechnology on Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food: Evidence from Experimental Auctions in the United States, England, and France.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 31(2004):179–204.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., Jamal, M., Kurlander, L., Roucan, M., Taulman, L.. “A Meta Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 30 (2005):28–44.Google Scholar
Melton, B.E., Huffman, W.E., Shogren, J.F., and Fox, J.A.. “Consumer Preferences for Fresh Food Items with Multiple Quality Attributes.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78(November 2003):916–23.Google Scholar
Noussair, C., Robin, S., and Ruffieux, B.. “Do Consumers Really Refuse to Buy Genetically Modified Food?” The Economic Journal 114(2004): 102–20.Google Scholar
Rousu, M., and Huffman, W.E.. “GE Food Labeling Policies of the U.S. and Its Trading Partners.” Ames, IA: Iowa State Department of Economics Staff Paper, Number 344, September 2001.Google Scholar
Rousu, M., Huffman, W.E., Shogren, J.F., and Te-gene, A. “Are United States Consumers Tolerant of Genetically Modified Foods?” Review of Agricultural Economics 26(February 2004a): 19–31.Google Scholar
Rousu, M., Huffman, W.E., Shogren, J.F., and Tegene, A.. “Estimating the Public Value of Conflicting Information: The Case of Genetically Modified Foods.” Land Economics 80(February 2004b): 125–35.Google Scholar
Scholderer, J., and Frewer, L.J.. “The Biotechnology Communication Paradox: Experimental Evidence and the Need to a New Strategy.” Journal of Consumer Policy 26(2, 2003): 125–57.Google Scholar
Shipman, D.R. “Marketing of Grains in Today's Evolving Markets.” Paper presented at the meeting of Strategies for Coexistence of GEO, Non-GEO, and Organic Crop Production, Minneapolis, MN, November 28, 2001.Google Scholar
Shogren, J.F., Cho, S., Koo, C., List, J., Park, C., Polo, P., and Wilhelmi, R.. “Auction Mechanisms and the Measurement of WTP and WTA.” Resource and Energy Economics 23 (April 2001b): 97–110.Google Scholar
Shogren, J.F., List, J.A., and Hayes, D.. “Preference Learning in Consecutive Experimental Auctions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(November 2000): 1016–21.Google Scholar
Shogren, J.F., Margolis, M., Koo, C., and List, J.A.. “A Random nth-Price Auction.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 46(December 2001a):97–109.Google Scholar
Shogren, J.F., Shin, S.Y., Hayes, D.J., and Klie-benstein, J.B.. “Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept.” The American Economic Review 84(March 1994):255–70.Google Scholar
Teisl, M.E., Halverson, L., O'Brien, K., Roe, B., Ross, N., and Vayda, M.. “Focus Group Reactions to Genetically Modified Food Labels.” Agbioforum 5(2002):6–9.Google Scholar
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Guidance for Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering.” Internet site: http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/biolabgu.html (Accessed January 2001).Google Scholar
Vickrey, W. “Counterspeculation, Auctions, and Competitive Sealed Tenders.” Journal of Finance 16(March 1961):8–37.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, J.M. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002.Google Scholar