Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T13:25:31.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Oil, Cornflakes, and Salmon: Evidence from a U.S. Telephone Survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Naoya Kaneko  and
Wen S. Chern
Naoya Kaneko
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
Wen S. Chern
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reports results from a U.S. national telephone survey on genetically modified foods (vegetable oil, cornflakes, and salmon). The survey featured a contingent valuation in which respondents chose between the GM and non-GM alternatives with an option of indifference. The binomial and multinomial logit models yielded estimated willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid the GM alternatives. Respondents were willing to pay 20.9%, 14.8%, 28.4%, and 29.7% of the base prices to avoid GM vegetable oil, GM cornflakes, GM-fed salmon, and GM salmon, respectively. The inclusion of indifference option could increase the sample size and moderate the mean WTP.

Keywords

contingent valuationGMOmultinomial logit modeltelephone surveywillingness to payQ0D1
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , December 2005 , pp. 701 - 719
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

Alberini, A. “Efficiency vs. Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29(1995):169–80.Google Scholar
Alberini, A., Boyle, K., and Welsh, M.. “Analysis of Contingent Valuation Data with Multiple Bids and Response Options Allowing Respondents to Express Uncertainty.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45(2003):40–62.Google Scholar
Baker, G.A., and Burnham, T.A.. “Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Foods: Market Segment Analysis and Implications for Producers and Policy Makers.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26(December 2001): 387–403.Google Scholar
Bateman, I.J., Langford, L.H., Jones, A.P., and Kerr, G.N.. “Bound and Path Effects in Double and Triple Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation.” Resource and Energy Economics 23(2001): 191–213.Google Scholar
Boccaletti, S., and Moro, D.. “Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for GM Food Products in Italy.” AgBioForum 3(2000):259–67.Google Scholar
Burton, M., Rigby, D., Young, T., and James, S.. “Consumer Attitudes to Genetically Modified Organisms in Food in the UK.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 28(2001):479–98.Google Scholar
Buzby, J.C., Skees, J.R., and Ready, R.C.. “Using Contingent Valuation to Value Food Safety: A Case Study of Grapefruit and Pesticide Residues.” Valuing Food Safety and Nutrition. Caswell, J.A., ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Cameron, T.A., and Quiggin, J.. “Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a ‘Dichotomous Choice with Follow-up’ Questionnaire.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27(1994):218–34.Google Scholar
Chern, W.S., Rickertsen, K., Tsuboi, N., and Fu, T.-T.. “Consumer Acceptance and Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Vegetable Oil and Salmon: A Multiple-Country Assessment.” AgBioForum 5(2003): 105–12.Google Scholar
Eom, Y.S. “Pesticide Residue Risk and Food Safety Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76(1994):760–71.Google Scholar
Gaskell, G., Bauer, M.W., Durant, J., and Alluna, N.C.. “World Apart? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S.” Science 285(1999):384–87.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. Econometric Analysis, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000.Google Scholar
Grimsrud, K.M., McCluskey, J.J., Loureiro, M.L., and Wahl, T.I.. “Consumer Attitudes to Genetically Modified Food in Norway.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 55(1)(2004):75–90.Google Scholar
Haab, T.C., and McConnell, K.E.. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometries of Non-Market Valuation. Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2002.Google Scholar
Halbrendt, C., Sterling, L., Snider, S., and Santoro, G.. “Contingent Valuation of Consumers' Willingness to Purchase Pork with Lower Saturated Fat.” Valuing Food Safety and Nutrition. Caswell, J.A., ed. Boulder CO: Westview Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Hanemann, M., and Kanninen, B.. “The Statistical Analysis of Discrete Response CV Data.” Valuing Environmental Preferences. Bateman, I.J. and Willis, K.G., eds. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., and Kanninen, B.. “Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73(November 1991): 1255–63.Google Scholar
Herriges, J.A., and Shogren, J.F.. “Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30(1996): 112–31.Google Scholar
Hoban, T.J. “Trends in Consumer Attitudes about Agricultural Biotechnology.” AgBioForum 1(1998):3–7.Google Scholar
Hossain, F., Onyango, B., Adelaja, A., Schilling, B., and Hallman, W.. “Public Perceptions of Biotechnology and Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food.” Working paper, Food Policy Institute, Rutgers University, 2002.Google Scholar
Huang, C.L., Kan, K., and Fu, T.-T.. “A Generalized Binary-Ordinal Probit Model of Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Food Safety in Taiwan.” Journal of Consumer Affairs 33(1999):76—91.Google Scholar
Huffman, W.E., Shogren, J.F., Rousu, M., 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(3)(2003):481–502.Google Scholar
IFIC (International Food Information Council). “April 2003 IFIC Survey: Americans' Acceptance of Food Biotechnology Matches Growers' Increased Adoption of Biotech Crops.” Published online, 2003. Internet site: http://www.ific.org/research/biotechres03.cfm (Accessed March 3, 2004).Google Scholar
Li, Q., Curtis, K.R., McCluskey, J.J., and Wahl, T.I.. “Consumer Attitudes toward Genetically Modified Foods in Beijing, China.” AgBioForum 5(4)(2002): 145–152.Google Scholar
Li, Q., McCluskey, J.J., and Wahl, T.I.. “Effects of Information on Consumers' Willingness to Pay for GM-Corn-Fed Beef.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 2(2004): 1–16.Google Scholar
Loureiro, M.L., McCluskey, J.J., and Mittelhammer, R.C.. “Will Consumers Pay a Premium for Eco-Labeled Apples?” Journal of Consumer Affairs 36(2002):203–19.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., Roosen, J., and Fox, J.A.. “Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(February 2003): 16–29.Google Scholar
McCluskey, J.J., Grimsrud, K.M., Ouchi, H., and Wahl, T.I.. “Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Food Products in Japan.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32(October 2003):222–31.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. and Carson, R.. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1989.Google Scholar
Moon, W, and Balasubramanian, S.K.. “Public Perceptions and Willingness-to-Pay a Premium for Non-GM Foods in the US and UK.” AgBioForum 4(2001):221–31.Google Scholar
Moon, W., and Balasubramanian, S.K.. “Willingness to Pay for Non-Biotech Foods in the U.S. and U.K.” Journal of Consumer Affairs 37(2)(Winter 2003):317–39.Google Scholar
Pew (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology). Public Sentiment about Genetically Modified Food. Published online in March 2001. Internet site: http://pewagbiotech.org/research/gmfood/survey3-01.pdf (Accessed March 25, 2003).Google Scholar
Pew (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology). Future Fish: Issues in Science and Regulation of Transgenic Fish. Published online in January 2003a. Internet site: http://pewagbiotech.org/research/fish/fish.pdf (Accessed March 25, 2003).Google Scholar
Pew (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology). U.S. vs. EU: An Examination of the Trade Issues Surrounding Genetically Modified Food. Published online on August 6, 2003b. Internet site: http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/issuebriefs/europe.pdf (Accessed December 26, 2004).Google Scholar
Priest, S.H. “US Public Opinion Divided over Biotechnology?” Nature Biotechnology 18(September 2000):939–42.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 2004): 125–35.Google Scholar
Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D., and Lee, E.. “Trends: Attitudes about Agricultural Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms.” Public Opinion Quarterly 65(2001):267–81.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. “Census 2000 Gateway.” Internet site: http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html (Accessed February 17, 2003).Google Scholar
Wang, H. “Treatment of “Don't-Know” Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32(1997):219–32.Google Scholar