IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jageco/v60y2009i3p604-624.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Acceptance of Second‐Generation GM Foods: The Case of Biofortified Cassava in the North‐east of Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Carolina González
  • Nancy Johnson
  • Matin Qaim

Abstract

Biofortified staple foods are currently being developed to reduce problems of micronutrient malnutrition among the poor. This partly involves use of genetic modification. Yet, relatively little is known about consumer acceptance of such second‐generation genetically modified (GM) foods in developing countries. Here, we analyse consumer attitudes towards provitamin A GM cassava in the north‐east of Brazil. Based on stated preference data, mean willingness to pay is estimated at 60–70% above market prices for traditional cassava. This is higher than the results from similar studies in developed countries, which is plausible given that micronutrient malnutrition is more severe in developing countries. GM foods with enhanced nutritive attributes seem to be well received by poor consumers. However, the results also suggest that acceptance would be still higher if provitamin A were introduced to cassava through conventional breeding. Some policy implications are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Carolina González & Nancy Johnson & Matin Qaim, 2009. "Consumer Acceptance of Second‐Generation GM Foods: The Case of Biofortified Cassava in the North‐east of Brazil," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 604-624, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:60:y:2009:i:3:p:604-624
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2009.00219.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2009.00219.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2009.00219.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Han, Jae-Hwan & Harrison, R. Wes, 2006. "Consumer Valuation of the Second Generation of Genetically Modified (GM) Foods with Benefits Disclosure," 2006 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2006, Orlando, Florida 35277, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    2. Simon Chege Kimenju & Hugo De Groote, 2008. "Consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 35-46, January.
    3. Rousu, Matthew C. & Monchuk, Daniel C. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kosa, Katherine M., 2005. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for "Second-Generation" Genetically Engineered Products and the Role of Marketing Information," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1-11, December.
    4. McCluskey, Jill J. & Grimsrud, Kristine M. & Ouchi, Hiromi & Wahl, Thomas I., 2003. "Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Food Products in Japan," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 222-231, October.
    5. Matin Qaim & Alexander J. Stein & J. V. Meenakshi, 2007. "Economics of biofortification," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 37(s1), pages 119-133, December.
    6. Matin Qaim & Alain de Janvry, 2003. "Genetically Modified Crops, Corporate Pricing Strategies, and Farmers' Adoption: The Case of Bt Cotton in Argentina," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 814-828.
    7. Jayson L. Lusk & W. Bruce Traill & Lisa O. House & Carlotta Valli & Sara R. Jaeger & Melissa Moore & Bert Morrow, 2006. "Comparative Advantage in Demand: Experimental Evidence of Preferences for Genetically Modified Food in the United States and European Union," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 1-21, March.
    8. John Calfee & Clifford Winston & Randolph Stempski, 2001. "Econometric Issues In Estimating Consumer Preferences From Stated Preference Data: A Case Study Of The Value Of Automobile Travel Time," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(4), pages 699-707, November.
    9. Anna Merino, 2003. "Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 705, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    10. Vijesh V. Krishna & Matin Qaim, 2008. "Consumer Attitudes toward GM Food and Pesticide Residues in India," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 233-251.
    11. Onyango, Benjamin M. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2004. "Consumer Acceptance of Nutritionally Enhanced Genetically Modified Food: Relevance of Gene Transfer Technology," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 1-17, December.
    12. Mike Christie & Christopher D. Azevedo, 2009. "Testing the Consistency Between Standard Contingent Valuation, Repeated Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 154-170, February.
    13. Jayson L. Lusk, 2003. "Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 840-856.
    14. Klaus G. Grunert & Tino Bech-Larsen & Liisa Lähteenmäki & Øydis Ueland & Annika Åström, 2004. "Attitudes towards the use of GMOs in food production and their impact on buying intention: The role of positive sensory experience," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 95-107.
    15. Lusk, Jayson L. & Jamal, Mustafa & Kurlander, Lauren & Roucan, Maud & Taulman, Lesley, 2005. "A Meta-Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 1-17, April.
    16. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    17. Meenakshi, J.V. & Johnson, Nancy L. & Manyong, Victor M. & DeGroote, Hugo & Javelosa, Josyline & Yanggen, David R. & Naher, Firdousi & Gonzalez, Carolina & García, James & Meng, Erika, 2010. "How Cost-Effective is Biofortification in Combating Micronutrient Malnutrition? An Ex ante Assessment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 64-75, January.
    18. Anna Merino, 2003. "Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment," Economics Working Papers 705, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    19. Man‐ser Jan & Tsu‐tan Fu & Chung L. Huang, 2007. "A Conjoint/Logit Analysis of Consumers’ Responses to Genetically Modified Tofu in Taiwan," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 330-347, June.
    20. Breustedt, Gunnar & Muller-Scheessel, Jorg & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2008. "Forecasting the Adoption of GM Oilseed Rape: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," 82nd Annual Conference, March 31 - April 2, 2008, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK 36771, Agricultural Economics Society.
    21. Gunnar Breustedt & Jörg Müller‐Scheeßel & Uwe Latacz‐Lohmann, 2008. "Forecasting the Adoption of GM Oilseed Rape: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 237-256, June.
    22. Foster, Vivien & Mourato, Susana, 2002. "Testing for Consistency in Contingent Ranking Experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 309-328, September.
    23. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    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. Zhihao Zheng & Shida R. Henneberry & Chuanzhong Sun & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2018. "Consumer Demand for Genetically Modified Rice in Urban China," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 705-725, September.
    2. Patil, Vikram & Ghosh, Ranjan & Kathuria, Vinish & Farrell, Katharine N., 2020. "Money, Land or self-employment? Understanding preference heterogeneity in landowners’ choices for compensation under land acquisition in India," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    3. Etumnu, Chinonso, 2016. "Behavioral Determinants of Biofortified Food Acceptance: The Case of Orange-fleshed Sweet Potato in Ghana," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235249, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Juarez Tijerino, Andrea Maria & Spiller, Achim, 2015. "Sustainable food consumption in China and India," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 198718, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    5. 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.
    6. Vera Teresa Foti & Alessandro Scuderi & Claudio Bellia & Giuseppe Timpanaro, 2021. "Biofortification of tomatoes in Italy: Status and level of knowledge," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 67(6), pages 227-235.
    7. Todua Nugzar & Gogitidze Teona & Phutkaradze Jaba, 2015. "Georgian Consumer Attitudes Towards Genetically Modified Products," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 46(1), pages 120-133, June.
    8. Meyer-Höfer, Marie von & Spiller, Achim, 2015. ""Sustainability" a semi-globalisable concept for international food marketing: Consumer expectations regarding sustainable food," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202747, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Gautam, Ruskin & Gustafson, Christopher R. & Brooks, Kathleen R., 2017. "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.
    10. Rim Lassoued & Konstantinos Giannakas, 2010. "Economic Effects of the Consumer‐oriented Genetically Modified Products in Markets with a Labelling Regime," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 499-526, September.
    11. von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2014. "“Sustainability” a semi-globalisable concept for international food marketing - Consumer expectations regarding sustainable food – An explorative survey in industrialised and emerging countries," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 182513, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    12. Giuseppe Timpanaro & Claudio Bellia & Vera Teresa Foti & Alessandro Scuderi, 2020. "Consumer Behaviour of Purchasing Biofortified Food Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-14, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Schipmann, Christin & Qaim, Matin, 2011. "Supply chain differentiation, contract agriculture, and farmers’ marketing preferences: the case of sweet pepper in Thailand," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 108349, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    15. Schipmann, Christin & Qaim, Matin, 2011. "Supply chain differentiation, contract agriculture, and farmers’ marketing preferences: The case of sweet pepper in Thailand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 667-677.
    16. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Livingston, Michael J. & Mitchell, Lorraine & Wechsler, Seth, 2014. "Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States," Economic Research Report 164263, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    17. Soliño, M. & Alía, R. & Agúndez, D., 2020. "Citizens' preferences for research programs on forest genetic resources: A case applied to Pinus pinaster Ait. in Spain," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    18. Onyia, Chukwuemeka & Okpukpara, Benjamin & Onyekuru, NwaJesus Anthony & Okpukpara, Victoria, 2023. "Willingness to pay for the production of biogas from poultry waste recycling: Evidence from farmers in Nigeria," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 18(2), November.

    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. Kennedy Otieno, Pambo, 2013. "Analysis of Consumer Awareness and Preferences for Fortified Sugar in Kenya," Research Theses 243455, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    2. Apurba Shee & Carlo Azzarri & Beliyou Haile, 2019. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Rim Lassoued & Konstantinos Giannakas, 2010. "Economic Effects of the Consumer‐oriented Genetically Modified Products in Markets with a Labelling Regime," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 499-526, September.
    4. Dannenberg, Astrid, 2008. "Is it Who You Ask or How You Ask? Findings of a Meta-Analysis on Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    5. Dannenberg, Astrid, 2009. "The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food -- A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2182-2192, June.
    6. Badio, Levenson & Zapata, Samuel D., 2024. "A Meta-Analysis of Consumer Willingness to Pay and Farmer Adoption Rates of Genetically Modified Crops," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343972, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    8. Delmond, Anthony R. & McCluskey, Jill J. & Yormirzoev, Mirzobobo & Rogova, Maria A., 2018. "Russian consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 91-100.
    9. Pfarr Christian & Ulrich Volker, 2011. "Discrete-Choice-Experimente zur Ermittlung der Präferenzen für Umverteilung," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 62(3), pages 232-262, December.
    10. Rattiya Suddeephong Lippe & Ulrike Grote, 2017. "Determinants Affecting Adoption of GLOBALG.A.P. Standards: A Choice Experiment in Thai Horticulture," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(2), pages 242-256, April.
    11. Caswell, Julie A. & Joseph, Siny, 2007. "Consumer Demand for Quality: Major Determinant for Agricultural and Food Trade in the Future?," Working Paper Series 7390, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
    12. repec:bla:eurcho:v:8:y:2009:i:specialissuechina:p:44-50 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Mirzobobo Yormirzoev & Ramona Teuber & Daniil Baranov, 2018. "Is Tajikistan a Potential Market for Genetically Modified Potatoes?," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(1), pages 216-226.
    14. Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu & Carl Pray & Yanhong Jin, 2019. "Perception and Attitude toward GM Technology among Agribusiness Managers in China as Producers and as Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, March.
    15. Na-na Wang & Liang-guo Luo & Ya-ru Pan & Xue-mei Ni, 2019. "Use of discrete choice experiments to facilitate design of effective environmentally friendly agricultural policies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1543-1559, August.
    16. Chinedu, Obi & Sanou, Edouard & Tur-Cardona, Juan & Bartolini, Fabio & Gheysen, Godelieve & Speelman, Stijn, 2018. "Farmers’ valuation of transgenic biofortified sorghum for nutritional improvement in Burkina Faso: A latent class approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 132-140.
    17. Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2006. "Social Desirability Bias in Willingness-to-Pay for Products with Normative Attributes," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21428, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. repec:ags:aaea15:200414 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Giles Atkinson & Susana Mourato & Stefan Szymanski & Ece Ozdemiroglu, 2008. "Are We Willing to Pay Enough to `Back the Bid'?: Valuing the Intangible Impacts of London's Bid to Host the 2012 Summer Olympic Games," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 45(2), pages 419-444, February.
    20. Canavari, Maurizio & Tisselli, Farid & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2009. "Italian Consumer Acceptance of Nutritionally Enhanced GM Food," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51651, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    21. Kennedy Otieno Pambo & David Jakinda Otieno & Julius Juma Okello, 2017. "Analysis of Consumer Preference for Vitamin A-Fortified Sugar in Kenya," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 29(4), pages 745-768, August.
    22. Pambo, Kennedy & Otieno, David & Okello, Julius J., 2015. "Willingness-to-Pay for Sugar Fortification in Western Kenya," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202970, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    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:bla:jageco:v:60:y:2009:i:3:p:604-624. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-857X .

    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.