IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i2p971-d725764.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumers’ Willingness to Buy CRISPR Gene-Edited Tomatoes: Evidence from a Choice Experiment Case Study in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Linde Götz

    (Department Agricultural Markets, Marketing and World Agricultural Trade, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), 06120 Halle, Germany
    Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, 06108 Halle, Germany)

  • Miranda Svanidze

    (Department Agricultural Markets, Marketing and World Agricultural Trade, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), 06120 Halle, Germany)

  • Alain Tissier

    (Department of Cell and Metabolic Biology, Leibniz Institute of Plant Biochemistry (IPB), 06120 Halle, Germany)

  • Alejandro Brand Duran

    (Department of Cell and Metabolic Biology, Leibniz Institute of Plant Biochemistry (IPB), 06120 Halle, Germany)

Abstract

The CRISPR gene-editing (GE) breeding method is used to increase the resilience of high-yielding tomato cultivars against pests and diseases, reducing crop protection requirements. This study investigated consumers’ willingness to buy CRISPR GE tomatoes in a repeated discrete-choice experiment. We observed a strong positive effect of providing information on the CRISPR breeding technology, while the sensory experience of the CRISPR GE tomatoes in a visit to a greenhouse had a rather weak, predominantly negative effect on the participants’ willingness to buy CRISPR GE tomatoes. We found that roughly half of the 32 participants demonstrated constant CRISPR GE tomato choices during the experiments, and these participants were mainly employed as scientists. However, the rest of the participants changed their CRISPR GE tomato choices, with the majority showing an increase in their willingness to buy CRISPR GE tomatoes; these “changers” were dominated by non-scientists. Science communication on CRISPR GE breeding technology should target people with little knowledge about the technology, and consumers of organic tomatoes seem to have more specified, stable preferences regarding the technology. Further, scientific information about the CRISPR GE methodology should preferentially be provided when new technology and information about it are not yet widespread and people have not yet formed a strong opinion about the technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Linde Götz & Miranda Svanidze & Alain Tissier & Alejandro Brand Duran, 2022. "Consumers’ Willingness to Buy CRISPR Gene-Edited Tomatoes: Evidence from a Choice Experiment Case Study in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-12, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:2:p:971-:d:725764
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/2/971/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/2/971/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jerrod M Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1186-1206.
    2. John C. Beghin & Christopher R. Gustafson, 2021. "Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    3. John C. Beghin & Christopher R. Gustafson, 2021. "Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with NPETs: A Review," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 21-wp621, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    4. Vincent Smith & Justus H. H. Wesseler & David Zilberman, 2021. "New Plant Breeding Technologies: An Assessment of the Political Economy of the Regulatory Environment and Implications for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, March.
    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. Kliem, Lea & Sagebiel, Julian, 2023. "Consumers' preferences for commons-based and open-source produce: A discrete choice experiment with directional information manipulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).

    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. Götz, Linde & Svanidze, Miranda & Tissier, Alain & Brand Duran, Alejandro, 2022. "Consumers’ willingness to Buy CRISPR gene-edited tomatoes: Evidence from a choice experiment case study in Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 14(2).
    2. Stéphan Marette & Anne‐Célia Disdier & Anastasia Bodnar & John Beghin, 2023. "New plant engineering techniques, R&D investment and international trade," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 349-368, June.
    3. Stéphan Marette & John Beghin & Anne‐Célia Disdier & Eliza Mojduszka, 2023. "Can foods produced with new plant engineering techniques succeed in the marketplace? A case study of apples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 414-435, March.
    4. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.
    5. Magdiel Pablo-Cano & Anastacio Espejel-García & Arturo Hernández-Montes & Landy Hernández-Rodríguez, 2024. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Attributes of Sustainability, Origin and Production Process in Raicilla," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-13, October.
    6. Shahida Anusha Siddiqui & Zarnab Asif & Misbah Murid & Ito Fernando & Danung Nur Adli & Andrey Vladimirovich Blinov & Alexey Borisovich Golik & Widya Satya Nugraha & Salam A. Ibrahim & Seid Mahdi Jafa, 2022. "Consumer Social and Psychological Factors Influencing the Use of Genetically Modified Foods—A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-22, November.
    7. Gabriella Vindigni & Iuri Peri & Federica Consentino & Roberta Selvaggi & Daniela Spina, 2022. "Exploring Consumers’ Attitudes towards Food Products Derived by New Plant Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, May.
    8. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    9. Ola, Oreoluwa & Menapace, Luisa, 2020. "A meta-analysis understanding smallholder entry into high-value markets," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    10. John C. Whitehead & Alicia Louis Cornicelli & Gregory Howard, 2024. "Total Economic Valuation of Great Lakes Recreational Fisheries: Attribute Non-attendance, Hypothetical Bias and Insensitivity to Scope," Working Papers 24-10, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    11. repec:ags:aaea22:335998 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Kevin W. Maina & Martin C. Parlasca & Elizaphan J. O. Rao & Matin Qaim, 2024. "Farmer‐friendly delivery of veterinary services: Experimental insights from the Kenyan dairy sector," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(3), pages 829-846, September.
    13. John C. Whitehead, 2024. "Review of Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods: A Comprehensive Critique. Edited by Daniel McFadden and Kenneth Train (2017): An Update," Working Papers 24-17, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    14. Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2020. "Unraveling hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 416-430.
    15. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    16. Pengfei Liu & Lingling Hou & Dongqing Li & Shi Min & Yueying Mu, 2021. "Determinants of Livestock Insurance Demand: Experimental Evidence from Chinese Herders," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 430-451, June.
    17. Zhu, Zhanguo & Zhang, Tong & Hu, Wuyang, 2023. "The accumulation and substitution effects of multi-nation certified organic and protected eco-origin food labels in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    18. Áron Török & Ching-Hua Yeh & Davide Menozzi & Péter Balogh & Péter Czine, 2023. "Consumers' preferences for processed meat: a best–worst scaling approach in three European countries," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, December.
    19. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    20. Bi, Hui & Ye, Zhirui & Hu, Liyang & Zhu, He, 2021. "Why they don't choose bus service? Understanding special online car-hailing behavior near bus stops," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 280-297.
    21. Caracciolo, Francesco & Cavallo, Carla & Giudice, Teresa Del & Panico, Teresa & Vecchio, Riccardo & Cicia, Gianni, 2011. "Consumers (Dis)Preference for Bitterness in Extra Virgin Olive Oil: A Field Experiment," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 11(01), January.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:2:p:971-:d:725764. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.