IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea15/204869.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are all GMO’s the same? Consumer acceptance of cisgenic rice in India

Author

Listed:
  • Shew, Aaron M.
  • Nalley, Lawton L.
  • Danforth, Diana M.
  • Dixon, Bruce L.
  • Nayga, Rodolpho M. Jr
  • Delwaide, Anne-Cecile

Abstract

India has more than 215 million food insecure people, many of whom are farmers. Genetically modified (GM) crops have the potential to alleviate this problem by increasing food supplies and strengthening farmer livelihoods. For this to occur, two factors are critical: (1) a change in the regulatory status of GM crops, and (2) consumer acceptance of GM foods. There are generally two classifications of GM crops based on how they are bred: cisgenically-bred, derived from sexually compatible organisms, and transgenically-bred, derived from sexually incompatible organisms. Consumers may view cisgenic foods as more natural than those produced via transgenesis, thus influencing consumer acceptance. This premise was the catalyst for our study—would Indian consumers accept cisgenically-bred rice and if so, how would they value cisgenics compared to conventionally-bred rice, GM-labeled rice, and “no fungicide” rice? In this willingness-to-pay study, respondents did not view cisgenic and GM rice differently. However, participants were willing-to-pay a premium for any aforementioned rice with a “no fungicide” attribute, which cisgenics and GM could provide. Lastly, 76% and 73% of respondents stated a willingness-to-consume GM and cisgenic foods, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Shew, Aaron M. & Nalley, Lawton L. & Danforth, Diana M. & Dixon, Bruce L. & Nayga, Rodolpho M. Jr & Delwaide, Anne-Cecile, 2015. "Are all GMO’s the same? Consumer acceptance of cisgenic rice in India," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 204869, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea15:204869
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.204869
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/204869/files/AAEA_paper.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.204869?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. Kouser, Shahzad & Qaim, Matin, 2011. "Impact of Bt cotton on pesticide poisoning in smallholder agriculture: A panel data analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2105-2113, September.
    2. Deodhar, Satish Y. & Ganesh, Sankar & Chern, Wen S., 2008. "Emerging Markets for GM Foods: A Study of Consumer's Willingness to Pay in India," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6348, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. 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.
    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. Omid M. Ghoochani & Mansour Ghanian & Masoud Baradaran & Erfan Alimirzaei & Hossein Azadi, 2018. "Behavioral intentions toward genetically modified crops in Southwest Iran: a multi-stakeholder analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 233-253, February.
    2. J. Ross Pruitt & Kaitlyn M. Melton & Marco A. Palma, 2021. "Does Physical Activity Influence Consumer Acceptance of Gene Edited Food?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-12, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Shew, Aaron M. & Danforth, Diana M. & Nalley, Lawton L. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Tsiboe, Francis & Dixon, Bruce L., 2016. "Consumers’ Willingness-To-Pay for RNAi versus Bt Rice: Are all biotechnologies the same?," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235110, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. De Marchi, Elisa & Cavaliere, Alessia & Banterle, Alessandro, 2021. "Identifying Motivations for Acceptance of Cisgenic Food: Results from a Randomized Controlled Choice Experiment," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 47(1), January.
    6. Lusk, Jayson L. & McFadden, Brandon R. & Wilson, Norbert, 2018. "Do consumers care how a genetically engineered food was created or who created it?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 81-90.
    7. Valerie Kilders & Vincenzina Caputo, 2021. "Is Animal Welfare Promoting Hornless Cattle? Assessing Consumer’s Valuation for Milk from Gene‐edited Cows under Different Information Regimes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 735-759, September.
    8. Paudel, Bindu & Kolady, Deepthi Elizabeth & Just, David R. & Van Der Sluis, Evert, 2021. "Determinants of consumer acceptance of genetically modified and gene-edited foods: Market and policy implications," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313905, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. Shew, Aaron M. & Nalley, Lawton L., 2015. "Indian Acceptance of Cisgenic Rice: Are all GMOs the same?," GMCC-15: Seventh GMCC, November 17-20, 2015, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 211492, International Conference on Coexistence between Genetically Modified (GM) and non-GM based Agricultural Supply Chains (GMCC).
    2. Bansal, Sangeeta & Gruère, Guillaume P., 2012. "Implications of mandatory labeling of GM food in India: Evidence from the supply side," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 467-472.
    3. Qiao, Fangbin, 2015. "Fifteen Years of Bt Cotton in China: The Economic Impact and its Dynamics," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 177-185.
    4. Paul Vincelli, 2016. "Genetic Engineering and Sustainable Crop Disease Management: Opportunities for Case-by-Case Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-22, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Kouser, Shahzad & Qaim, Matin, 2012. "Valuing financial, health and environmental benefits of Bt cotton in Pakistan," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126544, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Saunders, Caroline & Guenther, Meike & Tait, Peter & Saunders, John, 2013. "Consumer attitudes and willingness to pay for attributes of food, in particular from New Zealand," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 158378, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. 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.
    9. Anyam, Osemeke E. & Fashogbon, Ayodele E. & Oni, Omobowale A., 2013. "Consumers’Willingness to Pay for Safety Attributes of Bread in Lagos Metropolis, Nigeria," 2013 Fourth International Conference, September 22-25, 2013, Hammamet, Tunisia 161630, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    10. Skidmore, Marin & Sims, Kaitlyn M. & Gibbs, Holly & Rausch, Lisa, 2021. "Health, climate, and agriculture: A case study of childhood cancer in Brazil’s Amazon and Cerrado biomes," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313872, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Aerni, Philipp, 2011. "Food Sovereignty and its Discontents," Papers 267, World Trade Institute.
    12. Noltze, Martin & Schwarze, Stefan & Qaim, Matin, 2013. "Impacts of natural resource management technologies on agricultural yield and household income: The system of rice intensification in Timor Leste," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 59-68.
    13. Saunders, Caroline & Guenther, Meike & Tait, Peter & John, Saunders, 2013. "Consumer attitudes towards and willingness to pay for NZ food attributes in the UK, China and India and the impact on NZ producer returns," 2013 Conference, August 28-30, 2013, Christchurch, New Zealand 160561, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    14. Sellare, Jorge & Meemken, Eva-Marie & Qaim, Matin, 2020. "Fairtrade, Agrochemical Input Use, and Effects on Human Health and the Environment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    15. Enthoven, Laura & Van den Broeck, Goedele, 2023. "How to boost the local trade of participatory guarantee system (PGS)-certified produce? A value chain perspective in Huánuco, Peru," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    16. Sidali, Katia Laura & Spiller, Achim & von Meyer-Hofer, Marie, 2016. "Consumer Expectations Regarding Sustainable Food: Insights from Developed and Emerging Markets," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(3), pages 1-30, August.
    17. 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.
    18. Birol, Ekin & Roy, Devesh & Torero, Maximo, 2010. "How safe is my food?: Assessing the effect of information and credible certification on consumer demand for food safety in developing countries," IFPRI discussion papers 1029, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    19. Satish Y Deodhar, 2015. "Make in India: Re-chanting the Mantra with a Difference," Working Papers id:6593, eSocialSciences.
    20. 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.

    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:ags:aaea15:204869. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.