IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea16/235110.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumers’ Willingness-To-Pay for RNAi versus Bt Rice: Are all biotechnologies the same?

Author

Listed:
  • Shew, Aaron M.
  • Danforth, Diana M.
  • Nalley, Lawton L.
  • Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr.
  • Tsiboe, Francis
  • Dixon, Bruce L.

Abstract

Consumers’ valuation of food products derived from Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) have played a pivotal and often constraining role in the development of biotechnology advances in agriculture. As a result, agricultural companies have started exploring new biotechnologies that do not require the genetic modification of crops. One of these emerging biotechnologies is a non-GMO RNA interference (RNAi) liquid application that could be used to control specific insect pests. When ingested by a targeted sub-species of an insect during production, RNAi blocks the expression of a vital gene, which in turn kills it. RNAi is non-toxic to humans and kills only targeted sub-species of insects, which differs from most conventional pesticides. For example, RNAi could selectively eliminate a specific sub-species of caterpillar pest, while not harming a monarch butterfly caterpillar. In contrast, conventional pesticides often kill insects indiscriminately and vary in human toxicity levels. Since agricultural producers and researchers have faced opposition to GMOs, this may be an alternative to controlling commonly encountered insects; however, consumers’ valuation of traditional GM compared to RNAi derived foods has not been evaluated in the scientific literature. Thus, we conducted a Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) survey in the USA, Canada, Australia, France, and Belgium to analyze whether consumers need a premium or discount for: (1) a hypothetical GMO rice using the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) gene for insect control; and (2) a hypothetical non-GMO rice using RNAi for insect control. Since there is currently no commercially-available GMO rice, measuring consumers’ valuation of rice produced by alternative biotechnologies provides vital information for crop breeders and policy makers. The results suggest that consumers require a discount for RNAi and Bt rice compared to a conventionally produced rice, but the discount required for the non-GMO RNAi rice was 30-40 percent less than that needed to purchase GMO Bt rice (p < 0.01).

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea16:235110
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.235110
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/235110/files/RNAi_AAEA_Submitted.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.235110?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. 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.
    2. Andrew Fire & SiQun Xu & Mary K. Montgomery & Steven A. Kostas & Samuel E. Driver & Craig C. Mello, 1998. "Potent and specific genetic interference by double-stranded RNA in Caenorhabditis elegans," Nature, Nature, vol. 391(6669), pages 806-811, February.
    3. Taheripour, Farzad & Mahaffey, Harry & Tyner, Wallace E., 2015. "Evaluation of Economic, Land Use, and Land Use Emission Impacts of Substituting Non-GMO Crops for GMO in the US," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 204907, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Petersen, Alexander M. & Rotolo, Daniele & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2016. "A triple helix model of medical innovation: Supply, demand, and technological capabilities in terms of Medical Subject Headings," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 666-681.
    2. Mark G Sterken & L Basten Snoek & Kobus J Bosman & Jikke Daamen & Joost A G Riksen & Jaap Bakker & Gorben P Pijlman & Jan E Kammenga, 2014. "A Heritable Antiviral RNAi Response Limits Orsay Virus Infection in Caenorhabditis elegans N2," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-8, February.
    3. Gersbach, Hans & Sorger, Gerhard & Amon, Christian, 2018. "Hierarchical growth: Basic and applied research," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 434-459.
    4. Aflaq Hamid & Sahar Saleem, 2022. "Role of nanoparticles in management of plant pathogens and scope in plant transgenics for imparting disease resistance," Plant Protection Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 58(3), pages 173-184.
    5. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann, 2012. "Mapping (USPTO) patent data using overlays to Google Maps," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(7), pages 1442-1458, July.
    6. Ian F. Price & Jillian A. Wagner & Benjamin Pastore & Hannah L. Hertz & Wen Tang, 2023. "C. elegans germ granules sculpt both germline and somatic RNAome," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Joseph Nsengimana & Lander Bauters & Annelies Haegeman & Godelieve Gheysen, 2013. "Silencing of Mg - pat-10 and Mg - unc-87 in the Plant Parasitic Nematode Meloidogyne graminicola Using siRNAs," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-12, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Kyle A McQuisten & Andrew S Peek, 2009. "Comparing Artificial Neural Networks, General Linear Models and Support Vector Machines in Building Predictive Models for Small Interfering RNAs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(10), pages 1-14, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Loet Leydesdorff & Daniele Rotolo & Ismael Rafols, 2012. "Bibliometric perspectives on medical innovation using the medical subject Headings of PubMed," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(11), pages 2239-2253, November.
    13. Arnaud Segers & Joachim Carpentier & Frédéric Francis & Rudy Caparros Megido, 2023. "Gene Silencing of laccase 1 Induced by Double-Stranded RNA in Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius 1775) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Suggests RNAi as a Potential New Biotechnological Tool for Bruchid’s," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-19, February.
    14. Wei-Jie Pan & Chi-Wei Chen & Yen-Wei Chu, 2011. "siPRED: Predicting siRNA Efficacy Using Various Characteristic Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-7, November.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Zahra Narimani & Hamid Beigy & Ashar Ahmad & Ali Masoudi-Nejad & Holger Fröhlich, 2017. "Expectation propagation for large scale Bayesian inference of non-linear molecular networks from perturbation data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, February.
    18. Daniele Rotolo & Ismael Rafols & Michael Hopkins & Loet Leydesdorff, 2014. "Scientometric Mapping as a Strategic Intelligence Tool for the Governance of Emerging Technologies," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-10, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    19. Brian Hauge & Christopher Oggero & Nicole Nguyen & Changlin Fu & Fenggao Dong, 2009. "Single Tube, High Throughput Cloning of Inverted Repeat Constructs for Double-Stranded RNA Expression," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(9), pages 1-7, September.
    20. Chai, Sen & Menon, Anoop, 2019. "Breakthrough recognition: Bias against novelty and competition for attention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 733-747.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Agricultural and Food Policy; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; Marketing; Risk and Uncertainty;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea16:235110. 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.