IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iefi12/144986.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How do Concerns about Pesticides Impact Consumer Willingness to Buy Genetically Modified French Fries in Germany? Results from a Purchasing Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Nielsen, Thea

Abstract

A purchasing experiment in which genetically modified (GM) and conventional french fries were offered for sale at fast food stands in Germany was conducted to assess whether a market exists for GM fries and to identify factors influencing the willingness to buy such fries. The GM and conventional fries were offered for sale at the same price at eight different locations. The GM fries were labelled as being made from “environmentally-friendlier genetically modified potatoes (much less sprays)” while the regular fries were labelled as being made from “conventional potatoes”. Consumers were not aware of their participation in the purchasing experiment until after their purchasing decisions were made. The goal of the experimental set-up was to mimic an actual buying situation to the fullest extent possible. Therefore, information, such as the percentage in reduction of pesticide application or genetic information on the GM potato, were not provided to customers. Of the 331 customers who made a purchasing decision, 56.5% decided to purchase conventional fries and 22.4% GM fries, while 21.1% had no preference between conventional fries and GM fries. A short questionnaire was administered after purchasing decisions were made to better understand factors impacting purchasing decisions. Results from a logistic regression model revealed that worry about pesticides, frequency of organic food purchases, perceptions of the risk of GM foods on health, and the acceptability of GM foods for the environment significantly impact the probability that a customer is willing to buy GM fries. A surprising result is that people who purchase organic food often or always have much higher odds of being willing to purchase GM fries compared to people who purchase organic food less often. The main implication of this study is that a market for fries made from GM potatoes with less pesticide applications currently exists in Germany and could be expanded by providing more information about their genetic origin and reduced pesticide usage.

Suggested Citation

  • Nielsen, Thea, 2012. "How do Concerns about Pesticides Impact Consumer Willingness to Buy Genetically Modified French Fries in Germany? Results from a Purchasing Experiment," 2012 International European Forum, February 13-17, 2012, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 144986, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iefi12:144986
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.144986
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/144986/files/45-Nielsen.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.144986?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. Astrid Dannenberg & Sara Scatasta & Bodo Sturm, 2011. "Mandatory versus voluntary labelling of genetically modified food: evidence from an economic experiment," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 373-386, May.
    2. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    3. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2009. "An Inferred Valuation Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 500-514.
    4. Jason F. Shogren & John A. Fox & Dermot J. Hayes & Jutta Roosen, 1999. "Observed Choices for Food Safety in Retail, Survey, and Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1192-1199.
    5. List John A., 2007. "Field Experiments: A Bridge between Lab and Naturally Occurring Data," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-47, April.
    6. 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.
    7. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2009. "Bridging the gap between laboratory experiments and naturally occurring markets: An inferred valuation method," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 236-250, September.
    10. Charles Noussair & StÈphane Robin & Bernard Ruffieux, 2004. "Do Consumers Really Refuse To Buy Genetically Modified Food?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(492), pages 102-120, January.
    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. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    2. Frank van Tongeren & John Beghin & Stéphane Marette, 2009. "A Cost-Benefit Framework for the Assessment of Non-Tariff Measures in Agro-Food Trade," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 21, OECD Publishing.
    3. Disdier, Anne-Célia & Marette, Stéphan & Millet, Guy, 2013. "Are consumers concerned about palm oil? Evidence from a lab experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 180-189.
    4. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Panagiotis Lazaridis & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2009. "Would consumers value food-away-from-home products with nutritional labels?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(4), pages 550-575.
    5. 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.
    6. John List & Michael Price, 2013. "Using Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics," Artefactual Field Experiments 00447, The Field Experiments Website.
    7. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    8. Alevy, Jonathan E. & Cristi, Oscar & Melo, Oscar, 2010. "Right-to-Choose Auctions: A Field Study of Water Markets in the Limari Valley of Chile," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 1-14, April.
    9. Fredrik Carlsson, 2010. "Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 167-177, June.
    10. Grebitus, Carola & Colson, Gregory & Menapace, Luisa, . "A comparison of hypothetical survey rankings with consumer shopping behavior and product knowledge," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(1), pages 1-13.
    11. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    12. Jonathan E. Alevy & Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2015. "Field Experiments On The Anchoring Of Economic Valuations," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 53(3), pages 1522-1538, July.
    13. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    14. Silva, Andres & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Campbell, Benjamin L. & Park, John L., 2011. "Revisiting Cheap Talk with New Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-12, August.
    15. Bansal, Sangeeta & Chakravarty, Sujoy & Ramaswami, Bharat, 2013. "The informational and signaling impacts of labels: experimental evidence from India on GM foods," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(6), pages 701-722, December.
    16. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    17. Lusk, Jayson L. & Rozan, Anne, 2008. "Public Policy and Endogenous Beliefs: The Case of Genetically Modified Food," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 1-20.
    18. Grebitus, Carola & Colson, Gregory & Menapace, Luisa, 2012. "A Comparison of Hypothetical Survey Rankings with Consumer Shopping Behavior," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 35-47, February.
    19. Honda, Hidehito & Ogawa, Midori & Murakoshi, Takuma & Masuda, Tomohiro & Utsumi, Ken & Park, Sora & Kimura, Atsushi & Nei, Daisuke & Wada, Yuji, 2015. "Effect of visual aids and individual differences of cognitive traits in judgments on food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 33-40.
    20. Löschel, Andreas & Sturm, Bodo & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2017. "Revealed preferences for voluntary climate change mitigation when the purely individual perspective is relaxed – evidence from a framed field experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 149-160.

    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:iefi12:144986. 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/ilbonde.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.