Enhanced GM foods: Are consumers ready to pay for the potential benefits of biotechnology?

Journal of Consumer Affairs

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 52-70

  Loureiro, Maria L ^a   Bugbee, Marcia ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA   (Spain)

^b Client Solutions Group   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 20144384877     PISSN: 00220078     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2005.00003.x     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Alberini, A. 1995. Efficiency vs. Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval Data Models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29: 169-180.
2. Baker, G.A. and T.A. Burnham. 2001. Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Foods: Market Segment Analysis and Implications for Producers and Policy Makers. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26 (2): 387-403.
3. Bech-Larsen, T. and K.G. Grunert. 2000. Can Health Benefits Break Down Nordic Consumers' Rejection of Genetically Modified Foods?: A Conjoint Study of Danish, Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish Consumer Preferences for Hard Cheese. AMZMAC 2000 Visionary Marketing for the 21st Century: Facing the Challenge. http://130.195.95.71:8081/www/ANZMAC2000/CDsite/papers/b/BechLar1.PDF.
4. Boccaletti, S. and D. Moro. 2000. Consumer Willingness to Pay for GM Food Products in Italy. AgBioForum, 3 (4): 259-267. http://www.agbioforum.org.
5. Bredahl, L. 2001. Determinants of Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions with Regard to Genetically Modified Foods: Results from a Cross-National Survey. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24: 23-61.
6. Bredahl, L., K.L. Grunert, and L.J. Frewer. 1998. Consumer Attitudes and Decision-Making with Regard to Genetically Engineered Food Products - A Review of the Literature and a Presentation of Models for Future Research. Journal of Consumer Policy, 21: 251-277.
7. Burton, M. and D. Pearse. 2003. Consumer Attitudes towards Genetic Modification, Functional Foods, and Microorganisms: A Choice Modeling Experiment for Beer. AgBioForum, 5 (2): 51-58. http://www.agbioforum.org.
8. Cameron, T.A. 1988. A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-market Goods Using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 15: 335-379.
9. _. 1991. Interval Estimates of Non-market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys. Land Economics, 67 (4): 413-421.
10. Cameron, T.A. and D. Huppert. 1989. OLS versus ML Estimation of Non-Market Resource Values with Payment Card Interval Data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 17: 230-246.
11. Chen, H. and W.S. Chern. 2002. Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods. Selected Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Long Beach, CA, July 28-31.
12. Chern, W.S., K. Rickertsen, N. Tsuboi, and T.T. Fun. 2003. Consumer Acceptance and Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Vegetable Oil and Salmon: A Multi-country Assessment. AgBioForum, 5 (3): 105-112. http://www.agbioforum.org.
13. Edwards, S.F. and G.D. Anderson. 1987. Overlooked Biases in Contingent Valuation Surveys: Some Considerations. Land Economics, 63 (22): 168-178.
14. Eurobarometer. 2001. CMOS and BSE - The European's View, December. Press Release, http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/press/2001/pr2312en.thml.
15. Feldmann, M.P., M.L. Morris, and D. Hoisington. 2000. Why All the Controversy? Choices, 15 (1): 8-12.
16. Fortin, D.R. and M.S. Renten. 2003. Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods in New Zealand. British Food Journal, 105 (1): 42-48.
17. Frewer, L. 2000. Risk Perception and Risk Communication about Food Safety Issues. British Nutrition Foundation. Nutrition Bulletin, 25: 31-33.
18. Grimsrud, K.M., J.J. McCluskey, M.L. Loureiro, and T.I. Wahl. 2004. Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Food in Norway. Agricultural Economics, 55 (1): 75-90.
19. Grobe, D., R. Douthitt, and L. Zepada. 1999. Consumer Risk Perception Profiles Regarding Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rbGH). The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 33 (2): 254-275.
20. Grunert, K.G., L. Lähteenmäki, N.A. Nielsen, J.B. Poulsen, O. Ueland, and A. Åström. 2000. Consumer Perception of Food Products Involving Genetic Modification.- Results from a Qualitative Study in Four Nordic Countries. Working Paper no 72. Århus, Denmark: MAPP - Centre for Market Surveillance, Research and Strategy for the Food Sector.
21. Huffman, W.E., J.F. Shogren, M. Rousu, and A. Tegene. 2003. Consumer Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Food Labels in a Market with Diverse Information: Evidence from Experimental Auctions. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 28 (3): 481-502.
22. International Food Information Council Foundation. 2002. Support for Biotechnology Holds with Increased Recognition of Benefits, http://ific.org/ proactive/newsroom/release.vtml.
23. Loureiro, M.L. and S. Hine. 2002. Discovering Niche Markets: A Comparison of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local (Colorado Grown), Organic and GMO-Free Products. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 34 (3): 477-487.
24. Lusk, J.L., J. Roosen, and J.A. Fox. 2003. Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones and Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85 (1): 16-29.
25. Moon, W. and S.K. Balasubramanian. 2001. Public Perceptions and Willingness-to-Pay a Premium for Non-GM Foods in the US and UK. AgBioForum, 4 (3&4): 221-231. http://www.agbioforum.org.
26. _. 2003. Willingness to Pay for Non-Biotech Foods in the U.S. and the U.K. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 37 (2): 317-339.
27. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. United States Census, http://www.census.gov.