Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: Evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France

European Review of Agricultural Economics

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 179-204

  Lusk, Jayson L ^a   House, Lisa O ^b   Valli, Carlotta ^c   Jaeger, Sara R ^d   Moore, Melissa ^e   Morrow, J L ^f   Traill, W Bruce ^g  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^e MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f Jr Southern College   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Consumer attitudes; Genetically modified food; Incentive compatible auction; Product information

Indexed keywords

EID: 4043052925     PISSN: 01651587     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/erae/31.2.179     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Baker, G. A. and Burnham, T. A. (2001). Consumer response to genetically modified foods: market segment analysis and implications for producers and policy makers. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26: 387-403.
2. Burton, M., Rigby, D., Young, T. and James, S. (2001). Consumer attitudes to genetically modified food in the UK. European Review of Agricultural Economics 28: 479-498.
3. Cherry, T., Crocker, T. and Shogren, J. (2003). Rationality spillovers. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45: 63-84.
4. Eurobarometer (2000). Eurobarometer 52.1. Summary report. Press release. 27 April 2000. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: http://europa.eu. int/comm/research/press/2000/pr2704en-ann2.html (accessed 12 January 2003).
5. Fox, J. A. (1995). Determinants of consumer acceptability of bovine somatotropin. Review of Agricultural Economics 17: 51-62.
6. Fox, J. A., Hayes, D. J. and Shogren, J. F. (2002). Consumer preferences for food irradiation: how favorable and unfavorable descriptions affect preferences for irradiated pork in experimental auctions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 24: 75-95.
7. Fox, J. A., Shogren, J. F., Hayes, D. J. and Kliebenstein, J. B. (1998). CVM-X: calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80: 455-465.
8. Frewer, L. (2003). Societal issues and public attitudes toward genetically modified foods. Trends in Food Science & Technology 14: 319-332.
9. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C. and Shepherd, R. (1998). The influence of initial attitudes on response to communication about genetic engineering in food production. Agriculture and Human Values 15: 15-30.
10. Gaskell, G., Allum, N. and Stares, S. (2003). Europeans and biotechnology in 2002 Eurobarometer 58.0. A report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project 'Life Sciences in European Society.' QLG7-CT-1999-00286.
11. Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J. and Allum, N. C. (1999). Worlds apart? the reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science 285: 384-387.
12. Hanemann, W. M. (1991). Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ? American Economic Review 81: 635-647.
13. Hayes, D. J., Shogren, J. F., Shin, S. U. and Kliebenstein, J. B. (1995). Valuing food safety in experimental auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 77: 40-53.
14. Heimlich, R. E., Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and McBride, W. (2000). Genetically engineered crops: has adoption reduced pesticide use? Agricultural Outlook. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.
15. INFOREGIO (2000). The urban audit: toward benchmarking the life of 58 European cities. Volume 1. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Available online at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/ regional_policy/urban2/urban/audit/ftp/volume1.pdf (accessed 12 January 2003).
16. INSEE (2003), Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques. Web address: http://www.insee.fr/en/home/home_page.asp (accessed 12 January 2003).
17. Kagel, J. H., Harstad, R. M. and Levin, D. (1987). Information impact and allocation rules in auctions with affiliated private values: a laboratory study. Econometrica 55: 1275-1304.
18. Kolstad, C. D. and Guzman, R. M. (1999). Information and the divergence between willingness to accept and willingness to pay. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38: 66-80.
19. List, J. A. and Shogren, J. F. (1999). Price information and bidding behavior in repeated second-price auctions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81: 942-949.
20. Liu, S., Huang, J. C. and Brown, G. L. (1998). Information and risk perception: a dynamic adjustment process. Risk Analysis 18: 689-699.
21. Lusk, J. L. (2003a). Effect of cheap talk on consumer willingness-to-pay for golden rice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 840-856.
22. Lusk, J. L. (2003b). Using experimental auctions for marketing applications: a discussion. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 35: 349-360.
23. Lusk, J. L., Daniel, M. S., Mark, D. R. and Lusk, C. L. (2001). Alternative calibration and auction institutions for predicting consumer willingness-to-pay for non-genetically modified corn chips. Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics 26: 40-57.
24. Lusk, J. L., Jamal, M., Kurlander, L., Roucan, M. and Taulman, L. (2004). A meta analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies. Working Paper. West Lafayette, IN: Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
25. Lusk, J. L., Moore, M., House, L. and Morrow, B. (2002). Influence of brand name and type of modification on consumer acceptance of genetically engineered corn chips: a preliminary analysis. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 4: 373-383.
26. Lusk, J. L., Roosen, J. and Fox, J. A. (2003). Demand for beef from cattle administered growth hormones or fed genetically modified corn: a comparison of consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 16-29.
27. McCluskey, J. J., Ouchi, H., Grimsrud, K. M. and Wahl, T. I. (2003). Consumer response to genetically modified food products in Japan. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32: 222-231.
28. Milgrom, P. R. and Weber, R. J. (1982). A theory of auctions and competitive bidding. Econometrica 50: 1089-1122.
29. Noussair, C., Robin, S. and Ruffieux, B. (2002). Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read labels? Economics Letters 75: 47-53.
30. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2001). Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology finds public opinion about genetically modified foods 'up for grabs'. March, 2001. Available at www.pewtrusts.com.
31. Progressive Grocer (2002). 69th annual report of the grocery industry. April 2002.
32. Roosen, J., Hennessy, D. A., Fox, J. A. and Schreiber, A. (1998). Consumers' valuation of insecticide use restrictions: an application to apples. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 23: 367-384.
33. Rousu, M., Huffman, W. E., Shogren, J. F. and Tegene, A. (2002). The value of verifiable information in a controversial market: evidence from lab auctions of genetically modified foods. Department of Economics Series, Working Paper 02003. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
34. Rutström, E. E. (1998). Home-grown values and incentive compatible auction design. Intemational Journal of Game Theory 27: 427-441.
35. Schulderer, J. and Frewer, L. J. (2003). The biotechnology communication paradox: experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. Journal of Consumer Policy 26: 125-157.
36. Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D. and Lee, E. (2001). The polls-trends attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Public Opinion Quarterly 65: 267-281.
37. Shogren, J. F., Cho, S., Koo, C., List, J., Park, C., Polo, P. and Wilhelmi, R. (2001a). Auction mechanisms and the measurement of WTP and WTA. Resource and Energy Economics 23: 97-109.
38. Shogren, J. F., Margolis, M., Koo, C. and List, J. A. (2001b). A random nth-price auction. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 46: 409-421.
39. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106:1039-1061.
40. US Census Bureau (2003). Web address: http://www.census.gov (accessed 12 January 2003).
41. Vertzberger, Y. (1990). The World in their Minds. Information Processing, Cognition, and Perception in Foreign Policy Decision Making. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
42. Viscusi, W. K. (1989). Prospective reference theory: toward an explanation of the paradoxes. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2: 235-263.
43. World Bank (2003). World Bank development indicators database. Washington, DC: World Bank, July 2003.
44. Zhao, J. and Kling, C. L. (2001). A new explanation for the WTP/WTA disparity. Economics Letters 73: 293-300.