Methods matter: a meta-regression on the determinants of willingness-to-pay studies on biofortified foods

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Volumn 1390, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 34-46

  De Steur, Hans ^a   Wesana, Joshua ^a,b   Blancquaert, Dieter ^a   Van Der Straeten, Dominique ^a   Gellynck, Xavier ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON UNIVERSITY   (Uganda)

Author keywords

biofortification; consumer; economic valuation; meta analysis; willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

BREEDING; CONSUMER; DNA MODIFICATION; FOOD CROP; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; NUTRIENT; SCIENTIST; AGRICULTURE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BIOFORTIFICATION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CROP; ECONOMICS; FORTIFIED FOOD; GENETIC PROCEDURES;

TRACE ELEMENT;

AGRICULTURE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BIOFORTIFICATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; FOOD, FORTIFIED; GENETIC TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; MICRONUTRIENTS;

EID: 84996655446     PISSN: 00778923     EISSN: 17496632     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/nyas.13277     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Carvalho, S.M.P. & M.W. Vasconcelos. 2013. Producing more with less: strategies and novel technologies for plant-based food biofortification. Food Res. Int. 54: 961–971.
2. Sharma, P., P. Aggarwal & A. Kaur. 2016. Biofortification: a new approach to eradicate hidden hunger. Food Rev. Int. In press.
3. Bouis, H. et al. 2013. Biofortification: evidence and lessons learned linking agriculture and nutrition. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), Rome and Geneva.
4. Saltzman, A. et al. 2013. Biofortification: progress toward a more nourishing future. Global Food Security 2: 9–17.
5. Ruel, M.T. & H. Alderman. 2013. Nutrition-sensitive interventions and programmes: how can they help to accelerate progress in improving maternal and child nutrition? Lancet 382: 536–551.
6. Finkelstein, J.L. et al. 2015. A randomized trial of iron-biofortified pearl millet in school children in India. J. Nutr. 145: 1576–1581.
7. Palmer, A.C. et al. 2016. Provitamin A-biofortified maize increases serum β-carotene, but not retinol, in marginally nourished children: a cluster-randomized trial in rural Zambia. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 104: 181–190.
8. Talsma, E.F. et al. 2016. Biofortified yellow cassava and vitamin A status of Kenyan children: a randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 103: 258–267.
9. Hotz, C. et al. 2012. Introduction of β-carotene–rich orange sweet potato in rural Uganda resulted in increased vitamin A intakes among children and women and improved vitamin A status among children. J. Nutr. 142: 1871–1880.
10. Hotz, C. et al. 2012. A large-scale intervention to introduce orange sweet potato in rural Mozambique increases vitamin A intakes among children and women. Br. J. Nutr. 108: 163–176.
11. Potrykus, I. 2012. “Golden Rice,” a GMO-product for public good, and the consequences of GE-regulation. J. Plant Biochem. Biotechnol. 21: 68–75.
12. De Moura, F.F. et al. 2016. Biofortified β-carotene rice improves vitamin A intake and reduces the prevalence of inadequacy among women and young children in a simulated analysis in Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 104: 769–775.
13. De Steur, H. et al. 2015. Status and market potential of transgenic biofortified crops. Nat. Biotechnol. 33: 25–29.
14. Birol, E. et al. 2015. Developing country consumers' acceptance of biofortified foods: a synthesis. Food Security 7: 555–568.
15. De Steur, H. et al. 2014. Conceptual framework for ex-ante evaluation at the micro/macro level of GM crops with health benefits. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 39: 116–134.
16. List, J.A. & C.A. Gallet. 2001. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Environ. Resour. Econ. 20: 241–254.
17. Miller, K.M. et al. 2011. How should consumers' willingness to pay be measured? An empirical comparison of state-of-the-art approaches. J. Market. Res. 48: 172–184.
18. Martin, C. 2013. The interface between plant metabolic engineering and human health. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 24: 344–353.
19. HarvestPlus. 2015. Nutritious staple food crops: who is growing what? Accessed April 1, 2016. http://www.harvestplus.org/sites/default/files/publications/HarvestPlus_BiofortifiedCropMap_2015_0.pdf.
20. HarvestPlus. 2014. Biofortification progress briefs. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC.
21. Muthayya, S. et al. 2013. The global hidden hunger indices and maps: an advocacy tool for action. PLoS One 8: e67860.
22. HarvestPlus. 2015. Biofortification priority index. A global strategy tool for investing in crop biofortification. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC.
23. Hughner, R.S. et al. 2007. Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. J. Consum. Behav. 6: 94–110.
24. Siro, I. et al. 2008. Functional food. Product development, marketing and consumer acceptance—a review. Appetite 51: 456–467.
25. Lusk, J.L. et al. 2005. A meta-analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 30: 28–44.
26. Lusk, J.L. & D. Hudson. 2004. Willingness-to-pay estimates and their relevance to agribusiness decision making. Rev. Agric. Econ. 26: 152–169.
27. Chang, J.B., J.L. Lusk & F.B. Norwood. 2009. How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory experiments predict field behavior? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 91: 518–534.
28. Murphy, J.J. et al. 2005. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 30: 313–325.
29. Little, J. & R. Berrens. 2004. Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Econ. Bull. 3: 1–13.
30. List, J.A. & C.A. Gallet. 2001. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environ. Resour. Econ. 20: 241–254.
31. Breidert, C., M. Hahsler & T. Reutterer. 2006. A review of methods for measuring willingness-to-pay. Innov. Market. 2: 8–32.
32. Mourato, S. et al. 2002. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
33. Venkatachalam, L. 2004. The contingent valuation method: a review. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 24: 89–124.
34. Balistreri, E. et al. 2001. Can hypothetical questions reveal true values? A laboratory comparison of dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent values with auction values. Environ. Resour. Econ. 18: 275–292.
35. Lusk, J.L. & J.F. Shogren. 2007. Experimental Auctions: Methods and Applications in Economic and Marketing Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Voelckner, F. 2006. An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay. Market. Lett. 17: 137–149.
37. Lusk, J.L., T. Feldkamp & T.C. Schroeder. 2004. Experimental auction procedure: impact on valuation of quality differentiated goods. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86: 389–405.
38. Noussair, C., B. Ruffieux & S. Robin. 2004. Revealing consumers' willingness to pay: a comparison of the BDM mechanism and the vickrey auction. J. Econ. Psychol. 25: 725–741.
39. De Groote, H. et al. 2014. Combining experimental auctions with a modified home-use test to assess rural consumers’ acceptance of quality protein maize, a biofortified crop. Food Qual. Pref. 38: 1–13.
40. Loureiro, M., W.J. Umberger & S. Hine. 2003. Testing the initial endowment effect in experimental auctions. Appl. Econ. Lett. 10: 271–275.
41. Cherry, T. et al. 2004. Laboratory testbeds and non-market valuation: the case of bidding behavior in a second-price auction with an outside option. Environ. Resour. Econ. 29: 285–294.
42. Rutström, E. 1998. Home-grown values and incentive compatible auction design. Int. J. Game Theory 27: 427–441.
43. De Steur, H. et al. 2014. Cognitive biases and design effects in experimental auctions: an application to GM rice with health benefits. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 6: 413–432.
44. Rousu, M.C. et al. 2015. Do monetary incentives matter in classroom experiments? Effects on course performance. J. Econ. Educ. 46: 341–349.
45. Depositario, D.P.T. et al. 2009. Should students be used as subjects in experimental auctions? Econ. Lett. 102: 122–124.
46. Frewer, L. et al. 2014. Risk/benefit communication about food—a systematic review of the literature. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 56:1728–1745.
47. Lusk, J.L. et al. 2004. 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. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 31: 179–204.
48. Aadland, D. & A.J. Caplan. 2006. Cheap talk reconsidered: new evidence from CVM. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 60: 562–578.
49. Silva, A. et al. 2011. Revisiting cheap talk with new evidence from a field experiment. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 36: 280–291.
50. Stanley, T.D. 2005. Beyond publication bias. J. Econ. Surveys 19: 309–345.
51. Florax, R.J.G.M. 2001. Methodological pitfalls in meta-analysis: publication bias. Comp. Environ. Econ. Assess. DOI: 10.4337/9781781008102.00020.
52. Naico, A.T.A. & J.L. Lusk. 2010. The value of a nutritionally enhanced staple crop: results from a choice experiment conducted with orange-fleshed sweet potatoes in Mozambique. J. Afr. Econ. 19: 536–558.
53. Canavari, M. & R. Nayga Jr. 2009. On consumers’ willingness to purchase nutritionally enhanced genetically modified food. Appl. Econ. 41: 125–137.
54. Stevens, R. & A. Winter-Nelson. 2008. Consumer acceptance of provitamin A-biofortified maize in Maputo, Mozambique. Food Policy 33: 341–351.
55. Harbord, R.M. & J. Higgins. 2008. Meta-regression in Stata. Stata J. 8: 493–519.
56. Ringquist, E. 2013. Meta-Analysis for Public Management and Policy. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
57. Stanley, T. et al. 2013. Meta-analysis of economics research reporting guidelines. J. Econ. Surveys 27: 390–394.
58. Hedges, L.V., E. Tipton & M.C. Johnson. 2010. Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Res. Synth. Methods 1: 39–65.
59. Borenstein, M. et al. 2010. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res. Synth. Methods 1: 97–111.
60. Hunter, J.E. & F.L. Schmidt. 2004. Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
61. Marín-Martínez, F. & J. Sánchez-Meca. 2010. Weighting by inverse variance or by sample size in random-effects meta-analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 70: 56–73.
62. Sebri, M. 2014. A meta-analysis of residential water demand studies. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 16: 499–520.
63. Deeks, J.J., J.P.T. Higgins & D.G. Altman on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Book Series. J.P. Higgins & S. Green, Eds.: 243–296. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
64. Cook, R.D. & S. Weisberg. 1982. Residuals and Influence in Regression. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall.
65. Corrigan, J.R. et al. 2009. Comparing open-ended choice experiments and experimental auctions: an application to golden rice. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 91: 837–853.
66. Colson, G.J., W.E. Huffman & M.C. Rousu. 2011. Improving the nutrient content of food through genetic modification: evidence from experimental auctions on consumer acceptance. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 36: 343–364.
67. De Steur, H. et al. 2013. Role of information on consumers’ willingness-to-pay for GM rice with health benefits. An application to China. Asian Econ. J. 27: 391–408.
68. González, C., N. Johnson & M. Qaim. 2009. Consumer acceptance of second-generation GM foods: the case of biofortified cassava in the north-east of Brazil. J. Agric. Econ. 60: 604–624.
69. Lusk, J.L. & T.C. Schroeder. 2006. Auction bids and shopping choices. Adv. Econ. Anal. Policy 6: 1539.
70. Chowdhury, S. et al. 2011. Are consumers in developing countries willing to pay more for micronutrient-dense biofortified foods? Evidence from a field experiment in Uganda. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 93: 83–97.
71. Lusk, J.L. 2003. Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness-to-pay for golden rice. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 85: 840–856.
72. Depositario, D.P.T. et al. 2009. Effects of information on consumers' willingness to pay for golden rice. Asian Econ. J. 23: 457–476.
73. Kassardjian, E., S. Robin & B. Ruffieux. 2012. L'hostilite aux OGM survit-elle a des produits attractifs? (Does consumer's aversion to GM food survive a yummy apple? With English summary). Revue Francaise d'Economie 26: 121–150.
74. Dannenberg, A. 2009. The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food—a meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 68: 2182–2192.
75. De Steur, H. et al. 2012. Potential impact and cost-effectiveness of multi-biofortified rice in China. N. Biotechnol. 29: 432–442.
76. Hefferon, K.L. 2015. Nutritionally enhanced food crops; progress and perspectives. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 16: 3895–3914.
77. Li, Q. et al. 2003. Consumer attitudes toward genetically modified foods in Beijing, China. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 56: 1728–1745.
78. Lusk, J.L. & A. Rozan. 2005. Consumer acceptance of biotechnology and the role of second generation technologies in the USA and Europe. Biochem. J. 388: 669–677.
79. Deodhar, S., S. Ganesh & W. Chern. 2008. Emerging markets for GM foods: a study of consumer's willingness to pay in India. Int. J. Biotechnol. 10: 570–587.
80. De Groote, H. & S.C. Kimenju. 2008. Comparing consumer preferences for color and nutritional quality in maize: application of a semi-double-bound logistic model on urban consumers in Kenya. Food Policy 33: 362–370.
81. De Steur, H. et al. 2010. Willingness-to-accept and purchase genetically modified rice with high folate content in Shanxi Province, China. Appetite 54: 118–125.
82. De Groote, H., S.C. Kimenju & U.B. Morawetz. 2011. Estimating consumer willingness to pay for food quality with experimental auctions: the case of yellow versus fortified maize meal in Kenya. Agric. Econ. 42: 1–16.
83. Meenakshi, J. et al. 2012. Using a discrete choice experiment to elicit the demand for a nutritious food: willingness-to-pay for orange maize in rural Zambia. J. Health Econ. 31: 62–71.
84. Banerji, A. et al. 2013. Using elicitation mechanisms to estimate the demand for nutritious maize: evidence from experiments in rural Ghana. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC.
85. De Steur, H. et al. 2014. Consumer preferences for micronutrient strategies in China. A comparison between folic acid supplementation and folate biofortification. Public Health Nutr. 17: 1410–1420.
86. Kajale, D.B. & T.C. Becker. 2015. Willingness to pay for golden rice in India: a contingent valuation method analysis. J. Food Prod. Market. 21: 319–336.
87. Oparinde, A. et al. 2014. Information and consumer willingness to pay for biofortified yellow cassava: evidence from experimental auctions in Nigeria. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC.
88. Banerji, A. et al. 2015. Information, branding, certification, and consumer willingness to pay for high-iron pearl millet: evidence from experimental auctions in Maharashtra, India. HarvestPlus. Accessed October 17, 2016. http://www.ifpri.org/publication/information-branding-certification-and-consumer-willingness-pay-high-iron-pearl-millet.
89. Oparinde, A. et al. 2015. Consumer acceptance of biofortified iron beans in rural Rwanda: experimental evidence. In 2015 Conference of the International Association of Agricultural Economists, Milan, Italy.
90. De Steur, H. et al. 2012. Determinants of willingness-to-pay for GM rice with health benefits in a high-risk region: evidence from experimental auctions for folate biofortified rice in China. Food Qual. Prefer. 25: 87–94.
91. Haskell, M.J. 2012. The challenge to reach nutritional adequacy for vitamin A: β-carotene bioavailability and conversion—evidence in humans. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 96: 1193S–1203S.
92. Tang, G. et al. 2009. Golden rice is an effective source of vitamin A. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 89: 1776–1783.