Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T18:38:32.399Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Experimental Investigation of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Non-GM Foods When an Organic Option Is Present

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

John C. Bernard ,
Chao Zhang  and
Katie Gifford
John C. Bernard
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics at the University of Delaware
Chao Zhang
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics at the University of Delaware
Katie Gifford
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics at the University of Delaware
Get access

Abstract

This research compared bids that consumers placed on non genetically modified (GM), organic, and conventional versions of food products in order to determine if the organic market well serves those seeking to avoid GM foods. Auction experiments using potato chips, tortilla chips, and milk chocolate were conducted with 79 subjects. Bids were modeled as a function of consumer demographics using a heteroskedastic tobit regression model. Results with the non-GM attribute nested into the organic characteristic showed that the latter's marginal effects were insignificant. This suggested the potential to further develop non-GM products for consumers not willing to pay extra for the remaining organic attributes.

Keywords

auction experimentsGM foodsorganic foodswillingness to pay
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , October 2006 , pp. 374 - 385
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alfnes, F., and Rickertsen, K. 2003. “European Consumers' Willingness to Pay for U. S. Beef in Experimental Auction Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(2): 396–405.Google Scholar
Boccaletti, S., and Moro, D. 2000. “Consumer Willingness to Pay for GM Food Products in Italy.” AgBioForum 3(4): 259–267.Google Scholar
Curl, C.L., Fenske, R.A., and Elgethun, K. 2003. “Organo-phosphorus Pesticide Exposure of Urban and Suburban Preschool Children with Organic and Conventional Diets.” Environmental Health Perspectives 111(3): 377–382.Google Scholar
Dimitri, C., and Greene, C. 2002. “Recent Growth Patterns in the U. S. Organic Foods Market.” Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 777, Economic Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Golan, E., Kuchler, F., and Mitchell, L. 2001. “Economics of Food Labeling.” Journal of Consumer Policy 24(2): 117–184.Google Scholar
Govindasamy, R., and Italia, J. 1999. “Predicting Willingness to Pay a Premium for Organically Grown Fresh Produce.” Journal of Food Distribution Research 30(2): 44–53.Google Scholar
Gregory, N. G. 2000. “Consumer Concerns About Food.” Outlook on Agriculture 29(4): 251–257.Google Scholar
Hallman, W. K., Hebden, W. C., Aquino, H. L., Cuite, C. L., and Lang, J. T. 2003. “Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study of American Knowledge and Opinion.” Food Policy Institute Publication No. RR-1003-004, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. W., Harstad, R. M., and Rutström, E.E. 2004. “Experimental Methods and Elicitation of Values.” Experimental Economics 7(2): 123–140.Google Scholar
Harstad, R. M. 2000. “Dominant Strategy Adoption and Bidders' Experience with Pricing Rules.” Experimental Economics 3(3): 261–280.Google Scholar
Huffman, W. E. 2003. “Consumers' Acceptance of (and Resistance to) Genetically Modified Foods in High-Income Countries: Effects of Labels and Information in an Uncertain Environment.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(5): 1112–1118.Google Scholar
Huffman, W. E., Shogren, J. F., Rousu, M., and Tegene, A. 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.Google Scholar
Knetsch, J. L., Tang, F. F., and Thaler, R. H. 2001. “The Endowment Effect and Repeated Market Trials: Is the Vickrey Auction Demand Revealing?” Experimental Economics 4(3): 257–269.Google Scholar
Lee, K. H., and Hatcher, C. B. 2001. “Willingness to Pay for Information: An Analyst's Guide.” Journal of Consumer Affairs 35(1): 120–140.Google Scholar
List, J.A., and Shogren, J. F. 1999. “Price Information and Bidding Behavior in Repeated Second-Price Auctions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81(4): 942–949.Google Scholar
Long, J. S. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Loureiro, M. L., and Hine, S. 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.Google Scholar
Lucking-Reiley, D. 2000. “Vickrey Auctions in Practice: From Nineteenth-Century Philately to Twenty-First-Century E-Commerce.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(3): 183–192.Google Scholar
Lusk, J. L. 2004. “United States and European Consumer Demand for Genetically Modified Food in an Experimental Market.” Purdue Agricultural Economics Report, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Available at http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/extension/pubs/paer/lusk.asp (accessed February 18, 2005).Google Scholar
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 Nongenetically Modified Corn Chips.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26(1): 40–57.Google Scholar
Lusk, J. L., Jamal, M., Kurlander, L., Roucan, M., and Taulman, L. 2005. “A Meta-Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 30(1): 28–44.Google Scholar
Noussair, C., Robin, S., and Ruffieux, B. 2004. “Revealing Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay: A Comparison of the BDM Mechanism and the Vickrey Auction.” Journal of Economic Psychology 25(6): 725–741.Google Scholar
Parkhurst, G., Shogren, J. F., and Dickinson, D.L. 2004. “Negative Values in Vickrey Auctions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(1): 222–235.Google Scholar
Runge, C. F., and Jackson, L. A. 2000. “Negative Labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): The Experience of rBST.” AgBioForum 3(1): 58–62.Google Scholar
Shogren, J. F., Shin, S. Y., Hayes, D. J., and Kliebenstein, J. B. 1994. “Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept.” American Economic Review 84(1): 255–270.Google Scholar
U. S. Census Bureau. 2000. State and County Quickfacts—Delaware. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington D. C. Available at http://quickfatcs.census.gov/qfd/states/10000.html (accessed January 2006).Google Scholar
Vickrey, W. 1961. “Counterspeculation, Auctions, and Competitive Sealed Tenders.” Journal of Finance 16(1): 8–37.Google Scholar
Williams, P.R.D., and Hammitt, J. K. 2000. “A Comparison of Organic and Conventional Fresh Produce Buyers in the Boston Area.” Risk Analysis 20(5): 735–746.Google Scholar