By marvyn N. Benaning
MANILA, Philippines - Research conducted by Wallace Huffman of Iowa State University (ISU) shows consumers are willing to pay more for biotech food items with enhanced health benefits in contrast to the results of a similar study conducted 10 years ago.
Huffman noted in his research published by the Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics (JARE) that when confronted with food that are genetically modified to increase health benefits, they are willing to part with their dollars, a result that is opposed to their hesitance to pay a cent more for biotech crops based on a 2001 study.
What is significant is that consumers prefer crops that are made healthier through intragenic means, which means they are modified with genes from other plants within their own species. Transgenic food refers to plants that are modified with genes secured from other species.
Huffman clarifies that consumer traits in crops are modifications that benefit the consumer, like enhanced levels of vitamins and other nutrients. Farmer traits are specific to traits that benefit farmers, like the pest- and drought-resistance of plants.
"What we found was when genes for enhancing the amount of antioxidants and vitamin C in fresh produce were transferred by intragenic methods, consumers are willing to pay 25 percent more than for the plain product (with no enhancements).That is a sizable increase," stressed Huffman.
Intragenic methods are similar to cross-breeding plants, a process commonly employed by gardeners to improve their plants and is akin to the procedures used by hybrid corn seed businesses before the advent of genetic modification.
Huffman noted the acceptance of GM crops as the latest study showed is completely opposite to the outcome of the 2001 study. In 2001, he first researched on consumers' willingness to pay for transgenic foods. The result was that consumers would pay 15 percent less for food with farmer traits introduced by transgenic methods, compared with produce that had not undergone genetic modification.
"There still could be a little bit of negative feelings toward a genetically modified product, but they (consumers) see real value being created in enhanced consumer traits, and they are willing to pay for those enhancements that are introduced by intragenic methods," said Huffman.
Huffman's experiment covered consumers bidding on GM and non-modified fresh potatoes, tomatoes and broccoli.
The intragenically and transgenically modified products had increased levels of antioxidants and vitamin C. "The basic idea is that when consumers saw that the intragenic produce had elevated healthful attributes, they were willing to pay more for them," said Huffman. Huffman said there was still some hesitance to do the same when transgenic methods are applied on the produce.
The respondents were provided with information - positive, negative and neutral, and in combination - on genetic modification from scientific, human, financial, environmental and general perspectives.
The positive information on the food came from the food industry while the negative information was presented from the perspective of environmental groups. Neutral information came from the scientific community. The industry and neutral perspectives contained definitions of intragenic and transgenic modifications.
Huffman noted that information from the food industry was usually given more weight by consumers than the information presented by environmental groups.
Copyright 2011.
