Vincenzina Caputo , Valerie Kilders , Jayson L. Lusk
{"title":"The effect of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS) on consumer preferences and acceptance of bioengineered and gene-edited food","authors":"Vincenzina Caputo , Valerie Kilders , Jayson L. Lusk","doi":"10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard in the United States mandates the disclosure of foods with bioengineered ingredients. However, some gene-edited foods are excluded from the Standard. This study explores consumer preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for bioengineered and gene-edited foods, with a focus on romaine lettuce, in a multi-product specific design where they are compared to conventional, organic, and non-GMO alternatives. Our analysis includes three disclosure formats: the BE label, text, and QR code. We also determine the impact of information-seeking behavior on consumer valuations and the factors influencing such behaviors. Findings reveal a preference for conventional, organic, and non-GMO products over gene-edited and bioengineered options. However, the BE label is identified as the most favored disclosure method. In fact, under the BE disclosure, and particularly among information seekers, WTP for gene-edited and bioengineered products sometimes exceed WTP for conventional options. The study discusses policy implications regarding how disclosure formats and access to information can influence consumer perceptions and acceptance of new food technologies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":321,"journal":{"name":"Food Policy","volume":"130 ","pages":"Article 102770"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Policy","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919224001817","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard in the United States mandates the disclosure of foods with bioengineered ingredients. However, some gene-edited foods are excluded from the Standard. This study explores consumer preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for bioengineered and gene-edited foods, with a focus on romaine lettuce, in a multi-product specific design where they are compared to conventional, organic, and non-GMO alternatives. Our analysis includes three disclosure formats: the BE label, text, and QR code. We also determine the impact of information-seeking behavior on consumer valuations and the factors influencing such behaviors. Findings reveal a preference for conventional, organic, and non-GMO products over gene-edited and bioengineered options. However, the BE label is identified as the most favored disclosure method. In fact, under the BE disclosure, and particularly among information seekers, WTP for gene-edited and bioengineered products sometimes exceed WTP for conventional options. The study discusses policy implications regarding how disclosure formats and access to information can influence consumer perceptions and acceptance of new food technologies.
期刊介绍:
Food Policy is a multidisciplinary journal publishing original research and novel evidence on issues in the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of policies for the food sector in developing, transition, and advanced economies.
Our main focus is on the economic and social aspect of food policy, and we prioritize empirical studies informing international food policy debates. Provided that articles make a clear and explicit contribution to food policy debates of international interest, we consider papers from any of the social sciences. Papers from other disciplines (e.g., law) will be considered only if they provide a key policy contribution, and are written in a style which is accessible to a social science readership.