Biotechnology

Journal

Biotechnol. J. 2015, 10, 1316

DOI 10.1002/biot.201400561

www.biotechnology-journal.com

Questions about public acceptance of agricultural biotechnology have been

reignited by recent events and scientific progress. Results from a nationwide
survey revealed that consumers assign larger genetically engineered discounts to fresh than processed foods and to meats than fruits or cereal
grains. Consumers considered the motivations for adoption of genetic engineered foods desirable, in particular motivations related to protection of US
origin, lower prices, and higher nutritional content. Genetically engineered
foods that are processed that provide direct benefits to consumers, like improved nutritional content, are likely to be most acceptable to the public, particularly if benefits related to price-impacts and national competitiveness are
understood by the public.

Background
Ballot initiatives and legislative action
in several states has reignited controversies and increased public scrutiny
over agricultural biotechnology and
its promise. While the discussion has

focused on existing applications in

corn and soybeans, public discourse
has also shifted toward new applications perceived to provide more benefits [1, 2]. With the development of
foods such as the Arctic apple,

AquAdvantage salmon, golden rice,

and a virus-resistant orange, the public is being exposed to genetically engineered (GE) foods that offer fundamentally different benefits compared
to the insect- and herbicide-resistant
varieties currently on the market. It is
unclear how consumers perceive the
unique benefits of GE foods, and
which, if any, of the new applications
may overcome the barrier of resistance. Furthermore, these developments raise new questions about the
desirability of GE foods eaten fresh as
compared to the current GE foods that
are primarily used as ingredients in
processed foods or animal feed.
Previous research has suggested
that consumers do not view all types

Figure 1. Difference in mean desirability for different types of genetically engineered and non-genetically engineered foods (all numbers in the figure are statistically
different from zero at the 0.05 level). People prefer eating beef to eating corn or apples if the foods are not genetically engineered, but exactly the opposite is true if the
foods are genetically engineered. Eating fresh food is preferred to processed, but much less so if both food types are genetically engineered.

2014 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

13

BTJ-FORUM

Which biotech foods are most acceptable to the public?

Biotechnology
Journal

Biotechnol. J. 2015, 10, 1316

www.biotecvisions.com

BTJ-FORUM

www.biotechnology-journal.com

Table 1. Determinants of food product desirability; estimated coefficients from random effects regression models

Variable

Rating of Non-GE
products

Rating of GE
products

Change in rating
of products
(GE non-GE)

Rating of GE
products

Intercept

4.615*a
(0.045)b

2.968*
(0.055)

1.633*
(0.060)

2.154*
(0.062)

Corn vs. beef

0.212*
(0.043)

0.151*
(0.023)

0.356*
(0.042)

0.189*
(0.022)

Apple vs. beef

0.181*
(0.043)

0.129*
(0.023)

0.310*
(0.042)

0.161*
(0.022)

Fresh vs. processed

0.952*
(0.035)

0.119*
(0.019)

0.833*
(0.034)

0.051*
(0.019)

0.179*
(0.007)

Rating of non-GE version of product

Note: Results based on 6 072 observations from 1 012 people each rating 6 food products.
a One asterisk (*) represents statistical significance at the 0.05 level or lower.
b Numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

of biotechnology uniformly [37].

There appears to be less aversion to
medical applications of biotechnology than those related to food, more
aversion to GE animals than plants,
and greater acceptance of applications that provide tangible benefits
for the consumer [811]. Nevertheless, it remains unclear, particularly in
light of recent debates, which food or
biotechnology applications are most
likely to garner consumer acceptance. The ability of specialty crops to
remain cost-competitive with field
crops depends, in part, on research
and development, and perhaps the
use of biotechnology [12], and yet is
unclear how the public views the use
of biotechnology in such crops. Ultimate success or failure of agricultural
biotechnology may rely less on regulatory processes or information provision [13] and more on market acceptance as a result of the benefit provided by a GE food [14,15] and how the
benefits are discussed and communicated by scientists [16, 17]. Psychological research reveals that public
perception of risk often diverges from
informed experts [18], and perceived
riskiness is a function of perceived
(lack of) benefits and perceived necessity of the technology [19, 20].
Thus, food biotechnology applications which vary by perceived benefits and necessity might well invoke

14

differential levels of consumer acceptance.

The primary purpose of this paper
is to determine the extent to which
the desirability of GE food systematically varies according to degree of processing (i.e., fresh versus processed)
and food type (i.e., meat versus fruit
versus field grain). In addition, we
subsequently explore consumers reaction to a list of motivating factors for
genetic modification.

type and degree or processing. Asking subjects to indicate the desirability of a product is a commonly used approach in the marketing and economics literatures in conjoint applications
aiming to measure consumer preferences and predict choice. Other approaches would ask subjects to make
choices or rank products. Previous research that compares these approaches for purposes of eliciting consumer
acceptance/behavior shows that they
yield similar results [21].

Consumer survey
To address these issues, a survey was
conducted among US residents in August 2014. Data were collected from
1012 respondents who were asked, on
a 7-point scale, to indicate how desirable (i.e., 1=very undesirable to 7=
very desirable) it would be to eat six
foods strategically selected to vary by
product type (i.e., apple, corn, and
beef) and degree of processing (i.e.,
fresh and processed): apples, apple
juice, corn on the cob, corn chips, beef
steak, and beef hotdog. The question
was then repeated except each food
was identified as being GE: genetically engineered apple, apple juice made
from genetically engineered apples,
etc. Of interest is the change in the
desirability of each food product as it
moves from a GE to a non-GE form,
and whether the change in desirability systematically relates to product

Desirability of eating GE food

varies with type of food
We used the survey data from question #1 and #2 in a series of statistical
models to estimate consumer desirability for GE foods by product type
and by the degree of product processing. Table 1 reports the results of
four random-effects regression models, and figure 1 illustrates the results
of the first three models. As shown in
the first column of table 1, when foods
were not GE, fresh was preferred over
processed and beef products were
preferred over corn and apple products. As indicated by the second column, when products were GE, respondents continued to prefer fresh
to processed (although not nearly as
much as when non-GE), but now respondents prefer corn and apples to
beef, indicating a preference reversal.

2014 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

Biotechnology
Journal

Biotechnol. J. 2015, 10, 1316

www.biotecvisions.com

www.biotechnology-journal.com

BTJ-FORUM

Figure 2. Mean desirability of competing motivations to adopt food and agricultural biotechnology products.

The third column identifies the determinants of the change in desirability.

The results indicate that adding GE
causes a larger drop in desirability for
fresh than processed food and also
caused a larger drop in the desirability of meat relative to corn and apples.
Thus, not only does GE change the
overall desirability (as indicated by
the negative intercept), it changes
the relative ranking of products, with
larger penalties associated with being GE assigned to fresh food and
meat. The last column reports results
from a regression that is the same as
that in the second column, with the
exception that the rating of the same
product in non-GE form has been
added as an explanatory variable.
Upon controlling for subjects preferences for the non-GE version of product, the results continue to suggest
that fresh GE foods are liked less than
processed GE foods, and that GE
meat is less desirable than GE corn or
apples.

Desirability depends on reasons

for genetic engineering
In addition to these two sets of questions, a third question asked respondents to rate 11 different motivations
for food-related genetic engineering
in terms of relative desirability on the
same 7-point scale. Motivations included issues like protect farmers
crops from insects and reduce carbon footprint. Some issues focused
on benefits to the consumer and others on benefits to the producer; some
focused on health, some on the environment, among others.
Figure 2 summarizes the results
from question #3 and reports the relative desirability of food and agricultural biotechnologies that address specific issues. The mean desirability rating is above 4 (a rating of 4 = neither
undesirable nor desirable) across all
issues listed. There is no statistical
difference in the top six issues, which
include keeping crop production in
the US, keeping prices low, and im-

2014 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

proving nutritional content. The least

desirable issues seem to be those that
were most farm-focused. Motivations
with more direct-consumer benefits
were rated more highly.

Implications
The results suggest reasons to be both
optimistic and cautious about the
future of food biotechnology. That all
motivations for using food and agricultural biotechnology were seen as
relatively desirable by the public suggests that acceptance may increase
as consumers learn about the benefits
of GE crops. However, fresh foods received the highest discounts for being
GE and this suggests that acceptance
may be more limited for the crops that
are consumed with minimal processing. At the same time, it is likely that
new biotechnology developments will
be in the fresh food category as current GE crops are nearly all processed
prior to consumption. Our findings indicate that consumer education ef-

15

Biotechnology
Journal

Biotechnol. J. 2015, 10, 1316

www.biotecvisions.com

BTJ-FORUM

www.biotechnology-journal.com

forts will be a much more important

consideration in the development and
acceptance of GE technologies for
foods that are ultimately eaten fresh
or with minimal processing. Furthermore, GE modification of livestock is
likely to be met with more resistance
than GE modification of fruits and
vegetables which may be troublesome for protein deficient populations. It was not expected that keeping production in the US would rank
higher than lowering the price paid by
consumers and improving nutritional
content on the relative desirability ratings. Consumers are obviously concerned about the location of food production and this finding may have
large implications for fruits or vegetables that have a relatively high level of
imports.
This study was limited to a sample
of US residents. Thus, it is difficult to
know how generalizable these results
are for other countries and particularly for countries with consumers that
have shown trepidation towards GE
foods despite facing high rates of nutrient deficiencies.

This research was partially funded by

the Willard Sparks Endowed Chair and
the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station.
The authors declare no financial or
commercial conflict of interest.

References
[1] Harmon, A., On Hawaii, a lonely quest for
fact. New York Times. January 5, 2014,
page A1.
[2] Harmon, A., A race to save the orange by
altering its DNA. New York Times. July 28,
2013, page A1.
[3] He, N., Bernard, J. C., Differences in WTP
and consumer demand for organic and nonGM fresh and processed foods. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 2011,
40, 218232.
[4] Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Stares, S., Europeans
and biotechnology in 2002. Eurobarometer
58.0. Report to the EC Directorate General
for Research QLG7-CT-1999-00286, 2003.
[5] Grunert, K. G., Lahteenmaki, L., Nielsen,
N. A. Poulsen, J. B. et al., Consumer perceptions of food products involving genetic
modification Results from a qualitative
study in four Nordic countries. Food Qual.
Preference 2001, 12, 527542.
[6] Hossain, F., Onyango, B., Schilling, B., Hallman, W., Adelaja, A., Product attributes,
consumer benefits and public approval of
genetically modified foods. International
Journal of Consumer Studies 2003, 27, 353
365.
[7] Lusk, J. L., House, L.O., Valli, C., Jaeger, S. R.
et al., 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 2004, 31,
179204.
[8] Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Aaron, I., Consumers acceptance of transgenic crops.
Pesticide Science 1998, 52, 338393.
[9] Lusk, J. L., Jamal, M, Kurlander, L., Roucan,
M., and Taulman, L., A meta analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies.
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2005, 30, 2844.

[10] Onyango, B., Govindasamy, R., Nayga, Jr.,

R. M., Measuring US consumer preferences
for genetically modified foods using choice
modeling experiments: The role of price,
product benefits and technology. Food Policy Institute Working Paper No. WP1104017. Rutgers University, 2004.
[11] Lusk, J. L., Rozan, A., Consumer acceptance of ingenic foods. Biotechnol. J. 2006, 1,
14331434.
[12] Alston, J. M., Pardey, P. G., Public funding
for research into specialty crops. HortScience 2008, 43, 14611470.
[13] Mulder, B. C., Poortvliet, P. M., Lugtig, P., de
Bruin, M., Explaining end-users intentions
to use innovative medical and food biotechnology products. Biotechnol. J. 2014, 9,
997999.
[14] Miller, J. K., Bradford, K. J., The regulatory
bottleneck for biotech specialty crops. Nat.
Biotechnol. 2010, 28, 10121014.
[15] Alston, J. M., Horticultural biotechnology
faces significant economic and market barriers. California Agriculture 2004, 58, 8088.
[16] Weitze, M. D., Phler, A., Improving biotechnology communication. Biotechnol. J.
2013, 8, 970972.
[17] Pierce, R. L., Bridging current issues in
science and society. Biotechnol. J. 2013, 8,
875877.
[18] Slovic, P., Perception of risk. Science 1987,
236, 280285.
[19] Alhakami, A. S., Slovic, P., A psychological
study of the inverse relationship between
perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk
Analysis 1994, 14, 10851096.
[20] Tenblt, P., de Vries, N.K., Dreezens, E.,
Martijn, C., Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite 2005, 45, 4750.
[21] Boyle, K. J., Holmes, T. P., Teisl, M. F., Roe,
B., A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2001, 83, 441454.

Jayson L. Lusk1, Brandon R. McFadden2,

and Bradley J. Rickard3
1 Department

of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA

2 Department of Food and Resource
Economics, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL, USA
3 School of Applied Economics and
Management, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY, USA

16

2014 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim