Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T11:28:24.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumers' Valuation of GMO Segregation Programs in Japan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Shigeru Matsumoto
Shigeru Matsumoto*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Kansai University, Osaka, Japan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The contingent valuation method was used to elicit Japanese consumers' willingness-to-pay for genetically modified organism (GMO) segregation programs. The results revealed that most consumers pay nonnegligible premiums for products produced under strict GMO-segregation programs. However, we found that the premium did not vary by the threshold level of GMO content in the product. We further found that a government certification did not increase the premium for GMO-segregation programs. Therefore, an additional mandatory regulation to reduce GMO contaminations would not be worthwhile because such a regulation would incur substantial enforcement costs.

Keywords

contingent valuation methodgenetically modified organism segregationwillingness-to-payD12M31Q13Q18
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , April 2006 , pp. 201 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2006

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

Bateman, I.J., Landford, L.H., Jones, A.P., and Kerr, G.N.. “Bound and Path Effects in Double and Triple Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation.” Resource and Energy Economics 23,3(July 2001): 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, M., Rigby, D., Young, T., and James, S.. “Consumer Attitude to Genetically Modified Organisms in Food in the UK.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 28,4(2001): 479-98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chern, W. S., Rickertsen, K., Tsuboi, N., and Fu, T.T.. “Consumer Acceptance and Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Vegetable Oil and Salmon: A Multiple-Country Assessment.” AgBio Forum 5,3 (2003).Google Scholar
Daichi-No-Kai. Internet site: www.daichi.or.jp/cgi/index.pl (Accessed April 21, 2004).Google Scholar
Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., and Kanninen, B.. “Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Choice Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73(1991):1255-63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoban, J.T. “How Japanese Consumers View Biotechnology.” Food Technology 50,7{July 1996): 85–88.Google Scholar
Hoban, J.T. “Consumer Acceptance of Biotechnology: An International Perspective.” Nature Biotechnology 15,3(March 1997):232-34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, Q., Curtis, K.R., McCuskey, J.J., and Wahl, T.I.. “Consumer Attitude Toward Genetically Modified Foods in Beijing, China.” AgBio Forum 5,4 (2003).Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Schroeder, T.C.. “Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86,2(May 2004):467-82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L., House, L.O., Valli, C., Jaeger, S.R., Moore, M., Morrow, B., and Traill, W.B.. “Heterogeneity in Consumer Preferences as Impetus for Non Tariff Trade Barriers: Experimental Evidence of Demand for Genetically Modified Food in the United States and European Union.” Working paper, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, 2004a.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., Jamal, M., Kurlander, L., Roucan, M., and Taulman, L.. “A Meta Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies.” Working paper, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, 2004b.Google Scholar
Macer, D. “Japanese Attitudes to Genetic Technology: National and International Comparisons. Public and Academic Support for the Use of Government-funded Genetic Screening in Japan.” Human Genome Research and Society. Fujiki, N. and Macer, D., eds., pp. 120-37, Christchurch: Eubios Ethics Institute, 1992.Google Scholar
Marubeni Corporation. Marubeni Group Journal: M-Spirit No. 11. Internet site: www.marubeni.co.jp/usful/word/ll.html (Accessed September 2002).Google Scholar
McCluskey, J.J., Grimsrud, K.M., Ouchi, H., and Wahl, T.I.. “Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Food Products in Japan.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32,2(2004): 222-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, D. “Contingent Valuation and Social Choice.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76(1994):689–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, W, and Balasubramanian, S.K.. “Public Perceptions and Willingness-to-Pay A Premium for Non-GM Foods in the United States and United Kingdom.” AgBio Forum 4,3/4(2001).Google Scholar
No! GMO Campaign. Internet site: www.no-gmo.org/ (Accessed April 20, 2004).Google Scholar
Noussair, C., Stéphane, R., and Ruffieux, B.. “Do Consumers Really Refuse To Buy Genetically Modified Food?” The Economic Journal 114(January 2004): 102-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousu, M., Huffman, W.E., Shogren, J.E, and Tegene, A.. “Are United States Consumers Tolerant of Genetically Modified Foods?” Review of Agricultural Economics 26(February 2004): 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seikatsu Club Group. Internet site: www.seikatsuclub.coop/ (Accessed April 20, 2004).Google Scholar
West, G.E., Gendron, C., Laurue, B., and Lambert, R.. “Consumers' Valuation of Functional Properties of Foods: Results from a Canada-wide Survey.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 50(December 2002):541-58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoo, S.H., and Yang, H.H.. “Application of Sample Selection Model to Double-Bounded Dichoto-mous Choice Contingent Studies.” Environmental and Resource Economics 20(October 2001): 147-63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar