Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:12:37.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Consumer preferences for micronutrient strategies in China. A comparison between folic acid supplementation and folate biofortification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2013

Hans De Steur*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
Shuyi Feng
Affiliation:
College of Public Administration, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, People's Republic of China
Shi Xiaoping
Affiliation:
College of Public Administration, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, People's Republic of China
Xavier Gellynck
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
*
*Corresponding author: Email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Despite public health efforts, folate deficiency is still largely prevalent in poor, rural populations and continues to cause a large burden of disease. The present paper determines and compares consumer preferences for two folate strategies: folic acid supplementation v. folate biofortification, i.e. the enhancement of the folate content in staple crops.

Design

Experimental auctions with non-repeated information rounds are applied to rice in order to obtain willingness-to-pay for folate products. Thereby, GM or non-GM folate-biofortified rice (FBR) is auctioned together with rice that is supplemented with free folic acid pills (FAR).

Setting

Shanxi Province (China) as a high-risk region of folate deficiency.

Subjects

One hundred and twenty-six women of childbearing age, divided into a school (n 60) and market sample (n 66).

Results

Despite differences according to the targeted sample, a general preference for folate biofortification is observed, regardless of the applied breeding technology. Premiums vary between 33·9 % (GM FBR), 36·5 % (non-GM FBR) and 19·0 % (FAR). Zero bidding behaviour as well as the product choice question, respectively, support and validate these findings. The targeted sample, the timing of the auction, the intention to consume GM food and the responsibility for rice purchases are considered key determinants of product choice. A novel ex-post negative valuation procedure shows low consistency in zero bidding.

Conclusions

While the low attractiveness of FAR provides an additional argument for the limited effectiveness of past folic acid supplementation programmes, the positive reactions towards GM FBR further support its potential as a possible complementary micronutrient intervention.

Type
Public policies
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2013 

Controlling micronutrient malnutrition is a major public health priority in China. Since the 1990s, China has experienced dramatic declines in the share of undernourished people and is, compared with other Asian countries, likely to achieve the UN 2015 target on nutrition( 1 , 2 ). Nevertheless, because the most important staple foods such as wheat and rice are poor folate sources, folate deficiency remains a serious health problem for children and women of childbearing age in rural areas of China. It is estimated that about 258 million Chinese people suffer from folate deficiency( Reference De Steur, Gellynck and Storozhenko 3 ). As a consequence, each year approximately 18 000 babies are born with a neural tube defect (NTD; e.g. spina bifida), i.e. about 9 % of the global prevalence. With respect to Shanxi Province, one of China's poorest rural regions, the situation is even more problematic. Each day about 6·5 births are affected by an NTD, leading to the world's highest rate of birth defects( Reference Dai, Zhu and Zhou 4 ).

Like any other micronutrient deficiency, current policy interventions to reduce folate deficiency are built mainly upon pharmaceutical supplementation and/or industrial fortification. Although China is primarily targeted at folic acid supplementation( Reference Berry, Li and Erickson 5 , 6 ), past supplementation programmes are known to have a short-term effect( Reference Li and Hao 7 ), by which the use of folic acid pills is currently low( Reference Zhao, Hao and Zhang 8 ). In Shanxi Province, for example, only 7·7 % of women of childbearing age ever used folic acid pills( Reference Zhang, Ren and Li 9 ), while 44 % of pregnant women do not achieve the recommended daily dose of folate( Reference Ren, Zhang and Li 10 ). As most of them are not aware of the need to take folic acid supplements( Reference Zeng, Yuan and Wang 11 ), the limited success of such programmes is also due to the large number of unintended pregnancies( Reference Durkin, Schneider and Pathania 12 ). Therefore, it will be difficult and costly to reach all women of childbearing age, especially when continuation of the programme is crucial to keep them motivated( Reference Cordero, Do and Berry 13 ). On the other hand, folic acid fortification of China's two most important staple crops is expected to pose practical, technical and financial difficulties, partly due to the highly segmented rice and wheat milling sectors( 14 , Reference Wailes and Lee 15 ).

To address folate deficiency when folic acid-based strategies are less feasible or effective, genetic engineering has been recently applied to develop staple crops with a higher folate content( Reference Blancquaert, Storozhenko and Loizeau 16 ). In 2007, for instance, folate-biofortified rice (FBR) was developed through metabolic engineering( Reference Storozhenko, De Brouwer and Volckaert 17 ). This GM crop is currently the most advanced case of folate biofortification( Reference Bekaert, Storozhenko and Mehrshahi 18 ) and is expected to be a highly cost-effective means to reduce the health burden of folate deficiency in China( Reference De Steur, Gellynck and Blancquaert 19 ) and its regions( Reference De Steur, Gellynck and Storozhenko 3 , Reference De Steur, Blancquaert and Gellynck 20 ). China, a key GM crop producer( Reference James 21 ), recently granted a biosafety certificate for pest-resistant GM rice( Reference Waltz 22 ), which further supports its potential. Although it is possible to use conventional breeding techniques to elevate folate levels in rice( Reference Blancquaert, Storozhenko and Loizeau 16 ), similar to other biofortification efforts in maize, wheat, beans, cassava and rice( Reference Bouis 23 ), such a crop is not yet developed.

From a marketing point of view, knowing the needs and potential reactions of the targeted populations contributes to a successful implementation of health interventions, especially in the case of controversial products such as GM foods. As Musgrove and Fox-Rushby( Reference Musgrove and Fox-Rushby 24 ) stated: ‘The effectiveness of an intervention and, therefore, the degree to which it deserves priority depend on how far it is culturally appropriate or acceptable for the population it is intended to benefit’ (p. 227). Although previous consumer studies showed that Chinese people are generally favourable of GM food( Reference Ho, Vermeer and Zhao 25 Reference Liu 28 ), especially if health benefits are attached( Reference Zhang, Huang and Qiu 29 Reference De Steur, Gellynck and Storozhenko 32 ), it remains to be proved if they would be as enthusiastic for GM biofortified crops when non-GM alternatives are available. In other words, to assess the true potential of GM biofortification it is crucial to analyse consumer preferences for different micronutrient interventions simultaneously.

The present paper aims to investigate and compare consumers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) and preference for folic acid supplements (non-GM) v. folate biofortification (GM and non-GM). Gaining insight in preferences for different folate strategies allows one to benchmark their potential market demand, predict the impact of information about the applied technology, develop activities to adequately reach the target population and, thus, increase its success rate in areas where the need is the highest. Therefore, an economic valuation study is conducted in Shanxi Province, a poor, developing region that accounts for the largest burden of folate deficiency in China( Reference De Steur, Gellynck and Storozhenko 3 ). Due to the large body of evidence on the effect of maternal folate deficiency on the risk of having a baby with an NTD( Reference Lumley, Watson and Watson 33 , 34 ), as well as the high burden of maternal folate deficiency( Reference De Steur, Gellynck and Storozhenko 3 ), only women of childbearing age are targeted in the present study.

Methodology

In order to analyse WTP for folate strategies in China, non-hypothetical experimental auctions are organized with China's main staple crop, i.e. rice, as the food vehicle for folate enhancement. Therefore, two rice products are simultaneously auctioned: rice enriched with folate (FBR) and rice supplemented with seven folic acid supplements (FAR). As such, each auctioned product contains the same amount of rice (1 kg) and folate (about forty times more than in regular rice), by which one could achieve the recommended folate intake level through the consumption of either FBR or FAR. In this way, China's most common way to improve folate intake levels as well as a potential alternative strategy are brought into the rice auction. Hence, we address the need to include substitutes in GM food auctions( Reference Kassardjian, Gamble and Gunson 35 Reference Corrigan 37 ). Such a multiple-product auction design is often applied to simultaneously determine consumers’ WTP for different food products( Reference Alfnes and Rickertsen 38 Reference Roosen, Fox and Hennessy 41 ), including rice( Reference Demont, Rutsaert and Ndour 42 , Reference Demont, Zossou and Rutsaert 43 ), GM foods( Reference Rousu, Monchuk and Shogren 44 Reference Noussair, Robin and Ruffieux 46 ) and biofortified crops( Reference De Groote, Kimenju and Morawetz 47 ).

While FAR is currently not sold at the marketplace, FBR is still in a development phase. Therefore, the present study is considered an ex-ante evaluation of the potential of folate strategies. FAR, for example, might be valuable as it aims to promote folic acid supplements through the food supply chain.

Previous studies on consumer preferences for conventional biofortified foods were mainly targeted at provitamin A-enriched crops, like sweet potato in Uganda( Reference Chowdhury, Meenakshi and Tomlins 48 ), maize in Kenya( Reference De Groote, Kimenju and Morawetz 47 ), Mozambique( Reference Stevens and Winter-Nelson 49 ) or Zambia( Reference Meenakshi, Banerji and Manyong 50 ), and cassava in Brazil( Reference Gonzalez, Johnson and Qaim 51 ). With respect to GM biofortified foods, valuation studies focused on provitamin A-enriched ‘Golden Rice’ in the Philippines( Reference Corrigan, Depositario and Nayga 36 , Reference Depositario, Nayga and Wu 52 ) and the USA( Reference Lusk 53 ), but also on rice with enhanced vitamin levels in China( Reference Li, Curtis and McCluskey 30 ) or vitamin E/antioxidant cookies in Italy( Reference Canavari and Nayga 54 ).

Besides GM foods with farmer benefits( Reference Dannenberg 55 ), such as insect-resistant rice in China( Reference Liu 28 ), experimental auctions are more and more applied to analyse WTP for GM crops with consumer/health benefits( Reference Huffman, Rousu and Shogren 45 , Reference Buhr, Hayes and Shogren 56 , Reference Kaneko and Chern 57 ), and GM biofortified crops (Golden Rice) in particular( Reference Corrigan, Depositario and Nayga 36 , Reference Depositario, Nayga and Wu 52 ). Besides provitamin A, rice auctions have also examined other quality attributes like quality labels in Senegal( Reference Demont, Rutsaert and Ndour 42 ) and parboiling technologies in Benin( Reference Demont, Zossou and Rutsaert 43 ).

The auctions are targeted towards female rice consumers of childbearing age from Shanxi Province, i.e. key beneficiaries of folate interventions. Based on the research location, two target groups are distinguished: a school and a market sample. Although the former is a specific target group, which represents a future generation of pregnant women, the latter is considered to be more representative of the general target population. The total sample encompasses 126 female rice consumers from Taigu, Shanxi Province, of whom sixty students participated at school and sixty-six non-students were recruited near the market place. The auction size varied between fifteen and twenty persons. Given that experimental auctions are primarily conducted with students, the study allowed the comparison of valuations between student and non-student samples( Reference Depositario, Nayga and Wu 58 ).

For a comprehensive overview of the auction design, from recruitment to debriefing, see the Supplementary Materials.

Auction design

The design applied follows the general approach of food auctions: briefing (including collection of informed consent), training, practice, bidding rounds and debriefing. The bidding procedure is based on a second price (Vickrey) auction mechanism( Reference Depositario, Nayga and Wu 59 Reference Vickrey 61 ), by which the highest bidder of the binding round is selected as the buyer and, thus, has to purchase the selected product at the amount of the second highest bidder. Thereby, an endowment procedure is employed, which requires people to bid the amount they are prepared to pay to exchange an initial given product, i.e. 1 kg of regular rice (costing 5·2 Yuan (¥); 1 ¥ is approximately $US 0·15), with FBR or FAR. To control for product order effects and to reduce expectation errors, the auctioned products are randomly coded and the order is randomized.

A within-subject design with non-repeated information rounds is used. Several authors lend support for such a design( Reference Alfnes and Rickertsen 38 , Reference Harrison, Harstad and Rutström 62 ), if extensive training( Reference Drichoutis, Nayga and Lazaridis 63 ) and a single binding approach are incorporated( Reference Roosen, Fox and Hennessy 41 , Reference Hobbs, Sanderson and Haghiri 64 ). In three subsequent bidding rounds, information about (i) the folate content, (ii) the folate benefits and (iii) the applied technology is provided (Table 1). Except for the last bidding round, the message is similar for the two products. The participants received price information about the endowed product, but not about FBR or FAR. With respect to the latter, the present study did not measure and control for the impact of consumers’ knowledge of the current cost of folic acid supplements (i.e. about 10 ¥/month), which is considered an important limitation of the study.

Table 1 Information sheets per auction round and auctioned product

FBR, folate-biofortified rice; FAR, rice supplemented with folic acid pills.

Note: The information sheets are translated from Chinese. A 1 kg (2 Jīn) bag of regular rice costs 5·2 Yuan (¥). 1 ¥ is approximately $US 0·15.

†A regular rice bag of 1 kg contains about 80 μg folate( 89 ), while an FBR bag the same size contains approximately 3000 μg( Reference De Steur, Gellynck and Storozhenko 3 , Reference Storozhenko, De Brouwer and Volckaert 17 ). To be able to compare FBR with FAR, we attached seven folic acid pills to the bag (400 μg/pill). Based on the current daily rice and folate consumption patterns of women in Shanxi Province, respectively estimated at 133 g rice( 90 ) and 190 μg folate( Reference Zhao, Hao and Zhang 8 ), Shanxi women could achieve the recommended folate intake level for a day either by consuming a regular portion of folate-enriched rice or by taking a folic acid pill.

∥A general GM food definition is mentioned, derived from key reports.

Because GM information is provided latest, three product comparisons can be examined (Fig. 1). First, WTP values for FBR and FAR in the second round, i.e. when the participants are aware of their folate content and potential health benefits, refer to non-GM strategies to increase folate consumption (non-GM comparison). To reduce the risk that participants assume that FBR in this auction round is caused by GM technology, specific terms that might be associated with this technology are not mentioned during the recruitment phase and the first two auction rounds, as well as in the auction materials (see Supplementary Materials). In the third round, the focus shifts towards the GM nature of FBR and the comparison with (non-GM) FAR (GM comparison). In other words, it measures the effect of awareness of the GM technology in FBR on both folate products. Third, the difference between WTP for FBR before and after the third round reveals the impact of the applied breeding technology, i.e. whether FBR is based on conventional or GM breeding techniques (FBR comparison). Whereas the latter comparison is the result of juxtaposing FBR bids from subsequent information rounds, the former two comparisons represent bid differences between both folate products in the same round. Although our fixed information order allows for product comparisons for each participant, order effects might be at stake, which is an important limitation of the auction design.

Fig. 1 Comparison of WTP values for FBR (non-GM, GM) and FAR (non-GM) based on the three information rounds (†non-GM comparison; ‡GM comparison; §FBR comparison). Note that as participants do not receive information regarding the applied technology in the first and second rounds, their FBR bids reflect WTP values for the non-GM product. Due to the high correlation between bids of the first and second rounds, only the latter values are used in the analysis, as they are based on additional information about the benefits (WTP, willingness-to-pay; FBR, folate-biofortified rice; FAR, rice supplemented with folic acid pills)

At the end of the bidding rounds, the participants stated their preference when both folate products would be available in the market. A similar approach is also used in contingent valuation methods with other biofortified products( Reference Corrigan, Depositario and Nayga 36 ). Our question reflects an ‘informed’ choice and consists of three categories (FBR, FAR, indifference). Thus, the focus is on the difference between supplementation and GM biofortification, by which the former is characterized by a higher degree of compliance.

Given the controversy associated with the use of GM technology in foods, the most reluctant bidding behaviour is expected to occur in the last information round. Therefore, zero bidders in this round receive an additional bidding slip to determine whether they would be interested to buy the auctioned good at a value below the price of regular rice. Stated differently, these zero bidders had the opportunity to bid a negative WTP.

This approach is relatively new in food auction literature( Reference Hobbs, Sanderson and Haghiri 64 Reference Dickinson and Bailey 66 ) and is particularly relevant when using controversial goods( Reference Parkhurst, Shogren and Dickinson 65 ), like GM food. Contrary to the approach of Parkhurst et al. ( Reference Parkhurst, Shogren and Dickinson 65 ), negative valuations are introduced as an ex-post bidding procedure. Even though such negative values are strictly speaking hypothetical, they help to gain insight in the motives behind zero bidding behaviour. In this way, we partially address the need for follow-up questions in valuation research( Reference Haab 67 ).

Data analysis

Statistical analysis consists mainly of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and multinomial logistic regression. Because the WTP values are not normally distributed, but left-skewed, the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test is appropriate to test differences between subsequent information rounds (e.g. FBR comparison), as well as between simultaneously auctioned goods (e.g. non-GM and GM comparison), in line with Roosen et al. ( Reference Roosen, Fox and Hennessy 41 ). This test is similar to the sign test, but is assumed to be more powerful( Reference Roosen, Fox and Hennessy 41 ). Multinomial logistic regression is employed to explore the determinants of product choice.

Results

Sample characteristics

Table 2 describes the total sample and compares significant differences between the two sub-samples. The sociodemographic profile of the sample is closely related to the setting of the experiment, i.e. a poor, rural, farmer region. Only one woman was known to be pregnant during the experiment.

Table 2 Variable descriptions of the experiment sample

FBR, folate-biofortified rice; FAR, rice supplemented with folic acid pills; NTD, neural tube defect.

*P < 0·05, ***P < 0·001.

†The first column refers to the timing of the self-administered survey question. The auction design characteristics (TARGET and TIMING) are not included in the survey.

‡Due to the metric scale of the variables AGE and OBJKNOW, the figures refer to F values, based on one-way ANOVA.

§Objective knowledge is measured through six true-or-false statements, in line with previous research( Reference Verdurme, Gellynck and Viaene 94 , Reference Christophe, Bruhn and Roosen 95 ).

∥A low and high education level refers to, respectively, primary/secondary school and college or above.

Regardless of the correctness of the intake, 17·5 % of the sample ever took folic acid, exceeding previous findings in Shanxi Province( Reference Zhang, Ren and Li 9 Reference Zeng, Yuan and Wang 11 , Reference Ren, Zhang and Hao 68 , Reference Li, Ren and Zhang 69 ), which varied between 7·7 % and 15·3 %. The limited use, as well as the high familiarity with NTD cases, underlines the need to address folate deficiency, in line with folate status( Reference Ren, Zhang and Li 10 ) and NTD prevalence studies( Reference Gu, Lin and Zheng 70 ).

Despite the high subjective knowledge of GM food (64·3 %), the objective knowledge score is relatively lower (50·1 %). Other Chinese studies also pointed out the lack of GM knowledge( Reference Ho, Vermeer and Zhao 25 Reference Huang, Qiu and Bai 27 ) and the discrepancy between subjective and objective knowledge( Reference Li, Curtis and McCluskey 30 ). About 81·7 % of the total sample would not refuse to consume GM food, which further supports the optimistic view of Chinese consumers towards GM food( Reference Ho, Vermeer and Zhao 25 Reference De Steur, Gellynck and Feng 31 ).

Regarding product choice, the results show that 66·7 % is favourable of FBR, while only 15·1 % prefers FAR and 18·3 % is indifferent. In nearly all cases, the product with the highest value is preferred, which demonstrates that the bids represent the economic value a consumer attaches to the folate products, rather than their evaluation of the (preferred) costs.

When looking at the sub-samples, the school sample represents a pool of women of childbearing age that is remarkably younger, nearly responsible for rice purchases and has less rural consumers. Given their age, most of them intend to become pregnant, which explains the limited use of folic acid supplements. While these students know more about GM food, they prefer FBR less than in the market sample, but still more than FAR.

Comparison of folate strategies

Table 3 gives an overview of the average bids and the share of zero bidders for each pair of auctioned folate products. Thereby, the results are split up according to the targeted sample. Somewhat surprising, the Wilcoxon test reveals that WTP values for FBR are significantly higher than for FAR, even when the former is associated with GM technology. In general, mean WTP values for FBR vary between 1·76 ¥ (GM) and 1·90 ¥ (non-GM), compared with 0·99 ¥ for FAR. In other words, the participants are prepared to pay a premium of 33·9 %, 36·5 % and 19·0 % for, respectively, GM and non-GM folate biofortification and folic acid supplementation. The results confirm the expectation that GM crops with consumer benefits are positively embraced by consumers, especially in developing countries, such as India( Reference Deodhar, Ganesh and Chern 71 ), the Philippines( Reference Depositario, Nayga and Wu 52 ), Brazil( Reference Meenakshi, Banerji and Manyong 51 ) and China( Reference Li, Curtis and McCluskey 30 ). Overall, awareness of the applied GM technology generally does not significantly affect consumers’ valuation. However, in the group of students, the GM nature of FBR is negatively valued. While previous GM food auction studies( Reference Depositario, Nayga and Wu 58 , Reference Lusk, Jamal and Kurlander 72 ) showed that bids of non-student and student subjects do not differ significantly, the present findings suggest the opposite.

Table 3 Comparison of WTP values between non-GM/GM FBR and non-FAR, mean bids (¥), share of zero bids and bid differences (Δ), per targeted sample and product comparison

WTP, willingness-to-pay; FBR, folate-biofortified rice; FAR, rice supplemented with folic acid pills.

Note: ¥ 1 ∼ $US 0·15.

***P < 0·001.

With respect to zero bids, a similar pattern is observed: large differences in the non-GM comparison, regardless of the targeted sample, and sample differences in the other product comparisons. In the school sample, for example, zero bidding for GM FBR is substantially more present than in the market sample.

Determinants of product choice

Multinomial logistic regression analysis is conducted to examine potential determinants of product choice. The variable TARGET is incorporated to take into account the differences between the two sub-samples. As shown in Table 4, the model explains 33·6 % of the variance. The targeted sample, the timing of the auction, intention to eat GM food and being responsible for the rice purchases are considered as key factors.

Table 4 Significant determinants of the consumers’ preference for folate products, by multinomial logistic regression, likelihood ratio tests and parameter estimates per binary logistic comparison

FBR, folate-biofortified rice; FAR, rice supplemented with folic acid pills.

Note: The dependent variable, consumer preference, consists of three categories: FBR preference, FAR preference and indifference. To compare all groups of the dependent variable, three binary logistic regressions are presented. Bold indicates a significant effect.

†The parameter estimates of the dummy variables refer to a specific category, expressed in parentheses.

‡Reference category.

The effect of these variables can be interpreted by the parameter estimates of the multinomial logistic regression. First, a targeted sample effect is observed. In comparison with the students (school sample), the majority of the market sample prefers folate-enriched GM rice over the non-GM alternative. They are also more intended to take an indifferent position rather than to choose FAR. Although students’ preference is more oriented towards FAR, it is important to note that this does not mean that students reject FBR. They only prefer supplementation more than consumers from the market sample, regardless of the size of their bids. Second, indifference is more likely to occur in the morning sessions, while participation in the afternoon increases the likelihood to choose FBR. While several auction studies with staple crops reported higher WTP values in the morning( Reference Demont, Rutsaert and Ndour 42 , Reference Demont, Zossou and Rutsaert 43 , Reference De Groote, Tomlins and Haleegoah 73 , Reference Hoffman, Menkhaus and Chakravarti 74 ), which is likely due to hunger and increased interest in buying and consuming food, the present study reports a somewhat similar time-of-the-day effect that refers to product choice. Respondents in the morning are more favourable to all folate products, rather than preferring one. Third, consumers in charge of the rice purchases in the household have a lower probability to be indifferent. Finally, as expected, the odds to belong in the group of consumers that favours FBR are positively influenced by an intention to consume GM food. A similar positive effect is found in other GM food studies( Reference Lin, Somwaru and Tuan 26 , Reference Costa-Font, Gil and Traill 75 Reference Verdurme, Viaene and Gellynck 77 ). Although intention is assumed to predict GM food behaviour more accurately than attitude( Reference Bredahl, Grunert and Frewer 76 , Reference Spence and Townsend 78 ), in line with behaviour theory( Reference Fishbein and Ajzen 79 ), the relationship is often not straightforward( Reference Ajzen 80 ), as demonstrated for GM food valuation studies( Reference Costa-Font, Gil and Traill 75 ). Despite its insignificance, NTDKNOW also seem to drive consumers towards FBR.

Zero bidding behaviour and negative valuations

Figure 2 juxtaposes the total number of zero bidders (see Table 2) and ‘new zero bidders’. The latter is defined as participants who start to bid zero after they received new information. The total number of zero bidders is the sum of new zero bidders and those who did not change their zero bid of the previous bidding round. Therefore, in the first round the number of new zero bidders equals the total number of zero bids. Zero bids in the non-GM product comparison (second round) most likely refer to consumers’ reluctance of the information about the folate content (first round) and the folate benefits (second round). Reasons for zero bidding in this comparison round might be related to concerns regarding the high folate content or the inconvenience of taking pills (daily). As expected, most participants turn their positive FBR bid into a zero bid upon learning that GM technology is used (GM comparison). Surprisingly, the number of FAR zero bids also increases after this information treatment. Together with the large discrepancy between new zero bidders in the ‘FBR comparison’, one can conclude that non-GM FBR provokes the least negative reactions, but the evaluation of GM FBR is not as negative as one would have thought. Stated differently, the absence of a reduction in zero bidding behaviour towards non-GM FAR further underlines the general preference for FBR.

Fig. 2 Number of all zero bidders ( $$$$ ) and new zero bidders ( $$$$ ) regarding FBR and FAR, per product comparison. Note that a ‘new zero bidder’ in round x is defined as a participant who does not bid zero in round x − 1, but starts to bid zero in round x (FBR, folate-biofortified rice; FAR, rice supplemented with folic acid pills)

The additional negative valuation approach somewhat nuances the aforementioned figures regarding the ‘GM comparison’. Out of the forty-four FBR zero bidders in the third round, only 15·8 % are consistent in their reluctance and are not willing to buy FBR, even if there would be a discount. The other participants claim to accept FBR if it would be cheaper, i.e. between 0·2 ¥ and 2·0 ¥. These figures are comparable with another Chinese GM rice study( Reference Li, Curtis and McCluskey 30 ). In the case of the non-GM FAR, only 7·3 % of forty-two zero bidders are not interested at any price. This demonstrates that a large part of FAR zero bidders considers the value of the additional free folic acid supplements not higher than regular rice, but will not be averse of buying FAR when the price would be more competitive, i.e. on average 0·57 ¥ lower. Comparison of both products shows that awareness of the GM technology causes more people to maintain their initial zero bids for FBR, but not as much as would have been expected.

Discussion

The present paper analyses consumers’ WTP for two folate strategies: biofortification, based on GM or conventional breeding techniques, and supplementation. The novelty of the application of non-hypothetical experimental auctions not only refers to the comparison of present and novel micronutrient strategies, but is also related to the targeted sample, i.e. women of childbearing age from a folate deficient region. Although the two sub-samples represent important target groups of folate consumption, the results of the school sample should be carefully interpreted, especially when generalizing the conclusions of this ex-ante valuation study.

The results show a significantly higher WTP for folate biofortification compared with folic acid supplementation, even if consumers are aware of the applied GM technology. The convenience of the high folate concentrations in FBR seems to outweigh the absence of a controversial technology and the compliance of taking pills in the case of FAR.

The study also sheds a novel light on zero bidding for controversial goods through the elicitation of negative values as an ex-post survey question. In the case of GM foods with health benefits, only a small part of the zero bidders consistently refused to buy GM FBR when having the option to submit a negative bid. Future research should further explore the potential of culturally applicable follow-up questions to determine the true motives behind zero bids( Reference Haab 67 ), like thought-listening questionnaires( Reference Kassardjian, Gamble and Gunson 35 ).

Furthermore, measuring product choice at the end of the auctions can be considered an additional tool to validate the bids and to examine whether consumers actually understand the purpose of bidding. As Lusk et al.( Reference Lusk, McLaughlin and Jaeger 81 ) stated, if a participant would have indicated a preference for the product with the lowest bid, she would probably have expected that her response could have influenced the future price of the auctioned good(s).

Together with the limited access to folic acid in rural areas( Reference Li and Hao 7 ), the poor knowledge of the correct time of intake( Reference Ren, Zhang and Li 10 ), the low awareness of the need for folate( Reference Zeng, Yuan and Wang 11 ) and the large number of unintended pregnancies in China( Reference Durkin, Schneider and Pathania 12 ), the novel insights on the low attractiveness of FAR provide an additional argument for the limited success of past folic acid supplementation programmes and the current low use of folic acid pills. It is important to note that in order to elicit consumer preferences for these micronutrient interventions, rice is selected as the food vehicle of the folate enhancement. Therefore, future research should examine whether FAR is a feasible, cost-effective and sustainable option to increase folic acid intake.

Given the differences between the school and market samples, by which the unattractiveness of FAR is less pronounced in the school sample, one might advocate to target folic acid supplementation interventions towards the future generation of mothers. Nevertheless, the results demonstrate that folate biofortification could be a well-accepted alternative micronutrient strategy. Especially because those responsible for the rice purchases, mainly represented in the market sample, are better placed to choose one of the two folate products, the general FBR preference should be taken into account when evaluating the potential of micronutrient interventions in public health. In line, the intention to consume GM food, which is found to be a determinant of preference for FBR, further supports the positive reactions towards GM biofortification in China.

From a purely economic perspective, the WTP values could be used, and juxtaposed with the development and implementation costs of these micronutrient strategies, in order to decide whether it is beneficial and commercially viable to adopt them or to set a price level( Reference Lusk and Hudson 82 ), e.g. based on a premium that ensures a sufficient market share( Reference Breidert, Hahsler and Reutterer 83 ) and attracts farmers to produce GM biofortified crops( Reference Dawe and Unnevehr 84 ). In the Philippines, for instance, a premium rice variety was used to deploy Golden Rice( Reference Brooks 85 ). The downside of such a pricing strategy is its contradiction with the pro-poor, pro-rural, public health mission of micronutrient strategies( Reference Barklund 86 ). Even though our study revealed that poor consumers are prepared to pay for FBR, the ability to pay might be an important constraint, as shown in valuation studies on health-care options in poor populations( Reference Donaldson 87 ). Therefore, the WTP figures should rather be interpreted as consumer preferences of FBR or FAR over regular rice. Such economic values can be used to inform and support public health and – in the case of FBR, agribusiness decision makers( Reference Lusk and Hudson 82 , Reference Bateman, Carson and Day 88 ). As such, strong preferences for FBR could contribute to priority setting in the field of (regional) folate interventions.

Nevertheless, if both FBR and FAR would be part of a national public health programme, it will be a research and policy challenge to simultaneously attract farmers, who seek to make profits out of the added value of FBR; poor consumers, who will have different rice varieties at their disposal and need to be convinced and informed to consume folate products (correctly); health programme planners and other stakeholders, who will need to be involved to commercialize, distribute and promote these interventions, while taking into account the cost implications.

Acknowledgements

Sources of funding: This investigation received financial support by the IMRD (International Master of Science in Rural Development) Staff Exchange Program. Conflict of interest: There are no conflicts of interest. Ethics: No ethical approval was required. Authors’ contributions: All authors were involved in the study design and concept. H.D.S. developed the study design, supervised the data collection, performed the data analysis and wrote the manuscript. S.F. and S.X. took an important role in the data collection. X.G. coordinated the project. All co-authors approved the final version.

Supplementary Materials

For Supplementary Materials for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1368980013000682

References

1. UNICEF (2006) Progress for Children: A Report Card on Nutrition no. 4. New York: UNICEF.Google Scholar
2. United Nations (2004) 5th Report on the World Nutrition Situation. Geneva: UN SCN.Google Scholar
3. De Steur, H, Gellynck, X, Storozhenko, S et al. (2010) The health benefits of folate biofortified rice in China. Nat Biotechnol 28, 554556.Google Scholar
4. Dai, L, Zhu, J, Zhou, G et al. (2002) Dynamic monitoring of neural tube defects in China during 1996 to 2000. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi 36, 402405.Google Scholar
5. Berry, R, Li, Z, Erickson, D et al. (1999) Prevention of neural-tube defects with folic acid in China. N Engl J Med 341, 14851491.Google Scholar
6. Chinese Ministry of Health (2001) National Action Plan for Reducing Birth Defects and Disabilities in China for 2002–2010. Beijing: Ministry of Health of the People's Republic of China.Google Scholar
7. Li, Z & Hao, L (2008) National Neural Tube Defects Prevention Program in China. Food Nutr Bull 29, 2 Suppl., S196S204.Google Scholar
8. Zhao, Y, Hao, L, Zhang, L et al. (2009) Plasma folate status and dietary folate intake among Chinese women of childbearing age. Matern Child Nutr 5, 104116.Google Scholar
9. Zhang, L, Ren, A, Li, Z et al. (2006) Folate concentrations and folic acid supplementation among women in their first trimester of pregnancy in a rural area with a high prevalence of neural tube defects in Shanxi, China. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 76, 461466.Google Scholar
10. Ren, A, Zhang, L, Li, Z et al. (2006) Awareness and use of folic acid, and blood folate concentrations among pregnant women in northern China – an area with a high prevalence of neural tube defects. Reprod Toxicol 22, 431436.Google Scholar
11. Zeng, Z, Yuan, P, Wang, Y et al. (2011) Folic acid awareness and intake among women in areas with high prevalence of neural tube defects in China: a cross-sectional study. Public Health Nutr 14, 11421147.Google Scholar
12. Durkin, MS, Schneider, H, Pathania, VS et al. (2006) Learning and developmental disabilities. In Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries, 2nd ed., pp. 933952 [DT Jamison, JG Breman, AR Measham et al., editors]. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
13. Cordero, J, Do, A & Berry, R (2008) Review of interventions for the prevention and control of folate and vitamin B12 deficiencies. Food Nutr Bull 29, 2 Suppl., S188S195.Google Scholar
14. Asian Development Bank (2004) Special Evaluation Study for Selected ADB Interventions on Nutrition and Food Fortification. Manila: ADB.Google Scholar
15. Wailes, E & Lee, T-C (2008) The status of rice fortification in China. In Rice Fortification in Developing Countries: A Critical Review of the Technical and Economic Feasibility, pp. 3445 [S Alavi, B Bugusu, G Cramer et al., editors]. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development.Google Scholar
16. Blancquaert, D, Storozhenko, S, Loizeau, K et al. (2010) Folates and folic acid: from fundamental research towards sustainable health. Crit Rev Plant Sci 29, 1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Storozhenko, S, De Brouwer, V, Volckaert, M et al. (2007) Folate fortification of rice by metabolic engineering. Nat Biotechnol 25, 12771279.Google Scholar
18. Bekaert, S, Storozhenko, S, Mehrshahi, P et al. (2008) Folate biofortification in food plants. Trends Plant Sci 13, 2835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. De Steur, H, Gellynck, X, Blancquaert, D et al. (2012) Potential impact and cost-effectiveness of multi-biofortified rice in China. New Biotechnol 29, 432442.Google Scholar
20. De Steur, H, Blancquaert, D, Gellynck, X et al. (2012) Ex-ante evaluation of biotechnology innovations: the case of folate biofortified rice in China. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 13, 27512760.Google Scholar
21. James, C (2011) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011. ISAAA Brief no. 43. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.Google Scholar
22. Waltz, E (2010) China's GM rice first. Nat Biotechnol 28, 8.Google Scholar
23. Bouis, HE (2002) Plant breeding: a new tool for fighting micronutrient malnutrition. J Nutr 132, issue 3, S491S494.Google Scholar
24. Musgrove, P & Fox-Rushby, J (2006) Cost-effectiveness analysis for priority setting. In Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries, 2nd ed., pp. 271285 [DT Jamison, JG Breman, AR Measham et al., editors]. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
25. Ho, P, Vermeer, E & Zhao, J (2006) Biotechnology and food safety in China: consumer's acceptance or resistance? Dev Change 37, 227254.Google Scholar
26. Lin, W, Somwaru, A, Tuan, F et al. (2006) Consumer attitudes toward biotech foods in China. J Int Food Agribus Mark 18, 177203.Google Scholar
27. Huang, J, Qiu, H, Bai, J et al. (2006) Awareness, acceptance of and willingness to buy genetically modified foods in urban China. Appetite 46, 144151.Google Scholar
28. Liu, P (2009) Consumers’ WTA for GM rice cookie: an experiment study in China. Presented at International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Beijing, China, 16–22 August 2009.Google Scholar
29. Zhang, X, Huang, J, Qiu, H et al. (2010) A consumer segmentation study with regards to genetically modified food in urban China. Food Policy 35, 456462.Google Scholar
30. Li, Q, Curtis, K, McCluskey, J et al. (2002) Consumer attitudes toward genetically modified foods in Beijing, China. AgBioForum 5, 145152.Google Scholar
31. De Steur, H, Gellynck, X, Feng, S et al. (2012) Determinants of willingness-to-pay for GM rice with health benefits in a high-risk region: evidence from experimental auctions for folate biofortified rice in China. Food Qual Prefer 25, 8794.Google Scholar
32. De Steur, H, Gellynck, X, Storozhenko, S et al. (2010) Willingness to accept and purchase genetically modified rice with high folate content in Shanxi Province, China. Appetite 54, 118125.Google Scholar
33. Lumley, J, Watson, L, Watson, M et al. (2001) Periconceptional supplementation with folate and/or multivitamins for preventing neural tube defects. Cochrane Database Syst Rev issue 3, CD001056.Google Scholar
34. MRC Vitamin Study Research Group (1991) Prevention of neural tube defects: results of the Medical Research Council Vitamin Study. Lancet 338, 131137.Google Scholar
35. Kassardjian, E, Gamble, J & Gunson, A (2005) New approach to elicit consumers’ willingness to purchase genetically modified apples. Br Food J 107, 541555.Google Scholar
36. Corrigan, JR, Depositario, DPT, Nayga, RM et al. (2009) Comparing open-ended choice experiments and experimental auctions: an application to golden rice. Am J Agric Econ 91, 837853.Google Scholar
37. Corrigan, JR (2005) Is the experimental auction a dynamic market? Environ Resour Econ 31, 3545.Google Scholar
38. Alfnes, F & Rickertsen, K (2003) European consumers’ willingness to pay for US beef in experimental auction markets. Am J Agric Econ 85, 396405.Google Scholar
39. Lusk, JL, Feldkamp, T & Schroeder, TC (2004) Experimental auction procedure: impact on valuation of quality differentiated goods. Am J Agric Econ 86, 389405.Google Scholar
40. Lusk, JL, Fox, JA, Schroeder, TC et al. (2001) In-store valuation of steak tenderness. Am J Agric Econ 83, 539550.Google Scholar
41. Roosen, J, Fox, JA, Hennessy, D et al. (1998) Consumers’ valuation of insecticide use restrictions: an application to apples. J Agric Resour Econ 23, 367384.Google Scholar
42. Demont, M, Rutsaert, P, Ndour, M et al. (2013) Experimental auctions, collective induction and choice shift: willingness-to-pay for rice quality in Senegal. Eur Rev Agric Econ 40, 261286.Google Scholar
43. Demont, M, Zossou, E, Rutsaert, P et al. (2012) Consumer valuation of improved rice parboiling technologies in Benin. Food Qual Prefer 23, 6370.Google Scholar
44. Rousu, MC, Monchuk, D, Shogren, JF et al. (2005) Consumer willingness to pay for ‘second-generation’ genetically engineered products and the role of marketing information. J Agric Appl Econ 37, 647657.Google Scholar
45. Huffman, W, Rousu, M, Shogren, J et al. (2007) The effects of prior beliefs and learning on consumers’ acceptance of genetically modified foods. J Econ Behav Organ 63, 193206.Google Scholar
46. Noussair, C, Robin, S & Ruffieux, B (2002) Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels? Econ Lett 75, 4753.Google Scholar
47. De Groote, H, Kimenju, S & Morawetz, U (2011) Estimating consumer willingness to pay for food quality with experimental auctions: the case of yellow versus fortified maize meal in Kenya. Agric Econ 42, 116.Google Scholar
48. Chowdhury, S, Meenakshi, JV, Tomlins, KI et al. (2011) Are consumers in developing countries willing to pay more for micronutrient-dense biofortified foods? Evidence from a field experiment in Uganda. Am J Agric Econ 93, 8397.Google Scholar
49. Stevens, R & Winter-Nelson, A (2008) Consumer acceptance of provitamin A-biofortified maize in Maputo, Mozambique. Food Policy 33, 341351.Google Scholar
50. Meenakshi, JV, Banerji, A, Manyong, V et al. (2012) Using a discrete choice experiment to elicit the demand for a nutritious food: willingness-to-pay for orange maize in rural Zambia. J Health Econ 31, 6271.Google Scholar
51. Gonzalez, C, Johnson, N & Qaim, M (2009) Consumer acceptance of second-generation GM foods: the case of biofortified cassava in the North-east of Brazil. J Agric Econ 60, 604624.Google Scholar
52. Depositario, DPT, Nayga, RM, Wu, X et al. (2009) Effects of information on consumers’ willingness to pay for golden rice. Asian Econ J 23, 457476.Google Scholar
53. Lusk, JL (2003) Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness-to-pay for golden rice. Am J Agric Econ 85, 840856.Google Scholar
54. Canavari, M & Nayga, R Jr (2009) On consumers’ willingness to purchase nutritionally enhanced genetically modified food. Appl Econ 41, 125137.Google Scholar
55. Dannenberg, A (2009) The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food – a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 68, 21822192.Google Scholar
56. Buhr, B, Hayes, D, Shogren, J et al. (1993) Valuing ambiguity: the case of genetically engineered growth enhancers. J Agric Resour Econ 18, 175184.Google Scholar
57. Kaneko, N & Chern, W (2005) Willingness to pay for genetically modified food: evidence from an auction experiment in Japan. Consumer Interests Annual 51, 524.Google Scholar
58. Depositario, DPT, Nayga, RM, Wu, X et al. (2009) Should students be used as subjects in experimental auctions? Econ Lett 102, 122124.Google Scholar
59. Lucking-Reiley, D (2000) Vickrey auctions in practice: from nineteenth-century Philately to twenty-first-century E-commerce. J Econ Perspect 14, 183192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60. Shogren, JF, Fox, JA, Hayes, DJ et al. (1994) Bid sensitivity and the structure of the Vickrey auction. Am J Agric Econ 76, 10891095.Google Scholar
61. Vickrey, W (1961) Counterspeculation and competitive sealed tenders. J Finance 16, 837.Google Scholar
62. Harrison, G, Harstad, R & Rutström, E (2004) Experimental methods and elicitation of values. Exp Econ 7, 123140.Google Scholar
63. Drichoutis, A, Nayga, RM & Lazaridis, P (2011) The role of training in experimental auctions. Am J Agric Econ 93, 521527.Google Scholar
64. Hobbs, J, Sanderson, K & Haghiri, M (2006) Evaluating willingness-to-pay for Bison attributes: an experimental auction approach. Can J Agric Econ 54, 269287.Google Scholar
65. Parkhurst, G, Shogren, J & Dickinson, D (2004) Negative values in Vickrey auctions. J Agric Econ 86, 222235.Google Scholar
66. Dickinson, D & Bailey, D (2002) Meat traceability: are US consumers willing to pay for it? J Agric Resour Econ 27, 348364.Google Scholar
67. Haab, TC (1999) Nonparticipation or misspecification? The impacts of nonparticipation on dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 14, 443461.Google Scholar
68. Ren, A, Zhang, L, Hao, L et al. (2007) Comparison of blood folate levels among pregnant Chinese women in areas with high and low prevalence of neural tube defects. Public Health Nutr 10, 762768.Google Scholar
69. Li, Z, Ren, A, Zhang, L et al. (2007) Periconceptional use of folic acid in Shanxi Province of northern China. Public Health Nutr 10, 471476.Google Scholar
70. Gu, X, Lin, L, Zheng, X et al. (2007) High prevalence of NTDs in Shanxi province: a combined epidemiological approach. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 79, 702707.Google Scholar
71. Deodhar, S, Ganesh, S & Chern, W (2008) Emerging markets for GM foods: a study of consumer's willingness to pay in India. Int J Biotechnol 10, 570587.Google Scholar
72. Lusk, JL, Jamal, M, Kurlander, L et al. (2005) A meta-analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies. J Agric Resourc Econ 30, 2844.Google Scholar
73. De Groote, H, Tomlins, K, Haleegoah, J et al. (2010) Assessing rural consumers’ WTP for orange, biofortified maize in Ghana with experimental auctions and a simulated radio message. Presented at African Agricultural Economics Association Meeting, Cape Town, South Africa, 19–23 Spetember 2010.Google Scholar
74. Hoffman, E, Menkhaus, D, Chakravarti, D et al. (1993) Using laboratory experimental auctions in marketing research: a case study of new packaging for fresh beef. Mark Sci 12, 318338.Google Scholar
75. Costa-Font, M, Gil, J & Traill, W (2008) Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: review and implications for food policy. Food Policy 33, 99111.Google Scholar
76. Bredahl, L, Grunert, K & Frewer, L (1998) Consumer attitudes and decision-making with regard to genetically engineered food products – a review of the literature and a presentation of models for future research. J Consum Policy 21, 251277.Google Scholar
77. Verdurme, A, Viaene, J & Gellynck, X (2003) Consumer acceptance of GM food: a basis for segmentation. Int J Biotechnol 5, 5875.Google Scholar
78. Spence, A & Townsend, E (2006) Examining consumer behavior toward genetically modified (GM) food in Britain. Risk Anal 26, 657670.Google Scholar
79. Fishbein, M & Ajzen, I (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
80. Ajzen, I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50, 179211.Google Scholar
81. Lusk, JL, McLaughlin, L & Jaeger, SR (2007) Strategy and response to purchase intention questions. Mark Lett 18, 3144.Google Scholar
82. Lusk, JL & Hudson, D (2004) Willingness-to-pay estimates and their relevance to agribusiness decision making. Rev Agric Econ 26, 152169.Google Scholar
83. Breidert, C, Hahsler, M & Reutterer, R (2006) A review of methods for measuring willingness-to-pay. Innov Mark 4, issue 4, 832.Google Scholar
84. Dawe, D & Unnevehr, L (2007) Crop case study: GMO golden rice in Asia with enhanced vitamin A benefits for consumers. AgBioForum 10, 154160.Google Scholar
85. Brooks, S (2010) Rice Biofortification: Lessons for Global Science and Development. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
86. Barklund, Å (2008) Golden Rice and Other Biofortified Food Crops for Developing Countries: Challenges and Potential. Kungl. Skogs- och Lantbruksakademiens Tidskrift 7:114. Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry.Google Scholar
87. Donaldson, C (1999) Valuing the benefits of publicly-provided health care: does ‘ability to pay’ preclude the use of ‘willingness to pay’? Soc Sci Med 49, 551563.Google Scholar
88. Bateman, IJ, Carson, RT, Day, B et al. (2002) Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
89. US Department of Agriculture (2008) USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, release 21. Washington, DC: USDA, Agricultural Research Service.Google Scholar
90. China National Grain and Oils Information Center (2009) Food Grains Weekly Report. Newsletter, various issues. Beijing: CNGOIC.Google Scholar
91. Molloy, A & Scott, J (2001) Folates and prevention of disease. Public Health Nutr 4, 601609.Google Scholar
92. Bailey, LB, Rampersaud, GC & Kauwell, GPA (2003) Folic acid supplements and fortification affect the risk for neural tube defects, vascular disease and cancer: evolving science. J Nutr 133, issue 6, S1961S1968.Google Scholar
93. Geisel, J (2003) Folic acid and neural tube defects in pregnancy: a review. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 17, 268279.Google Scholar
94. Verdurme, A, Gellynck, X & Viaene, J (2003) Consumers and new technologies: the case of GM food. Int J Biotechnol 5, 439453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
95. Christophe, I, Bruhn, M & Roosen, J (2008) Knowledge, attitudes towards and acceptability of genetic modification in Germany. Appetite 51, 5868.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 Information sheets per auction round and auctioned product

Figure 1

Fig. 1 Comparison of WTP values for FBR (non-GM, GM) and FAR (non-GM) based on the three information rounds (†non-GM comparison; ‡GM comparison; §FBR comparison). Note that as participants do not receive information regarding the applied technology in the first and second rounds, their FBR bids reflect WTP values for the non-GM product. Due to the high correlation between bids of the first and second rounds, only the latter values are used in the analysis, as they are based on additional information about the benefits (WTP, willingness-to-pay; FBR, folate-biofortified rice; FAR, rice supplemented with folic acid pills)

Figure 2

Table 2 Variable descriptions of the experiment sample

Figure 3

Table 3 Comparison of WTP values between non-GM/GM FBR and non-FAR, mean bids (¥), share of zero bids and bid differences (Δ), per targeted sample and product comparison

Figure 4

Table 4 Significant determinants of the consumers’ preference for folate products, by multinomial logistic regression, likelihood ratio tests and parameter estimates per binary logistic comparison

Figure 5

Fig. 2 Number of all zero bidders ($$$$) and new zero bidders ($$$$) regarding FBR and FAR, per product comparison. Note that a ‘new zero bidder’ in round x is defined as a participant who does not bid zero in round x − 1, but starts to bid zero in round x (FBR, folate-biofortified rice; FAR, rice supplemented with folic acid pills)

Supplementary material: PDF

De Steur et al. supplementary material

Instructions guide

Download De Steur et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 338.6 KB