Consumers willing to pay premium for healthier genetically modified foods: study

Sep 14, 2011
Wallace Huffman, distinguished professor of economics, shows off some produce enhanced with consumer traits through intragenic means. Huffman's research shows consumers are willing to pay a premium for enhanced produce. Credit: ISU photo by Bob Elbert

Consumers are eager to get their hands on, and teeth into, foods that are genetically modified to increase health benefits – and even pay more for the opportunity.

A study by Iowa State University researcher Wallace Huffman shows that when are presented with produce enhanced with consumer traits through intragenic means, they will pay significantly more than for plain produce.

The research is published in the current issue of the Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics

Intragenic modification refers to plants that are with genes from other plants within their own species.

Transgenic foods refer to plants that are modified with genes from other species.

Consumer traits are those modifications that are seen as a benefit to the consumer, such as enhanced levels of vitamins. Farmer traits refer to traits that benefit farmers, such as pest and drought resistance.

"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," said Huffman, distinguished professor of economics.

Improving plants by using intragenic methods is very similar to cross breeding plants, a process very commonly used by backyard gardeners trying to improve their irises, and was the main method used by hybrid seed corn businesses prior to genetic modification.

Some plants, however, are difficult to cross breed for a variety of reasons.

There are thousands of types of potatoes, for instance, each having some unique genetic traits. But since they reproduce by using an internal seed or eye of the potato, improving them through cross breeding with other potatoes is difficult.

By using the tools of genetic engineering, the intragenic process allows plant breeders to improve produce using within-species transfers.

Consumers' acceptance of genetically modified plants is a real turnaround from previous research.

In 2001, Huffman first researched consumers' willingness to pay for transgenic foods. At that time, he showed that consumers would pay 15 percent less for foods made from or containing farmer traits introduced by transgenic methods, compared with produce that was not genetically modified at all.

If there remains any hesitation by consumers to eat genetically modified foods, it is difficult to say, said Huffman.

"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.

It does seem that buying foods made healthier through intragenics does not make consumers uneasy, he said.

Huffman's experiment involved consumers bidding on both genetically modified 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.

Consumers were not willing to pay more if those enhancements were introduced through transgenic methods, he added.

Participants were also given 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 was given from the point of view of the food industry. The negative information was presented from the perspective of environmental groups. The neutral information was given as from the scientific community. The industry and neutral perspectives contained definitions of intragenic and transgenic modifications.

Huffman said that information from the food industry was usually given more weight by consumers than the information presented by environmental groups. The neutral information moderated the negative effect of environmental group .

Explore further: Noted researchers warn that biomedical research system in US is unsustainable

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Study cites abundance of genetically modified canola crops

Aug 14, 2010

Genetic engineering has been hailed as a tool to produce crops that are left unharmed by weed-killing pesticides and that are more productive than their forebears. But critics have worried that modified plants might take ...

Genetically modified rice could pose risks

Jun 14, 2005

BEIJING, June 14 (UPI) -- Greenpeace China has warned that experimental, genetically modified rice is being illegally sold in southern China, posing possible risks to consumers.Researchers from the environmental group collected ...

Russia is cautious about GM foods

Oct 25, 2005

Russian scientists say they must study the implications of genetically modified food before such food is widely introduced in their nation.

U.N.: Effects of bio-tech trees not known

Jul 14, 2005

The United Nations says research into the effects of genetically modified trees is inconclusive despite potentially vast applications in the forestry industry.

Recommended for you

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (1) Sep 14, 2011
Yo! Cuz, I give a rip about intragenically supplemented nutrition, give me intragenic tender and flavorful tomatoes. It will be a fine weapon against the Luddite third-worlders, economic and agriculturally, giving them ever more nutrition to eschew upon.
Kev_C
1 / 5 (1) Sep 14, 2011
The world has gone totally barking if it accepts this clap trap propaganda. Why can't inteferring, meddling and totally stupid biotechs just get off planet Earth and find a rock in the dark cold reaches of space to play their silly games? There is no place on Earth for plants and animals genetically modified by humans. It is not necessary and not needed. We can grow plenty of food to feed everyone simply by stopping the wasteful and profit greedy agricultural practices of today and start reverting back to basic permaculture standards. But this won't happen because the greedy manipulators in high places want to control everyones food supply. You eat what they tell you to eat. No alternatives will be permitted. End of freedom of choice and biodiversity. Followed quickly by extinction of the human race (no bad thing really considering the way we have treated the planet) and everything else which would be unforgivable.

More news stories

Atom probe assisted dating of oldest piece of earth

(Phys.org) —It's a scientific axiom: big claims require extra-solid evidence. So there were skeptics in 2001 when University of Wisconsin-Madison geoscience professor John Valley dated an ancient crystal ...