[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v68y2020i3p289-313.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Food values and heterogeneous consumer responses to nanotechnology

Author

Listed:
  • Yang Yang
  • Jill E. Hobbs
Abstract
Agricultural applications of nanotechnology are at a relatively early stage and little is known about consumer responses to the technology. Canadian consumer responses to food nanotechnology are examined through the lens of the Food Value Scale. Data from a survey of Canadian consumers are used to evaluate the relative importance of eleven food values to food purchase decisions. We find that taste, safety, nutrition, and price are among the most important food values to Canadians, however, consumers exhibit considerable heterogeneity with respect to the priority placed on these values. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) explores the effect of food values on choice behavior. The DCE is positioned as a sliced apple product with non‐browning and antioxidant‐enhanced features introduced through the use of nanocoating or a conventional coating method. Random parameters logit (RPL) and latent class models (LCM) confirm the existence of significant preference heterogeneity. The LCM identifies three classes of consumers: “supporters,” “doubters,” and “opponents” who differ in their reaction to nanotechnology and in the relative importance placed on food values such as naturalness, novelty, and convenience. The analysis shows that food values provide additional insights into consumers’ food choices and their attitudes toward novel food technologies. Les applications agricoles de la nanotechnologie sont à un stade relativement précoce et on sait peu de choses sur les réponses des consommateurs à la technologie. Les réponses des consommateurs canadiens à la nanotechnologie alimentaire sont examinées à travers la lentille de l’échelle de valeurs pour la nourriture. Les données d'une enquête auprès des consommateurs canadiens sont utilisées pour évaluer l'importance relative de onze valeurs alimentaires dans les décisions d'achat d'aliments. Nous constatons que le goût, l'innocuité, la nutrition et le prix sont parmi les valeurs alimentaires les plus importantes pour les Canadiens, mais les consommateurs présentent une hétérogénéité considérable en ce qui concerne la priorité accordée à ces valeurs. Une expérience de choix discret (ECD) explore l'effet des valeurs des aliments sur le comportement de choix. La ECD utilise comme produit des tranches de pomme qui ne brunissent pas et qui ont une teneur supérieure en antioxydants. Ces caractéristiques proviennent de l'utilisation de nano‐enrobage ou d'une méthode d'enrobage conventionnelle. Les paramètres aléatoires logit et les modèles de classe latente (MCL) confirment l'existence significative d'hétérogénéité. Le MCL identifie trois catégories de consommateurs: les «partisans», les «sceptiques» et les «opposants» qui diffèrent dans leur réaction aux nanotechnologies et dans l'importance relative accordée aux valeurs alimentaires telles que le naturel, la nouveauté et la commodité. L'analyse montre que les valeurs sur les aliments fournissent des informations supplémentaires sur les choix alimentaires des consommateurs et leur attitude envers les nouvelles technologies alimentaires.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "Food values and heterogeneous consumer responses to nanotechnology," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 289-313, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:68:y:2020:i:3:p:289-313
    DOI: 10.1111/cjag.12225
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12225
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/cjag.12225?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sebastian Hess & Carl Johan Lagerkvist & William Redekop & Ashkan Pakseresht, 2016. "Consumers’ evaluation of biotechnologically modified food products: new evidence from a meta-survey," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(5), pages 703-736.
    2. Dickinson, David L. & Hobbs, Jill E. & Bailey, DeeVon, 2003. "A Comparison of U. S. and Canadian Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Red-Meat Traceability," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22060, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Chang, Jae Bong & Lusk, Jayson L., 2009. "Fairness and food choice," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 483-491, December.
    4. Thogersen, John & Olander, Folke, 2002. "Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: A panel study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 605-630, October.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    6. Andrea Bieberstein & Jutta Roosen & Stéphan Marette & Sandrine Blanchemanche & Frederic Vandermoere, 2013. "Consumer choices for nano-food and nano-packaging in France and Germany," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 40(1), pages 73-94, February.
    7. Wuyang Hu & Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Michele M. Veeman, 2006. "Labeling Context and Reference Point Effects in Models of Food Attribute Demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1034-1049.
    8. Jill E. Hobbs & Marni D. Plunkett, 1999. "Genetically Modified Foods: Consumer Issues and the Role of Information Asymmetry," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 47(4), pages 445-455, December.
    9. Dannenberg, Astrid, 2009. "The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food -- A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2182-2192, June.
    10. Heleen van Dijk & Arnout R.H. Fischer & Hans J.P. Marvin & Hans C.M. van Trijp, 2017. "Determinants of stakeholders’ attitudes towards a new technology: nanotechnology applications for food, water, energy and medicine," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 277-298, February.
    11. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2007. "A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 496-514, August.
    12. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, September.
    13. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    14. Armenak Markosyan & Jill J. McCluskey & Thomas I. Wahl, 2009. "Consumer Response to Information about a Functional Food Product: Apples Enriched with Antioxidants," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(3), pages 325-341, September.
    15. Matin, Anahita Hosseini & Goddard, Ellen, 2013. "A Comparative Analysis of Canadian Consumers’ WTP for Novel Food Technologies (Case of Juice Produced by Nanotechnology & Pork Chops Using Genomic Information)," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150461, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Nathalie Stampfli & Michael Siegrist & Hans Kastenholz, 2010. "Acceptance of nanotechnology in food and food packaging: a path model analysis," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 353-365, April.
    17. Wuyang Hu & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Labelling Genetically Modified Food: Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Value of Information," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(1), pages 83-102, March.
    18. Carola Grebitus & Bodo Steiner & Michele Veeman, 2013. "Personal Values and Decision Making: Evidence from Environmental Footprint Labeling in Canada," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(2), pages 397-403.
    19. Roosen, J. & Bieberstein, A. & Blanchemanche, S. & Goddard, E. & Marette, S. & Vandermoere, F., 2015. "Trust and willingness to pay for nanotechnology food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 75-83.
    20. Chengyan Yue & Shuoli Zhao & Jennifer Kuzma, 2015. "Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences for Nanotechnology and Genetic-modification Technology in Food Products," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 308-328, June.
    21. Jill E. Hobbs & DeeVon Bailey & David L. Dickinson & Morteza Haghiri, 2005. "Traceability in the Canadian Red Meat Sector: Do Consumers Care?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(1), pages 47-65, March.
    22. Marette Stéphan & Roosen Jutta & Bieberstein Andrea & Blanchemanche Sandrine & Vandermoere Frederic, 2009. "Impact of Environmental, Societal and Health Information on Consumers' Choices for Nanofood," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 7(2), pages 1-27, December.
    23. Malone, Trey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2017. "Taste Trumps Health And Safety: Incorporating Consumer Perceptions Into A Discrete Choice Experiment For Meat," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 139-157, February.
    24. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "How Do Cultural Worldviews Shape Food Technology Perceptions? Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 465-492, June.
    25. Brian G. Innes & Jill E. Hobbs, 2011. "Does It Matter Who Verifies Production‐Derived Quality?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 59(1), pages 87-107, March.
    26. Andrey A. Zaikin & Jill J. McCluskey, 2013. "Consumer preferences for new technology: apples enriched with antioxidant coatings in Uzbekistan," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(4-5), pages 513-521, July.
    27. Jill E. Hobbs, 2019. "Heterogeneous consumers and differentiated food markets: Implications for quality signaling in food supply chains," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 67(3), pages 237-249, September.
    28. Carola Grebitus & Jerome Dumortier, 2016. "Effects of Values and Personality on Demand for Organic Produce," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(2), pages 189-202, April.
    29. Claudia Bazzani & Geir W Gustavsen & Rodolfo M Nayga & Kyrre Rickertsen, 2018. "A comparative study of food values between the United States and Norway," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(2), pages 239-272.
    30. Gale E. West & Carole Gendron & Bruno Larue & Rémy Lambert, 2002. "Consumers’ Valuation of Functional Properties of Foods: Results from a Canada-wide Survey," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 50(4), pages 541-558, December.
    31. Roosen, Jutta & Bieberstein, Andrea & Marette, Stephan & Blanchemanche, Sandrine & Vandermoere, Frederic, 2011. "The Effect of Information Choice and Discussion on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay for Nanotechnologies in Food," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-10, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Héctor Hugo Pérez-Villarreal & María Pilar Martínez-Ruiz & Alicia Izquierdo-Yusta & Carmen María Gómez-Cantó, 2020. "Food Values, Benefits and Their Influence on Attitudes and Purchase Intention: Evidence Obtained at Fast-Food Hamburger Restaurants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Lin Bai & Zhanguo Zhu & Tong Zhang, 2021. "How to Improve Food Quality in the Domestic Market: The Role of “Same Line Same Standard Same Quality”—Evidence from a Consumer Choice Experiment in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-16, May.
    3. Giovanna Piracci & Fabio Boncinelli & Leonardo Casini, 2022. "Wine consumers' demand for social sustainability labeling: Evidence for the fair labor claim," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(4), pages 1742-1761, December.
    4. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs & David C. Natcher, 2020. "The Arctic as a food producing region: Consumer perceptions and market segments," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(4), pages 387-410, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wang, Shuxian & Wu, Linhai & Zhu, Dian & Wang, Hongsha & Xu, Lingling, 2014. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food attributes: The case of pork," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 165639, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Wu, Linhai & Wang, Shuxian & Zhu, Dian & Hu, Wuyang & Wang, Hongsha, 2015. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food quality and safety attributes: The case of pork," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 121-136.
    3. Yang, Yang & Hobbs, Jill E. & Natcher, David C., 2020. "Assessing consumer willingness to pay for Arctic food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    4. Valerie Kilders & Vincenzina Caputo, 2024. "A reference‐price‐informed experiment to assess consumer demand for beef with a reduced carbon footprint," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(1), pages 3-20, January.
    5. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "How Do Cultural Worldviews Shape Food Technology Perceptions? Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 465-492, June.
    6. Lewis, Karen E. & Grebitus, Carola & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2016. "U.S. consumers’ preferences for imported and genetically modified sugar: Examining policy consequentiality in a choice experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 1-8.
    7. Zou, Ning Ning (Helen) & Hobbs, Jill E., 2010. "The Role Of Labelling In Consumers’ Functional Food Choices," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116421, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    9. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    10. Shijiu Yin & Shanshan Lv & Yusheng Chen & Linhai Wu & Mo Chen & Jiang Yan, 2018. "Consumer preference for infant milk‐based formula with select food safety information attributes: Evidence from a choice experiment in China," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(4), pages 557-569, December.
    11. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs & David C. Natcher, 2020. "The Arctic as a food producing region: Consumer perceptions and market segments," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(4), pages 387-410, December.
    12. Daniele Moro & Mario Veneziani & Paolo Sckokai & Elena Castellari, 2015. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Catechin‐enriched Yogurt: Evidence from a Stated Choice Experiment," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 243-258, April.
    13. Yan, Zhen & Zhou, Jie-hong, 2015. "Measuring consumer heterogeneous preferences for pork traits under media reports: choice experiment in sixteen traceability pilot cities, China," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212609, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Muunda, Emmanuel & Mtimet, Nadhem & Schneider, Franziska & Wanyoike, Francis & Dominguez-Salas, Paula & Alonso, Silvia, 2021. "Could the new dairy policy affect milk allocation to infants in Kenya? A best-worst scaling approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    15. Fan, Xiaoli & Muringai, Violet, 2018. "Effect of Information on Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Potatoes in Canada," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274073, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Yan, Zhen & Zhou, Jie-hong, 2015. "Measuring consumer heterogeneous preferences for pork traits under media reports: choice experiment in sixteen traceability pilot cities, China," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211884, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    18. Ching‐Hua Yeh & Stefan Hirsch, 2023. "A meta‐regression analysis on the willingness‐to‐pay for country‐of‐origin labelling," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 719-743, September.
    19. Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Producers' valuation of animal welfare practices: Does herd size matter?," DARE Discussion Papers 1801, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    20. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:68:y:2020:i:3:p:289-313. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.