Gene‐edited or genetically modified food? The impacts of risk and ambiguity on Chinese consumers' willingness to pay

Abstract

This study investigates consumer preferences for newly introduced gene‐edited (GE) food. We focus on how risk and ambiguity aversion affect consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid genetically modified (GM) food or GE food and whether the impacts of risk and ambiguity aversion differ between GM and GE food. We collected the data in 2020 through a nationwide online survey in China. The multiple price list method is used to estimate the premiums that consumers are willing to pay for conventional rice to avoid GM/GE rice. Our results show that Chinese urban consumers are more concerned about the health, environmental, and ethical impacts of genetic modification than gene editing technology. They are willing to pay lower premiums when the alternative is GE rice than when it is GM rice. We further find that both risk aversion and ambiguity aversion have significant negative impacts on respondents’ WTP for food derived from gene technologies, with ambiguity aversion being more influential than risk aversion for both GM and GE rice. However, there is no significant difference in how risk aversion and ambiguity aversion affect the respondents’ WTP to avoid GM or GE rice.

Investigating consumer stated preferences for orange juice: The influence of behavioral traits

“…Thus, a direct comparison of this result with previous studies may not be possible. One exception is Ding et al (2023), who used the same scale and found a negative link between ambiguity aversion and GM/GE acceptance. The divergence between our results and theirs might be a consequence of differences in the application of the scale-we used the exact scale developed by McLain (2009) while they adapted the scale to measure ambiguity aversion rather than tolerance.…”

“…On the other hand, risk‐loving behavior is positively correlated with WTP for GE. Since studies have established that food biotechnology is considered risky food by consumers (Ding et al, 2023; Lusk & Coble, 2005), it is expected that risk loving consumers will be more willing to accept these foods. These results confirm that risk perceptions and risk preference are both critical in explaining consumers' attitudes toward food biotechnology and should be considered by stakeholders in the food biotechnology industry.…”

“…We also focus on a different population and distinct product that is currently being developed by plant breeders. In addition, we employ a different valuation method (i.e., choice experiment) that captures the discount consumers require for the GE attribute specifically, while Ding et al (2023) used a Multiple Price List method to capture WTP to avoid GM/GE rice. Thus, our study extends the GE literature by exploring how (1) risk preference and perception, (2) ambiguity tolerance, and (3) time orientation influence consumers' WTP for GE orange juice.…”

“…However, the link between ambiguity tolerance and GE acceptance is relatively unexplored. Ding et al (2023) investigated the effects of ambiguity aversion on consumers' WTP to avoid GM/GE rice, while Sax and Doran (2019) examined the impacts of ambiguity aversion on consumer perceptions of risk in biotechnology. However, ambiguity aversion differs from ambiguity (in)tolerance because the latter describes a tendency to perceive ambiguity as undesirable (Frenkel‐Brunswik, 1949; Tanaka et al, 2015) while the former describes the tendency to prefer known risks to unknown risks (Ellsberg, 1961; Tanaka et al, 2015).…”

“…In addition, Caputo et al (2020) established the importance of previously held beliefs on consumer acceptance of GE and the role of information provision in swaying these beliefs. Our study builds on earlier work by Ding et al (2023), who examined the impacts of risk aversion and ambiguity aversion on Chinese consumers' willingness-to-pay (WTP) a premium for conventional rice to avoid GM/GE rice. Our work has some notable differences from theirs in that we investigate a wider range of behavioral variables.…”