Revisiting GMOs: Are There Differences in European Consumers’ Acceptance and Valuation for Cisgenically vs Transgenically Bred Rice?

Abstract

Both cisgenesis and transgenesis are plant breeding techniques that can be used to introduce new genes into plant genomes. However, transgenesis uses gene(s) from a non-plant organism or from a donor plant that is sexually incompatible with the recipient plant while cisgenesis involves the introduction of gene(s) from a crossable—sexually compatible—plant. Traditional breeding techniques could possibly achieve the same results as those from cisgenesis, but would require a much larger timeframe. Cisgenesis allows plant breeders to enhance an existing cultivar more quickly and with little to no genetic drag. The current regulation in the European Union (EU) on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) treats cisgenic plants the same as transgenic plants and both are mandatorily labeled as GMOs. This study estimates European consumers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for rice labeled as GM, cisgenic, with environmental benefits (which cisgenesis could provide), or any combination of these three attributes. Data were collected from 3,002 participants through an online survey administered in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom in 2013. Censored regression models were used to model consumers’ WTP in each country. Model estimates highlight significant differences in WTP across countries. In all five countries, consumers are willing-to-pay a premium to avoid purchasing rice labeled as GM. In all countries except Spain, consumers have a significantly higher WTP to avoid consuming rice labeled as GM compared to rice labeled as cisgenic, suggesting that inserting genes from the plant’s own gene pool is more acceptable to consumers. Additionally, French consumers are willing-to-pay a premium for rice labeled as having environmental benefits compared to conventional rice. These findings suggest that not all GMOs are the same in consumers’ eyes and thus, from a consumer preference perspective, the differences between transgenic and cisgenic products are recommended to be reflected in GMO labeling and trade policies.

Ghanaian Consumers’ Attitudes toward Cisgenic Rice: Are all Genetically Modified Rice the Same?

“…This result shows that consumers are willing to pay US$13.75 more per 5kg bag, a premium of 275%, for a rice variety that was produced with no fungicide. These findings are consistent with those found in similar studies by Delwaide et al (2015) and Shew et al (2016) in the European Union and India, respectively. Their research, which was also hypothetical, shows that consumers in France and India are willing to pay a premium of 667% and 486%, respectively for rice that is labeled, EB, as compared to conventional rice.…”

“…They also perceived CIS rice to be different (P<0.05) from GM rice, but not different from transgenic rice. These findings are similar to the results from Delwaide et al (2015) which indicated that there are significant differences across countries in terms of the attitudes towards CIS and transgenic rice. Such findings imply that consumers differentiate between CIS and transgenic products and tend to have a less negative attitude towards CIS rice than towards transgenic rice.…”

“…Contrary to the case of rice that is labeled, EB, and in line with the WTP's for EB estimated for France and India by Delwaide et al (2015) and Shew et al (2016), the positive sign on these estimates indicates that consumers require a discount of 108% or 325% for a rice that is labeled, CIS or GM. Consequently, these discounts translates to willingness-to-accept estimates of US$4.75 and US$14.94 for rice labeled as CIS or GM, respectively.…”

Effect of Organic Potato Farming on Human and Environmental Health and Benefits from New Plant Breeding Techniques. Is It Only a Matter of Public Acceptance?

“…Although no scientific evidence has been related so far to a safer use of cisgenesis instead of transgenesis, a more positive consumers' perception has been reported towards the use of genes from a compatible gene pool [80][81][82]. Clearly, it adds a new dimension to the debate on GMO [83].…”

Midwifery Students’ Knowledge and Opinions About, and Behaviors Towards Genetically Modified Foods.

“…Nowadays more than 15 states in the United States are considering such legislation of food labeling 29 . A study conducted with 3002 participants in Belgium, France, the Netherland, Spain and the United Kingdom found that consumers are willing to pay a premium to avoid purchasing rice labeled as genetically modified 30 . In a study of medical students, 84.9% of them stated that if a food is genetically modified, this should be indicated on the label.…”