a better understanding of consumer response to gmos in f&v...
TRANSCRIPT
Towards a better understanding of consumer response to GMOs in F&V markets
Brad Rickard, Assistant ProfessorSchool of Applied Economics and Management
Cornell University
Prepared as a presentation for the2015 London Produce Show and Conference
London, United Kingdom
June 4, 2015
Some Motivation
A GM potato, left, made by J.R. Simplot, next to a bruised conventional potato.
The Arctic Apple: A GMO trait that delays the browning of fruit
Why So Little GMOs in Fruit & Vegetable Markets?Three reasons were explored in Nature in 2010
1.Research2.Government Regulation
3.Consumer Acceptance
Why So Little GMOs in Fruit & Vegetable Markets?The leading crops and countries that publish on GM specialty crops (fruits, vegetable, nuts, etc.)
Source: Miller and Bradford. Nature Biotechnology Vol.28, 1012‐1014 (2010)
Why So Little GMOs in Fruit & Vegetable Markets?
The leaders in the number of field trials being conducted on GM specialty crops.
Source: Miller and Bradford. Nature Biotechnology Vol.28, 1012‐1014 (2010)
Why So Little GMOs in Fruit & Vegetable Markets?
Source: Miller and Bradford. Nature Biotechnology Vol.28, 1012‐1014 (2010)
The numbers of field trial permits acknowledged or issued in the United States for commodity crops and specialty crops from 1992 to 2008.
Why So Little GMOs in Fruit & Vegetable Markets?
1.Research
2.Government Regulation3.Consumer Acceptance
Why So Little GMOs in Fruit & Vegetable Markets?
Source: Miller and Bradford. Nature Biotechnology Vol.28, 1012‐1014 (2010)
Only two GM specialty crops have been approved globally between 2000 and 2008.
Why So Little GMOs in Fruit & Vegetable Markets?1.Research
2.Government Regulation
3.Consumer Acceptance
GMO Label Referendums in the U.S.California (2012) was defeated. 48.6% of voters voted yes. Looked like it would pass until just a few days before the vote.
Connecticut (2013) became the first state to pass a GMO labeling bill. But the bill comes with a catch…
Maine (2013) is second state to pass a similar GMO labeling law.
Washington (2013) was defeated. 48.9% of voters voted yes.
April 2014, Vermont passed a “clean” bill to require GMO mandatory labeling. And the law will go into effect on July 1, 2016.
Last month in Colorado the mandatory labeling of GMOs was defeated. Only 34.29% of voters voted yes.
Also last month in Oregon the mandatory labeling of GMOs was narrowly defeated, with 49.53% of voters voted yes.
GMO Label Referendum
Differences between U.S. and EU on GMOs
• Here we are interested in consumer acceptance of GMOs across food types (grains, F&Vs, and meat) and across fresh and processed versions of each food type
• We find that consumers are more apprehensive about GMOs for products that are more commonly consumed raw or fresh, and also more concerned about GMOs in meat (versus grains or apples)
• We included questions on a larger on‐going monthly web‐based survey about food that is representative of the U.S. population
• This work was recently published in “Biotechnology Journal” by myself and Jayson Lusk and Brandon McFadden
• Jayson Lusk is the author of a popular press book (and a blog) on food markets and food policy titled “Food Police”.
Recent Study on GMO Acceptance in the U.S.
Recent Study on GMO Acceptance
5.58
4.22
5.24
4.62
5.55
4.67
3.26 3.11 3.19 3.13 3.11 2.95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Corn on thecob
Corn chips Apples Apple juice Beef steak Beef hot‐dog
Desirab
ility
(1 = very un
desirable; 7=very de
sirable
Food Type
Not Geneticall Engineered
Genetically Engineered
Consumer reaction to
various motivations
for GE technology
• It appears that the lack of GMOs in F&V markets is due to a variety of reasons: possibly driven by a lack of R&D, by regulation, and by concerns about consumer acceptance.
• The few F&V crops that are GMOs and have been commercialized (squash, papaya, and sweet corn) have been available for a long time and were motivated by producer concerns/needs
• In the U.S., there may be some degree of consumer acceptance of GMOs for F&V products if there are clearly consumer benefits.
• The F&V crops that are considering GMOs are focusing on the consumer concerns/issues (notably enhanced nutrition via bio‐fortification and reductions in food waste)
To Summarize so far
Enhanced Nutrition via GMOs
An Example of Positive Promotion Material for the Arctic Apple
Collecting information about consumers and food waste
The impact of date labels on Food Waste
0.000.250.500.751.001.251.501.752.002.252.502.753.00
All Cereal Salad Yogurt
UseBestFreshSell
Value of food discarded/wasted ($/unit)
• It appears that consumer acceptance for GE technologies is the most critical factor of the three that were studied in the Nature piece
• Our work shows that consumer acceptance of GE technologies does depend on the product type and on the degree of processing that occurs before consumption
• Consumer acceptance may be higher for GE technologies that offer more benefits to consumers (e.g., biofortification and or food waste)
• Beyond these consumer acceptance questions and answers, we also need to consider the role of retailers in this debate.
• Even with 50% or 75% or 90% acceptance for certain GE technologies, will retailers (or restaurants) be willing to carry the products?
• I think this will depend on the nature of the GE technology, and the nature of the problem/issue that that GE technology hopes to address/solve
Overview and Conclusion
Acknowledgements
• Jayson Lusk and Brandon McFadden• Norbert Wilson, Rachel Saputo, Nicole Ho
Thank you for your attention!
Bradley RickardRuth and William Morgan Assistant ProfessorSchool of Applied Economics and ManagementCornell University, Ithaca NY, USAE‐mail: [email protected]