A Meta-Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies

By Jayson L. Lusk, M. Jamal, L. Kurlander, Maud Roucan, Lesley Taulman. 2005

448 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Plant Science, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7714b2582ecb2a17f285b9e6d54186badc9a9588

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Plant Science

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Citations in the corpus

Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy (2008, background): “From attitudes to valuation and acceptance: consumer purchasing behaviour Most studies using the stated preferences methodology (Lusk et al., 2005b; Moon and Balasubramanian, 2003a; Onyango and Govindasamy, 2004b and Chern et al., 2002) have found evidence that consumers are willing to pay a…”
Labeling Food Processes: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (2017, background): “For instance, Liaukonyte et al. (2013) found that although the process label “contains” a certain process had a large negative effect on consumers’ WTP, when the same label was combined with positive secondary information about the process, consumers’ WTP was no different than that of consumers who ”
Comparing Open-Ended Choice Experiments and Experimental Auctions: An Application to Golden Rice (2009, background): “However, the introduction of genetically modified foods has met with mixed consumer reactions (Lusk et al. 2005).”
The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops (2009, background): “In general, available studies suggest that second-generation GM foods will be more acceptable to consumers than first-generation products (Lusk et al. 2005).”
Consumer Benefits of Labels and Bans on GM Foods—Choice Experiments with Swedish Consumers (2007, unknown): “Consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for GM and GM-free foods has been analyzed and empirically tested in a large number of articles; see for example the meta-analysis by Lusk et al. (2005) .”
Willingness to pay for environmental attributes of non-food agricultural products: a real choice experiment (2013, methodology): “It has been shown that the values depend highly on the methods used to elicit them (see for example Lusk et al. 2005, Carlsson et al. 2007, Gracia et al. 2011).”
A Meta-Analysis of Geographical Indication Food Valuation Studies: What Drives the Premium for Origin-Based Labels? (2013, methodology): “For the remaining estimates, we follow the approach set by Lusk et al. (2005) and use the sample size of the original study as a measure of precision.”
Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States (2014, background): “Lusk et al. (2005) found that much of the variation in premia for non-GE foods across studies can be explained by a number of factors, including whether the study was done in Europe, whether the research surveyed shoppers, whether the survey took place in person, whether the consumers were asked to…”
The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food — A meta-analysis (2009, methodology): “While segregation and labelling of GM products are beyond dispute, the choice of the labelling scheme, mandatory or voluntary, is a highly controversial issue.”
Economic Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility (2012, background): “For example, European consumers express a willingness to pay for GMO-free organisms that is nearly 30 percent higher than US consumers (Lusk et al. 2005).”