The Hindu Business Line : Consumers wary of biotech foods, says US study

An experimental auction has shown that people, on an average, are willing to pay 17-21 cents per unit more to purchase plain-labelled food than `GM-labelled' food.

MUMBAI, April 28

IN what is seen as a vindication of the right of consumers to make an informed choice, a study that has far reaching implications for the as yet evolving market for biotech foods has found that ``consumers' willingness to pay for food products decreases when the food label indicates that a food product is produced with the aid of modern biotechnology''.

The study on `the effects of information on consumer demand for biotech foods — evidence from experimental auctions' conducted by a team of four US researchers presents evidence that consumers are largely wary of biotech foods and are willing to pay for biotech food based on the presence or absence of labels advising that food was prepared with the aid of biotechnology.

The evidence, gathered for vegetable oil, tortilla chips and potatoes, shows that labels matter. This sends an important message for primary producers (farmers), food product manufacturers and marketers as well as service providers. Importantly, consumers discounted food items labelled GM (genetically-modified) by an average of 14 per cent. While gender, income, and other demographic characteristics appeared to have only slight impact on consumers' willingness to pay for biotech foods, information from interested parties and third-party (independent) sources was found to have a strong impact. With bio-engineering remaining controversial, information on biotech foods will have a major impact on consumer acceptance of foods with biotech labels. The experimental auction showed that people, on average, were willing to pay 17-21 cents per unit more to purchase plain-labelled food than `GM-labelled' food. Consumers might have perceived the plain-labelled products as non-biotech.

``Nonetheless, the observation that such a large `premium' exists for food items that are perceived to be non-biotech has strong implications for grain handlers, food manufacturers, and others in the marketing system'', pointed out the technical bulletin published by the US Department of Agriculture.

Biotech food labelling has become a contentious issue in the US and also between the US and some of its trading partners. Proponents of mandatory biotech-food labelling argue that consumers have a right to know whether their food has been produced using genetic engineering.

A number of countries including Australia, China, Japan and members of the European Union have adopted mandatory biotech-food labelling provisions.

Opponents of mandatory labelling argue that such labelling will confuse consumers and, in many cases, unnecessarily alarm consumers. In the US, only biotech food that differ substantially from their conventional counterparts require special labelling. Thus far, however, no biotech foods on the market have required labelling.

Implication for India: The study has serious implications for developing countries such as India that are agrarian economies. While the benefits of agricultural biotechnology are known, there are serious concerns over biosafety and environment. Obviously, adoption of the precautionary principle is desirable.

In our country, extant food laws are not only antiquated, but also their enforcement is tardy, to say the least. In India, consumers have never been taken seriously, neither by producers nor by policy makers. No wonder, shoddy goods dominate the market.

As of date India does not produce any biotech food indigenously. So far, only one GM

crop has been cleared for commercial cultivation (Bt. cotton).

However, large imports of food products, both primary and processed, are taking place with the liberalised import regime.

The Government has absolutely no wherewithal to check GM traits in food products that enter the country. Our laboratories do not have appropriate equipments, they are inadequately staffed and the professional competence of those manning testing facilities is suspect.

It is an open secret that soyabean oil, corn (maize) and cotton that enter the country are largely genetically modified. But the Government has not initiated any action to screen such imports, despite the legal position that import of such products is not allowed without specific permission from the government.

In case of imported soyabean oil (extracted from GM soyabean), some debate on imposing restrictions on imports took place last year; but official apathy has meant no concrete action to keep the consumers informed.

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
Smell that sells!

Downtrend persists in rubber prices

Cess removed on SEZs tea export

Tea prices rise at Coonoor sales

Consumers wary of biotech foods, says US study

Panel moots phase-out of jute packaging Act

Geojit launches online pepper futures