Biofortification has emerged as a potential complementary solution for malnutrition which is affecting two billion people worldwide. The success of biofortification depends on whether biofortified foods are accepted and consumed by target populations (Meenakshi et al., 2010). This acceptance relies on consumer preferences for various organoleptic characteristics (e.g., taste, color or texture), as well as their perception of relative prices for biofortified foods.

According to Lancaster’s theory of consumer choice (Lancaster, 1966), consumers derive satisfaction not from the goods themselves but from the attributes they provide. Improvement of staple crops through biofortification may alter some of the organoleptic traits (e.g, taste, appearance, aroma, texture, etc.) that consumers seek for in these crops (Birol et al., 2011). Since staple crops are consumed frequently and in large quantities, consumer may be sensitive even to the smallest changes in sensory attributes of these crops (Chowdhury et al., 2009). Moreover, in his theory of consumption, Lancaster (1971) states that consumers may value product characteristics differently, depending on consumer specific observable and unobservable characteristics.

A B S T R A C T

M E T H O D O L O G Y

Key words: Biofortification, consumer acceptance

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Evaluating the consumer acceptance of biofortified crops.

R E S U L T S

A literature review and an empirical application: The case of a biofortified bean in Guatemala

Biofortification has emerged as a complementary solution for malnutrition. The success of biofortification depends on whether target populations accept biofortified crops. This acceptance relies on consumer preferences for various organoleptic characteristics. Consumers derive satisfaction not from the goods themselves but from the attributes they provide which could be alter by biofortification. A product consists of several of these characteristics that consumers value on different ways. Consumer acceptance studies seek to measure consumer’s preferences for these crops eliciting their willingness to pay (WTP) and the respondents’ perception and valuations towards these organoleptic characteristics. The objective is to analyze the different approaches for consumer acceptance analysis of biofortified crops. Stated preferences methods are used to elicit the WTP based on the hypothetical choices made by the respondents when facing a set of alternatives. Among those methods, Discrete Choice Experiments (DCE) have being widely used in consumer acceptance studies for biofortified crops, using Central Location Testing (CLT) or Home Use Testing (HUT) approaches. CLT uses or simulates markets locations and respondents only have no more than 30 minutes to evaluate the product. In the other hand, in the HUT approach, the new product is tried in home situations for a few days. HUT is considered as the gold standard because of its close similarity with actual product use. A HUT was conducted in Guatemala, 360 families tried a biofortified and a local variety at home. A sensory evaluation test was applied for consumer perception evaluation and a Becker – DeGroot-Marschak mechanism was used to elicit the WTP. As a result, a significant preference towards the biofortified variety was found, being time of cooking the attribute more liked. Although there’s not significant differences between the WTP and the preferences towards both varieties. Different studies have found not significant differences among results obtained through CLT and HUT. Being the biofortified crop more accepted than the traditional one in Guatemala.

The general objective of this research is to analyze the different approaches for consumer acceptance analysis applied to biofortified crops through literature review and an empirical application Guatemala

O B J E C T I V E

Literature review on consumer acceptance studies applied to biofortified crops.

Graph 1: Willingness to pay methods

Willingness to pay methods

Stated Preference (Hypothetical market conditions)

Indirect SurveysDirect Surveys

Discrete Choice

Analysis

Conjoint Analysis

Customer Surveys

Expert Judgment

Reveled Preference(use existing market data)

ExperimentsMarket Data

Auctions : Nth price auctionVickrey’s second price

English auctionBecker – DeGroot-Marschak

Mechanism (BDM)

Field experiments

Laboratory Experiments

Source: Adapted from Breidert, C. et al. (2006)

Country Biofortified food Test setting* WTP method** Year Uganda Orange Sweet

PotatoCLT - Rural Revealed Choice Experiment 2006CLT - Rural HCE 2006

Zambia Vitamin A maize nshima

HUT - Rural Revealed Choice Experiment 2007CLT – Rural Revealed Choice Experiment 2007

Mozambique Vitamin A maize CLT Field Experiment 2006Ghana Vitamin A maize

kenkeCLT - Rural Revealed Choice Experiment 2008CLT - Rural nth price auction 2008CLT - Rural BDM 2008

Kenya Vitamin A maize CLT - Rural BDM - Vickrey 2010Nigeria Vitamin A cassava

gariCLT - Rural BDM 2011

India Iron pearl milletbakhri

CLT - Rural BDM 2012

Rwanda Iron beans HUT - Rural BDM 2013HUT - Rural BDM 2013CLT – Urban retail market BDM 2013CLT – Urban wholesale market BDM 2013

Guatemala Iron beans HUT - Rural BDM 2013

Table 1: List of WTP studies applied to biofortifed crops

Source: Adapted by the author

Objectives:

1. To estimate the consumer acceptance of biofortified beans through the estimation of its premiun/discount relative to the traditional variety

2. To assess the impact of the frequency of nutritional information on the willingness to pay for high iron beans varieties.

BDM Mechanism – HUT

Three treatments: a. no information received, b. information received one and c. information received three time

360 households were surveyed. 120 per treatment

Two varieties evaluated:

Traditional (Trad) and biofrotified (HIB) – super chiva

Empirical application: Consumer acceptance off biofortifed bean (super-chiva) in northwest

Guatemala

Bean variety Raw bean color

Raw bean size

Bean taste Time of cooking

Cooked bean

thickness

Cooked bean toughness

Overall

Control (T1):

No Information

Local (Hunapu) 6.55±0.59 6.57±0.72 6.59±0.75 6.10±1.35 6.17±1.29 1.85±2.95 6.47±1.00

HIB (Superchiva) 6.63±0.72 6.61±0.67 6.75±0.74 6.58±0.74 6.66±0.66 1.95±3.07 6.66±0.66

Difference in means

HIB vs Local 0.75 0.042 0.16 0.47*** 0.49*** 0.11 0.19*

T2: Information

present once

Local (Hunapu) 6.53±0.466.5 ±0.56 6.63±0.52 6.37±1.09 6.40±0.93 1.42±2.73 6.59±0.63

HIB (Superchiva) 6.77±0.656.74±0.46 6.85±0.42 6.64±0.76 6.6 ±0.91 1.21±2.63 6.6±0.91

Difference in means

HIB vs Local 0.24*** 0.24*** 0.21*** 0.26** 0.19 -0.21 0.01

T3: Information

present three times

Local (Hunapu) 6.55±0.576.54±0.55 6.63±0.53 6.39±0.67 6.53±0.54 1.34±2.63 6.59±0.59

HIB (Superchiva) 6.76±0.516.77±0.51 6.84±0.46 6.57±0.77 6.64±0.96 1.15±2.51 6.64±0.96

Difference in means

HIB vs Local 0.21*** 0.23*** 0.20*** 0.17* 0.11 -0.19 0.06

Table 2: Mean hedonic rating of bean varieties (Home testing Northwest Guatemala)

Difference in means

Raw bean color

Raw bean size

Bean taste Time of cooking

Cooked bean thickness

Cooked bean toughness

Overall

Differences

between

treatments

Local: T1 vs T2

0.025 0.075 -0.041 -0.266* -0.233 0.425 -0.116

Local: T1 vs T3

0.003 0.037 -0.046 -0.286** -0.362*** 0.505 -0.113

Local: T2 vs T3

-0.021 -0.037 -0.005 -0.019 -0.129 0.080 0.003

HIB : T1 vs T2

-0.14* -0.125* -0.091 -0.058 0.066 0.75** 0.066

HIB : T1 vs T3

-0.13 -0.156** -0.082 0.011 0.019 0.80** 0.019

HIB :T2 vs T3

0.010 -0.031 0.009 0.070 -0.047 0.057 -0.047

Table 3: Mean hedonic rating of bean varieties across treatments

Average WTP Premium/Discount

WTP HIB (T1)WTP HIB (T2)WTP HIB (T3)WTP trad (T1)WTP trad (T2)WTP trad (T3) Premium (T1)Premium (T2)Premium (T3)

4.83±0.714.96±0.834.89±0.764.70±0.724.67±0.744.67±0.71

0.133±0.900.289±0.940.220±0.81

Treatment 1 vs treatment 2 -0.126 -0.156

Treatment 1 vs treatment 3 -0.058 -0.087

Treatment 2 vs treatment 3 0.067 0.068

Data reveal that even in the absence of information, consumers rated key consumption attributes of iron variety (e.g. time of cooking) as high as if not higher than those of the conventional variety. Information about the nutritional benefits of the iron bean variety increased consumers’ overall liking of this variety compared to the conventional one. In the other hand, consumer WTP doesn’t significantly differ between the two bean types (iron bean and conventional bean) even in the presence of information about the superior nutritional benefits of the former as well as the frequency of having heard the nutrition message (once or thrice) didn’t have a significant impact, this result, in conjunction with one on message length reveal that extensive consumer awareness campaigns (shorter messages given once) covering more consumers could be more cost-effective that intensive consumer awareness campaigns. Among treatments, no significant difference in overall preference. Significant preference for iron bean time of cooking in all treatments. For bean raw color, bean raw size and bean taste only in information treatments.

C ON C L U S I O N S

Table 4: Mean economic rating of bean varieties (Home testing Northwest Guatemala))

p<0.1*, p<0.05**, p<0.01***

Acknowledgments:

• HarvestPlus Project

• ICTA - Guatemala

Salomón Pérez S. and Carolina González, HarvestPlus Project. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Km 17 recta Cali – Palmira . Cali,ColombiaE-mail: s.p.suarez@cgiar.org ; c.gonzalez@cgiar.org

p<0.1*, p<0.05**, p<0.01***