| Literature DB >> 29028269 |
Elise F Talsma1, Alida Melse-Boonstra1, Inge D Brouwer1.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Biofortification of staple crops is a promising strategy for increasing the nutrient density of diets in order to improve human health. The willingness of consumers and producers to accept new crop varieties will determine whether biofortification can be successfully implemented. This review assessed sensory acceptance and adoption of biofortified crops and the determining factors for acceptance and adoption among consumers and producers in low- and middle-income countries. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for published reports. Unpublished studies were identified using an internet search. From a total of 1669 records found, 72 primary human research studies published in English or Spanish met the criteria for inclusion. : Data were extracted from each identified study using a standardized form. Sensory acceptability (n = 40) was the most common topic of the studies, followed by determinants of acceptance (n = 25) and adoption (n = 21). Of crops included in the studies, sweet potato and maize were the most studied, whereas rice and pearl-millet were the least investigated. Overall, sensory acceptance was good, and availability and information on health benefits of the crops were the most important determinants of acceptance and adoption. : Changes to the sensory qualities of a crop, including changes in color, did not act as an obstacle to acceptance of biofortified crops. Future studies should look at acceptance of biofortified crops after they have been disseminated and introduced on a wide-scale.Entities:
Keywords: acceptability; adoption; biofortified crops; micronutrients; nutrition-sensitive agriculture
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29028269 PMCID: PMC5914320 DOI: 10.1093/nutrit/nux037
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr Rev ISSN: 0029-6643 Impact factor: 7.110
PICOS criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies
| Parameter | Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Humans | Animals, cell cultures |
| Intervention | Biofortified staple crops with micronutrients | Biofortified nonstaple crops, improved quality protein maize |
| Comparator | Different biofortified crops or standard “control” crop | None |
| Outcomes | Acceptance or adoption of biofortified crops | Efficacy or effectiveness without acceptance or adoption |
| Study design | Cross-sectional surveys, randomized controlled efficacy studies, or effectiveness studies | None |
Key topics with search terms used in systematic search strategy
| Biofortification | Acceptance and Adoption | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 |
| Biofort* | Crop* | Iron | Accept* |
| Bio-fortification | Food | Zinc | Willingnes* |
| Orange 5 | Maize | Provitamin* | Choice |
| Yellow | Cassava | Pro-vitamin* | Sensory |
| GMO | Potato | Carot* | Preference |
| GM | OFSP | Beta-carot* | Adoption |
| Sweet | Betacarot* | Impact | |
| Millet | Vitamin A | Uptake | |
| Pearl | Folate | Production | |
| Rice | Selenium | ||
| Bean | Phytat* | ||
| Sorghum | Phytic* | ||
| Lentils | Folic | ||
Abbreviations: GM, genetically modified; GMO, genetically modified organism; OSFP, orange flesh sweet potato.
Figure 1Flow diagram of the literature search process.
Sensory evaluation of biofortified crops by consumers in low- and middle-income countries
| Reference | Country | Study Population | Method and Study Design | Results | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sweet potato | |||||
| Tomlins et al. (2007) | Tanzania | Consumers: Schoolchildren, M + F: 5–18 y; n = 94 Mothers: 15–45 y; n = 59 | Sensory attributes study (100-mm unstructured scale, interviews, and 7-point hedonic facial scale) for color, pumpkin flavor, texture, starchiness, and sweet taste of 30–50 g of cooked OFSP and PFSP | Mothers liked OFSP better than PFSP, but children liked both. Clusters with different preferences for different characteristics were observed | New cultivars should be screened; mothers have probably more influence on introduction than children |
| Low et al. (2008) | Mozambique | Consumers: Market shoppers; n = 112 | Structured interview and ranking of key characteristics of bread buns with 38% of white wheat flour replaced by boiled and mashed OFSP (golden bread) | Preference for golden bread because heavier texture, superior taste, and attractive golden appearance. With 47 consumers who purchased golden bread, preference was 98% because of color, 85% because of taste, and 78% because of texture | Golden bread buns are well accepted by consumers when sold at a similar price as white flour bread buns |
| Sivaramane et al. (2008) | India | Consumers: Residents of rural area of Orissa State, 35% F, 26–40 y; n = 100 | Sensory attributes study (9-point hedonic scale, nominal [0, 1] scale) for sweetness, color, texture, aroma, general appearance of 80 g of cofermented boiled OFSP puree (16%) and cow’s milk with curd culture | Mean scores on sensory attributes on average were all > 7; consumers who find the curd acceptable had higher scores on color and texture than nonaccepters | Texture and color significantly and positively influenced consumer acceptability |
| Chowdhury et al. (2011) | Uganda | Consumers: Rural and urban residents; n = 467 | Sensory attribute study (9-point hedonic scale) for taste, appearance, and overall acceptability of 4 varieties of cooked SP: white SP, orange SP, deep orange SP, and yellow SP | 52% of the participants preferred the deep orange SP, 26% the yellow SP, 13% the orange SP, and 9% the white SP | Deep orange SP is preferred over yellow, orange, and white SP |
| Rangel et al. (2011) | Brazil | Consumers: Schoolchildren, 10–12 y; n = 100 | Sensory attributes study (5-point facial hedonic scale mixed scale) for liking and numeric scale (1–10) for grading and preference of 50 g of cake (conventional vs 40% SP flour) | Overall acceptability was good and scale ranking was high for both cakes. No difference in preference found | Cakes with SP flour are acceptable and are an important strategy to provide provitamin A |
| Romero et al. (2011) | Nicaragua | Consumers: Schoolchildren, mean age: 11 y; n = 290 (children) n = 33 (mothers) | Sensory attributes study (5-point facial hedonic scale) of 43 g of cake made with OFSP (24%), with and without leaf pulp (4%) | Acceptability was good with no difference between cakes, preference was similar between cakes | Both cakes were well liked. Inclusion of SP in preparation of the cakes is feasible |
| Tomlins et al. (2012) | Uganda | Consumers: Semitrained panel; n = 10 | Sensory attributes study (100-mm unstructured scale) for color, taste, flavor, texture, odor, and appearance of 11 varieties of cooked SP (white, yellow, purple, orange) | Color was correlated with carotenoid concentration in a logarithmic way. Carotenoid content correlated with dry matter and visual, odor, and textural characteristics. Cultivars differed widely regarding sensory characteristics | The logarithmic relationship between color and carotenoid concentration might result in orange varieties that are not necessarily high in carotenoids being preferred |
| Laurie et al. (2012) | South Africa | Producers and consumers: Local farmer groups and schoolchildren, > 10 y; n = 950 | Sensory attributes study (5-point facial hedonic scale with facial expressions) for taste and yes/no for color, will to purchase and will to prepare OFSP juice, chips, doughnuts, and cooked leaves | Taste was liked best for doughnuts, followed by chips, leaves, and juice. The attributes color and willingness to buy and prepare the product scored high by > 80% of participants | All products were acceptable; preparation with deep frying was especially highly liked |
| Nguyen-Orca et al. (2014) | Philippines | Consumers: University students; n = 50 | Sensory attributes study (7-point hedonic scale) for color, consistency, aroma, flavor, mouth feel, and general acceptability of a complementary food blend from 4 varieties of SP (cream, yellow, orange, and purple) with maize (55:45 ratio) | Orange SP was rated highest for color; both yellow and orange were rated highest for mouth feel, whereas consistency, aroma, and taste did not differ between samples. Overall, yellow (score: 5.6) and orange (score: 5.4) SP were liked over cream (score: 5.1) and purple SP (score: 4.5) | Yellow and orange SP blends, both high in provitamin A, were well accepted |
| Laurie et al. (2013) | South Africa | Consumers: Adult panel; n = 8 Schoolchildren, 50% F; n = 168 Adults, 50% F; n = 48 | Sensory attributes study (5-point facial hedonic scale) for acceptability of color, acceptability of overall eating quality, as well as laboratory nutrient analysis, color and texture outcome for 9 orange-fleshed and 3 cream-fleshed cooked SP varieties | Most accepted varieties were associated with sweet flavor, dry mass, and maltose content, and least accepted varieties with wateriness. Acceptability correlated with maltose content, dry mass, and sweet flavor | Varieties with more dry mass are more acceptable |
| Fetuga et al. (2014) | Nigeria | Consumers: University students; n = 100 | Sensory attribute study (9-point hedonic scale) for overall acceptability of | Yellow SP was most acceptable for preparation of | |
| Olapade et al. (2014) | Nigeria | Consumers: n = 30 | Sensory attributes study (9-point hedonic scale) for acceptability of appearance, taste, mouth feel, and overall acceptability of crunchy snacks made of flour of cream SP and yellow SP with 0%, 30%, and 50% maize flour | Addition of maize flour enhanced acceptance of both SP varieties. 70% cream SP scored highest together with 50% yellow SP. 100% SP was scored lowest for both SP | A mix of yellow SP with maize flour results in a more acceptable snack than a mix of cream SP with maize flour |
| Trejo-González et al. (2014) | Mexico | Consumers: Adults; n = 38 | Sensory attributes study (5-point hedonic scale) for crumb, crust color, firmness, and porosity; paired preference test with wheat bread; flour was replaced by various proportions of violet and orange SP flour (0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%) | All sensory attributes (except crust color) were significantly different between control breads and bread with 15%–20% SP flour | Substitution of wheat flour with 5%–10% SP flour yielded acceptable dough and bread |
| Tomlins et al. (personal communication, 2016) | Uganda | Consumers: Schoolchildren, 5–12 y; n = 120 | Sensory attributes study (7-point hedonic modified scale) for appearance, odor, taste, and texture of cooked white, yellow, and orange SP | Overall acceptance was good: 100% acceptance of orange variety and 71% preferred orange over white. Nutrition information was significant predictor of acceptance; repetition of nutrition information or repeated exposure was not | OFSP is acceptable for children. Providing nutrition information increases acceptance |
| Tomlins et al. (personal communication, 2016) | Uganda | Consumers: Rural and urban households, mean age: 26 y; n = 475 | Sensory attributes study (9-point hedonic scale) for sensory attributes of appearance, odor, taste, and texture of 30–50 g of 4 different cooked varieties of SP (white to orange) | Overall acceptance was good with mean scores > 6. The deep orange variety was acceptable to 82% and liked the most, followed by yellow, orange, and white. 18% of participants found orange SP unacceptable | The visible trait of orange SP can be used to advertise, but for the 18% dislikers other interventions are needed |
| Maize | |||||
| Stevens and Winter-Nelson (2008) | Mozambique | Consumers: Market shoppers, 14–70 y, 69% F; n = 201 | Sensory attributes study (5-point hedonic scale) for taste, appearance, texture, and aroma, and overall score of porridge ( | Most participants preferred taste, texture, and appearance of local white maize | Color is not a particular factor for acceptance |
| De Groote et al. (2010) | Ghana | Consumers: Household heads and spouses, 18–90 y; n = 703 | Sensory attribute study (5-point hedonic scale) for appearance, aroma, texture, taste, and overall appreciation of | Average scores were all > 3. In the Ashanti Region, white maize received the highest score (followed by yellow and orange), whereas yellow maize (followed by orange and white) received the highest score in Central and Eastern Regions | Preference for maize color was regional and is not regarded as an obstacle in the major maize areas of Ghana |
| Pillay et al. (2011) | South Africa | Consumers: Rural school children and parents, 3–55 y; n = 212 | Sensory attributes study (5-point facial hedonic scale) for texture, aroma, and flavor; and paired preference test with 3 types of porridge made from yellow maize and white maize | Preschool children, secondary school children, and adults preferred yellow maize, but primary school children were indifferent. Acceptability was most influenced by texture and flavor | Yellow maize has potential but only when combined with nutrition education, reduced market price, more availability, and improved sensory properties |
| Khumalo et al. (2011) | South Africa | Consumers: Rural households in Limpopo Province > 18 y; 100% F n = 48 | Sensory attributes study (4-point facial hedonic scale) for aroma, color, consistency, hand feel, grittiness (mouth), and taste with maize porridge prepared from white sifted fortified and unfortified maize meal, hammer mill white and yellow maize meal with or without fiber, and white super maize meal | Scores for any of the sensory attributes did not differ between white and yellow maize with or without fiber, but maize without fiber (dehulled) was preferred. Overall, the whiter and finer the product, the more it was liked | Fine yellow maize was well accepted, although the super refined white maize was most preferred |
| Govender et al. (2014) | South Africa | Consumers: Infant caregivers 16–65 y, 100% F; n = 60 | Sensory attribute study (5-point facial hedonic scale) for taste, texture, aroma, color, and overall acceptability of soft porridge made from white maize and 2 yellow provitamin A–biofortified varieties (medium and deep orange) | No significant difference between scores for the different sensory attributes. Outcome was not influenced by age | No difference in sensory acceptability of the white maize and provitamin A–biofortified maize |
| Awobusuyi et al. (2015) | South Africa | Consumers: Rural farmers, 30–51 y, M + F; n = 54 | Sensory attribute study (9-point hedonic rating scale) for aroma, mouth feel, taste, color, and overall acceptability of | No significant differences in mean scores between | Acceptability of |
| Alamu et al. (2015) | Nigeria | Consumers: Trained panel; n = 10 | Sensory attributes study (9-point hedonic rating scale) for color, aroma, chewiness, taste, and appearance for boiled fresh orange maize of 2 hybrids with or without husk at 3 different maturation stages or 20, 27, and 34 d after pollination | Overall the hybrids were liked with average scores of 6.8. There was little difference between maize with or without husk, but optimum harvest time was 20 d after pollination | Orange maize hybrids are acceptable for fresh consumption |
| Beans | |||||
| Leyva-Martínez et al. (2010) | Cuba | Producers and consumers: Adults, 25–65 y; n = 80 | Sensory attributes study (4-point facial hedonic scale) for consistency, taste, and texture and triangle discrimination test and preference test for bean soup made with regular bean and biofortified (iron) beans | 63% of participants were able to discriminate the biofortified beans from regular beans. Overall acceptability was good for both varieties; no preference was found | The population liked the improved variety. It has the potential to be grown and consumed and to prevent iron deficiency |
| Tofiño et al. (2011) | Colombia | Consumers: Adults and children; n = 273 | Agronomic acceptance and sensory attributes study (children: 4-point hedonic facial scale; adults: 5-point hedonic scale) for consistency of the soup, color, taste, smell, and texture; and discriminatory testing of cooked biofortified (iron) beans and control beans | Agronomic performance of biofortified varieties is better. Overall acceptability in children and adults was good. In adults, biofortified bean scored higher. 88% of participants preferred biofortified beans. 68% of participants were able to differentiate | Biofortified bean SMN8 is well liked and has the potential to become the preferred type of bean for consumption and growing |
| Centeno et al. (2011) | Nicaragua | Producers and consumers: Adults, 16–77 y; n = 76 | Sensory attributes study (4-point facial hedonic scale) for sensory attributes of texture, smell, taste, and color and general acceptance of 3 biofortified beans and 1 control bean | Overall acceptability of beans was good. No preference was found, but control bean scored highest | Because the acceptability was similar for the beans, the improved varieties should be introduced to farmers to understand adoption |
| Cabal et al. (2014) | Colombia | Consumers: Children, 7–11 y | Sensory attributes study (5-point hedonic scale) for acceptability of appearance, color, aroma, flavor, softness, resistance, hydration ability, and perception of granules of cookies made of 100% wheat (control); 15% biofortified bean, 15% cassava, 70% wheat; and 20% biofortified bean, 15% cassava, 65% wheat | Both biofortified cookies scored higher in aroma, flavor, resistance, hydration ability, and perception of granules than the control cookie | Biofortified bean flour can be used as a substitute for wheat flour to a certain percentage without losing sensory acceptance |
| Oparinde et al. (2015) | Rwanda | Consumers: Household members, > 18 y; n = 572 | Sensory attributes study (7-point hedonic scale) for color, bean size, taste, cooking time, storage quality, and ease of breaking after 7 days of home-use of RIB, WIB, and a local variety (Mutiki) | Overall, RIB were more liked (6.4–6.7) than the local variety (6.0–6.2) and the WIB (5.1–5.4), except for cooking time, for which WIB scored better. Scores for RIB were higher compared with control, whereas for WIB this difference was absent | RIB were superior over the local variety and WIB in sensory evaluation, even without information |
| Pérez et al. (2015) | Guatemala | Consumers: Households in the northwest, mean age: 35 y, M + F; n = 360 | Sensory attributes study (7-point hedonic scale) for size, taste, cooking time, cooked thickness, and toughness after home testing with nutrition information and 3 times repeated nutrition information of control and biofortified beans | Sensory attributes were scored positive except for bean toughness. Nutrition information resulted in a higher score for the iron bean for raw bean size and cooked bean toughness, but repeating did not matter | The high-iron bean variety is liked in a similar way to the traditional bean |
| Carrillo-Centeno and Sánchez-Ruiz (2014) | Nicaragua | Producers and consumers: Adults, mean age: 45 y, 30% F; n = 91 | Sensory attributes study (5-point hedonic facial scale) for color, aroma, flavor, and texture, and preference test of 20 g of raw and cooked beans (INTA Ferroso [iron] and INTA Norte [regular]) | No difference in acceptability between the 2 varieties. Regular bean was preferred for color, iron bean for shape and size | Because acceptability was good, the iron bean should be introduced and promoted for growing and consumption |
| Murekezi et al. (personal communication, 2016) | Rwanda | Producers and consumers: Rural and urban households near bean market sites, 29–59 y; n = 1809 | Sensory attributes study (7-point hedonic scale) for attributes of 4 different types of cooked biofortified beans; multinomial probit and logit models with 4 different types of sharing nutritional information and a control group with no information sharing | Overall sensory scores of all beans were good. Various consumer segments exist. In 2 sites, providing nutrition information increased the probability of shifting consumers to the iron-bean-likers segment | The results can be used for targeting interventions in various parts of and consumer segments in Rwanda |
| Oparinde et al. (personal communication, 2016) | Rwanda | Consumers: Rural households and urban visitors of markets, mean age: 43 y; n = 809 | Sensory attributes (7-point hedonic scale) for raw bean color, raw bean size, cooked bean size, taste, cooking time, and overall acceptability of raw and cooked beans of control and 2 biofortified (IB1 and IB2) beans and as intervention various types of nutrition information and endorsement | Overall acceptability was good (score > 4) in both rural and urban sites. Between the 2 biofortified varieties, raw bean size and cooked bean size scored differently. IB2 was liked more, with no difference regarding endorsement or length of nutritional information. Cooking time of the local variety was liked most | Biofortified beans were acceptable, and a program to promote these beans can use a short version of nutritional information |
| Rice | |||||
| De Bree (2009) | China | Consumers: Rural women in Chuzhou District, mean age: 34 y; n = 40 | Triangle discrimination and preference test of uncooked grains of zinc-biofortified rice, zinc-fortified extruded rice, and normal rice. Focus group discussions | Participants were able to perceive a difference between the 3 rice types ( | Biofortified rice was the least preferred. Acceptance can be increased when rice kernels are large and whole, the government endorses the rice, and it can be locally grown |
| Montecinos et al. (2011) | Nicaragua | Consumers: Household heads; mean age: 41 y; n = 203 | Sensory attribute study (4-point hedonic scale) for texture, smell, taste, color, and overall acceptability of cooked | The scores for the local variety were slightly higher than for | |
| Vergara et al. (2011) | Panama | Consumers: Poor rural communities, 18–50 y; n = 90 | Discrimination test with 30 g of cooked control and iron-biofortified rice | Only 30 of the 90 answers were correct, and therefore no significant difference between the 2 types of rice was found | Biofortified rice has potential and should be introduced in other communities and the agro-industry |
| Padrón et al. (2011) | Cuba | Consumers: Pregnant women (2nd and 3rd trimester), 15–55 y; n = 98 | Sensory attributes study (4-point facial hedonic scale) for color, texture, taste, and smell and preference test with 20 g of cooked iron-biofortified rice and control rice | > 80% of the respondents liked or really liked the biofortified rice. The biofortified rice was preferred (73%) over control | The biofortified rice variety should be introduced in Cuba because it can possibly help in the prevention of anemia and zinc deficiency |
| Cassava | |||||
| Talsma et al. (2013) | Kenya | Consumers: Caretakers, 97% F, mean age: 32 y; n = 30 School children, 63% F, 6–12 y; n = 30 | Preference test and blinded triangle discrimination test with boiled and mashed yellow and white cassava | Caretakers and children were able to discriminate between yellow and white cassava; > 70% preferred yellow cassava. Characteristics of yellow cassava: attractive color, soft texture, sweet taste | Yellow cassava is acceptable to schoolchildren and their caretakers |
| Njoku et al. (2014) | Nigeria | Producers and consumers: Adults in the southeast, > 20 y; n = 30 | Sensory attributes study (4-point hedonic scale) for color, taste, texture, mealiness, and appearance of | Yellow cassava was preferred over white because of the color, premium price, nutritional value, and texture | Yellow cassava can be adopted by farmers if made available |
| Awoyale et al. (2015) | Nigeria | Consumers: Trained panel, adults; n = 12 | Sensory attributes study (9-point hedonic scale) for acceptability of mouth feel, taste, color, flavor, appearance, and of a gruel made of different mixtures of yellow cassava starch–based custard powder (90%–98%) with egg powder (2%–10%) measured at 0, 6, 12, 18, and 24 wk of storage | Blend ratios and storage conditions affected the acceptance. At 24 wk, color and taste were disliked, which might be because of increase in moisture during storage | Yellow cassava custard can be stored for 24 wk and still be acceptable |
| Oparinde et al. (2014) | Nigeria | Consumers: Rural cassava consumers, 65% M > 18 y; n = 671 | Sensory attributes study (5-point hedonic scale) for color, feel, taste, and drinking quality of | Mean scores were > 3 and different across product types. In Imo State, white cassava scored highest, followed by deep yellow and light yellow. In Oyo State, light yellow cassava rated highest, whereas deep yellow was rated highest in color and feel. There is no effect of information on liking | Consumers rated the light yellow and deep yellow cassava differentially on all sensory attributes. Study area was important factor for preference, but the deep yellow was never preferred |
| Pearl millet | |||||
| Birol et al. (2015) | India | Consumers: Rural consumers, M + F, mean age: 40 y; n = 452 | Sensory attributes study (5-point hedonic scale) for grain color/size, and color, taste, layers, and ease of breaking of | Overall, HIPM was rated higher (4.2–4.9) for all attributes compared with LPM (3.5–4.2). Information (groups B and C) increased the scores for HIPM and decreased scores for LPM, except for grain color, which remained the same | Consumers evaluate HIPM more favorably than LPM varieties |
Abbreviations: F, female; HIPM, high-iron pearl millet; IB1, iron bean 1; IB2, iron bean 2;; LPM, local pearl millet; M, male; OFSP, orange-fleshed sweet potato; PFSP, purple-fleshed sweet potato; RIB, iron biofortified red bean; SP, sweet potato; WIB, iron biofortified white bean.
Sociocultural drivers and determinants of acceptance and adoption for consumers of biofortified crops in low- and middle-income countries
| Reference | Country | Study Population | Method and Study Design | Results | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sweet potato | |||||
| Mazuze (2004) | Mozambique | Producers and consumers: Adults who had received OFSP vines in 2000, Gaza Province, mean age: 42 y; n = 150 | Cross-sectional study. Structured questionnaire (about growing and adoption of OFSP) | 83% of respondents were aware of the nutritional benefits of OFSP. A larger share of land (83%–86%) was planted with white vs OFSP varieties, attributed to unavailability, limited propagation capacity, and lower drought tolerance of OFSP. Reasons for planting OFSP were perceived high yield, better taste, and desire to experiment with new varieties. Adoption rate varied per season from 38% to 71% and related to participation in field days and demonstration activities, the number of times vines were received, number of OFSP varieties, cultivated area, and rainfall | OFSP adoption can be improved by providing credit for animal traction, improving drainage systems, and providing access to more drought-tolerant vines. More research into postharvest processing and storage of roots would help to reduce the low availability of roots due to seasonal planting |
| Low et al. (2007) | Mozambique | Producers and consumers: Children, 4–38 mo, 47% F; n = 741 | Quasi-experimental prospective controlled trial (2 y) Intervention: Vines distribution, training Outcome: Change in serum retinol concentration, OFSP plot size, OFSP consumption, production OFSP | Production expanded from 33 to 359 m2; participation in OFSP production and sales increased in intervention households but decreased in control households; 90% of intervention households grew OFSP compared with 11% in control; SP production increased from 73 kg to 127 kg (71% OFSP); Percentage households selling increased from 13% to 30%, but no increase for households; > 50% of children in intervention consumed OFSP at least 3 out of 7 d as compared with 4%–8% of control children | Integrated promotion of OFSP has potential to increase adoption of OFSP and increase consumption |
| Hotz et al. (2012) | Mozambique | Producers and consumers: Children, 0–5 y, 47% F; n = 386 Caretakers, 100% F; n = 393 | Randomized controlled effectiveness trial (2.5 y) with 3 arms: control, OFSP distribution plus 1 y or 2 y intensive training | 77% adoption; share of OFSP cultivated area increased from 9% to 56%; OFSP intake significantly increased in intervention groups for 6–35 mo (46 g/d), 3–5.5 y (48 g/d), and women (97 g/d) compared with control; no difference in effect between the 2 intervention groups | OFSP is well adopted and consumed after introduction; group-level trainings in nutrition and agriculture could be limited to the first year of project without compromising impact |
| Hotz et al. (2012) | Uganda | Producers and consumers: Children, 6–35 mo; n = 265 Children, 3–5 y; n = 578 Women, n = 578 | Randomized controlled effectiveness trial (2 y) with 3 arms: control, OFSP distribution plus 1 y or 2 y intensive training | OFSP intake increased in both intervention groups ( | SP was adopted and grown by farmers resulting in incorporation of OFSP into the diets of women and children with a measurable impact on vitamin A status in children |
| Fetuga et al. (2013) | Nigeria | Producers and consumers: Households from Southwestern Region of Nigeria, > 4 y; n = 300 Sweet potato processors n = 23 (17 farmers) | Cross-sectional study. Structured questionnaire (OFSP processing, OFSP | 48 (16%) and 46 (15%) respondents had heard of and seen OFSP; 31 had tasted it, and most of them (93.6%) liked the taste. Sex, age, or education level were not associated with OFSP awareness. 98.3% of respondents were not aware of the health benefits of OFSP, but 75.7% were willing to taste if available. 15 of 23 respondents engaged in SP processing used yellow-fleshed SP. Color (n = 14), availability (n = 7), and taste (n = 2) were drivers of choice for the variety of SP. Current processing methods for preparing | Awareness of OFSP was very low among respondents and knowledge about its health benefits almost nonexistent. Strong indication that people were willing to consume OFSP if made available. In Nigeria, both awareness and availability should be targeted. Improvement and standardization of the processing method could benefit the use of OFSP in |
| Gilligan et al. (2014) | Uganda | Producers and consumers: Households with a child 3–5 y old, M + F, mean age: 35 y; n = 1176 | Household survey on adoption rate and comparison of intrahousehold bargaining power based on asset ownership and control over land use | Adoption rate in season 1 was high (90%) but declined to 69% in season 4, varying per district, due to vines drying up, no access to new planting material, insufficient availability of labor available, and dislike of crop. Among female-headed households (11%), exclusive control over land was positively associated with OFSP adoption. This association was absent among male-headed households. OFSP adoption was associated with age of the head of household, knowledge of vitamin A, and total land area cultivated with sweet potato. Women with a high share of nonland assets ownership were less likely to grow OFSP | OFSP was well adopted in this region of Uganda. Female bargaining power does not unambiguously increase the probability that a household adopted OFSP in response to the project. The probability of adopting OFSP was lowest on parcels exclusively owned by men and largest on parcels jointly owned by males and females with women in the lead. Engaging with both men and women might be the best strategy to promote adoption |
| De Brauw et al. (2015) | Mozambique | Producers and consumers: Households in Zambezia Province, M + F; n = 720 | Randomized controlled effectiveness trial (2.5 y) with 3 arms: control, OFSP distribution plus 1 y or 2 y intensive training | Children in households with more participation had higher dietary vitamin A density, and slightly higher mean micronutrient density and dietary diversity | Intensity of participation in extension activities is associated with larger project impact |
| Yanggen and Nagujja (2006) | Uganda | Producers and consumers: Adults in intervention and nonintervention areas in 4 regions; n = 160 | Cross-sectional survey with questionnaires, key-informant interviews and focus group discussions (women only, men only, and mixed groups) | 64% of farmers adopted OFSP in intervention compared with 22% in nonintervention areas. Main OFSP production constraints were pests and diseases (especially weevils), drought, and availability of vines (no commercial vine distribution), followed by lack of capital and labor. Major favorable characteristics farmers look for are yield, sweet taste, early maturity, and drought resistance, followed by consumer characteristics like tuber quality, good price, high dry matter, color, good storability, low fiber, and nutritional content. Nutrition content comes last as favorable characteristic, only mentioned by women (as 4th most important) but not by men. Most important information sources were nongovernmental organizations, fellow farmers, and agricultural extension workers | Nutrition concerns cannot be depended upon to push the adoption of OFSP. OFSP must be competitive with white and yellow varieties in terms of agronomic, consumer, and economic characteristics (in terms of yields, taste, price, etc) if it is to be successful. Nutrition education campaigns must be an integral part of the promotion of OFSP |
| Machira et al. (2013) | Kenya | Producers and consumers: Key persons involved in OFSP projects in antenatal care services in western Kenya; n = 66 | Interviews and focus group discussion with key persons about an integrated nutrition, agriculture, and health intervention that delivers OFSP through antenatal care services in western Kenya | Food security and health benefits were most recognized by participants. Mothers indicated that their children were less susceptible to disease and were more energetic; shorter maturation and higher yield of OFSP were also valued. Health workers perceived higher antenatal care attendance and increased healthcare-seeking behavior as benefits. Challenges were distance to health facility, misperceptions (OFSP = contraceptive), need for continuous community sensitization, and increased workload with remuneration for community volunteers and vine multipliers | Perceived benefits and motivating factors outweighed challenges of integrating OFSP with antenatal care service |
| Maize | |||||
| Tschirley and Santos (1995) | Mozambique | Consumers: Low-income urban households; n = 400 | Cross-sectional study | 22% of households consumed predominantly yellow maize. Consumers of yellow maize had substantially lower income than white maize consumers. Highest income consumers were the least likely to consume yellow maize | Yellow maize is well accepted, especially among poor consumers |
| Muzhingi et al. (2008) | Zimbabwe | Consumers: Rural and urban households; n = 316 | Cross-sectional study (in-depth questionnaires, focus groups discussion) | Yellow maize was known by most respondents but mainly from food aid. Link with food aid and bad taste (due to organoleptic changes during storage) were seen as negative aspects of yellow maize. Nutrition information on vitamin A and taste were significant contributors to acceptance | Acceptance could be improved if nutrition knowledge was increased |
| Khumalo et al. (2011) | South Africa | Consumers: Adult females from Limpopo Province, > 18 y; n = 48 | Focus group discussions (consumer attitudes, perceptions, and practices) of maize porridge prepared from several types of white and yellow maize meal | Preference for yellow maize related to knowledge of the presence of vitamin A in yellow maize meal (acquired during previous training in 2004), availability (during drought as relief food), and price determined whether yellow maize is bought | Acceptability of yellow maize mainly related to nutritional reasons. Availability was the largest obstacle |
| Govender et al. (2014) | South Africa | Consumers: Female infant caregivers; n = 21 | Focus group discussions (acceptability of provitamin A–biofortified maize for preparing maize porridge for their infants) | Yellow maize is not sold in supermarkets, suggesting that white maize is of better quality. Yellow maize considered to be for poor people or animals. Affordability, availability, and health benefit were reasons for being willing to give provitamin A–biofortified maize porridge to their infants | Affordability, availability, and health benefit were important determinants of accepting provitamin A–biofortified maize as infant food |
| Schmaelzle et al. (2014) | Zambia | Consumers: Children 5–7 y, n = 136 | Randomized controlled feeding trial with 3 arms: porridge ( | Orange group consumed less | Implementation and adoption of new and biofortified foods is possible with promotion, especially in very traditional cultures that are deeply connected to their food |
| Cassava | |||||
| González et al. (2009) | Brazil | Consumers: Households in northeast Brazil, mean age: 40 y; n = 414 | Cross-sectional study on genetically engineered cassava. Structured questionnaire after explanation about genetically engineered yellow cassava | 25% of respondents had ever heard about genetic engineering, 22% found it a possible health risk. Age, trust in authorities, perceived health risk, and access to media influenced consumer support of genetically engineered crops | Attitudes toward genetically engineered biofortified yellow cassava is positive |
| González et al. (2011) | Brazil | Producers and consumers: Adult farmers; n = 76 Adult farmers who received seeds for public awareness campaign in northeast Brazil; n = 40 | Cross-sectional study. Participatory research and questionnaires evaluating adoption | 15% of farmers planted the yellow cassava 1 y after the release (early adoption rate), and 62% said they would do so next year (potential/intentional adoption rate), because of the better nutritional content. Reasons for not adopting were low availability of seeds and taste. From the farmers who received seeds, 63% planted them. Key factors were receiving information, involvement in previous participatory research, and knowledge about nutritional advantages | To increase early adoption of yellow cassava, it is important to increase the nutrition knowledge, have high availability of seeds, and use information and socialization among producers |
| Uwiringiyimana (2012) | Benin | Consumers: Mothers of primary school children, 15–49 y; n = 147 | Cross-sectional survey. Questionnaire (intention to eat yellow cassava and its determinants) | 90% had intention to prepare yellow cassava for their children 2 or more times a week. Health behavior identity, knowledge, and perceived susceptibility predicted intention to consume yellow behavior, as well as cues to action | Intention can be increased by increasing knowledge on vitamin A deficiency and health benefits of yellow cassava and increasing positive triggers as recommendations from influential people and educational campaigns |
| Talsma et al. (2013) | Kenya | Consumers: Caretakers of schoolchildren, 90% F, 18–50 y; n = 140 | Cross-sectional survey. Questionnaire (intention to eat yellow cassava and its determinants) | Almost all had intention to prepare yellow cassava for their children, of which 64% were willing to do so 2 or more times per week. Knowledge about provitamin A–rich cassava and its relation to health was a strong predictor of health behavior identity. Worries related to bitter taste and color, belief about being in control to prepare cassava, and activities such as information sessions about provitamin A–rich cassava and recommendations from health workers predicted intention to consume provitamin A–rich cassava | The yellow color is no barrier for consumption. Intention to consume can be increased by reducing barriers (like worries about color, taste, texture, and bitterness); by increasing knowledge on vitamin A deficiency and provitamin A–rich cassava; by empowering mothers to decide what to cook; and by involving health workers in the promotion of yellow cassava |
| Rice | |||||
| De Steur et al. (2013) | China | Consumers: Adults in Shanxi Province, 20–69 y, M + F; n = 588 | Cross-sectional study questionnaire (perceptions on genetically engineered folate-biofortified rice) | Taste and health are the most important attributes for rice purchase, followed by price and external appearance. Respondents answered correctly on 42% of the questions concerning knowledge of genetically engineered foods. 62% of respondents were in favor of genetically engineered folate biofortification of rice. A negative change in taste decreased this proportion to 28%, environmental impact decreased it to 29%, price decreased it to 35%, availability decreased it to 41%, external appearance decreased it to 46% and cultivation potential decreased it to 50% | Initial acceptance rate would be halved if genetically engineered folate-biofortified rice would have a negative effect on taste, price, or the environment. Multiple attributes should be taken into account in the development of biofortified crops |
| De Steur et al. (2015) | China | Consumers: Adults in Shanxi Province, 43% F; n = 451 | Cross-sectional study. Questionnaire on genetically engineered rice, including false/true statements, 5-point hedonic scale statements, a knowledge score, 4 additional scores (benefits, risks, safety, price), overall trust scores for information channels or sources | 66.5% in favor of nutritionally enriched rice; 39% had limited knowledge about genetically engineered food; 3 groups of consumers: enthusiasts (14%: health, lower pesticide use, males, rural, farmer), cautious (41%; positive on safety, females, urban); and opponents (45%; side effects, including biodiversity, females, low income, rural). Enthusiastic respondents have a more positive attitude | There is a promising (segmented) market potential for second-generation genetically engineered products |
| Beans | |||||
| Asare-Marfo et al. (2016) | Rwanda | Producers and consumers: Bean-producing households in 120 random villages, > 21 y, 65% F; n = 19 575 | Cross-sectional impact assessment study by listing exercise to identify HIB growers among bean-producing households with questionnaires | Over the last 5 y, of the 93% households that grew beans, 29% respondents indicated to have grown an HIB variety. Out of the 84% of farmers who indicated to have grown beans in the second season of 2015, 21% have grown at least 1 HIB variety. Within the country this varied by location, with Eastern Province having higher adoption rates. Adoption rate was further determined by yield, easiness to farm the variety, commercial value, and availability of seeds. The main source of first planting material were the markets (41%) and social networks (23%) | Adoption rates of HIB varieties in Rwanda are very promising |
Abbreviations: F, female; HIB, high-iron bean; M, male; OFSP, orange-fleshed sweet potato; SP, sweet potato.
Predicted adoption of biofortified crops as evidenced by consumer willingness to pay in low- and middle-income countries
| Reference | Country | Study Population | Method and Study Design | Results | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sweet potato | |||||
| Low and van Jaarsveld (2008) | Mozambique | Consumers: Bakers in 3 rural villages; n = 8–10 (per village) | Calculation of costs and revenues of producing bread buns with 38% of wheat flour replaced by boiled and mashed OFSP (golden bread) | Calculated net return to labor was 3 times higher for golden bread buns vs white wheat flour buns due to lower costs | Small-scale golden bread production is an economically viable option for creating a market for OFSP |
| Naico and Lusk (2010) | Mozambique | Consumers: Adults at local markets, rural and urban, M (40%) + F (60%), mean age: 30 y; n = 308 | Choice experiment: 9 choice sets of the attributes pulp color (white/ orange), dry matter content (low/ medium/high), size (small/medium/large), and price (M7.5/10/15/kg) with treatment 1 and 2: visual exposure to a bag of sweet potato of each variety. One bag was given to each participant based on their preference from the choice questions. Treatment 3 and 4: no exposure | Price correlated negatively with preference. Dry matter was the most important attribute to the participants. Small-sized roots were more preferred in the rural area but not in the urban area. Consumers are willing to pay 51.3% more for OFSP relative to WFSP | Dry matter is a key factor driving consumer acceptance. When dry matter, price, and size are equal, orange pulp color is preferred over white pulp color |
| Chowdhury et al. (2011) | Uganda | Consumers: Rural (4 villages from each Kamuli and Luweero Districts; 40 random households per village) and urban (random at 2 marketplaces in Kampala) sweet potato consumers; M + F; n = 467 | Valuation by choice experiment (17 scenarios) of 4 varieties of: 1 white sweet potato; 2 OFSP; and 1 yellow sweet potato, after (1) no nutritional info and asked to make real choices and commitments (n = 121); (2) nutritional info about OFSP and asked to make real choices and commitments (n = 115); (3) nutritional info and hypothetical assessments (n = 118); (4) nutrition information and “cheap talk” script and hypothetical assessments (n = 113) | In scenario (1) no difference in WTP for deep-orange vs white was found, whereas WTP for orange and yellow sweet potato was lower (−22% and −30%, respectively) compared with white. In (2) a premium was found for deep-orange variety relative to white (+25%). In (3) higher WTP for yellow (+40%), orange (+43%), and deep orange (+48%) vs white. In (4) higher WTP for yellow (+26%), orange (+26%), and deep orange (+52%) vs white. Respondents who preferred a variety in the sensory assessment were willing to pay more for that variety. Rural consumers had a higher WTP for OFSP varieties compared with urban consumers. | Consumers in Uganda are willing to pay similarly for biofortified (deep orange) varieties as for the traditional white variety, even without a promotional campaign. Provision of nutritional information translates into an increase in WTP for deep OFSP. Taste is an important attribute in WTP. Hypothetical scenarios translate into biased WTP; therefore, experiments with real transactions are superior |
| Maize | |||||
| Tschirley and Santos (1995) | Mozambique | Consumers: Low-income urban households; n = 400 | Price game assessing the percentage of respondents switching from white to yellow maize after a given discount rate | At a 14% discount, 25% of consumers would switch from white grain to yellow grain, whereas at a discount of 43%, 70% of consumers would switch. Lower-income consumers are more likely to switch at modest price discounts. At higher discount (> 43%), higher-income consumers are just as likely to switch to yellow maize | Reduced price is an important determinant of consuming yellow maize |
| Rubey and Lupi (1997) | Zimbabwe | Consumers: Urban households; n = 512 | Focus group discussions and preference ranking (refinedness, product price, color, travel time for obtaining meal, product packaging) | The predicted share of households consuming yellow maize was 25% when sold at a 10% discount compared with white maize | Yellow maize is well accepted, provided that it is sold at a lower price than white maize and widely available |
| Stevens and Winter-Nelson (2008) | Mozambique | Consumers: Marketplace shoppers, 69% F, 14–70 y; n = 201 | Trading experiments based on acceptance to trade white maize for orange maize at different prices and willingness to trade white maize with tomatoes, orange, and white near-isogenic lines of maize | Acceptance rate of orange maize meal at all trade ratios was 44%; factors reducing acceptance for trade are being male, being a nonshopper, being a bad taste judger, finding local maize tastes better than orange maize, and frequently eating meat/fish. Household size, the presence of small children, dietary diversity, and perceived taste were determinants of trade acceptance | Existing preferences for white maize do not preclude acceptance of orange biofortified varieties |
| De Groote and Kimenju (2008) | Kenya | Consumers: Urban maize consumers; n = 604 | Contingent valuation in a semi-double-bounded model (acceptance of offered bids in 2 rounds) | Price, time saving, nutrient quality, and cleanliness were mentioned as factors determining choice for a particular maize product. Only 25% of respondents were willing to buy yellow maize at the same price as white maize. Acceptance increased with lower follow-up bids, with a maximum of 50%–58% of respondents being willing to pay for yellow maize at a 30% discount. Modeling showed 37% discount to be required for consumer acceptance (for supermarket respondents: 48%) | Consumers preferred white maize and would need a discount of 37% to buy yellow maize. People from western Kenya had the strongest preference for yellow maize. Consumers with higher education and income had a stronger preference for white maize. To market yellow maize for urban consumers in Nairobi, substantial price reductions would be necessary |
| De Groote et al. (2010) | Ghana | Consumers: Adults from Ashanti, Central, and Eastern Regions, 18–90 y; n = 703 | Individual auctions (BDM) and choice experiments and group auctions after being exposed to no information and later to 5-min radio message about the benefits of eating orange maize | In Ashanti Region, consumers’ WTP is higher for white maize than for yellow and higher for yellow than for orange. In Central Region, WTP is higher for yellow than for white or orange. In the Eastern Region, WTP for yellow and orange maize is higher than for white. The difference in WTP between white and yellow maize was only significant in the Eastern Region. Provision of information increased WTP for orange maize relative to that for white maize and reduced WTP for white and yellow maize | A good information campaign based on radio message is likely to have an effect on consumer acceptance for orange maize |
| De Groote et al. (2011) | Kenya | Consumers: Rural and urban adults in western and eastern Kenya, 70% F, mean age: 46 y (rural) and 34 y (urban); n = 651 | Experimental auction: price WTP for normal rice and willingness to buy biofortified or fortified maize for same or reduced price | Respondents were willing to pay 42.6 KES for white maize, 25% more for fortified maize, and 10% less for yellow maize. Location, familiarity with yellow maize (as in the west), and awareness raised the price by 6% and 7% for yellow maize | White maize is preferred, but WTP for fortified maize was higher and therefore with nutrition education yellow maize can be potentially accepted |
| De Groote and Kimenju (2012) | Kenya | Consumers: Urban adults, 45% F; n = 604 | Experimental auction: willingness to buy biofortified maize for same or reduced price compared with normal maize | 26% would buy yellow maize at same price as normal maize; even at discount, less than half would buy yellow maize. Price should be reduced by 37% for consumers to buy, with a larger discount for supermarket clients. Income and education had negative effect on WTP for yellow maize | Consumer preference for white maize is strong. For biofortified yellow maize to be accepted, a strong public awareness campaign is needed |
| Meenakshi et al. (2012) | Zambia | Producers and consumers: Small-scale rural farmers, mean age: 44 y; n = 478 | Experimental auction: WTP for orange, yellow, or traditional maize with or without (radio or through community leaders) education | WTP is slightly higher for orange maize compared with white maize, whereas yellow maize was sold at a discount. Nutrition education improves acceptability and WTP, no difference between locations and no difference between channel of information receiving | Orange maize is perceived differently than yellow maize and can compete with white maize |
| Beans | |||||
| Oparinde et al. (2015) | Rwanda | Consumers: Adults in Northern Province, > 18 y; n = 572 | Experimental auction: WTP for RIB, WIB, and a local variety (Mutiki) after exposure to no information; 1-time information (1-min radio message) on gains/benefits of iron; repeated information on gains/benefits of iron; 1-time information on negative effects/disadvantages of low iron; repeated information on negative effects/disadvantages of low iron | WTP was 476 RWF/kg for the local variety, 490 RWF/kg for RIB, and 387 RWF/kg for WIB with similar ranking in all treatment groups. Without information (control group), participants were willing to pay a 7% premium for RIB and needed a discount of 11% for WIB. With information, a premium of 13%–17% would be paid for RIB, whereas a discount of 6%–14% was needed for WIB compared with the local variety. Type of information did not affect the premiums for RIB, whereas the frequency of information increased the premium from 23% to 39% for RWF. The premium on WIB, increased significantly by 85% for the frequent negative effects/disadvantages of low iron information | Without nutritional information, participants were willing to pay a 7% premium for RIB, whereas a 11% discount for WIB was needed. RIB can compete well with the local variety, and this can be enhanced with repeated nutritional information |
| Pérez et al. (2015) | Guatemala | Consumers: Adults in northwest Guatemala, mean age: 35 y; n = 360 | Price game with 1 lb of control and biofortified beans for home testing after exposure to no information, 1-time nutrition information, and repeated nutrition information | WTP for biofortified beans was marginally higher in all information groups, influenced by order of exposure, age of respondent, and education level | The biofortified bean variety is liked in a similar way as the traditional bean |
| Oparinde et al. (personal communication, 2016) | Rwanda | Consumers: Adult visitors of urban bean market; n = 398 | WTP by BDM (individual auctions) of raw and cooked beans of local variety, RIB, and WIB after no information and after nutrition information | Without nutrition information, consumers were willing to pay the same price for RIB as for the local variety and more for the WIB. Information improved the premium for both iron varieties by 13%–15%. Poverty did affect WTP for WIB but not for RIB | RIB could be targeted for the poor, whereas WIB could be targeted for the richer consumers. Nutritional information should be used to promote iron beans |
| Oparinde et al. (personal communication, 2016) | Rwanda | Consumers: Rural and urban adults, mean: 43 y; n = 578 (rural), n = 231 (urban) | Experimental auction: WTP for control and 2 iron biofortified (IB1 and IB2) beans, after no nutrition information, short nutrition information, short nutrition information + endorsement by village leader, long nutrition information, or long nutrition information with endorsement of village leader (for rural adults); and after no nutrition information or short information (for urban adults) | Overall, WTP was similar for the control and IB1 bean but was higher for IB2 bean. Nutrition information raised the WTP price by 9%–13% more for the IB2 than for the IB1 and was slightly higher in rural areas. Length of nutrition information or endorsement did not influence a premium pay | Biofortified beans were acceptable, and a program to promote these beans can use a short version of nutritional information |
| Rice | |||||
| Deodhar and Chern (2008) | India | Consumers: Rural and urban adults in Gujarat, mean age: 37 y; n = 602 Students, academics, and businesspersons (via Internet), mean age: 29 y; n = 110 | Contingent valuation consumer survey about golden rice (genetically engineered with provitamin A) with WTP based on sequential closed-ended binary choice questions by stated choice method | 72% of group 1 and 28% of group 2 were somewhat or extremely willing to consume foods produced with genetically engineered ingredients. The middle-income class was most likely to accept genetically engineered foods, and females were more reluctant. Consumers were willing to pay a premium of 19.5% for golden rice | Most respondents were willing to consume genetically engineered foods, and a substantial premium would be paid for golden rice with enhanced nutritive value |
| Depositario et al. (2009) | Philippines | Consumers: University students in Los Banos, mean age: 19 y; n = 100 | WTP by uniform-price auction after visual exposure to 500-g bag of regular rice or golden-colored rice (genetically engineered) with no information or with positive, negative, or 2-sided information | Without information, golden rice was bought at a premium of 40% above the normal market price. The marginal effect of information on WTP with no information as a reference was 0.06 for positive information, −0.40 for negative information, and −0.56 for 2-sided information | Golden genetically engineered rice was well accepted. The marginal effect of positive information vs no information on WTP for golden rice is minimal, whereas negative or 2-sided information decreases WTP substantially |
| De Steur et al. (2010) | China | Consumers: Adult rice consumers in Shanxi Province, > 20 y; n = 944 | Willingness to accept, WTP for folate-rich genetically engineered rice | 62% of respondents are willing to accept genetically engineered rice, 27% are indifferent, and 11% are reluctant. Respondents were on average willing to pay 34% more for 1 kg of genetically engineered rice than for conventional rice. Males, higher-educated people, and rural consumers were more likely to accept genetically engineered rice | Consumers are in general willing to accept genetically engineered rice and willing to pay a premium. Knowledge, sex, and sociodemographic indicators play a role in acceptance of genetically engineered rice |
| De Steur et al. (2012) | China | Consumers: Student rice consumers, mean age: 21 y; n = 132 Nonstudent rice consumers, mean age: 39 y; n = 120 | Experimental auction with nonrepeated information treatments: bidding value for regular rice, folate-rich genetically engineered rice, and rice supplemented with folic acid | Female rice consumers are prepared to pay 33.7% more for folate-rich rice compared with regular rice. Offering a genetically engineered free folate substitute did not result in significant differences in bidding behavior. Students are less likely to buy and pay more for folate-rich rice. WTP is mainly determined by consumers’ acceptance of genetic engineering and objective knowledge | Despite lower bids after information was provided about genetic engineering, the perceived benefits are high enough to compensate for potential negative reactions to genetically engineered food |
| De Steur et al. (2013) | China | Consumers: Female student rice consumers, mean age: 21 y; n = 132 Female nonstudent rice consumers, mean age: 39 y; n = 120 | Experimental auction with nonrepeated information treatments: bidding value for folate-rich genetically engineered rice vs conventional rice | Female students and women in general are willing to pay 25.8% and 40% more for folate-rich rice compared with regular rice. Provision of information on the folate benefits increases WTP for folate-rich rice. Information on genetic engineering did not reduce WTP in the nonstudent sample, but students reduced their bid significantly. Negative information has a larger effect on WTP in students, whereas positive information is more effective in nonstudents. Information on high prevalence of folate deficiency increases the bid value in both groups | There is a general positive effect of folate-related information; nonstudents are less concerned about genetic engineering. Conflicting information will lead to primacy bias in nonstudent sample, but students have an alarmist reaction. This highlights a need for segmented, targeted communication strategies on biofortification |
| De Steur et al. (2014) | China | Consumers: Female student and nonstudent rice consumers, mean age: 21 y (students); 40 y (nonstudents); n = 126 | Experimental auctions with nonrepeated information rounds: bidding value for folate-rich rice, folate-rich rice genetically engineered, and rice supplemented with folic acid | A general preference for folate biofortification is observed, regardless of whether genetically engineered. Premiums were: 33.9%, 36.5%, and 19%, respectively, for folate-rich rice genetically engineered, nongenetically engineered, and supplemented. Key determinants were the target group, the timing of auction, intention to consume genetically engineered food, and responsibility for rice purchases | Positive reactions to genetically engineered folate-rich rice support its potential as a complementary micronutrient intervention |
| Pearl millet | |||||
| Birol et al. (2011) | India | Producers and consumers: Millet-producing adults, 95% M; n = 360 | Choice experiments with attributes: days to maturity, color, added nutritional value, and price of seed of hypothetical HIPM | Respondents could be divided in 3 segments; the 1st scored highest for the nutrition attribute followed by color; the 2nd one were more sellers than consumers and had lower preferences for nutrition and color and higher preferences for the price of the seed; the last segment preferred nutrition and color attributes, but to a lesser degree than those in the 1st segment | HIPM is valued most by large households that produce for themselves and have lower-quality diets. Households producing for market derive lower benefits from consumption characteristics. Farmers should be offered a pool of varieties that provide different attributes to maximize uptake |
| Birol et al. (2015) | India | Consumers: Rural pearl millet consumers in Maharashtra, mean age: 40 y; n = 452 | Experimental auctions: bidding value for LPM and HIPM after no information; simulated video message on the importance of iron and HIPM, with HarvestPlus as the brand (internationally certified); information with a fictional brand name (locally certified at state level) | Even in the absence of information, consumers were willing to pay more for HIPM (13.6 Rs) compared to LPM (12.8 Rs). After nutrition information, WTP for HIPM increases significantly by 12% (2nd information) and 7% (3rd information), whereas WTP for LPM significantly decreased by 9% (2nd information) and 11% (3rd information). Overall, after 2nd information respondents were willing to pay 32.4% more for HIPM, whereas this was 28.6% for after 3rd information | Consumers assign a small but significant premium to HIPM relative to the local variety, even in the absence of nutrition information. International branding and certification results in the highest premium |
| Cassava | |||||
| Oparinde et al. (2014) | Nigeria | Consumers: Adults in rural areas, 65% M, > 18 y; n = 671 | Incentive-compatible experimental auctions: WTP for (light and deep) yellow cassava relative to white (local) cassava varieties with and without information from national or international delivery institutions | In Imo, consumers are willing to pay the most for the local | Without a nutrition information campaign, biofortified varieties are unlikely to be accepted in the southeast because they are associated with a substantial discount. Nutrition information results in a large and significant price premium for biofortified yellow cassava. The nature of delivery institution has only a small effect in 1 of the states |
| González et al. (2009) | Brazil | Consumers: Households in northeast Brazil, mean age: 40 y; n = 414 | Cross-sectional study: structured questionnaire after explanation about genetically engineered yellow cassava | WTP is 60%–70% higher for genetically engineered yellow cassava than normal cassava | Attitudes toward genetically engineered biofortified yellow cassava are positive |
Abbreviations: BDM, Becker deGroot Marchak method; F, female; HIPM, high-iron pearl millet; IB1, high-iron bean 1; IB2, high-iron bean 2; KES, Kenyan shilling; LPM, local pearl millet; M, male; OFSP, orange-fleshed sweet potato; RIB, iron biofortified red bean; Rs, Rupees; RWF, Rwandan Franc; WFSP, white-fleshed sweet potato; WIB, iron biofortified white bean; WTP, willingness to pay.