Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25973946›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Revisiting GMOs: Are There Differences in European Consumers' Acceptance and Valuation for Cisgenically vs Transgenically Bred Rice?

Anne-Cécile Delwaide, Lawton L Nalley, Bruce L Dixon, Diana M Danforth, Rodolfo M Nayga, Ellen J Van Loo, Wim Verbeke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. From Blog to lab: testing messages to shift public opinion on gene editing.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Applications of Genomic Tools in Plant Breeding: Crop Biofortification.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Anne-Cécile DelwaideDepartment of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, United States of America; Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Lawton L NalleyDepartment of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, United States of America.
Bruce L DixonDepartment of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, United States of America.
Diana M DanforthDepartment of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, United States of America.
Rodolfo M NaygaDepartment of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, United States of America; Adjunct professor, Korea University and Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute.
Ellen J Van LooDepartment of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Wim VerbekeDepartment of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Both cisgenesis and transgenesis are plant breeding techniques that can be used to introduce new genes into plant genomes. However, transgenesis uses gene(s) from a non-plant organism or from a donor plant that is sexually incompatible with the recipient plant while cisgenesis involves the introduction of gene(s) from a crossable--sexually compatible--plant. Traditional breeding techniques could possibly achieve the same results as those from cisgenesis, but would require a much larger timeframe. Cisgenesis allows plant breeders to enhance an existing cultivar more quickly and with little to no genetic drag. The current regulation in the European Union (EU) on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) treats cisgenic plants the same as transgenic plants and both are mandatorily labeled as GMOs. This study estimates European consumers' willingness-to-pay (WTP) for rice labeled as GM, cisgenic, with environmental benefits (which cisgenesis could provide), or any combination of these three attributes. Data were collected from 3,002 participants through an online survey administered in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom in 2013. Censored regression models were used to model consumers' WTP in each country. Model estimates highlight significant differences in WTP across countries. In all five countries, consumers are willing-to-pay a premium to avoid purchasing rice labeled as GM. In all countries except Spain, consumers have a significantly higher WTP to avoid consuming rice labeled as GM compared to rice labeled as cisgenic, suggesting that inserting genes from the plant's own gene pool is more acceptable to consumers. Additionally, French consumers are willing-to-pay a premium for rice labeled as having environmental benefits compared to conventional rice. These findings suggest that not all GMOs are the same in consumers' eyes and thus, from a consumer preference perspective, the differences between transgenic and cisgenic products are recommended to be reflected in GMO labeling and trade policies.

Indexed as

Consumer BehaviorFood, Genetically ModifiedCommerceEuropean UnionFemaleHumansMaleOryzaPlants, Genetically Modified

Identifiers

PMID25973946
PMCPMC4431710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.