Methods matter: a meta-regression on the determinants of willingness-to-pay studies on biofortified foods.

Following the growing evidence on biofortification as a cost-effective micronutrient strategy, various researchers have elicited consumers' willingness to pay (WTP) for biofortified crops in an effort to justify and determine their adoption. This review presents a meta-analysis of WTP studies on biofortified foods, either developed through conventional breeding or using genetic modification technology. On the basis of 122 estimates from 23 studies (9507 respondents), consumers are generally willing to pay 21.3% more for biofortified crops. Because WTP estimates are often determined through different valuation methods and procedures, a meta-regression was carried out to examine the role of potential determinants. Aside from contextual factors, such as type of food crop, target nutrient, and region (but not breeding technique), various methodological factors significantly influence premiums, including the type of respondent, nature of the study, study environment, participation fee, and provided information. The findings allow researchers to better anticipate potential methodological biases when examining WTP for (biofortified) foods, while it gives policy makers a broad understanding of the potential demand for different biofortified crops in various settings.

The social and economic impact of biofortification through genetic modification.

Genetic modification (GM) has been advocated as an alternative or complement to micronutrient interventions such as supplementation, fortification or dietary diversification. While proof-of-concept of various GM biofortified crops looks promising, the decision tree of policy makers is much more complex, and requires insight on their socio-economic impacts: Will it actually work? Is it financially sound? Will people accept it? Can it be implemented in a globalized world? This review shows that GM biofortification could effectively reduce the burden of micronutrient deficiencies, in an economically viable way, and is generally well received by target beneficiaries, despite some resistance and uncertainty. Practically, however, protectionist and/or unscientific regulations in some developed countries raise the (perceived) bar for implementation in target countries.

The socioeconomics of genetically modified biofortified crops: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Building upon the growing interest and research on genetically modified (GM) biofortification, its socioeconomic potential has been increasingly examined. We conducted two systematic reviews and meta-analyses to provide comprehensive evidence of consumers' willingness to pay (11 economic valuation studies, 64 estimates) and cost-effectiveness/benefits (five economic evaluation studies, 30 estimates). Worldwide, consumers were willing to pay 23.9% more for GM biofortified food crops. Aside from crop and design-related differences, information provision was deemed crucial. Positive information (nutrition and GM benefits) is associated with the highest consumer willingness to pay, compared with negative, objective, and conflicting GM information, especially when negative information was mentioned last. This health intervention would reduce the aggregated micronutrient deficiency burden in Asia (15.6 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)) by 12.5-51.4%, at a low cost of USD 7.9-27.8 per DALY in a pessimistic and optimistic scenario, respectively. Given that GM biofortified crops could tackle hidden hunger in a cost-effective and well-accepted way, its implementation is worth pursuing. A case study on folate biofortification further elaborates on the importance of socioeconomic research and the determinants of their market potential.