           |
|
- Penn State University Research
Shows Viable Market for Bt Corn
- Market survey shows customers curious,
but not opposed to Bt corn
- By Karen Gentry
Managing Editor
- When consumers were given a choice between clearly labeled Bt sweet corn and non-Bt sweet corn, many showed no preference.
In a marketing study at Penn State University, preliminary research results show that there is a viable market for Bt sweet corn. One year into the research the study found the average market share of Bt corn at participating retail establishments was 41%, according to Dr. Shelby Fleischer, from the Entomology Department at Penn State. Fleischer collaborated with graduate student Twilla Parker, Dr. Jenni James from the Agriculture Economics Department and Mike Orzolek from the Department of Horticulture for the study.
-
- “With transgenic corn you remove a lot of foliar insecticides,” said Fleischer. With all of the uncertainty surrounding genetically modified crops, including Bt sweet corn, research was needed to see how markets respond to these new cultivars.
A project involving five retail establishments and Ag Progress Days was designed and the Pennsylvania Vegetable Growers Association helped fund the research. Parker presented the preliminary findings from the study at the Mid-Atlantic Fruit and Vegetable Convention in Hershey, Pa. in January. She is writing her thesis for her graduate degree in agriculture economics on the results of the study.
Two and one half acres of Bt sweet corn (BCO801, Attribute-protected) and non-Bt sweet corn (Jackpot) were planted at Penn State in Rock Springs, Pa., according to Parker. These related cultivars are both bi-color, sugar-enhanced varieties. The corn was placed side by side, but separated in five retail establishments in Central Pennsylvania and sold at different prices. These included one chain store, three independent grocers and one located within State College. Cooked, ready-to-eat corn was sold at Ag Progress Days Aug. 14-16, 2001.
“The markets chose their price level,” said Parker. She said the retail stores could sell the Bt corn at premium or a discount. During the selling events no other sweet corn was available for purchase. Retailers were encouraged to set the price of the IPM corn according to market conditions, but were instructed to sell the Bt cultivar at either the same price as IPM, 15% less than the price of IPM or 15% above the price of IPM. Consumers who purchased the corn were asked to fill out a short survey (Table 2).
Parker said the research shows that there are people who are willing to purchase genetically modified corn even when priced higher. “At least for some consumers it doesn’t matter,” said Parker.
The study showed Parker that there are other factors that influence the purchase of sweet corn including size of ears and color.
“Further analysis will determine how price levels affect purchase choice,” said Parker. This analysis would also include the age and education level of the consumers.
Many hours of labor including hand harvesting and picking and labeling corn were spent on the project.
A brochure was developed and distributed at the store that defined Bt sweet corn and the non-Bt sweet corn was labeled IPM sweet corn. Part of the Bt sweet corn copy read, “This sweet corn variety has been genetically modified to produce a protein from a bacteria called bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Scientists have found that the protein makes the plant resistant to the worms that attack ears of corn, and that it does not harm humans. Because the Bt gene builds pest control into the corn, usually no sprays are applied to Bt corn grown in Pennsylvania to control for worms.”
Part of the IPM sweet corn copy read, “This sweet corn variety was grown using IPM methods, which have become standard practice for many growers. IPM is designed to reduce pesticide use by using a variety of methods to control pests.”
“There was some curiosity. A fair amount of people bought some of both,” said Fleischer.
- Fleischer stressed that sweet corn growers in the Northeast need to know their options. “With transgenic sweet corn in the Northeast you have a very decentralized marketing system,” he said. Sweet corn is sold through diverse channels, not sold to just one processor.
“A lot of different people are deciding a lot of different things. The direct benefit (of Bt corn) is to the grower because they don’t have to spray as much,” said Fleischer. He said processors or exporters see no direct benefit with Bt corn, yet are assuming a marketing risk.
The potential benefit is for the grower who sells directly to consumers or retailers. Fleischer said one-third of the fresh market sweet corn from the United States comes from the Northeast, Maryland to Maine and much of this is sold through direct marketing.
The purpose of the research is to get some useful information to the grower such as “what might happen at a roadside stand if you grew the crop and labeled it,” said Fleischer. “We have a definite need for some follow-up work,” he said.
Sweet corn is grown on 72.4% of Pennsylvania’s diversified fresh-market vegetable farms, worth $27 million in annual sales, according to Fleischer. Because growers apply two to five applications of insecticides per planting on sweet corn, genetically modified corn is viewed as an alternative for growers.
Fleischer reported that genetically modified hybrids containing the Bt gene are resistant to European corn borer and corn earworm and provide some protection against fall armyworm. In five tests in Pennsylvania, 96% of the ears of AttributeTM sweet corn (which contains the Bt gene) grown without the use of insecticides were clean of pest damage, compared to 15-31% of comparable non-Bt cultivar, according to Fleischer.
Fleischer reported that a fairly large percentage of people at Ag Progress Days expressed no preference, suggesting that consumers care more about the product than they do about the process.
He noted that growers and retailers are not required to label transgenic crops, although voluntary and mandatory labeling policies continue to be discussed as an option for regulating genetically modified crops.
The research team at Penn State is planning a larger scale project for this summer, according to Fleischer. This research would include larger and more frequent plantings, stores in urban markets, quality testing and participation of growers who sell their own sweet corn at roadside stands.
Those wishing to participate in future studies should contact James in the Department of Agricultural Economics & Rural Sociology at (814) 863-3278.
|
|
