1. 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 Surveys Direct Surveys Discrete Choice Analysis Conjoint Analysis Customer Surveys Expert Judgment Reveled Preference (use existing market data) Experiments Market Data Auctions : N th price auction Vickrey’s second price English auction Becker – DeGroot-Marschak Mechanism (BDM) Field experiments Laboratory Experiments Source: Adapted from Breidert, C. et al. (2006) CountryBiofortified foodTest setting*WTP method**Year UgandaOrange Sweet Potato CLT - RuralRevealed Choice Experiment2006 CLT - RuralHCE2006 ZambiaVitamin A maize nshima HUT - RuralRevealed Choice Experiment2007 CLT – RuralRevealed Choice Experiment2007 MozambiqueVitamin A maizeCLT Field Experiment2006 GhanaVitamin A maize kenke CLT - RuralRevealed Choice Experiment2008 CLT - Ruralnth price auction2008 CLT - RuralBDM2008 KenyaVitamin A maize CLT - RuralBDM - Vickrey2010 NigeriaVitamin A cassava gari CLT - RuralBDM2011 IndiaIron pearl millet bakhri CLT - RuralBDM2012 RwandaIron beansHUT - RuralBDM2013 HUT - RuralBDM2013 CLT – Urban retail marketBDM2013 CLT – Urban wholesale marketBDM2013 GuatemalaIron beansHUT - RuralBDM2013 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±0.596.57±0.726.59±0.756.10±1.356.17±1.291.85±2.956.47±1.00 HIB (Superchiva)6.63±0.726.61±0.676.75±0.746.58±0.746.66±0.661.95±3.076.66±0.66 Difference in means HIB vs Local0.750.0420.160.47***0.49***0.110.19* T2: Information present once Local (Hunapu)6.53±0.46 6.5 ±0.566.63±0.526.37±1.096.40±0.931.42±2.736.59±0.63 HIB (Superchiva)6.77±0.65 6.74±0.466.85±0.426.64±0.766.6 ±0.911.21±2.636.6±0.91 Difference in means HIB vs Local0.24*** 0.21***0.26**0.19-0.210.01 T3: Information present three times Local (Hunapu)6.55±0.57 6.54±0.556.63±0.536.39±0.676.53±0.541.34±2.636.59±0.59 HIB (Superchiva)6.76±0.51 6.77±0.516.84±0.466.57±0.776.64±0.961.15±2.516.64±0.96 Difference in means HIB vs Local0.21***0.23***0.20***0.17*0.11-0.190.06 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 0.0250.075-0.041-0.266*-0.2330.425-0.116 Local: T1 vs T3 0.0030.037-0.046-0.286**-0.362***0.505-0.113 Local: T2 vs T3 -0.021-0.037-0.005-0.019-0.1290.0800.003 HIB : T1 vs T2 -0.14*-0.125*-0.091-0.0580.0660.75**0.066 HIB : T1 vs T3 -0.13-0.156**-0.0820.0110.0190.80**0.019 HIB : T2 vs T3 0.010-0.0310.0090.070-0.0470.057-0.047 Table 3: Mean hedonic rating of bean varieties across treatments Average WTPPremium/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±0.71 4.96±0.83 4.89±0.76 4.70±0.72 4.67±0.74 4.67±0.71 0.133±0.90 0.289±0.94 0.220±0.81 Treatment 1 vs treatment 2 -0.126-0.156 Treatment 1 vs treatment 3 -0.058-0.087 Treatment 2 vs treatment 30.0670.068 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,Colombia E-mail: s.p.suarez@cgiar.org ; c.gonzalez@cgiar.orgs.p.suarez@cgiar.orgc.gonzalez@cgiar.org p<0.1*, p<0.05**, p<0.01***