American Journal of Potato Research

, Volume 88, Issue 4, pp 303–308 | Cite as

Identity Preservation Systems for Genetically Modified Potatoes

  • Elliot A. Toevs
  • Joseph F. GuenthnerEmail author
  • Aaron J. Johnson
  • Christopher S. McIntosh
  • Michael K. Thornton


In spite of benefits to growers, processors, consumers and the environment, genetically modified (GM) potatoes were a market failure in North America. Contributing to the failure was the lack of an identity preservation (IP) system that could have prevented unapproved GM potato products from entering export markets. We interviewed 26 industry experts to identify recommended practices for GM potato IP systems. From the list of practices we designed three IP systems. We then conducted a Delphi survey with 20 potato industry experts to estimate the likelihood of success for each system. Estimates varied over a wide range, but success rate averages were 54% for the least stringent system and 93% for the most stringent.


Genetically modified Identity preservation Delphi method 


A pesar de los beneficios para los productores, procesadores, consumidores y el ambiente, las papas genéticamente modificadas (GM) fueron un fracaso de mercado en Norteamérica. Lo que contribuyó al fracaso fue la falta de un sistema de preservación de una identidad (IP) que pudiera haber evitado que productos de papa GM no aprobados entraran a los mercados de exportación. Entrevistamos a 26 expertos de la industria para identificar las prácticas recomendadas para los sistemas IP de papa GM. De la lista de prácticas designamos tres sistemas IP. Después conducimos una auscultación con 20 expertos de la industria para estimar la probabilidad de éxito de cada sistema. Las estimaciones variaron en gran amplitud, pero los promedios de nivel de éxito fueron 54% para el sistema menos riguroso y 93% para el más estricto.



We thank the potato industry experts who participated in the interviews and surveys. We also thank the JR Simplot Company for providing funding for this research.


  1. Brookes, G., and P. Barfoot. 2005. GM crops: the global socio-economic and environmental impact—the first nine years 1996–2004. UK: PG Economics Ltd.Google Scholar
  2. Curtis, K., J. McCluskey and T. Wahl. 2004. Consumer acceptance of genetically modified food products in the developing world. AgBioForum 7(1&2): 70–75. Available at:
  3. Flannery, M., F. Thorne, P. Kelly and E. Mullins. 2004. An economic cost-benefit analysis of GM crop cultivation: and Irish case study. AgBioForum 7(4): 149–157. Available at: Scholar
  4. Guenthner, J. 2002. Consumer acceptance of genetically modified potatoes. American Journal of Potato Research 79: 309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Guenthner, J., K. Michael, and P. Nolte. 2002. "The economic impact of potato late blight on US growers. Potato Research 44(2): 121–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Guenthner, J., A. Araji, and K. Maredia. 2004. Benefits of public investment in potato biotechnology for developing countries. Applied Biotechnology, Food Science and Policy 1(4): 235–242.Google Scholar
  7. Hoban, T. 1999. Consumer acceptance of biotechnology in the United States and Japan. Food Technology 53(5): 50–54.Google Scholar
  8. Hasson, F., S. Keeney, and H. McKenna. 2008. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing 32(4): 1008–1015.Google Scholar
  9. Huesing, J. and L. English. 2004. The impact of Bt crops on the developing world. AgBioForum, 7(1&2), 84–95. Available at:
  10. Huffman, W. 2003. Consumers’ acceptance of (and resistance to) genetically modified foods in high-income countries: effects of labels and information in an uncertain environment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(5): 1112–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaniewski, W. and P. Thomas. 2004. The potato story. AgBioForum 7(1&2): 41–46. Available at:
  12. Linstone, H., and M. Turoff. 1975. The Delphi method: Techniques and applications: Addison-Wesley Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Loureiro, M., and S. Hine. 2002. Discovering niche markets: a comparison of consumer willingness to pay for local, organic and GMO-free products. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 34: 477–487.Google Scholar
  14. Marra, M., P. Pardey and J. Alston. 2002. The payoffs to transgenic field crops: an assessment of the evidence. AgBioForum 5(2):43–50. Available at: Scholar
  15. Perlak, F., T. Stone, Y. Muscopf, L. Petersen, G. Parker, S. McPherson, J. Wyman, S. Love, G. Reed, and D. Biever. 1993. Genetically improved potatoes: protection from damage by Colorado potato beetles. Plant Molecular Biology 22: 313–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Phillips, P. W. B. and D. Corkindale. 2002. Marketing GM foods: the way forward. AgBioForum 5(3): 113–121. Available at:
  17. Phipps, R., and J. Park. 2002. Environmental benefits of genetically modified crops: global and European perspectives on their ability to reduce pesticide use. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 11: 1–18.Google Scholar
  18. Pollan, M. 2002. The Botany of desire: a plant’s eye view of the world. Random HouseGoogle Scholar
  19. Rasp, A. 1973. Delphi: A decision-maker's dream. Nations Schools 92(1): 29–32.Google Scholar
  20. Rousu, M., W. Huffman, J. Shogren, and A. Tegene. 2003. Are United States consumers tolerant of genetically modified foods? Review of Agricultural Economics 26(1): 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. VanWechel, T., C. Wachenheim, E. Schuck and D. Lambert. 2003. Consumer valuation of genetically modified foods and the effect of information bias. Agribusiness and Applied Economics Report No. 513. North Dakota State University.Google Scholar
  22. West, G., C. Gendron, B. Larue, and R. Lambert. 2002. Consumers’ valuation of functional properties of foods: results from a Canada-wide survey. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 50: 541–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Potato Association of America 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elliot A. Toevs
    • 1
  • Joseph F. Guenthner
    • 1
    Email author
  • Aaron J. Johnson
    • 1
  • Christopher S. McIntosh
    • 1
  • Michael K. Thornton
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Economics & Rural SociologyUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA
  2. 2.Southwest Idaho Research & Extension CenterUniversity of IdahoParmaUSA

Personalised recommendations