IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v43y2014i02p300-318_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Valuation of Food Safety: The Case of Postharvest Processed Oysters

Author

Listed:
  • Bruner, David M.
  • Huth, William L.
  • McEvoy, David M.
  • Morgan, O. Ashton

Abstract

Consumers’ willingness to pay for postharvest-processed (PHP) raw oysters—oysters without health risks—is studied in experimental auction markets. The experimental design decomposes the effects of taste, objective risk information, and information on four PHP technologies on consumer valuations. Results show that relatively uninformed consumers are willing to pay equivalent amounts for PHP and traditional raw oysters. However, after a blind taste test, consumers are willing to pay a significant premium for traditional raw oysters, and the premium persists after objective information on risk and processing technologies is provided. The results are robust across PHP technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruner, David M. & Huth, William L. & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2014. "Consumer Valuation of Food Safety: The Case of Postharvest Processed Oysters," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 300-318, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:43:y:2014:i:02:p:300-318_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1068280500004330/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2007. "The effects of prior beliefs and learning on consumers' acceptance of genetically modified foods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 193-206, May.
    2. Dickinson, David L. & Bailey, DeeVon, 2002. "Meat Traceability: Are U.S. Consumers Willing To Pay For It?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Shogren, Jason F. & Margolis, Michael & Koo, Cannon & List, John A., 2001. "A random nth-price auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 409-421, December.
    4. Lusk, Jayson L., 2003. "Using Experimental Auctions for Marketing Applications: A Discussion," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(2), pages 1-12, August.
    5. Hayes, D. J. & Fox, J. A. & Shogren, J. F., 2002. "Experts and activists: how information affects the demand for food irradiation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 185-193, April.
    6. Dermot J. Hayes & Jason F. Shogren & Seung Youll Shin & James B. Kliebenstein, 1995. "Valuing Food Safety in Experimental Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(1), pages 40-53.
    7. Rodolfo M. Nayga & Richard Woodward & Wipon Aiew, 2006. "Willingness to Pay for Reduced Risk of Foodborne Illness: A Nonhypothetical Field Experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(4), pages 461-475, December.
    8. Ty Feldkamp & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Experimental Auction Procedure: Impact on Valuation of Quality Differentiated Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 389-405.
    9. Jay R. Corrigan & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Matthew C. Rousu, 2012. "Repeated Rounds with Price Feedback in Experimental Auction Valuation: An Adversarial Collaboration," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 97-115.
    10. J.F. Shogren & T.M. Hurley, 1999. "Experiments in Environmental Economics," Chapters, in: Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh (ed.),Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics, chapter 76, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Fox, John A & Hayes, Dermot J & Shogren, Jason F, 2002. "Consumer Preferences for Food Irradiation: How Favorable and Unfavorable Descriptions Affect Preferences for Irradiated Pork in Experimental Auctions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 75-95, January.
    12. List, John A, 2003. "Using Random nth Price Auctions to Value Non-market Goods and Services," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 193-205, March.
    13. Rousu, Matthew C. & Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Valuing Conflicting Public Information About a New Technology: The Case of Irradiated Foods," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 1-11, December.
    14. Jason F. Shogren & John A. Fox & Dermot J. Hayes & Jutta Roosen, 1999. "Observed Choices for Food Safety in Retail, Survey, and Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1192-1199.
    15. Jason F. Shogren & John A. Fox, 1996. "Consumer Preferences for Fresh Food Items with Multiple Quality Attributes: Evidence from an Experimental Auction of Pork Chops," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(4), pages 916-923.
    16. W. Bruce Traill, 2004. "Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 31(2), pages 179-204, June.
    17. Morgan, O. Ashton & Martin, Gregory S. & Huth, William L., 2009. "Oyster Demand Adjustments to Counter-Information and Source Treatments in Response to Vibrio vulnificus," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-14, December.
    18. Elizabeth Hoffman & Dale J. Menkhaus & Dipankar Chakravarti & Ray A. Field & Glen D. Whipple, 1993. "Using Laboratory Experimental Auctions in Marketing Research: A Case Study of New Packaging for Fresh Beef," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 318-338.
    19. Fox, John A. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Kliebenstein, James & Shogren, Jason F., 1994. "Consumer Acceptability of Milk from Cows Treated with Bovine Somatotropin," Staff General Research Papers Archive 702, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    20. Nalley, Lawton Lanier & Hudson, Darren & Parkhurst, Gregory M., 2006. "Consistency of Consumer Valuation Under Different Information Sets: An Experimental Auction with Sweet Potatoes," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 37(3), pages 1-12, November.
    21. Fox, John A. & Buhr, Brian L. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kliebenstein, James B. & Hayes, Dermot J., 1995. "A Comparison of Preferences for Pork Sandwiches Produced from Animals With and Without Somatotropin Administration," ISU General Staff Papers 199504010800001009, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    22. O. Ashton Morgan & Gregory S. Martin & William L. Huth, 2009. "Oyster Demand Adjustments to Counter-Information and Source Treatments in Response to Vibrio vulnificus," Working Papers 09-08, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    23. Roosen, Jutta & Fox, John A. & Hennessy, David A. & Schreiber, Alan, 1998. "Consumers' Valuation Of Insecticide Use Restrictions: An Application To Apples," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 1-18, December.
    24. Charles Noussair & StÈphane Robin & Bernard Ruffieux, 2004. "Do Consumers Really Refuse To Buy Genetically Modified Food?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(492), pages 102-120, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Domenico Carlucci & Biagia De Devitiis & Gianluca Nardone & Fabio Gaetano Santeramo, 2017. "Certification Labels Versus Convenience Formats: What Drives the Market in Aquaculture Products?," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(3), pages 295-310.
    2. Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano & Carlucci, Domenico & De Devitiis, Biagia & Nardone, Gianluca & Viscecchia, Rosaria, 2017. "On consumption patterns in oyster markets: the role of attitudes," MPRA Paper 76789, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Huth, William L. & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2018. "Controlling an Invasive Species through Consumption: The Case of Lionfish as an Impure Public Good," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 74-79.
    4. Kecinski, Maik & Messer, Kent D. & Peo, Audrey J., 2018. "When Cleaning Too Much Pollution Can Be a Bad Thing: A Field Experiment of Consumer Demand for Oysters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 686-695.
    5. Carlucci, Domenico & Dedevitiis, Biagia & Nardone, Gianluca & Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano, 2016. "Certification Labels Vs Convenience Formats: What drives the market in aquaculture products?," MPRA Paper 75448, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:43:y:2014:i:02:p:300-318_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Keith Waters). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/age .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.