IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v37y2012i3p226-231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

People’s willingness to eat meat from animals vaccinated against epidemics

Author

Listed:
  • Zingg, Alexandra
  • Siegrist, Michael

Abstract

Animal epidemics are associated with significant economic damage and they negatively influence consumers’ meat consumption. Vaccination can be used as a strategy to prevent the outbreak of animal epidemics. The current study examines people’s willingness to eat meat from animals vaccinated against an animal epidemic. We asked people separately about their willingness to eat meat from animals vaccinated against both animal epidemics and against zoonoses. Zoonoses are also animal epidemics, but they might affect human health. A questionnaire was sent out to a representative sample of Swiss people and yielded N=1033 completed datasets. Although animal vaccinations were highly accepted among those surveyed, compared to a wide range of other animal applications such as antibiotics, only about a quarter of those surveyed indicated that they would eat meat from animals vaccinated against a zoonosis. Some 60% indicated they would eat meat from animals vaccinated against an animal epidemic. We found attitudes about animal vaccination, knowledge about human vaccination, misunderstanding of animal treatments, and average meat consumption to significantly influence people’s willingness to eat meat from animals vaccinated against a zoonosis. Therefore, it is necessary that regulatory bodies provide information on both the safety of meat for human consumption and ways to minimize any potential health risks from the handling or consumption of meat products that might be infected in cases of zoonotic outbreaks.

Suggested Citation

  • Zingg, Alexandra & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "People’s willingness to eat meat from animals vaccinated against epidemics," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 226-231.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:37:y:2012:i:3:p:226-231
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.02.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030691921200005X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.02.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Veeman, Michele M. & Li, Yu, 2006. "Canadian Consumers' Preferences for Food Safety and Agricultural Environment Safety," Consumer and Market Demand Network Papers 91557, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    2. Macfarlane, Ronald, 2002. "Integrating the consumer interest in food safety: the role of science and other factors+," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 65-80, February.
    3. Paul Sparks & Richard Shepherd, 1994. "Public Perceptions of the Potential Hazards Associated with Food Production and Food Consumption: An Empirical Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 799-806, October.
    4. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    5. Wouter Poortinga & Karen Bickerstaff & Ian Langford & Jörg Niewöhner & Nick Pidgeon, 2004. "The British 2001 Foot and Mouth crisis: a comparative study of public risk perceptions, trust and beliefs about government policy in two communities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 73-90, January.
    6. Nathalie Stampfli & Michael Siegrist & Hans Kastenholz, 2010. "Acceptance of nanotechnology in food and food packaging: a path model analysis," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 353-365, April.
    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. Glynn Tonsor & Ted Schroeder, 2015. "Market impacts of E. Coli vaccination in U.S. Feedlot cattle," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Goddard, Ellen & Hartmann, Monika & Klink-Lehmann, Jeanette, 2017. "Public Acceptance of Antibiotic Use in Livestock Production Canada and Germany," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276935, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    3. Clark, Beth & Stewart, Gavin B. & Panzone, Luca A. & Kyriazakis, Ilias & Frewer, Lynn J., 2017. "Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 112-127.
    4. Goddard, Ellen & Hartmann, Monika & Klink-Lehmann, Jeanette, 2017. "Public Acceptance of Antibiotic Use in Livestock Production Canada and Germany," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2017(1), June.
    5. Muringai, V. & Goddard, E., 2018. "Public Attitudes Towards the Use of Vaccination and Antibiotics in Animals in Canada," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275975, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aisha Egolf & Christina Hartmann & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "When Evolution Works Against the Future: Disgust's Contributions to the Acceptance of New Food Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1546-1559, July.
    2. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    3. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    4. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    5. Greehy, Grainne & McCarthy, Mary & Henchion, Maeve M. & Dillon, Emma J. & McCarthy, Sinead, 2011. "An Exploration of Irish Consumer Acceptance of Nanotechnology Applications in Food," 2011 International European Forum, February 14-18, 2011, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 122006, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    6. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan, 2011. "Using a Discrete Choice Experiment to Elicit Consumers’ WTP for Health Risk Reductions Achieved By Nanotechnology in the UK," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108950, Agricultural Economics Society.
    7. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    8. Erdem, Seda, 2018. "Who do UK consumers trust for information about nanotechnology?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 133-142.
    9. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn J. Frewer, 2010. "Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food and Newspaper Coverage of Food Safety Issues: A Longitudinal Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 125-142, January.
    10. Lagerkvist, Carl Johan & Hess, Sebastian & Okello, Julius & Hansson, Helena & Karanja, Nancy, 2013. "Food health risk perceptions among consumers, farmers, and traders of leafy vegetables in Nairobi," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 92-104.
    11. Joanna Burger & Melanie Hughes McDermott & Caron Chess & Eleanor Bochenek & Marla Perez‐Lugo & Kerry Kirk Pflugh, 2003. "Evaluating Risk Communication about Fish Consumption Advisories: Efficacy of a Brochure versus a Classroom Lesson in Spanish and English," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 791-803, August.
    12. J. Burger & B. B. Johnson & S. Shukla & M. Gochfeld, 2003. "Perceptions of Recreational Fishing Boat Captains: Knowledge and Effects of Fish Consumption Advisories," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 369-378, April.
    13. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    14. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    15. Lynn Frewer & Chaya Howard & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 15(1), pages 15-30, March.
    16. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    17. Brianne Suldovsky & William K. Hallman, 2022. "The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016: Intersection of Technology and Public Understanding of Science in the United States," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, September.
    18. Fung, Timothy K.F. & Choi, Doo Hun & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2014. "Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 344-355.
    19. Yawson, Robert M. & Kuzma, Jennifer, 2010. "Evidence review and experts’ opinion on consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology," MPRA Paper 40807, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Qi, Wen-Hui & Qi, Ming-Liang & Ji, Ya-Min, 2020. "The effect path of public communication on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).

    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:eee:jfpoli:v:37:y:2012:i:3:p:226-231. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.