IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i12p7035-d834340.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

U.S. Consumer Attitudes toward Antibiotic Use in Livestock Production

Author

Listed:
  • Syed Imran Ali Meerza

    (Department of Agriculture, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR 72801, USA)

  • Sabrina Gulab

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA)

  • Kathleen R. Brooks

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA)

  • Christopher R. Gustafson

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA)

  • Amalia Yiannaka

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA)

Abstract

Antimicrobial resistance, which decreases the efficacy of antibiotics and other antimicrobials, has led to concerns about the use of antibiotics in livestock production. Consumers play an important role in influencing producers’ decisions about the use of antimicrobials through their choices in the marketplace, which are driven by attitudes toward these practices. This study examines consumers’ levels of concern about (and acceptance of) the use of antibiotics in livestock production for four objectives: to treat, control, and prevent infections, and to promote growth. Results reveal that the majority of respondents were highly concerned about antibiotic use to promote growth in livestock production and considered this use to be unacceptable. Participants with higher objective knowledge of antibiotic resistance and antibiotic use in livestock production were more likely to accept antibiotic use to treat and control disease, but less likely to accept its use to prevent disease or to promote growth. Participants with high levels of trust in the livestock industry were more likely to accept antibiotic use to control and prevent infections and to be neutral about antibiotic use to promote growth in food animals. Respondents who believed that antibiotic use decreases animal welfare were more likely to be very concerned about antibiotic use to treat, prevent, and control disease, and less likely to accept antibiotic use to treat diseases in food animals. The study findings should be of interest to producers considering the adoption of sustainable technologies and production practices, food retailers making procurement decisions, and policymakers identifying policies that can alleviate antimicrobial resistance in the agri-food sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Syed Imran Ali Meerza & Sabrina Gulab & Kathleen R. Brooks & Christopher R. Gustafson & Amalia Yiannaka, 2022. "U.S. Consumer Attitudes toward Antibiotic Use in Livestock Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7035-:d:834340
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7035/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7035/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pritchett, James G. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Johnson, Kamina K., 2005. "Animal Disease Economic Impacts: A Survey of Literature and Typology of Research Approaches," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 8(01), pages 1-23.
    2. 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.
    3. Tegene, Abebayehu & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C. & Shogren, Jason F., 2003. "The Effects Of Information On Consumer Demand For Biotech Foods: Evidence From Experimental Auctions," Technical Bulletins 33577, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    5. 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.
    6. Meerza, Syed Imran Ali & Brooks, Kathleen R. & Gustafson, Christopher R. & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2021. "Information avoidance behavior: Does ignorance keep us uninformed about antimicrobial resistance?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    7. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    8. Gustafson, Christopher R. & Lybbert, Travis J. & Sumner, Daniel A., 2016. "Consumer knowledge affects valuation of product attributes: Experimental results for wine," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 85-94.
    9. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher & Olynk, Nicole, 2009. "Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine gestation crates," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 492-498, December.
    10. Syed Imran Ali Meerza & Christopher R Gustafson, 2019. "Does prior knowledge of food fraud affect consumer behavior? Evidence from an incentivized economic experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-14, December.
    11. Tegene, Abebayehu & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C. & Shogren, Jason F., 2003. "The Effects Of Information On Consumer Demand For Biotech Foods: Evidence From Experimental Auctions," Technical Bulletins 33577, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    12. 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.
    13. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood & J. Ross Pruitt, 2006. "Consumer Demand for a Ban on Antibiotic Drug Use in Pork Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1015-1033.
    14. Schroeder Ted C. & Tonsor Glynn T. & Pennings Joost M.E. & Mintert James, 2007. "Consumer Food Safety Risk Perceptions and Attitudes: Impacts on Beef Consumption across Countries," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-29, December.
    15. Olynk, Nicole J. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2010. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Livestock Credence Attribute Claim Verification," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(2), pages 1-20, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Áine Regan & Sharon Sweeney & Claire McKernan & Tony Benson & Moira Dean, 2023. "Consumer perception and understanding of the risks of antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance in farming," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 989-1001, September.
    2. Xue, Hong & Mainville, Denise Y. & You, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2009. "Nutrition Knowledge, Sensory Characteristics and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pasture-Fed Beef," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49277, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Widmar, Nicole J. Olynk & Ortega, David L., 2014. "Comparing Consumer Preferences for Livestock Production Process Attributes Across Products, Species, and Modeling Methods," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(3), pages 375-391, August.
    4. Gustafson, Christopher R. & Champetier, Antoine, 2024. "Information Choice vs. Exposure: An Experiment Examining the Impact of Honey Fraud Information on Consumer Valuation," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343750, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Olynk Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David L. & Foster, Kenneth A., 2013. "Consumer Preferences for Verified Pork-Rearing Practices in the Production of Ham Products," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-21.
    6. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    7. Huffman, Wallace E., 2010. "Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods: Traits, Labels and Diverse Information," Working Papers 93168, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    8. Li Quan & McCluskey Jill J & Wahl Thomas I., 2004. "Effects of Information on Consumers' Willingness to Pay for GM-Corn-Fed Beef," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 2(2), pages 1-18, May.
    9. Wachenheim, Cheryl & Hovde, Scott & Hearne, Robert & Nganje, William, 2015. "Identifying Market Preferences for High Selenium Beef," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 46(3), pages 1-18, October.
    10. Ortega, David L. & Singh, Vartika & Spielman, David J. & Ward, Patrick S., 2013. "Farmer preferences for drought tolerance in hybrid versus inbred rice: Evidence from Bihar, India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1307, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    11. Apurba Shee & Calum G. Turvey & Ana Marr, 2021. "Heterogeneous Demand and Supply for an Insurance‐linked Credit Product in Kenya: A Stated Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 244-267, February.
    12. Hou, Bo & Wu, Linhai & Chen, Xiujuan, 2019. "Market simulation of traceable food in China based on conjoint-value analysis: a traceable case of pork," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 23(5), December.
    13. Matthijs J. Janssen & Koen Frenken & Elena M. Tur & Alexander S. Alexiev, 2022. "The perils of pleasing: Innovation-stifling effects of customized service provision," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 1231-1264, September.
    14. José-Ignacio Antón & Francisco-Javier Braña & Rafael Muñoz de Bustillo, 2016. "An analysis of the cost of disability across Europe using the standard of living approach," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 281-306, August.
    15. Gan-Ochir Doojav & Davaasukh Damdinjav, 2021. "Policy-Driven Boom and Bust in the Housing Market: Evidence from Mongolia," Asian Development Review (ADR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 38(02), pages 279-317, September.
    16. Andrew M. Johnson & Tahirou Abdoulaye & Bamikole Ayedun & Joan R. Fulton & Nicole J. Olynk Widmar & Akande Adebowale & Ranajit Bandyopadhyay & Victor Manyong, 2020. "Willingness to pay of Nigerian poultry producers and feed millers for aflatoxin‐safe maize," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(2), pages 299-317, April.
    17. Ji Yong Lee & Doo Bong Han & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr & Song Soo Lim, 2011. "Valuing traceability of imported beef in Korea: an experimental auction approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(3), pages 360-373, July.
    18. Luis Pérez y Pérez & Azucena Gracia, 2023. "Consumer Preferences for Olive Oil in Spain: A Best-Worst Scaling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-14, July.
    19. Blemings, Benjamin & Zhang, Peilu & Neill, Clinton L., 2023. "Where is the value? The impacts of sow gestation crate laws on pork supply and consumer value perceptions," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    20. H. Holly Wang & Lu Liu & David L. Ortega & Yu Jiang & Qiujie Zheng, 2020. "Are smallholder farmers willing to pay for different types of crop insurance? An application of labelled choice experiments to Chinese corn growers," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 45(1), pages 86-110, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7035-:d:834340. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.