IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae08/44319.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumers want safer meat - but not at all costs

Author

Listed:
  • Morkbak, Morten Raun
  • Christensen, Tove
  • Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte E.

Abstract

Consumers, the public authorities, and the food industry are all concerned with the safety of meat. The increasing demand for safer food from the consumers and the public authorities puts pressure on producers to identify efficient methods to reduce risks. Earlier studies have shown that consumers state a willingness to pay for safer meat – but we know very little about how different methods to reduce risks affect the consumers’ preferences for safer meat. In the present study, a choice experiment for a representative sample of the Danish population was conducted to elicit whether consumers’ willingness to pay for reducing the risks of Salmonella infections was affected by the specific risk reduction methods (risk reductions using the current policy, at farm level, or decontamination at slaughterhouse using water/steam or lactic acid). More specifically, the consumers were asked to choose between different packages of minced pork that differed with respect to Salmonella risks, risk reduction method, and price. The sample consisted of 844 Danish consumers, who answered a questionnaire over the internet. Our results indicate that consumers demand safer meat, but not at all costs – there is a limit to what they will pay and they care about how the risk reduction is obtained. They prefer risk reductions to take place at farm level followed by decontaminations using water/steam and (least preferred) lactic acid.

Suggested Citation

  • Morkbak, Morten Raun & Christensen, Tove & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte E., 2008. "Consumers want safer meat - but not at all costs," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44319, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae08:44319
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.44319
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/44319/files/477.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294, April.
    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. Lilavanichakul, Apichaya & Boecker, Andreas, 2013. "Consumer Acceptance of a New Traceability Technology: A Discrete Choice Application to Ontario Ginseng," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 16(4), pages 1-26, November.
    2. 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.
    3. David M. Bruner & William L. Huth & David M. McEvoy & O. Ashton Morgan, 2011. "Accounting for Taste: Consumer Valuations for Food-Safety Technologies," Working Papers 11-09, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    4. Maria Aguiar Fontes & Eric Giraud-Héraud & Alexandra Seabra Pinto, 2013. "Consumers' behaviour towards food safety: A litterature review," Working Papers hal-00912476, HAL.
    5. Brown, Jennifer & Cranfield, John A.L. & Henson, Spencer J., 2003. "Misassessed Risk In Consumer Valuation Of Food Safety: An Experimental Approach," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22194, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Watanabe Masahide & Kawata Yukichika, 2017. "What Extent of Welfare Loss is Caused by the Disparity between Perceived and Scientific Risks? A Case Study of Food Irradiation," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 17(1), pages 1-17, February.
    7. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    8. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 1-21.
    9. Yukichika Kawata & Masahide Watanabe, 2018. "Economic feasibility of Campylobacter†reduced chicken: Do consumers have high willingness to pay?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 222-239, March.
    10. Jura Liaukonyte & Nadia A. Streletskaya & Harry M. Kaiser, 2015. "The Long-Term Impact of Positive and Negative Information on Food Demand," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 63(4), pages 539-562, December.
    11. Marette, Stéphan & Martin, Christophe & Bouillot, Fabienne, 2017. "Two experiments in one: How accounting for context matters for welfare estimates," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 12-24.
    12. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2011. "Do EPA Administrators Recommend Environmental Policies That Citizens Want?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(1), pages 60-74.
    13. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo, 2011. "Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: Does it really matter for welfare measurement?," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2011/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    14. Neustadt, Ilja & Zweifel, Peter, 2011. "Income redistribution: how to divide the pie?," MPRA Paper 35427, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. 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.
    16. Britwum, Kofi & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2019. "Consumer willingness to pay for food safety interventions: The role of message framing and issue involvement," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Ilja Neustadt & Peter Zweifel, 2010. "Is the Welfare State Sustainable? Experimental Evidence on Citizens’ Preferences for Redistribution," SOI - Working Papers 1003, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    18. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2015. "Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 48-56.
    19. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2010. "Dealing with Ignored Attributes in Choice Experiments on Valuation of Sweden’s Environmental Quality Objectives," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 65-89, September.
    20. Torres, Cati & Hanley, Nick & Riera, Antoni, 2011. "How wrong can you be? Implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 111-121, July.

    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:ags:eaae08:44319. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    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.