Consumer'S Perceptions Of Environmental Risks And The Demand For Food Safety
Public concern regarding food safety has emerged as a major policy issue. Chemicals and biotechnological processes are perceived as risks of food safety despite their contribution to an efficient, low cost agriculture and food industry. Increases in uses of biotechnological processes for foods are expected to be a major potential source of productivity improvements for Alberta and Canadian agriculture in future years. However, the demand for food safety involves increasing awareness and concern by consumers of chemical inputs and biotechnological processes in the agriculture and food industries. Nonetheless, there is a lack of basic economic and agricultural economic theory and methodology to analyze these issues and a need for policy, socioeconomics and marketing research on biotechnology and other environmental risk situations in the agricultural and food industry. This project was directed at developing and applying economic theory and methodology to help fill this gap. A major contribution of the project is the identification and verification of methodologies of stated choice to analyse tradeoffs arising from food safety perceptions of concerns by consumers. One component of the research project involved assessment of Alberta consumers' stated preferences and purchase behaviour for foods exhibiting a range of environmental risks, including perceptions of pesticide residues and hormonal treatments derived from biotechnological processes. The results of this survey indicated that Albertans were more concerned about pesticide use in food production than about the use of hormones. In contingent valuation questions developed for the study, more Albertans wish to restrict pesticide use (relative to a base case of not restricting either hormones or pesticides). They tended to persist in these choices in the face of potential increases in food costs, reflecting a higher level of concern with pesticides than hormones. Increasing education increased this concern. Increasing food cost decreased the probability of choosing to restrict pesticide or hormone use. Women appeared to perceive pesticide use in food production as a greater food safety risk than was perceived by men. The inferred average willingness to pay to restrict pesticide and growth hormone use in food production amounted to about 25% and 13% respectively of the average Albertan's food expenditures respectively. In the second survey of consumers' food/environmental risk perceptions undertaken relative to this project, the responses of a random sample of consumers to the use of recombinant bovine somatotrophin (rBST) in milk production were elicited using a stated preference methodology. A conditional logit model of consumer choice was developed and tested to analyse consumers' choices of milk with varying characteristics of fat content, price, freshness and rBST treatment. Awareness of rBST presence or otherwise is implied by labelling. The approach attempts to simulate market conditions with and without rBST labelled milk and to predict consumers' responses to variations in these conditions. Welfare calculations for a representative consumer indicate welfare losses with the introduction of rBST. These were slightly less for a male than a female household food purchaser and were less for food purchasers with higher levels of income and education. There was a small welfare gain when the representative food purchaser was offered a full range of "rBST" and "non-rBST" milks. The results suggest that making appropriately labelled "rBST-free" milk available to consumers could decrease consumer welfare losses associated with any introduction of rBST. The outcomes from application of these methodologies were related to the evidence of consumers' purchasing behaviour after licensing of the technology of rBST for use in the United States; this introduction did not require labelling. The assessment suggests a critical impact of product labelling policies and strategies on potential market impacts. An assessment is also made of Canada's food safety regulatory framework. The need for increased transparency and greater public participation in regulatory processes as means to increase public confidence in such food safety regulatory processes, specifically relating to biotechnology, is also identified.
|Date of creation:||2000|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 515 General Services Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AlbertaT6G 2H1|
Phone: (780) 492-4225
Fax: (780) 492-0268
Web page: http://www.rees.ualberta.ca/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- Louviere, Jordan J., 1991. "Experimental choice analysis: Introduction and overview," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 291-297, December.
- Jordan, Jeffrey L. & Elnagheeb, Abdelmoneim H., 1994. "Differences In Contingent Valuation Estimates From Referendum And Checklist Questions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(01), July.
- Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
- Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994.
"Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities,"
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
- Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Louviere, J. & Willians, M., 1992. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Staff Paper Series 232531, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ualbpr:24040. 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)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.