IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Accounting for Taste: Consumer Valuations for Food-Safety Technologies

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

Consumers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for post-harvest processed (PHP) raw oysters – oysters without health risks – is studied in experimental nth-price auction markets. The experimental design decomposes the effects of taste, objective risk information, and information on four PHP technologies on consumers’ 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. The premium for traditional oysters persists after objective information on risk and processing technology is provided. The results are robust over PHP technologies. Key Words: experimental auction market, food safety, risk preference elicitation, consumer perceptions, oysters

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp1109.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Department of Economics, Appalachian State University in its series Working Papers with number 11-09.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:apl:wpaper:11-09
Contact details of provider: Postal: Thelma C. Raley Hall, Boone, North Carolina 28608
Phone: 828-262-2148
Fax: 828-262-6105
Web page: http://www.business.appstate.edu/departments/economics/

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.:

as in new window
  1. 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(02), December.
  2. 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.
  3. Marette Stéphan & Roosen Jutta & Bieberstein Andrea & Blanchemanche Sandrine & Vandermoere Frederic, 2009. "Impact of Environmental, Societal and Health Information on Consumers' Choices for Nanofood," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 7(2), pages 1-27, December.
  4. Fox, John A. & Buhr, Brian L. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kliebenstein, James & Hayes, Dermot J., 1995. "Comparison of Preferences for Pork Sandwiches Produced from Animals With and Without Somatotropin Administration (A)," Staff General Research Papers 852, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  5. 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(03), November.
  6. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521855167 is not listed on IDEAS
  7. Rousu, Matthew & Huffman, Wallace & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2007. "Effects and Value of Verifiable Information in a Controversial Market: Evidence from Lab Auctions of Genetically Modified Food," Staff General Research Papers 12702, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  8. Huffman, Wallace & Rousu, Matthew & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2004. "The Effects of Prior Beliefs and Learning on Consumers' Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods," Staff General Research Papers 12212, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  9. Harrison, Glen W. & Ronald M. Harstad & E. Elisabet Rutström, 1995. "Experimental Methods and Elicitation of Values," Discussion Paper Serie B 349, University of Bonn, Germany.
  10. 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.
  11. Frode Alfnes & Kyrre Rickertsen, 2003. "European Consumers' Willingness to Pay for U.S. Beef in Experimental Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 396-405.
  12. 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(02), December.
  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(03), December.
  14. 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 702, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  15. Fox, John A. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kliebenstein, James B., 1996. "Experimental Methods In Consumer Preference Studies," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 27(2), July.
  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. 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.
  18. 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, 01.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. Hayes, Dermot J. & Shogren, Jason F. & Shin, Seung Youll & Kliebenstein, James, 1995. "Valuing Food Safety in Experimental Auction Markets," Staff General Research Papers 835, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  22. 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.
  23. 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(03), December.
  24. John C. Bernard & Daria J. Bernard, 2007. "What Is It About Organic Milk? An Experimental Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(3), pages 826-836.
  25. Jayson L. Lusk & Keith H. Coble, 2005. "Risk Perceptions, Risk Preference, and Acceptance of Risky Food," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 393-405.
  26. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:apl:wpaper:11-09. 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: (O. Ashton Morgan)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.