(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Consumer attitudes towards food safety risks associated with meat processing
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zeudps/26468.html

Some searches may not work properly. We apologize for the inconvenience.

   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumer attitudes towards food safety risks associated with meat processing

Author

Listed:
  • Schroeter, Christiane

Abstract

A focus group study with 37 residents of Manhattan, Kansas, was conducted to examine consumers’ risk perceptions of foodborne illnesses from beef. The four focusgroup sessions were designed to determine (1) relative preferences for alternative combinations of public food safety (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), carcass pasteurization, irradiation) and private protection (home preparation of rare, medium, and well-done hamburgers); (2) how who is at risk (children vs. adults) influences preferences; (3) whether consumers would pay a premium for the higher levels of product safety arising from the adoption of three different innovations in processing plants; and (4) how to improve risk communication about foodborne illnesses and ways to protect against them. Although participants seemed aware of many food safety practices, misinformation and misconception also were found. The majority of the participants preferred well-done, steam-pasteurized or medium, irradiated hamburgers. For a 5-year-old child, the majority chose well-done, steampasteurized or well-done, irradiated hamburgers. Concerning willingness-to-pay, the majority of the participants preferred steam-pasteurized ground beef to regular ground beef when both were priced equally. Results indicated that new technologies available for food safety interventions provided a marginal value to participants. Participants also expressed a need for more information.

Suggested Citation

  • Schroeter, Christiane, 2001. "Consumer attitudes towards food safety risks associated with meat processing," Discussion Papers 5, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Center for international Development and Environmental Research (ZEU).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zeudps:26468
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/50499/1/339617535.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Buzby, Jean C. & Fox, John A. & Ready, Richard C. & Crutchfleld, Stephen R., 1998. "Measuring Consumer Benefits of Food Safety Risk Reductions," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 69-82, July.
    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. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    2. Huang, Ju-Chin & Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C., 2004. "Risk Valuation in the Presence of Risky Substitutes: An Application to Demand for Seafood," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(1), pages 1-16, April.
    3. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    4. Ramo Barrena & Mercedes Sánchez, 2010. "The link between household structure and the level of abstraction in the purchase decision process: an analysis using a functional food," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(2), pages 243-264.
    5. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Pappa, Valentina, 2016. "Elicitation formats and the WTA/WTP gap: A study of climate neutral foods," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 141-155.
    6. Oger, Raphaelle & Woods, Timothy A. & Jean-Albert, Pierre & Allan, Daniel, 2001. "Food Safety in the U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Industry: Awareness and Management Practices of Producers in Kentucky," Staff Papers 37867, University of Kentucky, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    7. Lim, Kar Ho & Hu, Wuyang & Maynard, Leigh J. & Goddard, Ellen W., 2012. "Stated Preference and Perception Analysis for Traceable and BSE-tested Beef: An Application of Mixed Error-Component Logit Model," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124784, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. 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).
    9. Angulo, Ana Maria & Gil, Jose Maria, 2004. "Consequences of BSE on Consumers' Attitudes, Perceptions and Willingness to Pay for Certified Beef in Spain," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24999, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Noussair, Charles & Robin, Stephane & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2004. "Revealing consumers' willingness-to-pay: A comparison of the BDM mechanism and the Vickrey auction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 725-741, December.
    11. Charles Noussair & Stéphane Robin & Bernard Ruffieux, 2001. "Comportement des consommateurs face aux aliments «avec OGM» et «sans OGM»: une étude expérimentale," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 266(1), pages 30-44.
    12. Shang, Xia & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2017. "Food safety recall effects across meat products and regions," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 145-153.
    13. Cerroni, Simone & Notaro, Sandra & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2013. "How many bad apples are in a bunch? An experimental investigation of perceived pesticide residue risks," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 112-123.
    14. Maynard, Leigh J. & Hartell, Jason G. & Meyer, A. Lee & Hao, Jianqiang, 2004. "An experimental approach to valuing new differentiated products," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(2-3), pages 317-325, December.
    15. Mywish K Maredia & Brian Bartle, 2023. "Excess demand amid quality misperceptions: the case for low-cost seed quality signalling strategies," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 50(2), pages 360-394.
    16. Kuchler, Fred & Golan, Elise H., 1999. "Assigning Values To Life: Comparing Methods For Valuing Health Risks," Agricultural Economic Reports 34037, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    17. Goldberg, Isabell & Roosen, Jutta, 2005. "Measuring Consumer Willingness to Pay for a Health Risk Reduction of Salmonellosis and Campylobacteriosis," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24512, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Loureiro, Maria L. & Hine, Susan, 2004. "Preferences and willingness to pay for GM labeling policies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 467-483, October.
    19. Laurent Muller & Bernard Ruffieux, 2011. "Do price-tags influence consumers’ willingness to pay? On the external validity of using auctions for measuring value," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(2), pages 181-202, May.
    20. Cerroni, Simone & Notaro, Sandra & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2012. "Eliciting and estimating valid subjective probabilities: An experimental investigation of the exchangeability method," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 201-215.

    More about this item

    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:zbw:zeudps:26468. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zegiede.html .

    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.