IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v34y2018i2p222-239.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic feasibility of Campylobacter†reduced chicken: Do consumers have high willingness to pay?

Author

Listed:
  • Yukichika Kawata
  • Masahide Watanabe

Abstract

We apply a choice experiment to estimate additional willingness to pay for Campylobacter†reduced chicken compared with normal chicken. We select Japanese consumers as an example because Japan is the world's largest chicken importer. The additional willingness to pay is estimated to be 38.87 JPY (about 0.39 USD)/150 g (when food poisoning levels reduced from 1/500 to 1/1,000) and 80.29 JPY (about 0.80 USD)/150 g (1/2,000). These values are high enough to cover additional associated costs, implying that producers’ spontaneous provision of Campylobacter†reduced chicken is feasible. Our study is the first to confirm this fact. In addition, we elucidate consumers’ characteristics that push up additional willingness to pay, thereby drawing useful implications for promoting safer chicken. Good progress in providing safer chicken in Japan would create more global business opportunities for companies and might trigger expansion of pathogen†reduced table meat worldwide. [EconLit citations: Q13, Q18]

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:34:y:2018:i:2:p:222-239
    DOI: 10.1002/agr.21512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21512
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/agr.21512?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George Gaskell & Nick Allum & Wolfgang Wagner & Nicole Kronberger & Helge Torgersen & Juergen Hampel & Julie Bardes, 2004. "GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 185-194, February.
    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. 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.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, November.
    5. Kip Viscusi, W. & Magat, Wesley A. & Huber, Joel, 1991. "Pricing environmental health risks: survey assessments of risk-risk and risk-dollar trade-offs for chronic bronchitis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 32-51, July.
    6. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 1994. "Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1101-1108, December.
    7. Marie-Josée J. Mangen & G. Ardine de Wit & Arie H. Havelaar, 2007. "Economic analysis of Campylobacter control in the dutch broiler meat chain," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(2), pages 173-192.
    8. Isabell Goldberg & Jutta Roosen, 2007. "Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 123-144, April.
    9. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    10. 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(3), pages 1-11, December.
    11. Arie H. Havelaar & Marie‐Josee J. Mangen & Aline A. De Koeijer & Marc‐Jeroen Bogaardt & Eric G. Evers & Wilma F. Jacobs‐Reitsma & Wilfrid Van Pelt & Jaap A. Wagenaar & G. Ardine De Wit & Henk Van Der , 2007. "Effectiveness and Efficiency of Controlling Campylobacter on Broiler Chicken Meat," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 831-844, August.
    12. Jensen, Jørgen Dejgård & Lawson, Lartey Godwin & Lund, Mogens, 2015. "Systemic cost-effectiveness analysis of food hazard reduction – Campylobacter in Danish broiler supply," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(1), pages 273-282.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Solomon Olum & Xavier Gellynck & Joshua Wesana & Walter Odongo & Nathaline Onek Aparo & Bonny Aloka & Duncan Ongeng & Hans De Steur, 2021. "Economic Feasibility of Iodine Agronomic Biofortification: A Projective Analysis with Ugandan Vegetable Farmers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-13, September.
    2. Kelvin Balcombe & Dylan Bradley & Iain Fraser, 2021. "Consumer Preferences for Chlorine Washed Chicken, Attitudes to Brexit and Trade Agreements," Studies in Economics 2112, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    3. Kelvin Balcombe & Dylan Bradley & Iain Fraser, 2021. "Do Consumers Really Care? An Economic Analysis of Consumer Attitudes Towards Food Produced Using Prohibited Production Methods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 452-469, June.
    4. Balcombe, Kelvin & Bradley, Dylan & Fraser, Iain, 2022. "Consumer preferences for chlorine-washed chicken, attitudes to Brexit and implications for future trade agreements," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    5. Kelvin Balcombe & Dylan Bradley & Iain Fraser, 2020. "The Economic Analysis of Consumer Attitudes Towards Food Produced Using Prohibited Production Methods: Do Consumers Really Care?," Studies in Economics 2004, School of Economics, University of Kent.

    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. Vincenzina Caputo, 2020. "Does information on food safety affect consumers' acceptance of new food technologies? The case of irradiated beef in South Korea under a new labelling system and across different information regimes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(4), pages 1003-1033, October.
    2. Morten Mørkbak & Jonas Nordström, 2009. "The Impact of Information on Consumer Preferences for Different Animal Food Production Methods," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 313-331, December.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. McFadden, Brandon R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2013. "Effects of Cost and Campaign Advertising on Support for California’s Proposition 37," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-13, August.
    7. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    8. Ferrier, Peyton & Peterson, Everett E. & Landes, Maurice, 2012. "Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes," Economic Research Report 262228, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    9. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    10. Sund, Björn, 2009. "Sensitivity to scope in contingent valuation – introducing a flexible community analogy to communicate mortality risk reductions," Working Papers 2009:2, Örebro University, School of Business.
    11. Longo, Alberto & Markandya, Anil & Petrucci, Marta, 2008. "The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: Willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 140-152, August.
    12. 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.
    13. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    14. Hammitt, James K. & Herrera-Araujo, Daniel, 2018. "Peeling back the onion: Using latent class analysis to uncover heterogeneous responses to stated preference surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 165-189.
    15. Andersson, Henrik & Hole, Arne Risa & Svensson, Mikael, 2016. "Valuation of small and multiple health risks: A critical analysis of SP data applied to food and water safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 41-53.
    16. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Consumer valuation of information about food safety achieved using biotechnology: Evidence from new potato products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 82-96.
    17. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Dupont, Diane & Krupnick, Alan & Zhang, Jing, 2011. "Valuation of cancer and microbial disease risk reductions in municipal drinking water: An analysis of risk context using multiple valuation methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 213-226, March.
    18. Uchida, Hirotsugu & Onozaka, Yuko & Morita, Tamaki & Managi, Shunsuke, 2014. "Demand for ecolabeled seafood in the Japanese market: A conjoint analysis of the impact of information and interaction with other labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 68-76.
    19. Eric Giraud-Héraud & Maria Aguiar Fontes & Alexandra Seabra Pinto, 2014. "Crise sanitaires de l'alimentation et analyses comportementales," Working Papers hal-00949126, HAL.
    20. Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder & Joost M. E. Pennings & James Mintert, 2009. "Consumer Valuations of Beef Steak Food Safety Enhancement in Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the United States," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(3), pages 395-416, September.

    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:wly:agribz:v:34:y:2018:i:2:p:222-239. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    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.