IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea05/19128.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Empirical Analysis of United States Consumers' Concerns about Eight Food Production and Processing Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Hwang, Yun Jae
  • Roe, Brian E.
  • Teisl, Mario F.

Abstract

For a representative sample of U.S. consumers, we rank, correlate and explain ratings of concern toward eight food production and processing technologies (antibiotics, pesticides, artificial growth hormones, genetic modification, irradiation, artificial colors/flavors, pasteurization, and preservatives). Concern is highest for pesticides and hormones, followed by concern toward antibiotics, genetic modification and irradiation. We document standard relationships between many demographic, economic and attitude variables and the average concern level. Our main contribution is modeling relative levels of concern across technologies, where we find that key personal and household characteristics that yield little explanatory power for average ratings have sharp discriminatory power for relative ratings.

Suggested Citation

  • Hwang, Yun Jae & Roe, Brian E. & Teisl, Mario F., 2005. "An Empirical Analysis of United States Consumers' Concerns about Eight Food Production and Processing Technologies," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19128, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea05:19128
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.19128
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/19128/files/sp05hw01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.19128?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. 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.
    2. Baker, Gregory A., 1999. "Consumer Preferences For Food Safety Attributes In Fresh Apples: Market Segments, Consumer Characteristics, And Marketing Opportunities," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(01), pages 1-18, July.
    3. Chris Fife‐Schaw & Gene Rowe, 1996. "Public Perceptions of Everyday Food Hazards: A Psychometric Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 487-500, August.
    4. Govindasamy, Ramu & Italia, John & Adelaja, Adesoji O., 1998. "Predicting Consumer Risk Aversions to Synthetic Pesticide Residues: A Logistic Analysis," P Series 36740, Rutgers University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics.
    5. Deana Grobe & Robin Douthitt & Lydia Zepeda, 1999. "A Model of Consumers' Risk Perceptions Toward Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rbGH): The Impact of Risk Characteristics," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 661-673, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    8. Ramu Govindasamy & John Italia, 1998. "Predicting consumer risk perceptions towards pesticide residue: a logistic analysis," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(12), pages 793-796.
    9. Lynn Frewer & Richard Shepherd, 1995. "Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 12(1), pages 48-57, December.
    10. 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), pages 1-7, July.
    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. Katie Abrams & Courtney Meyers & Tracy Irani, 2010. "Naturally confused: consumers’ perceptions of all-natural and organic pork products," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 27(3), pages 365-374, September.
    2. Nii O Tackie & Jannette R. Bartlett & Akua Adu-Gyamfi & Francisca A. Quarcoo & Mst Nusrat Jahan, 2016. "Impact of Socioeconomic Factors on Alabama Consumers¡¯ Perceptions on Use of Chemicals in Livestock Products," Journal of Social Science Studies, Macrothink Institute, vol. 3(1), pages 178-195, January.
    3. Uddin, Azhar & Gallardo, R. Karina, 2021. "Consumers' willingness to pay for organic, clean label, and processed with a new food technology: an application to ready meals," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(3), March.
    4. Cembalo, Luigi & Lombardi, Alessia & Pascucci, Stefano & Dentoni, Domenico & Migliore, Giuseppina & Verneau, Fabio & Schifani, Giorgio, 2012. "The Beauty of the Commons? Consumers’ participation in Food Community Networks," 2012 AAEA/EAAE Food Environment Symposium 123531, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Wenjing Zhang & Jianhong Xue & Henk Folmer & Khadim Hussain, 2019. "Perceived Risk of Genetically Modified Foods Among Residents in Xi’an, China: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-12, February.
    6. Andrew Knight, 2007. "Intervening Effects of Knowledge, Morality, Trust, and Benefits on Support for Animal and Plant Biotechnology Applications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1553-1563, December.
    7. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    8. Kara R. Grant & R. Karina Gallardo & Jill J. McCluskey, 2021. "Consumer preferences for foods with clean labels and new food technologies," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 764-781, October.
    9. Caracciolo, Francesco & Coppola, Adele & Verneau, Fabio, 2011. "Validation of a Psychometric Scale to Measure Consumers’ Fears of Modern Food Technologies," 2011 International European Forum, February 14-18, 2011, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 122005, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.

    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. Spencer Henson & Mamane Annou & John Cranfield & Joanne Ryks, 2008. "Understanding Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Technologies in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1601-1617, December.
    2. Satoko Kubota & Hirotsugu Sawano & Hiroichi Kono, 2017. "Japanese consumer preferences for additive-free wine labeling," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 5(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Arahata, Katsumi, 2003. "Income Growth And Pesticide Consumption In The Future: Applying The Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22055, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Sean F. Ellis & Maik Kecinski & Kent D. Messer & Clive Lipchin, 2022. "Consumer perceptions after long‐term use of alternative irrigation water: A field experiment in Israel," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 1003-1020, June.
    10. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:2:y:2007:i:1:p:1-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Ozge Dinc‐Cavlak & Ozlem Ozdemir, 2021. "Comparing the willingness to pay through three elicitation mechanisms: An experimental evidence for organic egg product," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 782-803, October.
    12. 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.
    13. Gaynor, Joe & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Jaenicke, Edward C., 2002. "Retail Meat Managers' Profitability Expectations For Irradiated Red Meats," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19793, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. 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.
    15. Edward C. Jaenicke & R. Wesley Harrison & Kimberly L. Jensen & Paul M. Jakus, 2006. "Follow the leader? Adoption behavior in food retailers' decision to offer fresh irradiated ground beef," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 547-568.
    16. Aoki, Keiko & Shen, Junyi & Saijo, Tatsuyoshi, 2010. "Consumer reaction to information on food additives: Evidence from an eating experiment and a field survey," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 433-438, March.
    17. Jaenicke, Edward C. & Harrison, R. Wes & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Jakus, Paul M., 2005. "Adoption Behavior in Food Retailers' Decision to Offer Fresh Irradiated Ground Beef," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24680, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Moro, Daniele, 2008. "Market And Policy Issues In Micro-Econometric Demand Modeling," 107th Seminar, January 30-February 1, 2008, Sevilla, Spain 6500, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. He, Senhui & Fletcher, Stanley M. & Rimal, Arbindra, 2004. "Factors Affecting Consumer Negative Perceptions About Beef Irradiation," 2004 Annual Meeting, February 14-18, 2004, Tulsa, Oklahoma 34672, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    20. 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).
    21. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics;

    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:ags:aaea05:19128. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.