IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea10/61642.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who Is Most Responsible For Ensuring The Meat We Eat Is Safe?

Author

Listed:
  • Erdem, Seda
  • Rigby, Dan
  • Wossink, Ada

Abstract

We report results of an analysis of the attribution of relative responsibility across the stages of the food chain for ensuring food safety. Specifically, we identify perceptions of the share of the overall responsibility that each stage in the food chain has to ensure that the meat people cook and eat at home does not cause them to become ill. Results are reported for two groups of stakeholders: consumers and farmers, and for two types of meat: chicken and beef. The stakeholders’ opinions regarding the relative degrees of responsibility of the sequential food chain stages (feed supplier, farmer, livestock transportation, abattoir,… consumer) are elicited via surveys using the Maximum Difference technique (best-worst scaling). The data are analyzed using mixed logit models estimated via Bayesian techniques. We find that consumers and farmers both tend to allocate a relatively low share of responsibility to their own food safety role. So, consumers tend to think farmers are more responsible for ensuring meat safety than farmers do. Similarly, farmers tend to think consumers have a greater degree of responsibility than consumers themselves believe. Thus, there is a consistent pattern of downplaying the extent of one’s own responsibility. Further, consumers tend to allocate the highest shares of responsibility to the middle stages of the meat food chain. This contrasts with farmers who tend to allocate the highest shares of responsibility to the latter stages of the chain towards consumers, believing that the earlier stages of the chain (until the livestock arrive at the abattoir) have a relatively low share of responsibility. The analysis is currently being extended to a third group of food chain actors: abattoir workers.

Suggested Citation

  • Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan & Wossink, Ada, 2010. "Who Is Most Responsible For Ensuring The Meat We Eat Is Safe?," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61642, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea10:61642
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.61642
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/61642/files/2010AAEA_Resp.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.61642?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Lingling Xu & Xixi Yang & Linhai Wu, 2019. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Imported Milk: Based on Shanghai, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-16, December.
    2. C. Neumann da Cunha & H. Dewes & Marcos Vinícius Araujo, 2019. "Consumer preferences using the method BW Score: A study of Brazilian consumer's perception," Post-Print hal-02885655, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; Institutional and Behavioral Economics; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis

    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:aaea10:61642. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.