Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:57:43.399Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer Valuation of Food Safety: The Case of Postharvest Processed Oysters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

David M. Bruner ,
William L. Huth ,
David M. McEvoy  and
O. Ashton Morgan
David M. Bruner
Affiliation:
Department of Economics at Appalachian State University
William L. Huth
Affiliation:
Department of Marketing and Economics at University of West Florida
David M. McEvoy
Affiliation:
Department of Economics at Appalachian State University
O. Ashton Morgan*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics at Appalachian State University
*
Correspondence: Department of Economics, 3094 Raley Hall, 416 Howard Street, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC 28607, Telephone +1.828.262.2927, Email morganoa@appstate.edu.
Get access

Abstract

Consumers’ willingness to pay for postharvest-processed (PHP) raw oysters—oysters without health risks—is studied in experimental auction markets. The experimental design decomposes the effects of taste, objective risk information, and information on four PHP technologies on consumer 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, and the premium persists after objective information on risk and processing technologies is provided. The results are robust across PHP technologies.

Keywords

consumer perceptionsexperimental auction marketfood safetyoystersrisk preference elicitation
Type
Research Article
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , August 2014 , pp. 300 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alfnes, F., and Rickertsen, K. 2003. “European Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for U.S. Beef in Experimental Auction Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(2): 396–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernard, J.C., and Bernard, D.J. 2009. “What Is It about Organic Milk? An Experimental Analysis.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(3): 826–836.Google Scholar
Combris, P., Bazoche, P., Giraud-Heraud, E., and Issanchou, S. 2009. “Food Choices: What Do We Learn from Combining Sensory and Economic Experiments?” Food Quality and Preference 20(8): 550–557.Google Scholar
Corrigan, J.R., Drichoutis, A.C., Lusk, J.L., Nayga, R.M. Jr., and Rousu, M.C. 2012. “Repeated Rounds with Price Feedback in Experimental Auction Valuation: An Adversarial Collaboration.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 94(1): 97–115.Google Scholar
Dickinson, D.L., and Bailey, D. 2002. “Meat Traceability: Are U.S. Consumers Willing to Pay for It?” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 27(2): 348–364.Google Scholar
Fox, J.A. 1995. “Determinants of Consumer Acceptability of Bovine Somatotropin.” Review of Agricultural Economics 17(1): 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J.A., Buhr, B.L., Shogren, J.F., Kliebenstein, J.B., and Hayes, D.J. 1995. “A Comparison of Preferences for Pork Sandwiches Produced from Animals with and without Somatotropin Administration.” Journal of Animal Science 73(4): 1048–1054.Google Scholar
Fox, J.A., Hayes, D.J., Kliebenstein, J., and Shogren, J.F. 1994. “Consumer Acceptability of Milk from Cows Treated with Bovine Somatotropin.” Journal of Dairy Science 77(3): 703–707.Google Scholar
Fox, J.A., Hayes, D.J., and Shogren, J.F. 2002. “Consumer Preferences for Food Irradiation: How Favorable and Unfavorable Descriptions Affect Preferences for Irradiated Pork in Experimental Auctions.” The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 24(1): 75–95.Google Scholar
Hayes, D.J., Fox, J.A., and Shogren, J.F. 2002. “Experts and Activists: How Information Affects the Demand for Food Irradiation.” Food Policy 27(2): 185–193.Google Scholar
Hayes, D.J., Shogren, J.F., Shin, S.Y., and Kliebenstein, J.B. 1995. “Valuing Food Safety in Experimental Auction Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77(1): 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hlady, G.W., and Klontz, K.C. 1996. “The Epidemiology of Vibrio Infections in Florida, 1981–1993.” The Journal of Infectious Diseases 173(5): 1176–1183.Google Scholar
Hoffman, E., Menkhaus, D., Chakravarit, D., Field, R., and Whipple, G. 1993. “Using Laboratory Experimental Auctions in Marketing Research: A Case Study of New Packaging for Fresh Beef.” Marketing Science 12(3): 318–338.Google Scholar
Holt, C.A., and Laury, S.K. 2002. “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects.” American Economic Review 92(5): 1644–1655.Google Scholar
Huffman, W.E., Rousu, M., Shogren, J.F., and Tegene, A. 2007. “The Effects of Prior Beliefs and Learning on Consumers’ Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 63(1): 193–206.Google Scholar
Interstate Shellfish and Sanitation Conference. 2011. “ Vibrio vulnificus Illness Review Subcommittee Report, Appendix A.” Columbia, SC.Google Scholar
Kagel, J.H., and Levin, D. 1993. “Independent Private Value Auctions: Bidder Behavior in First-, Second-, and Third-price Auctions with Varying Numbers of Bidders.” The Economic Journal 103(419): 868–879.Google Scholar
Lange, C., Martin, C., Chabanet, C., Combris, P., and Issanchou, S. 2002. “Impact of the Information Provided to Consumers on their Willingness to Pay for Champagne: Comparison with Hedonic Scores.” Food Quality and Preference 13(7/8): 597–608.Google Scholar
List, J.A. 2003. “Using Random nth Price Auctions to Value Non-market Goods and Services.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 23(2): 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L. 2003. “Using Experimental Auctions for Marketing Applications: A Discussion.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 35(2): 349–360.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Coble, K.H. 2005. “Risk Perceptions, Risk Preference, and Acceptance of Risky Food.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(2): 393–405.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., Feldkamp, T., and Schroeder, T.C. 2004. “Experimental Auction Procedure: Impact on Valuation of Quality Differentiated Goods.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(2): 389–405.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., House, L.O., Valli, C., Jaeger, S.R., Moore, M., Morrow, J.L., and Traill, W.B. 2004. “The 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 31(2): 179–204.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Shogren, J.F. 2007. Experimental Auctions: Methods and Applications in Economic and Marketing Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marette, S., Roosen, J., Bieberstein, A., Blanchemanche, S., and Vandermoere, F. 2009. “Impact of Environmental, Societal, and Health Information on Consumers’ Choices for Nanofood.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 7(2): 1–25.Google Scholar
Mead, P.S., Slutsker, L., Dietz, V., McCaig, L.F., Bresee, J.S., Shapiro, C., Griffin, P.M., and Tauxe, R.V. 1999. “Food-related Illness and Death in the United States.” Emerging Infectious Diseases 5(5): 607–625.Google Scholar
Melton, B.E., Huffman, W.E., Shogren, J.F., and Fox, J.A. 1996. “Consumer Preferences for Fresh Food Items with Multiple Quality Attributes: Evidence from an Experimental Auction of Pork Chops.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78(4): 916–923.Google Scholar
Morgan, O.A., Martin, G., and Huth, W. 2009. “Oyster Demand Adjustments to Counter-information and Source Treatments in Response to Vibrio vulnificus.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 41(3): 683–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalley, L., Hudson, D., and Parkhurst, G. 2006. “Consistency of Consumer Valuation under Different Information Sets: An Experimental Auction with Sweet Potatoes.” Journal of Food Distribution Research 37(3): 60–71.Google Scholar
Napolitano, F., Pacelli, C., Girolami, A., and Braghieri, A. 2008. “Effect of Information about Animal Welfare on Consumer Willingness to Pay for Yogurt.” American Dairy Science Association 91(3): 910–917.Google Scholar
Nayga, R.M. Jr., Woodward, R., and Aiew, W. 2006. “Willingness to Pay for Reduced Risk of Foodborne Illness: A Nonhypothetical Field Experiment.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 54(4): 461–475.Google Scholar
Noussair, C., Robin, S., and Ruffieux, B. 2004. “Do Consumers Really Refuse to Buy Genetically Modified Food?” The Economic Journal 114(Jan): 102–120.Google Scholar
Otwell, S., Garrido, L., Garrido, V., and Sims, C. 2011. “Assessment Studies for Post-harvest (PHP) Oysters: Part 1. Consumer and Expert Sensory Assessments.” Report to the Interstate Shellfish and Sanitation Conference, Food Science and Nutrition Department, University of Florida.Google Scholar
Roosen, J., Hennessy, D.A., Fox, J.A., and Schreiber, A. 1998. “Consumers’ Valuation of Insecticide Use Restrictions: An Application to Apples.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 23(2): 367–384.Google Scholar
Rousu, M., Huffman, W.E., Shogren, J.F., and Tegene, A. 2007. “Effects and Value of Verifiable Information in a Controversial Market: Evidence from Lab Auctions of Genetically Modified Foods.” Economic Inquiry 45(3): 409–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousu, M., and Shogren, J.F. 2006. “Valuing Conflicting Public Information about a New Technology: A Case of Irradiated Foods.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 31(3): 642–652.Google Scholar
Ruström, E.E. 1998. “Home-grown Values and Incentive Compatible Auction Design.” International Journal of Game Theory 27(3): 427–441.Google Scholar
Scallan, E., Hoekstra, R.M., Angulo, F.J., Tauxe, R.V., Widdowson, M., Roy, S.L., Jones, J.L., and Griffin, P.M. 2011. “Foodborne Illness Acquired in the United States—Major Pathogens.” Emerging Infectious Diseases 17(1): 7–15.Google Scholar
Shapiro, R.L., Altekruse, S., Hutwanger, L., Bishop, R., Hammond, R., Wilson, S., Ray, B., Thompson, S., Tauxe, R.V., and Griffin, P.M. 1998. “The Role of Gulf Coast Oysters Harvested in Warmer Months in Vibrio vulnificus Infection in the United States, 1988–1996.” Journal of Infectious Diseases 178(3): 752–759.Google Scholar
Shogren, J.F., Fox, J.A., Hayes, D.J., and Roosen, J. 1999. “Observed Choices for Food Safety in Retail, Survey, and Auction Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81(5): 1192–1199.Google Scholar
Shogren, J.F., Margolis, M., Koo, C., and List, J.A. 2001. “A Random nth-price Auction.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 46(4): 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldridge, J.M. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar