[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaa115/116403.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumer Intentions Of Buying Poultry Meat Under Perceived Biological, Chemical Or Technological Risk In Finland

Author

Listed:
  • Heikkila, Jaakko
  • Pouta, Eija
  • Forsman-Hugg, Sari
  • Makela, Johanna
Abstract
The study focuses on various types of food safety risks: biological (zoonoses), chemical (chemical treatment of the meat) and technological (use of genetically modified feed). The emphasis was on how the perceived risks affect the purchase intentions in the case of broiler meat. In the case of each risk products the attitude-level variables had importance in explaining the buying intentions. The heterogeneity of the respondents regarding the purchase intentions of risk products was analysed by latent class logistic regression that included all three risk products. About 60% of the respondents belonged to the group of risk avoiders in which the purchase intention of risk food was significantly lower than in the second group of risk neutrals in which 64% of the respondents had the intention to use the broiler despite the possible increase in risk levels. Especially chemical treatment reduced the willingness to purchase. Among the risk avoiders the impact of zoonoses was smaller than the impact of GM-feed. Risk neutrals felt the risk of zoonoses as more significant than GM feed.

Suggested Citation

  • Heikkila, Jaakko & Pouta, Eija & Forsman-Hugg, Sari & Makela, Johanna, 2010. "Consumer Intentions Of Buying Poultry Meat Under Perceived Biological, Chemical Or Technological Risk In Finland," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116403, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaa115:116403
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.116403
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/116403/files/3B-1_Heikkil__Pouta_Hugg_M_kel_.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.116403?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. Mario Mazzocchi & Gianluca Stefani & Spencer J. Henson, 2004. "Consumer Welfare and the Loss Induced by Withholding Information: The Case of BSE in Italy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 41-58, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Kalogeras, Nikos & Pennings, Joost M.E. & van Ittersum, Koert, 2008. "Consumer Food Safety Risk Attitudes and Perceptions Over Time: The Case of BSE Crisis," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44156, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Jayson L. Lusk & Keith H. Coble, 2005. "Risk Perceptions, Risk Preference, and Acceptance of Risky Food," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 393-405.
    5. Nicholas E. Piggott & Thomas L. Marsh, 2004. "Does Food Safety Information Impact U.S. Meat Demand?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 154-174.
    6. Latouche, K. & Rainelli, P. & Vermersch, D., 1998. "Food safety issues and the BSE scare: some lessons from the French case," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 347-356, October.
    7. Cook, A. J. & Kerr, G. N. & Moore, K., 2002. "Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 557-572, October.
    8. Mario Mazzocchi & Alexandra Lobb & W. Bruce Traill & Alessio Cavicchi, 2008. "Food Scares and Trust: A European Study," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 2-24, February.
    9. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Frode Alfnes, 2004. "Stated preferences for imported and hormone-treated beef: application of a mixed logit model," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(1), pages 19-37, March.
    12. Ulrich Enneking, 2004. "Willingness-to-pay for safety improvements in the German meat sector: the case of the Q&S label," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(2), pages 205-223, June.
    13. Travisi, Chiara Maria & Nijkamp, Peter, 2008. "Valuing environmental and health risk in agriculture: A choice experiment approach to pesticides in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 598-607, November.
    14. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2007. "A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 496-514, August.
    15. Jérôme Adda, 2007. "Behavior towards health risks: An empirical study using the “Mad Cow” crisis as an experiment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 285-305, December.
    16. James K. Hammitt & Kevin Haninger, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Food Safety: Sensitivity to Duration and Severity of Illness," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1170-1175.
    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. Heikkila, Jaakko & Pouta, Eija & Forsman-Hugg, Sari & Makela, Johanna, 2011. "Consumer risk perceptions of zoonotic, chemical and gm risks: the case of poultry purchase intentions in Finland," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114551, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Jaakko Heikkilä & Eija Pouta & Sari Forsman-Hugg & Johanna Mäkelä, 2013. "Heterogeneous Risk Perceptions: The Case of Poultry Meat Purchase Intentions in Finland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    3. Luigi Cembalo & Daniela Caso & Valentina Carfora & Francesco Caracciolo & Alessia Lombardi & Gianni Cicia, 2019. "The “Land of Fires” Toxic Waste Scandal and Its Effect on Consumer Food Choices," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, January.
    4. Maria Aguiar Fontes & Eric Giraud-Héraud & Alexandra Seabra Pinto, 2013. "Consumers' behaviour towards food safety: A litterature review," Working Papers hal-00912476, HAL.
    5. Wang, Shuxian & Wu, Linhai & Zhu, Dian & Wang, Hongsha & Xu, Lingling, 2014. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food attributes: The case of pork," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 165639, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Daniele Moro & Mario Veneziani & Paolo Sckokai & Elena Castellari, 2015. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Catechin‐enriched Yogurt: Evidence from a Stated Choice Experiment," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 243-258, April.
    7. Sckokai, Paolo & Veneziani, Mario & Moro, Daniele & Castellari, Elena, 2014. "Consumer willingness to pay for food safety: the case of mycotoxins in milk," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-19, April.
    8. Novoselova, Tatiana A. & van der Lans, Ivo A.C.M. & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & Huirne, Ruud B.M., 2005. "Consumer Acceptance of GM Applications in the Pork Production Chain: A Choice Modelling Approach," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24527, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    10. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    11. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    12. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2007. "A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 496-514, August.
    13. Rosa Ferrer Zarzuela & Helena Perrone, 2017. "Consumers’ costly responses to product-harm crises," Economics Working Papers 1571, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    14. Alfnes, Frode & Steine, Gro, 2005. "None-of-These Bias in Stated Choice Experiments," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24761, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Olynk Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David L. & Foster, Kenneth A., 2013. "Consumer Preferences for Verified Pork-Rearing Practices in the Production of Ham Products," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-21.
    16. 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.
    17. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan & Wossink, Ada, 2012. "Using best–worst scaling to explore perceptions of relative responsibility for ensuring food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 661-670.
    18. Jin, Hyun Joung & Skripnitchenko, Anatoliy & Koo, Won W., 2004. "The Effects Of The Bse Outbreak In The United States On The Beef And Cattle Industry," Special Reports 23072, North Dakota State University, Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies.
    19. Umberger, Wendy J. & Calkins, Chris R., 2008. "Korean Consumers’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Domestic versus U.S. and Australian Beef with Alternative Attributes," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6172, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Karen E. Lewis & Carola Grebitus & Gregory Colson & Wuyang Hu, 2017. "German and British Consumer Willingness to Pay for Beef Labeled with Food Safety Attributes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 451-470, June.

    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:eaa115:116403. 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/eaaeeea.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.