A Taste for Safer Beef? How Much Does Consumers’ Perceived Risk Influence Willingness to Pay for Country‐of‐Origin Labeled Beef

ABSTRACT Past studies have shown that country of origin labeling (COOL) affects consumers’ demand for food products. However, besides the rationale of ethnocentrism or the desire to support domestic farmers, the underlying motivation for such behavior is not well understood. This study assesses consumers’ preferences for imported and domestic beef through a choice experiment. We found that willingness to pay for country‐of‐origin labeled imported beefsteak is associated with (a) consumers’ perceptions of the categorical risk from consuming beef, (b) consumers’ risk aversion to risks from beef consumption, and (c) consumers’ perceptions of the food‐safety level of imported beef. Results from this study suggest that the advantage of domestic beef over imported beef can be partly explained by consumers’ risk handling behavior. [EconLit citations: Q130].

[1]  L. Zepeda,et al.  Consumer Risk Perceptions Toward Agricultural Biotechnology, Self‐Protection, and Food Demand: The Case of Milk in the United States , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[2]  B. Mennecke,et al.  U.S. Consumers' Valuation of Quality Attributes in Beef Products , 2011, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[3]  J. Loomis,et al.  What's to Know About Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation Studies? , 2011 .

[4]  David A. Hensher,et al.  A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit , 2003 .

[5]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[6]  Keith H. Coble,et al.  Risk Perceptions, Risk Preference, and Acceptance of Risky Food , 2005 .

[7]  T. Schroeder,et al.  Factors Impacting Food Safety Risk Perceptions , 2009 .

[8]  Kenneth E. Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2016 .

[9]  Patricia A. Champ,et al.  Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment , 2010, Land Economics.

[10]  T. Becker,et al.  Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: a framework for analysis , 2000 .

[11]  S. Henneberry,et al.  A Source-Differentiated Analysis of U.S. Meat Demand , 2007 .

[12]  T. Schroeder,et al.  Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks , 2004 .

[13]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit , 2007 .

[14]  Frode Alfnes,et al.  Stated preferences for imported and hormone-treated beef: application of a mixed logit model , 2004 .

[15]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias , 2009, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[16]  M. Thiene,et al.  Using Flexible Taste Distributions to Value Collective Reputation for Environmentally Friendly Production Methods , 2008 .

[17]  S E Hrudey,et al.  Socioeconomic Determinants of Health‐ and Food Safety‐Related Risk Perceptions , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[18]  James R. Northen,et al.  Quality attributes and quality cues Effective communication in the UK meat supply chain , 2000 .

[19]  John A. Bower,et al.  The importance of origin as a quality attribute for beef: results from a Scottish consumer survey , 2003 .

[20]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[21]  W. Adamowicz,et al.  Labelling Genetically Modified Food: Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Value of Information , 2005 .

[22]  T. Schroeder,et al.  Consumer Valuations of Beef Steak Food Safety Enhancement in Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the United States , 2009 .

[23]  Søren Bøye Olsen,et al.  Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods , 2009 .

[24]  Wuyang Hu,et al.  U.S. Consumers’ Preference and Willingness to Pay for Country-of-Origin-Labeled Beef Steak and Food Safety Enhancements , 2013 .

[25]  J. Louviere,et al.  Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation , 1998 .

[26]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  The Impact of "No Opinion" Response Options on Data Quality: Non-Attitude Reduction or an Invitation to Satisfice? , 2001 .

[27]  R. Hoffmann,et al.  Country of origin – a consumer perception perspective of fresh meat , 2000 .

[28]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation , 2014 .

[29]  M. Loureiro,et al.  A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability , 2007 .

[30]  K. Grunert.  Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand , 2005 .

[31]  B. Babcock,et al.  The Recent International and Regulatory Decisions about Geographical Indications , 2008 .

[32]  Jacques H. Trienekens,et al.  INNOVATION THROUGH (INTERNATIONAL) FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN DEVELOPMENT: A RESEARCH AGENDA , 2003 .

[33]  Matthew T.G. Meulenberg,et al.  A Note on Modeling Consumer Reactions to a Crisis: The Case of the Mad Cow Disease , 2002 .

[34]  I. Krinsky,et al.  On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities , 1986 .

[35]  Erik Meijer,et al.  Measuring Welfare Effects in Models with Random Coefficients , 2000 .

[36]  Jason P. Brown,et al.  Consumer Behavior, Public Policy, and Country-of-Origin Labeling , 2006 .