Estimating the Demand for Risk Reduction from Foodborne Pathogens

Abstract

Food manufacturers are currently allowed to use innovative technologies such as irradiation and steam-pasteurization to reduce the risk from foodborne pathogens in meat processing. Despite scientific evidence of the effectiveness and safety of irradiation, meat processors and retailers have been slow to market irradiated beef products due to uncertainty about consumer acceptance and willingness to pay. Factors influencing consumer demand for new food technologies provide useful information for beef processors and retailers. The objective of this study was therefore to examine the demand for risk reduction from foodborne pathogens using data from a contingent valuation survey with 3000 households in eight different states (CO, NE, KA, OK, IA, MO, AR and WY). The analysis focused on the value of reduced risk from Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella in ground beef consumption. In this context the study explored: (a) median willingness to pay (WTP) for risk reduction from alternative technologies (irradiation and steam-pasteurization); (b) whether private protective action (care in cooking and handling) influences WTP for irradiation or pasteurization; (c) whether “who” is at risk (adults or children) influences preferences; and (d) whether preferences for risk reduction vary with the severity of the risk. Respondents were on average willing to pay a price premium of 26 cents/lb for safer (irradiated or steam-pasteurized) ground beef. WTP amounts were influenced by private protective actions; the results indicate that trade-offs exist between public and private risk reduction. WTP was not significantly related to “who” is at risk; households with children did not place higher WTP amounts for safer (irradiated or steam-pasteurized) ground beef. The results regarding the sensitivity of WTP to the magnitude of the risk reduction were ambiguous. WTP was insensitive to scope between a 9 in 10,000 and a 7 in 10,000 risk reduction. However, WTP was significantly related to the magnitude of the risk reduction between a 3 in 10,000 and 2 in 10,000 risk reduction, although it varied less than proportionately to the risk increment.