Abstract
The motivation for the present study is to understand food choice in relation to animal food production and to study how preferences are influenced by information. To do this, we carried out a choice experiment. In the analysis, we focus on chickens reared indoors and outdoors and chicken labelled campylobacter-free versus non-labelled chicken. The results suggest that there is a positive willingness to pay (WTP) both for chicken reared outdoors and for campylobacter-free labelled chicken. Information about rearing methods resulted in a higher WTP for chicken reared outdoors, while information about campylobacter had both positive and negative effects on respondents’ WTP. The highest increase in WTP for campylobacter-free labelled chicken was found for one of the high risk groups, individuals with poor kitchen hygiene.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
According to Korsgaard et al. (2005), European and American studies have estimated that the actual numbers of infections are 5–20 times higher than the number of recorded cases. The Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries estimates the actual number of cases to be 10–15 times higher than the registered number (www.fvm.dk); in Taenk and Test (2001), the estimate is up to 25 times higher.
The design was created using the %ChoicEff macro in SAS. The macro searches the candidates for an efficient experimental design—a design in which the variances of the parameter estimates are minimized, given an assumed parameter vector—in this case the parameter vector was assumed to be zero (Kuhfeld 2009).
The blocks were created using the %MktBlock macro in SAS. The macro tries to create a blocking factor that is uncorrelated with every attribute of every alternative. In other words, the macro is trying to optimally add one additional factor, a blocking factor, to the design. It is trying to make a factor that is orthogonal to all of the attributes of all of the alternatives (Kuhfeld 2009).
We assume that respondents perceive outdoor production as superior to indoor production—follow-up questions showed that only 5% of the respondents perceived indoor to be superior to outdoor production—these respondents were allowed to choose the dominated alternatives without being excluded from the sample, but the data showed that they did not choose the dominated alternative, so the 121 respondents who did choose the dominated alternative all failed the consistency test; i.e., they did not show utility maximizing behaviour.
The test was applied to the first part of the sample, i.e., to the choice sets before information was given, and tests whether the parameter vectors and scale factors are equal for the two groups of individuals, A and B, i.e., β A = β B and σ A = σ B.
This implies that all parameters are estimated in one “grand” model.
In 2008, DKK 10 ∼EUR 1.34.
When asked about the production method, about 80% of both the men and women thought that chickens reared outdoors enjoyed a higher welfare level, whereas 8% of men did not think so. The corresponding figure for women was 5%. The difference in WTP for men and women is thus likely to emanate from the fact that fewer men considered outdoor rearing to be better from an animal welfare point of view, as well as from the fact that more women stated that they did not know whether outdoor rearing was better or not.
Note that this implies that the level of the WTP estimates for any household category would change if we changed the characteristics of the reference person. However, the difference in WTP between different household categories would be unaffected.
That is, for a woman with the lowest level of education in the lowest income group, without children, living in the rural part of Denmark and aged under 50 years.
For men, the difference in the WTP, before and after receiving information, was insignificant.
Price information for chicken reared indoors was gathered from adverts in Danish newspapers in August 2008. The price premium is based on information from Gfk’s consumer panel for the period 2002–2006.
References
Banerjee, A., & Solomon, B. D. (2003). Eco-labeling for energy efficiency and sustainability: a meta-evaluation of US programs. Energy Policy, 31, 109–123.
Bennett, R. M. (1996). CVM, dichotomous choice. Willingness-to-pay measures of public support for farm animal legislation. Veterinary Record, 139, 320–321.
Bennett, R. M., & Blaney, R. J. P. (2003). Estimating the benefits of farm animal welfare legislation using the contingent valuation method. Agricultural Economics, 29, 85–98.
Brown, D. J., & Schrader, L. F. (1990). Cholesterol information and shell egg consumption. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72, 548–555.
Burgess, D., Hutchinson, W. G., McCallion, T., & Scarpa, R. (2004). CVM, paired comparisons. Choice rationality in stated preference methods applied to farm animal welfare improvements. Applied Environmental Economics Conference 2004, 26 March, The Royal Society
Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., & Lagerkvist, C.-J. (2005a). Consumer preferences for food product quality attributes from Swedish agriculture. Ambio, 34, 366–370.
Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., & Lagerkvist, C.-J. (2005b). Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Economics Letters, 89, 147–152.
CIWF Trust. (2004). Practical alternatives to the factory farming of chickens. Case studies from across the European Union, 2004. ISBN 1900156326.
Dransfield, E., Ngapo, T. M., Nielsen, N. A., Bredahl, L., Sjödén, P. O., Magnusson, M., et al. (2005). Consumer choice and suggested price for pork as influenced by its appearance, taste and information concerning country of origin and organic pig production. Meat Science, 69, 61–70.
Forster, W., & Just, R. E. (1989). Measuring welfare effects of product contamination with consumer uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 17, 266–283.
Fox, J. A., Hayes, D. J., & 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, 75–95.
Giamalva, J. N., Redfern, M., & Bailey, W. C. (1998). Dietitians employed by health care facilities preferred a HACCP system over irradiation or chemical rinses for reducing risk of foodborne disease. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 98, 885–888.
Goldberg, I., & Roosen, J. (2007). Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: a comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 34, 123–144.
Grankvist, G., Dahlstrand, U., & Biel, A. (2004). The impact of environmental labelling on consumer preference: negative vs positive labels. Journal of Consumer Policy, 27, 213–230.
Graversen, J. (2003). Analyse af den danske slagtekyllingesektor. Report no. 157. Food and Resource Economics Institute. In Danish.
Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.) New York: Prentice-Hall.
Greene, W. H., & Hensher, D. A. (2007). Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit. Transportation Research Part E, 43(5), 610–623.
Haaijer, R., Kamakura, W., & Wedel, M. (2001). The "no-choice" alternative in conjoint choice experiments. International Journal of Market Research, 43, 93–106.
Hadden, S. G. (1986). Read the label: reducing risk by providing information. Boulder: Westview.
Hanemann, M. W., & Kanninen, B. (1999). The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. In I. J. Bateman & K. G. Willis (Eds.), Valuing environmental preferences—theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries (pp. 302–441). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harrison, R. (1964). Animal machines: the factory farming industry. London: Vincent Stuart.
Hayes, D. J., Shogren, J. F., Shin, S. Y., & Kliebenstein, J. B. (1995). Valuing food safety in experimental auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77, 40–53.
Hess, S., Bolduc, D., & Polak, J. W. (2006). Random Covariance Heterogeneity in Discrete Choice Models, paper presented at the 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., January 2006.
Hobbs, J. E., Bailey, D., Dickinson, D. L., & Haghiri, M. (2005). Traceability in the Canadian red meat sector: do consumers care? Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53, 47–65.
Huffman, W. E., Rousu, M., Shogren, J. F., & Tegene, A. (2007). The effects of prior beliefs and learning on consumers’ acceptance of genetically modified foods. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 63, 193–206.
Kontoleon, A., & Yabe, M. (2003). Assessing the impacts of alternative 'Opt-out' formats in choice experiment studies: consumer preferences for genetically modified content and production information in food. Journal of Agricultural Policy Research, 5, 1–43.
Korsgaard, H., Wegner, H. C., & Helms, M. (2005). Samfundsomkostninger forbundet med zoonotiske Salmonella- og andre fødevarebårne bakterielle infektioner i Danmark. Ugeskrift for læger, februar 2005, 760–763.
Kuhfeld, W. (2009). Marketing research methods in SAS. Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint and Graphical Techniques. SAS 9.2 Edition. SAS Institute Inc.,
Lagerkvist, C.-J., Carlsson, F., & Viske, D. (2006). Swedish consumer preferences for animal welfare and biotech: a choice experiment. AgBioForum, 9, 51–58.
Lusk, J., Nilsson, T., & Foster, K. (2007). Public preferences and private choices: effect of altruism and free riding on demand for environmentally certified pork. Environmental and Resource Economics, 36, 499–521.
Magat, W., & Viscusi, W. K. (1992). Informational approaches to regulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Meuwissen, M. P. M., & van der Lans, I. A. (2004). Trade-offs between consumer concerns: an application for pork production, Paper presented at the 84th EAAE Seminar, Food Safety in a Dynamic World, Zeist, The Netherlands, 8–11 February 2004 edn
Morris, L. A., Mazis, M. B., & Barofsky, I. (Eds.). (1980). Product labeling and health risks. Banbury Report 6. Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Nayga, R. M. J. (1996). Sociodemographic influences on consumer concern for food safety: the case of irradiation, antibiotics, hormones, and pesticides. Review of Agricultural Economics, 18, 467–475.
Nayga R., Poghosyan A., & Nichols, J. (2002). Consumer Willingness to Pay for Irradiated Food. Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University.
Rousu, M. C., & Shogren, J. F. (2006). Valuing conflicting public information about a new technology: the case of irradiated foods. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 31, 642–652.
Ruby, M. C., Johnson, F. R., & Mathews, K. E. (1998). Assessing opt-out formats for discrete-choice stated preferences: results from a saltwater angling survey, American Agricultural Economics Association, 1998 Annual meeting, August 2–5, Salt Lake City, UT edn.
Smith, M. E., van Ravensway, E. O., & Thompson, S. R. (1988). Sales loss determination in food contamination incidents: an application to milk bans in Hawaii. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 70, 513–520.
Swait, J., & Louviere, J. (1993). The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 305–314.
Taenk & Test (2001). Campylobacter or animal welfare. Magazine published by the Danish Consumer Council, Taenk and Test, April 2001.
Teisl, M. F., Bockstael, N. E., & Levy, A. (2001). Measuring the welfare effects of nutrition information. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83, 133–149.
Train, K. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank two anonymous referees and the editor for helpful comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank Tove Christensen for contributing to the questionnaire.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mørkbak, M.R., Nordström, J. The Impact of Information on Consumer Preferences for Different Animal Food Production Methods. J Consum Policy 32, 313–331 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-009-9106-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-009-9106-9