4.4 Article

Consumers' Preferences for Nanotechnology in Food Packaging: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Journal

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
Volume 66, Issue 2, Pages 259-279

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1477-9552.12088

Keywords

Animal welfare; discrete choice experiments; grids; health risks; nanosensors; nanotechnology; random parameter logit; UK

Funding

  1. Rural Economy and Land Use Programme of the UK Research Councils [RES-229-31-0003]
  2. Department of Economics at the University of Manchester

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We examine consumers' preferences for chickens under different levels of foodborne health risk, animal welfare and pric attributes. We analyse how their preferences vary according to the risk reduction method. Our comparison is between risk reductions achieved by conventional improvements in the meat supply chain system (e.g. more stringent regulations and inspection regimes), and risk reductions achieved by food packaging nanosensors. Our comparison uses a two-treatment discrete choice experiment in which each treatment sample is only presented with one of the risk reductions: either nanotechnology or conventional methods. We also investigate heterogeneity in preferences for two consumer groups: (i) consumers who usually buy conventional raw, whole chickens, and (ii) consumers who usually buy niche, welfare-improved chickens, such as free-range and organic. Our results show evidence of heterogeneity in preferences and willingness- to-pay values of the both consumer groups. We find that consumers, on average, prefer raw, whole chicken with a lower risk of food poisoning, better animal welfare, and lower costs, regardless of the presence of nanosensors. Although consumers in general showed no strong preferences towards or resistance to nanotechnology, those who buy chickens with better animal welfare, on average, showed higher WTP for food risk reduction and animal welfare relative to conventional chicken consumers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available