Consumers and processors of specialty meats continue to have different perceptions of food safety risk. This creates difficulties in formulating policy initiatives aimed at resolving these issues to enable marketing of specialty meats to move beyond niche markets. This study analyzes the risk perception gap, and provides an insight into methods by which perception issues can be resolved.Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety,

Nganje, William E.

Taban, Thomas

English

Research Papers in Economics

Food Safety Risk Perception Gap Between         Food Safety Risk Perception Gap Between        
Consumers and Processors of Specialty Meat Consumers and Processors of Specialty Meat
William E. Nganje and Thomas Taban
Authors are Assistant Professor and McNair Fellow at the
Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics
North Dakota State University
Paper Presented at the WCC-72 Annual Meeting
Las Vegas, Nevada
June 9-11, 2003 Outline Outline
  Food Safety Issues, Problem Statement,  Food Safety Issues, Problem Statement, 
and Objectives and Objectives
  Review of Relevant Literature Review of Relevant Literature
  Methodology and Data Methodology and Data
– – Multinomial  Multinomial Logit  Logit Model Model
– – Survey Procedure and Data Survey Procedure and Data
  Results Results
– – Survey Results and Risk Perception Gaps Survey Results and Risk Perception Gaps
– – Risk Perception Determinants and Impact of  Risk Perception Determinants and Impact of 
Consumption of Bison Consumption of Bison
  Conclusions and Discussion Conclusions and DiscussionConsumers Consumers’ ’ Top Food Safety  Top Food Safety 
Concerns  Concerns 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
F
a
t
s
 
&
 
C
h
o
l
e
s
t
e
r
o
l
M
i
c
r
o
b
i
a
l
 
F
o
o
d
P
o
i
s
o
n
i
n
g
 
P
e
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
r
e
s
i
d
u
e
s
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
 
&
A
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
s
S
a
l
t
 
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
H
o
r
m
o
n
e
s
 
&
a
n
t
i
b
i
o
t
i
c
s
S
u
g
a
r
 
c
o
n
t
e
n
tSource of Foodborne Illness Outbreaks (adapted  Source of Foodborne Illness Outbreaks (adapted 
from Julie Garden from Julie Garden- - Robinson) Robinson)
70%
20%
7% 3%
Foodservices 
Unknown
Processing
Plants
homesFood Safety Microbial Issues  Food Safety Microbial Issues 
  General Issues General Issues
– – Emerging pathogens are posing new food safety challenges. Emerging pathogens are posing new food safety challenges.
  CDC estimates there are about 250 CDC estimates there are about 250 foodborne foodborne pathogens  pathogens 
(e.g.  (e.g. E. E. coli coli 0157:H7, 0157:H7, listeria listeria, etc)  , etc) 
– – Major Major foodborne foodborne outbreaks outbreaks
  Each year  Each year known known pathogens cause:13.8 million illnesses,  pathogens cause:13.8 million illnesses, 
60,854 hospitalizations, and 1,809 deaths. 60,854 hospitalizations, and 1,809 deaths.
  Each year  Each year unknown unknown foodborne foodborne pathogens cause:62 million  pathogens cause:62 million 
illnesses, 263,000 hospitalizations, and 2,400 deaths. illnesses, 263,000 hospitalizations, and 2,400 deaths.
  Specific Issues with Specialty Meats Specific Issues with Specialty Meats
– – Unknown Pathogens and Specialty Meats Unknown Pathogens and Specialty Meats
  Limited documentation of pathogen species that may be      Limited documentation of pathogen species that may be     
associated with specialty meats (Li et al., 2002). associated with specialty meats (Li et al., 2002).
– – Demand for specialty meats is limited to niche markets     Demand for specialty meats is limited to niche markets    
  Food safety perception issues ( Food safety perception issues (Adu-Nyako and Thompson;
Wessells, Kline and Anderson; Schupp, Gillespie and Reed)
  Risk perception gap between consumers and food  Risk perception gap between consumers and food Viral Illnesses Hospitalization Deaths
Foodborne Illnesses, Hospitalization and deaths 
caused by known and unknown pathogens
Rotavirus 39,000 500 0
Norwalk like virus 9,200,000 20,000 0
Stovirus 39,000 125 0
Heptitis 4,170 90 4
Viral Subtotal 9,282,170 21,167 128
Known Pathogens 13,814,93 60,854 1809
Unknown Pathogens 62,000,000 263,000 3,400
Grand Total 76,000,00 323,000 5,200Problem Statement Problem Statement
 Studies show that consumers continue to 
resist specialty meats, and perceive them 
as somewhat unsafe while processors 
perceive them to be safe.
– The need to identify determinants of risk 
perception gap that limit demand for 
specialty meats to niche markets. Objective Objective
 This study uses a discrete choice 
experiments to elicit consumer and 
processor food safety risk 
perceptions of bison meat and 
analyze how risk perception gaps 
affect consumption away from the 
home and at home.Review of Relevant Literature 
  The Theories of food safety risk    The Theories of food safety risk   
perception  perception ( (Adu Adu- -Nyako Nyako and Thompson,1999). and Thompson,1999).
  Sociocultural Sociocultural and economic characteristics  and economic characteristics 
(income, age, gender, location, education) (income, age, gender, location, education)
  Personal health influences (friend or family  Personal health influences (friend or family 
member suffered from microbial food  member suffered from microbial food 
poisoning) poisoning)
  Perceived locus of control (perception on  Perceived locus of control (perception on 
ease to become ill) ease to become ill)
  Outrage or Unknown  Outrage or Unknown (Sandman, 2000) (Sandman, 2000)
 (TV, magazines, labels, etc..) (TV, magazines, labels, etc..)Survey Procedure and Data   Survey Procedure and Data  
  Developed a questionnaire (survey  Developed a questionnaire (survey 
instrument) to gather data on social  instrument) to gather data on social 
cultural characteristics, personal health  cultural characteristics, personal health 
influence, perceived loci of control, and  influence, perceived loci of control, and 
outrage.  outrage. 
  Two questionnaires were developed Two questionnaires were developed
– – Processors Processors
– – Consumers Consumers
  Administer survey instrument to  Administer survey instrument to 
consumers and processors in the  consumers and processors in the 
northern Plains States of ND, MN, SD,  northern Plains States of ND, MN, SD, 
and MT. and MT.Table 1. Summaries the distribution and properties of the data
Factors Variables Description Mean Standard Deviation
Consumers’ Responses (n=400)
Social and Cultural
Characteristics
City 1= North Dakota
2= South Dakota
3= Montana
4= Minnesota
1.3647 0.7812
Gender 1= Male
2= Female
1.4727 0.4998
Age 1= 18-25Years
2= 26-40
3= 41 +
23.198 8.764
Income 1= less than $20,000
2=$21,000- $40,000
3=$40,000+
1.630 0.765
Personal Health
Influence
Anybody ill from
food related illness
1= Yes
2= No
1.6138 0.49253
Anybody ill from
specialty meat
1= Yes
2= No
1.7871 0.4217
Safety of bison meat 1= Safe
2= Somewhat safe
3= Somewhat unsafe
1.4611 0.2110
Perceived Locus of
Control
Ease of falling sick
from consuming
bison prepared at
home
1= Very common
2= Somewhat common
3= Not very common
2.52 0.234
Ease of falling sick
from consuming
burgers prepared
away from home
1= Very common
2=Somewhat common
3= Not very common
2.59 0.221
Outrage/Awareness Awareness of food
safety risk
1= Very aware
2= Somewhat aware
3= Not aware
2.76 0.567
Awareness of safe
Handling
1= Very aware
2= Somewhat aware
3= Not aware
1.76 0.78
TV as a source of
information
1= Yes
2= otherwise
1.84 0.15
Magazines 1= Yes
2= otherwise
1.64 0.29
Labels 1= Yes
2= otherwise
1.21 0.11
Consumption Levels Consumption of
bison
1= Yes
2= No
1.079 0.013
Eat bison 1= Away from home
2= At home
3= Both
1.901 0.302Table 1 Cont.. Packers and Processors’ Responses (n=22)
Years in business 1=less than 4years
2=5-9 years
3=10-20
4= 20 +
3.14 2.03
Number of employees 1=1-2
2=3-10
3=11+
2.11 0.76
City 1= North Dakota
2= South Dakota
3= Montana
4= Minnesota
2.5 1.37
Sales Volume 1= less than $500,000
2= $500,000 - $2.5 M
3= $2.5 - $10.0 M
4= $10M plus
2.03 0.97
Price Weighted Price per Pound
of bison Burger
$1.43 $0.51
Safety 1 = Safe
2= Somewhat safe
3 = Somewhat unsafe
2.671 0.30
USDA
Inspected/Microbial
testing
1=Yes
2=No
1.32 0.33
Use food label 1=Yes
2=No
1.5 0.15
Had Recall 1=Yes
2= No
1.86 0.02
Awareness of microbial
hazards
1=Yes
2= No
1.16 0.12
Survey ResponsesSurvey Results Survey Results
  Personal Health Influence  Personal Health Influence 
  Perceived Locus of Control  Perceived Locus of Control 
  Outrage and Awareness   Outrage and Awareness  Figure 4. Food Safety Perception Gap  Figure 4. Food Safety Perception Gap 
Between Consumers and processors Between Consumers and processors
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
 
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
Safe Somewhat 
Safe
Somewhat 
unSafe
Consumers
ProcessorsFigure 5. Primary Source of  Figure 5. Primary Source of 
food Safety Information food Safety Information
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
TV Foof lables Magazines 
Series1Handling and Precautionary Practices
44.8
33.4
21.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
 
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
 
(
%
)
Very aware  Somewhat
aware 
Not awareMultinomial  Multinomial Logit Logit Results Results
  Consumers Consumers
– – Socialcultural Socialcultural/ Economic Characteristics and  / Economic Characteristics and 
Perceived Risk Perceived Risk
– – Personal Health Influence Characteristics  and  Personal Health Influence Characteristics  and 
Perceived Risk Perceived Risk
– – Perceived Locus of Control Characteristics and  Perceived Locus of Control Characteristics and 
Perceived Risk Perceived Risk
– – Outrage and Perceived Risk Outrage and Perceived Risk
  Processors Processors
  Risk Perception and Consumption of Bison  Risk Perception and Consumption of Bison 
Meat MeatTable 2.  Estimated Coefficients and Marginal Effects of Factors Affecting
Consumer’s Risk Perception
Coefficient Standard Error Cell Probability Variables
(n=400) (n=400)
Somewhat UnSafe
Social and Cultural Income -1.822 1.057 0.040
Characteristics Age 0.114 0.055 0.001
Education 2.177 1.711
City (location) 0.628 0.331 0.003
Gender 0.827 1.159
Personal Health Influence Anybody ill 8.828 1.442 0.095
Family member ill 0.855 0.05 0.005
Perceived Locus of ControlEase illness homeprep -1.581 0.667 0.018
Ease illness Awayprep -0.417 0.726
Outrage/Awareness Info TV 18.094 2.271 0.000
Info Magazines -2.58 1.843
Radio 2.076 4.283
Food labels -4.21 3.075
Trend in safety bison
meat
-0.852 0.691
Awareness of handling -1.957 0.87 0.002
Somewhat safe
Social and Cultural Income 0.131 0.158
Characteristics Age 1.616 0.016
Education 2.175 0.429 0.001
City (location) -0.228 0.159
Gender -0.508 0.248 0.004
Personal Health Influence Anybody ill 0.119 0.305
Family member ill 0.513 0.349 0.006
Perceived Locus of ControlEase illness homeprep -0.136 0.236
Ease illness Awayprep -0.609 0.288 0.034
Outrage/Awareness TV -0.948 0.557 0.009
Magazines 0.496 0.452
Radio 0.129 0.903
Food labels 0.903 0.681
Trend in safety bison
meat
-0.37 0.177 0.037
Awareness of handling 5.924 0.163 0.097
Ln L at Convergence 473.508
Cox and Snell R^2 0.635
Nayelkerke R^2 0.714
Model significance 0.000Table 4.  Estimated Coefficients and Marginal Effects of Factors Affecting
Processor’s Risk Perception
Coefficient Standard
Error
Probability Variables
(n=22) (n=22)
Somewhat Safe
Socio-cultural  &
Economic
Years in business 3.112 1.001 0.060
Characteristics Sales Volume 8.121 6.225
City (location) 0.988 0.751
Perceived Locus of
Control
Recall -4.128 1.042 0.091
USDA
Inspected/Microbial
testing
3.252 0.785 0.020
Awareness of
Microbial hazards
3.551 1.677 0.011
Food labels -0.457 0.526
Somewhat Unsafe
Socio-cultural  &
Economic
Years in business -2.031 0.188 0.019
Characteristics Sales Volume 1.066 2.011
City (location) -3.218 2.959
Perceived Locus of
Control
Recall 1.177 0.505 0.001
USDA
Inspected/Microbial
testing
-1.511 0.441 0.016
Awareness of
Microbial hazards
-0.336 0.255
Food labels -0.619 0.438
Ln L at Convergence 414.001
Cox and Snell R
2 0.432
Nayelkerke R
2 0.522
Model significance 0.001Table 3.  Estimated Coefficients and Marginal Effects of Factors Affecting
Consumption Away from Home and at Home
Coefficient Standard Error Cell Probability Variables
(n=400) (n=400)
Consumption of Bison at Home
Social and Cultural Income 0.593 0.195 0.002
Characteristics Age 0.027 0.018
Education 0.038 0.195
City (location) -0.109 0.169
Gender 0.979 0.303 0.003
Price -0.244 0.118 0.001
Personal Health Influence Anybody ill -0.163 0.037 0.015
Family member ill -0.223 0.424
Perceived Locus of Ease illness homeprep -0.459 0.297
Control Ease illness Awayprep -0.327 0.352
Outrage/Awareness Info TV -0.089 0.0112 0.000
Awareness of handling 4.112 1.023 0. 027
Food Safety Risks
Perception
Trend in food safety
risk
-0.241 0.244
Bison meat safety -1.640 0.478 0.062
Away Consumption
Social and Cultural Income 1.165 0.431 0.001
Characteristics Age 0.051 0.076
Education 0.375 0.429
City (location) -0.302 0.184
Gender 0.102 0.310
Price -0.189 0.0121 0.012
Personal Health Influence Anybody ill -0.236 0.038 0.001
Family member ill -0.426 0.044 0.014
Perceived Locus of ControlEase illness homeprep -0.191 0.308
Ease illness Awayprep -0.029 0.004 0.002
Outrage/Awareness TV -0.329 0.007 0.008
Awareness of handling 2.998 0.336 0.071
Food Safety Risk
Perception
Trend in food safety
risk
-0.100 0.249
Bison meat safety -1.282 0.486 0.102
Ln L at Convergence 477.74
Cox and Snell R^2 0.795
Nayelkerke R^2 0.848
Model significance 0.000Conclusions and Discussion Conclusions and Discussion
 Results indicate that a significant risk perception 
gap exit between consumers and processors
– Outrage among other factors account for this 
gap.  
 Results further show that perceived risk affects 
bison consumption away from home and at home. 
 Producers and processors of specialty meats will 
have to overcome risk perception issues to move 
their products beyond niche markets.Limitations and Areas for Further Research Limitations and Areas for Further Research
 Extending the study to other regions and 
increasing the sampling size.
 Extending the study to restaurants and other end 
users of specialty meats.  
 More explicit modeling out outrage.
 Extending the methodology to jointly model food 
safety risk perception and consumer choice of 
specialty meats. 

FOOD SAFETY RISK PERCEPTION GAP BETWEEN CONSUMERS AND PROCESSORS OF SPECIALTY MEAT

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics