Progress 05/15/06 to 09/30/11
Outputs
OUTPUTS: We use data obtained from a national surveys to estimate consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for reductions in the probability of buying products contaminated with pathogens that cause foodborne pathoges and to estimate consumer WTP for vaccines designed to prevent illness from foodborne pathogens. We then use these estimates and secondary data on the U.S. beef market to project the possible impacts of such a vaccine on the participants in the U.S. market for beef. The surveys generating the data used to estimate consumer WTP feature hypothetical stated-choice experiments in which respondents were offered an opportunity to purchase either food products that were either enhanced in terms of safety or a vaccine against foodborne pathogens. The experimental design randomly assigned various combinations of features for each product (e.g., type of pathogen, type of food, type and degree of safety enhancement for the food products and, e.g., the duration of effectiveness for the vaccine) as well as randomly assigned the price of each product. Survey questions also asked individuals to provide their perceptions about the likelihood of becoming ill before or after the use of the improved food product and the vaccine. Statistical analyses that simultaneously modeled the respondents' choices and changes in risk perception provide a means to assess the value consumers assign to reductions in perceived risk accomplished through improved products and vaccines. A novel methodological contribution of the work is ensuring that the statistical analyses coherently accommodate the unobserved aspects of respondents' decision making criteria that impact both product choice and changes in risk perception. To assess how a vaccine might impact the market for beef, we derive and calibrate a partial-equilibrium model of the U.S. beef market using parameters for consumer vaccine uptake from stated-preference work under an array of assumptions concerning industry moral hazard, consumer awareness and alternative preventative effort exercised by consumers. We simulate three scenarios in the U.S. beef sector: the introduction of a vaccine, the tightening of pathogen standards for beef production and the simultaneous introduction of both vaccinations and tighter standards. Results of the work were disseminated in three peer-reviewed academic journals, as a proceedings article, and as selected papers presented at six distinct professional conferences. Furthermore, the work was discussed in at least one popular press outlet and in one governmental podcast. PARTICIPANTS: Mario F. Teisl, Professor, Department of Resource Economics and Policy, University of Maine and of the University of Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Stephan Marette, UMR Economie Publique, INRA-AgroParisTech, 78850 Grignon, France. TARGET AUDIENCES: Policy staff, US Department of Health and Human Services (CDC and FDA) and US Department of Agriculture PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.
Impacts
We provide improved estimates of how much consumers value reductions in the probability of suffering foodborne illness and how large this value is when summed up across the U.S. population. For example, our estimate for a 10% reduction in the probability of E. coli hamburger contamination in retail markets is 32% smaller than USDA's current estimate for perfectly eradicating all sources of E. coli associated with foodborne illness. Furthermore, we find that consumers don't take promised reductions of the probability of contaminated food at face value. In general, consumers' perceived changes in the probability of getting ill are substantially smaller than the promised reductions in the probability that food items available in the market are contaminated. We also provide estimates of consumer WTP for various formulations of vaccines that could provide protection against foodborne illness. For example, we find that the average consumer would be willing to pay between $42 and $50 for a single-year oral vaccine that protects against foodborne illness caused by E. coli pathogens. However, even if the vaccine were made available free of charge, 27% to 30% of respondents would choose not to become vaccinated. When we combine the vaccine uptake model with a partial equilibrium model of the U.S. beef sector, and simulate the introduction of a voluntary consumer vaccine against E. coli, we find that the vaccine's introduction stimulates demand for beef by removing the threat of illness for consumers who choose vaccination. Winners from a vaccine introduction include consumers who choose to become vaccinate, who benefit from a lower probability of illness, and beef suppliers, who enjoy a higher price without additional costs. Losers from a vaccine introduction include consumers who do not become vaccinated, either due to ignorance or choice, because they face higher prices for beef without enjoying a reduction in the probability of illness.
Publications
- Marette, Stephan, Brian E. Roe and Mario F. Teisl. (forthcoming 2012) "The Welfare Impact of Food Pathogen Vaccines." Food Policy.
- Marette, Stephan, Brian E. Roe and Mario F. Teisl (forthcoming 2012) "Human Food Pathogen Vaccine: A Calibrated Partial-Equilibrium Analysis." Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
- Teisl, Mario F., Roe, Brian, and Mumma, Gerald. 2007. "One Step Forward...Consumer Reactions to Food Safety Technologies." Proceedings of the Food Distribution Research Society, in Journal of Food Distribution Research, 38(1):148-53.
- Teisl, Mario F. and Brian Roe. (2010). "Consumers Willingness-to-Pay to Reduce the Probability of Retail Foodborne Pathogen Contamination." Food Policy 35(6):521-530.
|
Progress 01/01/10 to 12/31/10
Outputs
OUTPUTS: During 2010 we continued our analysis of willingness to pay data gathered from 3,511 respondents to a stated preference survey conducted by mail. The final results were published in a peer reviewed journal (Food Policy) and show that the willingness to pay by U.S. consumers for reductions in the contamination of retail products by foodborne bacteria is substantially higher than previous estimates used by USDA and CDC in policy analysis. Further, the results showed that willingness to pay is sensitive to the pathogen reduction technology promised (irradiation versus ethyl gas), the pathogen targets (e. coli vs. listeria), the food considered (hot dogs vs. hamburgers), information provided to consumers about pathogens and consumer characteristics such as age and tendency to eat raw foods. We also develop several methodological advancements, which should impact how future work of this sort is conducted. Specifically, we simultaneously estimate consumers' response to the information in their safety perceptions, their quantity demanded of the product effected and their willingness to pay for improved technology. In 2010 we developed 2 manuscripts and a peer-reviewed presentation that analyze how U.S. consumers would respond to the introduction of human vaccines against foodborne pathogens. The development of human vaccines to protect against food pathogens is progressing rapidly for E. coli, Salmonella and Campylobacter. Such vaccines would represent a discrete improvement in the technology available to consumers to combat foodborne illness as consumers might be able to substitute an infrequent vaccination for some daily food preparation and storage efforts. This large shift in the efficacy and efficiency of consumer preventative action may alter food safety tradeoffs and warrant renewed discussion of the optimal mix of government, firm and consumer roles in national food safety. Our works explores 2 questions. First, we use stated-preference data to estimate consumer willingness to pay for vaccines and then simulate the welfare impacts of subsidizing consumer purchases of the vaccine given 2 different industry responses: maintaining current levels of food safety vigilance and reducing food safety vigilance due to moral hazard. Second, we develop a partial equilibrium model of how vaccines would impact the U.S. beef sector and use this model to three potential policy interventions. The first is the sale of a vaccine that protects the consumer from any damages associated with the foodborne pathogen. The second policy simulated is the introduction of tighter standards that lower the ambient pathogen level and expected consumer damages. The third policy simulated is the simultaneous introduction of the first two policies. We find that the two policies work against each other in that the reduction in ambient food pathogen levels supplied by the tighter standards curbs demand for vaccination. Consumers prefer one of the first two policies to be implemented independently. Firms may prefer the joint policy, but the result depends upon the exact magnitudes of vaccine uptake and marginal cost shifts. PARTICIPANTS: Stephan Marette, Collaborator, UMR Economie Publique, INRA-AgroParisTech, 78850 Grignon, France; Mario Teisl, Collaborator, School of Economics, University of Maine, 5782 Winslow Hall, Orono, ME 04469 TARGET AUDIENCES: U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.
Impacts
The results concerning consumer willingness to pay for reductions in the probability of foodborne illness will be used by policy makers and analysts at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for policy planning purposes. Our analysis suggests that USDA is currently assigning too small of a value to reductions in foodborne pathogen levels in foods sold in grocery stores. Our analysis of willingness to pay for human vaccinations against certain foodborne pathogens will also provide a novel indication of the potential value of product development in this realm. Understanding latent consumer demand for such novel scientific improvements can aid in commercialization of products.
Publications
- Teisl, Mario F. and Brian Roe. (2010). Consumers Willingness-to-Pay to Reduce the Probability of Retail Foodborne Pathogen Contamination. Food Policy 35(6):521-530.
- Marette, Stephan, Roe, Brian and Teisl, Mario. (2010 in review). The Consequences of a Human Food Pathogen Vaccine: A Calibrated Partial-Equilibrium Analysis.
- Marette, Stephan, Roe, Brian and Teisl, Mario. (2010 in review). The Welfare Impact of Food Pathogen Vaccines.
- Marette, Stephan, Roe, Brian E., Teisl, Mario F. (2010) Would Subsidizing a Food Pathogen Vaccine Upset the Food Policy Applecart Presented at Agricultural & Applied Economics Association Joint Annual Meeting. Denver, CO. (July 27) [Peer Reviewed]
|
Progress 01/01/09 to 12/31/09
Outputs
OUTPUTS: During 2009 we refined the analysis of willingness to pay responses gathered from 3,511 respondents to a stated preference survey. The refinements revolve around the econometric approach to identifying consumers' response to several hypothetical questions posed in the survey. Specifically, we ask respondents about their perceptions of the food safety risks involved with eating one type of product (either hamburger or hot dogs) and how much of this item they buy each month. We then provide them information about a new variety of the product whose safety has been improved using a particular type of technology (either electron beam or ethyl gas treatment). After providing this information we then ask the respondent to their perception of the food's safety, to how much of this type of food they will buy each month and whether they would buy the improved food in place of the non-improved food if the improved food were sold at a higher price. The refinement deals with simultaneously fitting the consumers' response to the information in their safety perceptions, their quantity demanded and their willingness to pay for improved technology. The estimated results are consistent with utility theory and comparable to market values for non-safety quality attributes and experimental values for safety enhancements. The aggregate WTP point estimates range from $250 million for a 5 percent reduction in the subjective probability of becoming ill from Listeria after eating hot dogs made at home where the reduction in probability occurs through the use of electronic beam technology to $1,190 million for a 5 percent reduction in the subjective probability of becoming ill from E. coli after eating hamburgers made at home where the reduction in probability occurs through the use of electron beam technology. We have also begun to analyze another source of hypothetical data exploring a similar topic and have begun to use similar econometric techniques to explore consumer willingness to pay for vaccinations against certain types of pathogen-based food borne illness. PARTICIPANTS: Not relevant to this project. TARGET AUDIENCES: U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.
Impacts
The results concerning consumer willingness to pay for reductions in the probability of foodborne illness will be used by policy makers and analysts at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for policy planning purposes. Our analysis of willingness to pay for vaccinations against certain foodborne pathogens will also provide a novel indication of the potential value of product development in this realm.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|
Progress 01/01/08 to 12/31/08
Outputs
OUTPUTS: During 2008 analysis continued on the 3,511 responses received from a nationally representative U.S. mail survey (49 percent response rate). Our approach to valuing consumer willingness to pay for food safety differs from previous work because we (1) provide survey respondents with information about the promised change in the probability of pathogen contamination in retail food packages rather than changes in the probability of becoming ill, (2) elicit changes in respondents' subjective probability of becoming ill and (3) elicit predicted changes in the quantity demand for products that have enhanced food-safety properties. We estimate the consumer's choice between a safety-enhanced and an existing product, the change in subjective probability of contracting foodborne illness associated with the enhanced product and the change in demand for the enhanced product in a manner that recognizes structural interdependencies and allows for correlation among unobserved elements. The estimated results are consistent with utility theory and comparable to market values for non-safety quality attributes and experimental values for safety enhancements. The aggregate WTP point estimates range from $250 million for a 5 percent reduction in the subjective probability of becoming ill from Listeria after eating hot dogs made at home where the reduction in probability occurs through the use of electronic beam technology to $1,190 million for a 5 percent reduction in the subjective probability of becoming ill from E. coli after eating hamburgers made at home where the reduction in probability occurs through the use of electron beam technology. PARTICIPANTS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period. TARGET AUDIENCES: U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.
Impacts
The results concerning consumer willingness to pay for reductions in the probability of foodborne illness will be used by policy makers and analysts at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for policy planning purposes.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|
Progress 01/01/07 to 12/31/07
Outputs
OUTPUTS: During 2007 analysis continued on the 3,511 responses received from a nationally representative U.S. mail survey (49 percent response rate). The mail survey instrument consisted of 49 questions in eight sections. Section I elicited respondents' opinions about the safety of foods prepared at home. Section II focused on respondents' prior knowledge of pathogens. In Section III, respondents were asked questions designed to measure their opinion of the safety of either ready-to-eat hotdogs or raw hamburger. In Section IV we asked respondents about their household's experience with foodborne illness from foods prepared in their home. Section V contained questions asking respondents how they prepared food for themselves and their household, in general, and on how they handled and prepared either ready-to-eat hotdogs or raw hamburger. Section VI contains questions aimed at understanding how the respondent's shopping habits may change when foods treated to decrease the amount of
germs in the food become available. Specifically, respondents were asked to choose among competing hypothetical products (either hamburgers or hotdogs) where some products were processed using technology (electron beam or ethylene gas treatments) aimed to reduce the risk of foodborne illness caused by a particular pathogen (either Listeria or E. coli). In Section VII we presented respondents a hypothetical government-sponsored food safety program used to elicit their willingness to pay for the program. Section VIII was dedicated to socio-economic and household health-status questions. Discrete choice regression techniques were used to analyze the hypothetical product choice data collected in Section VI and Section VII of the survey. Initial findings suggest that individual consumers are willing to pay a small but statistically significant premium for hamburgers and hotdogs that are treated to reduce the probability of acquiring foodborne illness and that this willingness to pay scales
proportionately with the perceived improvement in this probability. The absolute value of this willingness to pay on a per package basis is similar to other improvements in similar products, such as a reduction in the fat content of hamburger. When aggregating this willingness to pay across respondents, it suggests an aggregate willingness to pay to reduce foodborne illness that may be significantly larger than current USDA estimates of the value of reducing foodborne illness; the USDA estimates use a different methodology that does not take into consideration the value that consumers may place on the pain, suffering and worry that accompany the contraction of a foodborne illness.
TARGET AUDIENCES: U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Impacts
The results concerning consumers willingness to pay for reductions in the probability of foodborne illness will be used by policy makers and analysts at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for policy planning purposes.
Publications
- Teisl, Mario F., Roe, Brian, and Mumma, Gerald. 2007. 'One Step Forward . . .Consumer Reactions to Food Safety Technologies.' Proceedings of the Food Distribution Research Society, in Journal of Food Distribution Research, 38(1):148-53.
- Teisl, Mario F., Roe, Brian, Noblet, Caroline, Bockstael, Nancy E., Boyle, Kevin J. and Levy, Alan S. 'Can Survey-based Scenarios Measure Consumer Values for Improved Food Safety?' Selected Paper, American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, OR.
|
Progress 01/01/06 to 12/31/06
Outputs
During 2006 initial analyses were conducted of 3,511 responses received from a nationally representative U.S. mail survey (49 percent response rate). The mail survey instrument consisted of 49 questions in eight sections. Section I elicited respondents' opinions about the safety of foods prepared at home. Section II focused on respondents' prior knowledge of pathogens. In Section III, respondents were asked questions designed to measure their opinion of the safety of either ready-to-eat hotdogs or raw hamburger. In Section IV we asked respondents about their household's experience with foodborne illness from foods prepared in their home. Section V contained questions asking respondents how they prepared food for themselves and their household, in general, and on how they handled and prepared either ready-to-eat hotdogs or raw hamburger. Section VI contains questions aimed at understanding how the respondent's shopping habits may change when foods treated to decrease
the amount of germs in the food become available. Specifically, respondents were asked to choose among competing hypothetical products (either hamburgers or hotdogs) where some products were processed using technology (electron beam or ethylene gas treatments) aimed to reduce the risk of foodborne illness caused by a particular pathogen (either Listeria or E. coli). In Section VII we presented respondents a hypothetical government-sponsored food safety program used to elicit their willingness to pay for the program. Section VIII was dedicated to socio-economic and household health-status questions. Discrete choice regression techniques were used to analyze the hypothetical product choice data collected in Section VI and Section VII of the survey. Initial findings suggest that introducing a new food-safety technology may cause some consumers to choose foods processed with new technologies while also driving others consumers to stop buying the food altogether. If producers provide
consumers both treated and untreated product, then the act of providing treated foods may actually lead to aggregate losses in sales. This may explain firms' reluctance to adopt these technologies. Unless consumer concerns toward these technologies can be allayed, the population may face higher food-safety risks. Analysis of data from Section VII reveals very few significant drivers of respondents choices, suggesting the question was too informationally dense for respondents to answer in a meaningful way.
Impacts
The results concerning consumers willingness to pay for reductions in the probability of foodborne illness will be used by policy makers and analysts at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for policy planning purposes.
Publications
- Mario F. Teisl, Brian Roe, Gerald Mumma, Tamera Riggs, Mark Messonnier and Alan S. Levy 2006. Can Survey-based Scenarios Measure Consumer Values for Improved Food Safety? Invited seminar presentation. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta, GA. Dec. 14.
- Teisl, Mario F., Roe, Brian, and Mumma, Gerald. For Every Action...: Consumer Reactions to Technologies Aimed at Protecting the Food Supply, Selected Paper, American Public Health Association Annual Meetings, November 4-8, 2006, Boston, MA.
|
|