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

Journal of Agricultural Economics

Volumn 66, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 259-279

  Erdem, Seda ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Animal welfare; Discrete choice experiments; Grids; Health risks; Nanosensors; Nanotechnology; Random parameter logit; UK

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL WELFARE; CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; FOOD POISONING; FOOD QUALITY; HEALTH RISK; NANOTECHNOLOGY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

UNITED KINGDOM;

ANIMALIA; GALLUS GALLUS;

EID: 84928186047     PISSN: 0021857X     EISSN: 14779552     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1477-9552.12088     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Adak, G. K., Meakins, S. M., Lopman, B. A. O'Brien, S. J.'Disease risks from foods, England and Wales, 1996-2000'. Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 11(3), (2005) pp. 365-372.
2. Adamowicz, W., Dupont, D., Krupnick, A. and Zhang, J.'Valuation of cancer and microbial disease risk reductions in municipal drinking water: An analysis of risk context using multiple valuation methods', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 61(2), (2011) pp. 213-226.
3. Augustin, M. and Sanguansri P.'Nanostructured materials in the food industry', Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, Vol. 58 (2009) pp. 183-213.
4. Bennett, R. M., Anderson, J. and Blaney, R. J. P. 'Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy', Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Vol. 15, (2002) pp. 187-202.
5. Bieberstein, A., Roosen, J., Marette, S., Blanchemanche, S. and Vandermoere, F. 'Consumer choices for nano-food and nano-packaging in France and Germany', European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 40(1), (2013) pp. 73-94.
6. Campbell, D. and Doherty, E. 'Combining discrete and continuous mixing distributions to identify niche markets for food', European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 40(2), (2013) pp. 287-311.
7. Chaudhry, Q., Michael, S., James, B., Bryony, R., Alistair, B., Laurence, C., Robert, A. and Richard, W. 'Applications and implications of nanotechnologies for the food sector', Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A, Vol. 25(3), (2008) pp. 241-258.
8. Chen, Q., Anders, S. and An, H. 'Measuring consumer resistance to a new food technology: a choice experiment in meat packaging', Food Quality and Preference, 28(2), (2013), 419-428.
9. Coles, D. and Frewer, L. 'Nanotechnology applied to European food production: a review of ethical and regulatory issues', Trends in Food Science & Technology, 34(1), (2013), 32-43.
10. Cook, A. and Fairweather, J. (2006). New Zealander reactions to the use of biotechnology and nanotechnology in medicine, farming and food. Technical Report 287, Lincoln University, Christchurch.
11. Daly, A., Hess, S. and Train, K. 'Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models', Transportation, Vol. 39(1), (2012) pp. 19-31.
12. DeShazo, J. and Fermo, G. 'Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: The effects of complexity on choice consistency', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 44(1), (2002) pp. 123-143.
13. Doornik, J. A. An Object-Oriented Matrix Programming Language Ox 6 (London, UK: Timberlake Consultants Ltd, 2009).
14. Erdem, S. and Rigby, D. 'The effects of risk presentations and risk reduction methods on WTP estimates', in International Choice Modelling Conference, International Choice Modelling Conference 2011 (Leeds, UK, 2011).
15. Ferrini, S. and Scarpa, R. 'Designs with a priori information for non-market valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 53(3), (2007) pp. 342-363.
16. Frewer, L., Bergmann, K., Brennan, M., Lion, R., Meertens, R., Rowe, G., Siegrist, M. and Vereijken, C. 'Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies', Trends in Food Science & Technology, Vol. 22(8), (2011) pp. 442-456.
17. Frewer, L., Gupta, N., George, S., Fischer, A., Giles, E. and Coles, D. Consumer attitudes towards nanotechnologies applied to food production, Trends in Food Science & Technology, (2014) pp.1-15 (in press).
18. FSA. Foodborne Disease Strategy 2010-2015: An FSA programme for the reduction of foodborne disease in the UK (2011). Available at: http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/fds2015.pdf (last accessed 15 March 2013).
19. FSA. Nanotechnology-enabled foods and food contactmaterials on the UK market (2012). Available at: http://www.food.gov.uk/policy-advice/nano/monitoring/#.UJkh8G-UNbg (last accessed 20 November 2012).
20. FSA. Food safety week: Don't wash raw chicken (2014). Available at: http://www.food.gov.uk/news-updates/campaigns/campylobacter/fsw-2014/ (last accessed 01 June 2014).
21. Gfeller, K. Y., Nugaeva, N. and Hegner, M. 'Micromechanical oscillators as rapid biosensor for the detection of active growth of Escherichia coli', Biosensors and Bioelectronics, Vol. 21(3), (2005) pp. 528-533.
22. Gigerenzer, G. and Hoffrage, U. 'How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats', Psychological Review, Vol. 102, (1995) pp. 684-704.
23. Gormley, F., Little, C., Rawal, N., Gillespie, I., Lebaigue, S. and Adak, G. 'A 17-year review of foodborne outbreaks: describing the continuing decline in England and Wales (1992-2008)', Epidemiology and Infection, Vol. 139(5), (2011) pp. 688-99.
24. Gupta, N., Fischer, A., George, S. and Frewer, L. 'Expert views on societal responses to different applications of nanotechnology: A comparative analysis of experts in countries with different economic and regulatory environments', Journal of Nanoparticle Research, Vol. 15(8), (2013) pp. 1-15.
25. Hensher, D., Louviere, J. and Swait, J. 'Combining sources of preference data', Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 89(1-2), (1999) pp. 197-221.
26. House of Lord, Science and Technology Committee. Nanotechnologies and food, Technical report, The Stationery Office Limited, London, (2010).
27. Huang, C. L., Wolfe, K. and McKissick, J. 'Consumers' willingness to pay for irradiated poultry products', Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, Vol. 19(2-3), (2007) pp. 77-95.
28. Huotilainen, A. and Tuorila, H. 'Social representation of new foods has a stable structure based on suspicion and trust', Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 16(7), (2005) pp. 565-572.
29. INRA. Calculation of scores (2011). Available at: http://www1.clermont.inra.fr/wq/protocol_calculation_scores.php (last accessed 23 May 2014).
30. Institute of Grocery Distribution. Consumer attitudes to animal welfare, Technical report (Letchmore Heath, Watford, Herts, WD25 8GD, UK, 2007).
31. Ison, J. and Kontoleon, A. 'Consumer preferences for functional GM foods in the UK: A choice experiment', AgBioForum, Vol. 17(1), (2014) pp. 28-36.
32. Kehlbacher, A., Bennett, R. and Balcombe, K. 'Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling', Food Policy, Vol. 37(6), (2012) pp. 627-633.
33. Krupnick, A., Alberini, A., Cropper, M., Simon, N., O'Brien, B., Goeree, R. and Heintzelman, M. 'Age, health and the willingness to pay formortality risk reductions: A contingent valuation survey of Ontario residents', Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 24(2), (2002) pp. 161-186.
34. Louviere, J., Street, D., Carson, R., Ainslie, A., Deshazo, J. R., Cameron, T., Hensher, D., Kohn, R. and Marley, T. 'Dissecting the random component of utility', Marketing Letters, Vol. 13(3), (2002) pp. 177-193.
35. Lyndhurst, B. An evidence review of public attitudes to emerging food technologies, Technical report (Social Science Research Unit Food Standard Agency, 2009).
36. Marette, S., Roosen, J., Bieberstein, A., Blanchemanche, S. and Vandermoere, F. 'Impact of environmental, societal and health information on consumers' choices for nanofood', Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, Vol. 7(11), (2009) pp. 1-27.
37. Matin, A. H., Goddard, E., Vandermoere, F., Blanchemanche, S., Bieberstein, A., Marette, S. and Roosen, J. 'Do environmental attitudes and food technology neophobia affect perceptions of the benefits of nanotechnology?', International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 36(2), (2012) pp. 149-157.
38. McFadden, D.' Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior', in P. Zarembka (ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics (New York, NY: Academic Press, 1974, pp. 105-142).
39. Miele, M., Blokhuis, H., Bennett, R. and Bock, B. 'Changes in farming and in stakeholder concern for animal welfare', in H. Blokhuis, M. Miele, I. Veissier and B. Jones (eds.), Improving Farm Animal Welfare (The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers 2013, pp. 19-47).
40. Moon, W., Rimal, A. and Balasubramanian, S. K. UK consumers' willingness-to-accept (WTA) GM food (2007).
41. Nocella, G., Hubbard, L. and Scarpa, R. 'Farm animal welfare, consumer willingness to pay, and trust: Results of a cross-national survey', Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Vol. 32(2), (2010) pp. 275-297.
42. Olsen, N., Menichelli, E., Grunert, K., Sonne, A., Szabó, E., Bánáti, D. and Næs, T. 'Choice probability for apple juice based on novel processing techniques: Investigating the choice relevance of mean-end-chains', Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 22(1), (2011) pp. 48-59.
43. Reisch, L. A., Scholl, G. and Bietz, S.'Better safe than sorry': Consumer perceptions of and deliberations on nanotechnologies', International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(6), (2011) pp. 644-654.
44. Roosen, J., Bieberstein, A., Marette, S., Blanchemanche, S., Vandermoere, F. et al. 'The effect of information choice and discussion on consumers' willingness-to-pay for nanotechnologies in food', Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 36(2), (2011), 365.
45. Rose, J., Collins, A., Bliemer, M. and Hensher, D. Ngene 1.0 Stated Choice Experiment Design Software. Manual (Sydney, Australia: ChoiceMetrics Pty Ltd., 2009).
46. Scarpa, R., Campbell, D. and Hutchinson, W. G. 'Benefits estimates for landscape improvements: Sequential Bayesian design and respondents' rationality in a choice experiment', Land Economics, Vol. 83, (2007) pp. 617-634.
47. Schnettler, B., Crisóstomo, G., Mora, M., Lobos, G., Miranda, H. and Grunert, K. G. 'Acceptance of nanotechnology applications and satisfaction with food-related life in southern Chile', Food Science and Technology (Campinas), Vol. 34(1), (2014) pp. 157-163.
48. Siegrist, M. Consumer Attitudes to Food Innovation and Technology (Cambridge, England: Woodhead Publishing, 2007).
49. Siegrist, M., Stampfli, N., Kastenholz, H. and Keller, C. 'Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging', Appetite, Vol. 51(2), (2008) pp. 283-290.
50. Stampfli, N., Siegrist, M. and Kastenholz, H. 'Acceptance of nanotechnology in food and food packaging: a path model analysis', Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 13(3), (2010) pp. 353-365.
51. Swait, J. D. and Louviere, J. J. 'The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, (1993) pp. 305-314.
52. Thurstone, L. 'A law of comparative judgement', Psychological Review, Vol. 34, (1927), pp. 278-286.
53. Train, K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
54. Visschers, V. H. M., Meertens, R. M., Passchier, W. W. F. and De Vries, N. N. K. 'Probability information in risk communication: A review of the research literature', Risk Analysis, Vol. 29(2), (2009) pp. 267-287.
55. Welfare Quality. Welfare quality (2009). Available at: http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone/26536/5/0/22 (last accessed 01 May 2014).
56. Yam, K. L., Takhistov, P. T. and Miltz, J. 'Intelligent packaging: Concepts and applications', Journal of Food Science, Vol. 70(1), (2005) pp. R1-R10.
57. Yang, B., Shi, Y., Xia, X., Xi, M., Wang, X., Ji, B. and Meng, J. 'Inactivation of foodborne pathogens in raw milk using high hydrostatic pressure', Food Control, Vol. 28(2), (2012) pp. 273-278.