Consumer demand for safer foods

Consumer Demand for Safer Foods

Recent consumer surveys reveal that Americans want improvement in the safety of foods they eat and are willing to pay more to obtain it. This finding should not be interpreted to mean that our food is unsafe. Americans enjoy one of the most abundant, varied, and safe food supplies in the world. We enjoy this good fortune while spending a smaller share of our income on food than consumers in most other countries. Yet, our affluence is driving us to demand more variety, quality, and safety in our food supply.

Unlike most other product characteristics, food safety is usually not discernible to consumers at the time of purchase. In fact, many safety attributes remain unknown even after purchase and consumption. The difficulty in linking adverse health effects to particular foods, retail establishments, or processors causes the usual self-correcting market mechanisms, such as the purchase of alternative products or legal recourse, to fail. To control for these imperfections in the marketplace, the Government has instituted food safety and labeling regulations and standards of identity and quality.

These regulations establish minimum levels of safety performance, which apply to all businesses. They assure consumers that their food meets generally accepted minimum standards for safety, information that individuals would find too difficult and costly to acquire on their own. But the regulations are inflexible and, hence, incapable of satisfying the varied demands of all consumers.

More information is needed about what consumers think about food safety and what the proper level of regulation should be. For example, are current regulations satisfactory, or should the standards be higher or lower? Will proposed technologies to enhance food safety, such as irradiation, be accepted by consumers? This type of information would provide policymakers and food marketers with insight into the desired direction of change and the feasibility of markets bearing the added costs.

Communicating information to consumers about the health risks of individual products and the safety claims made by their manufacturers is another area that needs more research. Little is known about how much and what kinds of information to communicate. The inability of consumers to easily verify claims made by marketers or to prosecute them for inaccurate claims has hindered private strategies for marketing foods with lower safety risks. To some extent, large companies use their brand names to convey an implicit message of high quality, but little is explicitly stated about food safety.

Surveying Consumer Attitudes

Some research has been conducted on the subject. Since 1983, the Food Marketing Institute (FMI)--a nonprofit research and lobbying association composed of over 1,500 food retailers and wholesalers--has tracked people's ideas about food safety in an annual survey of consumer attitudes about supermarkets and food shopping concerns. For the last 6 years, the majority of consumers expressed a high degree of confidence in the safety of foods they bought. More than 55 percent of the respondents consistently said that the statement "I feel the food in supermarkets is wholesome and safe to eat" very closely described their opinion. In 1988, an additional 38 percent reported the statement was "somewhat close" to their attitude. However, about 7 percent were "somewhat dissatisfied" with the wholesomeness and safety of supermarket foods.

While most FMI survey respondents were satisfied with general food safety levels, they harbored significant concerns about particular safety issues. More than 73 percent consistently expressed apprehension over pesticide residues. In addition, concern about anti-biotic and hormone residues in poultry and livestock products rose markedly, from 42 percent in 1985 to 61 percent in 1988.

In 1986, a question on irradiation was added to the FMI survey. USDA and the Food and Drug Administration have approved irradiation as a safe and effective procedure for controlling Trichinella contamination in pork, and are considering its approval for repressing Salmonella bacteria in poultry. Some 36 to 43 percent of the respondents considered irradiation to be a serious health hazard. Of these people, only 28 percent thought that a Government label on the food, assuring irradiation's safety, would cause them to view the product as less hazardous, 44 percent said the label would make no difference, and 28 percent would consider the item more hazardous. These responses suggest that the presence of a label can sometimes have the adverse effect of raising concerns about an issue it was designed to alleviate. They also illustrate the complexity of risk communication.

A 1988 survey conducted by the University of Florida in cooperation with ERS provides additional insight into concerns about food safety in the market-place. Food shoppers in Spokane, Washington, Orlando, Florida, Des Moines, Iowa, and Tucson, Arizona were interviewed. The 506 respondents, each the chief food purchaser for a household, were asked a series of questions about three general food safety concerns: additives and preservatives, pesticide and chemical residues, and bacterial contamination. This was followed by a series of specific questions about bacterial contamination in poultry.

The respondents were asked to rank their concerns about the three safety issues using a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 signifying no problem and 10 a serious problem. They rated residues as the most serious concern, followed by bacteria and additives. Nearly 6 out of every 10 respondents expressed a high level of concern about pesticides and chemical residues in food. More than one in three stated a high level of concern about bacterial contamination, and slightly fewer mentioned significant concern about additives and preservatives (table 1).

The survey also found that the shoppers altered their food consumption patterns to reduce perceived risks. Some 58 percent said they ate less of some foods because of safety concerns. Although 99 percent reported eating chicken at least once a week, 8 percent ate less due to safety reasons. Nearly 27 percent believed they had experienced some form of food poisoning, about 15 percent of which was attributed to chicken, 16 percent to seafood, and 66 percent to other foods.

Microbial Contamination

The second part of the Florida survey contained specific questions about microbial contamination of poultry. Respondents were asked whether they would pay more for chicken that was assured of having almost no chance of causing foodborne disease. Because the method of controlling microbial contamination might also be associated with perceived health risks, the shoppers were asked about the impact of three control procedures on their decision to purchase "disease-free" chicken. The 506 people were divided into three groups. Each group was then questioned about a different control procedure: cleaner processing facilities and closer inspection, a chemical disinfectant, or irradiation.

The shoppers were found to be sensitive to the method of achieving microbial control. Although all of the respondents who were asked about cleaner facilities and closer inspection said they would buy the chicken, 13 percent of those asked about chemical disinfectants and 14 percent of those asked about irradiation reported they would not buy the product at any price. On the other hand, significant numbers--75 percent for chemical disinfectants and 66 percent for irradiation--said they would buy the chicken and would be willing to pay more for it (table 2). Thus, while such a product may not be acceptable to all consumers, there appears to be a substantial market niche.

The amount that the respondents were willing to pay for the new product also varied according to the process used to achieve microbial control. Of the people willing to pay more, those asked about cleaner facilities and closer inspection were willing to pay an average of 21 cents more per pound. This compared with about 17 cents more for each of the other two methods. These figures probably overstate what people would actually agree to pay if the opportunity existed, but nonetheless indicate a significant desire and willingness to pay for enhanced food safety.

Microbial contamination, unlike residue problems, can often be controlled in the household through a combination of careful storage, preparation, and cooking procedures. When asked if they would spend extra preparation time to reduce foodborne disease, nearly 80 percent said they would. Surprisingly, nearly one in every three respondents expressed a willingness to spend up to 20 additional minutes in preparation and cleanup time to reduce the chance of foodborne illness. If a meal preparer's household time is valued at the minimum wage of $3.35 per hour and it is assumed that approximately 2 pounds of chicken are prepared on each occasion, the implied willingness to pay for "risk-free" microbial control is about 28 cents per pound for those using 10 additional minutes of preparation time and about 56 cents for those spending 20 additional minutes. These results suggest a substantial consumer desire for safer poultry products.

Consumer and industry awareness of safety concerns regarding microbial contamination of food has been heightened by a recent National Academy of Sciences report on poultry inspection and by a "60 Minutes" segment on Salmonella contamination of poultry. Given the size and growth of the poultry industry, an adverse consumer reaction could have enormous consequences. In 1988, Americans spent over $24 billion on retail purchases of poultry products, with an implied farm value of about $9 billion. Consumption of poultry has risen from 25 pounds per person in 1950 to over 77 pounds in 1987. Much of this increase has been attributed to relatively low poultry prices and to health concerns over dietary fat and cholesterol in red meat. Rising concern over foodborne diseases, if unaddressed, could either slow or reverse this trend.

The incidence of Salmonella bacteria in processed poultry has changed little in recent years, according to USDA and industry sources. However, the incidence of salmonellosis, the disease caused by Salmonella contamination, has risen from 11 reported cases per 100,000 persons in 1971 to 27 cases per 100,000 in 1985, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. This surge closely parallels the increase in poultry consumption.

Both USDA and the poultry industry are working hard to solve the microbial contamination problem. Consumer surveys clearly indicate that many people are concerned about the issue and would be willing to pay more for improved poultry products. Their acceptance of new food items is likely to hinge on the processing method used, the cost, and the availability of alternative foods. [Table 1 to 2 Omitted]

COPYRIGHT 1989 U.S. Government Printing Office
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group