|
Author: Wendee Grady, John A. Fox Source: Wendee Grady, John A. Fox Methodology: A survey was mailed to 800 households with a follow-up mailing to non-respondents in May 2002. The survey included questions about beef purchases, knowledge of food irradiation, and demographics. One-third included no information about food irradiation except for a single sentence stating, “Food irradiation is a process that can be used to kill Salmonella, E. coli, and other harmful bacteria on meats and other foods.� The remaining two-thirds included a brochure about the process, altered to suggest that half were from an industry source and half from a government source. Summary: Widely cited statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control attribute 76 million cases of illness and 5,000 deaths annually to foodborne disease. A significant proportion, perhaps 20 percent or more, of these cases are linked to beef and poultry with over fifty percent of cases of E.coli poisoning linked to consumption of ground beef. Food irradiation is a thoroughly researched and widely approved technology that can significantly reduce the incidence of foodborne illness without altering the nutritional or palatability characteristics of many foods. It is particularly useful for products such as ground beef where bacteria can be interspersed within the product, and has been shown to eliminate over 99.99 percent of pathogens such as E.coli and Salmonella. Irradiated ground beef is now available in some regions of the U.S. Many consumers, however, are unfamiliar with food irradiation. Furthermore, media coverage can be confusing when reporters provide equal time to the small but vocal minority of consumer advocates who oppose the technology. In this environment, and given the scientific consensus about the benefits of irradiation, there may be a public goods justification for public education about food irradiation if consumers find government sponsored information more trustworthy than that of industry. Results: The overall response rate was 57%, with 431 usable responses. Information about irradiation had a significant effect on attitudes. For example, only 32% of respondents who did not receive a brochure reported a positive attitude toward irradiation while of those receiving the “industry� and "government" brochures, 66% and 76% reported positive attitudes. Willingness to pay for irradiation was estimated using a double-bounded model, with results suggesting a significant effect for information but no significant difference attributable to different information sources. Academic Affiliation: Kansas State University Related Articles: |
Powered by