Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-rxvq6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-11T13:07:14.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Demographic and Socioeconomic Influences on the Importance of Food Safety in Food Shopping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Chung-Tung Jordan Lin
Chung-Tung Jordan Lin*
Affiliation:
Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida and a Visiting Agricultural Economist, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The perceived importance of food safety is instrumental in the success of consumer information programs to promote public health and to market safer foods. This paper examines how the belief of a household's main meal planner about the importance of food safety in food shopping is influenced by the person's or the household's demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Results suggest food safety is more important to main meal planners who are female, older, more educated, non-working, have at-risk household members (elderly, young children, and pregnant women), or live in the Northeast and the South. Implications of the results on consumer education are discussed.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , October 1995 , pp. 190 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agricultural Research Service, The (ARS). CSFII/DHKS 1990 Data Set: 1990 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals and 1990 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey. Beltsville, MD, 1990.Google Scholar
Assael, H. Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent, 1992.Google Scholar
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). Foodborne Pathogens: Risks and Consequences. Task Force Report No. 122, Ames, IA, 1994.Google Scholar
Douglas, S.P. “Cross-national Comparisons and Consumer Stereotypes: A Case Study of Working and Nonworking Wives in the U.S. and France.” Journal of Consumer Research 3 (1976): 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earle, T.C., Cvetkovich, G., and Slovic, P. “The Effects of Involvement, Relevance and Ability on Risk Communication Effectiveness.” in Contemporary Issues in Decision Making, eds. Borcherding, K., Larichev, O.I., and Messick, D.M. Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier, 1990.Google Scholar
Finnegan, J.R. Jr. Viswanath, K., Rooney, B., McGovern, P., Baxter, J., Elmer, P., Graves, K., Hertog, J., Mullis, R., Pirie, P., Trenkner, L., and Potter, J. “Predictors of Knowledge about Healthy Eating in a Rural Midwestern US City.” Health Education Research 5 (1990): 421–31.Google Scholar
Fishbein, M. “Factors Influencing Health Behaviors: An Analysis Based on A Theory of Reasoned Action.” In Health Risk Estimation, Risk Reduction and Health Promotion, ed. Landry, Fernand. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Public Health Association, 1983.Google Scholar
Fisher, R.J. “Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning.” Journal of Consumer Research 20 (1993): 303–15.Google Scholar
Flynn, J., Slovic, P., and Mertz, C.K. “Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks.” Risk Analysis (in press).Google Scholar
Food Marketing Institute (FMI). Trends—Consumer Attitudes and the Supermarket. Washington, D.C., various years.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. LIMDEP Version 6.0. Bellport, NY: Econometric Software, Inc., 1991.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. Econometric Analysis. New York, NY: MacMillan, 1990.Google Scholar
Hawkins, D.I., Best, R.J., and Coney, K.A. Consumer Behavior: Implications for Marketing Strategy, Revised Edition. Plano, TX: Business Publications, Inc., 1983.Google Scholar
Jassaume, R.A. Jr. and Hudson, D.H. “Public Perceptions about Food Safety in the United States and Japan.” Rural Sociology 57 (1992): 235–49.Google Scholar
Jolliffe, F.R. Survey Design and Analysis. New York, NY: John Wiley, 1986.Google Scholar
Jolly, D.A., Schutz, H.G., Diaz-Knauf, K.V., and Johal, J. “Organic Foods: Consumer Attitudes and Use.” Food Technology 43 (1989): 60–6.Google Scholar
Korn, E.L. and Graubard, B.I. “Epidemiologic Studies Utilizing Surveys: Accounting for the Sample Design.” American Journal of Public Health 81 (1991): 1166–73.Google Scholar
Kotler, P. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and Control, Fifth Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984.Google Scholar
Lancaster, K.J. “A New Approach to Consumer Theory.” Journal of Political Economy 74 (1966): 132–57.Google Scholar
Lee, E.S., Forthofer, R.N., and Lorimer, R.J. Analyzing Complex Survey Data. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1989.Google Scholar
Lin, C.-T. Jordan, J., Milon, J.W., and Babb, E. “Determinants of Subjective Food Safety Perceptions: A Case Study of Oysters in Southeast.” Journal of Agribusiness 9 (1991): 71–84.Google Scholar
Lin, K.-C. and Jensen, H.H. “Measuring Determinants of Self-Protective Food Safety Activities.” Paper presented at the 1994 American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
McKelvey, R.D. and Zavoina, W. “A Statistical Model for the Analysis of Ordinal Level Dependent Variables.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 4 (1975): 103–20.Google Scholar
Misra, S.K. and Huang, C.L. “Measuring Consumer Risk Perception of Pesticide Residues in Fresh Product.” In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the American Council on Consumer Interests, ed. Haldeman, Virginia. Columbia, MO: American Council on Consumer Interests, 1991.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC). Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Ott, S.L. and Maligaya, A. “An Analysis of Consumer Attitudes Toward Pesticide Use and the Potential Market for Pesticide Residue-Free Fresh Produce.” Paper presented at the 1989 Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
Sandler, R.S., Jordan, M.C., and Shelton, B.J. “Demographic and Dietary Determinants of Constipation in the US Population.” American Journal of Public Health 80 (1990): 185–9.Google Scholar
SAS for Personal Computers, Version 6 Edition. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 1987.Google Scholar
Schafer, E., Schafer, R.B., Bultena, G.L., and Hoiberg, E.O. “Safety of the U.S. Food Supply: Consumer Concerns and Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics 17 (1993): 137–44.Google Scholar
Schulz, S.A., Roberts, J.A., and Marquardt, R.A. “Pesticide Use in Food Production: An Attitudinal Survey of Nebraska.” Marketing Department, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1990.Google Scholar
Schutz, H.G., Diaz-Knauf, K., and Zeidler, G. “Consumer Use and Attitude Toward Luncheon/Sliced Meats.” Food Technology 42 (1988): 162, 164, 166, 168, 169.Google Scholar
Schutz, H.G., Judge, D.S., and Gentry, J. “The Importance of Nutrition, Brand, Cost and Sensory Attributes to Food Purchase and Consumption.” Food Technology 40 (1986): 79–82.Google Scholar
Senauer, B., Asp, E., and Kinsey, J. Food Trends and the Changing Consumer. St. Paul, MN: Eagan Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Steger, M.A. and Witte, S.L. “General Differences in Environmental Orientations: A Comparison of Publics and Activists in Canada and the U.S.” The Western Political Quarterly 42 (1989): 627–49.Google Scholar
Sterngold, A., Warland, R.H., and Herrmann, R.O. “Do Surveys Overstate Public Concerns?” Public Opinion Quarterly 58 (1994): 255–63.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1992, 112th edition. Washington, D.C., 1993.Google Scholar
Weirenga, B. “Model and Measurement Methodology for the Analysis of Consumer Choice of Food Products.” Journal of Food Quality 6 (1983): 119–137.Google Scholar
Wright, P. “Consumer Choice Strategies: Simplifying Vs. Optimizing.” Journal of Marketing Research 12 (1975): 60–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar