Regulation and Consumer Interest in an Antioxidant-Enriched Ham Associated with Reduced Colorectal Cancer Risks

Abstract

An economic experiment was conducted in France in 2020 to evaluate consumer attitudes toward two ham products associated with different colorectal cancer risks. We focused specifically on comparing a conventional ham and a new hypothetical antioxidant-enriched ham with a reduced risk of provoking colorectal cancer. Study participants were given descriptions of the two hams before carrying out successive rounds of willingness-to-pay (WTP) assessments. The results show that WTP was higher for the antioxidant-enriched ham than for the conventional ham. WTP estimates were also impacted by providing additional information about the reduction in colorectal cancer risk associated with the antioxidant-enriched ham. Based on the participants' WTP, we came up with ex ante estimates for the social impacts of introducing the antioxidant-enriched ham onto the market, and we suggest that it would be socially optimal to promote the product. Competition arising from pre-existing product labelling and marketing assertions could greatly limit the market potential of antioxidant-enriched ham, which suggests that alternative approaches may be necessary, such as regulations mandating antioxidant enrichment. These results also concern all countries with high levels of meat consumption.

Keywords: colorectal cancer; consumers’ preferences; experimental economics; meat consumption; risks.

Figure A1

Picture above the multiple price list.

Figure 1

The average WTP for one packet of ham (€) and the influence of the messages. Note: 139 participants were taken into account. Δ* denotes a significant difference at 5%, and Δ** denotes a significant difference at 1%, as tested by the Wilcoxon test for comparing paired sample choices. For each product with Δ indicated above the corresponding line, we tested for significant differences in the WTPs elicited between two successive rounds R, with R = {1, …, 6} for the conventional ham and R = {4,5,6} for the enriched ham. For the same round with Δ indicated between the points of different products, we tested significant differences between WTPC#4 and WTPE#4, WTPC#5 and WTPE#5, and WTPC#6 and WTPE#6 for the different rounds and for R = {4,5,6}.

Figure 2

The average WTP for one packet of ham (€) and the influence of specific messages about antioxidants at round #5 for the subgroups G1, G2, and G3. Note: there were 44 participants for subgroup G1, 45 participants for subgroup G2, and 50 participants for subgroup G3. Δ* denotes a significant difference at 5%, and Δ** denotes a significant difference at 1%, as tested by the Wilcoxon test for comparing paired sample choices. See the note of Figure 1 for the interpretation of the tests.

Figure 3

Average Max[WTP,MaybeH] and average WTP for Hams (€).

Figure 4

Average variations of consumers’ surpluses for one packet of enriched ham and the number of buyers following the introduction of enriched ham under perfect information.

Figure 5

Average variations of consumers’ surpluses for one packet of enriched ham with a mandatory standard.