Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fear of pesticide residues and preference for domestically produced strawberries

  • Research article
  • Published:
Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Due to an EU directive making integrated pest management (IPM) mandatory, European farmers are expected to reduce their use of chemical pesticides, which may potentially increase production costs and risk of harvest loss. Less pesticide use is appreciated by many consumers and may generate a higher willingness to pay (WTP). However, IPM is a wide concept and it is difficult for consumers to distinguish between products with high and low risk of pesticide residues. As a result, consumers might use other characteristics, such as country of origin, for the identification of safer products. In this study, we investigate if a higher WTP for Norwegian strawberries is associated with a belief that they contain less pesticide residues than imported berries. We use regression analysis to estimate to what extent the difference in WTP for Norwegian and imported strawberries is correlated with various perceptions about strawberries. The analyses reveal that the stronger the belief that Norwegian strawberries have less pesticide risk than imported ones, the higher the WTP for Norwegian strawberries. This means that if consumers believe domestic farmers use little pesticides, domestic products might be able to sell at considerably higher prices than imports. Hence, it may be economically beneficial for farmers to keep pesticide use at a minimum. Furthermore, we find that consumers have a higher WTP for strawberries produced with less use of pesticides, although not pesticide-free, indicating that IPM is appreciated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data from the survey can be made available from the authors on request.

Notes

  1. The questionnaire was tested on 10 people who gave feedback.

  2. The text reads as follows: “The pesticide «pymetrozine» is used against aphids in strawberry production in countries in the EU, including Belgium. The substance is not permitted in Norway. Pymetrozine is harmful if inhaled and suspected of causing cancer. It is also harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects.”

  3. “«Pyrethroids» are pesticides used in strawberry production in Norway against pests (insects). Pyrethroids are harmful when directly swallowed or inhaled. They are very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects. In addition, they are toxic to bees and other insects, not only those who cause damage to the strawberries. According to Norwegian regulations it is not allowed to spray with pyrethroids 4 weeks or less before harvesting.”

  4. Because the alternatives for WTP stopped at ‘more than 65 kroner’, we also perform a Tobit analysis right censoring at > 65 to check for the robustness of the OLS regression results. The results are shown in Appendix Table 6. There are no significant differences in the results obtained.

  5. See https://ourworldindata.org/trust.

References

  • Ahmed, Z. U., Johnson, J. P., Yang, X., Fatt, C. K., Teng, H. S., & Boon, L. C. (2004). Does country of origin matter for low-involvement products? International Marketing Review, 21(1), 102–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330410522925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alfnes, F., & Rickertsen, K. (2003). European consumers’ willingness to pay for US beef in experimental auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(2), 396–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8276.t01-1-00128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. D., Hollingsworth, C. S., VanZee, V., Coli, W. M., & Rhodes, M. (1996). Consumer response to integrated pest management and certification. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 60(2–3), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(96)01097-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barzman, M., Bàrberi, P., Birch, A. N. E., Boonekamp, P., Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, S., Graf, B., Hommel, B., Jensen, J. E., Kiss, J., Kudsk, P., Lamichhane, J. R., Messéan, A., Moonen, A.-C., Ratnadass, A., Ricci, P., Sarah, J.-L., & Sattin, M. (2015). Eight principles of integrated pest management. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35, 1199–1215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazoche, P., Combris, P., Giraud-Heraud, E., Pinto, A., Bunte, F., & Tsakiridou, E. (2014). Willingness to pay for pesticide reduction in the EU: nothing but organic? European Review of Agricultural Economics, 41(1), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbt011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brethour, C., & Weersink, A. (2001). An economic evaluation of the environmental benefits from pesticide reduction. Agricultural Economics, 25(2–3), 219–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, J. (1986). Environmental effects of DDT. In National Research Counsel (Ed.), Ecological knowledge and environmental problem-solving: concepts and case studies (pp. 358–374). Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Combris, P., Pinto, A. S., Fragata, A., & Giraud-Héraud, E. (2009). Does taste beat food safety? Evidence from the “Pêra Rocha” case in Portugal. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 16(1), 60–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • da Costa, C. A., & Santos, J. L. (2016). Estimating the demand curve for sustainable use of pesticides from contingent-valuation data. Ecological Economics, 127, 121–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davik, J., Bakken, A. K., Holte, K., & Blomhoff, R. (2006). Effects of genotype and environment on total anti-oxidant capacity and the content of sugars and acids in strawberries (Fragaria X ananassa Duch.). The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology, 81(6), 1057–1063. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2006.11512171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eom, Y. S. (1994). Pesticide-residue risk and food safety valuation - a random utility approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76(4), 760–771. https://doi.org/10.2307/1243737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florax, R. J. G. M., Travisi, C. M., & Nijkamp, P. (2005). A meta-analysis of the willingness to pay for reductions in pesticide risk exposure. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32(4), 441–467. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbi025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govindasamy, R., & Italia, J. (1998). A willingness-to-purchase comparison of integrated pest management and conventional produce. Agribusiness: An International Journal, 14(5), 403–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvakkestad, V., Berglann, H., Refsgaard, K., & Flaten, O. (2017). Citizen and consumer evaluation of organic food and farming in Norway. Organic Agriculture, 8(2), 87–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefebvre, M., Langrell, S. R. H., & Gomez-Y-Paloma, S. (2015). Incentives and policies for integrated pest management in Europe: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(1), 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefebvre, M., Biguzzi, C., Ginon, E., Gomez-y-Paloma, S., Langrell, S. R. H., Marette, S., et al. (2017). Mandatory integrated pest management in the European Union: experimental insights on consumers’ reactions. Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, 98, 25–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-017-0041-x.

  • Loureiro, M. L., & Umberger, W. J. (2007). A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell US about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability. Food Policy, 32(4), 496–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, J. L., & Briggeman, B. C. (2009). Food Values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(1), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01175.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, J. L., Schroeder, T. C., & Tonsor, G. T. (2014). Distinguishing beliefs from preferences in food choice. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 41(4), 627–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, E., & Cranfield, J. A. L. (2005). Consumer demand for pesticide free food products in Canada: a probit analysis. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics-Revue Canadienne D Agroeconomie, 53(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2005.00354.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maheswaran, D. (1994). Country of origin as a stereotype: effects of consumer expertise and attribute strength on product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 354–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattilsynet (2017). Rester av plantevernmidler i bær 2012-2015. Report Mattilsynet and NIBIO. https://www.mattilsynet.no/mat_og_vann/uonskede_stofferimaten/rester_av_plantevernmidler_i_mat/rester_av_plantevernmidler_i_baer_20122015.25248-1 Accessed Jun 2017.

  • Mittenzwei, K., Mann, S., Refsgaard, K., & Kvakkestad, V. (2016). Hot cognition in agricultural policy preferences in Norway? Agriculture and Human Values, 33(1), 61–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moser, R., Raffaelli, R., & Thilmany-McFadden, D. (2011). Consumer preferences for fruit and vegetables with credence-based attributes: a review. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 14(2), 121–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nave, S., Jacquet, F., & Jeuffroy, M. (2013). Why wheat farmers could reduce chemical inputs: evidence from social, economic, and agronomic analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 33, 795–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0144-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NFST (Norwegian Food Safety Authority) and NIBIO, 2018. Pesticide residues in food and feed 2017. (In Norwegian with english summary: Rester av plantevernmidler i næringsmidler 2017.) Ås, Norway. 97 pp. ISBN: 978-82-92650-02-8.

  • Nygard, B., & Storstad, O. (1998). De-globalization of food markets? Consumer perceptions of safe food: the case of Norway. Sociologia Ruralis, 38(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OFG. (2018). Totaloversikten 2017. Report. https://www.frukt.no/presse/statistikk/ Accessed Jun 2018.

  • Parker, C. (2015). Strawberry fields forever: can consumers see pesticides and sustainability as an issue? Sustainability Science, 10(2), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0267-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, D., Henryks, J., & Jones, H. (2011). Organic food: what we know (and do not know) about consumers. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 26(2), 171–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettersen, I., Nebell, I., & Prestvik, A. (2014). Grønn verdi. NILF-Report: Lønnsom vekst for norsk frukt og grønt.

    Google Scholar 

  • PubChem (2017). U.S. National Library of Medicine. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ Accessed Jun 2017.

  • Rejesus, R. (2019). What can we learn from more recent (and more ‘rigorous’) economic impact assessments of Integrated Pest Management Farmer Field Schools (IPM-FFS)? In D. Onstad & P. Crain (Eds.), The economics of integrated pest management of insects (pp. 35–48). Wallingford: CABI.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 280–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SSB (Statistics Norway) (2018): www.ssb.no Accessed Jan 2017.

  • Stefani, G., Romano, D., & Cavicchi, A. (2006). Consumer expectations, liking and willingness to pay for specialty foods: do sensory characteristics tell the whole story? Food Quality and Preference, 17(1–2), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.07.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thøgersen, J., Pedersen, S., Paternoga, M., Schwendel, E., & Aschemann-Witzel, J. (2017). How important is country-of-origin for organic food consumers? A review of the literature and suggestions for future research. British Food Journal, 119(3), 542–557. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2016-0406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travisi, C. M., Nijkamp, P., & Vindigni, G. (2006). Pesticide risk valuation in empirical economics: a comparative approach. Ecological Economics, 56(4), 455–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.06.026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yiridoe, E. K., Bonti-Ankomah, S., & Martin, R. C. (2005). Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: a review and update of the literature. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 20(4), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1079/Raf2005113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Marianne Stenrød and Valborg Kvakkestad for valuable comments.

Funding

The study was funded by the Norwegian Research Council (project number 244526 and 268273).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Food Production and Society, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), Thormøhlensgate 55, 5006, Bergen, Norway

    Anna Birgitte Milford

  2. Division of Biotechnology and Plant Health, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), P.O. Box 115, NO-1431, Ås, Norway

    Nina Trandem

  3. Centre for applied research at NHH (SNF), Helleveien 30, Bergen, 5045, Norway

    Armando José Garcia Pires

Authors
  1. Anna Birgitte Milford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nina Trandem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Armando José Garcia Pires
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Anna Birgitte Milford conceived the idea and designed the study, and was responsible for conducting the survey, analysing the results and writing the article. Nina Trandem contributed to development of survey and focus group questions and participated in the focus groups. Armando Pires gave advice to the econometric analysis. Nina Trandem and Armando Pires contributed to discussion of the results and to writing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Birgitte Milford.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 5 Overview variables
Full size table
Table 6 Tobit regression result, dependent variable WTP for Norwegian strawberries
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Milford, A.B., Trandem, N. & Pires, A.J.G. Fear of pesticide residues and preference for domestically produced strawberries. Rev Agric Food Environ Stud 102, 369–391 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-020-00134-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-020-00134-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation