Fresh Produce Discussion Blog

Created by The Packer's National Editor Tom Karst

Monday, September 3, 2007

Paying more for safety?

Luis of our Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group posted this link to a story about consumer attitudes towards paying more for safe products. Headlined simply "Americans don't want to pay more for safe products,"the story states:

However, Linda Shea of the research and consulting firm Opinion Research Corp, which helps major U.S. companies manage their brands and reputations, said consumers will balk at paying for safety checks they assumed were already being done.


TK: Do this viewpoint, here broadly directed at manufactured goods, also apply to produce? Will consumers pay more for food safety? Some consumers will definitely pay more for organic produce, so communicating the goodness or earth friendliness of produce is probably more significant and valuable than communicating the white lab coat "safety" of fresh produce. Don't tell consumers that spinach has no pathogens, tell them that it will be good for the environment.


Labels: , , , ,

2 Comments:

At September 3, 2007 at 10:00:00 AM CDT , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Organic = Pathogens, increased health risks, shorter shelf life, costs + some debatable environmental elements.

Irradiation, non-organic = safer food, decrease health risks, longer shelf life, affordable + some debatable environmental elements.

Seems clear enough. Is all the organic hype a marketing fad?

 
At September 6, 2007 at 2:47:00 AM CDT , Blogger one country boy said...

Nope. Some of us prefer non-irradiated food, straight from the field to the table. And are willing to pay more for it. How the hell can you even say "safer food"? Quit screwing around with the way nature.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home