By Robert Pore
robert.pore@theindependent.com

More than 100 countries cut off their imports of U.S. beef after the incident, from which the industry continues to recover.

Last year, there was a 24-percent increase in beef exports to just over 1 billion pounds and 32 percent in value to more than $2 billion.

But the beef industry continues to take its hits last year after massive beef recalls because of E. coli and this year because of animal abuse.

But in an effort to restore customer confidence around the world in beef, a new study found that what a person is eating when it comes to beef can vary widely from one country to another.

The study used data from more than 4,000 consumers surveyed across four countries. Conducting the study were agricultural economists from Kansas State University, Michigan State University and Maastricht University (Netherlands). They found that consumers in Japan and Mexico have more concerns about beef food safety than do consumers in the United States and Canada.

"Food safety concerns have created havoc in global beef markets in recent years," said Ted Schroeder, agricultural economist with K-State Research and Extension and one of the study's authors. "Most noteworthy in North America was a loss of major export markets following the discovery of cattle in the United States and Canada infected with BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in 2003."

The four countries studied represent major markets for U.S. beef.

Last year there was a 3-percent decline to the U.S. largest beef customer, Mexico, by 3 percent. Beef plus beef variety meat exports to Mexico increased 1 percent in value to $1.185 billion but declined 3 percent in volume to 359,452 metric tons (792.4 million pounds).

U.S. beef exports to Canada increased 37 percent to 132,144 metric tons (291.3 million pounds) valued at $602 million, largely fueled by currency dynamics and the increase in live cattle imports from Canada.

Beef exports to Japan increased by 265 percent to 44,718 metric tons (98.6 million pounds) valued at nearly $230 million. The 20-month age limit applied to beef exports to Japan has restricted combined beef and variety meat exports to just 12 percent of 2003 export volume.

According to the study, Japanese consumers are more "risk averse" with respect to beef food safety, the economists found that relative to U.S. and Canadian consumers, Japanese and Mexican consumers perceive beef to be less safe and consider eating beef to involve greater food safety risk.

Other findings of the study included:

Food safety perceptions and attitudes, and interaction between the two, contribute to reductions in beef consumption by at least some consumers in each of the four countries, with impacts most pronounced in Japan and Mexico.

From policy and industry perspectives, a beef food safety event in the United States and Canada can be dealt with by quickly containing the hazard and informing consumers about the low probability of adverse health effects associated with consuming the product. For Japanese consumers, a beef food safety concern requires greater assurance that steps have been taken to eliminate a potential hazard.

Canadian and American respondents generally believe that beef products are safe, though they perceive that E. coli 0157:H7 poses the highest risk, with about 50 percent of respondents indicating moderate risk or greater. About 60 percent of respondents in Canada and the U.S. rated BSE as low or very low risk.

Japanese respondents generally perceived low risk levels for beef except for BSE, which more than 50 percent of the respondents rated "high" or "very high risk."

Overall, Mexican respondents have greater concerns about beef food safety than consumers in the other three countries.

"The high risk perceptions of Mexican respondents for food safety hazards that have low incidence rates suggest that Mexican consumers have a higher concern about food safety than consumers in the other three countries," Schroeder said. "The reason for that is unknown. Perhaps they experience more food safety-related illnesses than do consumers in the other countries. Food safety concerns may also be influenced by other factors such as media and government announcements."

Working with Schroeder was fellow K-State ag economists James Mintert.

"The lack of knowledge among consumers about some beef food safety concerns is noticeable," Mintert said. "In particular, the most common response in Canada, the United States and Japan is that consumers don't know the risk levels associated with Listeria, Campylobacter, and Staphylococcus aureus. This could be because the incidence level of these foodborne pathogens is low, and generally receive little media attention. For that reason, consumers may simply be unfamiliar with them."

Mintert said the findings of this and future work indicate that a concerted industry effort to ensure that beef is free of any food safety concern is essential if beef is to regain market share because Japanese consumers, in particular, have a very low tolerance for even a small probability that beef contributes to food safety problems.

"Information reassuring consumers needs to be combined with a stringent, auditable set of changes in industry and government inspection standards to avoid large sustained losses in consumer demand," Schroeder added.

Details about the study can be found on The Berkeley Electronic Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy's Web site: http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol7/iss1/art65.