Food Safety Economics

The potential market

for irradiated foods

expanded in February

2000 when the

Federal Government added raw

meat and meat products to the list

of foods that can be irradiated to

control pathogenic microorganisms. Food manufacturers are now

permitted to irradiate beef, lamb,

and other red meats as well as

other approved foods (including

poultry, pork, and spices) in order

to reduce or eliminate potentially

dangerous pathogens (see box,

“Food Irradiation,” p. 2). The U.S.

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) has estimated

that foodborne pathogens are

responsible for 76 million illnesses in the United States each year,

resulting in 5,000 deaths (Mead et

al., 1999).

Consumer acceptance of 

irradiated meat and poultry has

important public health implications because irradiation can prevent foodborne illnesses that

occur when consumers handle or

eat meat or poultry contaminated

by microbial pathogens (see box,

“Foodborne Illness Due to Raw

Meat and Poultry,” p. 3). Although

many food manufacturers are

interested in using irradiation to

control foodborne pathogens, a

recent survey by CDC’s Foodborne

Diseases Active Surveillance

Network (FoodNet) found that

only half of consumers were willing to buy irradiated meat or

poultry, and only a fourth were

willing to pay a premium for such

products, which are likely to cost

more than comparable nonirradiated products. The low level of

consumer demand suggests that

the impact of food irradiation on

public health will be limited

unless more consumers decide

that irradiation increases the safety and value of raw meat and

poultry.

The Federal Government first

approved irradiation as a method

for controlling foodborne

pathogens in 1983, although the

procedure was initially restricted

to spices and dried vegetable seasonings. Approval for using irradiation for pathogen control was

subsequently extended to dry

enzyme preparations in 1985, to

raw pork (for controlling

Trichinella spiralis parasites) in

1986, and to raw poultry in 1992.

The recent approval of irradiation

for raw meat and meat products

covers both refrigerated and

frozen products. Temporary

approval was also granted for irradiating prepackaged meat and

poultry products using any of the

1

USDA/ERS AIB-757/August 2000 Consumer Acceptance of Irradiated Meat and Poultry Products

United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 757/August 2000

Issues In Food Safety Economics

Consumer Acceptance of Irradiated 

Meat and Poultry Products

The Federal Government began allowing food manufacturers to irradiate raw meat

and meat products to control pathogenic microorganisms in February 2000.

Consumer acceptance of irradiated foods could affect public health because many

foodborne illnesses occur when consumers handle or eat meat or poultry contaminated by microbial pathogens. However, food manufacturers have been slow to

adopt irradiation, partly because of the perception that relatively few consumers are

willing to buy irradiated foods. A recent survey by the Foodborne Diseases Active

Surveillance Network (FoodNet) confirmed this perception: only half of the adult

residents of the FoodNet sites were willing to buy irradiated ground beef or chicken, and only a fourth were willing to pay a premium for these products, which cost

more to produce than comparable nonirradiated products. These findings suggest

that the impact of food irradiation on public health will be limited unless consumer

preferences change, perhaps in response to educational messages about the safety and benefits of food irradiation.

Paul D. Frenzen

Alex Majchrowicz

Jean C. Buzby

Beth Imhoff

FoodNet Working Group

List of Foods Approved for 

Irradiation Has Expanded
packaging materials previously

approved for gamma-ray irradiation. The Federal Government is

currently considering whether to

permit irradiation to control

pathogens in ready-to-eat processed meats such as hot dogs

and cold cuts, which may be contaminated by Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria can cause severe illness in pregnant women, the elderly, or other susceptible subpopulations. Irradiation has also been

approved for several other purposes, including eliminating insect

pests from foods, inhibiting the

maturation of fresh foods, extending the shelf life of raw meat, and

sterilizing medical devices, food

packaging materials, and certain

other consumer goods.

Although food manufacturers

have been permitted to use irradiation to control pathogens in raw

pork and poultry for some time,

irradiated products account for

only a tiny share of the estimated

51.4 billion pounds (boneless

equivalent weight) of meat and

poultry consumed in the United

States in 1998 (Putnam and

Allshouse, 1999). During the late

1990’s, only four U.S. retail stores

routinely offered irradiated food

products for sale. Irradiated chicken is served in some hospitals and

nursing homes because sick and

elderly persons are more susceptible to foodborne pathogens than

the general population. Several

large food manufacturers that produce over 75 percent of U.S.

ground beef and nearly 50 percent of U.S. poultry signed agreements with a commercial irradiation firm in 1999 to begin treating

meat and poultry for test marketing (Wall Street Transcript, 2000).

As of July 2000, one food manufacturer had begun marketing

irradiated frozen beef patties in

chain grocery stores in the

Minneapolis-St. Paul area, while

another had begun selling irradiated fresh ground beef in several

independent grocery stores in

Florida.

Equipment Costs and Consumer

Concerns Limit Market

The small size of the irradiated foods market has been attributed to two factors, the high capital costs of irradiation equipment

and the perception among food

manufacturers that relatively few

consumers are willing to buy irradiated foods. A number of different companies produce irradiation

equipment, although most of the

U.S. irradiation treatment market

involves the sterilization of medical devices. The capital costs of

irradiation equipment for meat

and poultry plants depend primarily on the radiation source

(gamma rays, electron beams, or

X-rays), product characteristics,

plant volume, and facility design

(irradiation equipment can be

installed in a stand-alone facility,

an integrated unit attached to an

existing plant, or an on-line unit

incorporated directly into a plant

production line). One recent study

estimated that the capital costs of

an electron beam system for a

plant producing approximately

100 million pounds of product per

year (about 0.1 percent of annual

U.S. meat and poultry production

measured by carcass weight) are

about $4.4 million, depending on

the exact specifications (Kaye and

Turman, 1999). Another recent

study estimated that the capital

costs of a gamma ray or X-ray

irradiation system for a larger

plant producing approximately

220 million pounds of product

per year range from $5.7 to $17.0

million, again depending on the

specifications (Bogart and Tolstun,

1999). These estimates suggest

that electron beam systems tend

to be less expensive than gamma

ray or X-ray systems. However,

electron beams cannot penetrate

food products more than three

inches thick and have fewer

potential applications in the meat

and poultry industry than gamma

rays or X-rays, which can penetrate an entire pallet load of food

products.

Recent studies of the economic costs of irradiation equipment

have not reported detailed information about operating costs.

Earlier research by ERS found that

the annual operating costs for a

plant producing 100 million

pounds of food products per year

were $0.8 to $1.1 million for an

electron beam system and $0.9 to

$1.1 million (all in 1988 dollars)

for a gamma-ray system

(Morrison, 1989). The ERS study

also found that there are substantial economies of scale involved in

food irradiation based on gammaray or electron beam systems.

Meat and poultry processing is

highly concentrated in large

2 Food Safety Economics

Consumer Acceptance of Irradiated Meat and Poultry Products AIB-757/August 2000 USDA/ERS

Food Irradiation

Commercial irradiation equipment uses gamma rays, electron beams, or X-rays

to expose food products to ionizing radiation that causes changes at the molecular level, damaging or destroying living cells. Depending on the type of food and

radiation dosage, irradiation can be used to sterilize food for storage at room

temperature, control pathogenic microorganisms, delay spoilage of fresh foods,

control insect infestations, delay ripening of certain fruits, or inhibit sprouting of

certain vegetables. Extensive scientific research reviewed by the World Health

Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has indicated

that irradiated food is safe to eat (WHO, 1994; U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, 1997).
Food Safety Economics

plants, favoring the adoption of

irradiation technology because

large plants can employ the most

cost-effective irradiation systems.

Nevertheless, food manufacturers

have been reluctant to invest in

integrated or on-line irradiation

units. The companies that recently signed contracts to irradiate

meat and poultry for test marketing agreed to ship products to a

stand-alone contract irradiation

unit rather than install irradiation

equipment in their own plants.

The use of contract irradiation

services is advantageous for food

manufacturers, who are currently

uncertain about the magnitude of

demand for irradiated meat or

poultry. However, contract irradiation involves additional transportation and handling costs

because product must be shipped

to an intermediate destination to

be irradiated before it is sold.

Although the capital costs of

irradiation equipment are relatively high, the potential benefits of

irradiating meat and poultry may

also be quite large for food manufacturers. Properly operated irradiation units will reduce or eliminate the risk of pathogen contamination of food products and the

possible adverse consequences for

firms, including voluntary and

mandatory product recalls, fines

and other penalties for violating

food safety regulations, litigation

and damage awards resulting

from foodborne illness, and the

loss of business reputation and

sales associated with unfavorable

media attention. These costs may

be substantial. For example,

Hudson Foods, Inc., incurred over

$24 million in special charges in

1997 after USDA ordered a recall

of ground beef produced in one of

the company’s plants due to suspected E. coli O157:H7 contamination, including the costs of the

recall and losses associated with

the closure and subsequent sale of

the plant. Hudson Foods was later

sold to a competitor because of

the potential negative impact of

the recall on other company business operations (Securities and

Exchange Commission, 1997).

Demand for irradiated meat

and poultry depends on acceptance by the food service industry

as well as by consumers. Food

service companies could benefit

by using irradiated meat and poultry because many outbreaks of

foodborne illness have been

traced to improper handling or

inadequate cooking of raw meat

or poultry by restaurants or other

eating places, sometimes resulting

in fines, damage awards, or other

adverse consequences for the

responsible firm. Although food

service companies are not

required to disclose whether prepared meals incorporate irradiated food products, only a few food

service companies have used irradiated poultry or expressed interest in using irradiated meat.

Decisions by food service companies to use irradiated meat and

poultry could have a significant

impact on demand because dining

out has become increasingly popular in the United States, accounting for 27 percent of all meals and

snacks in 1995 (Lin et al., 1999). 

Most consumers have never

seen irradiated meat or poultry in

their local grocery store, so consumer acceptance of these products has yet to be tested on a large

scale. Consumer surveys have typ3

USDA/ERS AIB-757/August 2000 Consumer Acceptance of Irradiated Meat and Poultry Products

Foodborne Illness Due to Raw Meat and Poultry

The intestinal tracks of food animals are a natural habitat for some pathogenic

microorganisms, including E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, and Salmonella.

These pathogens may contaminate raw meat or poultry products during slaughter or processing, potentially causing human illness when the products are subsequently handled or eaten. Many consumers engage in food handling or consumption behaviors that increase the chances that contaminated meat or poultry will make them ill, including not adequately washing their hands or cutting

boards after contact with raw meat or chicken and eating pink hamburgers that

might be undercooked (Altekruse et al., 1999). However, the proportion of foodborne illnesses due to contaminated meat or poultry is not precisely known.

ERS reviewed the available information on foodborne illness due to contaminated meat and poultry when the Federal meat and poultry inspection system was

revised in the mid-1990’s (USDA, 1996). The analysis covered seven foodborne

pathogens, and estimated that meat- or poultry-related infections were responsible for 50 percent of illnesses due to Clostridium perfringens, Listeria monocytogenes, and Staphylococcus aureus, 50-75 percent of illnesses due to

Salmonella, 75 percent of illnesses due to Campylobacter and E. coli O157:H7,

and 100 percent of illnesses due to Toxoplasma gondii. CDC has estimated that

these seven pathogens are together responsible for 3.9 million foodborne illnesses and 1,600 deaths each year (Mead et al., 1999). Based on the ERS analysis, meat- and poultry-related infections account for 2.5 to 2.9 million illnesses

and 1,000 to 1,200 deaths due to these seven pathogens. The total number of

illnesses and deaths associated with meat or poultry is probably understated

because 81 percent of the 76 million annual foodborne illnesses in the United

States are due to unknown agents (Mead et al., 1999), and some of these illnesses may also be meat- or poultry-related. Furthermore, the ERS analysis

excluded other pathogens that might be transmitted by meat or poultry, notably

Yersinia enterocolitica.
4

ically found that about 50 percent

of respondents are willing to buy

irradiated food, although the level

of interest is higher when consumers are first informed that

irradiation will control harmful

bacteria. Annual surveys by the

Food Marketing Institute indicate

that the willingness of supermarket shoppers to buy irradiated

food declined slightly during the 

late 1990’s (fig. 1). During the

same period there was a substantial increase in news stories about

food irradiation (fig. 2), reflecting

the initial stages of the approval

process for irradiation of raw

meat and the public debate over

whether USDA’s organic food standards should exclude irradiated

foods. The decline in willingness

to buy irradiated food suggests

that the increase in news stories

made some consumers more

dubious about the safety or benefits of irradiated food.

Other surveys indicate that

many consumers remain concerned about the safety of irradiated food despite their reported

willingness to buy such products.

For example, a national survey

conducted by the Gallup

Organization in 1993 found that

over 60 percent of consumers

were extremely concerned that

irradiated food might be radioactive or capable of causing cancer

or birth defects (American Meat

Institute Foundation, 1993). Many

consumers also opposed USDA’s

initial proposal in 1997 to allow

certain irradiated foods to be

labeled as “organic.” The subsequent revision of the organic food

standards to exclude irradiated

products was based in part on

275,000 public comments provided to USDA, nearly all of which

opposed the use of irradiation

technology in organic production

systems (USDA, 2000). 

Price of Irradiated 

Food Also Matters

Irradiated food products cost

more to produce than comparable

nonirradiated products. The higher cost will reduce consumer

demand for irradiated food products, depending on how willing

consumers are to pay a premium

for safer food. Recent studies

have estimated that the current

cost of irradiating meat or poultry

is 0.5 to 1.5 cents per pound in a

plant with an annual volume of

100 million pounds equipped with

an electron beam system (Kaye

and Turman, 1999), and 0.8 to 2.0

cents per pound in a larger plant

with an annual volume of approximately 220 million pounds

equipped with a gamma ray or Xray system, depending on the

assumed interest rate as well as

the plant specifications (Bogart

and Tolstun, 1999). USDA has estimated that the special labels for

irradiated food products required

Consumer Acceptance of Irradiated Meat and Poultry Products AIB-757/August 2000 USDA/ERS

 1996 1997 1998 1999

40

50

60

70

80

Figure 1

The proportion of supermarket shoppers who were likely to 

buy irradiated food products declined during the late 1990's

 Source: Food Marketing Institute, 1996-99 annual surveys of consumer attitudes and the 

supermarket. Shoppers were asked how likely they were to buy foods that had been irradiated to 

kill germs and keep food safe.

Percent very or somewhat likely to buy

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Figure 2

TV news and newspaper stories about food irradiation 

increased markedly during the late 1990's

Number of stories

 Source: Calculated by ERS based on archives for 4 national TV networks and 25 major 

newspapers published in 18 different States. Includes all stories mentioning "irradiation" in 

conjunction with food safety. Editorials and letters to the editor were excluded.

Food Safety Economics
Food Safety Economics

by the Federal Government will

add another 0.2 cent per pound to

the cost of irradiated ground beef

(USDA, 1999). If food manufacturers elect to ship meat and poultry

to stand-alone irradiation units

rather than construct integrated

or on-line irradiation units in

slaughterhouses or processing

plants, the additional costs of

transportation will further widen

the price differential between irradiated and nonirradiated products.

USDA has conservatively estimated that transportation to standalone irradiation units will raise

the cost of irradiated ground beef

by an additional 0.2 cent per

pound (USDA, 1999). 

Food manufacturers are likely

to pass on the additional costs of

irradiated food products to consumers. Supermarket trials have

demonstrated that consumers are

sensitive to the price of irradiated

foods. For example, a 1996 test

that compared irradiated and nonirradiated chicken breasts found

that the share of chicken breast

sales that were irradiated products

dropped from 43 percent when

there was no price difference to

19 percent when there was a 10-

percent premium for irradiated

products (Fox and Olson, 1998).

The 1998-99 FoodNet

Population Survey investigated

consumer willingness to pay more

for irradiated meat and poultry as

well as other issues (see box “The

1998-99 FoodNet Population

Survey,” p. 7). Nearly 50 percent

of adults in the sites covered by

the survey were willing to buy

irradiated meat or poultry, a level

of acceptance similar to that

found in earlier surveys (fig. 3).

Other adults were either unwilling

to buy these products (32 percent)

or else were not sure (19 percent).

Although half of adults were willing to buy irradiated meat or

poultry, only 23 percent were willing to pay more for irradiated

ground beef than they paid for

nonirradiated ground beef, and

only 25 percent were willing to

pay more for irradiated chicken, a

price response similar to that seen

in supermarket trials (table 1). The

FoodNet survey measures of consumer demand are not conclusive

because questions about hypothetical purchase decisions may

not be indicative of actual market

behavior. Nevertheless, the survey

results suggest that only a minority of consumers are likely to buy

irradiated meat or poultry if it

becomes readily available in retail

stores but is priced higher than

comparable nonirradiated 

products.

5

USDA/ERS AIB-757/August 2000 Consumer Acceptance of Irradiated Meat and Poultry Products

Table 1

Consumer willingness to pay more for irradiated ground beef and 

chicken, FoodNet sites, 1998-99

Response Ground beef Chicken

Percent

Willing to buy irradiated meet 

or poultry:

Would pay more 22.7 24.5

Wouldn’t pay more 7.0 7.2

Not sure about paying more 17.5 16.5

Not willing to buy or unsure about

buying irradiated meat or poultry 52.81 51.92

Total 100.0 100.0

1Includes 2.3 percent of respondents who were willing to buy irradiated meat or poultry but did

not buy ground beef.

2Includes 1.4 percent of respondents who were willing to buy irradiated meat or poultry but did

not buy chicken.

Source: 1998-99 FoodNet Population Survey. Totals may not sum to 100.0 percent due to 

rounding.

Only half of adult consumers in the FoodNet sites were willing 

to buy irradiated meat or poultry products in 1998-99

 Source: 1998-99 FoodNet Population Survey.

31.8%

18.5%

49.5%

Figure 3

Yes

No

Not

sure
6

Consumer reluctance to buy

irradiated meat or poultry is due

in part to a lack of information

about food irradiation. The

FoodNet survey found that only

48 percent of adults had ever

heard of food irradiation, suggesting that public knowledge about

irradiation is low despite the

recent increase in news stories

about it. Several studies have

shown that consumers become

more willing to buy irradiated

foods after learning about the

safety and benefits of irradiation.

For example, a shopping study

conducted by the University of

Georgia in 1993 found that the

proportion of consumers choosing irradiated over nonirradiated

ground beef when there was no

price difference rose from 52 to

71 percent after viewing a short

audiovisual educational program

(American Meat Institute

Foundation, 1993). Findings of

this kind suggest that consumer

education programs could alleviate consumer concerns about irradiation and increase demand for

irradiated foods.

The potential target groups 

for consumer education programs

include consumers who are

unwilling to buy or unsure about

buying irradiated foods, as well as

consumers who are unwilling to

pay more or unsure about paying

more for irradiated foods. The

FoodNet survey found that these

various groups account for about

three-fourths of adults. Each

group is likely to have different

concerns that could be addressed

by specific educational messages.

According to the FoodNet survey,

the most frequent reason why

adults were unwilling to buy irradiated meat or poultry was insufficient information about food

irradiation, followed by concern

about the safety of eating irradiated food (table 2). Other reasons

for not buying were much less

common. The FoodNet survey did

not investigate why some adults

who were willing to buy irradiated

meat or poultry would not pay

more for these products, although

it seems likely that they valued

safer food less highly than individuals who were willing to pay

more.

A broad-based effort to educate consumers about the safety

and benefits of food irradiation

has yet to emerge. In the absence

of a major government or industry effort to educate consumers,

public attitudes toward food irradiation might be shaped instead

by the opponents of irradiation.

Some observers believe that food

manufacturers and food service

companies were dissuaded from

adopting food irradiation in the

early 1990’s after the Federal

Government approved irradiation

for poultry because of a national

public campaign against food irradiation organized by an activist

organization (Skerrett, 1997).

Commercial interest in food irradiation appears to be stronger

now than during the early 1990’s

due to heightened industry concerns about the adverse consequences of selling contaminated

food, as well as the recent

approval of irradiation for raw

meat and meat products. However,

many consumers might be susceptible to renewed efforts to raise

doubts about the safety or benefits of irradiated foods. Accurate

public information about food

irradiation may well determine

whether more consumers become

willing to buy and pay more for

irradiated food products, expanding the market for irradiated foods

and almost certainly reducing the

annual number of foodborne illnesses and deaths.

Consumer Acceptance of Irradiated Meat and Poultry Products AIB-757/August 2000 USDA/ERS

Table 2

Most important reason why adults would not buy

irratiated meat or poultry, FoodNet sites, 1998-99

Most important reason Percent

Insufficient information about risks and/or benefits 35.0

Concerned about safety of eating irradiated food 22.7

Irradiation doesn’t make food safer 4.2

Doesn’t eat meat or poultry 4.0

Concerned about environmental impact of irradiation 3.9

Doesn’t need irradiation to make food safe 3.5

Doesn’t like trying new foods/products 3.3

Price of irradiated food 2.5

Taste/appearance of irradiated food 1.4

Other, unspecified reasons 10.2

Doesn’t know/not sure 7.9

Refused to answer 1.4

Total 100.0

Source: 1998-99 FoodNet Population Survey. Includes only those respondents 

(31.8 percent of total) who would not buy irradiated meat or poultry.

Food Safety Economics

Consumer Education 

Could Play Role
Issues In Food Safety Economics

Food Safety Economics 7

USDA/ERS AIB-757/August 2000 Consumer Acceptance of Irradiated Meat and Poultry Products

The 1998-99 FoodNet Population Survey

FoodNet is the principal foodborne disease component of CDC’s Emerging Infections Program (EIP), and represents a collaborative effort by CDC, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Food and Drug Administration, and the nine participating State health departments. FoodNet monitors foodborne illness and conducts an annual telephone survey of the population in each EIP site. The 1998-99 FoodNet population survey cited in this article covered seven sites (Connecticut,

Georgia, Minnesota, Oregon, and selected counties in California, Maryland, and New York) including nearly 11 percent of the

U.S. population. A total of 10,780 adults were interviewed. The topics addessed by the survey included food-handling behavior and current health status, as well as attitudes about food irradiation.

The first question about food irradiation on the 1998-99 FoodNet survey asked whether respondents had ever heard of “irradiation” as a process for treating food. After informing all respondents that irradiation is a process that reduces the number

of bacteria and other microorganisms that might cause illness in improperly prepared foods, the next question asked whether

respondents would buy meat or poultry that had been irradiated if it was available where they shopped. Respondents who

would not buy irradiated meat or poultry were then asked to report the most important reason why they would not buy these

products. Respondents who would buy irradiated meat or poultry were asked instead how much more per pound they would

be willing to pay for ground beef and chicken that had been irradiated than they currently paid for comparable nonirradiated

products.

The 1998-99 FoodNet population survey results were weighted to account for unequal probabilities of selection, based in part

on Bureau of the Census population estimates for each site. The participating sites were not selected to provide a representative sample of the U.S. population, but are located in different regions and include both rural areas and urban centers. There

is no evidence that attitudes toward food irradiation in the participating sites are likely to differ significantly from attitudes

elsewhere in the United States.

More information about FoodNet and the members of the FoodNet Working Group is available from the FoodNet website at:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/foodnet/

The Food and Rural Economics Division of ERS/USDA designed this series of policy-oriented, timely publications to 

provide background and analysis for decisionmakers and others.

These reports are available electronically through the ERS Home Page at http://www.ers.usda.gov/ and through the ERS

AutoFAX. To use the AutoFAX, call (202) 694-5700 on your fax machine’s handset. Respond to the recorded voice

prompts and request document number 04000 for a directory of publications in the Issues in Food Safety Economics

Series.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs and activities on the basis of race, color,

national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and

Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
8

Consumer Acceptance of Irradiated Meat and Poultry Products AIB-757/August 2000 USDA/ERS

Contact Information and References 

Contact Information

ERS: Paul D. Frenzen, (202) 694-5351, pfrenzen@ers.usda.gov

FoodNet Working Group: Beth Imhoff, (404) 639-2206,

bimhoff@cdc.gov

References

Altekruse, S. F., S. Yang, B. B. Timbo, and F. J. Angulo. 

“A Multi-State Survey of Consumer Food-Handling 

and Food-Consumption Practices,” American Journal of 

Preventive Medicine, Vol. 16, No. 3, April 1999, 

pp. 216-21.

American Meat Institute Foundation. Consumer Awareness,

Knowledge, and Acceptance of Food Irradiation, November 1993.

Bogart, S. L., and N. G. Tolstun. “Economic Aspects of Cold Food

Pasteurization,” pp. 603-05 in A. Luccio and W. MacKay (eds.),

Proceedings of the 1999 Particle Accelerator Conference, New

York, 1999, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 1999.

Food Marketing Institute. Trends in the United States: Consumer

Attitudes & the Supermarket, 1999, Washington, DC, 1999.

Fox, J. A., and D. G. Olson. “Market Trials of Irradiated Chicken,”

Radiation Physics and Chemistry, Vol. 52, No. 1-6, 1998, pp. 63-

66.

Kaye, R. J., and B. N. Turman. “Issues for Bringing Electron Beam

Irradiators On-Line,” paper presented at Food Irradiation 99

Conference, Washington, DC, May 12-14, 1999.

Lin, B. H., J. Guthrie, and E. Frazao. Away-From-Home Foods

Increasingly Important to Quality of American Diet, AIB-749, U.S.

Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., January 1999.

Mead, P. S., L. Slutsker, V. Dietz, L. F. McCaig, J. S. Bresee, C.

Shapiro, P. M. Griffin, and R. V. Tauxe. “Food-Related Illness and

Death in the United States,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol.

5, No. 5, September-October 1999, pp. 607-25.

Morrison, R. M. An Economic Analysis of Electron Accelerators

and Cobalt-60 for Irradiating Food, TB-1762, U.S. Dept. Agr.,

Econ. Res. Serv., June 1989.

Putnam, J. J., and J. E. Allshouse. Food Consumption, Prices, and

Expenditures, 1970-97, SB-965, U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv.,

April 1999.

Securities and Exchange Commission. Annual Report Pursuant to

Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the

Fiscal Year Ended September 27, 1997: Hudson Foods, Inc.,

1997.

Skerrett, P. J. “Food Irradiation: Will It Keep the Doctor Away?”

Technology Review, November-December 1997.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection

Service. “Supplement - Final Regulatory Impact Assessment for

Docket No. 93-016F, Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and

Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems: Final Rule,” Federal

Register. Vol. 61, No. 144, July 25, 1996, pp. 38945-89.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection

Service. “9 CFR Parts 317, 318, and 381 [Docket No. 97-076P],

Irradiation of Meat and Meat Products: Proposed Rule,” Federal

Register, Vol. 64, No. 36, February 24, 1999, pp. 9089-105.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. “7

CFR Part 205 [Docket Number: TMD-00-02-PR2], National

Organic Program: Proposed Rule,” Federal Register, Vol. 65, No.

49, March 13, 2000, pp. 13512-658.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug

Administration. “21 CFR Part 179. [Docket Number 94F-0289],

Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and Handling of Food,”

Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 232, December 3, 1997, pp. 64107-

21.

The Wall Street Transcript, “CEO Interview: Dr. Gene W. Ray—The

Titan Corporation (NYSE: TTN),” January 31, 2000.

World Health Organization. Safety and Nutritional Adequacy of

Irradiated Food, Geneva, Switzerland, 1994.

Food Safety Economics

Ask for Consumer Acceptance of Irradiated Meat and Poultry Products (AIB-757).

For additional information about ERS publications, databases, and other products, both paper and electronic, visit the 

ERS Home Page on the Internet at http://www.ers.usda.gov/

National Agricultural Library Cataloging Record:

Consumer acceptance of irradiated meat and poultry products. (Agriculture information bulletin ; no. 757) (Issues in food 

safety economics) 1. Consumers--United States--Attitudes. 2. Irradiated meat--United States--Marketing. 3. Irradiated poultry--

United States--Marketing. I. Frenzen, Paul D. II. United States. Dept. of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. III Title.

HF5415.33.U6

Just dial 1-800-999-6779. Toll free in the United States and Canada.

It’s Easy To Order Another Copy!