https://doi.org/10.4081/ijfs.2020.9021
Evaluation of seafood traceability system in Korea: demand-oriented analysis
Submitted: 12 April 2020
Accepted: 24 June 2020
Published: 19 November 2020
Accepted: 24 June 2020
Abstract Views: 443
PDF: 291
HTML: 6
HTML: 6
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Authors
The Korean government tried to secure food safety by revitalization of seafood traceability system since there has been growing dissatisfaction toward of food system related to seafood in Korea. This study examines the consumers’ perspective on seafood traceability system and the value of seafood traceability in Korea using contingent valuation method. The model includes preference and recognition of respondents for the seafood traceability system, and socio-demographic characteristics. The result of the model shows that respondents think positively about seafood traceability system and it is expected that approximately $44.94 million can be generated annually from the seafood traceability system. The result implies that it is necessary to promote the system in order to make this system known, the benefit of which is helpful in food safety.
Ajzen I, Driver BL. Contingent value measurement: On the nature and meaning of willingness to pay. Journal of consumer psychology. 1992;1(4):297-316.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80057-5
Borit M, Olsen P. Evaluation framework for regulatory requirements related to data recording and traceability designed to prevent illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Marine Policy. 2012;36(1):96-102.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.03.012
Boyle KJ, Johnson FR, McCollum DW. Anchoring and adjustment in single-bounded, contingent-valuation questions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1997;79(5):1495-500.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1244370
Caswell JA. Valuing the benefits and costs of improved food safety and nutrition. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 1998;42(4):409-24.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.00060
Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC, eds. A primer on nonmarket valuation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0826-6
Duffield JW, Patterson DA. Inference and optimal design for a welfare measure in dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Economics. 1991;67(2):225-39.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3146413
FAO. Contributing to food security and nutrition for all. Rome: FAO; 2018.
Fricker S, Galesic M, Tourangeau R, Yan T. An experimental comparison of web and telephone surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2005;69(3):370-92.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfi027
He J. From country-of-origin labelling (COOL) to seafood import monitoring program (SIMP): How far can seafood traceability rules go? Marine Policy. 2018;96:163-74.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.08.003
Hoyos D, Mariel P. Contingent valuation: Past, present and future. Prague economic papers. 2010;4(2010):329-43.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18267/j.pep.380
Leal MC, Pimentel T, Ricardo F, Rosa R, Calado R. Seafood traceability: current needs, available tools, and biotechnological challenges for origin certification. Trends in biotechnology. 2015;33(6):331-6.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.03.003
MOF. Survey for awareness of the seafood traceability system and promotion: final report. Korea: Focus Company; 2015.
MOF. Study on Application of Foreign Seafood Certification System. Korea; Aqua International; 2016.
MOF. First step to mandatory seafood traceability system [Press release] (2018, Oct. 26) [cited 2019 August 10]. Available from: http://www.mof.go.kr/article/view.do?articleKey=23717&boardKey=10&menuKey=376¤tPageNo=1
MOF. Fisheries production and fisheries industry: final report. Korea: MOF; 2018.
Pramod G, Nakamura K, Pitcher TJ, Delagran L. Estimates of illegal and unreported fish in seafood imports to the USA. Marine Policy. 2014;48:102-13.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.03.019
Shin Y. A Study on the State and Development of Seafood Traceability System in Korea. The Journal of Maritime Business. 2018;40:93–114.
Van Rijswijk W, Frewer LJ, Menozzi D, Faioli G. Consumer perceptions of traceability: A cross-national comparison of the associated benefits. Food Quality and Preference. 2008;19(5):452-64.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.02.001
Whitehead JC, Huang JC, Blomquist GC, Ready RC. Construct validity of dichotomous and polychotomous choice contingent valuation questions. Environmental and Resource Economics. 1998;11(1):107-16.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008231430184
Yasuda T, Bowen RE. Chain of custody as an organizing framework in seafood risk reduction. Marine pollution bulletin. 2006;53:640-9.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.08.015
How to Cite
1.
Suh D, Pomeroy R. Evaluation of seafood traceability system in Korea: demand-oriented analysis. Ital J Food Safety [Internet]. 2020 Nov. 19 [cited 2024 Nov. 4];9(3). Available from: https://www.pagepressjournals.org/ijfs/article/view/9021
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.