Assessment of Willingness to Pay Extra for Safe Meat and Meat Products Sold in Different Regions of Al-Suwaria City in Iraq’s Wasit Governorate

Humans have evolved to consume meat, which is high in protein and biological value (Font-i-Furnols, 2023). Due to rapid urbanization, population expansion and wealth development in emerging nations, worldwide per capita meat consumption has quadrupled since 1961 (Ritchie and Roser, 2017). By 2030, OECD and FAO forecast a 14% increase in meat consumption. The growing global population boosts meat consumption (Kanaan, 2024b).  From 1991 to 2013, meat consumption in Iraq increased (Hasan et al., 2019). However, since 2014, the area’s economic turmoil due to declining oil prices and the battle against ISIS slowed growth (FAO/WFP, 2018). The crisis cut household income and buying power (Abdalla et al., 2023). After 2014 terrorist attacks in numerous Iraqi governorates, many families fled to Wasit governorate. Food demand, especially meat, rises (Kanaan et al., 2023). However, this relocation has increased poverty and economic inequality, which may impair consumer behavior and health (Kanaan et al., 2023). The conditions in which animals are raised and processed promote spoilage and harmful bacteria and increase the likelihood of microbiological contamination (Kanaan and Tarek, 2022). Health dangers, chemical pollution and toxic substances in animal and poultry feed have also raised concerns about meat quality, especially in poor nations (Hu et al., 2017; Henchion et al., 2019; Cavalheiro et al., 2020). These toxic elements have the potential to biomagnify in food chains, leading to life-threatening health problems as a long-term consequence of consuming unsafe meat (Zhong et al., 2020). There have been reports of meat contamination in Iraq with several pathogens (Kanaan, 2018, 2023). Safe slaughter and meat safety methods are unclear in our country (Kanaan, 2021, 2023, 2024a). However, consumers’ food safety ignorance contributes to this problem (Kanaan and Tarek, 2020; Kanaan et al., 2022).
       
Food safety is defined by freshness, animal welfare, lean/fat and pricing (Verbeke and Liu, 2014; Krishnasree et al., 2018). Safe meat is grown on antibiotic-free, biosecure feed without harmful elements supplemented with herbs, growth-promoting drugs, or withdrawal periods (Saha et al., 2022). However, particular criteria are defined and safe food prices are expected to rise (Mai et al., 2023).
               
However, much existing literature on consumer behavior toward safe or organic foods implies such importance (Bryant et al., 2019; Li and Kallas, 2021; Kantor and Kantor, 2021; Jayanthi et al., 2021; Patil et al., 2024). Song and Lee (2018) suggest using WTP to set a socially acceptable threshold. Unfortunately, Iraq has yet to execute this safe meat plan despite eliciting comprehensive public preferences. Our study analyzes how consumers perceive safe meat across attributes. It also measures meat consumption and customers’ desire to eat healthier meat. Lastly, the investigation focused on consumers’ willingness to pay for safe meat and meat products.

From October to February 2024, the research was conducted at the Technical Institute of Suwaria in Al-Suwaria city. A cross-sectional study involving 315 customers examined their willingness to pay extra for safe meat. Al-Suwaira, 35 km south of Baghdad, lies in Wasit Governorate.  The population is 77,200. Unfortunately, following the events of 2014, a significant number of families from other governorates relocated to this city after losing their homes (Kanaan et al., 2023). This resulted in worsening poverty and poor living conditions, potentially decreasing consumers’ desire to purchase expensive and healthy meat. The sample size was estimated using Cochran’s method (Khan et al., 2016). The sample size was calculated at 315 using a conservative proportion estimate of 50% and a 5% margin of error with 95% confidence. Study participants were selected via systematic random selection. Data collectors first visited popular markets, butcher shops and retail establishments. Researchers lottery-enrolled 350 customers from indicated locations. 35 samples were rejected to participate owing to lack of interest (n=13), inability to grasp research value (n=9) and missing paragraphs (n=11); they withdrew. Two participants were canceled for not answering questions. This research had a 90% response rate (315/350). When asked, data collectors explained self-administered surveys.
       
Using prior studies (Saha et al., 2022; Mishu et al., 2024), a questionnaire on WTP more for safe meat was created. The questionnaire begins with the study’s aim, voluntariness and completion time. Seven experts with at least five years of experience reviewed the questionnaire for clarity, relevance and appropriateness to assess the early instrument’s content validity. The scale was shown as the mean item CVI (S-CVI/AVE). Each item had a content validity index (I-CVI). Items with an I-CVI greater than 0.7 were kept, while those between 0.5 and 0.7 were revised and explained. Items with I-CVI < 0.5 were discarded. Inter-rater agreement was strong across items, with I-CVIs ranging from 0.71 to 1.0 and S-CVI/AVE at 0.87. The questionnaire examined participants’ demographic information.  Consumer views on safe retail meat’s health, environment, price, availability and meat suppliers were asked. On a 5-point Likert scale, 18 response items were graded: strongly agree (5), agree (4), neutral (3), disagree (2) and strongly disagree (1), ranging from 18 to 90 scores. Good results were 50% or higher than the maximum perception ratings. We also assessed the participants’ desire to purchase safe meat and their wtp the extra price by income group. The Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 2018) program was used to detect the effect of different factors in study parameters. The chi-square test was used to significantly compare between percentages (0.05 and 0.01 probability). In this study, the least significant difference (LSD) test was used to significantly compare between means.

Demographic information of the participants
 
Table 1 presents the distribution of the participants’ demographic characteristics. More than half of the respondents were male, but only a third of them were young and preferred fresh, local, veterinary-supervised red meat. Statistically, there are significant differences (P≤0.01) in the distribution of samples according to demographic information, except for the type of consumed meat (P=0.955). Our results indicated that most respondents are economically engaged (under 50), which may affect their purchases and attitudes regarding safe meat. Despite prior results in Iraq and the world indicating that customers favor poultry meat (Chen and Antonelli, 2020; Neima et al., 2021) for its health benefits, our results showed that most of the respondents preferred fresh, local, veterinary-supervised red meat. However, consumer preference for fresh, verified meat was a positive signal.


       
However, in Iraq, due to the high pricing of such foods, many households buy cheaper meat butchered without veterinary oversight, which may compromise its safety and represent a health risk. Our study suggests that consumers’ preference for wet markets stems from the relatively lower meat prices compared to supermarkets. This finding is in line with Vietnam results (Mai et al., 2023). Married people, especially those with children, may value food safety and quality more. The gender gap in our study may reflect Iraqi culture, where males make most household purchases. Consider this demographic element when examining data since it may impair universal applicability.
 
Consumers’ perceptions of the safety of retailed meat
 
Table 2 summarized the respondents’ perceptions about safe retail meat. Only 38.89% of the participants showed a positive perception about the safe retail meat (Fig 1). In addition to that, our results indicated that availability perception had the highest percentage of positive perception (above the mean) at 66.66% (Fig 2). Statistically, there are significant differences (P≤0.01) in the responses to perception questions among different sample groups (Table 2). Consumers purchase goods depending on their viewpoint. Most respondents felt traditional meat was unhealthy and included heavy metals, pesticides and growth hormones. The results match Malaysian and Romanian ones (Ahmad and Juhdi, 2010; Petrescu and Petrescu-Mag, 2015). Consumer environmental perception scored the lowest, with just 33.33% above the mean (Fig 2).    







The results contradict previous findings by Zagata (2012), Gracia and De-Magistris (2016) and Mai et al., (2023) that consumers have strong environmental perception. Consumer opinions may vary across studies due to differences in food safety knowledge and the influence of animal husbandry on the environment and public health. The respondents’ expensiveness impression had the lowest mean score, with just 33.33% above the mean (Fig 2). Previous research revealed consumers expect safe food prices to rise (Hjelmar, 2011). With 66.66%, respondents’ availability impression scored best (Fig 2), which is inconsistent with Chang and Zepeda (2005) and Saha et al., (2022), who showed lower customer perception of safe food availability. Different dietary habits among different countries and consumers may account for the differences across studies.
 
Meat consumption and WTP extra price by various income groups
 
A positive association was observed between family income and monthly meat consumption, as the monthly mean consumption increases with the increase in family income (Table 3). Statistically, monthly family income significantly affects (P≤0.05) monthly meat consumption (p=0.0318). Our findings indicated that the studied families consume an average of 2 to 23.7 kg of meat each month. The positive and substantial influence of household income on meat consumption supports economic theory that greater incomes allow consumers to buy more expensive food (Vecchio and Annunziata, 2015).  Despite their high price, 80.63% of respondents from families with incomes up to 1,000,000 IQD chose red meat. This contradicts previous findings from Bangladesh (Saha et al., 2022). 


       
Our results (Fig 3) showed that 29.52% of respondents displayed their desire to pay extra to buy safe meat, while 18.15% displayed their desire to pay extra for safe meat over several months. The results showed a positive correlation between the family income and the desire to pay an extra price for safe meat among different income groups (Table 3). Statistically, there are significant differences (P≤0.01) in the responses of samples among different income groups (Table 3).


       
Unfortunately, our results indicate that customers ignored meat safety hazards (Fig 3). Our results were lower than prior results (Saha et al., 2022). Moreover, due to its benefits, people are prepared to pay more for safe meat. Previous research has identified similar consumer demand behavior (Onel et al., 2019; Kantor 2021; Walaszczyk et al., 2023; and Ebata et al., 2025).  The study found a disparity in consumers’ health and environmental perspectives, which may harm the environment and public health.

Consumers often stigmatize meat due to its exposure to harmful substances during its raising. However, higher-quality items will have greater production costs, which will raise prices. This study found that customers had moderate to low health and environmental views, showing that they are less worried about meat safety’s effects on these elements. The desire to spend more on safe meat positively correlates with income categories. This study highlights Iraq’s potential benefits from strong meat inspection and certification procedures. Food safety, customer trust and public health might increase greatly with such methods. Our findings help authorities create guidelines to encourage safe meat purchases. WTP may be studied for other foods’ believability attributes. They may also examine several aspects affecting premium food clients’ WTP.

This study did not get any funding or grants.
 
Disclaimers
 
The views and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of their affiliated institutions. The authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information provided but do not accept any liability for any direct or indirect losses resulting from using this content.
 
Informed consent
 
The Middle Technical University Ethics Committee approved this project (MEC No. 88). The Helsinki Declaration of 1975 principles guided this acceptance. After obtaining all essential information, research participants were invited to write to confirm their participation.

The authors claim no conflicts of interest in publishing this work. No funding or support affected study design, data collection, analysis, publication decision, or article writing.