Food safety remains a major issue to many consumers. Previous studies examining the economic impact of food safety recalls have focused on Class I recalls. Antibiotic residue in meat products, a Class II recall, has increased in consumer importance yet little is known about how much research and development expenditure should be allocated to reduce antibiotic residue pre- and post-harvest. This study compares demand elasticities and the decrease in willingness to pay in response to either an E. coli (Class I) or antibiotic residue (Class II) recall. We compare and contrast two competing behavioral frameworks, Random Utility and Regret Minimizing. Modeling behavior using the random regret framework is found to be more powerful for assessing consumer responses. In addition, we explore if different groups of consumers exist that either maximize utility or minimize regret. Consumer devaluations of E. coli (Class I) are 40–65% larger than antibiotic residue (Class II). Approximately 60% of consumers are identified as regret minimizers and 40% were identified as utility maximizers. While industry response and government policy recommendations differed conditional on modeling framework, the regret minimizing framework required smaller price discounts than regret minimizing to maintain the same level of market share.

食品安全仍然是许多消费者的主要问题。先前研究食品召回对经济的影响的研究集中在I类召回上。二级召回的肉类产品中的抗生素残留物在消费者中的重要性已提高，但对于减少收获前和收获后抗生素残留物应分配多少研发支出知之甚少。这项研究比较了需求弹性和针对两种情况的支付意愿的降低。大肠杆菌（I类）或抗生素残留（II类）召回。我们比较并对比了两个竞争行为框架，随机效用和遗憾最小化。发现使用随机后悔框架对行为进行建模对于评估消费者的反应更为有效。此外，我们探索是否存在不同的消费者群体，这些消费者群体要么最大化效用，要么最小化遗憾。消费者贬值大肠杆菌（I类）比抗生素残留（II类）大40–65％。大约60％的消费者被确定为后悔最小化者，40％被确定为效用最大化者。虽然行业响应和政府政策建议在建模框架上有所不同，但后悔最小化框架要求最小的价格折扣，而不是为了保持相同的市场份额而最小化遗憾。