Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:18:19.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Valuations of ‘Sustainably Produced’ Labels on Beef, Tomato, and Apple Products

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Glynn T. Tonsor  and
Robert Shupp
Glynn T. Tonsor
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan
Robert Shupp
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study evaluates consumer perceptions of what “sustainably produced” food labels imply and estimates corresponding demand for products carrying these labels. Results suggest that the typical U.S. consumer is not willing to pay a positive premium for beef, tomatoes, or apple products labeled as “sustainably produced.” Demand is particularly sensitive to inferences consumers make regarding what a “sustainably produced” food label implies. Suggestions for future work and implications of standardizing the definition of sustainability are provided.

Keywords

consumer perceptionscredence labelingproduction practicessustainableU.S. consumer demandwillingness to pay
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , December 2009 , pp. 371 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alfnes, F. 2004. “Stated Preferences for Imported and Hormone-Treated Beef: Application of a Mixed Logit Model.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 31(1): 19–37.Google Scholar
Alfnes, F. and Rickertsen, K. 2003. “European Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for U.S. Beef in Experimental Auction Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(2): 396–405.Google Scholar
Calker, K.J., Berentsen, P.B.M., Giesen, G.W.J., and Huirne, R.B.M. 2005. “Identifying and Ranking Attributes that Determine Sustainability in Dutch Dairy Farming.” Agriculture and Human Values 22(1): 53–63.Google Scholar
Callens, I. and Tyteca, D. 1999. “Towards Indicators of Sustainable Development for Firms: A Productive Efficiency Perspective.” Ecological Economics 28(1): 41–53.Google Scholar
Cummings, R.G. and Taylor, L.O. 1999. “Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method.” American Economic Review 89(3): 649–665.Google Scholar
Darby, K., Batte, M.T., Ernst, S., and Roe, B. 2008. “Decomposing Local: A Conjoint Analysis of Locally Produced Foods.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(2): 476–486.Google Scholar
De Pelsmacker, P., Janssens, W., Sterckx, E., and Mielants, C. 2005. “Consumer Preferences for the Marketing of Ethically Labelled Coffee.” International Marketing Review 22(5): 512–530.Google Scholar
Fleming, C.M. and Bowden, M. 2009. “Web-Based Surveys as an Alternative to Traditional Mail Methods.” Journal of Environmental Management 90(1): 284–292.Google Scholar
Greene, W. 2008. NLOGIT Version 4.0 Reference Guide. Econometric Software, Inc. Google Scholar
Hanemann, W.M., Loomis, J., and Kanninen, B. 1991. “Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73(4): 1255–1263.Google Scholar
Hu, W., Adamowicz, W.L., and Veeman, M.M. 2006. “Labeling Context and Reference Point Effects in Models of Food Attribute Demand.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88(4): 1034–1049.Google Scholar
Huber, J. and McCann, J. 1982. “The Impact of Inferential Beliefs on Product Evaluations.” Journal of Marketing Research 19(3): 324–333.Google Scholar
Hudson, D., Seah, L., Hite, D., and Haab, T. 2004. “Telephone Presurveys, Self-Selection, and Non-Response Bias to Mail and Internet Surveys in Economic Research.” Applied Economics Letters 11(4): 237–240.Google Scholar
Islam, T., Louviere, J.J., and Burke, P.F. 2007. “Modeling the Effects of Including/Excluding Attributes in Choice Experiments on Systematic and Random Components.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 24(4): 289–300.Google Scholar
Johnson, R.D. and Levin, I.P. 1985. “More than Meets the Eye: The Effect of Missing Information on Purchase Evaluations.” The Journal of Consumer Research 14(2): 169–177.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Harry M., Scherer, Clifford W., and Barbano, David M. 1992. “Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Bovine Somatotropin.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21(1): 10–20.Google Scholar
Kardes, F.R., Posavac, S.S., and Cronley, M.L. 2004. “Consumer Inference: A Review of Processes, Bases, and Judgment Contexts.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 14(3): 230–256.Google Scholar
Kimenju, S.C. and Groote, H.D. 2008. “Consumer Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Food in Kenya.” Agricultural Economics 38(1): 35–46.Google Scholar
Krinsky, I. and Robb, A. 1986. “On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 64(4): 715–719.Google Scholar
Loureiro, M.L., McCluskey, J.J., and Mittelhammer, R.C. 2002. “Will Consumers Pay a Premium for Eco-Labeled Apples?” The Journal of Consumer Affairs 36(2): 203–219.Google Scholar
Loureiro, M.L. and Umberger, W.J. 2007. “A Choice Experiment Model for Beef: What U.S. Consumer Responses Tell Us About Relative Preferences for Food Safety, Country-of-Origin Labeling and Traceability.” Food Policy 32(4): 496–514.Google Scholar
Louviere, J.J., Islam, T., Wasi, N., Street, D., and Burgess, L. 2008. “Designing Discrete Choice Experiments: Do Optimal Designs Come at a Price.” Journal of Consumer Research 35(2): 360–375.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L. 2003. “Effect of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(4): 840–56.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L. and Fox, J.A. 2002. “Consumer Demand for Mandatory Labeling of Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Com.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 34(1): 27–38.Google Scholar
Lusk, J., Roosen, J., and Fox, J. 2003. “Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Com: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(1): 16–29.Google Scholar
Marta-Pedroso, C., Freitas, H., and Domingos, T. 2007. “Testing for the Survey Mode Effect on Contingent Valuation Data Quality: A Case Study of Web Based versus In-Person Interviews.” Ecological Economics 62(3-4): 388–398.Google Scholar
McCluskey, J.J., Grimsrud, K.M., Ouchi, H., and Wahl, T.I. 2003. “Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Food Products in Japan.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32(2): 222–231.Google Scholar
McCluskey, J.J., Grimsrud, K.M., Ouchi, H., and Wahl, T.I. 2005. “Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in Japan: Consumers’ Food Safety Perceptions and Willingness to Pay for Tested Beef.” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 49(2): 197–209.Google Scholar
Meyer, R.J. 1981. “A Model of Multiattribute Judgments under Attribute Uncertainty and Informational Constraint.” Journal of Marketing Research 18(4): 428–441.Google Scholar
Moon, W. and Balasubramanian, S.K. 2003. “Willingness to Pay for Non-Biotech Foods in the U.S. and U.K.” Journal of Consumer Affairs 37(2): 317–339.Google Scholar
Nilsson, T., Foster, K., and Lusk, J.L. 2006. “Marketing Opportunities for Certified Pork Chops.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 54(4): 567–583.Google Scholar
Radas, S., Teisl, M.F., and Roe, B. 2008. “An Open Mind Wants More: Opinion Strength and the Desire for Genetically Modified Food Labeling Policy.” The Journal of Consumer Affairs 42(3): 335–361.Google Scholar
Rigby, D. and Caceres, D. 2001. “Organic Farming and the Sustainability of Agricultural Systems.” Agricultural Systems 68(1): 21–40.Google Scholar
Rigby, D., Woodhouse, P., Young, T., and Burton, M. 2001. “Constructing a Farm Level Indicator of Sustainable Production Practice.” Ecological Economics 39(3): 463–478.Google Scholar
Roosen, J., Lusk, J.L., and Fox, J.A. 2003. “Consumer Demand for and Attitudes Toward Alternative Beef Labeling Strategies in France, Germany, and the UK.” Agribusiness: An International Journal 19(1): 77–90.Google Scholar
Tonsor, G.T., Schroeder, T.C., Fox, J.A., and Biere, A. 2005. “European Preferences for Beef Steak Attributes.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 30(2): 367–380.Google Scholar
United States Census Bureau. 2008. International Database Summary Demographics Data.Google Scholar
Zago, A.M. and Pick, D. 2004. “Labeling Policies in Food Markets: Private Incentives, Public Intervention, and Welfare Effects.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 29(1): 150–165.Google Scholar
Zepeda, L., Douthitt, R., and You, S.-Y. 2003. “Consumer Risk Perceptions Toward Agricultural Biotechnology, Self-Protection, and Food Demand: The Case of Milk in the United States.” Risk Analysis 23(5): 973–984.Google Scholar