Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T10:20:25.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An empirical analysis of producer perceptions of traceability in organic agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

Edmund M. Tavernier
Edmund M. Tavernier*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Food and Resource Economics, Cook College, Rutgers University, 55 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study assesses producer perceptions of traceability issues in organic agriculture, using survey data from the 2001 National Agricultural, Food and Public Policy Preference Survey. The survey provides food policy and socio-economic data that facilitate the examination of traceability issues in organic agriculture. The logistic regression models that are used to examine the relationship between traceability and organic agriculture are robust across models. The models indicate a decreased likelihood for federal government intervention on the part of organic producers for policies that improve traceability from consumer back to producer to improve food safety and tracking. However, the results suggest that organic producers with sales under $US 50,000 are more likely to indicate some willingness for government intervention. The analysis also shows that producers want food products made with biotechnology to be labeled if there is a scientifically determined difference in the product. While education may be an avenue to facilitate greater acceptance of traceability issues, the results indicate a negative relationship between the acceptance of traceability and farmers with a bachelor‘s degree. This finding is surprising given the on-going debate surrounding biotech foods and traceability. Clearly the reluctance on the part of producers with bachelor‘s degrees to embrace tracing could hinder such efforts if those producers assume leadership positions in their communities. Perhaps such results are a reflection of the confidence that those producers have in the quality of organic produce.

Keywords

biotech foodslogistic regressionorganic agriculturetraceability
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 110 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

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

1Available at Web site http://www.agbioforum.org/v5n2/v5n2a01-smyth.htm (verified 2 December 2003).Google Scholar
2Available at Web site http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_268/l_26820031018en00010023.pdf (verified 2 December 2003).Google Scholar
3Available at EChttp://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_268/l_26820031018en00240028.pdf (verified 2 December 2003).Google Scholar
4Schofield, G. 2002. EU regulation of genetically modified organisms: food and feed, traceability and labeling. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology 9:27–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5The Star Ledger 2002. Listeria found in, N.J. firm forces recall. 3 November. p. 9.Google Scholar
6Deasy, D.J. 2002. Food safety and assurance: the role of information technology. International Journal of Dairy Technology 55:1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Mousavi, A., Sarhadi, M., Lenk, A., and Fawcett, S. 2002. Tracking and traceability in the meat-processing industry: a solution. British Food Journal 104:7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Liddell, S. and Bailey, D. 2001. Market opportunities and threats to the U.S. pork industry posed by traceability systems. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 4:287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9National Research Council 1989. Alternative Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
10USDA. Available at Web site http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/ofp/ (verified 5 November 2002).Google Scholar
11AMS 2000. National Organic Program: Labeling–Preamble, Subpart D–labels, Labeling, and Market Information. Available at Web site http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Nop/standards/LabelPre.html (verified 4 November 2002).Google Scholar
12Govindasamy, R., Italia, J., DeCongelio, M., Anderson, K., and Barbour, B. 2000. Empirically evaluating grower characteristics and satisfaction with organic production. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station Report P–02139–1–00 May.Google Scholar
13FDA 2001. HACCP: A state-of-the-art approach to food safety. Available at Web site http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/?lrd/bghaccp.html (verified 15 July 2003).Google Scholar
14Cordis 2003. Available at Web site http://dbs.cordis.lu/cordis-cgi/srchidadb?ACTION=D&SESSION=213942003–6–10&DOC=2&TBL=EN_PROJ&RCN=EP_RCN:69966&CALLER=EISIMPLE_EN_PROJ (verified 15 July 2003).Google Scholar
15FAO 2000. Food safety and quality as affected by organic farming. Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/X4983e.htm (verified 15 July 2003).Google Scholar
16Butler, J.L. 2002. The economics of organic milk production in California: a comparison with conventional costs. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 17:83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Dimitri, C. and Greene, C. 2002. Recent growth patterns in the, U.S. organic foods market. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib777/aib777a.pdf (verified 4 November 2002).Google Scholar
18Yussefi, M. and Willer, H. (eds) 2003. The World of Organic Agriculture 2003–Statistics and Future Prospects. Available at Web site http://www.soel.de/inhalte/publikationen/s/s_74.pd (verified 15 July 2003).Google Scholar
19Opara, L.U. and Mazaud, F. 2001. Food traceability from field to plate. Outlook on Agriculture 30:239–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Kistoff, B. 1998. Emergence of U.S. organic agriculture–Can we compete? [discussion], American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80:1130–1133.Google Scholar
21Myers, S. and Rorie, S. 2000. Facts and stats: The year in review. Organic and Natural News, December.Google Scholar
22Govindasamy, R., DeCongelio, M., Italia, J., Barbour, B., and Anderson, K. 2001. Empirically evaluating consumer characteristics and satisfaction with organic produce. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station Report P–02139–1–01 May.Google Scholar
23Fetter, T.R. and Caswell, J.A. 2002. Variations in organic standards prior to the National Organic Program. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 17:55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Lubben, B.D., Simons, C.J., Bills, N.L., Meyer, N.L., and Novak, J.L. 2001. The 2002 Farm Bill: US Producer Preferences for Agricultural, Food, and Public Policy. Farm Foundation, National Public Policy Education Committee, September, Kansas State University, USA.Google Scholar
25Bell, C.D., Roberts, R.K., English, B.C., and Park, W.M. 1994. A logit analysis of participation in Tennessee’s forest stewardship program. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 26:463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Pindyck, R. and Rubinfeld, D. 1991. Econometric Modes and Economic Forecasts. McGraw Hill, New York, USA.Google Scholar
27Judge, G., Canterhill, R., Griffiths, W.E., Lutkepohl, H., and Lee, T.C. 1982. Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Econometrics. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.Google Scholar
28Newsweek 2002. Certified organic. 30 September. p. 50–55.Google Scholar
29Business Week 1999. Warning: Biotech is hurting itself. 20 December.Google Scholar
30Betterfoods 2002. Available at Web site www.Betterfoods.org/News/News.htm (verified 6 December 2002).Google Scholar
31Business Week 2002. GM Foods: Why fight labeling. 11 November.Google Scholar