Using Farm Assurance Schemes To Signal Food Safety To Multiple Food Retailers In The U.K
AbstractIt is argued that privately run farm assurance schemes in the U.K. have been developed predominantly to signal the presence of desired level of food safety (and other credence) attributes to domestic multiple food retailers. It is hypothesized that these food retailers will only buy 'farm assured' meat from abattoirs, therefore abattoirs must buy and process 'farm assured' livestock. Other factors, including abattoir size, procurement policy, level of processing and hygiene levels, are also hypothesized to affect the probability of an abattoir selling meat to large multiple retailers. The hypotheses are tested through a survey of abattoirs in the United Kingdom and a logistic regression is used to assess significance. It is found that buying farm assured livestock is a highly significant positive factor in selling meat to large multiple retailers; in addition, the procurement policy of abattoirs (affecting traceability of product) and abattoir size are also found to be significant determinants of the probability of this trade. The empirical evidence supports the hypothesis that industry-led farm assurance schemes are indeed used by large multiple food retailers as a credible signal of food safety (and other credence) attributes.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IAMA) in its journal International Food and Agribusiness Management Review.
Volume (Year): 04 (2001)
Issue (Month): 01 ()
Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Segerson, Kathleen, 1998. "Mandatory vs. Voluntary Approaches to Food Safety," Research Reports 25188, University of Connecticut, Food Marketing Policy Center.
- Darby, Michael R & Karni, Edi, 1973. "Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 67-88, April.
- Kathleen Segerson, 1999. "Mandatory versus voluntary approaches to food safety," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(1), pages 53-70.
- Jill E. Hobbs & William A. Kerr, 1992. "Costs of monitoring food safety and vertical coordination in agribusiness: What can be learned from the British Food Safety Act 1990?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(6), pages 575-584.
- Fares, M'hand & Rouviere, Elodie, 2010. "The implementation mechanisms of voluntary food safety systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 412-418, October.
- Garcia Martinez, Marian & Poole, Nigel, 2004. "The development of private fresh produce safety standards: implications for developing Mediterranean exporting countries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 229-255, June.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.