IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v41y2025i2p570-587.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Misconceptions and meat: The impact of new knowledge on meat demand

Author

Listed:
  • Ruoye Yang
  • Kellie Curry Raper

Abstract

Food labeling is intended to clarify information for consumers, yet sometimes labeling can be misleading. This study examines US consumer choice for labeled and unlabeled products across meat animal species in which differing regulations exist by species regarding hormone use in production and where consumer perception of hormone use by species varies. In the case of hormone use in US meat animal production, pork and poultry products labeled as being produced with no added hormones must also state that federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones in production. However, this required information is often obscured on retail labels. Results from expected utility models indicate that after consumers receive information regarding regulations and actual hormone use across species, the difference in utility and in willingness to pay for products labeled “produced with no added hormones” versus unlabeled product is lower for products where hormone use is restricted by federal regulations [EconLit Citations: Q13, D12, Q18].

Suggested Citation

  • Ruoye Yang & Kellie Curry Raper, 2025. "Misconceptions and meat: The impact of new knowledge on meat demand," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(2), pages 570-587, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:41:y:2025:i:2:p:570-587
    DOI: 10.1002/agr.21908
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21908
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/agr.21908?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Merritt, Meagan G. & Delong, Karen Lewis & Griffith, Andrew P. & Jensen, Kimberly L., 2018. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Tennessee Certified Beef," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 50(2), March.
    2. John Cawley & Alex Susskind & Barton Willage, 2020. "The Impact of Information Disclosure on Consumer Behavior: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment of Calorie Labels on Restaurant Menus," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 1020-1042, September.
    3. Edward C. Jaenicke & Andrea C. Carlson, 2015. "Estimating and Investigating Organic Premiums for Retail‐Level Food Products," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(4), pages 453-471, October.
    4. Lai, Yufeng & Yue, Chengyan, 2020. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Organic and Animal Welfare Product Attributes: Do Experimental Results Align with Market Data?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(3), September.
    5. Yang, Ruoye & Raper, Kellie Curry & Lusk, Jayson L., 2020. "Impact of Hormone Use Perceptions on Consumer Meat Preferences," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(01), January.
    6. repec:oup:apecpp:v:40:y:2018:i:3:p:445-460. is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Adhikari, Murali & Paudel, Laxmi & Houston, Jack E. & Paudel, Krishna P. & Bukenya, James O., 2006. "The Impact of Cholesterol Information on Meat Demand: Application of an Updated Cholesterol Index," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 37(2), pages 1-10, July.
    8. Brenna Ellison & Kathleen Brooks & Taro Mieno, 2017. "Which livestock production claims matter most to consumers?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 819-831, December.
    9. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    10. Jayson L. Lusk, 2017. "Consumer Research with Big Data: Applications from the Food Demand Survey (FooDS)," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(2), pages 303-320.
    11. Kyrre Rickertsen & Dadi Kristofersson & Solveig Lothe, 2003. "Effects of health information on Nordic meat and fish demand," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 249-273, April.
    12. Lai, Yufeng & Yue, Chengyan, 2020. "Consumer Willingness to pay for Organic and Animal Welfare Product Attributes: Do Experimental Results Align with Market Data?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304328, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Nadia A Streletskaya & Jura Liaukonyte & Harry M Kaiser, 2019. "Absence labels: How does information about production practices impact consumer demand?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, June.
    14. Francisco Scott & Juan P. Sesmero, 2022. "Market and welfare effects of quality misperception in food labels," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(5), pages 1747-1769, October.
    15. Jayson L. Lusk & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2016. "How Meat Demand Elasticities Vary with Price, Income, and Product Category," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 38(4), pages 673-711.
    16. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    17. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2011. "Compassion, by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199551163, Decembrie.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lusk, Jayson L. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Schroeder, Ted C. & Hayes, Dermot J., 2018. "Effect of government quality grade labels on consumer demand for pork chops in the short and long run," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 91-102.
    2. Elliott J. Dennis & Glynn T. Tonsor & Jayson L. Lusk, 2021. "Choosing quantities impacts individuals choice, rationality, and willingness to pay estimates," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 945-962, November.
    3. Shijun Gao & Carola Grebitus & Karen L. DeLong, 2024. "Explaining consumer willingness to pay for country‐of‐origin labeling with ethnocentrism, country image, and product image: Examples from China's beef market," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 72(2), pages 149-166, June.
    4. Martin Browning & Lars Gårn Hansen & Sinne Smed, 2013. "Rational inattention or rational overreaction? Consumer reactions to health news," IFRO Working Paper 2013/14, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    5. Lingling Xu & Xixi Yang & Linhai Wu & Xiujuan Chen & Lu Chen & Fu-Sheng Tsai, 2019. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Food with Information on Animal Welfare, Lean Meat Essence Detection, and Traceability," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-22, September.
    6. Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Gracia, Azucena & de Magistris, Tiziana, 2008. "When more is less: the effect of multiple health and nutritional labels in food product choice," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44013, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Lusk, Jayson L., 2020. "Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    8. Feil, J.-H. & Anastassiadis, F. & Mußhoff, O. & Schilling, P., 2015. "Analysing Farmers’ Use of Price Hedging Instruments: An Experimental Approach," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 50, March.
    9. Pruitt, J. Ross & Holcomb, Rodney B., 2017. "Impacts of Food Safety Recalls and Consumer Information on Restaurant Performance," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 48(3), November.
    10. Wongprawmas, Rungsaran & Canavari, Maurizio, 2015. "Heterogeneity in consumer preferences for food safety lavel in Thailand," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202744, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Wang, Shuxian & Wu, Linhai & Zhu, Dian & Wang, Hongsha & Xu, Lingling, 2014. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food attributes: The case of pork," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 165639, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Giacomo Pallante & Adam Drucker, 2014. "Niche Markets for Agrobiodiversity Conservation: Preference and Scale Heterogeneity Effects on Nepalese Consumers’ WTP for Finger Millet Products," SEEDS Working Papers 1414, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised May 2014.
    13. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2006:i:23:p:1-11 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Wu, Linhai & Wang, Shuxian & Zhu, Dian & Hu, Wuyang & Wang, Hongsha, 2015. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food quality and safety attributes: The case of pork," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 121-136.
    15. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    16. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole J. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-17, December.
    17. Sven Anders & Anke Mőser, 2010. "Consumer Choice and Health: The Importance of Health Attributes for Retail Meat Demand in Canada," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(2), pages 249-271, June.
    18. Lusk, Jayson L., 2019. "Income and (Ir) rational food choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 630-645.
    19. Lee L. Schulz & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2010. "Cow‐Calf Producer Preferences for Voluntary Traceability Systems," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 138-162, February.
    20. Harvey, David & Hubbard, Carmen, 2013. "Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: An anatomy of market failure," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 105-114.
    21. Abedullah, A. & Kouser, S. & Ibrahim, M., 2018. "Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for Aflatoxin- Free Milk in Pakistan," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275957, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:41:y:2025:i:2:p:570-587. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.