IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea25/360846.html

Willingness to Accept to reduce animal welfare by removing the ban on caged eggs in California, Massachusetts, and Nevada

Author

Listed:
  • Sakeni, Atiyeh
  • Penn, Jerrod
  • Hu, Wuyang
  • Lai, John

Abstract

A recent outbreak of avian influenza increased egg prices nationwide. One combating proposal to reducing the cost of eggs is to remove the ban on caged eggs. However, it would decrease the welfare of laying hens. We investigate Willingness to Accept (WTA), the level of savings required among consumers in California, Massachusetts, and Nevada to support the removal of the ban on caged eggs, potentially reducing animal welfare. We find the average WTA is $1.71, $1.76, and $1.85 (37.3%, 38.8%, and 37.7% of average prices) in California, Massachusetts, and Nevada, respectively. It implies that shoppers from these states need a substantial decrease in egg prices to support the removal of the ban. Based on industry cost estimates, this required level of savings exceeds expected cost savings to farmers resulted from using cages, suggesting that the ban on cage-free eggs should be maintained in all three states.

Suggested Citation

  • Sakeni, Atiyeh & Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang & Lai, John, 2025. "Willingness to Accept to reduce animal welfare by removing the ban on caged eggs in California, Massachusetts, and Nevada," 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2025, Denver, CO 360846, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea25:360846
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.360846
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/360846/files/75223_94946_105300_Sakeni-_Egg_paper_AAEA_2025.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.360846?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. Inglehart, Ronald, 1971. "The Silent Revolution in Europe: Intergenerational Change in Post-Industrial Societies," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 991-1017, December.
    2. Olynk, Nicole J. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2010. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Livestock Credence Attribute Claim Verification," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(2), pages 1-20, August.
    3. 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.
    4. Allender, William J. & Richards, Timothy J., 2010. "Consumer Impact of Animal Welfare Regulation in the California Poultry Industry," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 1-19, December.
    5. Conner Mullally & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 649-669.
    6. Jerrod M Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1186-1206.
    7. Giuseppe Nocella & Lionel Hubbard & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 275-297.
    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. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    2. Ferguson, Shon & Wallenbeck, Anna & Agenäs, Sigrid & Hansson, Helena, 2025. "The impact of animal welfare regulations on pork trade: evidence from European countries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    3. Paul, Andrew S. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2019. "An experiment on the vote-buy gap with application to cage-free eggs," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 102-109.
    4. Sohae Eve Oh & Tomislav Vukina, 2022. "The price of cage‐free eggs: Social cost of Proposition 12 in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(4), pages 1293-1326, August.
    5. Ufer, Danielle J., 2025. "Animal Welfare and Treatment Label Claims in U.S. Table Eggs: Trends in Retail Premiums and Policy Impacts, 2008–18," Economic Research Report 349285, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. Oh, Sohae & Vukina, Tomislav, 2020. "Quantifying the Welfare Effects of Laying-hen Cage Ban," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304408, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2020. "Unraveling hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 416-430.
    8. Gorton, Matthew & Yeh, Ching-Hua & Chatzopoulou, Elena & White, John & Tocco, Barbara & Hubbard, Carmen & Hallam, Fiona, 2023. "Consumers' willingness to pay for an animal welfare food label," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    9. Owusu-Sekyere, E. & Owusu, V. & Donkor, E. & Jordaan, H., 2018. "Welfare estimates of food safety and quality policy changes in Southern Ghana," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276939, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Julia A. Schreiner & Sebastian Hess, 2017. "The Role of Non-Use Values in Dairy Farmers’ Willingness to Accept a Farm Animal Welfare Programme," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 553-578, June.
    11. Widmar, Nicole J. Olynk & Ortega, David L., 2014. "Comparing Consumer Preferences for Livestock Production Process Attributes Across Products, Species, and Modeling Methods," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(3), pages 375-391, August.
    12. Tomislav Vukina & Danijel Nestic, 2020. "Paying for animal welfare? A hedonic analysis of egg prices," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 613-630, October.
    13. Lai, Yufeng & Boaitey, Albert & Minegishi, Kota, 2022. "Behind the veil: Social desirability bias and animal welfare ballot initiatives," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    14. Colin A. Carter & K. Aleks Schaefer & Daniel Scheitrum, 2021. "Piecemeal Farm Regulation and the U.S. Commerce Clause," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 1141-1163, May.
    15. Albert Boaitey, 2024. "Farm animal welfare regulatory preferences and food choice: survey evidence from the US," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 12(1), pages 1-23, December.
    16. Woolley, Trevor & Pailler, Sharon & McFadden, Jonathan & Raff, Zach & Raszap Skorbiansky, Sharon & Kuruc, Kevin, 2025. "A scoping review of (dis-)incentives for animal welfare-improving farming practices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    17. Uehleke, Reinhard & Hüttel, Silke, 2016. "The Hypothetical Free-Rider Deficit In The Demand For Farm Animal Welfare Labeled Meat," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244866, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    18. Ortega, David L. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2018. "Demand for farm animal welfare and producer implications: Results from a field experiment in Michigan," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 74-81.
    19. Shon M. Ferguson, 2023. "Unconstrained trade: The impact of EU cage bans on exports of poultry‐keeping equipment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 435-449, June.
    20. Malone, Trey & Schaefer, K. Aleks & Lusk, Jayson L., 2021. "Unscrambling U.S. egg supply chains amid COVID-19," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ags:aaea25:360846. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.