Impacts of Food Safety on U.S. Meat Demand
We investigate the impacts of food safety on a weakly separable U.S. meat demand system (beef, pork, and poultry) using both the Generalized Almost Ideal Demand System (GAIDS) and the Rotterdam model. To measure food safety, indices are constructed based on the number of meat safety articles reported by the top 50 English language newspapers. The GAIDS permits estimation of food safety parameters in a theoretically consistent framework using the concept of demographic translation. The Rotterdam model offers a comparison of estimates to the GAIDS and a further test of the robustness of the food safety elasticities. We find that inferences with respect to food safety and autocorrelation are fragile to functional form choices. From the models investigated there is mixed evidence as to whether food safety concerns have impacted demand. Evidence from the GAI model indicates that food safety impacts could last for several quarters, whereas evidence from the Rotterdam model fails to reject the hypothesis that food safety variables are statistically different from zero over any period. There is also mixed evidence concerning autocorrelation. In the GAI model the problem of autocorrelation disappears by including food safety variables, which are found to be statistically significant and seemingly rectifying the misspecified model that omits food safety variables. This is not the case for the Rotterdam model where a correction for serial correlation is needed even in the presence of the food safety variables, which themselves are not statistically significant. The fragility of these inferences and estimated economic effects to specification choices, particularly to functional form and how the food safety variables enter the demand functions, make it difficult to draw many definitive conclusions about the magnitude or sign of food safety impacts on demand. Concerns of their statistical significance notwithstanding, the most definitive observation is that they are likely to be very small relative to price and expenditure effects and to other possible factors that may have impacted demand.
|Date of creation:||Jan 2001|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: AARES Central Office Manager, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, Canberra ACT 0200|
Phone: 0409 032 338
Web page: http://www.aares.info/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Moschini, GianCarlo & Moro, D. & Green, Richard D., 1994.
"Maintaining and Testing Separability in Demand Systems,"
Staff General Research Papers Archive
11247, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Giancarlo Moschini & Daniele Moro & Richard D. Green, 1994. "Maintaining and Testing Separability in Demand Systems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(1), pages 61-73.
- Bohm, B & Rieder, R & Tintner, G, 1980. "A System of Demand Equations for Austria," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 129-42.
- McGuirk, Anya M. & Driscoll, Paul J. & Alwang, Jeffrey Roger & Huang, Huilin, 1995. "System Misspecification Testing And Structural Change In The Demand For Meats," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 20(01), July.
- Moschini, GianCarlo & Meilke, Karl D., 1989.
"Modeling the Pattern of Structural Change in U.S. Meat Demand,"
Staff General Research Papers Archive
11266, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Giancarlo Moschini & Karl D. Meilke, 1989. "Modeling the Pattern of Structural Change in U.S. Meat Demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(2), pages 253-261.
- Jeffrey LaFrance, 2008.
"The Structure of US Food Demand,"
2008-10, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.
- Mountain, Dean C, 1988. "The Rotterdam Model: An Approximation in Variable Space," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(2), pages 477-84, March.
- Nouhoun Coulibaly & B. Wade Brorsen, 1999. "Explaining the differences between two previous meat generic advertising studies," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 501-515.
- Eales, James S. & Hyde, Jeffrey & Schrader, Lee F., 1998. "A Note On Dealing With Poultry In Demand Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(02), December.
- Nicholas E. Piggott & James A. Chalfant & Julian M. Alston & Garry R. Griffith, 1996. "Demand Response to Advertising in the Australian Meat Industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(2), pages 268-279.
- Deaton,Angus & Muellbauer,John, 1980. "Economics and Consumer Behavior," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521296762, November.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aare01:125781. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
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.