IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

The Impact of Hormone Use Perception on Consumer Meat Preference

Listed author(s):
  • Yang, Ruoye
  • Raper, Kellie Curry
  • Lusk, Jayson L.

Consumers see retail beef products labeled as produced with no added hormones (NAH), but also see similar labels on pork and chicken products on market shelves despite the fact that added hormones are not used in production. This may mislead consumers to think hormones are used in meat production as a whole. This research examines the impact of hormone use perception on consumer preference for meat products. Specifically, we assess consumer perception of hormone use in different livestock species as compared to actual use in production. We then assess whether hormone use perception affects consumer choice for unlabeled meat products. Finally, we identify whether consumer perception of hormone use affects willingness to pay (WTP) premiums for meat products labeled as produced with NAH. Choice experiment data was collected using Oklahoma State University monthly Food Demand Survey. Results indicate that consumers underestimate the rate of hormone use in cattle production, but overestimate the rate of hormone use in pork and chicken production. Results from a conditional logit model suggest that consumer perception of hormone use can affect food preferences for unlabeled meat products. Using a Tobit model, we also found WTP premiums for the NAH label are affected by consumer perception of hormone use and by demographic characteristics.

If 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.

File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/252772
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Southern Agricultural Economics Association in its series 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama with number 252772.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2017
Handle: RePEc:ags:saea17:252772
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.saea.org/

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.:

as
in new window


  1. Astrid Dannenberg & Sara Scatasta & Bodo Sturm, 2011. "Mandatory versus voluntary labelling of genetically modified food: evidence from an economic experiment," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 373-386, May.
  2. Teisl, Mario F. & Roe, Brian E., 2010. "Consumer willingness-to-pay to reduce the probability of retail foodborne pathogen contamination," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 521-530, December.
  3. Dermot J. Hayes & Jason F. Shogren & Seung Youll Shin & James B. Kliebenstein, 1995. "Valuing Food Safety in Experimental Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(1), pages 40-53.
  4. Dannenberg, Astrid, 2009. "The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food -- A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2182-2192, June.
  5. Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2004. "What's it worth? An examination of historical trends and future directions in environmental valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), September.
  6. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Sebastian Hess, 2011. "A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 38(1), pages 55-78, March.
  7. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2014. "Editor's choice Distinguishing beliefs from preferences in food choice," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 41(4), pages 627-655.
  8. Marette, St├ęphan & Roe, Brian E. & Teisl, Mario, 2012. "The welfare impact of food pathogen vaccines," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 86-93.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:saea17:252772. 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.