The Impact of Hormone Use Perception on Consumer Meat Preference
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.
|Date of creation:||2017|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.saea.org/|
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Hayes, Dermot J. & Shogren, Jason F. & Shin, Seung Youll & Kliebenstein, James, 1995. "Valuing Food Safety in Experimental Auction Markets," Staff General Research Papers Archive 835, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- 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.
- 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.
- Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 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), pages 419-443, September.
- 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.
- 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.
- Marette, Stéphan & 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)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.