IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of Hormone Use Perception on Consumer Meat Preference


  • 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang, Ruoye & Raper, Kellie Curry & Lusk, Jayson L., 2017. "The Impact of Hormone Use Perception on Consumer Meat Preference," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252772, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:saea17:252772

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    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)

    More about this item


    meat demand; hormone use; choice experiment; Agribusiness; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; Livestock Production/Industries; Q13;

    JEL classification:

    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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: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). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.