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

Consumer Demand for a Ban on Antibiotic Drug Use in Pork Production

  • Lusk, Jayson L.
  • Norwood, F. Bailey
  • Pruitt, J. Ross

Consumer demand for a ban on subtherapeutic antibiotic use in pork production is measured using non-hypothetical choice experiments in a grocery store setting. Consumers are asked to choose between a regular pork chop plus a grocery coupon and an antibiotic-friendly pork chop without a coupon. Other consumers are asked to choose between a donation towards reducing antibiotic resistance and grocery coupons. These experiments reveal the private and public value consumers place on a ban, which is used with cost estimates to estimate the welfare impacts of a ban.

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/35273
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Southern Agricultural Economics Association in its series 2006 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2006, Orlando, Florida with number 35273.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:saeaso:35273
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. Buhr, Brian L. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kliebenstein, James, 1993. "Valuing Ambiguity: The Case of Genetically Engineered Growth Enhancers," Staff General Research Papers Archive 675, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  2. Brorsen, B. Wade & Lehenbauer, Terry & Ji, Dasheng & Connor, Joe, 2002. "Economic Impacts of Banning Subtherapeutic Use of Antibiotics in Swine Production," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(03), pages 489-500, December.
  3. Lusk, Jayson L. & Fox, John A., 2002. "Consumer Demand for Mandatory Labeling of Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(01), pages 27-38, April.
  4. John List, 2004. "Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: Evidence from the marketplace," Framed Field Experiments 00174, The Field Experiments Website.
  5. Hayes, Dermot J. & Jensen, Helen H. & Fabiosa, Jacinto F., 2002. "Technology Choice and the Economic Effects of a Ban on the Use of Antimicrobial Feed Additives in Swine Rations," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5177, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  6. Lusk, Jayson L. & Roosen, Jutta & Fox, John A., 2001. "Demand For Beef From Cattle Administered Growth Hormones Or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison Of Consumers In France, Germany, The United Kingdom, And The United States," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20684, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  7. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
  8. Dickinson, David L. & Bailey, DeeVon, 2002. "Meat Traceability: Are U. S. Consumers Willing To Pay For It?," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19670, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  9. Nancy E. Bockstael, 1999. "Valuing the Benefits of Microbial Food Safety Risk Reduction: Discussion," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1200-1204.
  10. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
  11. Maria L. Loureiro & Jill J. McCluskey & Ron C. Mittelhammer, 2003. "Are Stated Preferences Good Predictors of Market Behavior?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(1), pages 44-45.
  12. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
  13. Harvey S. Rosen & Kenneth A. Small, 1979. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," NBER Working Papers 0319, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  14. James Mintert & Jayson Lusk & John Fox & Mohammad Koohmaraie & Ted Schroeder, 2001. "In-store valuation of steak tenderness," Framed Field Experiments 00186, The Field Experiments Website.
  15. Mathews, Kenneth H., Jr., 2001. "Antimicrobial Drug Use And Veterinary Costs In U.S. Livestock Production," Agricultural Information Bulletins 33695, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  16. Dermot J. Hayes & Helen H. Jensen & Lennart Backstrom, 1999. "Economic Impact of a Ban on the Use of Over-the-Counter Antibiotics," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 99-sr90, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
  17. John List, 2004. "The nature and extent of discrimination in the marketplace: Evidence from the field," Natural Field Experiments 00299, The Field Experiments Website.
  18. 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.
  19. Silvia Secchi & Bruce A. Babcock, 2002. "Pearls before Swine? Potential Trade-Offs between the Human and Animal Use of Antibiotics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(5), pages 1279-1286.
  20. Jayson Lusk & John Fox, 2003. "Value elicitation in laboratory and retail environments," Framed Field Experiments 00185, The Field Experiments Website.
  21. Shogren, Jason F. & Fox, John A. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Roosen, Jutta, 1999. "Observed Choices For Food Safety in Retail, Survey and Auction Markets," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5024, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  22. Paul E. McNamara & Gay Y. Miller, 2002. "Pigs, People, and Pathogens: A Social Welfare Framework for the Analysis of Animal Antibiotic Use Policy," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(5), pages 1293-1300.
  23. David Reiley & John List, 2008. "Field experiments," Artefactual Field Experiments 00091, The Field Experiments Website.
  24. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, November.
  25. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2003. "Rebate versus matching: does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(3-4), pages 681-701, March.
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:saeaso:35273. 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.