IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/saeaso/35273.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

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

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey & Pruitt, J. Ross, 2006. "Consumer Demand for a Ban on Antibiotic Drug Use in Pork Production," 2006 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2006, Orlando, Florida 35273, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:saeaso:35273
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/35273/files/sp06lu01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Buhr, Brian L. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kliebenstein, James B., 1993. "Valuing Ambiguity: The Case Of Genetically Engineered Growth Enhancers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    3. 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.
    4. Dickinson, David L. & Bailey, DeeVon, 2002. "Meat Traceability: Are U.S. Consumers Willing To Pay For It?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 1-17, December.
    5. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. John A. List, 2004. "The Nature and Extent of Discrimination in the Marketplace: Evidence from the Field," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 119(1), pages 49-89.
    9. Jayson L. Lusk & John A. Fox & Ted C. Schroeder & James Mintert & Mohammad Koohmaraie, 2001. "In-Store Valuation of Steak Tenderness," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 539-550.
    10. 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, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 1-12, April.
    11. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "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," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Jason F. Shogren & John A. Fox & Dermot J. Hayes & Jutta Roosen, 1999. "Observed Choices for Food Safety in Retail, Survey, and Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1192-1199.
    15. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. John A. List, 2004. "Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 615-625, March.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. John Fox & Jayson Lusk, 2003. "Value elicitation in laboratory and retail environments," Framed Field Experiments 00185, The Field Experiments Website.
    25. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Corrections

    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: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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/saeaaea.html .

    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.