Consumer perceptions and the effects of country of origin labeling on purchasing decisions and welfare

Awada, Lana; Yiannaka, Amalia

doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.10.004

Cited by 30 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For readers interested in a theoretical examination of CoO the recent papers by Roe et al (2014) and Bonroy and Constantatos (2015) provide excellent summaries. For research on market level impacts and resulting welfare implications for consumers and manufacturers from the introduction of mandatory CoO, Awada and Yiannaka (2012), Baltussen et al (2013), Joseph et al (2014) and USDA (2015) offer informative and insightful analysis.…”

Section: The Economics Of Coomentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer preferences regarding country of origin for multiple meat products

Balcombe

Bradley²,

Fraser

et al. 2016

Food Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the growing use of country of origin (CoO) information and labels on food, the extent to which consumers really value this information is unclear. In an effort to understand this issue we present results of a hypothetical discrete choice experiment examining consumer willingness-topay for CoO information about meat and meat products. Our results reveal that CoO information is positively valued for all the food products we consider. However, it is relatively less important compared to other food attributes for a large number of products such as bacon, pizza and ready meals. Our results suggest that consumers do not value very highly CoO information for many of the food products examined. Therefore, if the associated costs of mandatory CoO implementation are sufficiently high this raises questions about the inclusion of this information on food labels.

show abstract

Section: The Economics Of Coomentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer preferences regarding country of origin for multiple meat products

Balcombe

Bradley²,

Fraser

et al. 2016

Food Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While assessing willingness-to-pay for US over foreign meat is relevant to the debate on MCOOL, existing literature misses subtle, but important, methodological issues; one being the exact nature of how origin information is conveyed. 2 Recent literature regarding country of origin labelling highlights the prominent role that benchmark selection (characterisation of the 'no policy' situation or status quo) has in examining economic welfare impacts of mandatory policies (Joseph et al, 2009;Awada and Yiannaka, 2012). In particular, using a comparison base of voluntary labelling leads to different conclusions regarding mandatory policy impact than using a no labelling base assumption.…”

Section: Background and Past Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer Valuation of Alternative Meat Origin Labels

Tonsor¹,

Schroeder²,

Lusk³

2012

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Results from a split-sample survey of the U.S. population reveal consumers prefer meat products carrying origin information to unlabeled alternatives. Consumers are largely unaware of origin labeling laws and are indifferent to an important aspect of the implementation of current mandatory country of origin information rules in the U.S. In particular, consumers value meat products labeled "Product of North America" approximately the same as "Product of UnitedStates." Despite the similarity of these two labels, they have vastly different implications in terms of trade and segregation costs. Our results suggest that a transition from one label to the other is equally satisfying for the consumer while being less costly for processors and more acceptable to trade partners.

show abstract

“…A number of studies have illustrated that U.S. consumers are willing to pay a premium for U.S.-origin labeled beef and pork products over products from other countries (e.g., Umberger et al 2003;Ward et al 2005;Miranda and Kónya 2006;Loureiro and Umberger 2007;Mennecke et al 2007;Gao and Schroeder 2009;Link 2009). Using an analytical framework, Awada and Yiannaka (2012) show that whether consumers view total MCOOL information as an attribute that differentiates product vertically or horizontally does not alter the consumer welfare effects of total MCOOL. Rather they show that it is the strength of consumer preferences that affects magnitude of market and welfare effects of COOL.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first two pre-COOL scenarios (no COOL and voluntary COOL) are benchmark scenarios against which two alternative implementations of mandatory COOL (partial and total) are compared. Awada and Yiannaka (2012) show that the benchmark used (a no COOL versus a voluntary COOL regime) is critical in evaluating the effects of the policy. Under no COOL the origin of the product cannot be distinguished by consumers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We assume that domestic firms produce the high-quality good ( H k ) and foreign firms produce products of lower quality ( L k ) or are at least perceived as such. Consistent with previous models of labeling (e.g., Bureau, Marette and Schiavina, 1998;Giannakas and Fulton, 2002;Fulton and Giannakas, 2004;Zago and Pick, 2004;Plastina, Giannakas, and Pick, 2011, Saak, 2011, Awada and Yiannaka, 2012, we assume that quality is fixed and exogenous. Furthermore, it is the quality perceived by consumers that is represented by k in our model.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation