Do Consumers Respond to Country-of-Origin Labelling?

Kuchler, Fred; Krissoff, Barry; Harvey, David J.

doi:10.1007/s10603-010-9137-2

Cited by 22 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…() find that approximately 60% of individuals do not look at the COOL when purchasing meat, while Kuchler et al. () and Taylor and Tonsor () fail to find effects of COOL in analyses of household and retail purchasing patterns data. This suggests that our results may be exaggerated because the COOL was likely more salient in our experiment than it would be in most retail settings.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our results for single‐country products also contribute to a larger body of work that finds that domestic consumers participating in choice experiments have a higher WTP for domestic versus foreign sourced food products (e.g., Chung et al., ; Ehmke et al., ; Gao and Schroeder, ; Loureiro and Umberger, , ; Umberger et al., ; Verlegh and Steenkamp, ). We note that studies relying upon store purchase data for products that undergo COOL changes during the time of data collection reveal that COOL has little effect on consumer demand (e.g., Kuchler et al., for shrimp; Taylor and Tonsor, for beef, pork, chicken, and turkey).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Country of origin labeling for complex supply chains: the case for labeling the location of different supply chain links

Bienenfeld

Botkins

Roe

et al. 2016

Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the value of a country of origin label (COOL) that separately identifies the geographic location of different stages in a food product's supply chain. We estimate the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of U.S. consumers for a packaged cereal product where the key grain ingredient may be grown in one country and processed in a second country (multicountry supply chain) and compare it to equivalent products that have both stages located in a single country. We find consumer WTP for products with single-country and multicountry supply chains are statistically different, meaning that simplifying a multicountry label by listing only the country where the ingredients are grown or only the country where the ingredients are processed can result in different consumer values. We also find that for countries with a poor quality reputation, consumers respond more negatively when that country has the "last touch" than when that country's involvement is limited to upstream supply chain links.JEL classifications: D12, D82, Q18

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Country of origin labeling for complex supply chains: the case for labeling the location of different supply chain links

Bienenfeld

Botkins

Roe

et al. 2016

Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effects of the policy have been intensely debated. Several ex ante studies of the impacts of MCOOL were conducted (e.g., see Brester et al., ; Lusk and Anderson, ) as well as some ex post analyses (Informa Economics, ; Kuchler et al., ). However, the policy continues to change and has recently been subjected to further scrutiny.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An experimental approach to valuing information

Klain

Lusk

Tonsor

et al. 2014

Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article proposes a method to directly measure the value of information (VOI) conveyed in a label. Using data collected from a field experiment conducted in two grocery stores in Texas, we find the VOI contained in U.S. federally mandated country of origin labels for beef and pork is 36% lower using the new direct elicitation compared to the conventional approach. The mean value-of-origin information, in the context of our experiment, ranges from $0.016 to $1.08 per pound of steak/chop purchased, depending on the valuation method used and assumptions about labeling knowledge and average volume purchased per choice. The VOI is substantively influenced by ethnocentrism and meat consumption frequency.JEL classifications: C93, D61, Q18

show abstract

“…2 Using weekly market prices reported weekly, Ward, Schroeder and Schulz (2009) find that COOL caused a significant widening by $1.91/cwt of the Alberta fed cattle basis, while the 2 Rude, Gervais and Felt (2010) find that COOL significantly affected the trade flows of slaughter hogs, significantly affected the price of feeder hogs in Canada, but had little effect on the trade flows of feeder hogs. Kuchler, Krissoff and Harvey (2010) found little willingness to pay for US origin shrimp relative to shrimp from Southeast Asia. Plastina, Giannakas and Pick (2011) investigate in a calibrated model the effects of COOL on the US market for fresh apples.…”

Section: Literature On Cool In Beef and Cattle Marketsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Differential impacts of country of origin labeling: COOL econometric evidence from cattle markets

Pouliot

Sumner

2014

Food Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Country of origin labeling (COOL) is a common practice. It occurs routinely for many products in many places, but the US implementation of mandatory COOL for meat, whose purpose is to identify the origin of the livestock used to produce the meat, generated much controversy and a major WTO dispute that has yet to be settled. This working paper estimates econometrically differential market impacts of mandatory country of origin labels on cattle raised in Canada and imported into the United States. We find significant evidence of differential impacts of COOL through widening of the price bases and a decline in ratios of imports to total domestic use for both fed and feeder cattle. Résumé L'étiquetage indiquant le pays d'origine (EPO) est une pratique courante qui est appliquée à plusieurs produits par plusieurs pays. Toutefois, son application pour la viande commercialisée aux États-Unis, qui a pour but d'identifier la provenance des animaux à partir desquels la viande est produite, a généré une énorme controverse et fait l'objet d'une dispute à l'OMC qui n'est pas encore réglée. Ce cahier de recherche présente des résultats économétriques des effets de segmentation de l'EPO sur le marché pour les importations américaines de bovins canadiens. Nos résultats indiquent que l'EPO a eu un effet de segmentation important en élargissant les écarts de prix et en réduisant les ratios d'importation et de consommation apparente pour les bouvillons d'abattage et les veaux d'embouche. JEL codes: Q17, Q18, F1, L15. Acknowledgements: We acknowledge support from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Government of Canada for related research at the early stages of this project. Some related analysis was used in the development of Canada's WTO case. The authors wish to thank participants at seminars at the CAES meetings in Banff and at the University of Minnesota for helpful comments. Differential Impacts of Country of Origin Labeling: COOL Econometric Evidence from Cattle Markets Introduction Many countries mandate Country Of Origin Labeling (COOL) for many food products. The market implications of such labeling depend on whether they are mandatory or market driven, the characteristics of the industry, including the role of imports, and how labeling rules are implemented. This article explores econometrically the effects on cattle markets of mandatory COOL applied to sales of beef in the United States. The Farm Security Act of 2002 (the 2002 Farm Bill) required COOL for selected food products sold in the United States. The law specified that retailers, other than very small outlets and food service operations such as restaurants, must notify consumers of the country of origin for muscle cuts of beef (including veal), lamb, and pork; ground beef, lamb, and pork; fish and shellfish; many perishable agricultural commodities; and peanuts. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) completed the implementation process for fish and shellfish in 2005. For other products, the USDA had difficulties establishing acceptable rule...

show abstract

Do Consumers Respond to Country-of-Origin Labelling?

Abstract: Mandatory country-of-origin labelling (COOL), Seafood, Retail demand, Nielsen Homescan panel,

Cited by 22 publications

References 5 publications

Country of origin labeling for complex supply chains: the case for labeling the location of different supply chain links

Country of origin labeling for complex supply chains: the case for labeling the location of different supply chain links

An experimental approach to valuing information

Differential impacts of country of origin labeling: COOL econometric evidence from cattle markets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About