Market impacts of E. Coli vaccination in U.S. Feedlot cattle

Tonsor, Glynn T.; Schroeder, Ted C.

doi:10.1186/s40100-014-0021-2

Cited by 17 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other studies have focused on how mitigating the impacts of food safety recalls affects downstream and upstream participants. Tonsor and Schroeder ( 32 ) examined the impacts of adoption of an E. coli vaccine at U.S. feedlots. They concluded that feedlots were unlikely to adopt such a vaccine unless compensated to offset the direct costs of adoption.…”

Section: Food Safety Detection Frequency and Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer Reactions to E. Coli and Antibiotic Residue Recalls: Utility Maximization vs. Regret Minimization

Dennis¹,

Ajewole²,

Bergtold³

et al. 2020

Front. Vet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food safety remains a major issue to many consumers. Previous studies examining the economic impact of food safety recalls have focused on Class I recalls. Antibiotic residue in meat products, a Class II recall, has increased in consumer importance yet little is known about how much research and development expenditure should be allocated to reduce antibiotic residue pre-and post-harvest. This study compares demand elasticities and the decrease in willingness to pay in response to either an E. coli (Class I) or antibiotic residue (Class II) recall. We compare and contrast two competing behavioral frameworks, Random Utility and Regret Minimizing. Modeling behavior using the random regret framework is found to be more powerful for assessing consumer responses. In addition, we explore if different groups of consumers exist that either maximize utility or minimize regret. Consumer devaluations of E. coli (Class I) are 40-65% larger than antibiotic residue (Class II). Approximately 60% of consumers are identified as regret minimizers and 40% were identified as utility maximizers. While industry response and government policy recommendations differed conditional on modeling framework, the regret minimizing framework required smaller price discounts than regret minimizing to maintain the same level of market share.

show abstract

Section: Food Safety Detection Frequency and Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer Reactions to E. Coli and Antibiotic Residue Recalls: Utility Maximization vs. Regret Minimization

Dennis¹,

Ajewole²,

Bergtold³

et al. 2020

Front. Vet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Notwithstanding the evidence supporting their effectiveness, they have received only limited adoption by beef producers (Callaway et al 2009). This is partly attributable to the cost of the recommended application of the vaccine intervention, which can potentially erode producer surpluses if not matched by an increase in demand (Tonsor and Schroeder 2015). For this reason, capturing a price premium for beef products produced with this food safety intervention makes their differentiation in the retail market particularly pertinent for producers and processors.…”

Section: Case Study and Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Labeling food safety attributes: to inform or not to inform?

Britwum

Yiannaka

2019

Agric Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the impact of food labels that make unsupported claims of food safety and labels that provide information to support such claims on consumer choices and examine consumers' willingness to pay for beef products with these different food safety labeling cues. Empirical results from a survey of grocery shoppers in a Midwestern city in the USA show that more than two thirds of respondents who received a label with unsubstantiated food safety claims chose this option and were willing to pay the highest price premium for it, compared to the less preferred labeling options that provided information to support food safety claims.

show abstract