Non-compliance in organic farming: A cross-country comparison of Italy and Germany

Gambelli, Danilo; Solfanelli, Francesco; Zanoli, Raffaele; Zorn, Alexander; Lippert, Christian; Dabbert, Stephan

doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.05.012

Cited by 25 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This could be done by focusing on dynamic system indicators (e.g. quantifying and monitoring of wild/ endangered species on farms ) and risk-based certification procedures (Gambelli et al 2014a(Gambelli et al , 2014b. However, finding these integral system indicators will be a challenge, and more research must be done focused on their development.…”

Section: Fostering Innovative Research In Organic Agriculturementioning

confidence: 99%

Organic Agriculture 3.0 is innovation with research

Rahmann¹,

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Fostering Innovative Research In Organic Agriculturementioning

confidence: 99%

Organic Agriculture 3.0 is innovation with research

Rahmann¹,

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The empirical literature on agri‐food labelling, which is plentiful, is mostly focused on label use and other consumer‐related aspects of labelling (see, in the context of nutritional labels, the reviews by Drichoutis et al (2011) and Kiesel et al (2011)). The few empirical analyses focusing on agri‐food fraud investigated fraudsters' behaviour (Hirschauer and Zwoll 2008; Gambelli et al 2014; Lippert et al 2014) and how fraud incidents affect consumer food choices (Yamoah and Yawson 2014; Agnoli et al 2016). Hirschauer and Zwoll (2008) used a principal‐agent model to explain fraudulent behaviour in the poultry sector and to determine the optimal level of fines offsetting illegally gained profits.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lippert et al (2014) presented an econometric model to investigate non‐compliance among organic farmers. Gambelli et al (2014) studied how German and Italian farmers' characteristics affect their decisions to sell regular foodstuff as organic. Studying consumer behaviour after the horse meat scandal, Yamoah and Yawson (2014) found a decrease in retail sales of beef‐based foods, especially for health‐risk averse consumers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirical framework to study food labelling fraud: an application to the Italian extra‐virgin olive oil market

Bimbo

Bonanno

Viscecchia

2019

Aus J Agri & Res Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mislabelling of agricultural and food products is one of the most common types of food fraud. Despite the frequency with which labelling fraud occurs, there is no empirical framework to study its welfare implications, the probability that it may occur, and the measures that can limit its occurrence. We present an empirical framework to study the economic consequences of food labelling fraud in a differentiated products food market. Such framework requires the availability of sales data and the use of an 'attribute-space' demand model. The model is applied to the Italian extra-virgin olive oil market to simulate the occurrence of fraudulent '100 per cent Italian' claims. Our results indicate that potential consumer losses due to overpayments for a false claim are higher than manufacturer gains, suggesting that labelling fraud results in welfare losses and not just in welfare transfers. Simulation results indicate that the level of the current administrative fines is not likely to be effective to discourage '100 per cent Italian' labelling fraud. Imposing larger fines or other measures negatively affecting a firm's image could be more effective in deterring labelling fraud.

show abstract

“…Hirschauer and Zwoll () use a principal‐agent model to determine optimal fine levels or fines that will offset a firm’s illegal profits from frauds. Others have investigated factors affecting organic farmers’ non‐compliance decisions (e.g., Lippert et al ; Gambelli et al ) and factors affecting farmers’ tolerance of unethical behaviour (Hendrickson and James , ).…”

Section: Consumer and Societal Food Fraud Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food fraud: economic insights into the dark side of incentives

Ehmke

Bonanno

Boys

et al. 2019

Aus J Agri & Res Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this review, we contextualise the articles in this special issue, relating them to existing food fraud research, and identify food fraud research trends, challenges and priorities for the near term. We accomplish these aims through a comprehensive review of research by food scientists, economists, other social scientists, legal experts, government research groups and international trade organisations. Existing food fraud research is heavily weighted towards food science, packaging and labelling, and legal areas of knowledge discovery. Moving forward, research is needed pertaining to general economic welfare outcomes from food fraud incidences, economic incentives to deter frauds, economic spillovers from fraud incidences to other food products and markets (domestic and international) and further delineation of the effect of different types of food fraud on consumer and producer welfare. The articles in this special issue make significant contributions to understanding of the role of food fraud in consumer decisions, measuring consumer welfare losses from fraud, food fraud spillover effects to other markets and new frameworks for fraud analysis.

show abstract

Non-compliance in organic farming: A cross-country comparison of Italy and Germany

Cited by 25 publications

References 21 publications

Organic Agriculture 3.0 is innovation with research

Organic Agriculture 3.0 is innovation with research

An empirical framework to study food labelling fraud: an application to the Italian extra‐virgin olive oil market

Food fraud: economic insights into the dark side of incentives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About