IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlaare/298437.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Hormone Use Perceptions on Consumer Meat Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Yang, Ruoye
  • Raper, Kellie Curry
  • Lusk, Jayson L.

Abstract

U.S. consumers see retail beef products with “no added hormones” (NAH) labels. However, similar labels appear on pork and chicken products, even though hormone use in their production is prohibited. This study assesses consumer perceptions of hormone use in different livestock species. Using choice experiment data, we then examine the impact of these perceptions on preferences for unlabeled meat products and willingness to pay for NAH-labeled meat products. Results suggest that consumer perceptions of hormone use in production are incorrect. Further, perceptions influence consumer preferences and willingness to pay for unlabeled products versus those with NAH labels.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang, Ruoye & Raper, Kellie Curry & Lusk, Jayson L., 2020. "Impact of Hormone Use Perceptions on Consumer Meat Preferences," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(1), January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:298437
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.298437
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/298437/files/JARE%2C45.1%2CJan2020%2C%237%2CYang%2C107-123.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.298437?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Astrid Dannenberg & Sara Scatasta & Bodo Sturm, 2011. "Mandatory versus voluntary labelling of genetically modified food: evidence from an economic experiment," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 373-386, May.
    2. Teisl, Mario F. & Roe, Brian E., 2010. "Consumer willingness-to-pay to reduce the probability of retail foodborne pathogen contamination," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 521-530, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Dannenberg, Astrid, 2009. "The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food -- A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2182-2192, June.
    5. Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2004. "What's it worth? An examination of historical trends and future directions in environmental valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 1-25.
    6. Marette, Stéphan & Roe, Brian E. & Teisl, Mario, 2012. "The welfare impact of food pathogen vaccines," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 86-93.
    7. 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.
    8. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Sebastian Hess, 2011. "A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(1), pages 55-78, March.
    9. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2014. "Editor's choice Distinguishing beliefs from preferences in food choice," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(4), pages 627-655.
    10. Hayes, Dermot J. & Kliebenstein, James & Shogren, Jason F. & Fox, John A., 1995. "Economics of Food Safety," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10453, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wilson, Lacey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2020. "Consumer willingness to pay for redundant food labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    2. Schmiess, Jacob S. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2022. "Tradeoff between Animal Welfare and Environmental Impacts of Beef Production: An Analysis of Presentation Effects on Consumer Choice," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 47(2), May.
    3. Lindsey Newman & Joey Mehlhorn & Rachna Tewari & Barbara Darroch, 2020. "Consumer Perception of Antibiotic-Free and Hormone-free Meat Products," Journal of Food Studies, Macrothink Institute, vol. 9(1), pages 1-80, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Petrolia, Daniel R., 2016. "Risk preferences, risk perceptions, and risky food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 37-48.
    2. Shimokawa, Satoru & Kito, Yayoi & Kudo, Haruyo & Yamaguchi, Michitoshi & Niiyama, Yoko, 2021. "Distinguishing Attitude and Belief Expressions from Economic Preferences in Long-Lasting Aversion in Food Choice," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315249, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    4. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    5. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    6. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    7. Crespi, John M. & Marette, Stephan, 2003. "Some Economic Implications Of Public Labeling," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(3), pages 1-12, November.
    8. Chloe S McCallum & Simone Cerroni & Daniel Derbyshire & W George Hutchinson & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2022. "Consumers’ responses to food fraud risks: an economic experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(4), pages 942-969.
    9. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood & J. Ross Pruitt, 2006. "Consumer Demand for a Ban on Antibiotic Drug Use in Pork Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1015-1033.
    10. Ward, Ruby A. & Bailey, DeeVon & Jensen, Robert T., 2005. "An American BSE Crisis: Has it affected the Value of Traceability and Country-of-Origin Certifications for US and Canadian Beef?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 8(2), pages 1-23.
    11. Gregory Howard & Brian E. Roe & Matthew G. Interis & Jay Martin, 2020. "Addressing Attribute Value Substitution in Discrete Choice Experiments to Avoid Unintended Consequences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(4), pages 813-838, December.
    12. Ty Feldkamp & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Experimental Auction Procedure: Impact on Valuation of Quality Differentiated Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 389-405.
    13. Frank van Tongeren & John Beghin & Stéphane Marette, 2009. "A Cost-Benefit Framework for the Assessment of Non-Tariff Measures in Agro-Food Trade," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 21, OECD Publishing.
    14. Shi, Lijia & House, Lisa & Gao, Zhifeng, 2012. "Consumers’ Willingness-to-pay for Organic and Local Blueberries: A Multi-store BDM Auction Controlling for Purchase Intentions," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124998, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Isabell Goldberg & Jutta Roosen, 2007. "Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 123-144, April.
    16. Birol, Ekin & Roy, Devesh & Torero, Maximo, 2010. "How safe is my food?: Assessing the effect of information and credible certification on consumer demand for food safety in developing countries," IFPRI discussion papers 1029, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    17. Roe, Brian E. & Interis, Matthew G. & Howard, Gregory E., 2018. "Utilizing Subjective Beliefs in Stated Preference Models: Issues and Solutions," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274017, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Helen H. JENSEN & Tanya ROBERTS & Laurian UNNEVEHR & Shannon HAMM, "undated". "Setting Priorities In Foodborne Pathogen Data: Public And Private Response," Department of Resource Economics Regional Research Project 9523, University of Massachusetts.
    19. Feuz, Dillon M. & Umberger, Wendy J. & Calkins, Chris R. & Killinger, Karen M., 2000. "Consumer Preference For Domestic Versus International Beef Steaks," 2000 Annual Meeting, June 29-July 1, 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia 36385, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    20. Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Aiew, Wipon & Woodward, Richard T., 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Irradiated Food: A Non Hypothetical Market Experiment," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24995, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Marketing; Consumer/Household Economics;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:jlaare:298437. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/waeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.