IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlaare/142359.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public and Private Preferences for Animal Cloning Policies

Author

Listed:
  • Brooks, Kathleen R.
  • Lusk, Jayson L.

Abstract

Data on individuals’ private shopping choices are often used to draw conclusions about their desires for food policies. The purpose of this paper is to test this often-implicit assumption using data from a nationwide survey about animal cloning. We find that although individuals’ private choices indicate a strong desire to avoid meat and milk from cloned cattle, public choices predict that only 40.29% have a positive WTP for such a ban. The results suggest caution is necessary when inferring public preferences from private choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Brooks, Kathleen R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2012. "Public and Private Preferences for Animal Cloning Policies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1-17.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:142359
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.142359
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/142359/files/JARE_Dec2012__10_pp485-501_Brooks.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.142359?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. R.K. Blamey & Mick S. Common & John C. Quiggin, 1995. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 263-288, December.
    3. Nicholas E. Piggott & Thomas L. Marsh, 2004. "Does Food Safety Information Impact U.S. Meat Demand?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 154-174.
    4. Buzby, Jean C. & Ready, Richard C. & Skees, Jerry R., 1995. "Contingent Valuation In Food Policy Analysis: A Case Study Of A Pesticide-Residue Risk Reduction," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    6. Jayson L. Lusk & Brian C. Briggeman, 2009. "Food Values," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(1), pages 184-196.
    7. Dhar, Tirtha & Foltz, Jeremy D., 2004. "Milk by Any Other Name... Consumer Benefits from Labeled Milk," Working Papers 201547, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Food System Research Group.
    8. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L., 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice, New Horizons in Environmental Economics," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12330, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    9. Matthew Rousu & Wallace E. Huffman & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2007. "Effects And Value Of Verifiable Information In A Controversial Market: Evidence From Lab Auctions Of Genetically Modified Food," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(3), pages 409-432, July.
    10. Marette, Stephan & Roosen, Jutta & Blanchemanche, Sandrine & Verger, Philippe, 2008. "The Choice of Fish Species: An Experiment Measuring the Impact of Risk and Benefit Information," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(1), pages 1-18, April.
    11. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    12. Mario F. Teisl & Nancy E. Bockstael & Alan Levy, 2001. "Measuring the Welfare Effects of Nutrition Information," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(1), pages 133-149.
    13. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    14. 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.
    15. Lusk, Jayson L. & House, Lisa O. & Valli, Carlotta & Jaeger, Sara R. & Moore, Melissa & Morrow, Bert & Traill, W. Bruce, 2005. "Consumer welfare effects of introducing and labeling genetically modified food," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 382-388, September.
    16. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    17. 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.
    18. Charles Noussair & StÈphane Robin & Bernard Ruffieux, 2004. "Do Consumers Really Refuse To Buy Genetically Modified Food?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(492), pages 102-120, January.
    19. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1315.
    20. Nyborg, Karine, 2000. "Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 305-322, July.
    21. Hamilton, Stephen F. & Sunding, David L. & Zilberman, David, 2003. "Public goods and the value of product quality regulations: the case of food safety," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(3-4), pages 799-817, March.
    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. McFadden, Brandon R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2013. "Effects of Cost and Campaign Advertising on Support for California’s Proposition 37," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-13, August.
    2. Alexandre Magnier & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes & Jayson Lusk, 2022. "Changes in Consumer Preferences toward Non‐GM Foods within an Information‐Rich Environment: The Case of the Washington State Ballot Initiative," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(1), pages 489-510, March.
    3. Schumacher, Ingmar, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Determinants of Green Party Voting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 306-318.
    4. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Lusk, Jayson L., 2020. "Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    5. Vincenzina Caputo & Jayson L. Lusk, 2020. "What agricultural and food policies do U.S. consumers prefer? A best–worst scaling approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 75-93, January.
    6. Francisco Alex J. & Bruce Amanda S. & Crespi John M. & Lusk Jayson L. & McFadden Brandon & Bruce Jared M. & Aupperle Robin L. & Lim Seung-Lark, 2015. "Are Consumers as Constrained as Hens are Confined? Brain Activations and Behavioral Choices after Informational Influence," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 113-119, January.
    7. Oreoluwa Ola & Luisa Menapace, 2020. "Revisiting constraints to smallholder participation in high‐value markets: A best‐worst scaling approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 595-608, July.
    8. Paul, Andrew S. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2019. "An experiment on the vote-buy gap with application to cage-free eggs," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 102-109.
    9. Franklin Bailey Norwood & Glynn Tonsor & Jayson L Lusk, 2019. "I Will Give You My Vote but Not My Money: Preferences for Public versus Private Action in Addressing Social Issues," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 96-132, March.
    10. Gina Waterfield & Scott Kaplan & David Zilberman, 2020. "Willingness to Pay versus Willingness to Vote: Consumer and Voter Avoidance of Genetically Modified Foods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(2), pages 505-524, March.
    11. Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano & Lamonaca, Emilia, 2020. "Objective risk and subjective risk: The role of information in food supply chains," MPRA Paper 104515, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Alphonce, Roselyne & Alfnes, Frode & Sharma, Amit, 2014. "Consumer vs. citizen willingness to pay for restaurant food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 160-166.
    2. McFadden, Brandon R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2013. "Effects of Cost and Campaign Advertising on Support for California’s Proposition 37," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-13, August.
    3. 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.
    4. Vincenzina Caputo & Achilleas Vassilopoulos & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. & Maurizio Canavari, 2013. "Welfare Effects of Food Miles Labels," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 311-327, July.
    5. Disdier, Anne-Célia & Marette, Stéphan, 2012. "How do consumers in developed countries value the environment and workers’ social rights in developing countries?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-11.
    6. 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.
    7. Kanter, Christopher & Messer, Kent D. & Kaiser, Harry M., 2008. "Do rBST-Free and Organic Milk Stigmatize Conventionally Produced Milk?," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 43491, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. 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.
    9. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    10. 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).
    11. Marette, Stéphan & Roosen, Jutta & Blanchemanche, Sandrine & Feinblatt-Mélèze, Eve, 2010. "Functional food, uncertainty and consumers' choices: A lab experiment with enriched yoghurts for lowering cholesterol," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 419-428, October.
    12. David M. Bruner & William L. Huth & David M. McEvoy & O. Ashton Morgan, 2011. "Accounting for Taste: Consumer Valuations for Food-Safety Technologies," Working Papers 11-09, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    13. Gina Waterfield & Scott Kaplan & David Zilberman, 2020. "Willingness to Pay versus Willingness to Vote: Consumer and Voter Avoidance of Genetically Modified Foods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(2), pages 505-524, March.
    14. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2011. "On mandatory labeling of animal welfare attributes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 430-437, June.
    15. Alexandre Magnier & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes & Jayson Lusk, 2022. "Changes in Consumer Preferences toward Non‐GM Foods within an Information‐Rich Environment: The Case of the Washington State Ballot Initiative," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(1), pages 489-510, March.
    16. Liu, Pengcheng, 2009. "Consumers’ WTA for GM rice cookie: an experiment study in China," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51771, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Zhihao Zheng & Shida R. Henneberry & Chuanzhong Sun & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2018. "Consumer Demand for Genetically Modified Rice in Urban China," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 705-725, September.
    18. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    19. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    20. Anne-Célia Disdier & Stéphan Marette, 2012. "Taxes, minimum-quality standards and/or product labeling to improve environmental quality and welfare: Experiments can provide answers," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 337-357, June.

    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:142359. 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.