IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/revage/v28y2006i4p482-493.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sales Responses to Recalls for Listeria monocytogenes: Evidence from Branded Ready-to-Eat Meats

Author

Listed:
  • Michael R. Thomsen
  • Rimma Shiptsova
  • Sandra J. Hamm

Abstract

The extent to which brand names insulate firms from the spillover effects of food safety events is a potentially important difference between branded products and the undifferentiated commodity products examined in earlier studies. This paper uses empirical models to measure sales losses experienced by frankfurter brands following a recall for a foodborne pathogen. Results indicate sales of recalled brands declined roughly 22% after a recall. Brand recovery, on average, began two to three months after a recall and sales approached prerecall levels within four to five months. There is no evidence that nonrecalled brands experienced sales losses. Copyright 2006, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael R. Thomsen & Rimma Shiptsova & Sandra J. Hamm, 2006. "Sales Responses to Recalls for Listeria monocytogenes: Evidence from Branded Ready-to-Eat Meats," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(4), pages 482-493.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:revage:v:28:y:2006:i:4:p:482-493
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2006.00317.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Chantal Toledo & Sofia Berto Villas-Boas, 2019. "Safe or Not? Consumer Responses to Recalls with Traceability," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-541, September.
    2. Li, Tongzhe & Bernard, John C. & Johnston, Zachary A. & Messer, Kent D. & Kaiser, Harry M., 2017. "Consumer preferences before and after a food safety scare: An experimental analysis of the 2010 egg recall," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 25-34.
    3. Elena Fagotto, 2014. "Private roles in food safety provision: the law and economics of private food safety," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 83-109, February.
    4. Zarebanadkoki, Samane & Zheng, Yuqing & Woods, Timothy & Buck, Steven, 2016. "Examining the Effect of Food Recalls on Demand: The Case of Ground Beef in the U.S," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236112, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Bulut, Harun & Lawrence, John D., 2007. "Meat Slaughter and Processing Plants' Traceability Levels Evidence From Iowa," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12791, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. Ollinger, Michael & Houser, Matthew, 2020. "Ground beef recalls and subsequent food safety performance," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. Pozo, Veronica F. & Schroeder, Ted C., 2013. "Effects of Meat Recalls on Firms' Stock Prices," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 151287, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Peake, Whitney O. & Detre, Joshua D. & Carlson, Clinton C., 2014. "One bad apple spoils the bunch? An exploration of broad consumption changes in response to food recalls," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 13-22.
    9. David C. Hall & Tracy D. Johnson-Hall, 2017. "Learning from Conformance Quality Failures That Triggered Product Recalls: The Role of Direct and Indirect Experience," Journal of Supply Chain Management, Institute for Supply Management, vol. 53(4), pages 13-36, October.
    10. Ollinger, Michael & Bovay, John & Guthrie, Joanne & Benicio, Casiano, 2015. "Economic Incentives to Supply Safe Chicken to the National School Lunch Program," Economic Research Report 212888, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    11. Ollinger, Michael & Muth, Mary K. & Karns, Shawn A. & Choice, Zanethia, 2011. "Food Safety Audits, Plant Characteristics, and Food Safety Technology Use in Meat and Poultry Plants," Economic Information Bulletin 117989, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    12. Thomsen, Michael R. & Ollinger, Michael & Crandall, Philip G. & O'Bryan, Corliss, 2008. "Mandatory Food Recalls," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6083, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Pozo, Veronica F. & Schroeder, Ted C., 2016. "Evaluating the costs of meat and poultry recalls to food firms using stock returns," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 66-77.
    14. Michael Ollinger & John Bovay, 2020. "Producer Response to Public Disclosure of Food‐Safety Information," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(1), pages 186-201, January.
    15. Garcia-Fuentes, Pablo & Ferreira, Gustavo & Harrison, R. Wes & Kinsey, Jean D. & Degeneffe, Dennis, 2014. "Consumer Confidence in the Food System, Media Coverage and Stock Prices for the Food Industry," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 45(2), pages 1-20, July.
    16. Chebolu-Subramanian, Vijaya & Gaukler, Gary M., 2015. "Product contamination in a multi-stage food supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(1), pages 164-175.
    17. Neill, Clinton L. & Chen, Susan E., 2021. "Food Safety Events versus Media: Nonlinear Effects of Egg Recalls on U.S. Egg Prices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 47(1), January.
    18. Ollinger, Michael & Guthrie, Joanne & Bovay, John, 2014. "The Food Safety Performance of Ground Beef Suppliers to the National School Lunch Program," Economic Research Report 262211, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

    More about this item

    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:oup:revage:v:28:y:2006:i:4:p:482-493. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.