IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaa115/116425.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Food QUALITY VERIFICATION: WHO DO CONSUMERS TRUST?

Author

Listed:
  • Hobbs, Jill E.
  • Innes, Brian G.
  • Uzea, Adrian D.

Abstract

Food markets are increasingly characterized by an array of quality assurances with respect to credence attributes, many of which relate to agricultural production methods. A variety of organizations are associated with these quality assurance claims, including private, third party and public sector organizations. How do quality verifications from different sources affect consumer food choices? Who do consumers trust for assurances about credence attributes? This paper draws upon two recent studies to explore Canadian consumer attitudes toward environmental quality claims in a bread product and animal welfare quality claims in a pork product, along with attitudes toward quality verification from different sources. Analysis from two discrete choice experiments is presented, with latent class models used to explore heterogeneity in consumer preferences. The key message from both studies is the importance of considering heterogeneity in consumer preferences when examining attitudes toward quality verification. Both studies reveal distinct segments of consumers who have a high level of trust in verification by public sector agencies (government). In general, it was the respondents who exhibited the strongest preferences for the quality attributes who also tended to value public sector verification. Both sets of results also reveal a sub-set of consumers who tend to trust farmers, while both also reveal a clear segment of Canadian consumers who might be considered ‘conventional food’ consumers, with little interest in these quality attributes. Suggestions for further research are provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Hobbs, Jill E. & Innes, Brian G. & Uzea, Adrian D., 2010. "Food QUALITY VERIFICATION: WHO DO CONSUMERS TRUST?," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116425, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaa115:116425
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.116425
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/116425/files/6B-1_Hobbs_Innes_Uzea.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.116425?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. Henson, Spencer & Reardon, Thomas, 2005. "Private agri-food standards: Implications for food policy and the agri-food system," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 241-253, June.
    2. Tomas Nilsson & Ken Foster & Jayson L. Lusk, 2006. "Marketing Opportunities for Certified Pork Chops," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(4), pages 567-583, December.
    3. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    4. Adrian D. Uzea & Jill E. Hobbs & Jing Zhang, 2011. "Activists and Animal Welfare: Quality Verifications in the Canadian Pork Sector," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 281-304, June.
    5. Hobbs, Jill E., 2010. "Public and Private Standards for Food Safety and Quality: International Trade Implications," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, May.
    6. Brian G. Innes & Jill E. Hobbs, 2011. "Does It Matter Who Verifies Production‐Derived Quality?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 59(1), pages 87-107, March.
    7. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Zou, Ning Ning (Helen) & Hobbs, Jill E., 2010. "The Role Of Labelling In Consumers’ Functional Food Choices," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116421, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. 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.
    3. Maples, Joshua G. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Peel, Derrell S., 2018. "Unintended consequences of the quest for increased efficiency in beef cattle: When bigger isn’t better," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 65-73.
    4. Sporleder, Eva M. & Kayser, Maike & Friedrich, Nina & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2014. "Consumer Preferences for Sustainably Produced Bananas: A Discrete Choice Experiment," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 17(1), pages 1-24, February.
    5. Uwamariya, Beatrice, 2014. "Assessment of Consumer Awareness and Preferences for Quality Certification and Origin-Labeling in Fruit Salads in Kigali,Rwanda," Research Theses 198512, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    6. Steiner, B.E. & Peschel, A.O. & Grebitus, C., 2017. "Multi-Product Category Choices Labeled for Ecological Footprints: Exploring Psychographics and Evolved Psychological Biases for Characterizing Latent Consumer Classes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 251-264.
    7. Maples, Joshua G. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Peel, Derrell S., 2016. "When Bigger Isn't Better: Steak Size and Consumer Preferences," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235432, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Hobbs, Jill E. & Innes, Brian G. & Uzea, Adrian D. & Zhang, Jing, 2012. "Food Quality Verifications and Consumer Trust," 86th Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2012, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 135069, Agricultural Economics Society.
    9. Kontoleon Andreas & Yabe Mitsuyasu, 2006. "Market Segmentation Analysis of Preferences for GM Derived Animal Foods in the UK," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-38, December.
    10. Charity, Nabwire Ephamia Juma, 2016. "Economic Analysis Of Consumers’ Awareness And Willingness To Pay For Geographical Indicators And Other Quality Attributes Of Honey In Kenya," Research Theses 265574, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    11. 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.
    12. Sardaro, Ruggiero & La Sala, Piermichele & De Pascale, Gianluigi & Faccilongo, Nicola, 2021. "The conservation of cultural heritage in rural areas: Stakeholder preferences regarding historical rural buildings in Apulia, southern Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    13. Koistinen, Laura & Pouta, Eija & Heikkila, Jaakko & Forsman-Hugg, Sari & Kotro, Jaana & Makela, Jarmo & Niva, M., 2011. "Impact of meat type, methods of production, fat content, price and carbon footprint information on meat choice," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114710, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Makiko Nakano, 2019. "Evaluation of Corporate Social Responsibility by Consumers: Use of Organic Material and Long Working Hours of Employees," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-16, September.
    15. Carlo Fezzi & Ian J. Bateman, 2013. "Estimating the Value of Travel Time to Recreational Sites Using Revealed Preferences," Working Papers 2013.64, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    16. Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Schulz, Norbert & Breustedt, Gunnar, 2014. "Assessing Farmers' Willingness to Accept "Greening": Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Gremany," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 170560, Agricultural Economics Society.
    17. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo, 2011. "Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: Does it really matter for welfare measurement?," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2011/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    18. Fewell, Jason E. & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2016. "Farmers' willingness to contract switchgrass as a cellulosic bioenergy crop in Kansas," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 292-302.
    19. Anastassiadis, Friederike & Liebe, Ulf & Musshoff, Oliver, 2012. "Finanzielle Flexibilität In Landwirtschaftlichen Investitionsentscheidungen: Ein Discrete Choice Experiment," 52nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 26-28, 2012 137142, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    20. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 89-111.

    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:eaa115:116425. 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/eaaeeea.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.