Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:10:49.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

How Labeling of Safety and Process Attributes Affects Markets for Food

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Julie A. Caswell*
Affiliation:
Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Get access

Abstract

Consumers are increasingly considering information on the safety and process (how foods are produced) attributes of food in making their buying decisions. Producers, processors, and retailers may choose voluntary labeling of these attributes, may be required to label by government regulations, or may use a combination of these approaches. The market effects depend on consumer perceptions of the attributes, the benefits and costs of labeling for companies, and the goals of government policy. These effects are illustrated through a discussion of labeling of foods that are produced with the use of biotechnology (genetically modified organisms) or that are organically grown.

Type
Invited Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Caswell, Julie A. 1997. “Uses of Food Labeling Regulations: Case Study Prepared for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.” February.Google Scholar
Caswell, Julie A. 1988. “Should Use of Genetically Modified Organisms Be Labeled?AgBioForum (http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu/). Illinois Missouri Biotechnology Alliance. April.Google Scholar
Caswell, Julie A., and Johnson, Gary V. 1991. “Firm Strategic Response to Food Safety and Nutrition Regulation.” In Economics of Food Safety, ed. Caswell, Julie A., pp. 273–97. New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Co. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caswell, Julie A., and Mojduszka, Eliza M. 1996. “Using Informational Labeling to Influence the Market for Quality in Food Products,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78(5): 1248–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caswell, Julie A., and Padberg, Daniel I. 1992. “Toward a More Comprehensive Theory of Food Labels.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(2): 460–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Codex Committee on Food Labeling. 1996. Draft Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labeling, and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods. CL 1996/23-FL. Rome, Italy. June.Google Scholar
Darby, M.R., and Karni, E. 1973. “Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud.” Journal of Law and Economics 16: 6788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ippolito, P.M., and Mathios, A.D. 1990. “Information, Advertising, and Health Choices.” Rand Journal of Economics 21: 459–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ippolito, P.M., and Mathios, A.D. 1996. Information and Advertising Policy: A Study of Fat and Cholesterol in the United States, 1977–1990. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Staff Report. September.Google Scholar
Morales, Roberta A. 1996. “Farm-Level Costs for Control of Salmonella enteritidis in Laying Flocks.” In Economics of Reducing Health Risk from Food, ed. Caswell, Julie A., pp. 99108. Storrs, Conn.: Food Marketing Policy Center. Google Scholar
Nelson, P. 1970. “Information and Consumer Behavior.” Journal of Political Economy 78: 311–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, P. 1974. “Advertising as Information.” Journal of Political Economy 81: 729–54.Google Scholar
Roberts, Tanya, Morales, Roberta A., Jordan Lin, C.-T., Caswell, Julie A., and Hooker, Neal H. 1997. “Worldwide Opportunities to Market Food Safety.” In Government and the Food Industry: Economic and Political Effects of Conflict and Cooperation, ed. Wallace, T.L. and Schroder, William R., pp. 161–78. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Press. Google Scholar
Swinbank, A. 1993. “Industry Note: Completion of the EC's Internal Market, Mutual Recognition, and the Food Industries.” Agribusiness 9(5): 509–22.3.0.CO;2-Y>CrossRefGoogle Scholar