Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:20:08.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introducing Foods Produced Using Biotechnology: The Case Of Bovine Somatotropin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

Anya M. McGuirk ,
Warren P. Preston  and
Gerald M. Jones
Anya M. McGuirk
Affiliation:
Departments of Agricultural Economics and Statistics
Warren P. Preston
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics
Gerald M. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Dairy Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A mailed questionnaire wasr used to assess consumer concerns and potential consumption response attributable to the introduction of bovine somatotropin (bST). Responses from 605 households in Virginia are described and analyzed. Logit models were estimated to identify which issues shape consumers' decisions to alter milk purchases contingent on the introduction of bST and to determine whether socioeconomic characteristics explain consumers' attitudes toward these issues. Estimates based on survey responses point toward sizable reductions in fluid milk purchases if bST is introduced. Large retail price reductions are predicted to be insufficient to offset these estimated decreases. Consumer education and marketing strategies are discussed.

Keywords

bovine somatotropinmilkdemandconsumptionconsumer attitudes
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , July 1992 , pp. 209 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1992

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

Bauman, D. E., Eppard, J. P., DeGeeter, M. J., and Lanza, G. M.. “Responses of High-Producing Dairy Cows to Long-Term Treatment with Pituitary Somatotropin and Recombinant Somatotropin.” J. Dairy Sci., 68 (1985): 1352–1362.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, J. C., Stoll, J. R., and Randall, A.. “The Impact of Information on Environmental Commodity Valuation Decisions.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 72 (1990): 614–621.Google Scholar
Blayney, D. P., and Fallert, R. F.. Biotechnology and Agriculture: Emergence of Bovine Somatotropin (bST). Washington, D.C.: USDA ERS Commodity Economics Division, Staff Report AGES 9037, June 1990.Google Scholar
CAES Consultants (Wye) Ltd. BST and the Consumer: An Overview of Perceptions and Practices. Centre for European Agricultural Studies, Wye College, Ashfort, Kent, U.K., December 1989.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977.Google Scholar
Connor, J. M., Rogers, R. T., Marion, B. W., and Mueller, W. F.. The Food Manufacturing Industries: Structure, Strategies, Performance, and Policies. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1985.Google Scholar
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. “CAST Comments on Bovine Somatotropin (bST).” CAST News Release, Ames, Iowa, September 1, 1989.Google Scholar
Craigmill, A. L. The Approval Process For New Animal Drugs. New Dairy Technologies Fact Sheet NDT-10, Office of Information and Publications, University of Maryland, 1988.Google Scholar
Cummings, R. G., Brookshire, D. S., and Schulze, W. D.. Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, NJ: Rowan and Allenheld, 1986.Google Scholar
Douthitt, R. A. “Biotechnology and Consumer Choice in the Market Place: Should There Be Mandatory Product Labeling? A Case Study of Bovine Somatotropin and Wisconsin Dairy Products.” Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Research in the Consumer Interest, Snowbird, Utah, August 9-11, 1990.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. S. “Potential Public Health Hazards of Biosynthetic Milk Hormones.” Int. J. Health Services, 20 (1990): 73–84.Google Scholar
Fallert, R., McGuckin, T., Belts, C., and Bruner, G.. bST and the Dairy Industry: A National, Regional, and Farm-level Analysis. Washington D.C.: USDA ERS CED, Agr. Econ. Rp. No. 579, October 1987.Google Scholar
Griliches, Z. “Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technical Change.” Econometrica, 25.4 (1957): 221–243.Google Scholar
Haidacher, R.C., Blaylock, J. R., and Myers, L. H.. Consumer Demand for Dairy Products. Washington, D.C.: USDA ERS Commodity Economics Division, Agr. Econ. Rp. No. 586, March 1988.Google Scholar
Henderson, P. C. “Consumers Balk at bST.” Dairy Today, November/December 1989, pp. 14–6.Google Scholar
Hoban, T. “Public Attitudes Toward Bovine Somatotropin (BST).” Summary of a presentation prepared for the 39th Annual Dairy Conference, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, February 27-28, 1990.Google Scholar
Juskevich, J.C., and Guyer, C. G.. “Bovine Growth Hormone: Human Food Safety Evaluation.” Science, 249(1990): 875–884.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaiser, H. M., and Tauer, L. W.. “Impact of Bovine Somatotropin on U.S. Dairy Markets Under Alternative Policy Options.” N. Cent. J. Agri. Econ., 11.1 (1989): 59–73.Google Scholar
Kaiser, H. M., Scherer, C. W., and Barbano, D. M.. “Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Bovine Somatotropin.” Working paper, Dep. Agr. Econ., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. May, 1991.Google Scholar
Kalter, R. J., Milligan, R. M., Lesser, W., Magrath, W., Tauer, L., and Bauman, D. E.. Biotechnology and the Dairy Industry: Production Costs, Commercial Potential, and the Economic Impact of the Bovine Growth Hormone. Dep. Agri. Econ., A.E. Res. Pap. 85-20, Cornell University (December 1985).Google Scholar
Kimball, M., and Rogers, R. T.. Biotechnology in Massachusetts: Impact of Bovine Growth Hormone on the Dairy Industry with Comments on the Whole-Herd Buyout Program. Dep. Agriculture and Res. Econ., University of Massachusetts, Ext. Pap. Series #86-2, November 1986.Google Scholar
Kinnucan, H., Hatch, U., Molnar, J. J., and Venkateswaran, M.. “Scale Neutrality of Bovine Somatotropin: Ex Ante Evidence from the Southeast.” So. J. Agri. Econ., 22.2 (1990): 1–12.Google Scholar
Kronfeld, D. S. “Biologic and Economic Risks Associated with Use of Bovine Somatotropins.” J. of Am. Vet. Med. Associ., 192: (1988) 1693–1696.Google ScholarPubMed
Kuchler, F., and McClelland, J.. Issues Raised by New Agricultural Technologies. Washington, D.C.; USDA ERS RTD Agr. Econ. Rp. No. 608, April 1989.Google Scholar
Maddala, G. S. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Marion, B. W., and Wills, R. L.. “A Prospective Assessment of the Impacts of Bovine Somatotropin: A Case Study of Wisconsin.” Am. J. Agri Econ. 72.2 (1990): 326–336.Google Scholar
National Dairy Board. Consumer Responses to the Introduction of bST Technology: Division a Communications Strategy—Final Report. Chicago, Illinois (December 1986).Google Scholar
Savin, N. E. “Multiple Hypothesis Testing” Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. 2, Griliches, Z. and Intriligator, M. D., eds. Amsterdam: North-Holland 1984.Google Scholar
Sellschopp, J., and Kalter, R. J.. Bovine Somatotropin: Its Impact on the Spatial Distribution of the U.S. Dairy Industry. Dep. Agri. Econ., A.E. Research 89-14, Cornell University, September 1989.Google Scholar
Slusher, B. J. “Consumer Acceptance of Food Production Innovations—An Empirical Focus on Biotechnology and BST.” Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Research in the Consumer Interest, Snowbird, Utah, August 9-11, 1990.Google Scholar
Smith, B. J. “Study Targets Consumer Reaction to bST Milk.” Hoard's Dairyman, September 10, 1989, p. 686.Google Scholar
Smith, M. E., Ravenswaay, E. van, and Thompson, S. R.. “Sales Loss Determination in Food Contamination Incidents: An Application to Milk Bans in Hawaii.” Am. J. Agri. Econ., 70.3 (1988): 513–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture Dairy Situation and Outlook. Washington, D.C.: CED ERS, DS-423, January 1990.Google Scholar
van Ravenswaay, E. O., and Hoehn, J. P.. “The Impact of Health Risk on Food Demand: A Case Study of Alar and Apples.” Department of Agricultural Economics Staff Paper No. 90-31, Michigan State University. Paper presented at the Economics of Food Safety Workshop, Alexandria, Virginia, June 4-6, 1990.Google Scholar
Zepeda, L. “Predicting Bovine Somatotropin Use by California Dairy Farmers.” West. J. Agr. Econ. 15.1 (1990): 55–62.Google Scholar