Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-qxsvm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-11T07:22:03.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Handler Reactions to Potential Compulsory Country-of-Origin Labeling of Fresh or Frozen Beef

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Alvin Schupp  and
Jeffrey Gillespie
Alvin Schupp
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803
Jeffrey Gillespie
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interest in mandatory county-of-origin labeling of fresh meats exists at both the state and national levels. A sample of beef handling firms in Louisiana (processors, retailers and restaurants) was surveyed by telephone to identify the characteristics of these firms that would help explain their decision to support or reject the law. A factor supporting the label use was a belief that the label is valuable to buyers. Negative factors were that the firm is a restaurant, is part of a chain or franchise, or has experience handling imported beef, and the belief that labeling merely reflects more government interference in free trade.

Keywords

beef handling firmscountry-of-origin labelinglogit analysistelephone survey
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , April 2001 , pp. 161 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2001

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

Almonte, Jaime, Falk, Constance, Skaggs, Rhonda and Cardenas, Manuel “Country-of-Origin Bias Among High-Income Consumers in Mexico: An Empirical Study.” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 18,2(1995): 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brester, Gary, Marsh, John and Smith, Vincent. “Evaluating the Impacts of the U.S. Department of Commerce's Preliminary Imposition of Tariffs on U.S. Imports of Canadian Live Cattle.” Research Discussion Paper No 34. Trade Research Center. Montana State University. August 1999.Google Scholar
Becker, Geoffrey S. “Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods: Current Law and Proposed Changes.” The Committee for the National Institute for the Environment, 1725 K Street, NW Suite 212, Washington DC, October 21, 1999.Google Scholar
Branson, Robert and Dillin, R. George Jr. “An Analysis of Response Variations in Telephone Versus Personal Interviewing in Consumer Market Surveys.” Unnumbered Publication, Consumer Economics Section. Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, Texas A & M University, College Station. No Date.Google Scholar
Capps, O. Jr. and Kramer, R.A. “Analysis of Food Stamp Participation Using Qualitative Choice Models.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67,1(1985): 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Committee on Agriculture. “Country-of-Origin Labeling.” Hearing before the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture. U.S. House of Representatives. April 28, 1999. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Dillman, D. A.Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley. 1978.Google Scholar
Greene, William H.Econometric Analysis. Fourth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 2000.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Wayne “Strategic Marketing Strategies for Florida Tomatoes.” Journal of Food Distribution Research 29,1(1998): 33–36.Google Scholar
Howard, D.G. “Understanding How American Consumers Formulate Their Attitudes About Foreign Products.” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 2,2 (1989):7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kansas Legislative Services. “Senate Concurrent Resolution No 1616.” Kansas Legislature Signed & Enrolled Bills, http://www.ink.org/public/legislative/di...1=1616year=1999&doc=enroll&ty pe=senate.Google Scholar
Louisiana Secretary of State. “Acts of the Louisiana Legislature.” Vol II Regular Session. 1981: 1318-19.Google Scholar
Nagashima, A. “A Comparison of Japanese and U.S. Attitudes Toward Foreign Products.” Journal of Marketing 34, 1(1970):68–74.Google Scholar
Norum, P.S. and Clark, L.A.. A Comparison of Quality and Retail Price of Domestically Produced and Imported Blazers. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 7,3(1989): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakes, Ralph “Differences in Responsiveness in Telephone Versus Personal Interviews.” Journal of Marketing 19,2(October 1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, P., Olofsson, H., Richards, T. and Sass, S. “An Empirical Analysis of State Agricultural Product Promotions: A Case Study on Arizona Grown.” Agribusiness 15,2 (1999): 179–196.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, Stanley “Some Advantages of Telephone Surveys.” Journal of Marketing 20,3 (1956): 278-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quagrainie, K., Unterschultz, J. and Veeman, M. “Effects of Product Origin and Selected Demographics on Consumer Choice of Red Meats.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 46 (1998): 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Alan “AFFI, Alliance is Going Toe to Toe over Country of Origin Labeling.” Frozen Food Age 45, 10 (1997): 8, 78.Google Scholar
Schupp, Alvin and Dellenbarger, Lynn “The Effectiveness of State Logos for Farm-raised Catfish.” Journal of Food Distribution Research 24,2(1993): 11–12.Google Scholar
Skaggs, Rhonda, Falk, Constance, Almonte, Jaime and Cardenas, Manuel “Product-country Images and International Food Marketing: Relationships and Research.” Agribusiness 12,6 (1996): 593–600.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unterschultz, J., Quagrainie, K. and Vincent, Michel “Evaluating Quebec's Preference for Alberta Beef versus US Beef.” Agribusiness 13,5 (1997):457–468.3.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. “Foreign Agricultural Trade of the U.S.” 2000.Google Scholar
U. S. General Accounting Office. “Beef and Lamb: Implications of Labeling by Country of Origin.” Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives. GAO/ RCED-00-44. January 2000.Google Scholar