Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article reports results from four studies determining the US market potential for plant‐based meat alternatives in different contexts and settings. The first study shows that a pair‐wise choice between beef and a plant‐based alternative was not significantly affected by the presence of nutrition facts panels or ingredient lists. A second study, framed as a food service meal choice, reveals that the introduction of a plant‐based burger has roughly the same effect on beef sales as does the presence of a chicken wrap. The final two studies estimate own‐ and cross‐price elasticities of retail demand. We find small cross‐price elasticities between plant‐based patties and ground beef. Each of the aforementioned results varies for regular meat consumers as compared to consumers who self‐identify with an alternative diet such as flexitarian, vegetarian, or vegan. Combined, this study increases understanding of the impact presented by plant‐based offerings in the US protein market.

AbstractThis article uses two complementary analyses to document consumption of beef and plant‐based proteins along with perceptions held by US consumers. Beef is chosen three times more often than plant‐based proteins and consumers hold a positive image of beef overall. Key differences are outlined between regular meat consumers and those declaring alternative diets. Combined these findings extend understanding in the dynamic situation presented by plant‐based proteins in the US market.

Food safety remains a major issue to many consumers. Previous studies examining the economic impact of food safety recalls have focused on Class I recalls. Antibiotic residue in meat products, a Class II recall, has increased in consumer importance yet little is known about how much research and development expenditure should be allocated to reduce antibiotic residue pre- and post-harvest. This study compares demand elasticities and the decrease in willingness to pay in response to either an E. coli (Class I) or antibiotic residue (Class II) recall. We compare and contrast two competing behavioral frameworks, Random Utility and Regret Minimizing. Modeling behavior using the random regret framework is found to be more powerful for assessing consumer responses. In addition, we explore if different groups of consumers exist that either maximize utility or minimize regret. Consumer devaluations of E. coli (Class I) are 40–65% larger than antibiotic residue (Class II). Approximately 60% of consumers are identified as regret minimizers and 40% were identified as utility maximizers. While industry response and government policy recommendations differed conditional on modeling framework, the regret minimizing framework required smaller price discounts than regret minimizing to maintain the same level of market share.

Abstract
Beef food safety events have contributed to considerable market volatility, produced varied consumer reactions, created policy debates, sparked heated trade disputes, and generally contributed to beef industry frustrations. Utilizing data from a total of 4,005 consumers in the United States, Canada, Mexico and Japan in a Double-Hurdle modeling framework, we examine whether consumers altered their beef consumption behavior because of their risk aversion and risk perceptions stemming from information about beef food safety in recent years. Results reveal stark differences in risk perceptions and risk aversion regarding beef food safety across consumers in the four countries and that these differences are revealed through different beef consumption behavior. An improved understanding of food safety perceptions and attitudes will enable policy makers and agricultural industries to better anticipate consumers changing consumption behavior, if a food safety event occurs. Food safety management strategies vary across countries because of identified differences in food safety risk attitudes and risk perceptions.

AbstractThis research examined whether university extension and research marketing economists have similar or different views regarding marketing strategies, price forecasts, and futures market efficiency. Results from surveys conducted of extension and research marketing economists found that perceptions differed in seven of twelve questions posed to both groups. Three important findings of this study were (a) that both groups tended to not believe in the efficient market hypothesis, (b) that extension and researchers disagreed as to whether marketing strategies should be based on statistically significant findings, and (c) that extension and research economists rarely collaborate.