Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 150 Document Number: C24235
Notes:
Retrieved April 19, 2006, FoodQualityNews.com 2 pages., Report on survey research by ConAgra Foods indicating that people want help in identifying what is good for them. Examples cited: "heart-healthy, ""organic and kosher" and "0g trans fats."
Institute of Grocery Distribution, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.
Format:
Research report
Publication Date:
2004-08-09
Published:
United Kingdom
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 154 Document Number: C24918
Notes:
2 pages, Retrieved November 8, 2006, "IGD consumer research shows that genetic modification (GM) is currently making little difference in the majority of consumers' shopping habits."
18 pages., via online journal, As the public has expressed increasing concerns regarding the humane raising and handling of farm animals, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and industry organizations have developed a series of standards enforcing animal welfare in the poultry industry. Labels and value-added claims were created and defined to differentiate products and to inform consumers’ purchasing decisions. This study identified five labels related to animal welfare that are frequently found on food packages in the U.S. grocery stores, including both the mandatory labels and third-party, voluntary labels. Using a controlled online experiment (N=249), we examined the labels’ effects on consumers’ perception of humane treatment and purchasing tendencies toward egg products. Results showed that while most consumers lack knowledge regarding the labels’ meaning and certification standards, they rely on the labels with simplistic terms (e.g., "certified humane," "cage free") as heuristic cues to judge the ethical treatment of hens on the farm. However, the selected labels did not lead consumers to pay a higher premium for the labeled products. We discussed the implications for regulators, food marketers, and agricultural communicators.
Online via https://newprairiepress.org/jac, Authors identified five labels related to animal welfare that are frequently found on food packages in USA grocery stores Results of a controlled online experiment among consumers showed that while most consumers lacked knowledge regarding meaning of the labels and certification standards, they relied on the labels with simplistic terms as heuristic cues to judge the ethical treatment of hens on the farm. The selected labels did not lead consumers to pay a higher premium for the labeled products.
Available online at www.centmapress.org, Results indicated that study participants had specific expectations regarding the husbandry conditions, but also regarding the product characteristics and the labelling of dual-purpose chickens.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 199 Document Number: D09898
Notes:
NCR-90 Collection, From Document D09897, "Department of agricultural journalism University of Wisconsin-Madison: Faculty and graduate student research, 1995". Page 6.
Agricultural Economics (Amsterdam, Netherlands), This paper develops a model of differentiated consumers to examine the consumption effects of genetic modification (GM) under alternative labelling regimes and segregation enforcement scenarios. Analytical results show that if consumers perceive GM products as being different than their traditional counterparts, GM affects consumer welfare and, thus, consumption decisions. When the existence of market imperfections in one or more stages of the supply chain prevents the transmission of cost savings associated with the new technology to consumers, GM results in welfare losses for consumers. The analysis shows that the relative welfare ranking of the `no labelling' and `mandatory labelling' regimes depends on: (i) the level of consumer aversion to GM products; (ii) the size of marketing and segregation costs under mandatory labelling; (iii) the share of the GM product in total production; and (iv) the extent to which GM products are incorrectly labelled as non-GM products.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 142 Document Number: C21951
Notes:
2 pages., Results of a survey of nearly 4,000 consumers online about healthy eating, eating out, in-store food options, consumer responsibility and food purchasing.
Taylor, R. (author), Van Sickle, J. (author), McEowen, R. (author), Harl, N. (author), Connor, J. (author), and International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center
Format:
Report
Publication Date:
2003-05
Published:
International: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 133 Document Number: C20364
Heise, Heinke (author), Pirsich,Wiebke (author), and Theuvsen, Ludwig (author)
Format:
Poster
Publication Date:
2014-05
Published:
International
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 127 Document Number: D02719
Notes:
Poster presented at the 2014 AAEA/EAAE/CAES joint symposium: Social networks, social media and the economics of food, Montreal, Canada, May 29-30, 2014. 2 pages.
Platania, Marco (author) and Privitera, Donatella (author)
Format:
Book chapter
Publication Date:
2009
Published:
Italy
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: C29847
Notes:
Pages 121-138 in Adam Lindgreen, Martin K. Hingley and Joelle Vanhamme (eds.), The crisis of food brands: sustaining safe, innovative and competitive food supply. Gower Publishing Limited, Surrey, England. 352 pages.
Arvanitoyannis, Ioannis S. (author) and Krystallis, Athanasios (author)
Format:
Book chapter
Publication Date:
2004
Published:
International
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: C21761
Notes:
Pages 67-87 in George Baourakes (ed.), Marketing trends for organic food in the 21st Century. World Scientific Publishing Co., Pte. Ltd., Singapore. 338 pages.
