Consumer Preferences for Public and Private Sector Certifications for Beef Products in the United States and the United Kingdom

Transcription

1 Interntionl Food nd Agribusiness Mngement Review Vol 6 Iss Consumer Preferences for Public nd Privte Sector Certifictions for Beef Products in the United Sttes nd the United Kingdom Bryn J. Christensen, DeeVon Biley b, Lynn Hunnicutt c, nd Ruby Wrd d Murry Investment Compny, 3181 Sndhurst Drive, Znesville, OH 43701, U.S.A. b Professor nd Extension Economist Deprtment of Economics, Old Min Hll 3530, Uth Stte University, Logn, UT c Assistnt Professor, Deprtment of Economics, Old Min Hll 3530, Uth Stte University, Logn, UT d Assistnt Professor, Deprtment of Economics, Old Min Hll 3530, Uth Stte University, Logn, UT Abstrct Focus groups nd street surveys re used in the US nd the UK to determine consumer perceptions of the bility of different gencies, ssocitions, nd groups to certify beef products for qulity, food sfety, niml welfre, socil responsibility, nd environmentl responsibility. US consumers see the role of the federl government primrily s ssuring food sfety but desire the privte sector to mke other types of certifictions. UK consumers prefer the privte sector to ssure food sfety. UK store brnds re perceived s providing the highest qulity but in the US prticipnts identified mnufcturer brnd nmes s hving the highest qulity Interntionl Food nd Agribusiness Mngement Assocition (IAMA). All rights reserved. Corresponding uthor: Tel: Fx: Emil: dbiley@econ.usu.edu Other contct informtion: Bryn Christensen bigbry77@hotmil.com Tel: Fx: ; Lynn Hunnicutt hunnicut@econ.usu.edu Tel: Fx: The uthors thnk Richrd Bines of the Royl Agriculturl College for his invluble help in conducting the portion of this reserch done in the United Kingdom Interntionl Food nd Agribusiness Mngement Assocition (IAMA). All rights reserved.

2 Introduction Issues relting to trust nd creditbility permete discussions bout food qulity, sfety, nd ssurnce (e.g., Cswell, 1998). This ws perhps nowhere better illustrted thn during the Bovine Spongiform Encephlopthy (BSE or Md-cow disese) crisis in Europe during the lte 1990s. At the beginning of the BSE crisis ssurnces were mde by Europen governments tht beef products were sfe to et. This led to shttering of consumer confidence in the bility of government to imprtilly nd correctly mke these ssurnces when strong scientific evidence emerged liking the humn disese, new Vrint Creutzfeldt-Jkob Disese (vcjd), with the eting of BSE-contminted beef (Bines nd Dvies, 1998). Although food reclls re reltively frequent nd costly in the United Sttes, 1 Americn consumers pper to mintin high levels of confidence in federl government inspections to mke certifictions bout food (e.g., Loureiro nd Umberger, 2002). 2 Questions relting to whom consumers trust to mke certifictions for food sfety nd other ssurnces, such s beef qulity, niml welfre, socil responsibility, nd environmentl responsibility re importnt mrketing questions since mny consumers differentite products bsed on vrious clims bout met. Exmples of reserch confirming this includes willingness-to-py studies for certifible ttributes (e.g., Lusk, Roosen, nd Fox, 2003; Dickinson nd Biley, 2002; Lusk et. l., 2001). Lbeling cn lso communicte informtion tht genertes utility to consumers nd consequently influences how much they re willing to py for products with certin certifictions nd ttributes (Cswell, 1998). However, the potentil for confusion exists when different clims re mde bout food products. This is compounded when one considers tht consumers re becoming more wre nd concerned bout the inputs used to mke food products (e.g, Lusk, Roosen, nd Fox, 2003, Biley, Jones, nd Dickinson, 2002; Bker nd Burnhm, 2001; nd Lusk et. l., 2001). The BSE crisis nd the subsequent hysteri it cused in Europe nd concerns bout GMOs, such s occurred during the recent StrLink corn crisis, suggest consumers plce vlue on knowing bout inputs nd processes used to produce food. Indeed, recent reserch suggests tht significnt number of Americn nd Cndin consumers re willing to py nontrivil mounts for informtion relting to met products tht hve enhnced food sfety protocols, niml welfre ssurnces, or process-verified chrcteristics (Hobbs, 2002; Dickinson nd Biley, 2002). 1 The U.S. met industry is vulnerble to lrge nd expensive food reclls. A recent exmple is when contmintion in ground beef prompted 19 million pound recll of ground beef in July 2002 (quote from L.A. Times, July 20, 2002). Other exmples of lrge scle food reclls re listed in Slin nd Hooker, Hobbs, 2002 lso reports high degree of trust in the Cndin government on the prt of Cndin consumers to certify food sfety. 20

3 Not ll informtion implied or inferred to consumers by dvertising or lbeling is necessrily true or ccurte. In fct, McCluskey (2000) indictes tht profitmximizing producers hve significnt economic incentives to mke flse qulity clims bout their products. Even if one ssumes tht firms do not intentionlly misled consumers regrding certifictions nd gurntees, consumers my still hve erroneous impressions nd ssumptions of wht these gurntees ctully re. Consequently, it is importnt to understnd wht consumers perceive is being gurnteed by different products nd lbels nd wht gurntees nd certifictions re ctully being mde. This study exmines consumers perceptions bout wht is gurnteed by mjor public nd privte lbeling protocols in the United Sttes (US) nd the United Kingdom (UK). This includes government inspection certifiction (e.g., USDA Inspection), privte certifictions (brnd nmes (e.g., Sinsbury s), nd privte certifictions (e.g., Certified Angus Beef). Consumers re sked to rnk lbels bsed on their beliefs bout the qulity nd other beef ttributes the lbel gurntees. The study lso exmines whom US nd UK consumers trust the most nd whom they trust the lest to mke certifictions for beef product qulity, food sfety, niml welfre, socil responsibility, nd environmentl responsibility. Animl welfre, socil responsibility, nd environmentl responsibility were defined for prticipnts in this study s the creditbility of certifying gency to mke ssurnces tht beef products did not dversely ffect 1) the humne tretment of nimls, 2) other humns besides the one purchsing the product, nd 3) the environment, respectively. Methodology Focus groups nd street surveys were conducted in both the US nd the UK to scertin consumer preferences for different gencies, ssocitions, nd groups to mke certifictions bout beef products. There were two types of focus groups initited nd uninitited. Initited focus groups were given informtion on the chrcteristics ctully certified by different lbels, while uninitited focus groups were not given ny outside informtion bout the lbels. The informtion provided to the initited focus group prticipnts ws simply the Internet web site informtion estblished by the gency, ssocition, or compny ssocited with the lbel. Some web site informtion ws more detiled thn others were but this ws n objective wy to inform prticipnts bout certifictions for specific lbels with publicly vilble informtion. Hving prticipnts with different knowledge bses bout the lbels helped determine if consumer perceptions bout wht lbel certified were different thn wht the lbel ctully certified. It lso provided some indiction of whether dditionl informtion bout the lbel ffected consumer preferences for the beef products with tht lbel. 21

4 Eight focus groups (four uninitited nd four initited) were held in ech country. The loction for the focus groups in Englnd ws the Royl Agriculturl College in Cirencester. In the US, the loction ws Uth Stte University in Logn, Uth. Focus group prticipnts were recruited from four different demogrphic bckgrounds in order to represent brod spectrum of the generl popultion. An individul focus group consisted of only one of the demogrphic types nd ws usully comprised of four to seven volunteers. Demogrphic types consisted of 1) students, 2) university support stff, 3) cdemic fculty, nd 4) locl frmers. To encourge prticiption in the focus groups, lunch nd the equivlent of $10 to $15 in locl currency were provided. In the UK s well s the US, n initil emil ws sent to set of potentil student, stff, frmer, nd fculty prticipnts. Due to lck of response, it usully becme necessry to recruit by personl invittion to obtin the four to seven prticipnts needed to form ech group. Ten UK lbels nd 12 US lbels were nlyzed in the study (Tble 1). The lbels consisted of government certifictions such s US Inspected; privte lbels/ssocition lbels, such s British Met nd British Frm Stndrd in the UK nd Certified Angus Beef in the US; nd store lbels, such s Kroger (Smiths) in the US nd Sinsbury s, Tesco, nd Somerfield in the UK. Focus group prticipnts gve ordinl rnkings to the lbels bsed on their perceptions of the qulity nd food sfety ttributes certified by the lbels. The focus group prticipnts lso provided demogrphic informtion nd indicted from list of potentil government, privte, nd specil interest groups (e.g., Green Pece, World Wildlife Fund, etc.) whom they trusted the most nd whom they trusted the lest to certify food sfety, niml welfre, socil responsibility, nd environmentl responsibility. Focus Group Mngement Ech focus group begn with brief introduction to prticipnts bout the topic, explntion of the overll study, nd n explntion of how their prticiption contributed to the study. Ech prticipnt ws sked to describe, in one or two sentences, the chrcteristics he/she personlly considered to be the best definition of qulity beef product. With these qulities in mind, ech prticipnt ws given group of flsh crd lbels for the certifying gencies considered in their country (Tble 1). Ech prticipnt hd the sme set of certifying gencies for his/her country nd ws instructed to rnk them (from highest to lowest) in terms of the bility of the gency to certify beef qulity nd food sfety. After prticipnts rnked the certifying gencies, they were given set of nme brnd lbels nd sked to rnk them in the sme mnner (Tble 1). 22

5 Tble 1. US nd UK Certifying Agencies nd Brnd Nmes Anlyzed in the Study US ` UK Certifying Agencies: US Inspection (USDA) USDA Process Verified (PV) Certified Angus Beef (CAB) Orgnic (OB) Nturl Beef (NB) Brnd Nmes: Frmlnd (FL) Chirmn s Reserve (CR) Tender Choice (TC) b E.A. Miller (EA) c Smiths (SM) d Albertsons (AL) Mcey s (MA) c Certifying Agencies: British Frm Stndrd (FS) Freedom Foods/RSPCA (FF) British Met (BM) Fir Trde Federtion (FT) Soil Assocition Orgnic Stndrd (SA) Brnd Nmes: Sinsbury s (SB) Tesco (TS) ASDA (AD) Somerfield (SF) Sfewy (SW) Chirmn s Reserve is n IBP brnd nme. b Tender Choice is n Excel brnd nme. c E.A. Millers is locl Swift product (ConAgr) nd Mcey s is loclly-owned retil grocery store. d Smiths is owned by Kroger. A seprte, short scoring exercise followed the rnking exercise. Every prticipnt ws sked to provide seprte scores for ech certifying gency nd brnd nme from one (lowest possible score) to five (highest possible score) for the following chrcteristics: qulity, food sfety, niml welfre, socil responsibility, nd environmentl responsibility. The rnking exercise identified how prticipnts perceived the reltive strengths of the certifictions given by the gencies nd brnd nmes compred to one nother while the scoring exercise determined n bsolute score for ech entity. Finlly, focus group prticipnts completed questionnire tht sked them to identify from list the gencies/groups whom they trusted the most nd trusted the lest to certify ech chrcteristic (qulity, food sfety, niml welfre, socil responsibility, nd environmentl responsibility). Tble 2 lists the gencies/groups considered for ech country. Prticipnts lso provided bsic demogrphic informtion bout themselves (see Tble 3). Mngement of Street Surveys Street surveys were used s method to confirm the results of the focus groups. An pproch similr to the mll-intercept method ws implemented s mens of 23

6 Tble 2. Certifying Agencies/Groups Considered in the US nd the UK Anlyses s Most Trusted or Lest Trusted to Complete Food Qulity nd Chrcteristic Certifictions. US ` UK 1. Federl government inspection 1. Ntionl government inspection 2. Stte government inspection 2. Locl uthorities/council inspections 3. Assurnces by privte compnies 3. Assurnces by privte compnies other thn food retilers other thn food retilers 4. Assurnces by producers (frmers) 4. Assurnces by producers (frmers) 5. Assurnces by food retilers 5. Assurnces by food retilers 6. Specil interest groups 6. Specil interest groups Tble 3. Averge Demogrphic Chrcteristics of US nd UK Prticipnts in Focus Groups nd Street Surveys. Vrible US Prticipnts \ UK Prticipnts IN UN ST IN UN ST Age (yers) % Femle Fmily Size (number) NA % Mrried NA NA Income: b % Low % Low to Medium % Medium % High Eduction: % High School % Some College % Bchelors Degree % Post Grdute Observtions Numbers re rounded unless decimls re dded. b Income ws ctegoricl with the sme rnges mesured in dollrs for the US prticipnts nd pounds for the UK prticipnts. Low = less thn 20,000, Low to Medium = 20,000-50,000, Medium = 50,000 80,000, High = 80,

7 dministering the survey rndomly to the generl popultion (Kumr, Aker, nd Dy, 2001). This method ws selected becuse it ws importnt for the respondents to visully inspect one of the lbels being nlyzed nd then complete questions regrding their perceptions bout tht prticulr lbel. Ech respondent to the street survey nswered questions bout only one of the lbels considered by the focus groups. This ws necessry in order to reduce the time required to prticipte in the survey nd, thus, increse prticiption rtes. The next respondent considered different lbel thn the previous respondent. For exmple, one person would be given survey tht considered only the British Frm Stndrd lbel nd the next person would be given the sme survey but with different lbel to consider. Essentilly, there were different surveys ll hving identicl questions but different lbels. 3 The UK interviews were conducted outside retil food centers in severl cities in southern Englnd. The mjority of the street surveys were conducted in Swindon nd Circencester. For purposes of simplicity nd to minimize confusion, the street surveys were conducted on fce-to-fce bsis with the interviewer recording responses. Due to limited resources for trvel nd time constrints, it lso becme necessry to interview few rndom prticipnts ssocited with the Royl Agriculture College s well. Street surveys in the US were conducted with permission ner met counters inside retil food stores in Slt Lke City, Uth nd Logn, Uth. All street surveys in both the US nd the UK were conducted on n opportunistic nd voluntry bsis. Friedmn's Test A nonprmetric test clled the Friedmn test ws used to test for differences in the rnkings of the vrious certifying gencies nd brnd nmes received in the focus groups rnking exercise. This test ws developed originlly by the Milton Friedmn (1937) nd is considered two-wy nlysis of vrince on rnkings. The Friedmn test ws selected bsed on its bility to distinguish ordinl rnkings mong groups of independent observtions (Conover, 1999). Seprte tests were done for certifying gencies nd brnd nme lbels in both the US nd the UK. The sum of the rnks ech certifying gency or brnd nme lbel receives cross tretments (focus groups) cn be described s follows: (1) b Rj = R( Xij), i= 1 for j = 1, 2... k where R is the verge rnk for the j th certifying gency or brnd nme received in the i th focus group for beef qulity nd food sfety, k is the totl 3 The street surveys collected between 6-10 observtions for ech of the lbels being considered. 25

8 number of gencies or lbels being rnked, 4 nd b is the number of focus groups. The Friedmn test commences by using the following test sttistic: k 2 (2) T 12 b( k + 1) 1 = Rj bk( k + 1) j= 1 2, Ties re sometimes encountered. If so, it is necessry to mke djustments by letting A 1 be the sum of the squres of the rnks nd verge rnks nd letting C 1 be the correltion fctor. b k 2 (3) A1 = [ R( Xij)] i= 1 i= 1 1 = bk( k + 2 (4) C 1) / 4. The djustments the T 1 then becomes k 2 ( k 1) R j bc1 ( k 1) j 1 (5) T 1 = = A C 1 1 k j 1 b( k + 1) R j 2. A C According to Conover (1999, p. 370) the preferred sttistic, becuse of its more ccurte pproximte distribution, is the two-wy nlysis of vrince sttistic computed on the rnks R(Xij), which simplifies to the following function of T 1 given bove ( b 1) T1 (6) T2 =. b( k 1) T1 T 2 hs n F distribution with numertor nd denomintor degrees of freedom equling k 1 = k - 1 nd k 2 = (b-1)(k-1), respectively (Conover, 1999, p. 370). The null hypothesis is tht the verge rnking for ech certifying gency nd for ech brnd nme lbel ws eqully likely within ech of the focus groups. The lterntive hypothesis is tht t lest one of the certifying gencies or brnd nmes tended to be rnked differently thn the other choices. If the rnkings re determined to be different, then it becomes necessry to nlyze the rnkings of pirs of certifying gencies nd brnd nmes. This comprison is ccomplished using the following test: 1/ 2 ( A1 C1)2b T 1 j Ri > t1 / 2 1. (7) R ( b 1)( k 1) b( k 1) If the difference between Ri nd Rj, is lrger thn the criticl vlue, then if Rj is lrger thn Ri, then j th certifying gency or brnd nmes is preferred to the i th one (Conover, 1999, p. 371) The qulity nd food sfety rnkings re verged to reduce the number of comprisons nd thus simplify reporting. 26

9 Results Rnkings within the Focus Groups The test for differences in rnking of bility to certify food sfety nd qulity mong the certifying gencies nd brnd nmes in the US nd UK is presented in Tble 4. The Friedmn test detected differences in rnkings for qulity nd food sfety in the initited nd uninitited focus groups in the US nd the UK for both certifying gencies nd nme brnds. The one exception to this ws for brnd nmes in the US uninitited focus groups where no sttisticl difference ws found (Tble 4). Bsed on this, multiple comprisons were mde between the US certifying gencies for both the initited nd uninitited focus groups (Tble 5) nd for the initited focus groups for the brnd nmes (Tble 6). Comprisons were mde for both types of focus groups in the UK for both certifying gencies (Tble 7) nd brnd nmes (Tble 8). While USDA inspection (USDA in Tble 5) ws the most preferred certifying gency by the uninitited US focus groups, there ws bsiclly equl preference expressed for USDA inspection nd Certified Angus Beef (CAB in Tble 5) by the initited focus groups. This suggests the description for CAB given t the strt of the initited focus groups perhps strengthened CAB s position with prticipnts reltive to the description given for USDA inspection. Tble 6 clerly displys tht US mnufcturer brnd nmes (Frmlnd (FL), Chirmn s Reserve (CR), Tender Choice (TC), nd E. A. Millers (EA)) re preferred in terms of qulity nd food sfety to US store brnds (Smith s (SM), Mceys (MA), nd Albertsons (AL) 5 ). However, the US focus groups were bsiclly indifferent regrding which of the mnufcturer brnd nmes they preferred. This suggests tht in the US store brnds were perceived s being lower qulity thn the mnufcturers brnds in generl. Only slight differences ppered to be expressed between the preferences (rnkings) for the certifying gencies by the initited nd uninitited focus groups in the UK (Tble 7). The principl difference ppered to be weker support for the Soil Assocition (SA) in the initited focus groups compred to the uninitited focus groups. The SA is n orgnic stndrd nd prticipnts my hve been less sure bout the qulity nd sfety the SA would provide compred to other certifying gencies once they were more fully informed regrding the SA s progrm nd gend. Store brnds re the principl nme brnds for met in the UK. Tble 8 demonstrtes tht UK prticipnts in both types of focus groups hd strong preference for Sinsbury s (SB) with Tesco (TS) being the second most preferred brnd nme. 5 Brnd nmes re listed s they re in their trdemrk. Consequently, the possessive form (including the postrophe) is often omitted. 27

10 Tble 4. Friedmn Test Results for US nd UK Focus Groups for the Ability of Certifying Agencies nd Brnd Nmes to Certify Qulity nd Food Sfety Group Certifying Agencies Brnd Nmes k 1 nd k 2 T 2 k 1 nd k 2 T 2 US: Initited Focus Groups k1=4, k2= * k1=6, k2= * Uninitited Focus Groups k1=4, k2= ** k1=6, k2= UK: Initited Focus Groups k1=4, k2= ** k1=4, k2= ** Uninitited Focus Groups k1=4, k2= ** k1=4, k2= ** k1=(k-1), k2=(k-1)(b-1). * Denotes rejection of the null hypothesis t the 95% level of confidence. ** Denotes rejection of the null hypothesis t the 99% level of confidence. Tble 5. US Focus Group Multiple Comprison Rnkings for Certifying Agencies Ability to Certify Food Sfety nd Qulity Agency CAB USDA PV OB NB Initited Focus Groups CAB CAB f USDA b CAB f PV* CAB f OB*** CAB f NB*** USDA USDAf PV USDA f OB** USDA f NB** PV PVf OB** PV f NB* OB NBf OB NB Uninitited Focus Groups CAB USDA f CAB* CAB f PV** CAB f OB** CAB f NB** USDA USDAf PV** USDA f OB** USDA f NB** PV PVf OB PV f NB** OB OBf NB** NB *, **, ***Indicte significnce t.10,.05,.01 levels, respectively, for the Friedmn Test on multiple comprisons. Explntion of cronyms is given in Tble 1. b f = is preferred. 28

11 Tble 6. US Focus Group Multiple Comprison Rnkings for Brnd Nmes Ability to Certify Food Sfety nd Qulity Brnd FL CR TC EA SM MA AL Initited Focus Groups FL CR f FL b TC f FM FL f EA FL f SM*** FL f MA** FL f AL CR TC f CR EA f CR SM f CR ***CR f MA***CR f AL* TC EAf TC TC f SM*** TC f MA***TC f AL** EA EAf SM*** EA f MA***EA f AL** SM MAf SM AL f SM * MA AL f MA AL *, **, ***Indicte significnce t.10,.05,.01 levels, respectively, for the Friedmn Test on multiple comprisons. Explntion of cronyms is given in Tble 1. b f = is preferred. Tble 7. UK Focus Group Multiple Comprison Rnkings for Certifying Agencies Agency FT FS FF BM SA Initited Focus Groups FT FS f FT*** b FF f FT* BM f FT* SA f FT** FS FSf FF** FS f BM** FS f SA* FF FFf BM SA f FF BM SAf BM SA Uninitited Focus Groups FT FS f FT*** FF f FT* BM f FT*** SA f FT*** FS FSf FF*** FS f BM* FS f SA FF FFf BM* SA f FF*** BM SAf BM*** SA *, **, ***Indicte significnce t.10,.05,.01 levels, respectively, for the Friedmn Test on multiple comprisons. Explntion of cronyms is given in Tble 1. b f = is preferred. 29

12 Tble 8. UK Focus Group Multiple Comprison Rnkings for Brnd Nmes Agency TS SW AD SB SF Initited Focus Groups TS TS f SW** b TS f AD** SB f TS** TS f SF*** SW SWf AD SB f SW*** SW f SF* AD SBf AD*** AD f SF SB SBf SF*** SF Uninitited Focus Groups TS TS f SW*** TS f AD*** SB f TS*** TS f SF*** SW ADf SW SB f SW*** SW f SF** AD SBf AD*** AD f SF** SB SBf SF*** SF *, **, ***Indicte significnce t.10,.05,.01 levels, respectively, for the Friedmn Test on multiple comprisons. Explntion of cronyms is given in Tble 1. b f = is preferred. Food retiling in the UK tends to be more clss-oriented thn in the US. Both SB nd TS would be considered more upscle thn ASDA (AD), Sfewy (SW), nd Somerfield (SF). As result, UK prticipnts showed cler preferences for SB nd TS over the other brnds. This indictes significnt difference in the US nd UK met mrketing systems. In the US food mnufcturers tend to tke leding role in ssuring qulity nd food sfety but, in the UK retilers tke this role. As result, some retilers in the UK re seen s setting the highest stndrd for food qulity nd sfety but in the US food mnufcturers re seen s setting the highest stndrds. Scoring by Focus Groups nd Street Surveys The scoring results for the US nd UK focus groups nd street surveys re presented in Tbles 9 nd 10, respectively. Some of the bsic results for the US re tht food sfety nd beef qulity tended to be scored lower for most lbels in the initited focus groups compred to the uninitited focus group nd the street survey (Tble 9). This suggests tht prticipnts tended to hve less confidence in lbels when they were provided informtion from the Internet bout wht ws ctully gurnteed by the certifying gencies nd brnd nmes. This suggests tht prticipnts tended to plce trust in lbels without fully knowing wht specific chrcteristics the lbel certified 30

13 Tble 9. U.S. Averge Scoring Results for Ability of Agencies nd Brnds to Assure Food Sfety nd Qulity for Beef Products Qulity Food Sfety Animl Welfre Socil Responsibility Environmentl Responsibility IN UN ST IN UN ST IN UN ST IN UN ST IN UN ST CAB USDA PV OB NB NA NA NA NA NA FL CR TC EA SM AL MA Vlues re clculted verges using scoring system of 1 to 5 (1 being the lowest possible score nd 5 being the highest possible score). IN=initited focus group, UN=uninitited focus group, nd ST=street survey. 31

14 Tble 10. UK Averge Scoring Results for Ability of Agencies nd Brnds to Assure Food Sfety nd Qulity for Beef Products Qulity Food Sfety Animl Welfre Socil Responsibility Environmentl Responsibility IN UN ST IN UN ST IN UN ST IN UN ST IN UN ST FT FS FF BM SA TS SW AD SB SF Vlues re clculted verges using scoring system of 1 to 5 (1 being the lowest possible score nd 5 being the highest possible score). IN=initited focus group, UN=uninitited focus group, nd ST=street survey 32

15 The prticipnts in the street survey tended to give higher scores in ll ctegories (qulity, food sfety, niml welfre, socil responsibility, nd environmentl responsibility) thn did the focus group prticipnts. CAB ws given slightly higher scores for beef qulity by the initited focus group thn the uninitited focus group nd the street survey suggesting tht prticipnts were swyed fvorbly by the Internet site for CAB. More significntly, prticipnts perceptions of the bility of the USDA (USDA in Tble 9) to certify qulity dropped drmticlly between the initited nd uninitited focus group scores indicting tht mny prticipnts were not wre of wht is ctully certified by USDA inspection. However, USDA inspection remined ner the top of the scores for food sfety in ll cses. This suggests tht prticipnts viewed USDA s role s principlly ssuring food sfety, but hve much less confidence in the federl government to ssure food qulity. Perhps not surprisingly, nturl beef nd orgnic beef (NB nd OB in Tble 9) tended to receive the highest scores for niml welfre, socil responsibility, nd environmentl responsibility from the focus groups, lthough they were rted lower for these chrcteristics by the street survey prticipnts (Tble 9). US store brnds (SM, MA, nd AL) received lmost uniformly low scores in ll five ctegories nd from ll three types of respondents. In contrst to the US results, mny scores were higher in the initited focus groups compred to the uninitited focus groups for the UK. The exception to this ws the lower score given to SA by the initited focus groups compred to the uninitited focus groups for food qulity. This suggests tht UK food retilers hve mde greter effort thn US met mnufcturers to inform the public vi the Internet bout specific certifictions for their products. At lest, prticipnts in the UK focus groups ppered to be positively influenced by the Internet informtion provided by the gencies nd compnies. This would be expected given the lrger controversies tht hve risen in the UK bout food sfety thn in the US nd lso given the more stringent niml welfre lws existing in the UK compred to the US. Pronounced differences existed mong the UK food retilers in ll five ctegories nd for both focus groups. These differences were bit less pronounced for the street survey prticipnts. Most Trusted nd Lest Trusted Certifiers Tbles 11 nd 12 report the results for the groups the US nd UK prticipnts identified s the most nd lest trusted certifying gencies to certify food sfety, niml welfre, socil responsibility, nd environmentl responsibility, respectively. The results suggest, s expected, tht government food sfety gencies (either the federl or stte government) re the most trusted certifiction gents in the US (Tble 11). However, privte certifictions (privte compnies, producers, nd retilers) were listed by the focus group prticipnts s the most trusted certifiction gents in the UK (Tble 12). 33

16 Tble 11. Reltive Frequencies for US Certifying Agencies s Most or Lest Trusted to Do Specific Certifictions Agency % Indicting Most Trusted %Indicting Lest Trusted _ FS AW SR ER FS AW SR ER Initited Focus Groups N=17 Federl Government Stte Deprtment of Agriculture Privte Compny Producer Food Retiler Specil Interest Group Uninitited Focus Groups N=20 Federl Government Stte Deprtment of Agriculture Privte Compny Producer Food Retiler Specil Interest Group Other Street Survey N=150 Federl Government Stte Deprtment of Agriculture Privte Compny Producer Food Retiler Specil Interest Group FS=food sfety, AW=niml welfre, SR=socil responsibility, nd ER=environmentl responsibility. 34

17 Tble 12. Reltive Frequencies for UK Certifying Agencies s Most or Lest Trusted to Do Specific Certifictions Agency % Indicting Most Trusted %Indicting Lest Trusted _ FS AW SR ER FS AW SR ER Initited Focus Groups N=11 Ntionl Government Locl Authorities/Councils Privte Compny Producer Food Retiler Specil Interest Group Uninitited Focus Groups N=19 Ntionl Government Locl Authorities/Councils Privte Compny Producer Food Retiler Specil Interest Group Street Survey N=69 Ntionl Government Locl Authorities/Councils Privte Compny Producer Food Retiler Specil Interest Group FS=food sfety, AW=niml welfre, SR=socil responsibility, nd ER=environmentl responsibility 35

18 A. Mour et. l / Interntionl Food nd Agribusiness Mngement Review Vol 5 Iss An equl number of UK street survey prticipnts indicted they trusted specil interest groups or the ntionl government to certify food sfety. In ny cse, the overll results were much weker support for government certifictions for food sfety in the UK thn in the US. Strong feelings existed mong the US prticipnts ginst specil interest groups certifying food sfety. But prticipnts in the UK sw the role specil interest groups might ply in certifying food sfety more positively thn did US prticipnts. Prticipnts in the US were widely split over which of the potentil certifying groups should mke certifictions for chrcteristics other thn food sfety. However, there is clerly less support for government gencies to mke certifictions bout niml welfre, socil, nd environmentl responsibility in the US thn there ws for food sfety. Logisticl regressions 6 of the most trusted nd lest trusted gencies on demogrphic chrcteristics reveled tht highly educted, high-income prticipnts pper to plce more trust in specil interests groups to mke certifictions thn do the other demogrphic groups. The results suggest tht consumers perceive the role of government in certifiction very differently in the US nd the UK. In the US, consumers see the government s primry role s certifying food sfety. In the UK, consumers trust the privte sectors to mke certifictions bout food sfety. Conclusions Due to recent food scres nd reclls for beef in the US s well s in the UK, consumers my question the qulity nd sfety of beef products. Additionlly, there ppers to be some confusion mong consumers in both countries regrding wht brnd nme products or food-certifying gencies gurntee relting to the qulity nd sfety of beef products nd other chrcteristics such s niml welfre, socil, nd environmentl issues. Bsed on dt collected from focus groups nd street surveys in the US nd the UK, the nlysis presented in this pper indictes tht US consumers perceive mnufcturer brnd nmes to be superior in terms of qulity nd food sfety ttributes compred to food retiler, orgnic, nd nturl beef brnds. Federl nd locl governments in the US re viewed s the most trusted orgniztions to certify food sfety for beef products. Consumers in the UK indicted tht food retilers provide higher levels of qulity nd food sfety thn beef products certified by other groups. Unlike the US, orgnic beef in the UK ws perceived s premium product in terms of qulity nd food 6 These regressions re not reported here for the ske of brevity. Only few demogrphic chrcteristics significntly influenced the selection of certifying gency s the most or lest trusted nd those chrcteristics re discussed here. 36

19 A. Mour et. l / Interntionl Food nd Agribusiness Mngement Review Vol 5 Iss sfety. Privte (specil interests groups, privte compnies, nd privte producers) certifying gencies were selected s the most trusted gency to certify food sfety in the UK. US consumers re undecided s to which specific orgniztion is trusted the most to mke certifictions for chrcteristics other thn food sfety. The privte sector in both the US nd the UK ppers to be preferred over government gencies to mke certifictions for niml welfre, environmentl responsibility, nd socil responsibility. 37

20 Reference List A. Mour et. l / Interntionl Food nd Agribusiness Mngement Review Vol 5 Iss Biley, D., E. C. Jones, nd D. L. Dickinson Knowledge Mngement nd Comprtive Interntionl Strtegies on Verticl Informtion Flow in the Globl Food System. Americn Journl of Agriculturl Economics, 84(December): Bines, R. N., nd W. P. Dvies Qulity Assurnce in Interntionl Food Supply. Proceedings from the 3 rd Interntionl Conference on Chin Mngement in Agribusiness nd the Food Industry, Wgeningen University, Wgeningen, Netherlnds. Bker, G. A., nd T. A. Burnhm The Mrket for Geneticlly Modified Foods: Consumer Chrcteristics nd Policy Implictions. Interntionl Food nd Agribusiness Mngement Review, 4(4): Cswell, J. A How Lbeling of Sfety nd Process Attributes Affects Mrkets for Food. Agriculturl nd Recource Economics Review, 27(October): Conover, W. J Prcticl Nonprmetric Sttistics. 3 rd Edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Dickinson, D. L. nd D. Biley Met Trcebility: Are U. S. Consumers Willing to Py for It? Journl of Agriculturl nd Resource Economics, 27(December): Friedmn, M The Use of Rnks to Avoid the Assumption of Normlity Implicit in the Anlysis of Vrince. Journl of the Americn Sttisticl Assocition, 32: Hobbs, J. E Consumer Demnd for Trcebility. Pper present t the Interntionl Agriculturl Trde Reserch Consortium Annul Conference, Monterey, Cliforni, December Kumr, V., D. A. Aker, nd G. S. Dy Essentils of Mrketing Reserch. 2 nd Edition. Hew York: John Wiley & Sons. Loureiro, M. L., nd W. J. Umberger Estimting Consumer Response Towrd Country-of-Origin Lbeling nd Trcebility of Beef. Selected pper presented t the 2002 Americn Agriculturl Economics Assocition Annul Meetings, Long Bech, CA. July 29. Lusk, J. L., J. Roosen, nd J. A. Fox Demnd for Beef from Cttle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Geneticlly Modified Corn: A 38

21 A. Mour et. l / Interntionl Food nd Agribusiness Mngement Review Vol 5 Iss Comprison of Consumers in Frnce, Germny, the United Kingdom, nd the United Sttes. Americn Journl of Agriculturl Economics, 85(Februry): Lusk, J. L., M. S. Dniel, D. R. Mrk, nd C. L. Lusk Alterntive Clibrtion nd Auction Institutions for Predicting Consumer Willingness to Py for Non- Geneticlly Modified Corn Chips. Journl of Agriculturl nd Resource Economics, 26(July): McCluskey, J. J A Gme Theoretic Approch to Orgnic Foods: An Anlysis of Asymmetric Informtion nd Policy. Agriculturl nd Resource Economics Review, 29:1-9. Slin, Victori, nd Nel H. Hooker Stock Mrket Rection to Food Reclls. Review of Agriculturl Economics, 23(Summer):