Recent trends in the marketing of functional foods suggest that multiple-benefit products are becoming more common. Yet it is unclear which consumers are most interested in, or best served by, such novel or new generation functional foods. With emerging scientific evidence of efficacy and more diverse products offered for sale, a broader range of consumers are likely to become interested in dietary interventions to enhance health. Consumers will likely respond based on a range of motivation, health conditions, and knowledge levels suggesting "one size will not fit all." Given such an evolving marketing environment, this paper presents 1 research technique exploring differences in consumer preferences and valuations for a novel functional food product-a tomato juice containing soy. A discrete choice experiment is applied to examine consumer valuation of this novel functional food. Data were collected from 1704 households in Ohio through a mail survey. The choice experiment manipulates whether or not the product is organic, whether it contains natural or fortified nutrients, and product price. Estimates of consumer willingness to pay a premium price are based on conditional logit and mixed logit models, which permit an examination of consumer preference and valuation heterogeneity for key product attributes. Results indicate that health benefits and ingredient naturalness are positively valued, but such preferences and valuations depend on an individual's education, income, and food purchase behavior. Naturally occurring nutrients are preferred over fortification. Considerable heterogeneity is found in the data suggesting that a range of market segments may exist.

This paper reviews recent consumer studies evaluating comprehension of a novel form of food labeling, qualified health claims, now permitted by FDA. The joint goals of qualified health claims are to encourage firms to make accurate, science-based claims about the health benefits of their products while helping consumers prevent disease and improve their health through sound dietary decisions using enhanced nutrition information. This paper examines whether consumers can differentiate between multiple levels of health claims and determines if a front label visual aid helps consumer understanding. Results of experimental consumer attitude studies are presented which suggest that people do not perceive significant differences between the three levels of qualified claims and traditional (unqualified or SSA) health claims. An additional experiment suggests that a visual aid (report card) may be an important device to help consumers distinguish between the levels of health claims. However, thought-listing data suggests that consumers use the report card to draw inferences about overall product quality rather than the strength of scientific evidence supporting the health claim. Implications of these findings for the future regulatory oversight and marketing of functional food products are discussed.

No abstract

This study investigates the performance of meat and poultry plant managers in discovering and responding effectively to food safety problems that lead to product recalls. Timing is used as a performance measure of managers' response to recalls of food, using survival distributions of times between production and recall, and recall case duration. The objectives are to understand how these time periods vary across plants and to determine factors explaining such variability. Survival distributions are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier and life table methods. Subgroups of the population are compared using plots of the estimated survival functions and statistically compared using log-rank and Wilcoxon tests. Managers at large plants, in multi-plant firms, and at plants with prior recall experience do not perform better. Cox regressions indicate that government agency sampling programs enhanced the speed of discovery, and that national distribution networks contributed to the risk that cases remained open for a longer period. [EconLit citations: D210, Q180.] © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Agribusiness 21: 351-373, 2005.

In tro duc tionThe Dif fer ence Be tween Ter mi na tion and Lay off