Trust and Consumer Preferences for Pig Production Attributes in Canada

Muringai, Violet; Goddard, Ellen; Bruce, Heather L.; Plastow, Graham; Ma, Lifen

doi:10.1111/cjag.12138

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 51 publications

(66 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Muringai, Goddard, Bruce, Plastow, and Ma () included a Canadian Pork label and a Certified Quality Assurance label in their analysis and found that those labels generated positive and statistically significant coefficients (and willingness to pay [WTP]) in most of the models estimated, suggesting that the Verified Canadian Pork label in this study might have similar effects.…”

Section: Consumer Preferences For Functional Foodmentioning

confidence: 75%

Consumer purchase intentions for pork with enhanced carnosine–A functional food

Arenna

Goddard

Muringai

2018

Canadian J Agri Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, Canadian consumers’ preferences for enhanced carnosine (a naturally occurring dipeptide that exhibits antiaging properties) in pork are examined. Carnosine is a relatively unknown nutrient to the public such that we are interested in understanding the relative merits of informing consumers of enhanced carnosine levels through a possible health claim, a nutrient content claim or including it in the nutrition facts table (NFT). As a basis of comparison, we include two other possible labels, a protein nutrient content claim, and a Verified Canadian Pork label (created by industry identifying food safety, animal care, traceability, and farm to table quality assurance attributes of the production system). Data were collected through an online survey that included a choice experiment and were analyzed using conditional logit and random parameters logit models. Compared to carnosine (as a functional attribute), consumers prefer the identification of protein content. In terms of labeling carnosine, consumers have higher willingness to pay for carnosine content included in a NFT than for nutrient or health claims. Higher levels of nutrition knowledge are associated with higher willingness to pay for the different pork attributes.

show abstract

Section: Consumer Preferences For Functional Foodmentioning

confidence: 75%

Consumer purchase intentions for pork with enhanced carnosine–A functional food

Arenna

Goddard

Muringai

2018

Canadian J Agri Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A set of well-established measures for generalized trust exists (e.g., measuring the extent of agreement/disagreement with statements such as "People can be trusted," "You can't be too careful in dealing with people"). While Muringai et al (2017) find that generalized trust (trust in people) influences willingness to pay for traditionally raised pork in Canada, in contrast Grebitus et al (2015) find that generalized trust does not have a strong influence on preferences for carbon footprint labels in Germany (instead finding human values offer more explanatory power). This suggests that we have more to learn about the effect of trust on consumer responses to credence attributes and the way in which those quality attributes are verified and communicated.…”

Section: Trustmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…While there are numerous approaches to defining and measuring trust, two prominent categories are institutional trust (trust in regulatory systems, food industry players) and generalized trust (trust in others or personalized trust) (Hobbs & Goddard, 2015). Variations on these measures of institutional trust have been used extensively in the context of food safety (Muringai, Goddard, Bruce, Plastow, & Ma, 2017; and genetically modified food (Lang & Hallman, 2005). Institutional trust is often measured by asking survey respondents to evaluate food system actors (retailers, food manufacturers, farmers, government) on the basis of their competence, transparency, public interest, and honesty (as well as knowledge and credibility) with respect to a particular issue (de Jonge, van Trijp, Goddard, & Frewer, 2008).…”

Section: Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More recent work on the relationship between consumer trust and preferences for pig production attributes examines both trust in food system agents (institutional trust) as well as consumers' tendencies to be trusting (generalized trust), identifying low and high trusting consumers (Muringai et al, 2017). A set of well-established measures for generalized trust exists (e.g., measuring the extent of agreement/disagreement with statements such as "People can be trusted," "You can't be too careful in dealing with people").…”

Section: Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Institutional trust is often measured by asking survey respondents to evaluate food system actors (retailers, food manufacturers, farmers, government) on the basis of their competence, transparency, public interest, and honesty (as well as knowledge and credibility) with respect to a particular issue (de Jonge, van Trijp, Goddard, & Frewer, 2008). Variations on these measures of institutional trust have been used extensively in the context of food safety (Muringai, Goddard, Bruce, Plastow, & Ma, 2017; and genetically modified food (Lang & Hallman, 2005).…”

Section: Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Heterogeneous consumers and differentiated food markets: Implications for quality signaling in food supply chains

Hobbs

2019

Canadian J Agri Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Fellow's address begins by noting several recent consumer food trends and the changing way in which we perceive value-added. I then focus on the topic of heterogeneity in consumer behavior, reviewing contributions from the literature that enhance our ability as economists to model and measure heterogeneity. Supply chain responses to consumer heterogeneity are examined, including a discussion of information flows within supply chains and the role of certification and verification. I close with a consideration of policy implications flowing from consumer heterogeneity. K E Y W O R D Sconsumer behavior, heuristics, trust, value-added, values, verification Ce discours de Fellow souligne plusieurs tendances récentes en matière d'aliments destinés aux consommateurs et l'évolution de la manière dont nous percevons la valeur ajoutée. Je me concentre ensuite sur l'hétérogénéité du comportement des consommateurs, en passant en revue les contributions de la littérature qui renforcent notre capacité, en tant qu'économistes, à modéliser et à mesurer l'hétérogénéité. Les réponses des chaînes d'approvisionnement à l'hétérogénéité des consommateurs sont examinées, notamment une discussion sur les flux d'informations au sein des chaînes d'approvisionnement et le rôle de la certification et de la vérification. Je termine sur un examen des implications politiques découlant de l'hétérogénéité des consommateurs. drawn from the behavioral economics literature and a sampling of empirical contributions from the agricultural economics literature, with a focus on the role of trust. 1 I endeavor to answer the questions: what have we learned about how consumers make 1 Trust has been shown to have an important influence in food purchase decisions, particularly in the presence of information asymmetry with respect to food safety, food quality, or new food technologies (Hobbs & Goddard, 2015).

show abstract

Values of Australian Meat Consumers Related to Sheep and Beef Cattle Welfare: What Makes a Good Life and a Good Death?

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been growing global interest in livestock animal welfare. Previous research into attitudes towards animal welfare has focused on Europe and the United States, with comparatively little focus on Australia, which is an important location due to the prominent position of agriculture economically and culturally. In this article, we present results from qualitative research on how Australian meat consumers conceptualise sheep and beef cattle welfare. The study was conducted in two capital cities (Melbourne, Victoria and Adelaide, South Australia) and a much smaller rural centre (Toowoomba, Queensland) using focus groups (involving 40.9% of participants) and mall-intercept interviews (59.1% of participants), totalling 66 participants. Qualitative analysis highlights that participants had clear ideas of what it means for an animal to live a ‘good life’ and experience a ‘good death,’ with their beliefs strongly tied to their expectations and cultural understandings of what Australian agriculture ‘should be.’ In response to open-ended questions, participants expressed attitudes that relied on romanticised visions of the ‘rural idyll’ as seen in frequent discussions about what is ‘normal’ for sheep meat and beef production, and relatedly, what count as ‘natural behaviours.’ Many participants rejected anything associated with the ‘other,’ classifying it as not ‘normal’: we argue that which is not considered normal, including intensive production, foreign ownership, and halal slaughter practices, appear to place participants’ conceptualizations of an animal’s ‘good death,’ and in turn the potential for a ‘good life,’ at risk.

show abstract

Trust and Consumer Preferences for Pig Production Attributes in Canada

Cited by 14 publications

References 51 publications

Consumer purchase intentions for pork with enhanced carnosine–A functional food

Consumer purchase intentions for pork with enhanced carnosine–A functional food

Heterogeneous consumers and differentiated food markets: Implications for quality signaling in food supply chains

Values of Australian Meat Consumers Related to Sheep and Beef Cattle Welfare: What Makes a Good Life and a Good Death?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About