Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Review of Industrial Organization 2/2024

28-09-2023

Food Origin Labeling and “Promoting Competition”

Author: Jason Winfree

Published in: Review of Industrial Organization | Issue 2/2024

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This paper analyzes the consumer and producer implications of origin-of-food labeling when the production process is a credence attribute. Since origin-of-food labeling has been discussed by the U.S. government in the context of “promoting competition”, a model is presented that evaluates consumer welfare and producer welfare as a function of labeling standards. The model finds that if there is consumer misperception and the consumers are unaware that labeling does not imply completely domestic production, then consumers are helped with higher standards; but domestic profits may be higher with a more lax standard. If consumers are aware of the average level of domestic production that is implied by the label, then they are indifferent to the standard, while domestic profits are still maximized with a standard that balances a price premium with the costs of domestic production. The model also analyzes possible differences between upstream and downstream producers.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Footnotes
1
While the executive order was largely reported in the media as promoting more usage of antitrust policies, it does not explicitly say that food labeling is an antitrust issue.
 
3
Asymmetric information denotes that consumers may not know the level of domestic production while consumer misperception denotes a misunderstanding of what the label indicates.
 
4
GIs and COOLs are similar in that they denote a production region; but a COOL represents a country, whereas GIs typically represent a smaller geographic region within a country.
 
5
While this may be true for beef, it is not true that all foreign-produced food is cheaper than U.S. produced food.
 
7
While domestic produced goods are often assumed to have a lower carbon footprint, this is not always the case (Hospido et al., 2009; Saunders & Barber, 2008)
 
8
In this context, social interaction implies having domestic production in consumers’ utility simply because they care about the well-being of domestic producers.
 
9
While k represents the percentage of domestic production, it is not obvious how this might be measured empirically. For example, Lloyd (2002) describes the complexity of determining a country of origin with international supply chains and proposes determining the value added from each country. Liu et al. (2008) discuss the proliferation of value added standards in food markets. Ultimately, since the executive order is arguing in favor of high standards due to consumer preferences, the measurement of the extent of the domestic content of a product should reflect the attitudes of consumers.
 
10
For a single type of good, it is analogous for consumers to care about aggregate domestic production or the percentage of production that is domestic. However, this might not hold with multiple types of goods.
 
11
This assumes that versatile firms will not take any unnecessary costs of producing domestically that is beyond the standard or any domestic production at all if they do not meet the standard. Therefore, they will choose a domestic level of 0 or \( {k}\).
 
12
This assumption seems plausible since foreign production likely encompasses production for many other markets, and therefore the shipments into the domestic market would typically be only a fraction of that foreign production. This assumption, and previous assumptions, ensure that consumers substitute between the non-numeraire goods. In the context of beef, consumers substitute between domestic and foreign beef. However, different assumptions may create substitution between the numeraire good and non-numeraire goods, so it is reasonable that some consumers might substitute beef with outside goods.
 
13
If the model were dynamic in terms of a changing aggregate demand, total quantity consumed would change, but it would change the amount of foreign production. However, with free exit and entry of foreign production, the equilibrium aggregate consumption is where demand intersects the marginal cost of foreign firms and therefore does not change based on the production decisions of the other firms.
 
14
With a fixed price premium, \(\frac{d q_{vL}}{d {k}}=-\frac{q_v}{\bar{c}} c' \left( {k} \right) \) since \(\alpha _p'=0\).
 
15
It is still assumed that \(\alpha = 1\), \(c\left( {k}\right) = {k}^3\), and \(\bar{c}=1\).
 
16
As previously stated, it may be easier to meet the standard by making downstream production domestic since that would require less shipping. It is also consistent with the Biden administration’s fact sheet.
 
17
For example, if \( {k}=2/3\), the firm would meet the standard by allocating production as follows: 2/9 upstream and domestic; 5/18 upstream and foreign; 4/9 downstream; and domestic, and 1/18 downstream and foreign.
 
18
Since domestic firms are fully domestic, one half of profits are attributed to downstream production and one half is attributed to upstream production. Also, consistent with footnote 17, if \( {k}=2/3\), then 2/9 of the versatile firm’s profits would go to upstream domestic producers, and 4/9 would go to downstream domestic producers.
 
19
For simplicity, firms are assumed to be vertically integrated throughout the supply chain, so the firm may not distinguish between upstream and downstream profits. However, even with this ownership structure, different standards could affect employment at different points in the supply chain. Also, if the model is adapted to include various ownership structures, then upstream and downstream firms might differ on the optimal standard.
 
20
If \(\alpha _p = \alpha \frac{q_d + q_{vL} {k}}{q_d + q_{vL}}\), then \(\alpha (q_d+q_{vL} {k}) =\alpha _p(q_d+q_{vL})\).
 
21
Given the previous parameter values and functional forms used in the previous section, this will be the case for any label standard.
 
Literature
go back to reference Becker, G. S. (1974). A theory of social interactions. Journal of Political Economy, 82(6), 1063–1093.CrossRef Becker, G. S. (1974). A theory of social interactions. Journal of Political Economy, 82(6), 1063–1093.CrossRef
go back to reference Blair, R. D., & Sokol, D. D. (2012). Welfare standards in US and EU antitrust enforcement. Fordham L. Rev., 81, 2497. Blair, R. D., & Sokol, D. D. (2012). Welfare standards in US and EU antitrust enforcement. Fordham L. Rev., 81, 2497.
go back to reference Bonroy, O., & Constantatos, C. (2015). On the economics of labels: How their introduction affects the functioning of markets and the welfare of all participants. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 97(1), 239–259.CrossRef Bonroy, O., & Constantatos, C. (2015). On the economics of labels: How their introduction affects the functioning of markets and the welfare of all participants. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 97(1), 239–259.CrossRef
go back to reference Bougherara, D., Grolleau, G., & Mzoughi, N. (2009). Buy local, pollute less: What drives households to join a community supported farm? Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1488–1495.CrossRef Bougherara, D., Grolleau, G., & Mzoughi, N. (2009). Buy local, pollute less: What drives households to join a community supported farm? Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1488–1495.CrossRef
go back to reference Busch, M. L. (2021). The futility of ’product of USA’ labeling in a world of global supply chains. Busch, M. L. (2021). The futility of ’product of USA’ labeling in a world of global supply chains.
go back to reference Chen, J. (1995). American ideology, the. Vand. L. Rev., 48, 809. Chen, J. (1995). American ideology, the. Vand. L. Rev., 48, 809.
go back to reference Countryman, A. M., & Bonanno, A. (2020). A cool tale: Economic effects of the us mandatory country of origin labeling repeal. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 42(4), 888–912.CrossRef Countryman, A. M., & Bonanno, A. (2020). A cool tale: Economic effects of the us mandatory country of origin labeling repeal. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 42(4), 888–912.CrossRef
go back to reference Food Safety News. (2020). USDA admits it may be misleading consumers with ‘product of USA’ labeling. Food Safety News. (2020). USDA admits it may be misleading consumers with ‘product of USA’ labeling.
go back to reference Greenbaum, J. (2020). Where’s the beef? does “product of the USA" mean that the cattle was raised in the USA? Greenbaum, J. (2020). Where’s the beef? does “product of the USA" mean that the cattle was raised in the USA?
go back to reference Hoffmann, V., & Gatobu, K. M. (2014). Growing their own: Unobservable quality and the value of self-provisioning. Journal of Development Economics, 106, 168–178.CrossRef Hoffmann, V., & Gatobu, K. M. (2014). Growing their own: Unobservable quality and the value of self-provisioning. Journal of Development Economics, 106, 168–178.CrossRef
go back to reference Hopkins, R. A., & Powers, T. L. (2007). “Buy national’’ and altruistic market segments. Journal of Global Marketing, 20(4), 73–87.CrossRef Hopkins, R. A., & Powers, T. L. (2007). “Buy national’’ and altruistic market segments. Journal of Global Marketing, 20(4), 73–87.CrossRef
go back to reference Hospido, A., Milài Canals, L., McLaren, S., Truninger, M., Edwards-Jones, G., & Clift, R. (2009). The role of seasonality in lettuce consumption: A case study of environmental and social aspects. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14(5), 381–391.CrossRef Hospido, A., Milài Canals, L., McLaren, S., Truninger, M., Edwards-Jones, G., & Clift, R. (2009). The role of seasonality in lettuce consumption: A case study of environmental and social aspects. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14(5), 381–391.CrossRef
go back to reference Howard, P. (2005). What do people want to know about their food? Measuring central coast consumers’ interest in food systems issues. Center for Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems, 13(2), 115–125. Howard, P. (2005). What do people want to know about their food? Measuring central coast consumers’ interest in food systems issues. Center for Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems, 13(2), 115–125.
go back to reference Kirkwood, J. B., & Lande, R. H. (2008). The fundamental goal of antitrust: Protecting consumers, not increasing efficiency. Notre Dame L. Rev., 84, 191. Kirkwood, J. B., & Lande, R. H. (2008). The fundamental goal of antitrust: Protecting consumers, not increasing efficiency. Notre Dame L. Rev., 84, 191.
go back to reference Lence, S. H., Marette, S., Hayes, D. J., & Foster, W. (2007). Collective marketing arrangements for geographically differentiated agricultural products: Welfare impacts and policy implications. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89(4), 947–963.CrossRef Lence, S. H., Marette, S., Hayes, D. J., & Foster, W. (2007). Collective marketing arrangements for geographically differentiated agricultural products: Welfare impacts and policy implications. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89(4), 947–963.CrossRef
go back to reference Liu, P., Byers, A., & Giovannucci, D. (2008). Value-adding standards in the North American food market-trade opportunities in certified products for developing countries. FAO trade and markets division. Liu, P., Byers, A., & Giovannucci, D. (2008). Value-adding standards in the North American food market-trade opportunities in certified products for developing countries. FAO trade and markets division.
go back to reference Lloyd, P. J. (2002). Country of origin in the global economy. World Trade Review, 1(2), 171–185.CrossRef Lloyd, P. J. (2002). Country of origin in the global economy. World Trade Review, 1(2), 171–185.CrossRef
go back to reference Lusk, J. L., & Anderson, J. D. (2004). Effects of country-of-origin labeling on meat producers and consumers. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 29, 185–205. Lusk, J. L., & Anderson, J. D. (2004). Effects of country-of-origin labeling on meat producers and consumers. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 29, 185–205.
go back to reference McCallum, J. (1995). National borders matter: Canada-US regional trade patterns. The American Economic Review, 85(3), 615–623. McCallum, J. (1995). National borders matter: Canada-US regional trade patterns. The American Economic Review, 85(3), 615–623.
go back to reference McFadden, B. R., & Lusk, J. L. (2016). What consumers don’t know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefs. The FASEB Journal, 30(9), 3091–3096.CrossRefPubMed McFadden, B. R., & Lusk, J. L. (2016). What consumers don’t know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefs. The FASEB Journal, 30(9), 3091–3096.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Menapace, L., & Moschini, G. (2012). Quality certification by geographical indications, trademarks and firm reputation. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 39(4), 539–566.CrossRef Menapace, L., & Moschini, G. (2012). Quality certification by geographical indications, trademarks and firm reputation. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 39(4), 539–566.CrossRef
go back to reference Menapace, L., & Moschini, G. C. (2014). Strength of protection for geographical indications: Promotion incentives and welfare effects. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 96(4), 1030–1048.CrossRef Menapace, L., & Moschini, G. C. (2014). Strength of protection for geographical indications: Promotion incentives and welfare effects. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 96(4), 1030–1048.CrossRef
go back to reference Mérel, P., & Sexton, R. J. (2012). Will geographical indications supply excessive quality? European Review of Agricultural Economics, 39(4), 567–587.CrossRef Mérel, P., & Sexton, R. J. (2012). Will geographical indications supply excessive quality? European Review of Agricultural Economics, 39(4), 567–587.CrossRef
go back to reference Morey, M. (2016). Preferences and the home bias in trade. Journal of Development Economics, 121, 24–37.CrossRef Morey, M. (2016). Preferences and the home bias in trade. Journal of Development Economics, 121, 24–37.CrossRef
go back to reference Moschini, G., Menapace, L., & Pick, D. (2008). Geographical indications and the competitive provision of quality in agricultural markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(3), 794–812.CrossRef Moschini, G., Menapace, L., & Pick, D. (2008). Geographical indications and the competitive provision of quality in agricultural markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(3), 794–812.CrossRef
go back to reference Olsen, J. E., Biswas, A., & Granzin, K. L. (1993). Influencing consumers’ selection of domestic versus imported products: Implications for marketing based on a model of helping behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(4), 307–321.CrossRef Olsen, J. E., Biswas, A., & Granzin, K. L. (1993). Influencing consumers’ selection of domestic versus imported products: Implications for marketing based on a model of helping behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(4), 307–321.CrossRef
go back to reference Pouliot, S., & Sumner, D. A. (2014). Differential impacts of country of origin labeling: Cool econometric evidence from cattle markets. Food Policy, 49, 107–116.CrossRef Pouliot, S., & Sumner, D. A. (2014). Differential impacts of country of origin labeling: Cool econometric evidence from cattle markets. Food Policy, 49, 107–116.CrossRef
go back to reference Ringwalt, C. (2021). Ag report: USDA to review ’product of the USA’ labeling system. Ringwalt, C. (2021). Ag report: USDA to review ’product of the USA’ labeling system.
go back to reference Saitone, T. L., & Sexton, R. J. (2017). Agri-food supply chain: Evolution and performance with conflicting consumer and societal demands. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 44(4), 634–657.CrossRef Saitone, T. L., & Sexton, R. J. (2017). Agri-food supply chain: Evolution and performance with conflicting consumer and societal demands. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 44(4), 634–657.CrossRef
go back to reference Saitone, T. L., Sexton, R. J., et al. (2010). Product differentiation and quality in food markets: Industrial organization implications. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 2(1), 341–368.CrossRef Saitone, T. L., Sexton, R. J., et al. (2010). Product differentiation and quality in food markets: Industrial organization implications. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 2(1), 341–368.CrossRef
go back to reference Saunders, C., & Barber, A. (2008). Carbon footprints, life cycle analysis, food miles: Global trade trends and market issues. Political Science, 60(1), 73–88.CrossRef Saunders, C., & Barber, A. (2008). Carbon footprints, life cycle analysis, food miles: Global trade trends and market issues. Political Science, 60(1), 73–88.CrossRef
go back to reference Scott, F., & Sesmero, J. P. (2022). Market and welfare effects of quality misperception in food labels. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 104, 1747–1769.CrossRef Scott, F., & Sesmero, J. P. (2022). Market and welfare effects of quality misperception in food labels. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 104, 1747–1769.CrossRef
go back to reference Sexton, R. (1981). Welfare loss from inaccurate information: An economic model with application to food labels. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 15(2), 214–231.MathSciNetCrossRef Sexton, R. (1981). Welfare loss from inaccurate information: An economic model with application to food labels. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 15(2), 214–231.MathSciNetCrossRef
go back to reference Shanker, D. (2019). Most grass-fed beef labeled ‘product of U.S.A.’ is imported. Shanker, D. (2019). Most grass-fed beef labeled ‘product of U.S.A.’ is imported.
go back to reference Stone Barns Center for Food & Agriculture. (2017). Back to grass: The market potential for U.S. grassfed beef. Stone Barns Center for Food & Agriculture. (2017). Back to grass: The market potential for U.S. grassfed beef.
go back to reference Tauber, R., Anders, S. M., & Langinier, C. (2011). The economics of geographical indications: Welfare implications. Technical report. Tauber, R., Anders, S. M., & Langinier, C. (2011). The economics of geographical indications: Welfare implications. Technical report.
go back to reference Taylor, M. R., & Tonsor, G. T. (2013). Revealed demand for country-of-origin labeling of meat in the United States. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 38, 235–247. Taylor, M. R., & Tonsor, G. T. (2013). Revealed demand for country-of-origin labeling of meat in the United States. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 38, 235–247.
go back to reference Thune, J. (2021). Bipartisan American beef labeling act would reinstate mandatory country of origin labeling. Thune, J. (2021). Bipartisan American beef labeling act would reinstate mandatory country of origin labeling.
go back to reference Tonsor, G. T., Schroeder, T. C., & Lusk, J. L. (2013). Consumer valuation of alternative meat origin labels. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64(3), 676–692.CrossRef Tonsor, G. T., Schroeder, T. C., & Lusk, J. L. (2013). Consumer valuation of alternative meat origin labels. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64(3), 676–692.CrossRef
go back to reference Unnevehr, L., Eales, J., Jensen, H., Lusk, J., McCluskey, J., & Kinsey, J. (2010). Food and consumer economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 92(2), 506–521.CrossRef Unnevehr, L., Eales, J., Jensen, H., Lusk, J., McCluskey, J., & Kinsey, J. (2010). Food and consumer economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 92(2), 506–521.CrossRef
go back to reference Watson, P., & Winfree, J. (2021). Should we use antitrust policies on big agriculture? Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 44, 1313–1326.CrossRef Watson, P., & Winfree, J. (2021). Should we use antitrust policies on big agriculture? Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 44, 1313–1326.CrossRef
go back to reference Winfree, J. A., & McCluskey, J. J. (2020). Economic implications of protecting regional reputations. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 20(1), 20190051.CrossRef Winfree, J. A., & McCluskey, J. J. (2020). Economic implications of protecting regional reputations. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 20(1), 20190051.CrossRef
go back to reference Winfree, J., & Watson, P. (2017). The welfare economics of “buy local’’. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 99(4), 971–987.CrossRef Winfree, J., & Watson, P. (2017). The welfare economics of “buy local’’. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 99(4), 971–987.CrossRef
go back to reference Wolf, H. C. (2000). Intranational home bias in trade. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(4), 555–563.CrossRef Wolf, H. C. (2000). Intranational home bias in trade. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(4), 555–563.CrossRef
go back to reference Zago, A. M., & Pick, D. (2004). Labeling policies in food markets: Private incentives, public intervention, and welfare effects. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 29, 150–165. Zago, A. M., & Pick, D. (2004). Labeling policies in food markets: Private incentives, public intervention, and welfare effects. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 29, 150–165.
go back to reference Zboraj, M. (2021). FMI takes stance against cool amendment. Zboraj, M. (2021). FMI takes stance against cool amendment.
Metadata
Title
Food Origin Labeling and “Promoting Competition”
Author
Jason Winfree
Publication date
28-09-2023
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Review of Industrial Organization / Issue 2/2024
Print ISSN: 0889-938X
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7160
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-023-09918-w

Other articles of this Issue 2/2024

Review of Industrial Organization 2/2024 Go to the issue

Premium Partner