New labels might decrease overall demand for milk

October 2, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Recent increases in organic and hormone-free milk labeling might negatively affect sales of milk without such labels, and could lead to a decreased demand for all milk types, according to a new economic study to be published in the November issue of the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

According to Kent Messer, assistant professor of food and resource economics at the University of Delaware and one of the authors of the article, "The research indicates that consumers care about labels as demonstrated by their changes in their willingness-to-pay for the milk upon reading the milk labels."

“The introduction of new food products that portray conventional products in a negative light and have a significant impact on stigmatizing the demand for conventional products,” said Harry Kaiser, another author and a professor at Cornell University. “We estimate that the labeling claims of organic milk led to a reduction in conventional milk demand of 45 percent, and the labeling claims of milk that is free of hormones led to a reduction of conventional milk demand of 33 percent.”

Several large companies, such as Wal-Mart, Dean Foods and Starbucks implemented bans on all milk with recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), a synthetic hormone many dairy farmers give cows to increase milk production. While rBST has no known human side effects, the study shows that labeling products as rBST-free creates a perception among consumers that milk not carrying such a label is somehow inferior or tainted.

According to the study, the dairy industry needs to confront the issue of labeling claims head-on or risk a major negative impact on milk consumption.

The article, “Does Production Labeling Stigmatize Conventional ?” was written by Christopher Kanter of the University of Wisconsin at Madison with Messer and Kaiser. The complete text is available online.

The American Journal of Agricultural Economics is a peer-reviewed publication of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

Provided by University of Delaware (news : web)

Explore further: Obesity concerns result in milk ban

Related Stories

Obesity concerns result in milk ban

May 26, 2006

Whole milk is to be banned from British schools in the campaign against childhood obesity, allowing for the serving of only skimmed or semi-skimmed milk.

Unpasteurized milk poses health risks without benefits

December 16, 2008

With disease outbreaks linked to unpasteurized milk rising in the United States, a review published in the January 1, 2009 issue of Clinical Infectious Diseases examines the dangers of drinking raw milk.

New test for detecting fake organic milk

March 2, 2009

Scientists in Germany are reporting development of a new, more effective method to determine whether milk marketed as "organic" is genuine or just ordinary milk mislabeled to hoodwink consumers. Their report appears in the ...

Recommended for you

French teen finds 560,000 year-old tooth (Update)

July 28, 2015

A 16-year-old French volunteer archaeologist has found an adult tooth dating back around 560,000 years in southwestern France, in what researchers hailed as a "major discovery" Tuesday.

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

OBSL33t
not rated yet Oct 04, 2009
"While rBST has no known human side effects . . ."

‘KNOWN’ is the key word here. Regardless, people should have the right to be informed about the contents of the products they are purchasing. Just as much as a company should have the right to print the exclusion of an ingredient normally found in such a product.

Maybe people just want to buy milk that hasn't been chemically influenced.

So if you've seen a decline in sales since the inception of organic milks, maybe the problem isn't the label, but your product.

Simply printing that your product lacks an ingredient does not

"portray conventional products in a negative light"

It simply states a fact.

So, if big dairy means to "confront the issue of labeling claims head-on" what does that mean?

Lobbying for the removal of such labels from the market?

Or perhaps a slander campaign against organic foods?

Only in America would personal freedoms take a back seat to marketing the bottom dollar.

How greedy have we become?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.