Labelling Issues of Organic and GM Foods in Australia

Growth in the demand for organic foods has been phenomenal in the past decade both in Australia and overseas because organic production is seen to be beneficial to both human health and the environment. In general, organic products commend a price premium over conventional products. Since organic attributes cannot be verified easily and there is no control over the use of the word 'organic' in the Australian market, the organic label has been subject to abuse. Over ten years, the Australian organic industry has called for a domestic regulation, claiming that any incidence of consumer deception and product misrepresentation can result in the loss of consumer confidence and sales, and more importantly, hinder future industry growth. However, the Government has rejected the calls. On the other hand, despite its recent history, the labelling of GM foods has become mandatory since 2001. This paper examines the arguments for and against the mandatory labelling of organic foods in Australia, compares the political and marketing environments in which organic and GMO foods operate, and assesses the appropriateness of the differing regulatory responses.organic foods, GM foods, food labelling., Agribusiness, Marketing, Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,

A Cointegration Analysis of Wool Prices

Based on cointegration analysis and monthly data from 1976.8 to 1999.10, a long-run equilibrium relationship was found to exist between prices for wools of 19 to 23 microns, despite the wool Reserve Price Scheme operated until February 1991. Furthermore, the prices for 19, 20 and 21 micron wools were found to be weakly exogenous. The latter result suggested that, although co-integrated, prices for finer wools tended to be less volatile than coarser wools. The implications are that wool producers would enjoy more stable prices by producing finer wools and that cross-hedging is possible given co-movements of prices.cointegration, error correction model, reserve price scheme, wool marketing., Demand and Price Analysis, Livestock Production/Industries, Marketing,

Selling Australia as ‘clean and green’

‘Clean and green’ has been used as a marketing tool by Australian governments to promote agricultural products overseas. But how valid are these claims? Is the ‘clean and green’ image campaign effective? And should government be involved? We conclude that Australia may have had a ‘clean and green’ image in some markets, but in the future, concrete proof of environmental and quality credentials will be required to satisfy increasingly better-informed and more demanding customers. We argue that governments cannot, and should not, continue to promote Australian products based on an undefined ‘clean and green’ image. Rather, more resources should be directed to the development, promotion and wide adoption of integrated, credible and well-defined environmental management and quality assurance systems if Australia is to compete effectively in export markets, especially in the longer term.clean and green, EMS, export marketing, food production, food quality, QA, Resource /Energy Economics and Policy,

Selling Australia as "clean and green"

"Green and clean" has been used as a key marketing tool to promote Australian products overseas. The rationale is that consumers are generally concerned about personal health and the environment and will choose, and pay price premiums, for products that are perceived to be clean (good for them) and green (good for the environment) over alternative products. But is Australia seen as clean and green? Is it really why people buy Australian? This paper attempts to investigate such questionsexport marketing, clean green image, Marketing,

Selling Australia as 'Clean and Green'

'Green and clean' has been used as a key marketing tool to promote Australian products overseas. The rationale is that consumers are generally concerned about personal health and the environment and will choose, and pay price premiums, for products that are, or perceived to be, clean (good for them) and green (good for the environment) over alternative products. But is Australia seen as clean and green? Is it really why people buy Australian products? And how effective is it as a marketing tool? This paper attempts to answer some of these questions. The study found that Australia may have a clean green image at present in some of her overseas markets, but to maintain such an image over time, concrete proof of environmental and quality credentials need to be provided to satisfy increasingly more educated and better-informed consumers. Wide adoption of integrated EMS and QA systems by Australian producers and food companies appears to be a means to establish such credentials and substantiate any 'clean and green' claim. Therefore, government policies should focus more on developing a range of tools to encourage good environmental and quality management practices, rather than on promoting the 'clean and green' image. Such campaigns may be counter-productive in the long run as it leads to complacency, rather than raising environmental and quality awareness.export marketing, clean and green, EMS, QA, Environmental Economics and Policy, International Relations/Trade,

The Adoption and Profitability of rbST on Connecticut Dairy Farms

This work estimates Probit and Tobit models of the adoption of rbST on Connecticut dairy farms and then endogenizes that adoption in estimates of milk production and farm profit rates. The work improves on the current literature by allowing the rbST decision to be both continuous and contingent on other technology adoption decisions. The results show that larger farms, with more productivity technologies, and with younger, more educated farmers are more likely to adopt rbST. While rbST is shown to significantly increase milk production there is no evidence it increases profits on a per cow basis.Livestock Production/Industries, Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,

Beef import market shares in Taiwan: implications for Australia

Market shares of major beef suppliers to Taiwan, including Australia, the United States and New Zealand, were estimated econometrically to determine their relative competitiveness. The analysis, based on monthly data from June 1990 to August 1997, showed that relative prices and consumer incomes were important factors influencing suppliers’ market shares. Specifically, the demand for Australian beef responded little to an increase in price and negatively to an increase in consumer income. Furthermore, the growth in Taiwan beef consumption has slowed down and Australian beef suppliers need to re‐assess the market potential and develop appropriate marketing strategies to maintain competitiveness.International Relations/Trade, Livestock Production/Industries,