1. Introduction
Food products can be considered as bundles of multiple quality attributes (e.g., appearance, taste, price, organic production, food safety, origin, nutritional value). In deciding which product to purchase, buyers within the food market (e.g., wholesalers, retailers, consumers) objectively or subjectively assess and compare food quality attributes against one another depending on available and trusted information [1,2,3,4,5].
The theory of information economics suggests that food quality attributes can be categorized into search, experience, and credence attributes. Search attributes describe food characteristics that can be verified by buyers (e.g., importers, retailers, consumers) prior to purchase through direct search/inspection (e.g., visual or physical assessments) [6,7,8]. Examples for search attributes include appearance, color, price, and brand labels. Experience attributes are food characteristics that can be verified by buyers only after consumption (i.e., experience) of the product [6], e.g., sensory attributes such as taste and texture.
Credence attributes are food quality characteristics that cannot be judged or assessed independently by buyers at the time of sale through search (e.g., price, appearance) or experience (e.g., taste, texture) [9] without additional, often costly information [10,11]. Examples include environmental sustainability of production/distribution processes (e.g., carbon neutral, eco-friendly, organic [12], animal welfare [13], and food safety [14] (see more examples provided in Table A1 in the Appendix)). Buyer’s inability to assess the presence of credence attributes at the point of sale without additional information (e.g., labels) implies that one party in the market transaction is in possession of more information (e.g., producer) than the other (e.g., retailer, consumer). This situation is known as information asymmetry within the food market or among supply chain stakeholders [15,16].
The presence of asymmetric information among market actors such as supply chain stakeholders (e.g., producer, processor, wholesaler, retailer, consumer) offers ground for market inefficiencies that can lead to market failure (e.g., free-riding, moral hazard, and adverse selection) [17,18]. For example, the benefits that buyers believe they pay for (e.g., organically produced food products) may in fact not be provided by the seller as claimed. This situation is known as moral hazard on the supplier side, i.e., opportunistic behavior such as fraud or the provision of misleading information [11,17]. Furthermore, the existence of asymmetric information about food credence attributes can expose buyers to risks [18,19]. For example, there are individual health risks for the credence attribute of food safety, where unsafe food consumption due to inadequate information/communication, can become a risk to the public (health) good in the case of a foodborne disease outbreak [19,20,21].
Hence, from an economic perspective, asymmetrically distributed information about food credence attributes and associated risks can cause a failure of the competitive food market [18,22]. This implies that the existence of a market for food credence attributes depends on the level of information provided to buyers and on buyers’ trust in use of such information [10,18].
The literature offers a large range of studies which empirically assess consumer demand for food credence attributes [23,24,25,26] and selected aspects relating to credence attribute assurance such as food standards [21,27,28], food certification [29,30], and food labelling/signaling [16,31,32]. However, missing in the literature is a clear overview that synthesizes a) the motivation for key stakeholders to participate in the market for food credence attributes, b) the type of food credence attributes that key stakeholders provide, and c) current mechanisms to address the issue of information asymmetry among the stakeholders in the food system.
This study aimed to address this gap by developing a conceptual framework that summarizes the roles and incentives of key stakeholders in the market for food credence attributes and current mechanisms to address the issue of information asymmetry among the stakeholders in the food system. Specific research questions included the following: What are the components of this conceptual framework? How do these components link with each other? Can information asymmetry be completely resolved using currently available mechanisms?
The study was conducted using a literature review and takes a supply chain system perspective on agri-food products as a proxy market for foods with credence attributes (i.e., where a market exchange between various supply chain stakeholders occurs).
The findings from this study offer a theoretical contribution which may improve food supply chain stakeholders’ (e.g., supply chain actors, scientists, policy makers) understanding about the components of the credence food system and their integration as well as the drivers for change in this system.
2. Methods
To develop a conceptual framework that summarizes the roles and incentives of key stakeholders in the market for food credence attributes and current mechanisms to address the issue of information asymmetry, an integrative literature review [33,34,35] was conducted. The literature was assessed in a manner that contributed to a) identifying potential components of the proposed framework; b) mapping and describing these components and linkages between them; and c) synthesizing the findings. Importantly, the scope of the review was not to identify the state of knowledge in this research area and appraise the existing literature in the context of food credence attributes (e.g., systematic review which typically focusses on a relatively narrow topic). The aim of the review was rather to identify and describe key themes in the existing literature that can be used to define components of the market for food credence attributes and their integration.
The procedure used to search, assess, and synthesize the literature is illustrated in Figure 1. Google Scholar and Web of Science databases were employed to search for relevant publications which included journal articles and the grey literature (e.g., reports). The publication search was not restricted to a specific time period and only included records in English language. Terms included for the initial keyword and title search were combinations of: “food”, “credence”, “attributes”, “stakeholders”, “assurance”, “certification”, “verification”, “system”, “demand”, “supply”, and “market”. These terms were combined by the AND (e.g., for food, credence, attribute) or OR (e.g., for assurance, certifying, verification) Boolean operators.
The inclusion process was based on an initial assessment of publication titles and abstracts that related to the research topic. Duplications and records of low quality (e.g., some reports, topic related publications with limited research content value) were excluded in the initial assessment stage of publications (e.g., 127 records). A total of 243 publications were identified for inclusion in the qualitative analysis. All publications that passed the inclusion criteria were assessed in full, and their content was categorized by identified themes, e.g., supply chains stakeholders, food standards, and third-party certification. The qualitative analysis of the literature review included theme refinement (e.g., identification of the main themes and sub-themes), theme description (e.g., narrative describing a theme), and theme integration (e.g., identification of linkages among themes). The analysis and mapping of the identified elements were the building blocks for the framework conceptualization.
In case there were unclear matters identified during the detailed assessment of records or the qualitative synthesis of the content, a more specific literature search using refined terms that describe the respective issue, theme, or sub-theme (e.g., “food”, “wholesaler”, “credence”, “safety”, combined by the AND Boolean operator) were used and the process started over. This iterative process (e.g., building, refining, improving) continued until no additional information on the specific themes and links among themes could be identified, all unclear matters in the design of the conceptual framework were resolved and the research questions of this study (see above) where answered. The synthesis in form of a visual model was developed to portray the identified themes and theme integration.
3. Results
A conceptual framework of stakeholders and mechanisms to address information asymmetry in the market for food credence attributes was developed based on the literature review (see Figure 2). The framework includes two key thematic parts. They are a) the food supply chain component; and b) the food attribute assurance component. The first component identifies the issue and scale of information asymmetry about credence foods among stakeholders in the supply chain system, while the second component provides potential solutions to address this issue. For example, within the framework’s supply chain component, information asymmetry about credence attributes typically exists between the upstream and downstream supply chain stakeholders (e.g., indicated by a dashed arrow leading from producer to consumers (Figure 2, marked by (1)). The attribute assurance system component in the framework comprises several aspects that aim to provide solutions to the issues of information asymmetry among supply chain stakeholders, i.e., facilitate information symmetry and buyers’ trust in product attributes (Figure 2, marked by (2)). Essentially, if information symmetry can be achieved, credence attributes will be transformed into search attributes (Figure 2, marked by (3)) [36,37]. This framework can be applied to national and global food markets or supply chains.
The following sections describe the two components of the framework (e.g., key themes, sub-themes) and links between them. While a large literature exists for some elements of the framework such as food standards, food certification, and communication of food quality attributes, they are only briefly outlined here in the context of this study. Interested readers may refer to the cited literature for more details on these elements.
3.1. Food Supply Chain Component
The food supply chain component in the framework comprises key stakeholder groups. These stakeholders include food producers (who are here bundled together with production input providers for simplicity, e.g., nurseries, seed providers), logistics providers, processors, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers (Figure 2). These key stakeholders are directly involved in the physical exchange and distribution of foods with credence attributes and may therefore be directly exposed to potential information asymmetries within the supply chain (indicated by dashed arrow in Figure 2). Other stakeholders may be indirectly involved in the physical distribution of credence foods, such as investors in agricultural production, investors in food retail or research and development organization. These indirect stakeholders are not further considered here for simplicity. The framework illustrates that the physical distribution of the food product and the relevant information about quality attributes among supply chain actors may not occur simultaneously.
In this section, we identify the role and motives of key supply chain stakeholder groups in participating in the market of food credence attributes. The type of credence attributes which these stakeholders provide will also be identified. Key findings are summarized in Table 1. We outline stakeholder roles in creating and overcoming asymmetric information issues and highlight the potential pressures that may affect their participation. The framework assumes a long agri-food supply chain (e.g., multiple intermediaries between producers and consumers), which reflects modern food networks in high-income countries as well as export supply chains [38]. The framework also considers limited vertical coordination (e.g., information sharing) between supply chain stakeholders as a simplification to illustrate the potential scale of the asymmetric information issue.
3.1.1. Food Producers
The primary role of producers within the food supply chain (Figure 2) is to produce food products including food credence attributes (e.g., environmental sustainability of production, social/ethical responsibility of practices, animal health and wellbeing during production process, additive free production, see Table 1 and Table A1 in the Appendix) and ultimately supply these to buyers (e.g., processors, importers, retailers, consumers) who may also demand these food quality attributes.
From a business perspective, the producer’s incentive to participate in the food market as supplier is to make a living, to maximize profits from the production of the food products and subsequently to ensure enduring economic viability of their business [39,40,41] (these are hereafter referred to as business incentives). The supply of food quality, specifically the safety and biosecurity of food for human consumption, is a key characteristic to gain market access [41,42,43].
Hence, food producers will supply food with specific quality attributes including information about these attributes (e.g., certification of attribute claims), if there is sufficient and continuous buyer demand, if the supply is profitable for producers (e.g., compliance with private food standards), or if they are required to do so (e.g., compliance with food regulation in domestic and export markets; hereafter referred to as regulatory incentives) [10,11,16,28].
Profitability implies that the marginal costs of producing foods with credence attributes (e.g., growing the food product, obtaining attribute certification, and other transaction costs) are less than the marginal benefits from the sale of the product (e.g., product price at farm gate). A potential premium price paid by buyers may be a key incentive for producers to provide credence attributes [43]. Contributions to maximizing business profits from the supply of credence attributes can stem from product differentiation (i.e., conventional product vs. organic product) and associated gains in market share (e.g., increased sales) or from avoidance of costly events such as foodborne disease outbreak with associated liabilities [16]. Hence, a prerequisite for producers to supply food credence attributes is having sufficient understanding about buyers’ demand, including their quality requirements for food (e.g., specific attributes demanded, willingness to pay for attributes, trust in attribute claims verification mechanisms) [11,44,45].
Other indirect economic motivations for food producers to supply food credence attributes, specifically environmental and ethical/social focused food quality attributes, are social pressures from stakeholders such as the local community, consumers (e.g., ‘pull’ for certain production methods), government (e.g., best-practice guidelines for improved animal welfare production methods), investors, and the media [44,46,47,48,49]. Drivers for increasing social pressures from these food system stakeholders on food producers include, for example, growing consumer concerns which are amplified through increased awareness/knowledge (e.g., through advanced communication technology, media-savvy population), urbanization, incomes, education, and associated changing social norms [49,50,51]. Producers’ economic motivation to respond to these pressures addresses their objective to maintain their social license to operate (i.e., society provides producers the approval to conduct current food production activities) [49,52,53].
Other non-economic factors that can motivate producers to supply credence attributes come from their own attitudes about the environment, demographics, health concerns, lifestyles, and ideology which can also influence the ethos of their entire business model [11,54,55,56].
3.1.2. Logistics Providers
Logistics providers physically transfer food products from one location to the next within the supply chain (see Figure 2, arrows linking downstream and upstream supply chain stakeholders). Logistics providers typically contribute to the supply of credence attributes such as food safety and product traceability (e.g., manual or more sophisticated systems) (Table 1) [57,58]. Business incentives (see above) are key motivations for these supply chain actors to participate in the market for credence attributes. Logistics provider practices are commonly mandated by national food and animal welfare regulations (i.e., public standards for transportation of live animals [59]) to ensure that these food quality attributes (including their production) are maintained with the product in their care, notably to minimize human health risks and animal welfare risks [57,58].
3.1.3. Food Processors
The role of food processors in the food supply chain is to consolidate the raw product from multiple producers, to clean and grade it [60]. Their role can also include the deliberate change or transformation of the raw food product (e.g., in some cases inedible products such as live animals) into shelf-stable and palatable foods (e.g., meat cuts) for human consumption [60,61]. Packaging of the processed food products is another added value that processors offer [60].
Food processors can also supply credence attributes such as religious/cultural animal slaughter methods [62,63], animal welfare at slaughter [64,65], food safety [66,67], product traceability [68], and social/ethical responsibility (e.g., labor rights) [69] (Table 1).
Business and regulatory incentives (see above) are also key motivations for food processors to participate in this credence food market [68]. One such incentive is the opportunity for product differentiation, e.g., religious animal slaughter methods. Likewise, food processors are typically required to comply with national food regulations (e.g., public food standards on hygienic processing and transportation of food products for human consumption) in avoidance of risky and costly events (e.g., outbreak of food-borne illness due to unsafe food handling). To achieve access to premium and specialized markets, food processors are also involved in self-regulating their operations in terms of setting quality standards in their food procurement (e.g., private standards for size, appearance) and can opt to adopt standards for specific processing methods (e.g., religious animal slaughter methods).
Exemplifying a mix of business and regulatory incentives, meat processors increasingly experience pressures from society and consumers to offer credence attributes such as animal welfare at slaughterhouses which include humane handling, stunning and slaughter of animals e.g. [70,71]. National best-practice guidelines, government legislation e.g. [72], and intergovernmental organization standards e.g. [73] have set incentives for processors to improve their animal welfare performance. It should be noted that the literature offers limited examples for indirect economic pressures on processors that handle non-meat food products such as horticulture and seafood processors e.g. [74]. This leads to the assumption that the societal pressure on non-meat food processors and, subsequently, consumers’ expectations about credence attributes such as food safety provided by these supply chain actors, may be less than for meat processors or food producers (see above).
3.1.4. Food Wholesalers
The role of food wholesalers (e.g., distributors, brokers, agents) is to consolidate and coordinate the distribution of food products between upstream and downstream supply chain stakeholders (e.g., producers and retailers or processors and retailers, simplified in Figure 2).
Their motivation to participate in the supply and distribution of food products with credence attributes is driven by business and regulatory incentives (see above). The provision of added value such as food safety (e.g., handling of products) [75,76] and product traceability (e.g., record keeping of consignments, information disclosure, vendor traceability; see Table 1) are typically compulsory for food wholesalers as determined by national food regulations [76,77]. Interestingly, no studies could be identified that outline societal pressures on wholesalers with respect to the provision of credence attributes.
3.1.5. Food Retailers
The role of food retailers (e.g., retail stores, catering, hospitality services) is to procure food products in bulk volume from upstream food system actors (i.e., producers, processors, wholesalers) and distribute them to consumers. From a value-adding perspective, retailers provide credence attributes such as food safety and food traceability [78] and social/ethical responsibility (e.g., fair treatment of labor, labor health and safety) [79] (Table 1). However, they may offer value adding services such as advertising and branding of the product, which includes the promotion of product credence attributes [80,81].
Business and regularly incentives (see above) also apply to retailers as motivation for participating in the market for food credence attributes [82]. Retailers’ supply and distribution of food products with credence attributes (e.g., food safety, transparency, organic- or carbon-neutral food) can be considered as a form of product range differentiation to satisfy consumer demands (e.g., product quality) [28,80,81,83,84]. Hence, key motivation for retailers to participate in the market for food credence attributes is to increase consumer satisfaction (or prevention of the loss of market share), to gain and maintain a positive reputation, brand assurance, and to create a competitive market advantage (i.e., attract a specific consumer cohorts, gaining market share through supply of quality food) [28,41,45,81,82,85].
Consumer demand for credence attributes can been seen as a profitable business opportunity for retailers, like other food chain actors described above [65]. However, this requires an understanding of consumers’ demand for food quality attributes. Larger retail chains increasingly use their managerial abilities, direct links to, and knowledge about consumers to develop commercial strategies (e.g., private food standards to control food quality in their supply chains) that address this market differentiation opportunity to develop and maintain a competitive market advantage [21,81]. Retailers’ increasing supply chain governance implies that they strategically respond to consumer demand for food quality through measures that focus on gaining and maintaining consumer trust [86,87]. This is completed by using mechanisms such as private standards (see details in Section 3.2.1) to coordinate and control quality in retailer’s supply chains, and product signals (e.g., price, labels, and information, see details in Section 3.2.4) to address information asymmetry among food chain actors (see Figure 2, more detail is provided in Section 3.2.4) [28,38,86,88]. Retailer’s growing supply chain governance is seen as one of the key drivers for restructure in the production and distribution of agri-food products [87,89]. Retailers also have a major influence in shaping consumer food choices and preferences through pricing and promotion, which is commercially motivated by retail market competition [81]. Therefore, retailers also have a role in influencing consumer food choice [41].
Factors that indirectly contribute to retailers’ economic incentive in supplying products with credence attributes include social and ethical responsibility (i.e., business model and ethos) and subsequently their social license to operate and corporate legitimacy, which can also affect consumer’s retail preference [38,90,91,92].
3.1.6. Consumers
Consumers are the end users of the food products that are supplied and distributed by producers and various other supply chain intermediaries (Figure 2).
From an economic perspective, consumer motivation to participate in the market for food credence attributes include the satisfaction of their basic human needs (i.e., consumption of safe and nutritious food) and the satisfaction of individual wants (e.g., consumption of locally, sustainably, or ethically produced food) [93,94]. As economic actors in the food market, consumers make choices about the allocation of their scarce resources (e.g., weekly budget) to satisfy their needs and wants [95].
Consumers’ objective to satisfy their food needs and wants is associated with their risk perspectives on food quality attributes. These risk perceptions can be divided into a) food risks related to human health (e.g., expected quality attributes such as food safety, nutritional properties) [93,96,97,98] and b) risks related to consumers‘ ideological food requirements (e.g., desired production methods that satisfy their individual wants) [93].
Human health-related food quality attributes (e.g., safety, absence of harmful additives) are necessary and expected by all consumers cohorts, as part of the basic human needs, but are not always provided [99]. Government regulation (e.g., public food standards, see Section 3.2.1) focusing on safe production and distribution of food for human consumption (i.e., public health) typically exists to ensure that these consumer expectations are met [100].
Other credence attributes may only be demanded by specific consumer cohorts, as an added value that meets their individual wants/preferences [93] (Table 1, Table A1). Particular ideological values that are captured in food attributes (e.g., animal welfare) give these specific consumer groups a higher utility compared to conventional food products [65]. These consumers cohorts are typically willing to pay a premium price for the presence of their desired food credence attributes [101,102,103,104].
Consumers objectively (e.g., choice based on verified attributes claims) or subjectively (e.g., choice based on unverified attributes claims) assess food quality attributes prior to purchasing the product [105]. Choice for food quality can be influenced by signals (e.g., labels) that provide information and verification of credence attributes claims [106] (see more details in Section 3.2.4).
Factors that contribute to consumers’ increasing demand or ‘pull’ for food credence attributes include, for example, risk perceptions arising from food safety incidents, socio-economic development (e.g., education, increasing income and subsequent affordability), increased awareness and reflective consumerism (e.g., social and environmental impact of food choices), fashion, product marketing, and the influence of media and advocacy groups [10,38,51,85,107,108,109].
The level of information about the credence attribute supplied to buyers along the supply chain, and associated uncertainties about food product attributes, can affect purchase decisions of supply chain stakeholders [110]. Figure 2 illustrates that a quality assurance mechanism is needed in the market for food credence attributes to address the issue of asymmetric information among the supply chain stakeholders. The following section outlines how quality assurance mechanism can address the issues of information asymmetry.
3.2. Attribute Assurance System Component
The role of an attribute assurance system within the conceptual framework is to facilitate information symmetry between supply chain stakeholders and to create buyers’ trust in attribute claims (i.e., trust in presence and authenticity of credence) (Figure 2).
This component of the framework comprises the following: a) private and public food standards; b) supply chain actors’ adoption of food standards; c) verification of supply chain actor compliance with food standards through conformity audits; and d) the communication of attribute assurance via signals (Figure 2) [45,111,112]. This section briefly outlines the elements as well as key stakeholders (e.g., government, food supply chain stakeholders, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations) and the motivations for their involvement in the governance of food attribute assurance systems.
3.2.1. Food Standards
Food standards are the foundation for food quality attribute assurance systems [21,27,85,113]. Food standards are defined as “documented agreements containing technical specifications or other precise criteria to be used consistently as rules, guidelines or definitions, to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose” [114]. They are broadly categorized into public and private standards that determine the product performance or composition (e.g., absence of additives, non-genetically modified foods) and how food is produced (e.g., organic, carbon neutral), processed (e.g., halal, kosher), handled, and distributed (e.g., food safety consideration) [21,27,45,85,115].
Public Food Standards
Public food quality standards are based on public law (e.g., regulation/policies) which can be set by national, regional (e.g., European Food Safety Authority) or intergovernmental organizations (e.g., FAO/WHO Food Standards Program) [21,27,116,117,118,119].
Public standards typically have a social welfare objective, such as protecting public goods (e.g., population health and food safety) and common goods (e.g., environmental assets) that considers interests of all actors in the food system (e.g., producers, distributors, and consumers) [20,21,27,116]. Public food standards can influence the supply (e.g., composition standards) and demand (e.g., food labelling standards) for food products. They can also focus on ‘fair trade’ practices (i.e., arrangements to ensure that food is produced in an equitable manner) that link to food quality attributes [116,120,121]. This type of food standard can either be compulsory or voluntary in its conformity requirements [122]. Examples of public standards include national food storing, handling, and disposal requirements, requirements for health and hygiene of food handlers, cleaning and sanitizing of specific equipment, labelling [123], as well as the Codex Alimentarius which offers international standards, guidelines, and codes for safety, quality, and fairness in food trade [124].
Hence, the role of government authorities within the market for food credence attributes is to set public regulations (e.g., minimum benchmarks for food safety and health, labelling requirements for ingredients and origin) that facilitate safe, affordable, and nutritious food consumption [20,27,38,43,85,125,126]. However, budgetary constraints typically limit regulatory activities of government authorities within the market for food attributes beyond ensuing that public goods are not at risk, which offers opportunities for private standards [85].
Private Food Standards
Private standards for credence (and non-credence) foods are set by stakeholders that operate along the food supply chain, such as large retailers, processors, industry associations (e.g., Meat Standards Australia set by Meat and Livestock Australia [127]) (see Figure 2 link between framework components), or interest-based groups (commonly referred to as non-governmental organizations (NGOs)) [21,27,28,128]. This form of food standard is frequently seen as ‘going beyond’ the requirements of public standards [85,129] and typically operate alongside them [130].
Private food standards set by supply chain actors are considered as business-to-business (B2B) (e.g., retailer efforts to control supply quality, vertical coordination of supply chain) or business-to-consumer (B2C) (e.g., certification labels as a quality assurance signal for consumers) quality assurance benchmarks [27,30,85].
Private food standards represent the interest of the stakeholders who develop and promote the standard. Hence, their objectives can vary according to their pursued aims (e.g., for retailers this typically includes profit maximization and/or standardizing product and distribution requirements across suppliers for quality control; for NGOs it typically includes work toward global harmonization of standards and to promote the interests of society) [21,27,130]. Private food standards are voluntary from a legal adoption perspective although there may be a compulsory requirement for access to the specific associated supply chain or market [21,85,87,122]. This type of food standards is considered as a form of supply chain governance or coordination as well as a means of competitive positioning in markets for food products (e.g., product differentiation by setting higher quality standards) [130,131,132]. Private food standards typically also reflect the interests of buyers and their adoption are generally mirrored in the product price [21,85,130]. Developing private food standards can be costly for standard owners since it includes the establishment of criteria/benchmarks, standard accreditation, and establishment of monitoring and enforcement procedures [30,132]. Examples of private food standards include norms, that retail groups set to control food quality within their procurement, and collective international standards such as Global Good Agricultural Practices (GlobalGAP) [28,133].
Henson and Reardon [130] and Fulponi [85,130] argued that the drivers for the increasing role of private standards within the food markets are the increasing legal liability of food suppliers, consumer’s concerns about product safety and quality, and associated reputational and/or commercial risks if consumer demands are not met. Other authors claim that private food standards are becoming predominant drivers for the supply of higher quality foods and for the broadening scope of food quality (e.g., promotion of emerging credence attributes) [e.g., 28, 130].
Standard Harmonization
The high number of food standards globally, specifically standards targeting food safety, and their varying criteria (e.g., differences in food safety regulations and private standards for organic production and between nations) have been identified as a market access barrier for food suppliers (e.g., a potential form of protectionism, non-tariff technical measures) [120,134,135]. Limited food standard harmonization (e.g., lack of uniform norms) has implications for producers. For example, small-scale producers and producers from low-income countries aiming to participate in international food trade may financially not be able to adapt their production methods to different but similar food standards that food importers set (e.g., due to high costs and time involved in adoption and compliance) [120,134]. Limited food standard harmonization can also lead to a reduction in food trade volume, which can affect food security [120,134]. Food standards have also been identified as catalysts for quality and technology upgrading in the food industry [112,136].
Driven by lowering barriers for international trade in food, global harmonization of public food standards has advanced (e.g., Codex Alimentarius, World Trade Organization’s agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPS)) [137,138]. However, harmonization of private standards (e.g., various standards for one credence attribute) proves to be more challenging given the varying motivations of private supply chain stakeholders in imposing these (e.g., product differentiation, gaining commercial advantages) [135,139].
3.2.2. Adoption of Food Standards
Standards provide the foundation for the food attribute assurance system (Figure 2, link between framework components) and producers, processors, wholesalers, and retailers may variously be required, or choose to, adopt these standards to gain access to the associated market of food credence attributes [43,115].
Different degrees of freedom exist in the adoption of food standards. For example, at one extreme, compulsory public standards are imposed (e.g., for food safety) by government authorities that can act with coercive power to ensure compliance with regulations and policies [21,27,129]. Non-adoption of compulsory public standards may, depending on public monitoring and enforcement, incur economic losses due to fines and temporary or permanent cessation of operations, loss of rights of market access, and loss of reputation [43]. Such commercial risks give food suppliers and distributors incentives to ensure compliance with compulsory public food standards [43]. However, some public food guidelines and codes can also be voluntary in their adoption, e.g., guidelines for Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) procedures [21,27,140]. The other extreme on the freedom of adoption scale are private voluntary standards [27,129]. The adoption of private food standards is choice-based for suppliers and distributors, meaning these stakeholders can opt to adopt these standards if they wish to supply their product to buyers who impose these. However, if private standards are widely imposed by buyers and are a requirement to access specific supply chains, the standards become de facto compulsory [27,140]. The adoption of food standards by food suppliers is typically associated with costs (e.g., transaction and implementation costs), which, if too high, can be an access barrier for suppliers to participate in the credence food markets [87].
3.2.3. Food Standard Conformity Audits
Government authorities and buyers of credence foods may require proof or assurance that specific food standards they imposed are met by suppliers and distributors. This is a central part in overcoming information asymmetry among the supply chain stakeholders and can be addressed by conformity audits.
Conformity audits are assessments (e.g., inspections of documents, test of processes and products, check of facilities and practices) which verify that a product, process, or person conforms with the requirements set by a food standard [27,45,111]. The certificate issued by a certification body is intended to confirm and guarantee compliance with the requirements of a food standard [28,111,132].
There are different types of certification bodies that can undertake conformity audits and issue conformity certificates [27,111]. These include first parties (e.g., self-declaration of food quality claims, producers who issue quality guarantees), second parties (e.g., buyers through contracts that specify quality requirements to be fulfilled, retail brands), and third parties (e.g., independent/neutral organizations that are not directly involved in the exchange of the food product) [30,111,131]. Third parties may be categorized as trusted and independent actors that serve as intermediaries between parties in market transactions (e.g., sellers and buyers) [30,131,132]. However, the operational independence of third-party certification providers may vary, since in many cases food suppliers pay them to conduct certification audits, whereas others are indirectly funded through industry production levies or by the government, which may affect buyers’ judgement about the credibility of the conducted audits [141].
Third-party certification bodies can be private (e.g., commercial firms, NGOs) or government organizations [111]. In some markets public food attribute verification schemes are dominant, while in other markets private verification schemes prevail [30]. Private third-party certification bodies typically require formal recognition (e.g., attestation of competency to carry out food certification audits) by an accreditation body [30,45,111,142]. Accreditation is a mechanism to standardize and regulate third party certification bodies (i.e., to minimize fraud and rent-seeking behavior) in the broader food market [30,45,131]. Accreditation of food certification bodies is commonly performed by a national accreditation authority (i.e., government), NGOs, or industry organization [45,111,131].
Importantly, conformity audits of food products, processes, premises, and persons are associated with costs for the stakeholders (e.g., producers, processors) who are required to provide verification of compliance with the food standards imposed by buyers [11,27]. These stakeholders will assess the marginal costs and benefits of meeting food standards and obtaining certification. This cost-benefit assessment subsequently leads to a decision about the commercial value of overcoming these market entry barriers or not [11,30,122,129] (see Section 3.1.1). On the other side of the ledger, buyers (e.g., retailers, consumers) may demand assurance of compliance with the food standards they impose (e.g., third-party certification) as a risk management strategy (e.g., reputation, liability) and to reduce their own conformity assessment or monitoring costs (e.g., control over suppliers) [27] (see Section 3.1.5).
3.2.4. Communication of Attribute Conformity with Standards via Signals
Suppliers (e.g., producers, processors, retailers) of credence food attributes may choose to communicate the presence of these quality characteristics to their buyers. Various means serve as signals or cues of the quality of unobservable food quality attributes, including quality labels (e.g., logos, marks) placed on product packaging through product and corporate brands, producer or retailer guarantees (i.e., self-declaration labels), third-party certification, and suppliers’ personality and internet presence [18,21,32,36,80,143]. Such signals for food quality (e.g., brand label, third party certification mark) can reduce buyers’ perceived risks associated with information asymmetry, and can guide their decision making [141]. Caswell [36] argued that information such as food quality labels (e.g., certification mark, retailer guarantees) offer buyers signals that can transform credence attributes into quasi-search attributes. Among these communication tools, third-party certification logos can lead to higher buyer trust in food quality attributes compared to other product quality-signaling tools [141,143,144,145].
However, credence attribute signals are only effective in addressing information asymmetry if buyer preferences are met (e.g., individual quality attributes vs. bundles of quality attributes), the information is processed (e.g., cognitive ability to deal with provided signals, familiarity with certification labels and associated food standards), and used (e.g., trigger product-purchase decision) by the targeted audience [21,80]. For example, information overload (e.g., amount of information on the product), consumer confusion and knowledge (e.g., ability to differentiate between many certification labels/food standards, vague and varying criteria that certification labels represent, buyer familiarity with credence attributes), buyers expectations (e.g., sensory expectations of credence foods), and their potential indifference (e.g., due to insufficient credibility of signals) can reduce the efficacy of food quality signals [18,21,37,80,141,144,146,147]. Moreover, buyers’ decision to purchase food products with credence attributes also depends on their trust in, and the credibility of, the attribute assurance system, including standards and certification organizations, as well as their willingness to pay for these attributes [18,32,43]. The challenges involved in effectively communicating product quality information of food products has attracted a large literature [32,37,80,144,146,148,149].
4. Discussion
This study aimed to develop a conceptual framework of stakeholders’ motivation to participate in the market for food credence attributes and mechanisms to address information asymmetry in the market for food credence attributes. The synthesis of the literature suggests that there are two key components of the framework: the food supply chain in which information asymmetry among stakeholders exists; and the attribute assurance system which includes the mechanisms (e.g., food standards, food standard conformity audits, communication tools) to facilitate information symmetry and trust in food attributes among supply chain stakeholders (Figure 2).
The findings from the review highlight that food actors such as retailers, processors as well as NGOs and government authorities who impose food quality standards are influential stakeholders in the market for credence attributes. Food producers’ role in this market seems to be less influential as they appear mostly to respond to the demands of buyers, including the supply of food quality assurance, as well as to public food regulations. Logistics providers and wholesalers hold a distributing role in the supply chain of credence foods, for which minimum food safety regulations apply. Food quality assurance providers play a supporting role in this market.
As highlighted in the developed framework, government authorities’ involvement in the market for food credence attributes aims to minimize risks to public and common goods by imposing public standards, which are interventions that facilitate and control the operation of the market for food credence attributes [45]. Government authorities can also act as a mediator between parties in an exchange through provision of certification and accreditation services. Given current pressures on the global food system from environmental (e.g., climate change, diseases, pests, soil and water salinization) and population pressures (e.g., increased demand on food and water supplies, urban encroachment on high quality agricultural land), it is likely that the involvement of governments in the market for credence attributes will increase in future in its function to safeguard public and common goods (e.g., additional public standards and increasing scope of public standards).
The synthesis of the literature also suggests that all actors involved in the supply and distribution of credence foods may ultimately lose their economic incentive to participate in this market if consumers do not demand the products they are seeking to sell (e.g., due to lack of demand for specific quality attributes, insufficient signals that communicate the product quality) [28,44,81], or if regulation does not require the supply of credence foods (e.g., food safety). This implies that consumers are the key actors (the ‘pull’) in the market for food credence attributes (e.g., buyer-driven market) [44,150]. This finding is supported by the rationale for addressing the information asymmetry issue among the food supply chain stakeholders, which includes consumers’ needs for food quality information in their decision making (Figure 2) [18].
The framework demonstrates that although mechanisms exist to potentially address information asymmetry among supply chain actors (e.g., food standards, attribute assurance audits and signals), the transformation of credence attributes into quasi-search attributes is complex [143], specifically the effective signaling of credence qualities to consumers remains challenging [147]. Emerging technologies, such as whole supply chain traceability systems, may offer new communication channels among stakeholders. However, the issues of actor’s awareness and trust in food standards and attribute authenticity signals as wells as actors’ capability to process and use these signals will likely remain challenges, which emerging technologies may not be able to overcome straightforwardly.
A further challenge identified by the framework is the proliferation of food standards worldwide and the need for further harmonization of them. While food standard harmonization would benefit buyers (e.g., increased transparency and buyer confidence in attributes), the literature shows that such harmonization is difficult to achieve due to stakeholders’ vested interests as well as cultural, political, economic, and scientific contexts within which food standards are set [120,151]. However, increased focus should be directed on solving this issue, as it can contribute to buyer’s increasing confusion and subsequent ignorance of attribute assurance signals such as food standards certificates/labels.
While the market for most credence foods (except food safety and biosecurity) is currently relatively small in most countries [152,153], consumer demand for these quality characteristics may grow in future and subsequently increase their market share. Consumer’s future demand for food quality (e.g., sustainable and ethical production methods) may be affected by influences such as awareness, education, and the media, which may be the drivers that will determine the scale of this market. Other supply chain stakeholders such as large retailers may also be able to influence consumer demand for credence attributes in future (e.g., promotion of specific attributes) motivated by their economic incentives (e.g., gaining market share, profit maximization, license to operate) and private standards [28].
However, affordability of credence foods (e.g., most are sold at premium price, except for safety), specifically under current pressures that affect global food supply (e.g., violent conflicts, political tensions, food market speculation, COVID-19 pandemic, extreme weather events due to climate change) and subsequently basic food prices [154], may also mean that only high-income consumer cohorts will be able to afford these products in future. The affordability of credence food products also raises equity concerns with respect to the relative ability of high- and low-income consumers to purchase credence foods. Furthermore, other aspects such as convenience, availability, and time needed to source desired credence foods, can also affect consumer demand and hence the growth of this market [141]. Hence, if suppliers aim to remain competitive in the market for food with credence attributes, they will need to meet consumer’s evolving food quality demands.
5. Conclusions
The central issue for food with credence attributes is to overcome the information asymmetry among actors in the market. The developed conceptual framework describes key stakeholders involved in the market, their motives for participation, and the mechanisms to address the information asymmetry. A key finding from this framework is that although mechanisms exist to address the information asymmetry, a range of challenges remain, e.g., need for food standard harmonization, and actor’s trust in and use of quality assurance signals. These challenges may affect the future growth of the credence food market. Therefore, further effort should be put into addressing these matters through targeted research and tailored policies.
Potential scope for further research includes the categorization of challenges in harmonizing food standards and the identification of potential solutions to the increasing proliferation of food standards, e.g., strategies to overcome individual interests of standards owners. Furthermore, continuous research about consumers’ evolving food quality demands, e.g., emerging credence attributes, and consumer’s willingness to pay for these attributes, is crucial for suppliers to remain competitive in the credence food market. Moreover, food suppliers need to continue monitoring consumers’ information needs for purchase decision since addressing these needs is crucial for the credence food market to function effectively and further grow in future.
A limitation of this study is the restricted description of the attribute assurance system components (Section 3.2), which is a result of balancing length of this study and content. Furthermore, while an integrative literature review is an accepted research method [33], it lacks full transparency in the qualitative analysis as only limited guidelines/standards for such assessments exist [34]. This may present a potential risk for a bias in the analysis of the present study.
Conceptualization, P.S. and A.Z.; methodology, P.S.; software, P.S.; validation, P.S. and A.Z.; formal analysis, P.S.; investigation, P.S.; A.Z. and K.R.; resources, A.Z.; data curation, P.S.; writing—original draft preparation, P.S.; writing—review and editing, P.S., A.Z., B.L., K.R. and A.I.; visualization, P.S.; supervision, A.Z.; project administration, P.S. and A.Z.; funding acquisition, A.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
All data is available from the reviewed/cited literature. No ethical approval was required for this literature review from the author’s institution.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Literature search, assessment, and synthesis procedure. Notes: # refers to the final number of publications considered in the assessment, i.e., after search iterations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Conceptual framework of stakeholders and mechanisms to address information asymmetry in the market for food credence attributes. Notes: (1)–(3) indicates the sequence of action in addressing information asymmetry among supply chain actors. * Actors involved in private and public standard settings include the government, private supply chain stakeholders, e.g., producer organizations, retailers, non-governmental organizations. @ All supply chain stakeholder groups, except consumers, mandated to adopt food standards (i.e., public standards) or can opt to adopt private standards. ^ Certification providers can include first parties (e.g., producer who issue food quality guarantees), second parties (e.g., retailer guarantees), and third parties (e.g., independent private or governments actors which undertake conformity audits and provide certification). # Communication of credence attributes through signals such as product labels includes producers, processors, retailers, and certification providers. Source: Authors’ summary based on the literature review.
Motives for stakeholders’ participation in the market for food credence attributes.
| Supply Chain Stakeholder Group | Motivations for Participation in the Market for Food Credence Attributes | Key Credence Attribute Categories Supplied/Demanded (Examples) |
|---|---|---|
| Producers | Maximization of business profits (i.e., product differentiation to gain market share, price premiums), long-run economic viability (e.g., social license to operate), legal requirements (e.g., provision of safe food for human consumption), gaining market/supply chain access, producer’s values/business model and ethos | Supply all attributes as listed in |
| Logistics providers | Maximization of business profits (i.e., service provision), long-run economic viability, legal requirements (e.g., safe handling of food for human consumption), gaining market/supply chain access | Supply of food safety and product traceability |
| Processors | Maximization of business profits (i.e., product differentiation to gain market share, price premiums), long-run economic viability (e.g., social license to operate), legal requirements (e.g., provision of safe food for human consumption), gaining market/supply chain access | Supply of religious/cultural animal slaughter methods, animal welfare at slaughter, food safety, product traceability, and social/ethical responsibility (e.g., labor rights); may demand other credence attributes as part of procurement strategy |
| Wholesalers | Maximization of business profits, long-run economic viability, legal requirements (e.g., safe handling of food for human consumption), gaining market/supply chain access | Supply of food safety and product traceability, may demand other credence attributes as part of procurement strategy |
| Retailers | Maximization of business profits (i.e., product differentiation to gain market share, price premiums), long-run economic viability (e.g., social license to operate), legal requirements (e.g., provision of safe food for human consumption), shaping consumer demand, gaining market access, business model and ethos | Supply of food safety, product traceability, and social/ethical responsibility; may demand other credence attributes as part of procurement strategy |
| Consumers | Satisfaction of basic needs (e.g., food safety) and individual wants (e.g., organic, animal welfare, breed) for food quality attributes | May demand all attributes listed in |
Appendix A
Current key agri-food credence attributes.
| Selected Credence Attributes | Selected References |
|---|---|
| Environmental sustainability of production/distribution processes (e.g., net-carbon zero, eco-friendly, organic) | [ |
| Water management and preservation (e.g., water use efficiency during production process) | [ |
| Product origin/provenance | [ |
| Traceability (e.g., whole supply chain traceability) | [ |
| Production system/feeding types (e.g., grain-fed, grass-fed, feedlot raised, 100% pasture-raised beef production systems, cage free, wild-caught, aquaculture (farm-raised) seafood production systems) | [ |
| Food safety—human health risks (e.g., foodborne pathogens, residues of pesticides, naturally occurring toxins, tampering, etc.) | [ |
| Animal health and welfare during production and slaughter | [ |
| Biosecurity (e.g., absence of pests, invasive species, diseases) | [ |
| Social/ethical responsibility of practices applied by producers/growers (e.g., human and labor rights, inclusive production, fair trade) | [ |
| Food production inputs with perceived human health risks (e.g., GM, other food technologies) | [ |
| Additive free production (e.g., hormone free, antibiotic free, pesticides free) | [ |
| Nutritional properties (e.g., calories, vitamins, minerals, fat, fiber) | [ |
| Descriptive food names and ingredients (e.g., traditional ingredients or preparation processes) | [ |
| Animal breed (e.g., angus, wagyu)/plant variety | [ |
| Religion/Cultural-based production/processing methods (e.g., halal, kosher) | [ |
References
1. Wu, W.; Zhang, A.; van Klinken, R.D.; Schrobback, P.; Muller, J.M. Consumer Trust in Food and the Food System: A Critical Review. Foods; 2021; 10, 2490. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods10102490]
2. Grunert, K.G.; Bredahl, L.; Brunsø, K. Consumer perception of meat quality and implications for product development in the meat sector—A review. Meat Sci.; 2004; 66, pp. 259-272. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00130-X]
3. Caswell, J.A.; Noelke, C.M.; Mojduszka, E.M. Unifying Two Frameworks for Analyzing Quality and Quality Assurance for Food Products. Global Food Trade and Consumer Demand for Quality; Krissoff, B.; Bohman, M.; Caswell, J.A. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 43-61.
4. Grunert, K.G. Food quality: A means-end perspective. Food Qual. Prefer.; 1995; 6, pp. 171-176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0950-3293(95)00011-W]
5. Del Giudice, T.; Cavallo, C.; Vecchio, R. Credence Attributes, Consumers Trust and Sensory Expectations in Modern Food Market: Is there a Need to Redefine their Role?. J. Food Syst. Dyn.; 2018; 9, pp. 307-313.
6. Nelson, P. Information and Consumer Behavior. J. Political Econ.; 1970; 78, pp. 311-329. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/259630]
7. Ford, G.T.; Smith, D.B.; Swasy, J.L. An empirical test of the search, experience and credence attributes framework. Advances in Consumer Research. ACR N. Am. Adv.; 1988; 15, pp. 239-243.
8. Fandos, C.; Flavián, C. Intrinsic and extrinsic quality attributes, loyalty and buying intention: An analysis for a PDO product. Br. Food J.; 2006; 108, pp. 646-662. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700610682337]
9. Darby, M.; Karni, E. Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud. J. Law Econ.; 1973; 16, pp. 67-88. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/466756]
10. Wessells, C.R. The Economics of Information: Markets for Seafood Attributes. Mar. Resour. Econ.; 2002; 17, pp. 153-162. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/mre.17.2.42629358]
11. Holland, S. Lending credence: Motivation, trust, and organic certification. Agric. Food Econ.; 2016; 4, 14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40100-016-0058-5]
12. Lee, H.-J.; Hwang, J. The driving role of consumers’ perceived credence attributes in organic food purchase decisions: A comparison of two groups of consumers. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2016; 54, pp. 141-151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.07.011]
13. Carlsson, F.; Frykblom, P.; Lagerkvist, C.J. Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: Mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ.; 2007; 34, pp. 321-344. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbm025]
14. Wilcock, A.; Ball, B.; Gorveatt, J. Consumer Perspectives on Food Safty Issues-Novel Technologies, Chemical Conterminants, Organic Food and Deceptive Practices. Consumer Perception of Food Attributes; Matsumoto, S.; Otsuki, T. CTC Press, Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018.
15. Kolodinsky, J. Persistence of Health Labeling Information Asymmetry in the United States: Historical Perspectives and Twenty-First Century Realities. J. Macromark.; 2012; 32, pp. 193-207. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0276146711434829]
16. Caswell, J.A.; Mojduszka, E.M. Using Informational Labeling to Influence the Market for Quality in Food Products. Am. J. Agric. Econ.; 1996; 78, pp. 1248-1253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1243501]
17. Dulleck, U.; Kerschbamer, R.; Sutter, M. The Economics of Credence Goods: An Experiment on the Role of Liability, Verifiability, Reputation, and Competition. Am. Econ. Rev.; 2011; 101, pp. 526-555. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.2.526]
18. Verbeke, W. Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ.; 2005; 32, pp. 347-368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurrag/jbi017]
19. Goddard, E.W.; Hobbs, J.E.; Innes, B.G.; Romanowska, P.E.; Uzea, A.D. Risk Perceptions And Preferences For Ethical And Safety Credence Attributes. Am. J. Agric. Econ.; 2013; 95, pp. 390-396. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aas108]
20. Wilson, A.M.; Meyer, S.B.; Webb, T.; Henderson, J.; Coveney, J.; McCullum, D.; Ward, P. How food regulators communicate with consumers about food safety. Br. Food J.; 2015; 117, pp. 2129-2142. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2014-0419]
21. Smith, G. Interaction of Public and Private Standards in the Food Chain. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers; No. 15 OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2009; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/221282527214]
22. Sloman, J. Asymmetric information and market failure. Teach. Bus. Econ.; 2006; 10, pp. 11-22.
23. Massey, M.; O’Cass, A.; Otahal, P. A meta-analytic study of the factors driving the purchase of organic food. Appetite; 2018; 125, pp. 418-427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.029]
24. Bryła, P. Organic food consumption in Poland: Motives and barriers. Appetite; 2016; 105, pp. 737-746. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.012] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27417333]
25. Viegas, I.; Nunes, L.C.; Madureira, L.; Fontes, M.A.; Santos, J.L. Beef Credence Attributes: Implications of Substitution Effects on Consumers’ WTP. J. Agric. Econ.; 2014; 65, pp. 600-615. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12067]
26. Dahlhausen, J.L. Motivation, Preference and Willingness to Pay for Selected Credence Food Attributes. Ph.D. Thesis; Technischen Universität München: München, Germany, 2016.
27. Mancini, M.C. Public and Private Food Standards. EU Bioeconomy Economics and Policies: Volume II; Dries, L.; Heijman, W.; Jongeneel, R.; Purnhagen, K.; Wesseler, J. Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019.
28. Rossignoli, C.M.; Moruzzo, R. Retail Power and Private Standards in the Agri-Food Chain. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst.; 2014; 38, pp. 1108-1124. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2014.925530]
29. Eden, S.; Bear, C.; Walker, G.P. The sceptical consumer? Exploring views about food assurance. Food Policy; 2008; 33, pp. 624-630. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.02.003]
30. Albersmeier, F.; Schulze, H.; Jahn, G.; Spiller, A. The reliability of third-party certification in the food chain: From checklists to risk-oriented auditing. Food Control; 2009; 20, pp. 927-935. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2009.01.010]
31. Grunert, K.G.; Aachmann, K. Consumer reactions to the use of EU quality labels on food products: A review of the literature. Food Control; 2016; 59, pp. 178-187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.05.021]
32. Moussa, S.; Touzani, M. The perceived credibility of quality labels: A scale validation with refinement. Int. J. Consum. Stud.; 2008; 32, pp. 526-533. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00713.x]
33. Torraco, R.J. Writing Integrative Literature Reviews:Using the Past and Present to Explore the Future. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev.; 2016; 15, pp. 404-428. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606]
34. Snyder, H. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res.; 2019; 104, pp. 333-339. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039]
35. Torraco, R.J. Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev.; 2005; 4, pp. 356-367. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283]
36. Caswell, J.A. Valuing the benefits and costs of improved food safety and nutrition. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ.; 1998; 42, pp. 409-424. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.00060]
37. Caswell, J.A. Quality assurance, information tracking, and consumer labeling. Mar. Pollut. Bull.; 2006; 53, pp. 650-656. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.08.007]
38. Richards, C.; Lawrence, G.; Burch, D. Supermarkets and Agro-industrial Foods. Food Cult. Soc.; 2011; 14, pp. 29-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175174411X12810842291146]
39. Arora, P.; Bert, F.; Podesta, G.; Krantz, D.H. Ownership effect in the wild: Influence of land ownership on agribusiness goals and decisions in the Argentine Pampas. J. Behav. Exp. Econ.; 2015; 58, pp. 162-170. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2015.02.007]
40. Beierlein, J.G.; Schneeberger, K.C.; Osburn, D.D. Principles of Agribusiness Management; 5th ed. Waveland Press: Long Grove, IL, USA, 2014.
41. de Jonge, J.; van Trijp, H.C.M. Meeting Heterogeneity in Consumer Demand for Animal Welfare: A Reflection on Existing Knowledge and Implications for the Meat Sector. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics; 2013; 26, pp. 629-661. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9426-7]
42. Stringer, R.; Sang, N.; Croppenstedt, A. Producers, Processors, and Procurement Decisions: The Case of Vegetable Supply Chains in China. World Dev.; 2009; 37, pp. 1773-1780. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.08.027]
43. Hammoudi, A.; Hoffmann, R.; Surry, Y. Food safety standards and agri-food supply chains: An introductory overview. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ.; 2009; 36, pp. 469-478. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbp044]
44. Olynk, N.J. Assessing changing consumer preferences for livestock production processes. Anim. Front.; 2012; 2, pp. 32-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2527/af.2012-0046]
45. Trienekens, J.; Zuurbier, P. Quality and safety standards in the food industry, developments and challenges. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2008; 113, pp. 107-122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.02.050]
46. Morgan, C.J.; Widmar, N.J.O.; Wilcoxc, M.D.; Croney, C.C. Perceptions of Agriculture and Food Corporate Social Responsibility. J. Food Prod. Mark.; 2017; 24, pp. 146-162. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2017.1266550]
47. Rankina, A.; Gray, A.W.; Boehljec, M.D.; Alexander, C. Sustainability Strategies in U.S. Agribusiness:Understanding Key Drivers, Objectives, and Actions. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev.; 2011; 14, pp. 1-20.
48. Baron, D.P. Credence attributes, voluntary organizations, and social pressure. J. Public Econ.; 2011; 95, pp. 1331-1338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.07.005]
49. Hampton, J.O.; Jones, B.; McGreevy, P.D. Social License and Animal Welfare: Developments from the Past Decade in Australia. Animals; 2020; 10, 2237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10122237]
50. Hansmann, R.; Baur, I.; Binder, C.R. Increasing organic food consumption: An integrating model of drivers and barriers. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 275, 123058. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123058]
51. Kearney, J. Food consumption trends and drivers. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.; 2010; 365, pp. 2793-2807. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0149] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20713385]
52. Paul, M.; Shepheard, M. Defending the Social Licence of Farming. Issues, Challenges and New Directions for Agriculture; Paul, M.; Jacqueline, W. CSIRO Publishing: Canberra, Australia, 2011.
53. Martin, P.; Williams, J. Renegotiating Farmers’ Social Licence. Issues, Challenges and New Directions for Agriculture; Paul, M.; Jacqueline, W. CSIRO Publishing: Canberra, Australia, 2011.
54. Hall, A.; Mogyorody, V. Organic Farmers in Ontario: An Examination of the Conventionalization Argument. Sociol. Rural.; 2001; 41, pp. 399-322. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00191]
55. Kallas, Z.; Serra, T.; Gil, J.M. Farmers’ objectives as determinants of organic farming adoption: The case of Catalonian vineyard production. Agric. Econ.; 2010; 41, pp. 409-423. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010.00454.x]
56. Burton, R.J.F.; Forney, J.; Stock, P.; Sutherland, L.-A. The Good Farmer: Culture and Identity in Food and Agriculture; Online: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group: Oxfordshire, UK, 2000.
57. Meziani, L.; Hammoudi, A.; Radjef, M.S. Logistic upgrading, competition and food safety in the Mediterranean: Theoretical approach and economic learning. New Medit.; 2016; 15, pp. 42-52.
58. Shankar, R.; Gupta, R.; Pathak, D.K. Modeling critical success factors of traceability for food logistics system. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev.; 2018; 119, pp. 205-222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.03.006]
59. More, S.; Marchewka, J.; Hanlon, A.; Balzani, A.; Boyle, L. An evaluation of four private animal health and welfare standards and associated quality assurance programmes for dairy cow production. Food Policy; 2021; 105, 102169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102169]
60. Schrobback, P.; Rolfe, J. Methodological and ideological options exploring supply chain models for Sydney rock oysters. Aquaculture; 2020; 534, 736270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.736270]
61. Augustin, M.A.; Riley, M.; Stockmann, R.; Bennett, L.; Kahl, A.; Lockett, T.; Osmond, M.; Sanguansri, P.; Stonehouse, W.; Zajac, I. et al. Role of food processing in food and nutrition security. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2016; 56, pp. 115-125. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.08.005]
62. Heiman, A.; Gordon, B.; Zilberman, D. Food beliefs and food supply chains: The impact of religion and religiosity in Israel. Food Policy; 2019; 83, pp. 363-369. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.07.007]
63. Bonne, K.; Verbeke, W. Religious values informing halal meat production and the control and delivery of halal credence quality. Agric. Hum. Values; 2007; 25, pp. 35-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-007-9076-y]
64. Grandin, T. Auditing animal welfare at slaughter plants. Meat Sci.; 2010; 86, pp. 56-65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.04.022] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20599326]
65. Velarde, A.; Dalmau, A. Animal welfare assessment at slaughter in Europe: Moving from inputs to outputs. Meat Sci.; 2012; 92, pp. 244-251. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.009]
66. Larson, R.B. Allocating Responsibility and Costs for Food Safety and Food Defense: Government Versus Food Processors and Manufacturers. J. Int. Consum. Mark.; 2021; 34, pp. 24-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2021.1894301]
67. Barone, N.A.; DiCaprio, E.; Snyder, A.B. A preliminary assessment of food safety training needs and preferences among Ohio food processors of various sizes. Food Control; 2020; 114, 107220. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107220]
68. Asioli, D.; Boecker, A.; Canavari, M. On the linkages between traceability levels and expected and actual traceability costs and benefits in the Italian fishery supply chain. Food Control; 2014; 46, pp. 10-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.04.048]
69. Schuster, M.; Maertens, M. Worker Empowerment Through Private Standards. Evidence from the Peruvian Horticultural Export Sector. J. Dev. Stud.; 2016; 53, pp. 618-637. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2016.1199858]
70. Aghwan, Z.; Bello, A.; Abubakar, A.; Imlan, J.; Sazili, A. Efficient halal bleeding, animal handling, and welfare: A holistic approach for meat quality. Meat Sci.; 2016; 121, pp. 420-428. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.06.028]
71. Schnettler, B.; Vidal, R.; Silva, R.; Vallejos, L.; Sepúlveda, N. Consumer willingness to pay for beef meat in a developing country: The effect of information regarding country of origin, price and animal handling prior to slaughter. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2009; 20, pp. 156-165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.07.006]
72. Animal Health Australia. Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines; Animal Health Australia: Lyneham, Australia, 2020.
73. OIE. The Global Animal Welfare Strategy; World Organization for Animal Health (OIE): Paris, France, 2017.
74. Sinclair, A.; Dinshaw, F. Paper Promises? Evaluating the Early Impact of Australia’s Modern Slavery Act; Human Rights Law Centre: Melbourne, Australia, 2022.
75. Hernández-Rubio, J.; Pérez-Mesa, J.C.; Piedra-Muñoz, L.; Galdeano-Gómez, E. Determinants of Food Safety Level in Fruit and Vegetable Wholesalers’ Supply Chain: Evidence from Spain and France. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2018; 15, 2246. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102246]
76. Alita, L.; Dries, L.; Oosterveer, P. Improving Vegetable Safety in China: Does Co-Regulation Work?. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2021; 18, 3006. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063006]
77. Zhou, J.; Jin, Y.; Liang, Q. Effects of regulatory policy mixes on traceability adoption in wholesale markets: Food safety inspection and information disclosure. Food Policy; 2022; 107, 102218. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102218]
78. Yoo, C.W.; Parameswaran, S.; Kishore, R. Knowing about your food from the farm to the table: Using information systems that reduce information asymmetry and health risks in retail contexts. Inf. Manag.; 2015; 52, pp. 692-709. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.06.003]
79. Jones, P.; Comfort, D.; Hillier, D.; Eastwood, I. Corporate social responsibility: A case study of the UK’s leading food retailers. Br. Food J.; 2005; 107, pp. 423-435. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700510602192]
80. Lassoued, R.; Hobbs, J. Consumer confidence in credence attributes: The role of brand trust. Food Policy; 2015; 52, pp. 99-107. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.12.003]
81. Dawson, J. Retailer activity in shaping food choice. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2013; 28, pp. 339-347. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.09.012]
82. Chkanikova, O.; Sroufe, R. Third-party sustainability certifications in food retailing: Certification design from a sustainable supply chain management perspective. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 282, 124344. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124344]
83. Sogn-Grundvåg, G.; Larsen, T.A.; Young, J.A. Product Differentiation with Credence Attributes and Private Labels: The Case of Whitefish in UK Supermarkets. J. Agric. Econ.; 2014; 65, pp. 368-382. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12047]
84. Soon, J.M.; Baines, R.N. Public and Private Food Safety Standards: Facilitating or Frustrating Fresh Produce Growers?. Laws; 2013; 2, pp. 1-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/laws2010001]
85. Fulponi, L. Private voluntary standards in the food system: The perspective of major food retailers in OECD countries. Food Policy; 2005; 31, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.06.006]
86. Gereffi, G.; Humphrey, J.; Sturgeon, T. The governance of global value chains. Rev. Int. Political Econ.; 2005; 12, pp. 78-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09692290500049805]
87. Richards, C.; Bjørkhaug, H.; Lawrence, G.; Hickman, E. Retailer-driven agricultural restructuring—Australia, the UK and Norway in comparison. Agric. Hum. Values; 2013; 30, pp. 235-245. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9408-4]
88. Ladwein, R.; Romero, A.M.S. The role of trust in the relationship between consumers, producers and retailers of organic food: A sector-based approach. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2021; 60, 102508. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102508]
89. Ouma, S. Global Standards, Local Realities: Private Agrifood Governance and the Restructuring of the Kenyan Horticulture Industry. Econ. Geogr.; 2010; 86, pp. 197-222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2009.01065.x]
90. Souza-Monteiro, D.; Hooker, N. Comparing UK food retailers corporate social responsibility strategies. Br. Food J.; 2017; 119, pp. 658-675. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-04-2016-0152]
91. Chkanikova, O.; Mont, O. Corporate Supply Chain Responsibility: Drivers and Barriers for Sustainable Food Retailing. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2012; 22, pp. 65-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1316]
92. Hartmann, M. Corporate social responsibility in the food sector. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ.; 2011; 38, pp. 297-324. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbr031]
93. Migliore, G.; Borrello, M.; Lombardi, A.; Schifani, G. Consumers’ willingness to pay for natural food: Evidence from an artefactual field experiment. Agric. Food Econ.; 2018; 6, 21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40100-018-0117-1]
94. Prakash, J. The challenges for global harmonisation of food safety norms and regulations: Issues for India. J. Sci. Food Agric.; 2013; 94, pp. 1962-1965. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6147] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23553336]
95. Hubbard, G.R. Essentials of Economics BSB113 (Custom Edition); 4th ed. Pearson Education Australia: Sydney, Australia, 2015.
96. Larson, R.B. Perceived food safety and food defense responsibility for farmers, transporters, retailers and consumers. Br. Food J.; 2021; 123, pp. 4309-4331. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2021-0261]
97. Sutherland, C.; Sim, C.; Gleim, S.; Smyth, S.J. Consumer insights on Canada’s food safety and food risk assessment system. J. Agric. Food Res.; 2020; 2, 100038. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2020.100038]
98. Lupton, D.A. Lay discourses and beliefs related to food risks: An Australian perspective. Sociol. Health Illn.; 2005; 27, pp. 448-467. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2005.00451.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15998346]
99. de Jonge, J.; Frewer, L.; van Trijp, H.; Jan Renes, R.; de Wit, W.; Timmers, J. Monitoring consumer confidence in food safety: An exploratory study. Br. Food J.; 2004; 106, pp. 837-849. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700410561423]
100. Lin, P.; Tsai, H.; Ho, T. Food Safety Gaps between Consumers’ Expectations and Perceptions: Development and Verification of a Gap-Assessment Tool. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2020; 17, 6328. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176328] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32878088]
101. Olynk, N.J.; Tonsor, G.T.; Wolf, C.A. Consumer Willingness to Pay for Livestock Credence Attribute Claim Verification. J. Agric. Resour. Econ.; 2010; 35, pp. 261-280.
102. Otieno, D.J.; Ogutu, S.O. Consumer willingness to pay for chicken welfare attributes in Kenya. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark.; 2019; 32, pp. 379-402. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2019.1673275]
103. Canavari, M.; Coderoni, S. Consumer stated preferences for dairy products with carbon footprint labels in Italy. Agric. Food Econ.; 2020; 8, 4. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40100-019-0149-1]
104. Nilsson, H.; Tunçer, B.; Thidell, Å. The use of eco-labeling like initiatives on food products to promote quality assurance—Is there enough credibility?. J. Clean. Prod.; 2004; 12, pp. 517-526. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(03)00114-8]
105. Gellynck, X.; Verbeke, W.; Vermeire, B. Pathways to increase consumer trust in meat as a safe and wholesome food. Meat Sci.; 2006; 74, pp. 161-171. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.04.013] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22062725]
106. Fernqvist, F.; Ekelund, L. Credence and the effect on consumer liking of food–A review. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2014; 32, pp. 340-353. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.10.005]
107. Lusk, J.L. Separating Myth from Reality: An Analysis of Socially Acceptable Credence Attributes. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ.; 2018; 10, pp. 65-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023153]
108. Pearson, D.; Henryks, J.; Jones, H. Organic food: What we know (and do not know) about consumers. Renew. Agric. Food Syst.; 2010; 26, pp. 171-177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170510000499]
109. Innes, B.G.; Hobbs, J.E. Does It Matter Who Verifies Production-Derived Quality?. Can. J. Agric. Econ.; 2011; 59, pp. 87-107. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2010.01194.x]
110. Narendra Wankhade, L.; Dabade, B.M. Information symmetry, quality perception, and market dynamics. J. Model. Manag.; 2007; 2, pp. 208-231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17465660710834435]
111. Loconto, A.; Stone, J.V.; Busch, L. Tripartite Standards Regime. The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization; Ritzer, G. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012.
112. Gaigné, C.; Larue, B. Quality Standards, Industry Structure, and Welfare in a Global Economy. Am. J. Agric. Econ.; 2016; 98, pp. 1432-1449. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aaw039]
113. Nes, K.; Ciaian, P. Marketing Standards for Food Products: A Review of Literature; Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2021.
114. ISO. Consumers and Standards: Partnership for a Better World; International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
115. Henson, S. The Role of Public and Private Standards in Regulating International Food Markets. J. Int. Agric. Trade Dev.; 2008; 4, pp. 63-81.
116. Lawrence, M.A.; Pollard, C.M.; Weeramanthri, T.S. Positioning food standards programmes to protect public health: Current performance, future opportunities and necessary reforms. Public Health Nutr.; 2019; 22, pp. 912-926. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018003786]
117. Busch, L. Food standards: The cacophony of governance. J. Exp. Bot.; 2011; 62, pp. 3247-3250. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq439]
118. Shukla, S.; Shankar, R.; Singh, S. Food safety regulatory model in India. Food Control; 2014; 37, pp. 401-413. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.08.015]
119. Pettoello-Mantovani, C.; Olivieri, B. Food safety and public health within the frame of the EU legislation. Glob. Pediatr.; 2022; 2, 100020. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gpeds.2022.100020]
120. Swinnen, J. Economics and politics of food standards, trade, and development#. Agric. Econ.; 2016; 47, pp. 7-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/agec.12316]
121. Swinnen, J. Some Dynamic Aspects of Food Standards. Am. J. Agric. Econ.; 2017; 99, pp. 321-338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aax022]
122. Henson, S.; Humphrey, J. Understanding the Complexities of Private Standards in Global Agri-Food Chains as They Impact Developing Countries. J. Dev. Stud.; 2010; 46, pp. 1628-1646. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220381003706494]
123. FSANZ. Food Standard Code; Food Standards Australia & New Zealand (FSAN): Canberra, Australia, 2021.
124. FAO/WHO. Codex Alimentarius-International Food Standards; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and World Helath Organization (WHO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2022.
125. Borsellino, V.; Schimmenti, E.; El Bilali, H. Agri-Food Markets towards Sustainable Patterns. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 2193. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12062193]
126. Wegener, J.; Raine, K.D.; Hanning, R.M. Insights into the government’s role in food system policy making: Improving access to healthy, local food alongside other priorities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2012; 9, pp. 4103-4121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9114103]
127. MLA. 2021–2022 Meat Standards Australia Annual Outcomes Report; Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA): Sydney, Australia, 2022.
128. Sheldon, I.M. Certification Mechanisms for Credence Attributes of Foods: Does It Matter Who Provides Diagnosis?. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ.; 2017; 9, pp. 33-51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053630]
129. Henson, S.; Humphrey, J. The Impacts of Private Food Safety Standards on the Food Chain and on Public Standard-Setting Processes; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2009.
130. Henson, S.; Reardon, T. Private agri-food standards: Implications for food policy and the agri-food system. Food Policy; 2005; 30, pp. 241-253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.05.002]
131. Loconto, A.; Busch, L. Standards, techno-economic networks, and playing fields: Performing the global market economy. Rev. Int. Politi- Econ.; 2010; 17, pp. 507-536. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09692290903319870]
132. Spadoni, R.; Lombardi, P.; Canavari, M.; Hingley, M. Private food standard certification: Analysis of the BRC standard in Italian agri-food. Br. Food J.; 2013; 116, pp. 142-164. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-08-2012-0201]
133. Davey, S.S.; Richards, C. Supermarkets and private standards: Unintended consequences of the audit ritual. Agric. Hum. Values; 2013; 30, pp. 271-281. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9414-6]
134. Bolwig, S.; Riisgaard, L.; Gibbon, P.; Ponte, S. Challenges of Agro-Food Standards Conformity: Lessons from East Africa and Policy Implications. Eur. J. Dev. Res.; 2013; 25, pp. 408-427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2013.8]
135. Sawyer, E.N.; Kerr, W.A.; Hobbs, J.E. Consumer preferences and the international harmonization of organic standards. Food Policy; 2008; 33, pp. 607-615. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.04.006]
136. Tennent, R.; Lockie, S. Private food standards, trade and institutions in Vietnam. J. Asian Public Policy; 2013; 6, pp. 163-177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2013.814308]
137. Lee, J.-G.; Lee, Y.; Kim, C.S.; Han, S.B. Codex Alimentarius commission on ensuring food safety and promoting fair trade: Harmonization of standards between Korea and codex. Food Sci. Biotechnol.; 2021; 30, pp. 1151-1170. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10068-021-00943-7] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34483698]
138. Wieck, C.; Grant, J.H. Codex in Motion: Food Safety Standard Setting and Impacts on Developing Countries’ Agricultural Exports. Eurochoices; 2021; 20, pp. 37-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12293]
139. Pekdemir, C. On the regulatory potential of regional organic standards: Towards harmonization, equivalence, and trade?. Glob. Environ. Change; 2018; 50, pp. 289-302. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.04.010]
140. Henson, S.; Heasman, M. Food safety regulation and the firm: Understanding the compliance process. Food Policy; 1998; 23, pp. 9-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(98)00015-3]
141. Brach, S.; Walsh, G.; Shaw, D. Sustainable consumption and third-party certification labels: Consumers’ perceptions and reactions. Eur. Manag. J.; 2018; 36, pp. 254-265. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.03.005]
142. Albersmeier, F.; Schulze, H.; Spiller, A. System Dynamics in Food Quality Certifications: Development of an Audit Integrity System. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn.; 2010; 1, pp. 69-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18461/ijfsd.v1i1.118]
143. Karstens, B.; Belz, F.-M. Information asymmetries, labels and trust in the German food market. Int. J. Advert.; 2006; 25, pp. 189-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2006.11072962]
144. Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. Governmental and private certification labels for organic food: Consumer attitudes and preferences in Germany. Food Policy; 2014; 49, pp. 437-448. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.05.011]
145. Nuttavuthisit, K.; Thøgersen, J. The Importance of Consumer Trust for the Emergence of a Market for Green Products: The Case of Organic Food. J. Bus. Ethics; 2017; 140, pp. 323-337. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2690-5]
146. Messer, K.D.; Costanigro, M.; Kaiser, H.M. Labeling Food Processes: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy; 2016; 39, pp. 407-427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppx028]
147. Ingenbleek, P.T.M.; Krampe, C. The End of Animal Welfare Labelling as We Know It? Persisting Problems at the Consumer Level and PLF-Based Solutions. Front. Anim. Sci.; 2022; 3, 819893. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2022.819893]
148. Liaukonyte, J.; Streletskaya, N.A.; Kaiser, H.M. Noisy Information Signals and Endogenous Preferences for Labeled Attributes. J. Agric. Resour. Econ.; 2015; 40, pp. 179-202.
149. Dentoni, D.; TTonsor, G.; Calantone, R.; Christopher Peterson, H. Disentangling direct and indirect effects of credence labels. Br. Food J.; 2014; 116, pp. 931-951. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2012-0227]
150. Tran, N.; Bailey, C.; Wilson, N.; Phillips, M. Governance of Global Value Chains in Response to Food Safety and Certification Standards: The Case of Shrimp from Vietnam. World Dev.; 2013; 45, pp. 325-336. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.025]
151. Handford, C.E.; Elliott, C.T.; Campbell, K. A review of the global pesticide legislation and the scale of challenge in reaching the global harmonization of food safety standards. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag.; 2015; 11, pp. 525-536. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1635]
152. USDA. Organic Market Summary and Trends; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.
153. Willer, H.; Travnicek, J.; Meier, C.; Schlatter, B. The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics & Emerging Trends; Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL IFOAM—Organics International: Bonn, Germany, 2022.
154. Kemmerling, B.; Schetter, C.; Wirkus, L. The logics of war and food (in)security. Glob. Food Secur.; 2022; 33, 100634. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100634]
155. Yang, W.; Renwick, A. Consumer Willingness to Pay Price Premiums for Credence Attributes of Livestock Products–A Meta-Analysis. J. Agric. Econ.; 2019; 70, pp. 618-639. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12323]
156. Wirth, F.F.; Stanton, J.L.; Wiley, J.B. The Relative Importance of Search versus Credence Product Attributes: Organic and Locally Grown. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev.; 2011; 40, pp. 48-62. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1068280500004512]
157. Miglietta, P.P.; Morrone, D. Managing Water Sustainability: Virtual Water Flows and Economic Water Productivity Assessment of the Wine Trade between Italy and the Balkans. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 543. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10020543]
158. Tait, P.; Driver, T.; Saunders, C. Consumer Willingness to Pay for Environmental Attributes: Results from AERU Research; Client Report Prepared for MFE and MBIE Lincoln University, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit: Lincoln, PA, USA, 2020.
159. Yang, H.; Wang, L.; Abbaspour, K.C.; Zehnder, A.J.B. Virtual water trade: An assessment of water use efficiency in the international food trade. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.; 2006; 10, pp. 443-454. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-10-443-2006]
160. Chapagain, A.K.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Savenije, H.H.G. Water saving through international trade of agricultural products. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.; 2006; 10, pp. 455-468. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-10-455-2006]
161. Dalin, C.; Konar, M.; Hanasaki, N.; Rinaldo, A.; Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. Evolution of the global virtual water trade network. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2012; 109, pp. 5989-5994. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1203176109]
162. Jiang, W.; Marggraf, R. Bilateral virtual water trade in agricultural products: A case study of Germany and China. Water Int.; 2015; 40, pp. 483-498. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2015.1022848]
163. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A. A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products. Ecosystems; 2012; 15, pp. 401-415. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-011-9517-8]
164. Aizaki, H.; Sato, K. Consumer preferences for three dimensions of country of origin of a processed food product. Br. Food J.; 2020; 122, pp. 3361-3382. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-10-2019-0762]
165. Chryssochoidis, G.; Krystallis, A.; Perreas, P. Ethnocentric beliefs and country-of-origin (COO) effect. Eur. J. Mark.; 2007; 41, pp. 1518-1544. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560710821288]
166. Botelho, A.; Dinis, I.; Lourenço-Gomes, L.; Moreira, J.; Pinto, L.C.; Simões, O. The effect of sequential information on consumers’ willingness to pay for credence food attributes. Appetite; 2017; 118, pp. 17-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.07.021] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28760349]
167. Thilakarathne, N.; Jayasinghe-Mudalige, U.; Udagama, J.; Edirisinghe, J.; Herath, H. Role of Information on Women Consumer Decision Making on Food Quality: An Analysis Based on Visual Presentation of Dairy Quality Attributes. J. Agric. Sci.; 2015; 10, 109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4038/jas.v10i2.8056]
168. Watson, R.A.; Green, B.S.; Tracey, S.R.; Farmery, A.; Pitcher, T.J. Provenance of global seafood. Fish Fish.; 2016; 17, pp. 585-595. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/faf.12129]
169. Jin, S.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, Y. Amount of information and the willingness of consumers to pay for food traceability in China. Food Control; 2017; 77, pp. 163-170. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.02.012]
170. Cicia, G.; Colantuoni, F. Willingness to Pay for Traceable Meat Attributes: A Meta-analysis. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn.; 2010; 1, pp. 252-263. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18461/ijfsd.v1i3.138]
171. Reid, J.; Rout, M. Getting to know your food: The insights of indigenous thinking in food provenance. Agric. Hum. Values; 2015; 33, pp. 427-438. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9617-8]
172. Meah, A.; Watson, M. Cooking up Consumer Anxieties about “Provenance” and “Ethics”. Food Cult. Soc.; 2013; 16, pp. 495-512.
173. Henchion, M.M.; McCarthy, M.; Resconi, V.C. Beef quality attributes: A systematic review of consumer perspectives. Meat Sci.; 2017; 128, pp. 1-7. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.01.006]
174. Burnier, P.C.; Spers, E.E.; de Barcellos, M.D. Role of sustainability attributes and occasion matters in determining consumers’ beef choice. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2021; 88, 104075. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104075]
175. Ardeshiri, A.; Sampson, S.; Swait, J. Seasonality effects on consumers’ preferences over quality attributes of different beef products. Meat Sci.; 2019; 157, 107868. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.06.004] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31234027]
176. Merlino, V.; Borra, D.; Girgenti, V.; Vecchio, A.D.; Massaglia, S. Beef meat preferences of consumers from Northwest Italy: Analysis of choice attributes. Meat Sci.; 2018; 143, pp. 119-128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.023]
177. Ardeshiri, A.; Rose, J.M. How Australian consumers value intrinsic and extrinsic attributes of beef products. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2018; 65, pp. 146-163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.10.018]
178. Abd Rahman, A.; Singhry, H.B.; Hanafiah, M.H.; Abdul, M. Influence of perceived benefits and traceability system on the readiness for Halal Assurance System implementation among food manufacturers. Food Control; 2017; 73, pp. 1318-1326. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.10.058]
179. Santos, D.; Monteiro, M.J.; Voss, H.-P.; Komora, N.; Teixeira, P.; Pintado, M. The most important attributes of beef sensory quality and production variables that can affect it: A review. Livest. Sci.; 2021; 250, 104573. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104573]
180. Bernués, A.; Olaizola, A.; Corcoran, K. Extrinsic attributes of red meat as indicators of quality in Europe: An application for market segmentation. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2003; 14, pp. 265-276. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00085-X]
181. Herron, J.; Curran, T.; Moloney, A.; McGee, M.; O’Riordan, E.; O’Brien, D. Life cycle assessment of pasture-based suckler steer weanling-to-beef production systems: Effect of breed and slaughter age. Animal; 2021; 15, 100247. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100247]
182. Logan, B.G.; Hopkins, D.; Schmidtke, L.; Morris, S.; Fowler, S. Preliminary investigation into the use of Raman spectroscopy for the verification of Australian grass and grain fed beef. Meat Sci.; 2020; 160, 107970. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107970]
183. Xue, H.; Mainville, D.; You, W.; Nayga, R.M. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for grass-fed beef: Empirical evidence from in-store experiments. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2010; 21, pp. 857-866. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.05.004]
184. Schulze, M.; Spiller, A.; Risius, A. Do consumers prefer pasture-raised dual-purpose cattle when considering meat products? A hypothetical discrete choice experiment for the case of minced beef. Meat Sci.; 2021; 177, 108494. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108494] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33780871]
185. Davidson, K.; Pan, M.; Hu, W.; Poerwanto, D. Consumers’ willingness to pay for aquaculture fish products vs. wild-caught seafood–A case study in Hawaii. Aquac. Econ. Manag.; 2012; 16, pp. 136-154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2012.678554]
186. Maesano, G.; Di Vita, G.; Chinnici, G.; Pappalardo, G.; D’Amico, M. The Role of Credence Attributes in Consumer Choices of Sustainable Fish Products: A Review. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su122310008]
187. Dalziel, P.; Saunders, C.; Tait, P.; Saunders, J. Credence Attributes and New Zealand Country of Origin: A Review; ERU Research Report No. 351 Lincoln University, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit: Lincoln, PA, USA, 2019.
188. Molnár, P. A model for overall description of food quality. Food Qual. Prefer.; 1995; 6, pp. 185-190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0950-3293(94)00037-V]
189. Joya, K.; Ramli, N.N.; Shamsudin, M.N.; Kamarulzaman, N.H. Consumers’ willingness to pay for food safety attributes of tomato. Br. Food J.; 2021; 124, pp. 701-717. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/bfj-02-2021-0164]
190. Yang, W.; Fang, L. Consumer Willingness to Pay for Food Safety Attributes in China: A Meta-Analysis. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark.; 2020; 33, pp. 152-169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2020.1754316]
191. Lewis, K.E.; Grebitus, C.; Colson, G.; Hu, W. German and British Consumer Willingness to Pay for Beef Labeled with Food Safety Attributes. J. Agric. Econ.; 2016; 68, pp. 451-470. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12187]
192. Wu, L.; Wang, S.; Zhu, D.; Hu, W.; Wang, H. Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food quality and safety attributes: The case of pork. China Econ. Rev.; 2015; 35, pp. 121-136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2015.07.001]
193. Hooker, N.H.; Caswell, J.A. Regulatory Targets And Regimes for Food Safety: A Comparison of North American and European Approaches; Regional Research Project NE-165: Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance Food Marketing Policy Center, University of Connecticut: Mansfield, TC, USA, 1996.
194. Henson, S.; Loader, R. Barriers to Agricultural Exports from Developing Countries: The Role of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Requirements. World Dev.; 2001; 29, pp. 85-102. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0305-750x(00)00085-1]
195. Heather, N.W.; Hallman, G.J. Pest Management and Phytosanitary Trade Barriers; CABI: Gatton, Australia, 2008.
196. Ash, A.; Gleeson, T.; Hall, M.; Higgins, A.; Hopwood, G.; MacLeod, N.; Paini, D.; Poulton, P.; Prestwidge, D.; Webster, T. et al. Irrigated agricultural development in northern Australia: Value-chain challenges and opportunities. Agric. Syst.; 2017; 155, pp. 116-125. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.04.010]
197. Ferro, E.; Otsuki, T.; Wilson, J.S. The effect of product standards on agricultural exports. Food Policy; 2015; 50, pp. 68-79. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.10.016]
198. Melo, O.; Engler, A.; Nahuehual, L.; Cofre, G.; Barrena, J. Do Sanitary, Phytosanitary, and Quality-related Standards Affect International Trade? Evidence from Chilean Fruit Exports. World Dev.; 2014; 54, pp. 350-359. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.10.005]
199. Clark, B.; Panzone, L.A.; Stewart, G.B.; Kyriazakis, I.; Niemi, J.K.; Latvala, T.; Tranter, R.; Jones, P.; Frewer, L.J. Consumer attitudes towards production diseases in intensive production systems. PLoS ONE; 2019; 14, e0210432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210432]
200. Schuster, M.; Maertens, M. Do private standards benefit workers in horticultural export chains in Peru?. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 112, pp. 2392-2406. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.038]
201. ABC News. Reconciliation Action Plan saves OBE Organics a $1m Aussie beef deal with US retailer. 21 July 2021.
202. Burton, M.; Rigby, D.; Young, T.; James, S. Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ.; 2001; 28, pp. 479-498. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/erae/28.4.479]
203. Loebnitz, N.; Bröring, S. Consumer Acceptance of New Food Technologies for Different Product Categories: The Relative Importance of Experience versus Credence Attributes. J. Int. Consum. Mark.; 2015; 27, pp. 307-317. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2015.1022923]
204. Verbeke, W. Consumer attitudes toward genetic modification and sustainability: Implications for the future of biorenewables. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining; 2007; 1, pp. 215-225. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bbb.27]
205. Grolleau, G.; Benabid, S. Fair trading in markets for credence goods. Intereconomics; 2001; 36, pp. 208-214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02929977]
206. Moses, V.; Brookes, G. The world of “GM-free”. GM Crops Food; 2013; 4, pp. 135-142. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.25992]
207. Hallman, W.K. Consumer Perception of Genetically Modified Food and GMO Labelling in the United States. Consumer Perception of Food Attributes; Matsumoto, S.; Otsuki, T. CTC Press, Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018.
208. Carlsson, F.; Frykblom, P.; Lagerkvist, C.J. Consumer Benefits of Labels and Bans on GM Foods—Choice Experiments with Swedish Consumers. Am. J. Agric. Econ.; 2007; 89, pp. 152-161. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.00969.x]
209. Fearne, A.; Hornibrook, S.; Dedman, S. The management of perceived risk in the food supply chain: A comparative study of retailer-led beef quality assurance schemes in Germany and Italy. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev.; 2001; 4, pp. 19-36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7508(01)00068-4]
210. Drichoutis, A.C.; Lazaridis, P.; Nayga, R.N.J. Consumers’ Use of Nutritional Labels: A Review of Research Studies and Issues. Acad. Mark. Sci. Rev.; 2006; 2006, 1.
211. Almli, V.L.; Verbeke, W.; Vanhonacker, F.; Næs, T.; Hersleth, M. General image and attribute perceptions of traditional food in six European countries. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2011; 22, pp. 129-138. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.08.008]
212. Stolzenbach, S.; Bredie, W.L.; Byrne, D.V. Consumer concepts in new product development of local foods: Traditional versus novel honeys. Food Res. Int.; 2013; 52, pp. 144-152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2013.02.030]
213. Balogh, P.; Békési, D.; Gorton, M.; Popp, J.; Lengyel, P. Consumer willingness to pay for traditional food product. Food Policy; 2016; 61, pp. 176-184. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.03.005]
214. Resano, H.; Olaizola, A.; Dominguez-Torreiro, M. Exploring the influence of consumer characteristics on veal credence and experience guarantee purchasing motivators. Meat Sci.; 2018; 141, pp. 1-8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.03.001] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29558696]
215. Skelhorn, E.; Garcia-Ara, A.; Nova, R.; Kinston, H.; Wapenaar, W. Public opinion and perception of rosé veal in the UK. Meat Sci.; 2020; 167, 108032. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.108032]
216. Monteiro, A.C.; Gomes, E.; Barreto, A.S.; Silva, M.F.; Fontes, M.A.; Bessa, R.J.; Lemos, J.P. Eating quality of “Vitela Tradicional do Montado”-PGI veal and Mertolenga-PDO veal and beef. Meat Sci.; 2013; 94, pp. 63-68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.12.011]
217. Rohman, A.; Fadzillah, N.A. 21-Lipid-Based Techniques Used for Halal and Kosher Food Authentication. Preparation and Processing of Religious and Cultural Foods; Ali, M.E.; Nizar, N.N.A. Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2018; pp. 393-407.
218. Neio Demirci, M.; Soon, J.M.; Wallace, C.A. Positioning food safety in Halal assurance. Food Control; 2016; 70, pp. 257-270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.05.059]
219. Ahmad, A.N.; Rahman, R.A.; Othman, M.; Abidin, U.F.U.Z. Critical success factors affecting the implementation of halal food management systems: Perspective of halal executives, consultants and auditors. Food Control; 2017; 74, pp. 70-78. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.11.031]
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Zhang, Airong 2
; Barton Loechel 3
; Ricketts, Katie 4 ; Ingham, Aaron 1
1 Agriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Brisbane, QLD 4067, Australia
2 Health and Biosecurity, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Brisbane, QLD 4102, Australia
3 Environment, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Brisbane, QLD 4102, Australia
4 Agriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia