Concerns over the total costs assessed to the beef industry from the implementation of mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) regulations warranted an investigation into the estimation and distribution of marketing and marginal costs of production for retail chain stores and distributors, meat packers and processors, cattle feedlots, cattle backgrounding yards and cow-calf producers. Furthermore, it is thought the implementation of COOL will impose severe market and social welfare effects on the participants in the beef industry. This research focused on two main objectives. The first objective is to provide a full beef industry cost assessment for implementing COOL regulations based on the preliminary guidelines for COOL as published by the United States Department of Agriculture in the proposed rule in October of 2003. Financial and production data was collected and used from U.S. retail chain stores and distributors, meat packers and processors, cattle feedlots, and cattle backgrounding yards and stockers. The second objective was to use the weighted average cost estimates calculated from the data to determine the magnitude of increases in the demand for retail beef, wholesale beef, fed cattle, and feeder cattle needed to negate the increase in costs of implementing mandatory COOL regulations. An equilibrium displacement model was used to demonstrate the supply and demand functions and relationships for retail beef, wholesale beef, fed cattle, and feeder cattle. Estimated elasticities for retail beef, wholesale beef, fed cattle and feeder cattle were used to calculate the relative changes in price and quantity in response to the COOL-induced supply and demand shifts. The quantity intercepts from the estimation of the linear parameters can be used to calculate the increases in consumer demand needed to negate the increases in costs estimated from the survey results for the retail, wholesale, fed cattle, and feeder cattle sectors of the beef industry. A significant cost burden to the beef industry was shown by the weighted average estimates calculated from the research. Retail chain stores and distributors, meat packers and processors, cattle feedlots and cattle stockers are expected to see an increase in marketing and marginal costs of production as a result of implementing COOL.

The final implementation of Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling has caused some U.S. packing plants and finishing operations to discontinue using Canadian live hogs and feeder pigs in their operations thereby reducing trade. Using a system of simultaneous equations representing U.S. import demand and U.S. price, this thesis estimates the reduction in trade and any possible price effects in both live hogs and feeder pigs associated with the implementation of the final rule of Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling in the United States. It was found that the implementation of Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling reduced the trade of live hogs between the United States and Canada by 37.8 percent. The reduction in feeder pigs was 24.1 percent. It was also found that the implementation of Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling had no effect on the price of both live hogs and feeder pigs in the U.S. market.

Perception plays an important role in the human assessment process. This construction of an image is based on many factors, including race, religion, national origin, income, gender, marital status - in short, the summation of our life experiences. An important consideration for the methodology consumers utilize for purchase decisions has been also referred to as the "Country of Origin" (COO) effect. This individual bias based on perceptions and attitudes has a significant impact on how consumers make their purchasing decisions. The 2008 Farm Bill legislation contained a requirement for country of origin labeling (COOL) for beef, lamb, pork, and other products. This paper examined some of the 2008 Farm Bill's impact on consumer's purchasing decisions regarding beef and related meat protein products. Of a potential population of over 700 respondents, 161 responses were received. Correspondence analysis and preferences indicated by the respondents were used to analyze the results. Respondents were mostly well educated, white, in higher income brackets, and split about 60%-40% between male and female. Food safety is considered important and respondents generally believe that the US food supply is safe. Over 40% of respondents had no knowledge of COOL and its background, but about 70% of respondents believed that COOL should be mandatory for all meat products studied. The majority of respondents (111 of 161) indicated that they would be willing to pay $0.25 to $1.00 per pound more for COOL. However when asked about the likeliness to pay, 25%-30% indicated that they were "Not at all Likely" or "Somewhat Likely" to pay. The correspondence analysis results indicated that beef was a product eaten more often, but considered expensive. Chicken was eaten more often and considered inexpensive and healthful. Turkey was a product considered healthful and inexpensive. Lamb was considered expensive, while pork was inconclusive in the two dimensions used. The results of this study provide information for producers, purveyors, retailers, and the government on the importance of COOL as perceived by consumers, and their willingness to pay for this labeling.

While previous studies have investigated country-of-origin effect from various angles, it remained unexplored the extent to which Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) affects U.S. beef imports from specific countries. Using choice-experiment data, willingness to pay (WTP) for Australian, Canadian beef in addition to other enhancement attributes were estimated with a Mixed Logit Model and a Latent Class Model. The results revealed unobserved taste heterogeneity and important differences in the WTP between the imported and domestic steak. The Latent Class Model estimated the range of discount needed for consumers to switch from U.S. to Canadian steak was a range from $1.09 to $35.12 per pound. Results from the Mixed Logit Model reiterated strong domestic preference. Significant positive WTP for BSE-tested, traceable, and tenderness-assured beef were also observed. In addition, perceived risk theory was utilized to explain the difference in WTP for domestic and imported beef. The psychometric method proposed in Pennings et al. (2002) were adopted, which disentangled perceived risk into risk perception and risk attitude. Using a mixed logit model with error component specification, the result revealed a strong link between risk perception and risk attitude towards consumer choice of country-of-origin labeled beef. Specifically, we found that perceived risk factors have a stronger impact on imported beef than domestic beef, which could partially explain consumers’ aversion towards imported beef. Lastly, the perceived risk framework was expanded to explain variation in the WTP for traceable and BSE-tested beef. The results indicated significant and non-linear impact from risk attitude and risk perception to WTP for the attributes. In addition, BSE-concern, and perceived level of control agribusiness has on food safety significantly influenced WTP for traceable and BSE-tested beef.