observations on economic adulteration of high-value food

Observations on Economic Adulteration of High-Value FoodProducts: The Honey Case

Gary F. Fairchild, John P. Nichols, and Oral Capps, Jr.

The paper highlights the issue of economic adulteration ofhigh-value food products and provides a context for discussionand analysis based on experiences with the U.S. honey industry. Perspectives on economic adulteration are identified,trends relevant to the issue of economic adulteration are discussed, and industry opinions on economic adulteration ofhoney are summarized. The paper is based on research funded by the National Honey Board to provide a platform forindustry dialogue on the need for a quality-assurance program.

Product adulteration for financial gain or competi-tive advantage is known as economic adulteration.The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (Sec-tion 402) states that "a food shall be deemed to beadulterated if any valuable constituent has been inwhole or in part omitted or abstracted therefrom;or if any substance has been substituted wholly orin part therefor; or if damage or inferiority has beenconcealed in any manner; or if any substance hasbeen added thereto or mixed or packaged therewithso as to increase its bulk or weight, or reduce itsquality or strength, or make it appear better or ofgreater value than it is." Thus economic adultera-tion occurs when the economic value of a producthas been decreased without notifying the buyer orconsumer. For example, adding any other sweeten-ing agent to a product labeled and sold as "honey"is illegal.

The problem of economic adulteration is notnew, having been addressed in ancient Mosaic andEgyptian meat laws, early Greek and Roman winelaws, and in U.S. food laws dating from 1784 inMassachusetts (Crawford 1954). Economic adul-teration may undermine the trust of consumers andmay be a serious threat to the economic viability offirms producing high-value food products.

Logic suggests that strong incentives exist foreconomic adulteration in higher-value food prod-ucts. In the sweetener industry, maple syrup andhoney are prime targets for economic adulteration,

Fairchild is professor, Food and Resource EconomicsDepartment, University of Florida, Nichols is professor andAssociate Head and Capps, Jr. is professor and Southwest DairyMarketing Endowed Chair, Department of AgriculturalEconomics, Texas A&M University.

This research was supported by the Florida AgriculturalExperiment Station, and approved for publication as JournalSeries No. R-09646.

based on their relatively high cost when adjustedfor sweetness intensity. Orange juice and olive oilare food products often targeted for economic adul-teration in their respective industries.

High-value food products must develop andsustain a strong image with consumers in order tomaintain sales and profit margins. A product whichclaims to be pure, wholesome, and natural is vul-nerable to negative publicity which can change con-sumers' attitudes with respect to these key productattributes. Economic adulteration can strike at thecore of consumer confidence. Thus quality-assur-ance efforts in high-value food industries are par-ticularly important.

This paper highlights the issue of economicadulteration of high-value food products and pro-vide a context for the discussion and analysis ofeconomic adulteration based on the experiences ofthe authors with the U.S. honey industry.

The Quality-Assurance Environment

Quality assurance is by no means a simple issue. Inaddition to the question of economic adulteration,there are trends and issues in the area of commod-ity and food marketing which have implications forthe industry's quality-assurance strategies.

Relationship Marketing

The umbrella of relationship marketing covers sev-eral trends which are relevant to the quality-assur-ance issue. First is the basic concept of win-winsituations in which cooperation replaces the overtuse of power in business-to-business relationships.In the food-marketing arena the possibility of co-operation for mutual benefit occurs when coopera-tion either produces additional benefits for consum-

Observations on Economic Adulteration of High- Value Food Products 39

ers or reduces marketing costs. The existence ofeconomically adulterated product in the marketingchannel should serve as motivation for buyers atall levels of the channel to establish on-going rela-tionships with their suppliers. Survey results fromthe honey industry indicate the necessity for andbenefits from relationship marketing.

Companion concepts include the many dimen-sions of supply-chain management, which involvesa recognition that firms really operate in valuechains of related activities which reach from inputsupplies to the initial production process to the fi-nal consumer. Inherent in this concept is the ideathat firms are linked together and will be evaluatedas to how well activities are performed and coordi-nated, at a profit, to meet the wants and needs ofthe final consumer. Thus it is the entire value sys-tem which assures quality and purity for the con-sumer.

Globalization and International Cooperation

Clearly, markets for high-value food products havebecome international in nature, with imports andexports growing in significance. This is the case inthe honey industry. Beyond the import-competitionconcerns of domestic honey producers, there arebroader questions of product quality and qualitystandards. With globalization comes increased at-tention to harmonization, convergence, and com-patibility of technical standards, product quality andsafety standards, and sanitary and phytosanitarystandards. Certainly, economic adulteration andquality assurance are issues with an internationaldimension.

The Role of Government

Governments continue to respond to concern forthe health, safety, and welfare of consumers. In-creasing attention is being given to labeling lawsand accurate and available information for con-sumer choice and decision making (Kim, Nayga,and Capps 2001). These concerns focus on a di-verse range of topics from pesticide and drug resi-dues to nutritional labeling and allergenicity. Gov-ernment concern, then, has direct application toeconomic adulteration. For example, some peopleare allergic to common adulterants found in honey,such as beet sugar or gluten. In terms of food intol-

erance, if the ingredients in the product are not purethe label is wrong and labeling laws have been vio-lated. Serious chain-of-responsibility issues are in-volved; governments often provide the basis for in-dependent or third-party regulation of food prod-ucts.

Industry Self-Policing

Industries are increasingly taking more responsi-bility for themselves regarding standards and be-havior. At the same time, the importance of gov-ernment inspectors is being diminished. Industriesare developing self-policing control systems. Firmsare testing their competitors' products, knowing thatthe actions of one firm can affect the welfare of anentire industry. Industries may develop lists of ques-tionable firms, and firms may report their unscru-pulous competitors to the proper government au-thorities.

To be effective, quality assurance should be afront-end issue, not an after-the-fact find/test/pros-ecute issue. Quality assurance is becoming a wayof life for many food-manufacturing companies.There are just too many reasons why it is good busi-ness to buy only high-quality, pure ingredients.Examples include government labeling laws; con-sumer-health issues; competitive advantages asso-ciated with consumer demand for 100% pure, high-quality products; and increasingly stringent tech-nical standards for imported food products in manycountries.

In the food-ingredient market, honey, for ex-ample, is a positive, value-adding ingredient. Foodmanufacturers need to have confidence that theproduct purchased is pure honey. It is expected thatincreasing attention will be given to quality assur-ance in the food-ingredient market.

Traceability and Other Monitoring Systems

Increasingly, consumers want to know more aboutthe history of their food. Information they desireincludes genetic material, chemical inputs, handlingand storage, manufacturing processes, additives,and environmental impacts. Traceability and ac-countability are becoming important issues. Forexample, more consumers will want to know"where their honey was last night." This is an issuewhich high-value food industries need to address.

Fairchild, Nichols, and Capps, Jr:

40 July 2003

Product Image: More Important Than Ever

High-value food products with pure, natural, whole-some images are vulnerable to erosion from nega-tive publicity which undermines consumer confi-dence in the underlying product attributes. For ex-ample, because many consumers purchase honeyand products containing honey on the basis of prod-uct quality and image rather than price, image main-tenance demands the highest priority.

Perspectives on Economic Adulteration

A number of potential impacts are associated witheconomic adulteration, including the cost of con-sumer deception, the cost to firms which competewith firms selling adulterated products, the costassociated with a negative shift in consumer de-mand resulting from changes in product images andconsumer attitudes, illicit profit associated with vio-lations of grades and standards and labeling laws,the cost associated with a positive shift in supplydue to the addition of adulterants, and the cost ofnegative externalities. Some of these perspectivesmay provide a basis for measuring economic im-pact.

Consumer Deception

As a result of economic adulteration, consumersare overspending for the adulterated product whichthey perceive to be a 100% pure product. Whilesome defense attorneys may attempt to argue thatconsumer fraud regarding the purchase of adulter-ated products should only include the difference iningredient costs--e.g. corn syrup vs. honey or pulp-washed orange solids vs. pure orange juice-itseems more appropriate to argue that the completecost of adulteration to consumers can only be cap-tured by estimating total consumer expenditures onadulterated product purchases. This would involvecalculating the volume and price of adulteratedproduct purchases over a specific period of time.

Food scientists and chemists have developed anumber of tests to detect the presence of illegal in-gredients in honey, helping to establish the degreeof adulteration. Similar tests have been developedto detect adulteration in orange juice. However, testsfor non-labeled ingredients often are not able toaccurately detect very small amounts of such in-

Journal of Food Distribution Research 34(2)

gredients due to the similarities in profiles of thehigher-value product and the lower-value adulter-ating ingredient. For example, tests such as theStable Isotope Ratio Analysis cannot accuratelydetect the presence of corn syrup in honey belowseven percent. Thus, unlike tests for the presenceof pesticide concentrations on produce, it is the simi-larity of adulterating-ingredient characteristics tothe pure product that makes detection so difficult.In this context, one can see why consumers maynot notice moderate levels of economic adultera-tion.

Impacts on Competition

One motivation behind economic adulteration is theopportunity to reduce costs and increase profits perunit sold at prices comparable to pure products, orto reduce input costs and lower selling price to in-crease sales volume and/or market share. Cost dif-ferences can be significant enough that firms sell-ing adulterated product can cause economic injuryto competing firms, sometimes selling below prod-uct cost for pure products and sometimes drivingproducers and packers out of business. Without di-rect evidence of adulteration, these impacts on com-petition are difficult to measure, and thus the re-sults of economic adulteration may be attributed toother competitive factors.

Consumer Demand

Publicity regarding economic adulteration can re-sult in a decrease in consumer demand for that prod-uct category. As a result, individual producers, pro-cessors/packers, and distributors can suffer finan-cial losses. Consumer images of a product in termsof such attributes as purity and health benefits canbe negatively impacted, resulting in significantchanges in purchasing patterns. It is far easier-and less expensive-to maintain a positive productimage with consumers than to rebuild an imagewhich has been damaged. The importance of im-age to consumer demand, and thus consumer prices,should not be underestimated.

Illegal Profits

The impact of economic adulteration also includesprofits associated with violation of government and

Observations on Economic Adulteration of High-Value Food Products 41

industry grades and standards and government la-beling laws. While there is an analytical perspectiveassociated with competition, there is also a legal per-spective to be considered. Sales and profits can bemeasures of the degree of violation. Such estimatesare well-received by the legal community, regula-tory agencies, and the court system. This method-ology was utilized in testimony in an orange juiceadulteration case in the Federal District Court ofWestern Michigan and used by the court to deter-mine the extent of fraud associated with the felonycharges and subsequent conviction (Fairchild 1993).

Supply Expansion

The addition of an adulterant to a product can havethe effect of expanding the available supply of theproduct in a given time period. Such a positive shiftin supply has the potential to decrease the market-clearing price. Own-price flexibilities can be uti-lized to measure the price response to a givenchange in quantity supplied. This may be the mostdirect approach to the measurement of impacts.

Externalities

Negative externalities are costs which accrue toother individuals, groups, or society as a result ofactions by those engaging in a particular activity.For example, firms engaging in economic adultera-tion of honey could create negative externalities(decreases in welfare) for fruit growers and con-sumers. If lower honey prices and revenues, result-ing from economic adulteration of honey, causefewer bee colonies to be available for pollinationservices, then negative externalities would accrueto fruit growers and perhaps to consumers.

An Industry Example

In an effort to determine industry opinions on eco-nomic adulteration, a mail survey of fourteen U.S.honey packers was conducted at the request of theNational Honey Board in 1999 (Fairchild 1999).The response rate was 86%. The total volume ofhoney purchased by survey respondents representedapproximately one-half of estimated total U.S.honey sales in 1996-98. The survey was not a sta-tistically representative (random) sample and thusthe information generated only represents the ex-

perience and opinions of the responding firms.Fifty-eight percent of respondents, represent-

ing 88 percent of respondent volume, reported test-ing for economic adulteration, while 42 percent didnot test for economic adulteration. The honey salesof those testing for economic adulteration were dis-tributed among product-utilization channels as fol-lows: retail sales, 50.2 percent; food-service sales,including hotel, restaurant, and institutional pack,13.4 percent; and bulk sales to the food-ingredientmarket, 36.4 percent. All of the responding firmswhich test for economic adulteration reported us-ing commercial labs, with one firm using both com-mercial and in-house labs. All firms testing for eco-nomic adulteration reported using the Stable Iso-tope Ratio Analysis (SIRA), and 43 percent of firmstesting reported using a protein test.

Estimates of Economic Adulteration

Firms were asked if they had found economicallyadulterated product in the past three years. Seventy-one percent reported finding adulterated honey,while 29 percent reported no such findings. Firmswhich reported finding economically-adulteratedproduct were asked what percentage of the totalvolume of honey purchased was determined to beadulterated by the addition of foreign ingredients.Among those reporting adulterants, adulteratedproduct as a percentage of total volume purchasedaveraged 0.8 percent in 1998; 1.3 percent in 1997;and 2.6 percent in 1996. The only adulterant foundwas corn syrup.

Honey packers were asked the average detectedlevel of adulterant for the honey found to be eco-nomically adulterated. Respondents reported adul-terant levels ranging from 5.7 to 25 percent in 1998,from 7.3 to 43 percent in 1997, and from 7 to 23percent in 1996. Establishing lower and upperbounds for each year was determined to be moremeaningful than calculating a weighted average,given the relatively wide range of responses andsmall sample size.

In an effort to determine the sources of adul-terated product, firms were asked the percentageof economically adulterated product purchasedfrom various sources.cRespondents indicated that,on average, most adulterated honey originated inArgentina and China, with little coming from do-mestic sources.

Fairchild, Nichols, and Capps, Jr.

42 July 2003

Packer Opinions

Honey packers were asked a number of open-endedopinion questions. All survey respondents wereasked to answer these questions regardless ofwhether or not they tested for economic adultera-tion or whether or not they had found adulteratedproduct.

Survey participants were asked if they weresatisfied with their ability to detect adulterated prod-uct. One-fourth of respondents indicated that theywere satisfied, while three-fourths indicated thatthey were not currently satisfied with their abilityto detect adulterants. Of those who test for adulter-ants, 85 percent are not satisfied. The surveyed firmswho test seem to be concerned about being able totest for a range of adulterants, levels of adultera-tion below the detection threshold, and the cost andaccuracy of tests. Those who do not test are con-cerned about the cost of testing large numbers ofsmall lots and desire easier tests and more infor-mation.

Honey packers were asked whether or not theybelieve economic adulteration is affecting theiroperation or creating unfair competition. Nearlysixty percent of respondents indicated that; one-third did not believe economic adulteration wasaffecting their operation or creating unfair compe-tition, and eight percent who did not know. Respon-dents indicating an effect were asked to identify itssource. Collectively, respondents believe that thereare unscrupulous participants at all levels of thehoney supply chain, including producers, packers,and importers.

Survey participants were asked how importantan issue economic adulteration is for the U.S. honeyindustry. Seventy-five percent of respondents be-lieve economic adulteration to be a very importantissue and an additional 17 percent believe it is asomewhat important issue. While 8 percent an-swered that they did not know how important anissue it is, no one thought it to be somewhat unim-portant or not very important. Thus 92 percent ofsurvey respondents believe economic adulterationto be a very important or somewhat important is-sue for the industry.

Additional comments by respondents includedobservations that while their own firm had a repu-tation for demanding quality product from theirsuppliers, some other firms did not seem as con-


cerned about product quality. Several respondentsnoted the importance of developing and maintain-ing trusting relationships between buyers and sell-ers in order to minimize product-quality problems.Other comments included concerns that economicadulteration hurts competitiveness and cheats con-sumers, and that ultimately the honey industry getshurt when product quality is compromised throughadulteration.

Survey participants were asked an open-endedquestion about what, if anything, they believe canbe done to reduce or eliminate economic adultera-tion. Individual responses can be grouped into sixcategories and are listed in order of frequency ofresponse. First, there is a belief that more or betteror simpler testing methods would help reduce oreliminate adulteration. Second, it was suggested thatthere should be standardized testing requirementsand protocols. Third, it was indicated that the in-dustry should support random product testing inboth the retail and institutional markets. Fourth,participants felt that a program should be devel-oped to educate both honey-buying firms and thegeneral consuming public about the importance ofproduct quality and to provide assurance of prod-uct quality. Fifth, it was suggested that analysis ofall imports from firms with a history of economicadulteration problems should be conducted on aregular basis. Sixth, an acceptable protocol shouldbe developed for testing global supplies which takeinto account "variations" among production re-gions.

When asked to explain their opinions about theimportance of the economic-adulteration issue, thecollective responses in order of frequency were asfollows: honey's image is vulnerable to damage;product adulteration expands supply and decreasesprice; "our" firm is not affected by economicallyadulterated product but we believe there are prob-lems elsewhere; there is a need for better tests toreduce confusion and strife; the easiest and safestplace to send adulterated product is the food ser-vice/ingredient market; and we need to be checkedfor adulterated product more often.

Importer Opinions

Several firms which import honey into the UnitedSeveral frmns which import honey into the United

States were interviewed by telephone in order toget their perspective on the economic-adulteration


issue. There was a striking similarity across im-porter interviews, resulting in a locus of opinionpoints. The first point is that it is important to knowyour foreign supplier in order to assure a pure prod-uct, as the U.S. government does not routinely testfor economically adulterated product. Thus relation-ships are more important now than ever before. Thispoint was stressed repeatedly.

Second, the problem has diminished in recentyears. Opinions vary as to how much adulterationexists currently. Most agree that adulteration ispositively correlated with price, noting that honeyprices have decreased in recent years. Generalagreement also exists as to the need to be perma-nently vigilant for adulteration. Third, improved andless-expensive testing methods are needed. Fourth,there is a need for international cooperation andcommunication on the subject of economic adul-teration among firms, industries, and governments.Lastly, problems are centered in the food-ingredi-ent market. There is a need to work with and educatebuyers about the importance and advantages of as-suring pure product ingredients, particularly honey. Itis very hard to compete with adulterators on price.

An Example of Potential Economic Impact

Several potential types of economic impacts canresult from economic adulteration. One approachto estimating the impacts of economic adulterationinvolves knowing how price might be expected tobehave in response to an increase in quantity sup-plied, as adulterated product has the effect of ex-panding the "supply" of product available in themarket. One approach would be to begin with anestimation of the retail demand for a given prod-uct, then develop estimates for own-price elastic-ity of demand at the retail and producer levels ofthe market channel, and finally develop estimatesfor the upper bounds of own-price flexibility at theproducer and retail levels. It is reasonable to as-sume that high-value-product prices are relativelysensitive to quantity changes.

Estimates of own-price elasticities orflexibilities for honey at either the retail or producerlevel of the marketing are not abundant in the ex-tant literature. Willett and French (1991) estimateda simultaneous-equation model of the U. S. bee-keeping industry using calender-year data from1952 to 1984. Using monthly A. C. Nielsen price

and consumption data as well as other supportingdata from January 1994 to April 1998, Capps (1999)developed estimates of demand elasticities at theretail level and the farm level, -.2577 and -.1972,respectively. The upper bound for the own-priceflexibility, conditional on these estimates, is -3.88at the retail level and -5.07 at the farm level. Weadopt these estimates from Capps (1999) to describepotential economic impacts from adulteration ofhoney merely to provide an example for illustra-tive purposes.

When the own-price flexibilities are combinedwith product-adulteration estimates and productionand price data, potential economic impacts of adul-teration can be calculated in terms of price changesand revenue changes measured at both the producerand retailer levels of the marketing channel. Thedegree of economic impact resulting from the sup-ply-expanding dimension of product adulterationwould be affected by the percentage of adulterantcontained in the adulterated product. For any givenamount of product determined to be adulterated,higher percentages of adulterant would be associ-ated with greater supply expansion and thereforewith larger price impacts.

Price Impacts

Examples of the potential price changes associatedwith various levels of adulterant in the percentageof total product estimated by honey packers to havebeen adulterated during the three-year period 1996-1998 are represented in Table 1. The estimates area function of the level of adulterant (100, 50, 25, or7 percent) in the estimated percentage of total prod-uct adulterated for each year: 0.79 percent in 1998,1.3 percent in 1997, and 2.6 percent in 1996. Thevarious combinations of these two factors yield thearray of percentage-price changes and the cents-per-pound changes at the producer and retail levelscontained in Table 1.

For example, in 1996--a year in which honeypackers estimated that 2.6 percent of honey waseconomically adulterated-if the average level ofadulterant was 25 percent, then the expected pricedecrease would have been 3.31 (2.6 x .25 x -5.0698)percent, or -2.94 cents, at the producer level and2.53 (2.6 x .25 x -3.8804) percent, or -4.78 cents, atthe retail level. It should be noted that while thefarm-level own-price flexibility coefficient (-



Table 1. Potential Economic Impacts of Adulteration Based on the Honey Packer Survey.

Producer level Retail levelYear (%)* % Adulterant Maximum % Maximum Maximum % Maximum

in honey price change cents/pound price change cents/poundchange change

1998 (0.79) 100 -4.02 -2.63 -3.08 -7.3450 -2.01 -1.32 -1.53 -3.6525 -1.00 -0.66 -0.77 -1.847 -0.28 -0.18 -0.22 -0.52

1997 (1.3) 100 -6.60 -4.96 -5.05 -11.7450 -3.30 -2.49 -2.53 -5.8825 -1.65 -1.24 -1.26 -2.937 -0.46 -0.35 -0.35 -0.81

1996 (2.6) 100 -13.25 -11.77 -10.14 -19.1150 -6.62 -5.88 -5.07 -9.5625 -3.31 -2.94 -2.53 -4.787 -0.93 -0.83 -0.71 -1.43

*Percentage of honey supply estimated to be economically adulterated.

5.0698) is larger than the retail-level own-price flex-ibility coefficient (-3.8804), the larger price changesmeasured in cents per pound at retail are due to thehigher retail prices relative to producer prices.

Whatever the level of economic adulteration,the resulting supply-expansion impacts are notable,as prices at all levels of the honey marketing chan-nel are extremely sensitive to quantity changes, aspreviously hypothesized. It is also instructive toexamine potential producer-level price and revenueloss resulting from supply expansion due to adul-terated honey.

Revenue Impacts

Over the three-year period covered in the honey-packer survey (1996-1998) the USDA three-yearaverage for U.S. honey production was reported tobe 205,014,660 pounds. The USDA three-year av-erage producer price for 1996-1998 was 76.5 centsper pound. Over the same three-year period, honeypackers reported an average of 1.56% of honeypurchased to have been adulterated at some level.Based on these numbers, and assuming that theadulterant level was 25%, the estimated producer-level price decrease could have been as much as1.98% or 1.51 cents per pound in the 1996-1998

period. This adulteration scenario would translateto an estimated producer-level revenue loss of $3.1million.

Demand and Income Elasticity Considerations

The previously described loss estimates are just thesupply-expansion induced impacts. Likely, therealso would be concomitant leftward shifts of theretail-level demand and farm-level demand func-tions because of changes in product image. The fall-out of this simultaneous shift in demand is not onlya further reduction in farm prices but also a furtherdecline in farm revenues.

The concept of income elasticity of demandmeasures the percentage change in quantity of aproduct demanded which results from some per-centage change in consumer income. If high-valueproducts are extremely sensitive to changes in con-sumers' incomes, they may be classified as luxurygoods, with sales exhibiting a strong positive cor-relation with income.

Capps (1999) estimated the income elasticityof demand for honey in the neighborhood of 2.5.Given that honey is a relatively high-priced prod-uct in the sweetener market, it may be concludedthat the image of honey is both extremely valuable

44 July 2003


and vulnerable-valuable in that honey enjoys animage as a pure, natural, nutritious product, andvulnerable in that such an image could be damagedby negative publicity. Thus one may conclude thatquality assurance is particularly important for high-value products, especially those with relatively highincome elasticities of demand.

Concluding Remarks

The economic adulteration of food products meansillicit profits, unfair competition, consumer fraud,and a potential source of industry-wide economicdamage. Given the existence of financial incentivesfor the adulteration of high-value products such ashoney, economic adulteration will continue to be athreat. Therefore, given that the image of high-valueproducts tends to be vulnerable to damage, thereare compelling reasons for industry participants toconsider the development of quality-assurance pro-grams.

A number of potential weapons exist for com-bating economic adulteration. Among these areclear, enforceable grades and standards of identity;accurate, scientifically accepted tests for detectingproduct adulteration; an approved monitoring andenforcement program; and an educational programto encourage responsibility at the firm level through-out the production-marketing channel. It is impor-tant to enlist the support and cooperation of bothindustry and government in order to successfullydevelop and support such a program.

This paper has attempted to increase awarenessof the issues surrounding the economic adultera-tion of high-value food products, using the honeyindustry as an example. The authors hope the pa-

per will foster discussion among academics, gov-ernment agencies, and food-industry leaders, result-ing in improved regulations, monitoring, and analy-sis of economic adulteration.

References

Capps, Jr., 0. 1999. "Empirical Study of the De-mand for Honey." In Estimated Impact ofEco-nomic Adulteration on the U.S. Honey Indus-try. Unpublished research report prepared forThe National Honey Board, Appendix B.

Crawford, C. W. 1954. "The Long Fight for PureFoods." In Marketing; The Yearbook of Agri-culture, 211-220. U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

Fairchild, G. F 1999. Estimatedlmpact ofEconomicAdulteration on the U.S. Honey Industry. Un-published research report prepared for the Na-tional Honey Board.

Fairchild, G. F. 1993. Unpublished Expert WitnessTestimony presented at the request of the UnitedStates Food and Drug Administration, Plain-tiff, in an Economic Adulteration of OrangeJuice Case (No. 1:93-CR-19) in the UnitedStates District Court for the Western Districtof Michigan, Southern Division.

Kim, S. Y, R. M. Nayga, and O. Capps, Jr. 2001."Health Knowledge and Consumer Use of Nu-tritional Labels: The Issue Revisited." Agricul-tural and Resource Economics 30(1):10-19.

Willett, L. S. and B. C. French. 1991. "An Econo-metric Model of the U.S. Beekeeping Indus-try." American Journal of Agricultural Eco-nomics 73(1):40-54.


observations on economic adulteration of high-value food

Documents