DOCSLIB.ORG

Emerging Food Marketing Technologies: a Preliminary Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Emerging Food Marketing Technologies: A Preliminary Analysis October 1978 NTIS order #PB-291039 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 77-600131 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock No. 052-003-00612-0 ii —- Foreword Food marketing technologies in the United States are undergoing major changes with a number of global implications. The purpose of this preliminary analysis was to gain a better perspective of these changes. It has helped to define the need for a major assessment of alternative global food futures. The staff of the OTA Food Group conducted the preliminary analysis with the assistance of the OTA Food Advisory Committee and a 22-member Food Market- ing Technologies Working Group. The analysis is a synthesis of many inputs and does not necessarily reflect the position of any individual. We thank the Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service of the U.S. De- partment of Agriculture for permitting Dr. William Gallimore to be detailed to the OTA Food Group to assist us with this analysis. RUSSELL W. PETERSON Director Office of Technology Assessment OTA Food Group Staff J.B. Cordaro, Food Group Manager Michael J. Phillips, Marketing Cluster Leader William W. Gallimore, Project Leader ● Robert L. Smith, Jr., Research Associate Ann Woodbridge, Achnim”strative Assistant Phyllis Balan, Administrative Secretary Jane Mason, Secretary* Debra Mears, Secretary4 Elizabeth Galloway, Secretary Contractor Thomas L. Sporleder Professor of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University OTA Publishing Staff John C. Holmes, Publishing O~~icer Kathie S. Boss Joanne Heming *Resigned iv OTA Food Advisory Committee Martin E. Abel, Chairman Senior Vice President, Schnittker Associates Johama Dwyer, Vice Chairman Director, Frances Stern Nutrition Center David Call Laura Heuser Kathleen O’Reilly Dean, College of Agricultural Member, Board of Directors Director and Life Sciences Agricdtural Council of America Consumer Federation of America Cornell University Arnold Mayer R. Dennis Rouse Cy Carpenter Legislative Representative Dean, School of Agriculture President Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Auburn University Minnesota Farmers Union Butcher Workmen of North Lauren Seth America Eliot Coleman Agricultural Consultant Director Max Milner Thomas Sporleder Coolidge Center for the Associate Director Professor of Agricultural Studv. of Agriculture International Nutrition Planning Economics Program Texas A&M University Almeta Edwards Fleming Massachusetts Institute of Social Program Coordinator Technology Sylvan Wittwer Florence County, S.C. Director and Assistant Dean Robert O. Nesheim College of Agriculture and Lorne Greene Vice President, Science and Chairman of the Board Natural Resources Technology Michigan State University American Freedom From The Quaker Oats Company Hunger Foundation Richard L. Hall Vice President, Science and Technology McCormick & Company, Inc. Working Group on New Food Marketing Technologies Processing and Packaging Subgroup William Gallimore, chairman OTA Project Leader Robert Angelotti Herbert A. Hollender Romeo T. Toledo Administrator Chief, Food Technology Associate Professor of Food Science Food Safety and Quality Service Division University of Georgia U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Engineering Lab James Wishart Robert Beverly U.S. Army, Natick Research Director Manager James J. Solomon Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Food Research Department Market Analyst Butcher Workmen of North FMA Corporation Corporate Planning Division America Mahlon A. Burnette, III Aluminum Company of America Jane Wyatt Director, Scientific Affairs Dwayne A, Suter Associate Professor of Food Science Grocery Manufacturers of America Associate Dean and Technology Inc. College of Agriculture Oregon State University G. Robert DiMarco Texas A&M University Group Director James Turner Basic and Health Sciences Partner General Foods Corporation Swankin and Turner Wholesaling, Retailing, Transportation, and Food Service Subgroup Michael J. Phillips, Chairman OTA Food Marketing Cluster Leader Peter Allstrom Timothy Hammonds Ernie Renaud Food and Beverage Trades Vice President for Research Executive Vice President Department Food Marketing Institute Jerrico, Inc. AFL-CIO Lew Norwood Harold Ricker E. A. Atchley Director of Affiliate Relations Chairman General Transportation Manager National Association of Retail Agriculture Marketing Research General Mills, Inc. Grocers Institute Gordon Bloom Daniel Padberg U.S. Department of Agriculture Senior Lecturer Chairman Don Rothenberg Sloan School of Management Department of Agricultural Consultant Massachusetts Institute of Economics Technology University of Illinois Ellen Haas Gerald Peck Consumer Coordinator President Community Nutrition Institute National-American Wholesale Grocers’ Association vi Contents Chapter Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. 3 I INTRODUCTION . 7 Objectives and Procedures . 8 II. PRIORITIES FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT . .......11 Priority Selection. 11 Fabricated Foods. .......13 Food Sanitation in Distribution. .......13 Retortable Pouch. 14 Electronic Checkout . 15 Technologies To Reduce Food Loss. ...16 Electronic Food Shopping . ....16 Returnable and Recyclable Containers . .....17 Technologies Needing More Research . 18 III. SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS . .......21 Scenarios for the Future. .......21 Energy and Other Raw Materials . .......23 Pollution, ,. .......24 Demand for Food. .......24 Supply of Food. .......25 Food Safety and Nutrition. .......25 Regulations . .......26 Changing Lifestyles. .......27 Industry Structure . 28 Other Institutions . .......28 FoodWaste . .......29 IV. PROCESSING AND PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR ASSESSMENT . .......33 Preservation . 0 . 0 . .......34 New and Improved Equipment and Processing Techniques . .......37 New and Modified Food Products. .......42 New Sources of Ingredients . .......44 Packaging . .......45 V. DISTRIBUTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR ASSESSMENT . .......51 Wholesaling. .......52 Transportation . .......53 Retailing and FoodService . .......56 Technologies Involving the Total Distribution System. .......61 Contents—continued Chapter Page APPENDIXES A. The Food Marketing System. .......65 B. Procedures Followed in the Planning Assessment. ...69 C, Agenda, Objectives, and Procedures for the Working Group. 78 D. References . .....86 LIST OF TABLES TableNo. Page 1. Issue Areas of Food Marketing Technologies With High Priority for Assessment. ...I2 2. Socioeconomic Factors Influencing New Technologies as Indicated in Questionnaire Responses . .......22 3. Processing and Packaging Technologies With High Priority for Assessment. .., ....34 4. Number of Plants and Employees for Food Processing . .......34 5. Distribution Technologies With High PriorityforAssessment . ....5I A-1. Establishments, Sales, and Employees for Food MarketingFirms, 1967 and 1972.... 68 El. Number of Responses to Letter by Type of Respondent. .......70 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Page A-1. Major Components of theDomestic Food System. .......66 A-2. Farm Value,Marketing Bill,and Consumer Expenditures for Food, 1977..........67 A-3. Components of Bill for Marketing Farm Foods,1976. .......68 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The identification of new or emerging food marketing technologies that will have significant long-range impacts on society and the U.S. food system was the objective of this preliminary analysis. Food marketing is defined as the activities that take place within the food sys- tem from the farm gate to the consumer. These activities include processing, wholesaling, retailing, transportation, and food service. In 1977 consumers spent $180 billion on domestically produced food. The marketing bill was $123.5 billion, or 68.6 percent of this total, which represents more than twice the farm value of that food. Using a mail survey, a working group, and collateral staff work, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) has identified the social and economic factors that interact with and may be expected to influence the emergence and adoption of marketing technologies. The availability and cost of energy, supply of and demand for food (domestically and worldwide), environmental concerns, food safety, nutrition and health, and consumer attitudes are the major factors identified. Other elements include the availability and use of raw materials, importance of preventing spoilage and waste in the marketing system, and the effect of changing lifestyles on consumer preferences and attitudes. These socioeconomic elements and the marketing technologies are outlined and analyzed using two differing scenarios. The first scenario assumes that only minor changes will occur in the socioeconomic climate through the year 2000 and that trends will continue basically the same as they are today. The second, which is felt to be the more realistic and applicable, assumes changes from the current situation that will effect concomitant changes in the food marketing system. Each technology is examined from the following points of view: . Its current state of development; . The extent to which it will be used; . Expected impacts, both negative and positive, of the technology and where these impacts may be felt; and ● Significant policy issues that may be explored in connection with a given technology and the effect it may have on society. On the basis of the foregoing, seven technologies were judged by OTA as highest priority. ● Texturing, binding, flavoring, and associated technologies that will pr~ duce engineered or fabricated
Recommended publications
  • METHODS for DEVELOPING NEW FOOD PRODUCTS an Instructional Guide

    METHODS for DEVELOPING NEW FOOD PRODUCTS an Instructional Guide

    METHODS for DEVELOPING NEW FOOD PRODUCTS An Instructional Guide ADI RAMOUNI, Ph.D. F AProfessor of Food Science Kansas State University ATHRYN ESCHENES, M.S. K Food Science,D Deschenes Consulting, LLC HOW T O O DR ER THIS OB OK BY PHONE: 78 7 005- - 7334 or 717 - -092 1 066 , 9 AM –5 PM Easte nr Time BY F XA : 17 7 905- - 016 0 BY M IA L: Ord re Dep ra tm ne t DEStech Pu ilb cat noi ,s I nc. 34 9 oN r ht uD ke St er et aL n ac ts er, PA 1 2067 , U .S. A. BY RC EDIT AC RD: Am ire c na Ex erp ss, VISA, Mast re C dra , D si cover BY WW W IS ET : h tt p :// www .destec ph ub .com Preface HE ideas in this text include and yet transcend the concepts nor- Tmally offered in food science courses. They speak to practical and business issues, such as food marketing, product feasibility and industry expectations for oral and written communication. Much of the applied technology covered herein is derived from consultation with experts in areas such as these. While the book aspires to provide a review and overview of information required by a well-informed specialist in the food industry, no single volume can cover everything. Hence, the book is a stepping-stone and guide for the readers’ own work and research. The content and organization of this book were originally developed and delivered for a capstone course at Kansas State University.
  • 2 Changing Food Marketing Systems in Western Countries

    2 Changing Food Marketing Systems in Western Countries

    Chapter2 2 Changing food marketing systems in western countries M.T.G. Meutenberg andJ. Viaene 2.1 Introduction Agricultural and food products have traditionally been marketed through institutionalized markets,suc h ascommodit y exchanges,auction s andwho ­ lesale markets. Pricesar eth e centralcoordinatio n mechanismsi n such mar­ kets.However ,agricultura lan dfoo d markets havechange d drastically in the last few decades. Perhaps the most fundamental change is the shift from production to market orientation.I n ordert o establish astron g competitive position in their market, agricultural and food companies have to produce goods andservice s which match the wants and needs of consumers. In this contextth ecoordinatio n ofcompan ydecision si n thefoo d marketingsyste m has become extremely important. Consumer orientation, competitive strength and marketing efficiency are key words in agricultural and food marketing. In conjunction with this development, food marketing systems have become more diverse and moresophisticated . Thischapte ri sconcerne dwit h changesi nth efoo d marketing system,i n par­ ticular in the European Union (EU).First , aframewor k ofth e marketingsys ­ tem is proposed in order to analyse marketing and markets of agricultural andfoo d products.Afterward s developmentsi n the environmento fth e food marketing system are reviewed. Subsequently structural developments in food marketing systems areanalysed .Attentio n will bepai dt o actorsi n the marketing channel, such as farmers, wholesalers, the food industry and retailers. Marketing strategies which have become important in the Europeanfoo d marketing systems arereviewed .Th echapte r endswit h some conclusions. 2.2 Thefoo d marketing system:a framewor k Direct marketing from farmer to consumer is the exception rather than the rulei n Westerncountries .Agricultura lmarketin g channels haveevolve dint o food marketing systems consisting of different actors, such asfarmer ,who ­ lesaler, the food industry and retailer.
  • AGRICULTURAL MARKETING INFRASTRUCTURE and POST HARVEST MANAGEMENT for the 10Th Five Year People’S Plan, 2010-15

    AGRICULTURAL MARKETING INFRASTRUCTURE and POST HARVEST MANAGEMENT for the 10Th Five Year People’S Plan, 2010-15

    Final Report of the Working Group on AGRICULTURAL MARKETING INFRASTRUCTURE AND POST HARVEST MANAGEMENT th for the 10 Five Year People’s Plan, 2010-15 December, 2009 Food and Agriculture Section, Planning Commission Islamabad Dated: ________________ Subject: Final Report of the Working Group on Agricultural marketing Infrastructure and Post Harvest Management Dear Dr. M .E. Tusneem, Assalamu alaikum Warahmat Ullah Wabarakatuh, The Planning Commission of Pakistan constituted a Working Group on “Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure and Post Harvest Management” on August 29, 2009 for the 10th Five Year People’s Plan 2010-15. The main task for the Working Group was to review existing marketing system of agricultural commodities (wheat, rice, cotton, sugarcane, oilseeds, pulses, horticulture products, milk, meat, etc.) and recommend strategies/policies for improvement. Also, to review existing regulatory arrangements for ensuring quality of inputs/outputs, and making recommendations for compliance with SPS requirements and promoting exports; to examine adequacy of existing storage/cool chain infrastructure; and recommend public policy interventions, institutional arrangements and investment for enhancing capacity and reducing post harvest losses that would help contain food inflation and protection of consumer rights. Within the given time and resources, the Working Group has come up with a package of policy measures for the improvement of existing agricultural marketing system. I would like to thank all members of the Working Group and other experts for their timely and quality inputs in preparing this report. The services provided by the Planning Commission are highly appreciated. With profound regards, Yours faithfully, (Prof. Dr. Iqrar Ahmad Khan) Chairman Working Group Dr. M .E.
  • DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service

    DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service

    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/21/2021 and available online at DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREfederalregister.gov/d/2021-08152, and on govinfo.gov Agricultural Marketing Service [Document Number AMS-TM-21-0034] Supply Chains for the Production of Agricultural Commodities and Food Products AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for public comments. SUMMARY: On February 24, 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order on “America’s Supply Chains,” which directs several Federal agency actions to secure and strengthen America’s supply chains. One of these directions is for the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary) to submit, within one year, a report to the President that assesses the supply chains for the production of agricultural commodities and food products. This notice requests comments and information from the public to assist the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in preparing the report required by the Executive Order. Through this notice, USDA is also requesting public comment to inform our thinking regarding how stimulus relief programs and spending related to food supply chain resilience as authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA), and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) can help to increase durability and resilience within the U.S. food supply. DATES: Comments must be received by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ADDRESSES: All written comments in response to this notice should be posted online at www.regulations.gov. Comments received will be posted without change, including any personal information provided. All comments should reference the docket number AMS-TM-21-0034, the date of submission, and the page number of this issue of the Federal Register.
  • A Theory of Agricultural Marketing Cooperatives with Direct Selling Maxime Agbo, Damien Rousselière, Julien Salanié

    A Theory of Agricultural Marketing Cooperatives with Direct Selling Maxime Agbo, Damien Rousselière, Julien Salanié

    A Theory of Agricultural Marketing Cooperatives with Direct selling Maxime Agbo, Damien Rousselière, Julien Salanié To cite this version: Maxime Agbo, Damien Rousselière, Julien Salanié. A Theory of Agricultural Marketing Cooperatives with Direct selling. 2013. halshs-00906894 HAL Id: halshs-00906894 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00906894 Preprint submitted on 20 Nov 2013 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. GROUPE D’ANALYSE ET DE THÉORIE ÉCONOMIQUE LYON ‐ ST ÉTIENNE WP 1 331 A Theory of Agricultural Marketing Cooperatives with Direct Selling Maxime Agbo, Damien Rousselière, Julien Salanié November 2013 Documents de travail | Working Papers GATE Groupe d’Analyse et de Théorie Économique Lyon‐St Étienne 93, chemin des Mouilles 69130 Ecully – France Tel. +33 (0)4 72 86 60 60 Fax +33 (0)4 72 86 60 90 6, rue Basse des Rives 42023 Saint‐Etienne cedex 02 – France Tel. +33 (0)4 77 42 19 60 Fax. +33 (0)4 77 42 19 50 Messagerie électronique / Email : [email protected] Téléchargement / Download : http://www.gate.cnrs.fr – Publications
  • Food Marketing and Labeling

    Food Marketing and Labeling

    FOOD MARKETING AND LABELING BACKGROUND READING 10 “Advertising, new products, and larger portions all contribute to a food environment that promotes eating more, not less.”1 - Marion Nestle, Food Politics: How the industry influences nutrition and health Essential questions • To what degree are food choices made by individuals, versus made by others on their behalf? • How can marketing and labeling affect food choices? How can they make food choices more or less informed? • Why and how do food companies market their products? • How should food marketing be regulated, if at all? Should food companies be allowed to market products to children and in schools? Introduction Americans suffer from an epidemic of diet-related illnesses that stem, in part, from overeating.2 The amount of calories provided by the U.S. food supply,3 as well as the amount consumed,4 have both risen over recent decades. Most of this increase has been in the form of refined grains, added fats and added sugars.5 What has led to these changes in American diets? There are many influences on what people eat, ranging from personal taste preferences to the cost and availability of food in a community (refer to Diet and Influences on Food Choice and Food Environments). This module focuses on the effects of food marketing and labeling on what people eat. In 1999, U.S. food companies spent an estimated $33 billion on marketing.1 In food environments saturated with enticing new products, captivating advertisements and increasing portion sizes, some nutritionists see it as no surprise that Americans struggle with moderation.1 This raises questions of how much control people have over their food choices: To what degree are those choices driven by individual needs, versus driven by effective marketing campaigns? Children, in particular, may be particularly susceptible to the effects of marketing.6 Food labels, such as nutrition information and USDA Organic labels, may help consumers make more informed purchases that align with their values and nutritional needs.
  • Economics of Food Labeling

    Economics of Food Labeling

    Economics of Food Labeling. By Elise Golan, Fred Kuchler, and Lorraine Mitchell with contributions from Cathy Greene and Amber Jessup. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report No. 793. Abstract Federal intervention in food labeling is often proposed with the aim of achieving a social goal such as improving human health and safety, mitigating environmental hazards, averting international trade disputes, or supporting domestic agricultural and food manufacturing industries. Economic theory suggests, however, that mandatory food-labeling requirements are best suited to alleviating problems of asymmetric information and are rarely effective in redressing environmental or other spillovers associated with food production and consumption. Theory also suggests that the appropriate role for government in labeling depends on the type of information involved and the level and distribution of the costs and benefits of providing that information. This report traces the economic theory behind food labeling and presents three case studies in which the government has intervened in labeling and two examples in which government intervention has been proposed. Keywords: labeling, information policy, Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, dolphin-safe tuna, national organic standards, country-of-origin labels, biotech food labeling Acknowledgments We wish to thank Lorna Aldrich, Pauline Ippolito, Clark Nardinelli, Donna Roberts, and Laurian Unnevehr for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. We appreciate the guidance provided by Nicole Ballenger, Mary Bohman, Margriet Caswell, Steve Crutchfield, Carol Jones, Kitty Smith, and John Snyder. We thank Tom McDonald for providing his editorial expertise. Elise Golan and Fred Kuchler are economists in the Food and Rural Economics Division, ERS.
  • FOOD FIGHT! Product Development in the Science Classroom

    FOOD FIGHT! Product Development in the Science Classroom

    FOOD FIGHT! Product Development in the Science Classroom Authors: Amy Rowley Jeremy Peacock NSF Graduate Teaching Fellows Department of Food Science and Technology The University of Georgia Athens, Georgia June 2005 FOOD FIGHT! was developed as part of The Science Behind Our Food NSF GK-12 program at the University of Georgia in collaboration with the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences and the Department of Food Science and Technology. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Award No. DGE0229577. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. FOOD FIGHT! 2 Contributors Contributing Author: Chris Wildman NSF Graduate Teaching Fellow Department of Animal and Dairy Science The University of Georgia Tifton, Georgia Collaborating Teachers: Danielle Armstrong Paul Blais Science Teacher Science Teacher Columbia High School Cedar Shoals High School Decatur, Georgia Athens, Georgia Reviewers: David Knauft, Ph.D. Steve Oliver, Ph.D. Professor Associate Professor Department of Horticulture Department of Science Education The University of Georgia The University of Georgia Athens, Georgia Athens, Georgia Robert Shewfelt, Ph.D. Professor Department of Food Science and Technology The University of Georgia Athens, Georgia FOOD FIGHT! ii Welcome to FOOD FIGHT! An Introduction for Teachers The most effective approaches to science instruction present scientific concepts in terms that are relevant and meaningful in students’ lives. As food is one of our most basic interests in life and a top priority in teenagers’ lives, the science behind our food is a natural perspective from which to approach high school science instruction.
  • MARKETING UNHEALTHY FOODS to KIDS Why Regulation Is Critical to Reducing Obesity

    MARKETING UNHEALTHY FOODS to KIDS Why Regulation Is Critical to Reducing Obesity

    MARKETING UNHEALTHY FOODS TO KIDS Why Regulation is Critical to Reducing Obesity A Growing, Global Obesity Epidemic • Worldwide, over 223 million children aged 5-18 years are now overweight or obese — 24 million more than in 2000 — and prevalence is expected to increase another 20% over the next decade.1,2 For preschool-aged children, prevalence has also risen 60% since 1990, with 43 million preschoolers now afFected and a Further 92 million at risk.3 • Low- and middle-income countries have experienced the most rapid rise in prevalence.4 In Latin America, for example, overweight and obesity now afFect 15-20% of children and adolescents in Colombia, a quarter to a third in parts oF Brazil, and well over a third in Mexico and Chile.2,5 • Even at a young age, obesity has serious health consequences, harming nearly every organ system and disrupting hormones that control blood sugar and normal development.4,6-9 • Carrying excess weight during childhood and adolescence can take a serious social and psychological toll, with increased risks For depression, anxiety, low selF-esteem, peer bullying, eating disorders, or poor perFormance in school.10-16 • Without intervention, children with obesity are likely to face overweight and obesity as teenagers and adults.7,17-20 They are also more likely to develop diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer at a younger age and Face shorter liFe expectancies.4,6,9,20-25 A Major Cause: Marketing to Children Television remains the most • The World Health Organization and other major health organizations
  • Digital Marketing in Agricultural Sector

    Digital Marketing in Agricultural Sector

    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Bojkić, Vedrana; Vrbančić, Marijana; Žibrin, Dragutin; Čut, Martina Conference Paper Digital Marketing in Agricultural Sector Provided in Cooperation with: IRENET - Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, Zagreb Suggested Citation: Bojkić, Vedrana; Vrbančić, Marijana; Žibrin, Dragutin; Čut, Martina (2016) : Digital Marketing in Agricultural Sector, In: Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference, Rovinj, Croatia, 8-9 September 2016, IRENET - Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, Zagreb, Vol. 2, pp. 136-141 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/183710 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the
  • Chain Marketing of Agricultural Products

    Chain Marketing of Agricultural Products

    Chainmarketin go fagricultura l products PROF.DR.IR. M.T.G. MEULENBERG, IR. M. KOOL Department of Marketing and Marketing Research Wageningen Agricultural University Hollandseweg I "De Leeuwenhoren" 6706 KN Wageningen The Netherlands Introduction In the classic textbook on marketing of agricultural products by Kohls and Uhl (1990, p. 5/6) food marketing is defined as: 'the performance of all business activities involved in the flow of food products and services from the point of initial agricultural production until they are in the hands of consumers.' Traditionally activities of different companies and institutions in the marketing channel are co-ordinated through market prices. Atpres ­ ent in many channels, these activities have to be co-ordinated in a more precise way than the 'invisible hand' of market prices can bring about, e.g. contract farming is familiar in raising pigs and poultry, account management creates relationships, contracts between food industry and food retail chains are aco-ordinatio n device in private label operations. Vertical integration is familiar to agricultural marketing and has often international dimensions, e.g. 'Multinational corporations are beginning to assemble cattle the way they assemble cars, bringing together inputs - seeds, grain, pharmaceuticals, cattle em­ bryos, cattle, automated slaughtering processes, wholesale marketing, and retail distribu­ tion- from various countries into a single coordinated operation.' (Rifkin 1992,p . 148),o r 'In the United States, Cargill, Continental, and Bunge have all moved aggressively into domestic grain 'refining' with their investments in flour-milling, soybean-crushing plants, and ultra-modern facilities for manufacturing feed ingredients or corn swee­ teners.' (Morgan 1980,p .
  • Urban Agriculture: Growing Healthy, Sustainable Places

    Urban Agriculture: Growing Healthy, Sustainable Places

    Urban Agriculture: Growing Healthy, Sustainable Places Kimberley Hodgson, Marcia Caton Campbell, and Martin Bailkey American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report Number 563 Urban Agriculture: Growing Healthy, Sustainable Places is the result of a collaborative partnership between the American Planning Association (APA) and MetroAg: Alliance for Urban Agriculture. Funding for this project was provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization. This report was developed under the auspices of the Planning and Community Health Re- search Center, one of APA’s National Centers for Planning. The Center engages in research, policy, outreach, and education to advance healthy communities through planning. For more information, visit www.planning.org/nationalcenters/health. APA’s National Centers for Planning conduct policy-relevant research and education involving community health, natu- ral and man-made hazards, and green communities. For more detail, visit www.planning .org/nationalcenters. Kimberley Hodgson, aicp, is a registered dietitian and the manager of APA’s Planning and Community Health Research Center. She served as the project manager and primary author. Marcia Caton Campbell is a coauthor and the Milwaukee director for the Center for Resilient Cities and a MetroAg associate. Martin Bailkey is a coauthor and the evaluation and outreach coordinator for Growing Power, as well as a MetroAg associate. The lead author of the history section of Chapter 2 was Domenic Vitiello, assistant profes- sor of city planning and urban studies at the University of Pennsylvania, with contributions from David Morley, aicp, research associate and PAS coordinator at APA. The lead author of the economic development section of Chapter 4 was Ken Meter, president of the Cross- roads Resource Center.