Creating a Geographically Linked Brand for High-Quality Beef: A Case Study
Worldwide, a segment of consumers can afford to pay substantial price premiums for very high quality agricultural products with attributes those consumers value. At the same time, many U.S. farmers are producing these high-quality products but are not using market mechanisms that allow them to take fullest advantage of price premiums. This paper describes a pilot program developed to commercialize an origin-based collective brand for very high quality beef. We hypothesize that, if successful, the program would create potential for cattle producers to take fuller advantage of price premiums often captured elsewhere in the marketing channel. Specifically, the pilot program analyzed two mechanisms for differentiating and marketing very high quality beef: a certification mark (a type of U.S. trademark that links products to their geographic origin) and a USDA Process Verification Program (a federal program that allows producers to provide documented assurances to their customers that a stated set of minimum production standards are met). This paper describes how we identified target markets, defined product specifications and determined potential supply, protected property rights using the U.S. trademark system, prepared documentation for a USDA process verification program, and attempted to commercialize Iowa-80 Beef. We also discuss the costs and feasibility of small firms or producer groups obtaining and maintaining a certification mark and a process verification program. Finally, we discuss the challenges and lessons learned from attempting to brand and commercialize very high quality beef.
Geographical Indications and Property Rights: Protecting Value-Added Agricultural Products
Since 1992, the European Union has protected high-quality agricultural products based on geographical origin using designations of geographical indications (GIs). U.S. producers and processors can obtain a type of trademark called a certification mark, which provides similar protections to that of GIs but protects products only within the United States. In the current round of the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations, the European Union and other countries are seeking to expand protection through GIs. If they achieve the full range of protection they are seeking, many U.S. producers and processors could no longer use many product names currently treated as generic (e.g., feta cheese). This article describes and contrasts three systems of protecting property rights for agricultural products (certification mark, E.U.-wide GI, and WTO GI) and discusses some of the benefits and problems of each system and the effects of each system on helping to differentiate and protect high-value U.S. agricultural products.
The costs of identifying undiagnosed prostate cancer in asymptomatic men in New Zealand general practice
Background. Screening for prostate cancer (PCa) using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is widespread in New Zealand. 3 informed testing history in 2007–09 were NZ$8887 compared to NZ$13 870 if the men had PSA tests in 2007–09. If we assumed a PSA test involved a full 15-minute general practice consultation, the estimated costs increased to NZ$26 877 per PCa identified. Conclusions. Screening of asymptomatic men for PCa is widely practiced. Most of the costs of screening were incurred in general practice. Calls for men to receive increased information on the harms and benefits of screening will substantially increase the costs. The current costs could be reduced by better targeting of screening.