Consumer Welfare of Country-of-Origin Labelling and Traceability Policies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
trivial suggestions attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Author responses to reviewer’s comments – agronomy - 1203421
We thank the reviewers for their helpful comments, which have helped us improve the paper. Find below the details of how we have revised the manuscript in response to the reviewer’s comments. We reproduce each review comment (italics) followed by an explanation of how we have revised the paper in response to the comment.
Responses to Reviewer 1
1). Comment: Line 62: Define acronym at first mention e.g., TBT
Response: The acronym has been defined
2). Comment: Line 219: Cap The
Response: Capital ‘T’ has been added
3). Comment: Use hyphens for compound qualifiers e.g., first-order; 408 low-risk; 521 dead-weight; 598 trade-related.
Response: These have been done
4). Comment: Line 342: cost not costs
Response: corrected
5). Comment: Line 374: Delete way
Response: Done
6). Comment: Line 436: Space after this
Response: Done
7). Comment: 507 526: Home not Home
Response: Done
8). Comment: Line 539: e.g., should better be used, globally
Response: Done
9). Comment: Rather than an empty Conclusions perhaps retitle Discussion?
Response: Subtitle has been retitled.
10). Comment: Use of periods in referenced initial is inconsistent and in 736 initial is absent.
Response: The referenced initials have been probably arranged.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting paper. It has discussed the relationships among country-of-origin labelling, traceability regulation and consumer welfare by proposing a few models based on different situations.
But I have some questions:
- Are there any limitations for the conceptual models? are they suitable for all countries? consumers from some Asian countries may prefer to buy foreign products as they consider that the quality of products from certain countries is better than domestic products and they are willing to pay a high price for such foreign products. So, even though the country-of-origin labelling may increase the production cost and customer price, it may not greatly decrease the import volume in some countries. It might be necessary to discuss the limitations of this study in the conclusion section.
- Global adoption of traceability could be a good solution to reduce the trade barrier of mandatory country-of-origin labelling, but again consumers' preference for production information could be varied across countries, will it be hard to have one-size to fit all?
- Does the concept of country-of-origin labelling regulation=traceability regulation in this paper? they are quite mixed together.
- Some sentences in this article are very colloquial, or informal, eg. line 88-89
- It seems that some parts of the paper can be deleted(too many examples in section 3 method, it could be better to focus on fewer examples to make the statement more clear.)
- It could be nice to have a new paragraph in the introduction to explain the novelty of this study.
- Overall, this paper is meaningful and interesting with a well-organized structure.
Author Response
Author responses to reviewer’s comments – agronomy - 1203421
We thank the reviewers for their helpful comments, which have helped us improve the paper. Find below the details of how we have revised the manuscript in response to the reviewer’s comments. We reproduce each review comment (italics) followed by an explanation of how we have revised the paper in response to the comment.
Responses to Reviewer 2
1). Comment: Are there any limitations for the conceptual models? are they suitable for all countries? consumers from some Asian countries may prefer to buy foreign products as they consider that the quality of products from certain countries is better than domestic products and they are willing to pay a high price for such foreign products. So, even though the country-of-origin labelling may increase the production cost and customer price, it may not greatly decrease the import volume in some countries. It might be necessary to discuss the limitations of this study in the conclusion section.
Response: The referee makes a good point. Perceived quality of foreign-made products will tend to raise demand and hence imports. Examples abound such as German cars, French wines, and New Zealand dairy. However, we want to focus on how countries with domestic traceability regulation may benefit or face harm from using COOL to differentiate goods local versus imported goods. Our model ‘levels the playing field’ by assuming that there is no foreign or domestic premium absent traceability.
In line 36 we delete mention of traceability to highlight that country-of-origin labels are not tied to traceability.
We have added wording (line 41-43) as an alternative benefit to labeling.
2). Comment: Global adoption of traceability could be a good solution to reduce the trade barrier of mandatory country-of-origin labelling, but again consumers' preference for production information could be varied across countries, will it be hard to have one-size to fit all?
Response: Again a good point. The issue then would be whether foreign traceability regulations are largely ‘equivalent’ to domestic regulations and therefore meet domestic needs. Countries can use one of two approaches. First is ‘national standards’ in which imported goods must demonstrate that they meet national regulations. For instance, Canada requires all cars sold in Canada to have daylight running lights. The US does not (as far as we know). Hence all cars imported to Canada must have the capacity to have daylight running lights.
The second is ‘mutual recognition’ in which countries formally acknowledge that, if products meet foreign regulations, then they, de facto, meet domestic regulations and can be imported. For instance, US grade A beef and Canadian Grade A beef, though undergoing possible different inspection processes, can be deemed to meet national standards and would not need to be inspected upon import.
We have added wording in the conclusion (line 634 - 641) to make this more apparent.
3). Comment: Does the concept of country-of-origin labelling regulation=traceability regulation in this paper? they are quite mixed together.
Response: Our apologies, they are not the same.
We have introduced more clarity on line 36 to ensure that the distinction is clearer. We also try to ensure that the concepts are not used interchangeably.
Also, line 105, we separate traceability and COOL.
4). Comment: Some sentences in this article are very colloquial, or informal, eg. line 88-89
Response: we have reviewed the manuscript. We understand that colloquial usage can be problematic but also wanted to make the writing more engaging for the reader. I suppose this is a matter of taste.
Deleted lines 94-96. Statement is not required.
Deleted lines 382-83. Statement is not required.
5). Comment: It seems that some parts of the paper can be deleted (too many examples in section 3 method, it could be better to focus on fewer examples to make the statement more clear.)
Response: We take your point that the multiple cases might be confusing/repetitious and muddy the results. However, we do not agree that we can delete some of the modelling, as we perceive the need to be thorough. Under specific cost and demand parameters, there will be no ambiguity. But as long as the modeling remains more general, there will be competing cases. Failure to include alternative results would suggest that we are hiding conflicting results.
For instance Fig 2 shows the base model without COOL while fig 3 adds COOL. Fig 4 adds foreign traceability.
We have added wording (line 229-235) to make this more apparent by providing a roadmap for the reader. Also lines 370-373. We have added additional sub-headings to help guide the reader. We hope that improves readability.
6). Comment: It could be nice to have a new paragraph in the introduction to explain the novelty of this study.
Response: Agreed. See lines 86-89 for a discussion of what is new in this paper. We keep it brief.
7). Comment: Overall, this paper is meaningful and interesting with a well-organized structure.
Response: Thank you. We believe that non-economists will find the economic modeling useful when they undertake their own research into how to trace and pay particular attention to the costs of traceability. We show that costs are critical to whether we should regulate in this manner.
