IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v72y2024i1p5-21.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do consumers care about clean labels? Willingness to pay for simple ingredient lists and front‐of‐package labels on beef and plant‐based burgers

Author

Listed:
  • Darnell Holt
  • Peter Slade
  • Jill Hobbs

Abstract

We use an online hypothetical discrete choice experiment to examine willingness to pay for two dimensions of a clean label: simple ingredient lists and front‐of‐package labels. Experimental subjects were asked to choose between beef burgers, plant‐based burgers, and hybrid burgers made with beef and plant protein. The burgers had either a simple or complex ingredient list and could also be labeled as organic or an excellent source of protein. Subjects were divided into two treatments: a treatment in which ingredient lists were always visible, and a treatment in which the ingredient lists were only visible if subjects clicked on the product image (click treatment). Subjects were willing to pay a premium of $4.55–$5.58 for products with simple ingredient lists in the visible ingredient treatment (relative to base prices of $5.00 to $12.50). This premium was reduced to $1.82–$2.29 in the click treatment. Willingness to pay for the organic and excellent source of protein labels was considerably lower and was generally insignificant, ranging from ‐$0.17 (and statistically insignificant) to $0.73. Willingness to pay for simple ingredient lists and front‐of‐package labels were not correlated, suggesting that demand for these attributes does not stem from an underlying preference for clean labels. Nous utilisons une expérience de choix discret hypothétique en ligne pour examiner la volonté de payer pour deux dimensions d'étiquetage: Une liste d'ingrédients simples et des étiquettes sur le devant de l'emballage. Les sujets de l'expérience ont été invités à choisir entre des hamburgers au bœuf, des hamburgers à base de plantes et des hamburgers hybrides à base de bœuf et de protéines végétales. Les hamburgers avaient une liste d'ingrédients simple ou complexe et pouvaient également être étiquetés comme biologiques ou comme excellente source de protéines. Les sujets ont été divisés en deux traitements: un traitement dans lequel les listes d'ingrédients étaient toujours visibles et un traitement dans lequel les listes d'ingrédients n'étaient visibles que si les sujets cliquaient sur l'image du produit (traitement par clic). Les sujets étaient prêts à payer un supplément de 4,55 à 5,58 dollars pour des produits comportant des listes d'ingrédients simples dans le traitement à ingrédients visibles (par rapport aux prix de base de 5,00 à 12,50 dollars). Cette prime a été réduite à 1,82$ ‐ 2,29$ dans le traitement des clics. La volonté de payer pour les étiquettes de source biologique et d'excellente source de protéines était considérablement plus faible et était généralement insignifiante, allant de −0,17$ (et statistiquement insignifiant) à 0,73$. La volonté de payer pour des listes d'ingrédients simples et des étiquettes sur le devant de l'emballage n'était pas corrélée, ce qui suggère que la demande pour ces attributs ne découle pas d'une préférence sous‐jacente d'étiquetage.

Suggested Citation

  • Darnell Holt & Peter Slade & Jill Hobbs, 2024. "Do consumers care about clean labels? Willingness to pay for simple ingredient lists and front‐of‐package labels on beef and plant‐based burgers," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 72(1), pages 5-21, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:72:y:2024:i:1:p:5-21
    DOI: 10.1111/cjag.12346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12346
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/cjag.12346?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grebitus, Carola & Davis, George C., 2017. "Change is good!? Analyzing the relationship between attention and nutrition facts panel modifications," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 119-130.
    2. Uddin, Azhar & Gallardo, R. Karina, 2021. "Consumers' willingness to pay for organic, clean label, and processed with a new food technology: an application to ready meals," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(3), March.
    3. James, Jennifer S. & Rickard, Bradley J. & Rossman, William J., 2009. "Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation in Applesauce: Using a Choice Experiment to Assess the Value of Organic, Local and Nutrition Attributes," Working Papers 48916, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    4. James, Jennifer S. & Rickard, Bradley J. & Rossman, William J., 2009. "Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation in Applesauce: Using a Choice Experiment to Assess the Value of Organic, Local, and Nutrition Attributes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-14, December.
    5. James, Jennifer S. & Rickard, Bradley J. & Rossman, William J., 2009. "Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation in Applesauce: Using a Choice Experiment to Assess the Value of Organic, Local, and Nutrition Attributes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(3), pages 357-370, December.
    6. Onken, Kathryn A. & Bernard, John C. & Pesek, John D., Jr., 2011. "Comparing Willingness to Pay for Organic, Natural, Locally Grown, and State Marketing Program Promoted Foods in the Mid-Atlantic Region," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(1), pages 1-15, April.
    7. Kara R. Grant & R. Karina Gallardo & Jill J. McCluskey, 2021. "Consumer preferences for foods with clean labels and new food technologies," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 764-781, October.
    8. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    9. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Willingness-to-pay for natural, organic, and conventional foods: The effects of information and meaningful labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 214-232.
    10. Berning Joshua P & Chouinard Hayley H & McCluskey Jill J, 2008. "Consumer Preferences for Detailed versus Summary Formats of Nutrition Information on Grocery Store Shelf Labels," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-22, August.
    11. Onken, Kathryn A. & Bernard, John C. & Pesek, John D., 2011. "Comparing Willingness to Pay for Organic, Natural, Locally Grown, and State Marketing Program Promoted Foods in the Mid-Atlantic Region," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 33-47, April.
    12. Martin C. Parlasca & Matin Qaim, 2022. "Meat Consumption and Sustainability," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 17-41, October.
    13. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ying, Jiahui & Shonkwiler, Vanessa P. & Campbell, Benjamin L., 2018. "Willingness to Pay or Not to Pay: Valuing Foods Some Respondents Find Distasteful," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274065, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Printezis, Iryna & Grebitus, Carola, 2018. "Marketing Channels for Local Food," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 161-171.
    3. Enthoven, Laura & Van den Broeck, Goedele, 2021. "Local food systems: Reviewing two decades of research," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    4. Shi, Wei & Halstead, John & Huang, Ju-Chin, 2016. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Locally Grown Produce: Comparison of New Hampshire and Massachusetts Results," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236109, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Lefèvre, Mélanie, 2014. "Do Consumers Pay More for What They Value More? The Case of Local Milk-based Dairy Products in Senegal," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 43(1), pages 1-20, April.
    6. Grashuis, Jasper & Su, Ye, 2023. "Consumer Preferences for State-Sponsored Designations: The Case of the Missouri Grown Label," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 48(1), January.
    7. Chen, Xuqi & Gao, Zhifeng & House, Lisa, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Niche Fresh Produce across the States: Why Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for the Less Favorite?," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196901, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    8. Shi, Wei & Halstead, John M. & Huang, Ju-Chin, 2017. "Market Experience Matters: Status Quo Effect in the Economic Valuation of Consumer Preferences for Local Produce," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258290, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Jingjing Wang & Chengyan Yue & Karina Gallardo & Vicki McCracken & James Luby & Jim McFerson, 2017. "What Consumers Are Looking for in Strawberries: Implications from Market Segmentation Analysis," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(1), pages 56-69, January.
    10. Perla, Joseph M. & Rickard, Bradley J. & Schmit, Todd M., 2013. "Do Restaurants Cater to Locapours? Using Zagat Survey Data to Examine Factors that Influence Wine List Selections," Working Papers 164709, American Association of Wine Economists.
    11. Grebitus, Carola & Peschel, Anne & Hughner, Renee Shaw, "undated". "Drivers of Demand for Specialty Crops: The Example of Arizona-Grown Medjool Dates," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235545, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Iryna Printezis & Carola Grebitus & Stefan Hirsch, 2019. "The price is right!? A meta-regression analysis on willingness to pay for local food," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-23, May.
    13. Faical Akaichi & Klaus Glenk & Cesar Revoredo‐Giha, 2022. "Bundling food labels: What role could the labels “Organic,” “Local” and “Low Fat” play in fostering the demand for animal‐friendly meat," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 349-370, April.
    14. Perla, Joseph M. & Rickard, Bradley J. & Schmit, Todd M., 2014. "Looking for Locapours: Using Zagat Survey Data to Examine Restaurant Demand for Local Wine," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 69-86, April.
    15. Simona Bigerna & Andrea Marchini & Silvia Micheli & Paolo Polinori, 2023. "Pre- and during COVID-19: Households’ Willingness to Pay for Local Organic Food in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-18, June.
    16. He, Chenyi & Gao, Zhifeng, 2015. "The Impact of Customer Review on Consumer Preference for Fresh Produce: A Choice Experiment Approach," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205807, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Vincent Hoang & Takao Iida & Shigeru Matsumoto & Natsuki Watanabe & Clevo Wilson, 2016. "Consumer’s comparison between local and imported organic products: a hedonic analysis of the Japanese table wine market," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 6(3), pages 405-415, December.
    18. Alicia L. Rihn & Chengyan Yue, 2016. "Visual Attention's Influence on Consumers’ Willingness‐to‐Pay for Processed Food Products," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(3), pages 314-328, July.
    19. Azucena Gracia & Miguel I. Gómez, 2020. "Food Sustainability and Waste Reduction in Spain: Consumer Preferences for Local, Suboptimal, And/Or Unwashed Fresh Food Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-15, May.
    20. András István Kun & Marietta Kiss, 2021. "On the Mechanics of the Organic Label Effect: How Does Organic Labeling Change Consumer Evaluation of Food Products?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-25, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:72:y:2024:i:1:p:5-21. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.