IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ifaamr/156421.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Information Bias Condemning Radical Food Innovators? The Case of Insect-Based Products in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Pascucci, Stefano
  • Magistris, Tiziana de

Abstract

In this paper we analyze whether information bias is affecting consumers’ WTP for radical food innovations. We collect data in the Netherlands on consumers’ WTP for insect-based products. We used product attributes directly affected by information and EU legislation such as the visualization of insects on the products, the use of logo and health claims, different information treatments on positive environmental and social effects of eating insects as meat-substitutes. Results indicate that visualization negatively influenced consumers’ WTP while information treatments do not mitigate this effect. We derive that EU legislators need to move fast in clarifying the status of insect-based foods.

Suggested Citation

  • Pascucci, Stefano & Magistris, Tiziana de, 2013. "Information Bias Condemning Radical Food Innovators? The Case of Insect-Based Products in the Netherlands," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 16(3), pages 1-16, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifaamr:156421
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.156421
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/156421/files/20130022.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.156421?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. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    3. Glynn T. Tonsor & Robert S. Shupp, 2011. "Cheap Talk Scripts and Online Choice Experiments: "Looking Beyond the Mean"," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1015-1031.
    4. Scarpa Riccardo & Del Giudice Teresa, 2004. "Market Segmentation via Mixed Logit: Extra-Virgin Olive Oil in Urban Italy," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-20, August.
    5. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    6. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    7. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    8. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, November.
    9. Golan, Elise H. & Kuchler, Fred & Mitchell, Lorraine, 2000. "Economics Of Food Labeling," Agricultural Economic Reports 34069, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. David F. Layton & Gardner Brown, 2000. "Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(4), pages 616-624, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marberg, Angela & van Kranenburg, Hans & Korzilius, Hubert, 2017. "The big bug: The legitimation of the edible insect sector in the Netherlands," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 111-123.
    2. Massimiliano Borrello & Francesco Caracciolo & Alessia Lombardi & Stefano Pascucci & Luigi Cembalo, 2017. "Consumers’ Perspective on Circular Economy Strategy for Reducing Food Waste," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, January.
    3. Simone Belluco & A. Halloran & A. Ricci, 2017. "New protein sources and food legislation: the case of edible insects and EU law," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(4), pages 803-814, August.
    4. Ramona Weinrich, 2019. "Opportunities for the Adoption of Health-Based Sustainable Dietary Patterns: A Review on Consumer Research of Meat Substitutes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-15, July.
    5. Andrijana Horvat & Vincenzo Fogliano & Pieternel A Luning, 2020. "Modifying the Bass diffusion model to study adoption of radical new foods–The case of edible insects in the Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, June.

    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. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    2. repec:ehu:biltok:5571 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    4. Janssen, Meike & Hamm, Ulrich, 2011. "Certification Logos in the Market for Organic Food: What are Consumers Willing to Pay for Different Logos?," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114454, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    6. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 1-21.
    7. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    8. Caputo, Vincenzina & Aprile, Maria Carmela & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2011. "Consumers’ Valuation for European food quality labels: Importance of Label Information Provision," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114324, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Gunderson, Michael A. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2005. "Getting Something From Nothing: An Investigation of Beef Demand Expansion and Substitution in the Presence of Quality Heterogeneity," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19465, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    11. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    12. Soliño, Mario & Farizo, Begoña A. & Vázquez, María X. & Prada, Albino, 2012. "Generating electricity with forest biomass: Consistency and payment timeframe effects in choice experiments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 798-806.
    13. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Jayson Lusk & Tomas Nilsson & Ken Foster, 2007. "Public Preferences and Private Choices: Effect of Altruism and Free Riding on Demand for Environmentally Certified Pork," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 499-521, April.
    15. Cao, Ying & Chen, Chen & Cranfield, John & Widowski, Tina, 2017. "Market Responses to Information Conveying Mixed Messages – Prediction of Informational Impacts on Consumer Willingness to Pay for Eggs from Welfare Enhanced Cage Systems using Discrete Choice Experime," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258545, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    17. Robert W. Paterson & Kevin J. Boyle & Christopher F. Parmeter & James E. Neumann & Paul De Civita, 2008. "Heterogeneity in preferences for smoking cessation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1363-1377, December.
    18. Ping Qin & Fredrik Carlsson & Jintao Xu, 2011. "Forest Tenure Reform in China: A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 473-487.
    19. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    20. Heng, Yan & Lu, Chao-Lin & Yu, Luqing & Gao, Zhifeng, 2020. "The heterogeneous preferences for solar energy policies among US households," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).

    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:ags:ifaamr:156421. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifamaea.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.