IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jageco/v61y2010i2p426-443.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of Multiple Health and Nutrition Labels on Consumer Food Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Jesús Barreiro‐Hurle
  • Azucena Gracia
  • Tiziana De‐Magistris

Abstract

Consumers face an increasing availability of information on health and nutritional aspects of foods, especially on food package labels. Previous research has identified that this information is positively valued, but the effect of presenting several items of information simultaneously is not well understood. We conduct a choice experiment to identify the effects of multiple health and nutrition information labels for two products representing a healthy and less healthy food choice. Although our consumers attach positive utility to most of the individual labels evaluated here, the simultaneous presence of more than one label only has positive impact on utility in one of nine possible cases. Therefore, promotion of multiple labels should not be considered beneficial a priori either from a regulatory or business perspective. In addition, results show that consumers show a higher willingness to pay for nutrition and health labels for less healthy products.

Suggested Citation

  • Jesús Barreiro‐Hurle & Azucena Gracia & Tiziana De‐Magistris, 2010. "The Effects of Multiple Health and Nutrition Labels on Consumer Food Choices," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 426-443, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:61:y:2010:i:2:p:426-443
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00247.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00247.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00247.x?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. Jacoby, Jacob & Chestnut, Robert W & Silberman, William, 1977. "Consumer Use and Comprehension of Nutrition Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 4(2), pages 119-128, Se.
    2. Tomas Nilsson & Ken Foster & Jayson L. Lusk, 2006. "Marketing Opportunities for Certified Pork Chops," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(4), pages 567-583, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Riccardo Scarpa & Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson, 2007. "Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 617-634.
    5. Rodolfo M. Nayga & Wipon Aiew & John P. Nichols, 2005. "Information Effects on Consumers' Willingness to Purchase Irradiated Food Products," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 37-48.
    6. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, September.
    8. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Effects on Welfare Measures of Alternative Means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1011-1027.
    9. Wuyang Hu, 2004. "Trading off health, environmental and genetic modification attributes in food," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(3), pages 389-408, September.
    10. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    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. Zhu, Chen & Huang, Rui, 2014. "Heterogeneity in Consumer Responses to Front-of-Package Nutrition Labels: Evidence from a Natural Experiment?," Working Paper series 170016, University of Connecticut, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
    2. Hongsha Wang & Qihui Chen & Bhagyashree Katare, 2023. "Nudging Chinese consumers to embrace sustainable milk consumption: How should information be provided?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(S1), pages 1512-1534, December.
    3. Grappe, Cindy G. & Lombart, Cindy & Louis, Didier & Durif, Fabien, 2022. "Clean labeling: Is it about the presence of benefits or the absence of detriments? Consumer response to personal care claims," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    4. Brenna Ellison & Kathleen Brooks & Taro Mieno, 2017. "Which livestock production claims matter most to consumers?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 819-831, December.
    5. Ngoulma, Jeannot, 2015. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for dairy products: what the studies say? A Meta-Analysis," MPRA Paper 65250, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Van Wezemael, Lynn & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Chryssochoidis, George & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "European consumer preferences for beef with nutrition and health claims: A multi-country investigation using discrete choice experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 167-176.
    7. Karnik, Harshada & Peterson, Hikaru Hanawa, 2018. "Impacts of Point-of-Sales Nutritional Labels and Nutrition Education on Healthful Food Purchase at Rural Grocery Stores: A Case Study," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273898, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Zhu, Zhanguo & Zhang, Tong & Hu, Wuyang, 2023. "The accumulation and substitution effects of multi-nation certified organic and protected eco-origin food labels in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    9. Tatiana Drugova & Kynda R. Curtis & Sherzod B. Akhundjanov, 2020. "Are multiple labels on food products beneficial or simply ignored?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(4), pages 411-427, December.
    10. Cindy Grappe & Cindy Lombart & Didier Louis & Fabien Durif, 2022. "Clean labeling: Is it about the presence of benefits or the absence of detriments? Consumer response to personal care claims," Post-Print hal-04293232, HAL.
    11. Ellen J Van Loo & Rodolfo M NaygaJr & Danny Campbell & Han-Seok Seo & Wim Verbeke, 2018. "Using eye tracking to account for attribute non-attendance in choice experiments," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(3), pages 333-365.
    12. Borrello, M. & Cecchini, L. & Vecchio, R. & Caracciolo, F. & Cembalo, L. & Torquati, B., 2022. "Agricultural landscape certification as a market-driven tool to reward the provisioning of cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    13. Hoefkens, Christine & Veettil, Prakashan Chellattan & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido & Van Camp, John & Verbeke, Wim, 2012. "What nutrition label to use in a catering environment? A discrete choice experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 741-750.
    14. Brooks, Kathleen R. & Ellison, Brenna, 2014. "Which Livestock Production Methods Matter Most to Consumers?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 173517, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Bi, Xiang & House, Lisa & Gao, Zhifeng, 2014. "Can Nutrition and Health Information Increase Demand for Seafood among Parents? Evidence from a Choice Experiment," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170266, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Alexander J. Stein & Marcelo Lima, 2022. "Sustainable food labelling: considerations for policy-makers," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 103(2), pages 143-160, 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. Ballco, Petjon & Gracia, Azucena, 2020. "Do market prices correspond with consumer demands? Combining market valuation and consumer utility for extra virgin olive oil quality attributes in a traditional producing country," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    2. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 137-150.
    3. Azucena Gracia, 2014. "Consumers’ preferences for a local food product: a real choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 111-128, August.
    4. Gracia, Azucena & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Perez y Perez, Luis, 2011. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for biodiesel in Spain," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114605, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Gracia, Azucena & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Pérez y Pérez, Luis, 2012. "Can renewable energy be financed with higher electricity prices? Evidence from a Spanish region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 784-794.
    6. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    7. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    8. Tiziano Tempesta & Daniel Vecchiato, 2019. "Analysis of the Factors that Influence Olive Oil Demand in the Veneto Region (Italy)," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-17, July.
    9. Varela, Elsa & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 91-104.
    10. Koistinen, Laura & Pouta, Eija & Heikkila, Jaakko & Forsman-Hugg, Sari & Kotro, Jaana & Makela, Jarmo & Niva, M., 2011. "Impact of meat type, methods of production, fat content, price and carbon footprint information on meat choice," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114710, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    12. McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Olynk Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David L. & Foster, Kenneth A., 2013. "Consumer Preferences for Verified Pork-Rearing Practices in the Production of Ham Products," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-21.
    13. 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.
    14. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    15. Chad M. Baum & Robert Weigelt, 2019. "How Where I Shop Influences What I Buy: The Importance of the Retail Format in Sustainable Tomato Consumption," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Chai & Chad M. Baum (ed.), Demand, Complexity, and Long-Run Economic Evolution, pages 141-169, Springer.
    16. Rocchi, L. & Cortina, C. & Paolotti, L. & Massei, G. & Fagioli, F.F. & Antegiovanni, P. & Boggia, A., 2019. "Provision of ecosystem services from the management of Natura 2000 sites in Umbria (Italy): Comparing the costs and benefits, using choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 13-20.
    17. Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 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 159-179, April.
    18. Agnes Emberger‐Klein & Marina Zapilko & Klaus Menrad, 2016. "Consumers’ Preference Heterogeneity for GM and Organic Food Products in Germany," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(2), pages 203-221, April.
    19. Ward, Patrick S. & Ortega, David L. & Spielman, David J. & Singh, Vartika, 2013. "Farmer preferences for drought tolerance in hybrid versus inbred rice: Evidence from Bihar, India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1307, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    20. 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.

    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:jageco:v:61:y:2010:i:2:p:426-443. 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: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-857X .

    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.