IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i16p6297-d394674.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Behaviour of Purchasing Biofortified Food Products

Author

Listed:
  • Giuseppe Timpanaro

    (Department of Agricultural Food and Environment (Di3A), University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia 98, 95126 Catania, Italy)

  • Claudio Bellia

    (Department of Agricultural Food and Environment (Di3A), University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia 98, 95126 Catania, Italy)

  • Vera Teresa Foti

    (Department of Agricultural Food and Environment (Di3A), University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia 98, 95126 Catania, Italy)

  • Alessandro Scuderi

    (Department of Agricultural Food and Environment (Di3A), University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia 98, 95126 Catania, Italy)

Abstract

In light of increasing attention on biofortified products from the institutional, scientific and industrial worlds, we investigate consumer knowledge, consumer choice, the relationship between consumer choice and lifestyles, willingness to pay, and factors influencing consumer groups regarding biofortified foods. Complicating the matter is the lack of a clear definition of biofortified foods in the last proposal of the Codex Alimentarius Commission dated 26 November 2018. Research has shown the importance of market information and variables related to lifestyle, socio-demographic characteristics, knowledge of nutritional principles, and diet, to understanding consumers’ purchase and consumption choices regarding biofortified products. Our research shows that at present the potential consumer of biofortified food products is generally confused and uninformed, conditions that, even when there is a high willingness to pay, limit purchases of biofortified products. Even in the absence of a concise definition and clear labelling at a globally recognized level, in Italy biofortified products are increasingly widespread (products biofortified with selenium, iodine, etc.), confirming consumer demand for this category of product.

Suggested Citation

  • Giuseppe Timpanaro & Claudio Bellia & Vera Teresa Foti & Alessandro Scuderi, 2020. "Consumer Behaviour of Purchasing Biofortified Food Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-14, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:16:p:6297-:d:394674
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6297/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6297/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hugo De Groote & Simon Chege Kimenju & Ulrich B. Morawetz, 2011. "Estimating consumer willingness to pay for food quality with experimental auctions: the case of yellow versus fortified maize meal in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(1), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Abdul T. A. Naico & Jayson L. Lusk, 2010. "The Value of a Nutritionally Enhanced Staple Crop: Results from a Choice Experiment Conducted with Orange-fleshed Sweet Potatoes in Mozambique," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 19(4), pages 536-558, August.
    3. Henry Kaiser, 1958. "The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 23(3), pages 187-200, September.
    4. Alan de Brauw & Patrick Eozenou & Daniel O Gilligan & Christine Hotz & Neha Kumar & J V Meenakshi, 2018. "Biofortification, Crop Adoption and Health Information: Impact Pathways in Mozambique and Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 906-930.
    5. Del Giudice, Teresa & Pascucci, Stefano, 2010. "The Role of Consumer Acceptance in the Food Innovation Process: Young Consumer Perception of Functional Food in Italy," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 1(2), pages 1-12.
    6. Glenn W. Harrison & Ronald M. Harstad & E. Elisabet Rutstr–m, 2004. "Experimental Methods and Elicitation of Values," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 123-140, June.
    7. Gaetano Chinnici & Biagio Pecorino & Alessandro Scuderi, 2012. "La percezione della qualit? dei prodotti tipici da parte del consumatore in Sicilia," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 14(1), pages 143-172.
    8. Muzhingi, Tawanda & Langyintuo, Augustine S. & Malaba, Lucie C. & Banziger, Marianne, 2008. "Consumer acceptability of yellow maize products in Zimbabwe," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 352-361, August.
    9. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, April.
    10. Frode Alfnes & Kyrre Rickertsen, 2003. "European Consumers' Willingness to Pay for U.S. Beef in Experimental Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 396-405.
    11. Oparinde, Adewale & Birol, Ekin & Murekezi, Abdoul & Katsvairo, Lister & Diressie, Michael & Nkundimana, Jean & Butare, Louis, 2015. "Consumer Acceptance of Biofortified Iron Beans in Rural Rwanda: Experimental Evidence," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211353, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    13. Carolina González & Nancy Johnson & Matin Qaim, 2009. "Consumer Acceptance of Second‐Generation GM Foods: The Case of Biofortified Cassava in the North‐east of Brazil," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 604-624, September.
    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. Shahjahan Ali & Shahnaj Akter & Csaba Fogarassy, 2021. "Analysis of Circular Thinking in Consumer Purchase Intention to Buy Sustainable Waste-To-Value (WTV) Foods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, May.
    2. Vera Teresa Foti & Alessandro Scuderi & Claudio Bellia & Giuseppe Timpanaro, 2021. "Biofortification of tomatoes in Italy: Status and level of knowledge," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 67(6), pages 227-235.
    3. Elizabeth Kempen & Lorna Christie, 2022. "Designing to Attract in an Emerging Market: Applying Behavioural Reasoning Theory to South African Consumer Reactions to an Ultra-High Temperature Milk Product Line Extension," Journal of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour in Emerging Markets, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 1(14), pages 4-21.
    4. Bing Wang & Qiran Cai & Zhenming Sun, 2020. "Determinants of Willingness to Participate in Urban Incentive-Based Energy Demand-Side Response: An Empirical Micro-Data Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-18, September.
    5. Adamashvili Nino & Shervashidze Salome & Salvatore Fiorella Pia, 2021. "Does The Development of The Country Drive The Consumer Behavior? A Two-Country Study," International Journal of Business Research and Management (IJBRM), Computer Science Journals (CSC Journals), vol. 12(2), pages 34-49, April.
    6. Amar Razzaq & Yifan Tang & Ping Qing, 2021. "Towards Sustainable Diets: Understanding the Cognitive Mechanism of Consumer Acceptance of Biofortified Foods and the Role of Nutrition Information," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-17, January.

    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. Etumnu, Chinonso, 2016. "Behavioral Determinants of Biofortified Food Acceptance: The Case of Orange-fleshed Sweet Potato in Ghana," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235249, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Valera, Harold Glenn & Yamano, Takashi & Pede, Valerien & Puskur, Ranjitha & Habib, Muhammad Ashraful & Bashar, Khairul, 2021. "Impact of Nutrition Training on Long-Term Adoption of High Zinc Rice: A Randomized Control Trial Study Among Female Farmers in Bangladesh," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315165, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Morawetz, Ulrich B. & De Groote, Hugo & Kimenju, Simon Chege, 2011. "Improving the Use of Experimental Auctions in Africa: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-17, August.
    4. Demont, Matty & Rutsaert, Pieter & Ndour, Maimouna & Verbeke, Wim, 2013. "Reversing Urban Bias in African Rice Markets: Evidence from Senegal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 63-74.
    5. Herrington, Caitlin L. & Maredia, Mywish & Ortega, David L. & Taleon, Victor & Birol, Ekin & Sarkar, Abdur Rouf & Rahaman, Shajedur, 2021. "Rural Bangladeshi Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Rice with Improved Nutrition via Zinc Biofortified Rice and Decreased Milling Practices," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315079, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Banerji, Abhijit & Birol, Ekin & Karandikar, Bhushana & Rampal, Jeevant, 2016. "Information, branding, certification, and consumer willingness to pay for high-iron pearl millet: Evidence from experimental auctions in Maharashtra, India," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 133-141.
    7. Oparinde, Adewale & Banerji, Abhijit & Birol, Ekin & Perez, Salomon, 2016. "Identifying hypothetical bias in experimental auctions in field settings in developing countries," 2016 Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 246284, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    8. Hans D. Steur & Jeroen Buysse & Shuyi Feng & Xavier Gellynck, 2013. "Role of Information on Consumers’ Willingness-to-pay for Genetically-modified Rice with Health Benefits: An Application to China," Asian Economic Journal, East Asian Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 391-408, December.
    9. Azucena GRACIA & Tiziana DE-MAGISTRIS, 2015. "The role of participants' competitiveness in consumers' valuation for food products using experimental auctions," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 61(10), pages 484-491.
    10. Murekezi, Abdoul & Oparinde, Adewale & Birol, Ekin, 2017. "Consumer market segments for biofortified iron beans in Rwanda: Evidence from a hedonic testing study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 35-49.
    11. van Rijn, Jordan, 2018. "The Effect of Membership Expansion on Credit Union Risk and Returns," Staff Paper Series 588, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    12. Katola, Alex Arves & Katundu, Mangani Chilala & Ndolo, Victoria Uchizi & Tembo, David Tryson & Stark, Hannah Aliza, 2022. "Successful reintroduction of landrace orange maize in rural Malawi is not related to the nutritional knowledge of women in farming families," African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), vol. 22(09).
    13. Hira Channa & Jacob Ricker‐Gilbert & Hugo De Groote & Jonathan Bauchet, 2021. "Willingness to pay for a new farm technology given risk preferences: Evidence from an experimental auction in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(5), pages 733-748, September.
    14. Maggie Xiaoyang Chen & Aaditya Mattoo, 2008. "Regionalism in standards: good or bad for trade?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 838-863, August.
    15. John M. Barrios, 2022. "Occupational Licensing and Accountant Quality: Evidence from the 150‐Hour Rule," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 3-43, March.
    16. repec:hal:cdiwps:halshs-02532955 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    18. Matthew Rousu & Wallace E. Huffman & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2007. "Effects And Value Of Verifiable Information In A Controversial Market: Evidence From Lab Auctions Of Genetically Modified Food," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(3), pages 409-432, July.
    19. Morales, L. Emilio & Griffith, Garry & Fleming, Euan & Mounter, Stuart & Wright, Victor & Umberger, Wendy, 2020. "Preferences for Certified Beef with Animal Welfare and Other Credence Attributes in Australia," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 11(03), September.
    20. Christos Kolympiris & Sebastian Hoenen & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2018. "Geographic distance between venture capitalists and target firms and the value of quality signals," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 189-220.
    21. Chern, Wen S. & Chang, Chun-Yu, 2012. "Benefit evaluation of the country of origin labeling in Taiwan: Results from an auction experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 511-519.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:16:p:6297-:d:394674. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.