IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaa115/116421.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Role Of Labelling In Consumers’ Functional Food Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Zou, Ning Ning (Helen)
  • Hobbs, Jill E.

Abstract

Given the credence nature of functional food attributes labelling plays a key role in allowing consumers to make informed choices about foods with enhanced health attributes. The degree to which a particular jurisdiction permits health claims for food products and the type of allowable health claim influence the information set available to consumers. In Canada the regulatory environment governing health claims for functional food products is somewhat more restrictive than in other jurisdictions, including the United States. Food manufacturers therefore also use visual imagery to suggest a health benefit, such as the picture of a red heart to imply that a product has heart health benefits. The paper characterizes these labelling strategies as “partial labelling”, while “full labelling’’ refers to formal health claims on food labels, ranging from general (structure-function) claims, to risk reduction claims, to disease prevention claims. This paper explores the effect of labelling (full and partial) on consumers’ functional food choices. How might different types of labelling information and the verification of health claims by different agencies affect consumers’ preferences for functional foods? Using data from an online survey of 740 Canadians conducted in summer 2009 the paper uses discrete choice modelling to examine the responses of Canadian consumers to different product labelling strategies for milk enhanced with Omega-3. Conditional Logit and Latent Class models are estimated. Preliminary results suggest that full labelling is preferred over partial labelling, but primarily for risk reduction claims. There is no significant difference between a function claim, such as “good for your heart” and partial labelling in the form of a red heart symbol. The choice experiment included verification of health claims by a government agency (Health Canada) or by a third party (Heart and Stroke Foundation). The preliminary results suggest that consumers on average respond positively to verification of health claims, however, the latent class model reveals considerable heterogeneity in consumer attitudes toward the source of verification. Interactions between key-socio-demographic and attitudinal variables and the main effects variables in the choice experiment provide further insights into consumer responses.

Suggested Citation

  • Zou, Ning Ning (Helen) & Hobbs, Jill E., 2010. "The Role Of Labelling In Consumers’ Functional Food Choices," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116421, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaa115:116421
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.116421
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/116421/files/5C-2_Zou_Hobbs.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.116421?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. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    2. Gale E. West & Carole Gendron & Bruno Larue & Rémy Lambert, 2002. "Consumers’ Valuation of Functional Properties of Foods: Results from a Canada-wide Survey," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 50(4), pages 541-558, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Adrian D. Uzea & Jill E. Hobbs & Jing Zhang, 2011. "Activists and Animal Welfare: Quality Verifications in the Canadian Pork Sector," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 281-304, June.
    5. Brian G. Innes & Jill E. Hobbs, 2011. "Does It Matter Who Verifies Production‐Derived Quality?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 59(1), pages 87-107, March.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    7. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    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. Stavroula Malla & Jill E. Hobbs & Eric K. Sogah, 2016. "Estimating the Potential Benefits of New Health Claims in Canada: The Case of Soluble Fiber and Soy Protein," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(2), pages 173-197, June.
    2. Sporleder, Eva M. & Kayser, Maike & Friedrich, Nina & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2014. "Consumer Preferences for Sustainably Produced Bananas: A Discrete Choice Experiment," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 17(1), pages 1-24, February.

    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. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "Food values and heterogeneous consumer responses to nanotechnology," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 289-313, September.
    2. Makiko Nakano, 2019. "Evaluation of Corporate Social Responsibility by Consumers: Use of Organic Material and Long Working Hours of Employees," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-16, September.
    3. Carlo Fezzi & Ian J. Bateman, 2013. "Estimating the Value of Travel Time to Recreational Sites Using Revealed Preferences," Working Papers 2013.64, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    4. Fewell, Jason E. & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2016. "Farmers' willingness to contract switchgrass as a cellulosic bioenergy crop in Kansas," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 292-302.
    5. Anastassiadis, Friederike & Liebe, Ulf & Musshoff, Oliver, 2012. "Finanzielle Flexibilität In Landwirtschaftlichen Investitionsentscheidungen: Ein Discrete Choice Experiment," 52nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 26-28, 2012 137142, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    6. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 89-111.
    7. 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.
    8. Collins Asante‐Addo & Daniela Weible, 2020. "Is there hope for domestically produced poultry meat? A choice experiment of consumers in Ghana," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(2), pages 281-298, April.
    9. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    11. Bhattacharjee, Sanjoy & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Hanson, Terrill R., 2009. "Study of Evacuation Behavior of Coastal Gulf of Mexico Residents," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 46845, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    12. Sarfo, Yaw & Musshoff, Oliver & Weber, Ron & Danne, Michael, 2021. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Digital Credit: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Madagascar," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315029, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. 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.
    14. repec:ags:aare05:139316 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Wendong Zhang & Brent Sohngen, 2018. "Do U.S. Anglers Care about Harmful Algal Blooms? A Discrete Choice Experiment of Lake Erie Recreational Anglers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 868-888.
    16. Choi, Andy S., 2011. "Implicit prices for longer temporary exhibitions in a heritage site and a test of preference heterogeneity: A segmentation-based approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 511-519.
    17. Westerberg, Vanja & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Lifran, Robert, 2013. "The case for offshore wind farms, artificial reefs and sustainable tourism in the French mediterranean," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 172-183.
    18. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Valuing animal genetic resources: a choice modeling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 89-98, January.
    19. Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Producers' valuation of animal welfare practices: Does herd size matter?," DARE Discussion Papers 1801, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    20. Richard Yao & Riccardo Scarpa & John Rose & James Turner, 2015. "Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 433-455, November.
    21. Julia Blasch & Robert W. Turner, 2016. "Environmental art, prior knowledge about climate change, and carbon offsets," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(4), pages 691-705, December.

    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:eaa115:116421. 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/eaaeeea.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.