Consumers' willingness to pay for light, organic and ...

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

BFJ 118,3

Consumers’ willingness to pay for light, organic and PDO cheese An experimental auction approach

560 Received 17 September 2015 Revised 2 December 2015 Accepted 6 December 2015

Tiziana de-Magistris and Azucena Gracia Unidad de Economía Agroalimentaria, Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA), Gobierno de Aragón, Zaragoza, Spain and Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón-IA2, (CITA-Universidad de Zaragoza), Zaragoza, Spain Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to assess consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for three different food claims on semi-cured, pasteurized sheep milk cheese. In particular, the authors used a health-related claim (the nutritional claim indicating a reduced fat content: “light”), a regional claim (“designation of origin – PDO”) and an organic claim (the European organic logo). Moreover, the authors investigated whether consumers’ personal characteristics could influence their WTP for those types of cheese. Design/methodology/approach – A home-grown experimental auction was applied in Spain during Spring 2012. The authors opted to use the nth random price with repeated rounds and without price feedback. Findings – The results show that consumers were willing to pay more for PDO cheese, followed by organic and light cheese. Moreover, respondents who were female, older and with a university-level education showed some environmental concerns, influencing their WTP for different cheeses. Originality/value – Empirical evidence on consumers’ preferences for PDO, organic and nutritional claims, evaluated jointly, is lacking in Spain. Moreover, the home-grown auction has several merits in terms of real market simulation and consumer preference application. Keywords Spain, Food labels, Cheese, Auctions, Preferences Paper type Research paper

British Food Journal Vol. 118 No. 3, 2016 pp. 560-571 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0007-070X DOI 10.1108/BFJ-09-2015-0322

1. Introduction Consumers are increasingly aware when shopping for food products, since they usually point out that they need more information about products’ origin, their method of production or whether they can prevent certain health problems before they arise (de-Magistris and Gracia, 2014; de-Magistris et al., 2015b; Gracia and de-Magistris, 2016; Grunert, 2006). Health (e.g. nutritional information), origin (e.g. PDO and local) and process methods (e.g. organic) are credence attributes that are not revealed to consumers before they have bought and consumed the product, unless additional information is provided (Caswell et al., 2002). Therefore, the European Union (EU) has dedicated most of its policy to assuring that European consumers have access to complete information on the content, origin and composition of products with different regulations on food carrying: organic logos; quality labels (such as PDO and PGI); and nutritional claims. The EU legislation on organic labelling was laid down in Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91, which was subsequently modified by Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007. This Regulation This study has been funded by the EU Marie Curie Project, FOODLABELS_PIOF-GA-2009253323.

established that the new European logo had to be compulsory for food products with at least 95 per cent of organic ingredients since 2007. With regard to quality labels, the European Commission adopted Regulation No. 2081/92, which stated that PDO or PGI indicators could be awarded to goods fulfilling certain conditions. In particular, the PDO indicator could be used in the case of food products being produced, processed and prepared in a given geographical area using know-how. Finally, Regulation (EEC) No. 1924/2006 was adopted in 2007 and laid down harmonized rules in the European context for the use of nutritional claims such as “low fat” or “high fibre”. In the current literature, several studies have focused on consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for organic, PDO and/or nutritional claims (among others Aprile et al., 2012; de-Magistris and Gracia, 2014; Gracia and de-Magistris, 2016; Gracia et al., 2014; Koistinen et al., 2013; Øvrum et al., 2012; Scarpa and Del Giudice, 2004; Schröck, 2014). In general, these studies have reported that PDO labels were more valued than organic labelling, but nutritional claims were more valued when compared with organic labelling. For example, Koistinen et al. (2013) found that organic production had the largest positive effect on product choice compared with health-oriented production (fat content of 5 and 10 per cent, respectively). On the other hand, Scarpa and Del Giudice (2004) showed that the PDO attribute was valued more than the organic attribute. A similar result was achieved by Aprile et al. (2012), who reported that respondents preferred a product with a PDO label to one with an organic logo. On the same line, de-Magistris and Gracia (2014) reported that consumers valued organic and local almonds positively, but organic ones received a lower assessment than local ones. Gracia and de-Magistris (2016) pointed out that the most preferred food label was the PDO indication, closely followed by the nutritional fact panel and the EU organic logo. Conversely, Schröck (2014) found that German consumers valued organic cheese more than PDO cheese, while Øvrum et al. (2012) showed that cheese consumers preferred cheese with a low-saturated fat content to organic cheese or other alternative cheeses. On the other hand, several studies have reported that personal consumer characteristics matter when evaluating food products with different labels. For example, it has been shown that gender was positively associated with the likelihood of using organic or typical food products (Platania and Privitera, 2006; Vecchio and Annunziata, 2015). Moreover, education, lifestyle and environmental attitudes towards organic products were the main determinants of the positive valuation of organic food products (Cicia et al., 2002; de-Magistris and Gracia, 2009, 2012; Honkanen et al., 2006; Loureiro and Hine, 2002; Radman, 2005; Tarkiainen and Sundqvist, 2005; Thøgersen, 2007; Zepeda and Li, 2007). By the same token, consumers with a higher education level used nutritional labels more often because they were able to process the information included in the label better (Govindasamy and Italia, 1999; Guthrie et al., 1995; Kim et al., 2001a, b; McLean-Meyinsse, 2001). Finally, while women used nutritional labels more than men, older individuals preferred to buy products with a reduction of the fat content (Baglioni et al., 2012; Bates et al., 2009; Cowburn and Stockley, 2005; de-Magistris et al., 2009, 2010; Godwin et al., 2006; Guthrie et al., 1995; Kim et al., 2001a; McLean-Meyinsse, 2001; Neuhouser et al., 1999; Shine et al., 1997; Wang et al., 1995). The objective of our study is twofold. Given the overlap in consumers’ purchase motivation, the first aim of this study is to assess consumers’ WTP for cheese products carrying those European claims related to their origin (PDO), method of production (organic) and healthiness (light). Considering the increasing complexity of consumer preference, the second aim of this study is to examine heterogeneity in the WTP for labelled cheeses based on consumers’ socio-demographic and personal characteristics.

Light, organic and PDO cheese 561

BFJ 118,3

562

To achieve these objectives, a home-grown auction for different cheese products that incorporates both real products and an incentive-compatible mechanism was used. The current study presents several novelties. First, the main contribution of this study is that it assessed Spanish consumers’ preferences for cheese products in relation to three claims (PDO, organic and light). Conversely, Aprile et al. (2012), Scarpa and Del Giudice (2004) and Schröck (2014) compared consumer preferences for only two labels (organic and PDO), while Øvrum et al. (2012) compared PDO and low-saturated fat content. Finally, in the study by Gracia and de-Magistris (2016), several food labels were ranked from the most preferred to the least preferred by Spanish consumers but for food products in general and using a hypothetical setting. Second, the added value of this paper is the use of a real valuation method, that is, a home-grown auction that included both real products and an incentive-compatible mechanism. The advantage of the home-grown auction is that the WTP estimated is the best approximation of the true preferences corresponding to real payments in stores (Chang et al., 2009; de-Magistris et al., 2015a). Therefore, auctions mitigate the hypothetical and social desirability in comparison with stated preference methods. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section discusses the design and implementation of the auction. The results and discussion are presented in Section 3, and the final section discusses the importance and implications of the findings. 2. Experimental design and procedure The home-grown auction was undertaken in a Spanish region during May and June 2012. Cheese products were chosen because their production has important economic and social effects, supporting the local economy in terms of jobs and income. Spain produces more than 150 different varieties of cheese and 32 of them have received PDO certification mainly due to the diverse topography and climate and the large variety of indigenous breeds (Mercasa, 2014). Spain has experienced a dramatic increase in cheese production during recent years, generating a turnover of 2,700 million euros (Mercasa, 2014). With regard to the Spanish demand, the annual per capita cheese consumption in 2014 was 9.3 kg with an associated expenditure of 60 euros per year, which represents 30 per cent of the total per capita expenditure on dairy products (Mercasa, 2014). We selected for the experiment a package of 100 grams of semi-cured, pasteurized sheep milk cheese produced in the Castilla-La-Mancha region of Spain. In particular, we used four different versions of this cheese: cheese without any claim, cheese with a quality origin claim (PDO), cheese with an organic claim (the European organic logo) and cheese with a “light” claim indicating that it contained 40 per cent less fat than the other types in the experiment. In this experiment, the target population was the primary food buyers who were responsible for food purchasing in the household and consumers of cheese products. Moreover, each participant received a €10 participation fee at the end of the session. The experimental design consisted of a full bidding approach, meaning that the participants were asked to submit a bid for each of the cheese products simultaneously. The subjects could only buy one packet of cheese to avoid demand reduction effects. The nth random price mechanism with six repeated rounds was used to benefit from the learning effect (Alfnes and Rickertsen, 2003; de-Magistris et al., 2015a; Shogren et al., 2001; Shogren, 2006). In addition, the prices were not posted to prevent possible bid affiliation effects (Corrigan et al., 2012). Finally, the experimental sessions were conducted at the same time before lunch (1:00 p.m.) and during the auction individuals were provided with unrelated food and water after the third round of the auction.

In this regard, they were asked to give their degree of subjective feelings of hunger on a Likert scale on which 1 indicates “not at all” and 5 indicates the greatest intensity of hunger. When they arrived, the participants received the product information and the experimental auction instructions and they were allowed to inspect the cheese products. They received a clear explication of the different cheeses’ characteristics. They were also asked not to communicate with any other participants for any reason because any attempt to communicate would lead to the failure of the experiment. Then, the experimenter read the auction instructions aloud, emphasizing that their dominant strategy was to reveal their true values and that one round and one product would be randomly drawn as binding. A practice task using different candy bars to familiarize the participants with the auction mechanism was implemented (Alfnes and Rickertsen, 2003; Shogren et al., 2001). After the practice procedure, the cheese auction was undertaken in the following steps: •

Step 1. The subjects simultaneously submitted a bid for each of the cheese products. The bids were collected and ranked from highest to lowest, but they were not posted to the participants.

•

Step 2. Step 1 was repeated for two additional rounds.

•

Step 3. After the end of the third round, participants were provided with an amount of unrelated foods (e.g. tortilla, vegetables, squid, “tapas” and water), asking them to eat until they felt satiated.

•

Step 4. After eating, the participants returned to the laboratory and assessed again their self-reported hunger.

•

Step 5. Then, they were asked to submit a bid for each of the cheese products for three additional rounds simultaneously. The bids were collected and ranked from highest to lowest, but they were not posted.

•

Step 6. When all the rounds had been conducted, a random drawing determined which of the six rounds was binding. Then, a random drawing determined which of the cheese products was binding.

•

Step 7. The top n−1 bidders on the binding product in the binding round had to purchase the cheese product and paid a price equivalent to the nth highest bid for the product.

3. Results and discussion In total, 145 participants were selected randomly using a stratified sampling procedure by age, gender and education level. However, 16 participants who stated that they were not hungry before the experiment were excluded from the experimental analysis. The summary statistics for the characteristics of the sample and the population are presented in Table I, while the questions on personal consumer characteristics are reported in list below. Question description: (1) Label use: •

Do you pay attention to labels when shopping? (Label: dummy variable: 1 ¼ yes; 0 otherwise).


BFJ 118,3

564

Variable definition Number of participants Gendera Male Female Agea (average) Education of respondentb Elementary School

Name (type)

Sample Population 129

Female (dummy variable: 1 ¼ female; 0 otherwise) Years (continuous variable) Univer (dummy variable: 1 ¼ university degree; 0 ¼ otherwise)

High school University Average household monthly income Table I. Between €600 and €1,500 Hincome (dummy variable: 1 ¼ more than Socio-demographic 2,500 euros; 0 otherwise) characteristics of the Between 1,501 and sample and 2,500 Euro definition of More than 2,500 variables (per cent, a Sources: Population information from INE(2012); bOECD (2012) unless stated)

49.0 51.0 44.4

49.9 50.1 43.3

19.1 53.2 27.7

17.0 50.0 33.0

22.3 52.5

n/a

25.2

(2) Healthy lifestyles: •

Did you follow a special diet in the last months? (Diet: dummy variable: 1 ¼ yes; 0 otherwise).

•

Do you usually do exercise? (Sport: dummy variable: 1 ¼ yes; 0 otherwise).

•

Do you usually revise your health status once a year? (Cheack: dummy variable: 1 ¼ yes; 0 otherwise).

(3) Environmental health concerns related to food: •

Diet influences my health status (Healthy: 1 ¼ not in agreement; 5 ¼ totally in agreement).

•

People should eat healthier food (Healthier: 1 ¼ not in agreement; 5 ¼ totally in agreement).

•

People should eat products produced in an environmentally friendly way (Sustainable: 1 ¼ not in agreement; 5 ¼ totally in agreement).

As shown in Table I, our sample was similar to the general population in terms of gender, age and education level. Most of the participants were female (51.0 per cent), and around 27.7 per cent of the participants had undertaken university studies. About 25.2 per cent of the participants had a net monthly income higher than €2,500. The consumers completed a questionnaire consisting of several questions on: label use and health concerns related to food products; healthy lifestyles; and environmental beliefs (see list above). Label use (label) and healthy lifestyles (diet, sport and check) were measured by dummy variables equal to 1 if consumers responded “yes” and 0 otherwise. Moreover, environmental and health concerns related to food products (healthy, healthier and sustainable) were measured using a Likert scale of point points, on which 5 was equal to the highest level of agreement.

For this study, the marginal WTP values instead of the total WTP values (bids) were used since relative prices matter (Alfnes and Rickertsen, 2011). The marginal WTP values are the difference between the bids for the cheese with the “light”, “PDO” and “organic” claims and the bid for the cheese product without claims, respectively. Table II reports the marginal WTP for the four cheese products by rounds as well as the t-tests to determine whether there are any significant differences in the average WTP across rounds and cheese products. It is apparent that the average marginal WTP for the PDO cheese was the highest in comparison with the organic and light cheeses (last column in Table II). Moreover, it can be observed that the same result applies in the different rounds. The t-test of equality of WTP between cheeses was used to check the null hypothesis that the average marginal WTP for the types of cheese is equal. First, the reported t-test ((WTP (PDO) ¼ WTP(Light)) shows that we can reject the null hypothesis of equality at the 5 per cent significance level. This result means that consumers were willing to pay more for PDO cheeses than for light ones. In addition, the t-test ((WTP(PDO) ¼ WTP (Organic)) indicates that the null hypotheses of equality between the WTP for PDO cheese and the WTP for organic cheese are not rejected at the 5 per cent significance level. This result means that Spanish consumers’ valuations for organic and PDO cheeses are the same. These findings contrast with the existent literature (Aprile et al., 2012; de-Magistris and Gracia, 2014; Gracia and de-Magistris, 2016; Gracia et al., 2014; Scarpa and Del Giudice, 2004), which reported that consumers valued PDO certification more, followed by organic or reduced fat content products. Likewise, we are able to reject the null hypothesis of equality in the marginal WTP between organic and light cheese ((WTP(Organic) ¼ WTP(Light)) since the null hypothesis is rejected at the 5 per cent significance level. This result implies that consumers were willing to pay more for organic cheese than for light cheese. These findings are in agreement with Koistinen et al. (2013) who found that organic attributes were preferred to health-oriented production. However, our findings are in contrast to those of Øvrum et al. (2012), who indicated that consumers preferred low-saturated fat followed by organic cheese to alternative cheeses. Overall, these findings point out that while Spanish consumers preferred PDO cheese to light cheese, they were willing to pay similar price premiums for organic and PDO cheese when shopping. Hence, consumers valued cheese products without a

PDO Light Organic

Round1

Round2

Round3

0.281 0.073 0.226

0.279 0.079 0.234

0.257 0.080 0.203

Round4 0.213 0.035 0.231

Round5

Round6

0.193 0.032 0.187

0.208 0.060 0.201


Mean 0.234 0.060 0.214

t-Test of equality (p-value) H0: WTP (PDO) ¼ WTP(light) 5.33 (0.00) 5.29 (0.00) 4.79 (0.00) 4.98 (0.00) 5.04 (0.00) 4.59 (0.00) 5.69 (0.00) H0: WTP (PDO ¼ WTP(organic) 1.26 (0.20) 1.10 (0.27) 1.29 (0.19) −0.61 (0.53) 0.16 (0.87) 0.20 (0.84) 0.765 (0.44) H0: WTP (organic) ¼ WTP(light) 3.32 (0.00) 3.97 (0.00) 3.15 (0.00) 6.04 (0.00) 4.52 (0.00) 4.23 (0.00) 4.75 (0.00)

Table II. Marginal WTP (€/100 grams) for each cheese

BFJ 118,3

566

reduced fat content more. This might be because consumers perceived the fat content in cheese products as enhancing the sensory attributes and a reduced-fat claim thus as an obstacle to their hedonic experience (Cavaliere et al., 2015). To achieve our second aim, to explore the possible sources of heterogeneity in consumers’ preferences and WTP across different cheese products, we modelled the marginal WTP for each of the three labelled cheese products as a function of sociodemographic and personal consumer characteristics. The model is specified as follows: W TP ijt ¼ a þ BX ij þ CY ij þ d1 round 1 þ d2 round 3 þ d3 round 3 þ d4 round 4 þ d5 round 5 þ eit

(1)

where WTPijt is the WTP for the ith consumer in the tth bidding round and the j cheese product ( j ¼ 1…3), Xi is a vector of demographic variables (see Table I) and Cij is a vector of personal consumer characteristics (see list above). Finally, round1, round2, round3, round4 and round5 are dummy variables for the different rounds and εit is the overall error term. We estimated the model defined by Equation (1) using a random-effects model to take into account individuals’ heterogeneity (Baltagi, 2003) using the STATA software. The estimated coefficients for the cheeses with PDO, organic and light claims are presented in Table III. In general, the dummy variables for the different rounds were not statistically significant for the organic and light estimated models, suggesting the absence of bid affiliation during the overall auction. However, the dummy variables for the three first rounds in the PDO model were different from zero, suggesting the presence of a learning effect. Regarding the PDO valuations, the only statistically significant exploratory variable was gender. In particular, the dummy variable female was positive. This result means PDO

Table III. Coefficient estimates from random-effects regression across cheese products

Constant Female Univer Years Hincome Label Diet Sport Cheack Healthy Healthier Sustainable Round1 Round2 Round3 Round4 Round5 No. of observation R2

Organic p-value

Coef.

p-value

Coef.

0.367 0.111 0.052 −0.001 0.034 0.025 0.048 −0.059 0.024 −0.041 −0.040 0.034 0.073 0.071 0.049 0.005 −0.014 774 0.11

0.152 0.019 0.326 0.516 0.528 0.771 0.312 0.279 0.691 0.311 0.339 0.344 0.001 0.002 0.035 0.813 0.523

−0.968 0.005 0.133 0.006 0.331 0.015 −0.050 −0.072 −0.004 0.063 0.023 0.116 0.025 0.032 0.02 0.030 −0.013 774 0.21

0.007 0.935 0.074 0.006 0.664 0.898 0.451 0.347 0.958 0.273 0.691 0.025 0.296 0.180 0.924 0.217 0.591

Light Coef.

p-value

0.552 0.153 0.024 0.004 −0.008 −0.001 0.099 −0.001 0.121 −0.028 0.053 0.143 0.013 0.018 0.20 −0.024 −0.027 774 0.17

0.111 0.018 0.735 0.043 0.991 0.990 0.120 0.989 0.144 0.609 0.342 0.774 0.620 0.472 0.432 0.346 0.295

that women were willing to pay more, specifically around 11 cents more, ceteris paribus, for a PDO cheese product than for cheese without this indicator. Likewise, the estimated coefficients for the organic cheese are shown in the second column of Table III. It can be observed that only three variables are statistically different from 0 at the 5 per cent level of significance (univer, years, sustainable). First, the estimated coefficient for the dummy variable univer is positive, implying that people with a university education were willing to pay around 13 cents more for organically produced cheese than for conventional cheese, ceteris paribus. The estimated parameter for the variable years is positive, meaning that older people were also willing to pay more for the organic cheese than for the conventional cheese. Finally, the estimated coefficient for the sustainable variable was positive. This finding means that consumers who strongly believed that they should eat more sustainable food products were willing to pay more for the organic cheese. The overall results are in agreement with the existent literature stating that older people with higher education and greater concern about the environment value organic food products more than conventional ones (Cicia et al., 2002; de-Magistris and Gracia, 2009; Honkanen et al., 2006; Loureiro and Hine, 2002; Radman, 2005; Tarkiainen and Sundqvist, 2005; Thøgersen, 2007; Vecchio and Annunziata, 2015; Zepeda and Li, 2007). Finally, with regard to the estimations for the light cheese (third column in Table III), two variables were statistically different from 0 (female, years). The estimated coefficients for the variable years and female were both positive. These results imply that older consumers were willing to pay more for reduced fat content cheese and that women would pay around 15 cents more. These results are in accordance with the previous literature that reported that older people were more aware of their health status and that women used nutritional labels more than males, ceteris paribus (Baglioni et al., 2012; Bates et al., 2009; Cowburn and Stockley, 2005; de-Magistris et al., 2010; Godwin et al., 2006; Guthrie et al., 1995; Kim et al., 2001a; McLean-Meyinsse, 2001; Neuhouser et al., 1999; Shine et al., 1997; Wang et al., 1995). 4. Concluding remarks Nowadays, individuals are concerned about the foods that they buy and consume; therefore, they lack information about their origin, their method of production or whether they can prevent certain health problems before they arise. Hence, food products that are organically produced and have the regional origin indicator (PDO) and/or a reduced fat claim could be an interesting choice for European consumers. In this paper, we assessed consumers’ WTP for PDO, organic and light cheese and investigated the possible consumer preference heterogeneity in Spain. To achieve those tasks, we used a real home-grown auction that has the advantage of simulating real markets and mitigating hypothetical and social bias because it incorporates both an incentive-compatible mechanism and real products. Thus, the WTP for cheese products revealed by Spanish consumers in this study is a better approximation of their true preferences. The findings showed that Spanish consumers were willing to pay similar price premiums for PDO and organic cheese and more than for reduced fat content cheese. On the other hand, we found that socio-demographic characteristics such as gender, education and age as well consumers’ sustainability concerns influenced the marginal WTP for cheese differently. Because we found that consumers’ preferences for cheese were heterogeneous and we detected the factors explaining this heterogeneity, we can also provide useful


BFJ 118,3

568

information to food companies to promote their organic, PDO and light cheese products to their target consumers. Since PDO and organic cheeses were the most highly evaluated by Spanish consumers, food companies should place more emphasis on many different aspects related to their PDO and organic nature and not only technical matters. For example, since the empirical evidence has shown that organic production reduces GHG emissions, organic food companies could communicate this additional information to female consumers when advertising their products. Likewise, since PDO products support the local economy in the area in terms of jobs and income, this message could be emphasized during their promotion and advertising by a consortium and its operators to produce some ethical and altruistic motives in educated and older consumers. On the other hand, given that light cheese was valued the lowest, enterprises should focus their communication strategies on the positive consequences of a diet that is low in fat. This might encourage those people who are more concerned about possible losses of the taste of food to become more aware of their health status and make a conscious choice to exclude fat from their diet or reduce it. Finally, as with all studies, this study has some limitations since the results were limited to a particular product – semi-cured cheese – and only one country – Spain. Consequently, further studies are needed to generalize our results, taking into consideration another product or replicating the same experiment in another similar or different European country. Finally, since consumers could perceive a reduced fat claim as an obstacle to their hedonic experience, tending to privilege the current pleasure derived from the consumption of PDO or organic cheese, future studies should be undertaken asking participants to taste the products before bidding for them. References Alfnes, F. and Rickertsen, K. (2003), “European consumers’ willingness to pay for U.S. beef in experimental auction market”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 85 No. 2, pp. 215-242. Alfnes, F. and Rickertsen, K. (2011), “Non-market valuation: experimental methods”, in Roosen, J., Lusk, J. and Shogren, J. (Eds), The Economics of food Consumption and Policy, The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 215-242. Aprile, M.C., Caputo, V. and Nayga, R. Jr (2012), “Consumers evaluation of food quality labels: the case of the European geographic indicator and organic farming labels”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 158-165. Baglioni, S.L., Tucci, L.A. and Stanton, J.L. (2012), “Self-reported nutritional knowledge and the acceptance of health-related food benefits claims”, British Food Journal, Vol. 114 No. 4, pp. 453-468. Baltagi, B.H. (2003), Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Bates, K., Burton, S., Howlett, E. and Huggins, K. (2009), “The roles of gender and motivation as moderator of the effects of calorie and nutrient information provision on away-from-home foods”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 249-273. Caswell, J.A., Noelke, C.M. and Mojduszka, E.M. (2002), “Unifying two frameworks for analyzing quality and quality assurance for food products”, in Krissoff, B., Bohman, M. and Caswell, J.A. (Eds), Global Food Trade and Consumer Demand for Quality, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 43-61.

Cavaliere, A., Ricci, E.C. and Banterle, A. (2015), “Nutrition and health claims: who is interested? An empirical analysis of consumer preferences in Italy”, Food Quality and Preferences, Vol. 41, pp. 44-51. Chang, J.B., Lusk, J. and Norwood, F.B. (2009), “How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory-experiments predict field behaviour?”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 518-534. Cicia, G., Del Giudice, T. and Scarpa, R. (2002), “Consumers’ perception of quality in organic food: a random utility model under preference heterogeneity and choice correlation from rank-orderings”, British Food Journal, Vol. 104 Nos 3-5, pp. 200-213. Cowburn, G. and Stockley, L. (2005), “Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a systematic review”, Public Health Nutrition, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 21-28. Corrigan, J.R., Drichoutis, A., Lusk, J., Nayga, R. and Rousu, M.C. (2012), “Repeated rounds with price feedback in experimental auction valuation: an adversarial collaboration”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 97-115. de-Magistris, T. and Gracia, A. (2009), “The decision to buy organic food products in Southern Italy”, British Food Journal, Vol. 110 No. 9, pp. 929-947. de-Magistris, T. and Gracia, A. (2012), “Do consumers pay attention to the organic label when shopping organic food in Italy?”, in Reed, M (Ed.), Organic Food and Agriculture – New Trends and Developments in the Social Sciences, Intech, pp. 109-128, available at: www. intechopen.com/books/organic-food-and-agriculture-new-trends-and-developments-in-thesocial-sciences/do-consumers-pay-attention-to-the-organic-label-when-shopping-organicfood-in-italy de-Magistris, T. and Gracia, A. (2014), “Do consumers care about organic and distance labels? An empirical analysis in Spain”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 660-669. de-Magistris, T., del Giudice, T. and Verneau, F. (2015a), “The effect of information on willingness to pay for canned tuna fish with different corporate social responsibility (CSR) certification: a pilot study”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 457-471. de-Magistris, T., Gracia, A. and Barreiro-Hurle, J. (2010), “Effects of the nutritional labels use on healthy eating habits in Spain”, Agricultural Economics – Czech, Vol. 56 No. 11, pp. 540-551. de-Magistris, T., Pascucci, S. and Mitsopoulos, D. (2015b), “Paying to see a bug on my food”, British Food Journal, Vol. 117 No. 6, pp. 1777-1792. EC No 834/2007, “On organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing”, Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91, Official Journal of the European Communities L 189, pp. 1-23. EEC No. 2081/92, “On the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs”, Official Journal of the European Communities L 208, 14 July 1992, pp. 1-8. EEC No. 2092/91, “On organic production of agricultural products and indications referring to it on agricultural products and foodstuffs”, Official Journal of the European Communities L 198, pp. 1-8. EEC No. 1924/2006, “On nutrition and health claims made on foods”, Official Journal of the European Communities L 404, pp. 1-9. Godwin, S.L., Speller-Henderson, L. and Thomson, C. (2006), “Evaluation nutrition label: its use in and impact on purchasing decisions by consumers”, Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 76-80. Govindasamy, R. and Italia, J. (1999), “The influence of consumer demographic characteristic on nutritional label usage”, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 55-68.


BFJ 118,3

570

Gracia, A. and de-Magistris, T. (2016), “Consumer preferences for food labeling: what ranks first?”, Food Control, Vol. 61, pp. 39-46. Gracia, A., Barreiro-Hurle, J. and López-Galán, B. (2014), “Are local and organic claims complements or substitutes? A consumer preferences study for eggs”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 49-67. Grunert, K.G. (2006), “How changes in consumer behaviour and retailing effect competence requirements for food producers and processors”, Economía Agraria y de los Recursos Naturales, Vol. 6 No. 11, pp. 3-22. Guthrie, J.F., Fox, J.J., Cleveland, L.E. and Welsh, S. (1995), “Who uses nutrition labeling and what effects does label use have on diet quality?”, Journal of Nutrition Education, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 163-172. Honkanen, P., Verplanken, B. and Olsen, S.O. (2006), “Ethical values and motives driving organic food choice”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 420-431. Kim, S.-Y., Nayga, R.M. Jr and Capps, O. (2001a), “Food label use, self-selectivity and diet quality”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 346-363. Kim, S.-Y., Nayga, R.M. Jr and Capps, O. (2001b), “Health knowledge and consumer use of nutritional labels: the issue revisited”, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 10-19. Koistinen, L., Pouta, E., Heikkila, J., Forsman-Hugg, S., Isoniemi, M. and Makela, J. (2013), “The impact of fat content, production methods and carbon footprint information on consumer preferences for minced meat”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 126-136. Loureiro, M.L. and Hine, S. (2002), “Discovering niche markets: a comparison of consumer willingness to pay for local (Colorado grown), organic, and GMO-free products”, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 477-488. McLean-Meyinsse, P.E. (2001), “An analysis of nutritional label use in the Southern United States”, Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 32, pp. 110-114. Mercasa (2014), “Alimentación en España”, available at: www.mercasa-ediciones.es/ alimentacion_2014/3_info_sectores.html Neuhouser, M.L., Kristl, A.R. and Patterson, R.E. (1999), “Use of food nutrition labels is associated with lower fat intake”, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 45-53. Øvrum, A., Alfnes, F., Almli, V.L. and Rickertsen, K. (2012), “Health information and diet choices: results from a cheese experiment”, Food Policy, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 520-529. Platania, M. and Privitera, D. (2006), “Typical products and consumer preferences: the ‘soppressata’ case”, British Food Journal, Vol. 108 No. 5, pp. 385-395. Radman, M. (2005), “Consumer consumption and perception of organic products in Croatia”, British Food Journal, Vol. 107 No. 4, pp. 263-273. Scarpa, R. and Del Giudice, T. (2004), “Market segmentation via mixed logit: extra virgin oil in urban Italy”, Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization, Vol. 2, Paper 7, pp. 1-18. Schröck, R. (2014), “Valuing country of origin and organic claim”, British Food Journal, Vol. 116 No. 7, pp. 1070-1091. Shine, A., O’Reilly, S. and O’Sullivan, K. (1997), “Consumer use of nutrition labels”, British Food Journal, Vol. 99 No. 8, pp. 290-296. Shogren, J.F. (2006), “Valuation in the lab”, Environmental & Resource Economics, Vol. 34, pp. 163-172. Shogren, J.F., Margolis, M., Koo, C. and List, A. (2001), “A random Nth-price auction”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 409-421.

Tarkiainen, A. and Sundqvist, S. (2005), “Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic food”, British Food Journal, Vol. 107 Nos 10-11, pp. 808-822. Thøgersen, J. (2007), “Consumer decision-making with regard to organic food products”, in Vaz, M.T.D.N., Vaz, P., Nijkamp, P. and Rastoin, J.L. (Eds), Traditional Food Production Facing Sustainability: A European Challenge, Aldershot, Ashgate, pp. 173-192. Vecchio, R. and Annunziata, A. (2015), “Willingness-to-pay for sustainability-labelled chocolate: an experimental auction approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 86, pp. 335-342. Wang, G., Fletcher, S.M. and Carley, D.H. (1995), “Consumer utilization of food labeling as a source of nutrition information”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 368-380. Zepeda, L. and Li, J. (2007), “Characteristics of organic food shoppers”, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 17-28. Further reading de-Magistris, T., Gracia, A. and Nayga, R.M. (2013), “On the use of honesty priming task to mitigate hypothetical bias in choice experiments”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 95 No. 5, pp. 1136-1154. About the authors Dr Tiziana de-Magistris is a Researcher at the Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón, Unidad de Economía Agraria, Zaragoza, Spain. Her research interests are related to food labels, consumer behaviour, experimental and behavioural economics, food and agribusiness. She has published articles in several international peerreviewed journals and book chapters. She has been involved in national as well as international research projects. Dr Tiziana de-Magistris is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Dr Azucena Gracia is a Senior Researcher at the Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón, Unidad de Economía Agraria, Zaragoza, Spain. Her research interests are related to consumer demand, behaviour, experimental economics, food and agribusiness. She has published articles in several international peer-reviewed journals and book chapters. She has been involved in national as well as international research projects.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
