<p>Previous studies, as well as market sales data, show some
consumers are willing to pay a premium for redundant or superfluous food labels
that carry no additional information for the informed consumer. Some advocacy
groups have argued that the use of such redundant labels is misleading or
unethical. To determine whether premiums for redundant labels stem from
misunderstanding or other factors, this study seeks to determine whether
greater knowledge of the claims - in the form of expertise in food production
and scientific literacy - decreases willingness to pay for redundant labels. We
also explore whether de-biasing information influences consumers’ valuations of
redundant labels. An online survey of 1,122 U.S. consumers elicits
willingness-to-pay premiums for three redundantly labeled products: non-GMO sea
salt, gluten-free orange juice, and no-hormone-added chicken breast.
Respondents with farm experience report lower premiums for non-GMO salt and
no-hormone-added chicken. Those with higher scientific literacy state lower
premiums for gluten-free orange juice. However, provided information about the
redundancy of the claims, less than half of respondents who were initially
willing to pay extra for the label are convinced otherwise. Over 30% of
respondents counter-intuitively increase their premiums, behavior that is
associated with less <i>a priori</i>
scientific knowledge. The likelihood of “overpricing” redundant labels is
associated with willingness-to-pay premiums for organic food, suggesting at
least some of the premium for organic is a result of misinformation. </p>
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:purdue.edu/oai:figshare.com:article/12202652 |
| Date | 01 May 2020 |
| Creators | Lacey V Wilson (8771327) |
| Source Sets | Purdue University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text, Thesis |
| Rights | CC BY 4.0 |
| Relation | https://figshare.com/articles/Consumer_Demand_for_Redundant_Food_Labels/12202652 |
Page generated in 0.0523 seconds