Abstract
We examine the impact of food labels that make unsupported claims of food safety and labels that provide information to support such claims on consumer choices and examine consumers’ willingness to pay for beef products with these different food safety labeling cues. Empirical results from a survey of grocery shoppers in a Midwestern city in the USA show that more than two thirds of respondents who received a label with unsubstantiated food safety claims chose this option and were willing to pay the highest price premium for it, compared to the less preferred labeling options that provided information to support food safety claims.
Highlights
Food labels have gradually evolved from conveying nutritional information to communicating the presence of desirable or the absence of undesirable food attributes and/or production technologies
The primary goal of this study is to examine the impact of different ways of communicating food safety attributes on consumer choices and willingness to pay (WTP) for various food safety labeling cues on food products
Demographic variables show that 93% of respondents were principal household grocery shoppers, an outcome we anticipated given that the surveys were conducted in grocery stores
Summary
Food labels have gradually evolved from conveying nutritional information to communicating the presence of desirable or the absence of undesirable food attributes and/or production technologies. The development of several niche food markets has been enabled by labels highlighting the existence of positive or the absence of “negative” food attributes and/or technologies, effectively targeting consumers valuing this type of information. Examples include the “All Natural,” “No Growth Promoting Antibiotics,” “No GMOs,” “Cage-free,”,and “rBST-free” food labeling claims. Evidence that consumers value and are willing to pay for such labels abounds. Wang et al (1997) found that consumers concerned about rBST use in dairy production were willing to pay more for the rBST-free label. Kanter et al (2009) showed that having rBST-free milk reduced willingness to pay (WTP) for conventional milk by as much as 33%, after participants had been introduced to information about rBST-free milk
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
