IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlofdr/339683.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Changing Role of Fat Perceptions in Fluid Milk Labeling: Would the Dairy Industry Sell More if 2% Milk Was Called “98% Fat Free”?

Author

Listed:
  • Kazi, Oishi
  • Miller, Steven R.
  • Malone, Trey
  • Wolf, Christopher A.

Abstract

U.S. consumers’ perceptions of fat content in food may have changed substantially over the past few decades. This is particularly relevant for the dairy industry as fluid milk is marketed with many different fat content options. Using a stated preferences contingent valuation experiment, this article explores consequences of framing effects of fat on the fluid milk label. Specifically, we investigate whether using alternative but equivalent labels of 96.75% fat free, 98% fat free and 99.98% fat free, whole, 2% fat, and skim milk change consumer willingness to pay. Results indicate that such framing effects rarely have the intended effect and that consumers would actually pay less for 2% fat milk if it were called 98% fat-free milk.

Suggested Citation

  • Kazi, Oishi & Miller, Steven R. & Malone, Trey & Wolf, Christopher A., 2022. "The Changing Role of Fat Perceptions in Fluid Milk Labeling: Would the Dairy Industry Sell More if 2% Milk Was Called “98% Fat Free”?," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 53(2), July.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlofdr:339683
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.339683
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/339683/files/Kazi.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.339683?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. Smith, Scott M. & Roster, Catherine A. & Golden, Linda L. & Albaum, Gerald S., 2016. "A multi-group analysis of online survey respondent data quality: Comparing a regular USA consumer panel to MTurk samples," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 3139-3148.
    2. Stewart, Hayden & Dong, Diansheng & Carlson, Andrea, 2013. "Why Are Americans Consuming Less Fluid Milk? A Look at Generational Differences in Intake Frequency," Economic Research Report 262223, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Newman, Christopher L. & Howlett, Elizabeth & Burton, Scot, 2014. "Shopper Response to Front-of-Package Nutrition Labeling Programs: Potential Consumer and Retail Store Benefits," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 13-26.
    4. Trey Malone & Jayson L. Lusk, 2019. "Releasing The Trap: A Method To Reduce Inattention Bias In Survey Data With Application To U.S. Beer Taxes," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(1), pages 584-599, January.
    5. Koo, Jieun & Suk, Kwanho, 2020. "Is $0 Better than Free? Consumer Response to “$0” versus “Free” Framing of a Free Promotion," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 383-396.
    6. Laurent Muller & Anne Lacroix & Bernard Ruffieux, 2019. "Environmental Labelling and Consumption Changes: A Food Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 871-897, July.
    7. Cho, Yoon-Na & Baskin, Ernest, 2018. "It's a match when green meets healthy in sustainability labeling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 119-129.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2022. "How much does it take? Willingness to switch to meat substitutes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    2. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    3. Davis, Cassandra Denise & Burton, Scot, 2019. "Making bad look good: The counterpersuasive effects of natural labels on (dangerous) vice goods," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 271-282.
    4. Mariko SHIMIZU, 2019. "Why do high ability people also suffer from money illusion? Experimental evidence of behavioral contradiction," Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania - AGER, vol. 0(1(618), S), pages 5-22, Spring.
    5. Vecchio, Riccardo & Caso, Gerarda & Cembalo, Luigi & Borrello, Massimiliano, 2020. "Is respondents’ inattention in online surveys a major issue for research?," Economia agro-alimentare / Food Economy, Italian Society of Agri-food Economics/Società Italiana di Economia Agro-Alimentare (SIEA), vol. 22(1), March.
    6. van Esch, Patrick & Gadsby, Casey Lynn, 2019. "Marketing the healthiness of sports drinks: From physiological to cognitive based benefits," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 179-186.
    7. Höllig, Christoph E. & Tumasjan, Andranik & Welpe, Isabell M., 2020. "Individualizing gamified systems: The role of trait competitiveness and leaderboard design," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 288-303.
    8. Anastasia Stathopoulou & Tommy Kweku Quansah & George Balabanis, 2022. "The Blinding Effects of Team Identification on Sports Corruption: Cross-Cultural Evidence from Sub-Saharan African Countries," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(2), pages 511-529, August.
    9. Liu, Changyu & Song, Yadong & Wang, Wei & Shi, Xunpeng, 2023. "The governance of manufacturers’ greenwashing behaviors: A tripartite evolutionary game analysis of electric vehicles," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 333(C).
    10. Cécile Détang-Dessendre & Hervé Guyomard & Vincent Réquillart & Louis-Georges Soler, 2020. "Changing Agricultural Systems and Food Diets to Prevent and Mitigate Global Health Shocks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-13, August.
    11. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2021. "Sustainable food: can food labels make consumers switch to meat substitutes?," Working Papers in Economics 816, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    12. Lucile Marty & Laura Arrazat & Gaëlle Arvisenet & Sophie Nicklaus & Stephanie Chambaron, 2021. "Protocol and statistical analysis plan - impact of environmental labelling on food choices: a randomized controlled trial in a virtual reality supermarket," Working Papers hal-03270668, HAL.
    13. Romain Espinosa & Nicolas Treich, 2023. "Eliciting Non-hypothetical Willingness-to-pay for Novel Products: An Application to Cultured Meat," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 673-706, August.
    14. Shir-Way Siew & Michael S. Minor & Reto Felix, 2018. "The influence of perceived strength of brand origin on willingness to pay more for luxury goods," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 25(6), pages 591-605, November.
    15. Stewart, Hayden & Kuchler, Fred & Dong, Diansheng & Cessna, Jerry, 2021. "Examining the Decline in U.S. Per Capita Consumption of Fluid Cow’s Milk, 2003–18," USDA Miscellaneous 316500, United States Department of Agriculture.
    16. Doust, Negin Ahmadi Saber & van Esch, Patrick & Kemper, Joya & Franklin, Drew & Casserly, Shane, 2021. "Marketing the use of headgear in high contact sports," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    17. Kostyk, Alena & Zhou, Wenkai & Hyman, Michael R., 2019. "Using surveytainment to counter declining survey data quality," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 211-219.
    18. Casati, Mirta & Stranieri, Stefanella & Rommel, Jens & Medici, Riccardo & Soregaroli, Claudio, 2022. "The impact of a carbon footprint label on food orders: A natural field experiment in a full-service restaurant," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322144, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Yunjeong Kim & Kyung Wha Oh, 2020. "Effects of Perceived Sustainability Level of Sportswear Product on Purchase Intention: Exploring the Roles of Perceived Skepticism and Perceived Brand Reputation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    20. Riccardo Vecchio & Gerarda Caso & Luigi Cembalo & Massimiliano Borrello, 2020. "Is respondents? inattention in online surveys a major issue for research?," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 22(1), pages 1-18.

    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:jlofdr:339683. 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/fdrssea.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.