Young Consumers’ Demand For Natural Sweeteners
AbstractHealth conscious consumers are increasingly concerned about the caloric content and glycemic index of sweeteners added to food. Currently, the average American consumes 22 teaspoons of added sugar in processed foods per day. Young people typically consume higher amounts of sweeteners via candy, sports drinks, and soda (Smed, Jensen et al. 2007). Recently, the American Heart Association issued a statement recommending no more than six teaspoons for women and nine teaspoons for men of added sugar in processed foods per day (Winslow and Wang 2009). Of particular concern is the glycemic index of sweeteners—or how quickly sweeteners raise one’s blood sugar level after consumption. While much of recent concern about added sugar focuses on high fructose corn syrup, other industries, including the honey and beet sugar industries, are likely to be affected by these new recommendations and consumer sentiment. The objective of this research is to measure young consumers’ values of natural sweeteners’ glycemic index and to relate this information to their personal risk-preferences and relationships. This research generates needed information for policy regarding refined sugars and natural sweeteners in processed foods. Our primary hypothesis is that the value of natural sweetener alternatives with different glycemic indexes varies with consumers’ health consciousness. Further, consumers’ valuations are influenced by their own underlying health-risk assessments and social and familial relationships. We hypothesize consumers’ economic risk preferences are correlated with their demand for natural sweetener alternatives. We also hypothesize social and family relationships effect the stability of individual preferences for natural sweeteners.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by European Association of Agricultural Economists & Agricultural and Applied Economics Association in its series 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany with number 116430.
Date of creation: 2010
Date of revision:
Agricultural and Food Policy; Consumer/Household Economics; Demand and Price Analysis; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; Food Security and Poverty; Health Economics and Policy;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004.
"Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks,"
American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
- Jayson Lusk & T Schroeder, 2004. "Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks," Artefactual Field Experiments 00096, The Field Experiments Website.
- Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
- Smed, Sinne & Jensen, Jorgen D. & Denver, Sigrid, 2007. "Socio-economic characteristics and the effect of taxation as a health policy instrument," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5-6), pages 624-639.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.