IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v43y2013icp180-189.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are consumers concerned about palm oil? Evidence from a lab experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Disdier, Anne-Célia
  • Marette, Stéphan
  • Millet, Guy

Abstract

A lab experiment evaluates the consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for food products made with and without palm oil. Palm oil production induces environmental damages, and its consumption presents a health risk. However, the production of alternative oils raises land use issues. In the experiment, successive messages emphasizing the characteristics of palm oil and palm oil-free products are delivered to participants. Information has a significant influence on WTP when it underlines the negative impact of the related product. This effect is stronger for the palm oil product than for the palm oil-free product. The experiment also compares the welfare effects of two regulatory instruments, namely a consumer information campaign versus a per-unit tax. Because of the respective attributes of both palm oil and palm oil-free products, the information campaign improves welfare with a much larger impact than the tax.

Suggested Citation

  • Disdier, Anne-Célia & Marette, Stéphan & Millet, Guy, 2013. "Are consumers concerned about palm oil? Evidence from a lab experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 180-189.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:43:y:2013:i:c:p:180-189
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.09.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919213001310
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.09.003?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jayson L. Lusk & Brian C. Briggeman, 2009. "Food Values," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(1), pages 184-196.
    2. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2007. "Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark: A Field Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 109(2), pages 341-368, June.
    3. Marette, Stephan & Roosen, Jutta & Blanchemanche, Sandrine & Verger, Philippe, 2008. "The Choice of Fish Species: An Experiment Measuring the Impact of Risk and Benefit Information," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(1), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Marette Stéphan & Roosen Jutta & Blanchemanche Sandrine, 2011. "The Combination of Lab and Field Experiments for Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 2(3), pages 1-36, August.
    5. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    6. Fox, John A & Hayes, Dermot J & Shogren, Jason F, 2002. "Consumer Preferences for Food Irradiation: How Favorable and Unfavorable Descriptions Affect Preferences for Irradiated Pork in Experimental Auctions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 75-95, January.
    7. Foster, William & Just, Richard E., 1989. "Measuring welfare effects of product contamination with consumer uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 266-283, November.
    8. Lusk, Jayson L. & House, Lisa O. & Valli, Carlotta & Jaeger, Sara R. & Moore, Melissa & Morrow, Bert & Traill, W. Bruce, 2005. "Consumer welfare effects of introducing and labeling genetically modified food," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 382-388, September.
    9. Warr, Peter & Yusuf, Arief Anshory, 2011. "Reducing Indonesia’s deforestation-based greenhouse gas emissions," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(3), pages 1-25, September.
    10. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Lazaridis, Panagiotis & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2008. "The role of reference prices in experimental auctions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(3), pages 446-448, June.
    11. Wallace E. Huffman & Matthew Rousu & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2003. "The Public Good Value of Information from Agribusinesses on Genetically Modified Foods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1309-1315.
    12. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2009. "An Inferred Valuation Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 500-514.
    13. Jutta Roosen & Stéphan Marette, 2011. "Making the "right" choice based on experiments: regulatory decisions for food and health," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(3), pages 361-381, August.
    14. Lusk, Jayson L. & Briggeman, Brian C., 2008. "AJAE appendix for “Food Values”," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(1), pages 1-12, February.
    15. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2011. "Animal Welfare Economics," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(4), pages 463-483.
    16. Glenn W. Harrison & Ronald M. Harstad & E. Elisabet Rutstr–m, 2004. "Experimental Methods and Elicitation of Values," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 123-140, June.
    17. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2011. "A calibrated auction-conjoint valuation method: Valuing pork and eggs produced under differing animal welfare conditions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 80-94, July.
    18. Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2009. "Bridging the gap between laboratory experiments and naturally occurring markets: An inferred valuation method," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 236-250, September.
    19. Gintis, Herbert, 2000. "Beyond Homo economicus: evidence from experimental economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 311-322, December.
    20. Bohm, Peter & Linden, Johan & Sonnegard, Joakim, 1997. "Eliciting Reservation Prices: Becker-DeGroot-Marschak Mechanisms vs. Markets," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(443), pages 1079-1089, July.
    21. Solomon, Barry D. & Johnson, Nicholas H., 2009. "Valuing climate protection through willingness to pay for biomass ethanol," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 2137-2144, May.
    22. Wuyang Hu & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Labelling Genetically Modified Food: Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Value of Information," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(1), pages 83-102, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cordula Hinkes & Inken Christoph-Schulz, 2020. "No Palm Oil or Certified Sustainable Palm Oil? Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Role of Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-26, September.
    2. Brigitta Plasek & Zoltán Lakner & Katalin Badak-Kerti & Anikó Kovács & Ágoston Temesi, 2021. "Perceived Consequences: General or Specific? The Case of Palm Oil-Free Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-16, March.
    3. Capecchi, Stefania & Amato, Mario & Sodano, Valeria & Verneau, Fabio, 2019. "Understanding beliefs and concerns towards palm oil: Empirical evidence and policy implications," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    4. Marette, Stéphan & Martin, Christophe & Bouillot, Fabienne, 2017. "Two experiments in one: How accounting for context matters for welfare estimates," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 12-24.
    5. Orset, Caroline, 2021. "Is information a good policy instrument to influence the energy behaviour of households?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    6. Lucio CECCHINI & Biancamaria TORQUATI & Massimo CHIORRI, 2018. "Sustainable agri-food products: A review of consumer preference studies through experimental economics," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 64(12), pages 554-565.
    7. Olivier Boiral & Iñaki Heras‐Saizarbitoria & Marie‐Christine Brotherton, 2018. "Corporate Biodiversity Management through Certifiable Standards," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 389-402, March.
    8. Marette, Stephan, 2017. "Quality, market mechanisms and regulation in the food chain," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 5(3), February.
    9. Jean-Sauveur Ay & Raja Chakir & Stephan Marette, 2014. "Does living close to a vineyard increase the willingness-to-pay for organic and local wine?," Working Papers 2014/03, INRA, Economie Publique.
    10. Staudigel, Matthias & Anders, Sven, 2016. "Does Taste Trump Health? – The Effect Of Nutrient Profiles On Brand-Level Demand For Chips In The U.S," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244760, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    11. Massimiliano Borrello & Azzurra Annunziata & Riccardo Vecchio, 2019. "Sustainability of Palm Oil: Drivers of Consumers’ Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-12, September.
    12. Caroline Orset & Nicolas Barret & Aurélien Lemaire, 2017. "How consumers of plastic water bottles are responding to environmental policies?," Post-Print hal-01500900, HAL.
    13. Marette, Stéphan & Millet, Guy, 2014. "Economic benefits from promoting linseed in the diet of dairy cows for reducing methane emissions and improving milk quality," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 140-149.
    14. Robert Beyer & Tim Rademacher, 2021. "Species Richness and Carbon Footprints of Vegetable Oils: Can High Yields Outweigh Palm Oil’s Environmental Impact?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-10, February.
    15. Septianto, Felix & Kemper, Joya A. & Chiew, Tung Moi, 2020. "The interactive effects of emotions and numerical information in increasing consumer support to conservation efforts," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 445-455.
    16. Nicola Marinelli & Maria Cipollaro & Safwat H. Shakir Hanna & Carlotta Innocenti & Sara Fabbrizzi, 2021. "The perception of palm oil by Millennials: A semantic differential approach," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(1), pages 93-109.
    17. Staudigel, Matthias & Anders, Sven, 2016. "Does taste trump health? Effects of nutritional characteristics on brand-level demand for chips in the U.S," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235755, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. Anne-Célia Disdier & Stéphan Marette, 2012. "Taxes, minimum-quality standards and/or product labeling to improve environmental quality and welfare: Experiments can provide answers," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 337-357, June.
    2. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    3. Marette Stéphan & Roosen Jutta & Blanchemanche Sandrine, 2011. "The Combination of Lab and Field Experiments for Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 2(3), pages 1-36, August.
    4. Jean-Sauveur Ay & Raja Chakir & Stephan Marette, 2017. "Distance Decay in the Willingness to Pay for Wine: Disentangling Local and Organic Attributes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 997-1019, December.
    5. Frank van Tongeren & John Beghin & Stéphane Marette, 2009. "A Cost-Benefit Framework for the Assessment of Non-Tariff Measures in Agro-Food Trade," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 21, OECD Publishing.
    6. S. Marette & L. Nabec & F. Durieux, 2019. "Improving Nutritional Quality of Consumers’ Food Purchases With Traffic-Lights Labels: An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 377-395, September.
    7. Ay, Jean-Sauveur & Chakir, Raja & Marette, Stephan, 2014. "Does living close to a vineyard increase the willingness-to-pay for organic and local wine?," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183075, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Alho, Eeva, 2015. "The effect of social bonding and identity on the decision to invest in food production," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 47-55.
    9. Jonathan E. Alevy & Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2015. "Field Experiments On The Anchoring Of Economic Valuations," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 53(3), pages 1522-1538, July.
    10. Waldman, Kurt B. & Kerr, John M., 2015. "Is Food and Drug Administration policy governing artisan cheese consistent with consumers’ preferences?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 71-80.
    11. Stéphan Marette & Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen, 2010. "Welfare Impact of Information with Experiments: The Crucial Role of the Price Elasticity of Demand," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(2), pages 1585-1593.
    12. Honda, Hidehito & Ogawa, Midori & Murakoshi, Takuma & Masuda, Tomohiro & Utsumi, Ken & Park, Sora & Kimura, Atsushi & Nei, Daisuke & Wada, Yuji, 2015. "Effect of visual aids and individual differences of cognitive traits in judgments on food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 33-40.
    13. Disdier, Anne-Célia & Marette, Stéphan, 2012. "How do consumers in developed countries value the environment and workers’ social rights in developing countries?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-11.
    14. Colson, Gregory & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2011. "Improving the Nutrient Content of Food through Genetic Modification: Evidence from Experimental Auctions on Consumer Acceptance," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-22, August.
    15. Loomis, John B., 2014. "2013 WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, April.
    16. Rousu, Matthew C. & Marette, Stéphan & Thrasher, James F. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2014. "The economic value to smokers of graphic warning labels on cigarettes: Evidence from combining market and experimental auction data," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 123-134.
    17. Ellison, Brenna & Bernard, John C. & Paukett, Michelle & Toensmeyer, Ulrich C., 2016. "The influence of retail outlet and FSMA information on consumer perceptions of and willingness to pay for organic grape tomatoes," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 109-119.
    18. John List & Michael Price, 2013. "Using Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics," Artefactual Field Experiments 00447, The Field Experiments Website.
    19. Marette, Stéphan & Messéan, Antoine & Millet, Guy, 2012. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for eco-friendly apples under different labels: Evidences from a lab experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 151-161.
    20. Löschel, Andreas & Sturm, Bodo & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2017. "Revealed preferences for voluntary climate change mitigation when the purely individual perspective is relaxed – evidence from a framed field experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 149-160.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer information campaign; Experimental economics; Palm oil; Per-unit tax; Willingness to pay;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:jfpoli:v:43:y:2013:i:c:p:180-189. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    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.