IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i11p3835-d177698.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Imperfect Information in the Market for Expired and Nearly Expired Foods and Implications for Reducing Food Waste

Author

Listed:
  • Alba J. Collart

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University, P.O. Box 5187, Starkville, MS 39762, USA)

  • Matthew G. Interis

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University, P.O. Box 5187, Starkville, MS 39762, USA)

Abstract

A substantial source of food waste occurs when consumers and sellers dispose of expired food despite it being safe to eat. We conduct an incentive-compatible, non-hypothetical laboratory choice experiment in which 150 participants choose between food products of varying perishability level at various dates before or after their best-before dates. In one treatment, participants received information about the interpretation of food date labels. In another they received this information plus additional information on food waste due to date label confusion and its environmental impacts. We find that clarifying the meaning of date labels is insufficient to change preferences for food past its best-before date, but when a link between date labels, food waste, and its environmental impacts is made, participants’ willingness-to-pay for expired food increases, particularly for expired frozen or recently expired semi-perishable products. Our findings have implications for food waste reduction efforts because increasing the value of expired food increases the opportunity cost of wasting expired but consumable food.

Suggested Citation

  • Alba J. Collart & Matthew G. Interis, 2018. "Consumer Imperfect Information in the Market for Expired and Nearly Expired Foods and Implications for Reducing Food Waste," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:11:p:3835-:d:177698
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/3835/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/3835/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1989. "Imperfect information in the product market," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 13, pages 769-847, Elsevier.
    2. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    3. Danyi Qi & Brian E. Roe, 2017. "Foodservice Composting Crowds Out Consumer Food Waste Reduction Behavior in a Dining Experiment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1159-1171.
    4. Jayson L. Lusk & Brenna Ellison, 2017. "A note on modelling household food waste behaviour," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(16), pages 1199-1202, September.
    5. Lusk,Jayson L. & Shogren,Jason F., 2007. "Experimental Auctions," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521855167, November.
    6. Buzby, Jean C. & Farah-Wells, Hodan & Hyman, Jeffrey, 2014. "The Estimated Amount, Value, and Calories of Postharvest Food Losses at the Retail and Consumer Levels in the United States," Economic Information Bulletin 164262, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. John Rose & Michiel Bliemer, 2013. "Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 1021-1041, September.
    8. Carson, Richard T & Groves, Theodore, 2010. "Incentive and Information Properties of Preference Questions," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt88d8644g, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    9. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, November.
    10. Brenna Ellison & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "Examining Household Food Waste Decisions: A Vignette Approach," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 613-631, December.
    11. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    12. Jessica Aschemann-Witzel & Ilona De Hooge & Pegah Amani & Tino Bech-Larsen & Marije Oostindjer, 2015. "Consumer-Related Food Waste: Causes and Potential for Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-21, May.
    13. Bhat, Chandra R., 2001. "Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 677-693, August.
    14. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427, March.
    15. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    16. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    17. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2013. "Confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for random coefficient logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 199-214.
    18. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    19. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    20. Bhagyashree Katare & Dmytro Serebrennikov & H. Holly Wang & Michael Wetzstein, 2017. "Social-Optimal Household Food Waste: Taxes and Government Incentives," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(2), pages 499-509.
    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. Lu Monroe Meng & Eileen Yiran Zhang & Shen Duan & Ce Liang, 2025. "The Impact of Visual Perspectives in Advertisements on Consumers’ Reactions to Close-to-Expiry Food," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 199(2), pages 437-451, June.
    2. Liang, Yongheng & Yin, Yunlu & Xu, Qian, 2024. "Decoding consumer resistance to near-expired products: The role of social stereotyping," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 100(4), pages 618-634.
    3. Bilu Chen & Wen Hua & Shan Wu, 2024. "Examining the impact of the packaging design of nearly expired food on consumer purchase intentions," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Wanjun Chu & Helén Williams & Karli Verghese & Renee Wever & Wiktoria Glad, 2020. "Tensions and Opportunities: An Activity Theory Perspective on Date and Storage Label Design through a Literature Review and Co-Creation Sessions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-37, February.
    5. Azucena Gracia & Miguel I. Gómez, 2020. "Food Sustainability and Waste Reduction in Spain: Consumer Preferences for Local, Suboptimal, And/Or Unwashed Fresh Food Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-15, May.
    6. D’Amato, Alessio & Goeschl, Timo & Lorè, Luisa & Zoli, Mariangela, 2023. "True to type? EU-style date marking and the valuation of perishable food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    7. Habib, Muhammad Danish & Kaur, Puneet & Sharma, Veenu & Talwar, Shalini, 2023. "Analyzing the food waste reduction intentions of UK households. A Value-Attitude-Behavior (VAB) theory perspective," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    8. d'Amato, Alessio & Goeschl, Timo & Lorè, Luisa & Zoli, Mariangela, 2020. "Date Marks, Valuation, and Food Waste: Three In-Store ‘Eggsperiments’," Working Papers 0693, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    9. Benjamin Buttlar & Lars Löwenstein & Marie-Sophie Geske & Heike Ahlmer & Eva Walther, 2021. "Love Food, Hate Waste? Ambivalence towards Food Fosters People’s Willingness to Waste Food," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-24, April.
    10. Wang, Yixuan & Desai, Saumya & Kemmerling, Leonie & Trmcic, Aljosa & Wiedmann, Martin & Adalja, Aaron A., 2024. "Dynamic pricing to reducing dairy food waste: Evidence from lab and grocery store experiments," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343665, 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. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    2. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    3. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2018. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 365-393, February.
    4. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    5. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Andrew G. Meyer, 2021. "Incorporating Beliefs and Experiences into Choice Experiment Analysis: Implications for Policy Recommendations," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 823-848, June.
    6. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2021. "The Effect of Gain-loss Framing on Climate Policy Preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    7. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    8. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Abdulrahman, Abdulallah S & Johnston, Robert J, 2016. "Systematic Non-Response in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: Implications for the Valuation of Climate Risk Reductions," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235465, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Cerroni, S. & Watson, V. & Macdiarmid, J., 2018. "Preferences for healthy and environmentally sustainable food: Combining induced-value and home-grown experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277155, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    12. Daan Hulshof & Machiel Mulder, 2020. "Willingness to Pay for $$\hbox {CO}_2$$CO2 Emission Reductions in Passenger Car Transport," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(4), pages 899-929, April.
    13. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark D. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Boxall, Peter C. & Rose, John, 2021. "Effects of the number of alternatives in public good discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    14. Jan Vanstockem & Liesbet Vranken & Brent Bleys & Ben Somers & Martin Hermy, 2018. "Do Looks Matter? A Case Study on Extensive Green Roofs Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, January.
    15. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    16. Sobolewski, Maciej, 2021. "Measuring consumer well-being from using free-of-charge digital services. The case of navigation apps," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    17. Makriyannis, Christos & Johnston, Robert, 2016. "Welfare Analysis for Climate Risk Reductions: Are Current Treatments of Outcome Uncertainty Sufficient?," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235532, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Siegerink, Veerle E. & Delnoij, Joyce & Alpizar, Francisco, 2024. "Public preferences for meat tax attributes in The Netherlands: A discrete choice experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    19. Bosworth Ryan & Taylor Laura O., 2012. "Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments: Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Bias on the Intensive and Extensive Margins of Choice?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-28, December.
    20. Nicolas Krucien & Amiram Gafni & Nathalie Pelletier‐Fleury, 2015. "Empirical Testing of the External Validity of a Discrete Choice Experiment to Determine Preferred Treatment Option: The Case of Sleep Apnea," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(8), pages 951-965, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:11:p:3835-:d:177698. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.