IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v70y2018i2d10.1007_s10640-017-0132-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What is an Unregulated and Potentially Misleading Label Worth? The case of “Natural”-Labelled Groceries

Author

Listed:
  • Julianna M. Butler

    (University of Delaware)

  • Christian A. Vossler

    (University of Tennessee)

Abstract

Motivated by a multitude of lawsuits and considerable public policy debate in the U.S., this study provides insight on the demand effects for an unregulated and potentially misleading phrase found on many grocery labels: “all natural”, and its common variations. Using a targeted sample of adult grocery shoppers, we employ an incentive-compatible approach to elicit the willingness to pay for a variety of “natural”-labelled food products, along with their counterfactual, standard-labelled counterparts. We find that consumers are willing to pay 20% more on average for “natural” products. Using elicited information on consumer beliefs, we find that this premium decreases when “natural” signals no artificial flavors or preservatives, and increases when consumers believe that “natural” means GMO-free. Interestingly, for those indicating that the “natural” designation is meaningless, they are willing to pay about one-third less for products labelled this way.

Suggested Citation

  • Julianna M. Butler & Christian A. Vossler, 2018. "What is an Unregulated and Potentially Misleading Label Worth? The case of “Natural”-Labelled Groceries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(2), pages 545-564, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:70:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10640-017-0132-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10640-017-0132-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10640-017-0132-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10640-017-0132-9?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    2. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2012. "Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 1-8.
    3. Onken, Kathryn A. & Bernard, John C. & Pesek, John D., 2011. "Comparing Willingness to Pay for Organic, Natural, Locally Grown, and State Marketing Program Promoted Foods in the Mid-Atlantic Region," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 33-47, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Katie Abrams & Courtney Meyers & Tracy Irani, 2010. "Naturally confused: consumers’ perceptions of all-natural and organic pork products," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 27(3), pages 365-374, September.
    6. Cason, Timothy N. & Gangadharan, Lata, 2002. "Environmental Labeling and Incomplete Consumer Information in Laboratory Markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 113-134, January.
    7. Thilmany, Dawn D. & Grannis, Jennifer L. & Sparling, Edward, 2003. "Regional Demand For Natural Beef Products In Colorado: Target Consumers And Willingness To Pay," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 21(2), pages 1-17.
    8. Glynn T. Tonsor, 2011. "Consumer inferences of food safety and quality," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(2), pages 213-235, June.
    9. John List & Sally Sadoff & Mathis Wagner, 2011. "So you want to run an experiment, now what? Some simple rules of thumb for optimal experimental design," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 439-457, November.
    10. Matthew Rousu & Wallace E. Huffman & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2007. "Effects And Value Of Verifiable Information In A Controversial Market: Evidence From Lab Auctions Of Genetically Modified Food," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(3), pages 409-432, July.
    11. Irwin, Julie R, et al, 1998. "Payoff Dominance vs. Cognitive Transparency in Decision Making," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 36(2), pages 272-285, April.
    12. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2005. "The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 530-545, June.
    13. Onken, Kathryn A. & Bernard, John C. & Pesek, John D., Jr., 2011. "Comparing Willingness to Pay for Organic, Natural, Locally Grown, and State Marketing Program Promoted Foods in the Mid-Atlantic Region," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(01), pages 1-15, April.
    14. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2014. "Editor's choice Distinguishing beliefs from preferences in food choice," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(4), pages 627-655.
    15. Lusk, Jayson L. & Jamal, Mustafa & Kurlander, Lauren & Roucan, Maud & Taulman, Lesley, 2005. "A Meta-Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(01), pages 1-17, April.
    16. Timothy N. Cason & Charles R. Plott, 2014. "Misconceptions and Game Form Recognition: Challenges to Theories of Revealed Preference and Framing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 122(6), pages 1235-1270.
    17. Charles Noussair & StÈphane Robin & Bernard Ruffieux, 2004. "Do Consumers Really Refuse To Buy Genetically Modified Food?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(492), pages 102-120, January.
    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. Felgendreher, Simon, 2018. "Do consumers choose to stay ignorant? The role of information in the purchase of ethically certified products," Working Papers in Economics 717, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    2. Kuchler, Fred & Sweitzer, Megan & Chelius, Carolyn, 2023. "The Prevalence of the “Natural” Claim on Food Product Packaging," Economic Brief 340804, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Ralf Buckley, 2023. "Sector-Scale Proliferation of CSR Quality Label Programs via Mimicry: The Rotkäppchen Effect," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-11, July.
    4. F. Kuchler & M. Bowman & M. Sweitzer & C. Greene, 2020. "Evidence from Retail Food Markets That Consumers Are Confused by Natural and Organic Food Labels," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 379-395, June.
    5. Timothy N. Cason & Steven Y. Wu, 2019. "Subject Pools and Deception in Agricultural and Resource Economics Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 743-758, July.
    6. Wilson, Lacey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2020. "Consumer willingness to pay for redundant food labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. Christian A. Vossler & Dong Yan, 2019. "An Experimental Investigation of Updating under Ambiguity," Working Papers 2019-02, University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
    8. Giovanna Piracci & Fabio Boncinelli & Leonardo Casini, 2023. "Investigating Consumer Preferences for Sustainable Packaging Through a Different Behavioural Approach: A Random Regret Minimization Application," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 86(1), pages 1-27, October.

    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. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    2. Christian A. Vossler, 2016. "Chamberlin Meets Ciriacy-Wantrup: Using Insights from Experimental Economics to Inform Stated Preference Research," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(1), pages 33-48, March.
    3. GianCarlo Moschini, 2008. "Biotechnology and the development of food markets: retrospect and prospects," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(3), pages 331-355, September.
    4. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Pappa, Valentina, 2016. "Elicitation formats and the WTA/WTP gap: A study of climate neutral foods," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 141-155.
    5. Lichters, Marcel & Wackershauser, Verena & Han, Shixing & Vogt, Bodo, 2019. "On the applicability of the BDM mechanism in product evaluation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-7.
    6. David de Meza & Diane Reyniers, 2013. "Debiasing the Becker – DeGroot – Marschak valuation mechanism," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(2), pages 1446-1456.
    7. Friedrichsen, Jana & Engelmann, Dirk, 2018. "Who cares about social image?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 61-77.
    8. Christian A. Vossler & Stéphane Bergeron & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2023. "Revisiting the Gap between the Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept for Public Goods," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 10(2), pages 413-445.
    9. Sebastian Lehmann, 2014. "Toward an Understanding of the BDM: Predictive Validity, Gambling Effects, and Risk Attitude," FEMM Working Papers 150001, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    10. James Berry & Greg Fischer & Raymond Guiteras, 2020. "Eliciting and Utilizing Willingness to Pay: Evidence from Field Trials in Northern Ghana," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(4), pages 1436-1473.
    11. Yiwen Yang & PingSun Leung & Chu‐wei Tseng, 2022. "Price premium or price discount for locally produced food products? A 5W1H approach in meta‐analysis," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(6), pages 2261-2274, September.
    12. Engelmann, Dirk & Friedrichsen, Jana & Kübler, Dorothea, 2018. "Fairness in Markets and Market Experiments," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 64, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    13. Liaukonyte, Jura & Streletskaya, Nadia A. & Kaiser, Harry M., 2015. "Noisy Information Signals and Endogenous Preferences for Labeled Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 1-24, May.
    14. Johnston, Marie, 2014. "Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Referendum and Voluntary Contribution Mechanisms," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165843, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. Freeman, David & Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco & Mittone, Luigi, 2016. "Procedures for eliciting time preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 126(PA), pages 235-242.
    16. A. Banerji & Jeevant Rampal, 2020. "Reverse Endowment Effect for a New Product," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(3), pages 786-805, May.
    17. Jura Liaukonyte & Nadia A. Streletskaya & Harry M. Kaiser, 2015. "The Long-Term Impact of Positive and Negative Information on Food Demand," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 63(4), pages 539-562, December.
    18. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Willingness-to-pay for natural, organic, and conventional foods: The effects of information and meaningful labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 214-232.
    19. Khachatryan, Hayk & Rihn, Alicia & Wei, Xuan, 2021. "Consumers’ Preferences for Eco-labels on Plants: The Influence of Trust and Consequentiality Perceptions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    20. Carola Grebitus & Anne O. Peschel & Renée Shaw Hughner, 2018. "Voluntary food labeling: The additive effect of “free from” labels and region of origin," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 714-727, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Natural food labels; Genetically modified organisms; Consumer fraud protection; Framed field experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K41 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Litigation Process
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D18 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Protection
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    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:kap:enreec:v:70:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10640-017-0132-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.