IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea16/235476.html

Value of parsimonious nutritional information in a framed field experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Jo, Jisung
  • Lusk, Jayson
  • Muller, Laurent
  • Ruffieux, Bernard

Abstract

This study investigates consumers’ beliefs about the tastiness and healthiness of 173 food items in a framed field experiment designed to mirror a grocery shopping environment. Using data collected from 129 food shoppers in Grenoble, France, demand models are estimated to determine how product choice is affected by price, taste, and perceived healthiness, and how choices change with the provision of objective health information. Unlike previous studies focusing on relatively complex nutrition labels, we elicit and convey health information using simple nutritional indices meant to lower search and cognitive processing costs. The results indicate that consumers are willing to pay for tastier foods and for healthier foods, particularly if the consumers have objective information (as opposed to perceived, subjective information) on nutrient content. The estimates suggest that the value of the type of nutritional information provided in the experiment is €0.98 per day. The figure refers to the daily welfare benefits that arise from being able to make a set of choices that better reflect people’s preferences by receiving the nutrient index information on all 173 food items versus not having such information.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Jo, Jisung & Lusk, Jayson & Muller, Laurent & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2016. "Value of parsimonious nutritional information in a framed field experiment," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235476, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea16:235476
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.235476
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/235476/files/Value%20of%20parsimonious%20nutritional%20information%20in%20a%20framed%20field%20experiment.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.235476?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jasper Grashuis, 2021. "A price premium for the farmer‐owned label? A choice experiment with milk consumers in the Netherlands," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 749-763, October.
    2. Grebitus, Carola & Davis, George C., 2017. "Change is good!? Analyzing the relationship between attention and nutrition facts panel modifications," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 119-130.
    3. Gustafson, Christopher R., "undated". "Comparing the impact of targeted subsidies and health prompts on choice process variables and food choice: The case of dietary fiber," Staff Papers 330132, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    4. repec:plo:pone00:0223098 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:osf:osfxxx:u4v5c_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Concetta Nazzaro & Marcello Stanco & Giuseppe Marotta, 2020. "The Life Cycle of Corporate Social Responsibility in Agri-Food: Value Creation Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Young, Jeffrey S., 2021. "Measuring palatability as a linear combination of nutrient levels in food items," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    8. Gustafson, Christopher R., 2023. "Comparing the impact of subsidies and health prompts on choice process variables and food choice: The case of dietary fiber," OSF Preprints u4v5c, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea16:235476. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/aaeaaea.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.