IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea25/360835.html

The Effects of Information and Naming Restriction on South African Consumer Preferences for Farm-raised Meat and Meat Alternatives

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias-Mamina, Rejoice
  • Jordaan, Yolanda
  • Lin, Lin
  • Ortega, David L.

Abstract

High meat consumption in South Africa is driven by population growth, increased income, and urbanization. However, high meat production raises environmental and societal concerns, highlighting the need to shift toward more sustainable protein sources to reduce these impacts. This study examines consumer preferences for plant-based, insect-based, and cultured meat as alternatives, alongside the effects of environmental and health information and naming restrictions on these preferences. A food choice experiment was administered on 1,013 urban South African food shoppers to assess preferences for three alternative burger patties relative to farm-raised beef patties. Respondents were randomly assigned to treatments varying by health, environmental, and product naming information. Results indicate that farm-raised beef captures approximately 96% of the market share within our sample of urban food shoppers. Naming restrictions do not significantly affect beef demand but increase the market share for plant-based and cultured alternatives. Health information leads to slightly higher preferences for plant-based options than environmental information. Preference for insect-based alternatives remains low, likely due to an aversion to insects. These findings enhance understanding of consumer preferences for alternative meat products and naming restrictions, informing policies aimed at reducing the environmental and societal impacts of livestock production in South Africa.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias-Mamina, Rejoice & Jordaan, Yolanda & Lin, Lin & Ortega, David L., 2025. "The Effects of Information and Naming Restriction on South African Consumer Preferences for Farm-raised Meat and Meat Alternatives," 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2025, Denver, CO 360835, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea25:360835
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.360835
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/360835/files/75217_94874_105300_AAEA_2025_lightning_session_full_paper.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.360835?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1990. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Correction," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(1), pages 189-190, February.
    2. Bhat, Chandra R., 2003. "Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 837-855, November.
    3. repec:plo:pone00:0171904 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Roy Brouwer & Frank Spaninks, 1999. "The Validity of Environmental Benefits Transfer: Further Empirical Testing," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 95-117, July.
    5. Marion Delport & Marlene Louw & Tracy Davids & Hester Vermeulen & Ferdi Meyer, 2017. "Evaluating the demand for meat in South Africa: an econometric estimation of short term demand elasticities," Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(1), pages 13-27, January.
    6. Ortega, David L. & Sun, Jiayu & Lin, Wen, 2022. "Identity labels as an instrument to reduce meat demand and encourage consumption of plant based and cultured meat alternatives in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    7. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    8. Lukas Kornher & Martin Schellhorn & Saskia Vetter, 2019. "Disgusting or Innovative-Consumer Willingness to Pay for Insect Based Burger Patties in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, March.
    9. Anabela Botelho & Ligia Costa Pinto, 2002. "Hypothetical, real, and predicted real willingness to pay in open-ended surveys: experimental results," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(15), pages 993-996.
    10. Chantal Le Mouël & Anna Birgit Milford & Benjamin L. Bodirsky & Susanne Rolinski, 2019. "Drivers of meat consumption," Post-Print hal-02175593, HAL.
    11. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    12. Tsvakirai, Chiedza & Nalley, Lawton & Rider, Shelby & Van Loo, Ellen & Tshehla, Makgopa, 2023. "The Alternative Livestock Revolution: Prospects for Consumer Acceptance of Plant-based and Cultured Meat in South Africa," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(4), pages 710-729, November.
    13. Christopher J. Bryant, 2019. "We Can’t Keep Meating Like This: Attitudes towards Vegetarian and Vegan Diets in the United Kingdom," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-17, December.
    14. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    15. Martin C. Parlasca & Matin Qaim, 2022. "Meat Consumption and Sustainability," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 17-41, October.
    16. Delport, Marion & Louw, Marlene & Davids, Tracy & Vermeulen, Hester & Meyer, Ferdi, 2017. "Evaluating the demand for meat in South Africa: an econometric estimation of short term demand elasticities," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 56(01), March.
    17. Matthews, Yvonne & Scarpa, Riccardo & Marsh, Dan, 2017. "Stability of Willingness-to-Pay for Coastal Management: A Choice Experiment Across Three Time Periods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 64-73.
    18. Natalie R. Rubio & Ning Xiang & David L. Kaplan, 2020. "Plant-based and cell-based approaches to meat production," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    19. Benjamin DeMuth & Trey Malone & Brandon R. McFadden & Christopher A. Wolf, 2023. "Choice effects associated with banning the word “meat” on alternative protein labels," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 128-144, 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. Daniele Asioli & Wei Yang & Jia Han & Quoc Cuong Nguyen & Massimiliano Petracci & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2026. "Consumer Valuation of Meat Alternatives and Labeling Policies: A Comparative Perspective," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(3), pages 762-779, July.

    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. Rao Yuan & Shaosheng Jin & Lin Zhou & Hsiaoping Chien & Wenchao Wu, 2025. "Promoting eco‐labeled food consumption in China: The role of information," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(2), pages 401-423, April.
    2. Lin Lin & David L. Ortega & Jiayu Sun, 2025. "The effectiveness of misinformation corrective strategies and implications for consumers' food preferences and policy attitudes," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(1), pages 217-240, March.
    3. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    4. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    5. Liu, Ruifeng & ,, 2021. "What We Can Learn from the Interactions of Food Traceable Attributes? a Case Study of Fuji Apple in China," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315916, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Sardaro, Ruggiero & La Sala, Piermichele & De Pascale, Gianluigi & Faccilongo, Nicola, 2021. "The conservation of cultural heritage in rural areas: Stakeholder preferences regarding historical rural buildings in Apulia, southern Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    7. Liu, Mengyu & Jin, Yana & Hu, Wuyang, 2026. "Valuing Sustainability in China's Pork Market: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2026 Annual Meeting, July 26 - 28, 2026, Kansas City, Missouri 404463, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. H. Holly Wang & Yu Jiang & Shaosheng Jin & Qiujie Zheng, 2022. "New online market connecting Chinese consumers and small farms to improve food safety and environment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(4), pages 305-324, December.
    9. Bénédicte Rulleau, 2024. "Household preferences for cyber-attack resilient water distribution networks: A latent class analysis of a discrete choice experiment in France," Post-Print hal-04157111, HAL.
    10. Carnegie, Rachel & Wang, Holly & Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David, 2014. "Consumer Preferences for Quality and Safety Attributes of Duck in Restaurant Entrees: Is China A Viable Market for The U.S. Duck Industry?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170717, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Katherine Fuller & Carola Grebitus, 2023. "Consumers' preferences and willingness to pay for coffee sustainability labels," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 1007-1025, October.
    12. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    13. Ren, Yanjun & Liu, Qi & Wu, Guanzhang & Loy, Jens-Peter, 2025. "Consumer preferences for sugar-sweetened beverages: Evidence from online surveys and laboratory eye-tracking choice experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    14. Joseph Seong & Simone Valle De Souza & April Athnos & H. Christopher Peterson, 2026. "Who is willing to pay a premium for leafy greens produced by indoor agriculture? A comparative choice experiment with US consumers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(1), pages 3-28, January.
    15. Lin, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Green identity labeling, environmental information, and pro-environmental food choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    16. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    17. Rodríguez-Entrena, Macario & Espinosa-Goded, María & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús, 2014. "The role of ancillary benefits on the value of agricultural soils carbon sequestration programmes: Evidence from a latent class approach to Andalusian olive groves," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 63-73.
    18. Shijiu Yin & Shanshan Lv & Yusheng Chen & Linhai Wu & Mo Chen & Jiang Yan, 2018. "Consumer preference for infant milk‐based formula with select food safety information attributes: Evidence from a choice experiment in China," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(4), pages 557-569, December.
    19. Kevin Chen & Luyun Yu & Wen Lin & David L. Ortega, 2026. "Information Framing Effects on Diet Choices Among Chinese Urban Residents," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(3), pages 1468-1481, July.
    20. Oyakhilomen Oyinbo & Jordan Chamberlin & Miet Maertens, 2020. "Design of Digital Agricultural Extension Tools: Perspectives from Extension Agents in Nigeria," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 798-815, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:aaea25:360835. 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: 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.