IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ualbpr/264421.html

Some searches may not work properly. We apologize for the inconvenience.

   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumer Interest in a Natural Designation in Food Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Goddard, Ellen
  • Muringai, Violet
  • Robinson, Amber

Abstract

In this study, the objective is to identify consumers’ willingness to consume different foods and the factors that could drive their food preferences. One hundred non-academic staff and students at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada participated in the study. Data were collected using focus group discussions, a survey questionnaire and a contingent valuation exercise. In the focus groups, participants discussed their preferences for traits in livestock and their products, their interest in natural foods and their perceptions regarding naturalness of food in relation to the different types of farming and technologies. In the survey questionnaire, participants were asked about their food consumption habits, perceptions, attitudes and preferences for different foods and technologies, generalized trust in people and trust in groups or institutions responsible for food in Canada among other issues. In the contingent valuation exercise, participants chose the price they were willing to pay for pork with different information about carnosine and omega-3 fatty acids. We find that there is heterogeneity in terms of consumers’ perceptions, attitudes and behaviour regarding natural foods. In summary, the cost of food, concerns about human and environmental impacts and trustworthiness of information on labels are some of the factors that influence participants’ decisions to buy pork labeled as coming from disease resilient or feed efficient pigs or pigs that are higher in a human or animal health component. Although some people accept genetic modification, other participants were concerned about its use in improving disease resilience, feed efficiency and human or animal health component in pigs. Although there are some variations in the results, generalized trust in people, food technology neophobia and concerns about product leanness, country of origin of the product, nutrition content, use of hormones and antibiotics in livestock production and environmental foot print of livestock production are associated with attitudes, perceptions and behaviour regarding natural foods. Participants are willing to pay more for pork chops with more information about carnosine and omega-3 fatty acids as compared to pork chops with less information. In comparison to carnosine, participants are willing to pay more for pork chops with information about omega-3 fatty acids. Generalized trust in people, trust in advocacy groups, natural product interest, frequency of purchasing products with a health claim and knowledge of sodium content in pork that have a health claim are associated with willingness to pay for enhanced carnosine and omega-3 fatty acids in pork.

Suggested Citation

  • Goddard, Ellen & Muringai, Violet & Robinson, Amber, 2017. "Consumer Interest in a Natural Designation in Food Choice," Project Report Series 264421, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ualbpr:264421
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.264421
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/264421/files/PR-17-01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/264421/files/PR-17-01.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.264421?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:91-97 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Roosen, J. & Bieberstein, A. & Blanchemanche, S. & Goddard, E. & Marette, S. & Vandermoere, F., 2015. "Trust and willingness to pay for nanotechnology food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 75-83.
    5. Lunardo, Renaud & Saintives, Camille, 2013. "The effect of naturalness claims on perceptions of food product naturalness in the point of purchase," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 529-537.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Sackett, Hillary M. & Shupp, Robert S. & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2012. "Discrete Choice Modeling of Consumer Preferences for Sustainably Produced Steak and Apples," 2012 AAEA/EAAE Food Environment Symposium 123517, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Sackett, Hillary M., 2011. "Consumer Perceptions of Sustainable Farming Practices: A Best-Worst Scenario," Graduate Research Master's Degree Plan B Papers 115966, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    3. Brenna Ellison & Kathleen Brooks & Taro Mieno, 2017. "Which livestock production claims matter most to consumers?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 819-831, December.
    4. Brooks, Kathleen R. & Ellison, Brenna, 2014. "Which Livestock Production Methods Matter Most to Consumers?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 173517, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Konduru, Srinivasa & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G. & Magnier, Alexandre, 2009. "GMO Testing Strategies and Implications for Trade: A Game Theoretic Approach," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49594, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Palma, Marco A. & Ness, Meghan L. & Anderson, David P., 2015. "Buying More than Taste? A Latent Class Analysis of Health and Prestige Determinants of Healthy Food," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202566, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. Lai, John & Olynk Widmar, Nicole J. & Gunderson, Michael A. & Widmar, David A. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Prioritization of farm success factors by commercial farm managers," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(6), July.
    8. Parks, Joanna, 2013. "The Effects of Food Labeling and Dietary Guidance on Nutrition in the United States," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150583, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Jayson Lusk, 2011. "The market for animal welfare," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(4), pages 561-575, December.
    10. Demartini, Eugenio & Ricci, Elena Claire & Mattavelli, Simone & Stranieri, Stefanella & Gaviglio, Anna & Banterle, Alessandro & Richetin, Juliette & Perugini, Marco, 2018. "Exploring Consumer Biased Evaluations: Halos Effects of Local Food and of Related Attributes," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(4), August.
    11. Seufert, Verena & Ramankutty, Navin & Mayerhofer, Tabea, 2017. "What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 10-20.
    12. Barlagne, Carla & Bazoche, Pascale & Thomas, Alban & Ozier-Lafontaine, Harry & Causeret, François & Blazy, Jean-Marc, 2015. "Promoting local foods in small island states: The role of information policies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 62-72.
    13. Soham Baksi & Pinaki Bose & Di Xiang, 2012. "Credence Goods, Consumer Misinformation, and Quality," Departmental Working Papers 2012-01, The University of Winnipeg, Department of Economics.
    14. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    15. An, Henry & Pouliot, Sebastien & Volpe, Richard J., III, 2012. "Local, Organic, Inexpensive and Safe: Can Large Retailers Do It All?," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124754, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Marietta Kiss & Kontor Eniko & Kun Andras Istvan, 2015. "The Effect Of 'Organic' Labels On Consumer Perception Of Chocolates," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1(1), pages 448-457, July.
    17. Pouliot, Sebastien & Sumner, Daniel A., 2014. "Differential impacts of country of origin labeling: COOL econometric evidence from cattle markets," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 107-116.
    18. Caputo, Vincenzina & Aprile, Maria Carmela & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2011. "Consumers’ Valuation for European food quality labels: Importance of Label Information Provision," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114324, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Hao, Na & Wang, Hong Holly & Wetzstein, Michael E., 2017. "Will the New Rich Waste More Food? Evidence from China," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258259, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Lusk, Jayson L., 2012. "The political ideology of food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 530-542.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety;

    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:ualbpr:264421. 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/drualca.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.