Affect or information? Labeling policy and consumer valuation of rBST free and organic characteristics of milk

Kolodinsky, Jane

doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.07.002

Cited by 28 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By providing information, consumers who desire to either purchase or avoid GE foods can make decisions that meet their needs. This result is similar to that found with voluntary rBST free labels; the labels provide information for consumers (Kolodinsky 2008). Consumers who do not read GE labels will continue to rely on product characteristics that meet their needs.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Two controlled experiments concerning hypothetical consumption choices conducted by Costanigro and Lusk (2014) concluded that the signaling effects of GE labels on two types of foods were minimal and likely too small to be able to consistently detect. Similarly, Kolodinsky (2008) found that rBST labeling on milk provided cognitive information instead of sending signals associated with subjective feelings. Bansal et al (2013) used an experimental auction approach in India and found that the informational cue of labeling was stronger than any negative signaling cue.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How consumers use mandatory genetic engineering (GE) labels: evidence from Vermont

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food labels legislated by the U.S. government have been designed to provide information to consumers. It has been asserted that the simple disclosures "produced using genetic engineering" on newly legislated U.S. food labels will send a signal that influences individual preferences rather than providing information. Vermont is the only US state to have experienced mandatory labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) via simple disclosures. Using a representative sample of adults who experienced Vermont's mandatory GE labeling policy, we examined whether GE labels were seen by consumers and whether the labels provided information or influenced preferences. Nearly one-third of respondents reported seeing a label. Higher income, younger consumers who search for information about GE were more likely to report seeing a label. We also estimated whether labels served as information cues that helped reveal consumer preferences through purchases, or whether labels served as a signal that influenced preferences and purchases. For 50.5% of consumers who saw a label, the label served as an information cue that revealed their preferences. For 13% of those who saw the label, the label influenced preferences and behavior. Overall, for 4% of the total sample, simple GE disclosures influenced preferences. For a slight majority of consumers who used a GE label, simple disclosures were an information signal and not a preference signal. Searching for GE information, classifying as female, older age and opposing GE in food production significantly increased the probability that GE labels served as an information source. Providing such disclosures to consumers may be the least complex and most transparent option for mandatory GE labeling.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 94%

How consumers use mandatory genetic engineering (GE) labels: evidence from Vermont

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The preference for organic designation in fluid milk is typically linked to increased willingness to pay a premium price (Smith et al, 2009;Schott and Bernard, 2015). Fluid milk label claims such as pasture-raised and recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)-free designations have been similarly associated with greater willingness to pay by certain consumer groups (Kolodinsky, 2008;Wolf et al, 2011). With evidence of consumer interest in mind, further investigation and appropriate valua-tion of different features in commercially offered fluid milk products are essential for milk producers in the modern market.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification and characterization of fluid milk consumer groups

Harwood

Drake

2018

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consumption of fluid milk has steadily declined over the last few decades. Understanding the attributes of fluid milk products that are attractive to specific consumer groups may provide a sound basis for education and marketing to encourage increased dairy consumption and reverse the downward trend. The objective of this study was to identify the attributes of fluid milk that specific consumer groups find attractive and attributes that suggest a higher purchase likelihood. An adaptive choice-based conjoint (ACBC) survey was designed to assess attributes of fluid milk. The ACBC survey included Kano, importance, labeling identification, and beliefs questions to determine the key attributes that dictated consumer purchase and consumption. Self-reported purchase habits and attitudes for organic food products were also collected. Attributes in the ACBC exercise included fat content, package type, shelf life, and label claims. Maximum difference scaling was used to rank the importance of attributes in fluid milk that affected purchase. Maximum difference scaling was also used to rank qualities and issues associated with organic milk that were most motivating for those who identified as organic milk consumers. Results were analyzed by univariate and multivariate statistics. A total of 1,163 fluid milk consumers completed the survey, and of those, 434 were regular purchasers of organic milk. The ideal fluid milk from conjoint analysis was 2% milkfat, organic, packaged in a plastic jug, conventionally pasteurized, and contained no additives or label claims. The belief that "organic milk is healthier" was the most important motivator for purchases of organic milk, followed by the beliefs that "organic milk production encourages ethical treatment of animals" and "organic milk production supports local farms and farmers." Conjoint importance scores of all fluid milk consumers showed that milkfat content was the most important attribute, followed by flavor, package size, and price. For all milk consumers, designation as organic was ranked as the 8th most important of 14 attributes. Evaluation of these results on both aggregate and individual levels suggest that fluid milk consumers are not a homogeneous consumer group and that underlying consumer groups are led to purchase decisions by specific product features or expectations.

show abstract

“…Recent years have witnessed pronounced differentiation of food products, ranging from organic to ''eco-friendly" to ''hormone free", and to genetically modified (GM) food products, and a number of academic studies have analyzed such issues. For example, Kolodinsky (2008) examined consumers' preferences for rBST-free and organic milk and CostaFont et al (2008) reviewed a number of studies related to consumer preferences for GM foods. The reasons for growth in food product differentiation are multi-faceted, but a factor that may have some explanatory is altruism or other-regarding preferences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%