ARE RETAILERS’ PREFERENCES FOR SEAFOOD ATTRIBUTES PREDICTIVE FOR CONSUMER WANTS? RESULTS FROM A CHOICE EXPERIMENT FOR SEABREAM (<i>Sparus aurata</i>)

Fernández-Polanco, José; Loose, Simone Mueller; Sotorrío, Ladislao Luna

doi:10.1080/13657305.2013.772262

Cited by 31 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Online choice experiment.173 primary food shoppers and consumers of yogurt.Random parameter logit with an error component model. De-Magistris (2016) [36]Spain.Repeated measures: price (4 levels) x nutrient claim (absent, reduced fat claim, low salt claim). Setting unclear, conducted in-person, participants seated individually.217 primary food shoppers.Random Parameters Logit (RPL) model. Fernández-Polanco (2013) [37]Spain.Repeated measures: price (4 levels) x origin (2 levels) x harvest method (2 levels) x sustainability (2 levels) x health claim (2 levels) x safety (2 levels).169 participants.Heteroscedastic logit model. Gracia (2009) [38]Spain.Repeated measures: price (2 levels) x brand (2 levels) x nutritional information panel (2 levels x claim (2 levels).400 food shoppers.Logit model. Krystallis (2012) [42]Greece.Repeated measures: product type (2 levels) x claims (5 levels) x flavour (2 levels) x price (3 levels).140 participants.Heteroscedastic extreme value (HEV) model. Van Wezemael (2014) [54]Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and the UK.Mixed design: between groups (nutrition or health & nutrition claim exposure), within group (claim, no claim) x price (4 levels). Conducted online.2400 beef consumers, 600 participants from; the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and the UK.Multinomial logit (MNL) model, error component (EC) logit model. Ares (2010) [27]Uruguay.Repeated measures: type of yogurt (3 levels) x brand (3 levels) x price (3 levels) x claim (with/without).104 yogurt consumers.Multinomial logit model (MNL).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There was one study that measured the effects of health-related claims on ‘Fruits and Vegetables’ [48] whereas there were nine studies that examined ‘Foods High in Fat and/or Sugar’ [26, 31, 33, 35, 38–40, 42, 53], five studies examined ‘Beans, Pulses, Fish, Eggs, Meat and other Proteins’ [37, 44, 47, 50, 54], three studies on ‘Potatoes, Bread, Rice, Pasta and Other Starchy Carbohydrates’ [34, 46, 52], four studies on ‘Dairy and Alternatives’ [27, 36, 45, 51], and two studied ready meals [32, 41]. Six studies looked at multiple categories of foods [14, 25, 28–30, 49].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review, and meta-analyses, of the impact of health-related claims on dietary choices

Kaur

Scarborough

Rayner

2017

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

162

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHealth-related claims are statements regarding the nutritional content of a food (nutrition claims) and/or indicate that a relationship exists between a food and a health outcome (health claims). Their impact on food purchasing or consumption decisions is unclear. This systematic review measured the effect of health-related claims, on pre-packaged foods in retail settings, on adult purchasing decisions (real and perceived).MethodsIn September 2016, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CAB abstracts, Business Source Complete, and Web of Science/Science Citation Index & Social Science Citation Index for articles in English published in peer-review journals. Studies were included if they were controlled experiments where the experimental group(s) included a health-related claim and the control group involved an identical product without a health-related claim. Included studies measured (at an individual or population level); actual or intended choice, purchases, and/or consumption. The primary outcome was product choices and purchases, the secondary outcome was food consumption and preference. Results were standardised through calculating odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the likelihood of choosing a product when a health-related claim was present. Results were combined in a random-effects meta-analysis.ResultsThirty-one papers were identified, 17 of which were included for meta-analyses. Most studies were conducted in Europe (n = 17) and the USA (n = 7). Identified studies were choice experiments that measured the likelihood of a product being chosen when a claim was present compared to when a claim was not present, (n = 16), 15 studies were experiments that measured either; intent-rating scale outcomes (n = 8), consumption (n = 6), a combination of the two (n = 1), or purchase data (n = 1). Overall, 20 studies found that claims increase purchasing and/or consumption, eight studies had mixed results, and two studies found consumption/purchasing reductions. The meta-analyses of 17 studies found that health-related claims increase consumption and/or purchasing (OR 1.75, CI 1.60–1.91). ConclusionHealth-related claims have a substantial effect on dietary choices. However, this finding is based on research mostly conducted in artificial settings. Findings from natural experiments have yielded smaller effects. Further research is needed to assess effects of claims in real-world settings.Trial registrationPROSPERO systematic review registration number: CRD42016044042.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12966-017-0548-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review, and meta-analyses, of the impact of health-related claims on dietary choices

Kaur

Scarborough

Rayner

2017

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

162

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This differentiation or the lack of market integration between farmed and aquaculture products can be explained, at least in part, by the negative perception aquaculture products have in comparison to wild fish in Spain, and Southern Europe in general Luna, 2010, 2012;Claret et al, 2012;Fernández-Polanco et al, 2013). Wild fish is always preferred by Southern European consumers when compared to farmed fish (Claret et al, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Market integration between wild and farmed seabream and seabass in Spain

Bjørndal

Guillén

2017

Applied Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) and European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) production from aquaculture has been increasing since the 1990s. Nowadays, about 95% of their production comes from aquaculture. In this study we analyze if the rapid growth in the aquaculture production of both species has affected the capture fisheries prices of both species. In other words, we investigate if there is market integration between wild and farmed gilthead seabream and European seabass. In order to do this analysis, we use data from the main gilthead seabream and European seabass markets in Spain. Results show that there is no or limited market integration between wild and farmed gilthead seabream and European seabass. This implies that capture fisheries are not significantly affected by increases in the aquaculture production of both species. But gilthead seabream and European seabass aquaculture producers face a smaller demand that explains the difficulties this aquaculture segment is facing.

show abstract

“…Three studies found a mix of both health and environmental and/or social responsibility attributes were most popular [47,49,50]. In those studies where environmental and social responsibility attributes were preferred, organic was the preferred choice in eight studies [28,43,46,[51][52][53][54], with animal welfare claims coming a close second (five studies) [44,[55][56][57][58]. Two studies found environmental impact labels were valued most highly [42,59], one Fairtrade [40] and one carbon footprint [60].…”

Section: Attribute Preferencementioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable Diet Dimensions. Comparing Consumer Preference for Nutrition, Environmental and Social Responsibility Food Labelling: A Systematic Review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global food systems are currently challenged by unsustainable and unhealthy consumption and production practices. Food labelling provides information on key characteristics of food items, thereby potentially driving more sustainable food choices or demands. This review explores how consumers value three different elements of sustainable diets: Comparing consumer response to nutrition information on food labels against environmental and/or social responsibility information. Six databases were systematically searched for studies examining consumer choice/preference/evaluation of nutrition against environmental and/or social responsibility attributes on food labels. Studies were quality assessed against domain-based criteria and reported using PRISMA guidelines. Thirty articles with 19,040 participants met inclusion criteria. Study quality was mixed, with samples biased towards highly-educated females. Environmental and social responsibility attributes were preferred to nutrition attributes in 17 studies (11 environmental and six social), compared to nine where nutrition attributes were valued more highly. Three studies found a combination of attributes were valued more highly than either attribute in isolation. One study found no significant preference. The most preferred attribute was organic labelling, with a health inference likely. Consumers generally have a positive view of environmental and social responsibility food labelling schemes. Combination labelling has potential, with a mix of sustainable diet attributes appearing well-received.

show abstract

ARE RETAILERS’ PREFERENCES FOR SEAFOOD ATTRIBUTES PREDICTIVE FOR CONSUMER WANTS? RESULTS FROM A CHOICE EXPERIMENT FOR SEABREAM (Sparus aurata)

Cited by 31 publications

References 39 publications

A systematic review, and meta-analyses, of the impact of health-related claims on dietary choices

A systematic review, and meta-analyses, of the impact of health-related claims on dietary choices

Market integration between wild and farmed seabream and seabass in Spain

Sustainable Diet Dimensions. Comparing Consumer Preference for Nutrition, Environmental and Social Responsibility Food Labelling: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About