食品上的多个标签是有益的还是被忽视了?

IF 2.5 2区 经济学 Q2 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics-Revue Canadienne D Agroeconomie Pub Date : 2020-11-04 DOI:10.1111/cjag.12259
Tatiana Drugova, Kynda R. Curtis, Sherzod B. Akhundjanov
{"title":"食品上的多个标签是有益的还是被忽视了?","authors":"Tatiana Drugova,&nbsp;Kynda R. Curtis,&nbsp;Sherzod B. Akhundjanov","doi":"10.1111/cjag.12259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study examines consumer preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for organic wheat products exhibiting single labels, as well as multiple labels, including organic. The additional labels considered are related to the organic label (non-genetically modified organism [non-GMO]) or perceived as health-promoting (gluten-free, low-carb, sugar-free). Study data were collected using a consumer survey conducted online in 2017 across 16 U.S. western states and analyzed using random parameter logit models. Findings show that organic-labeled wheat products with additional claims were valued equally or less than the organic only version. Overall, consumer higher objective and subjective knowledge of organic standards, as well as preferences for gluten-free products, increased their WTP for organic wheat products. Consumers unfamiliar with organic standards valued the non-GMO label over the organic label. Additionally, consumer WTP for health-related claims on hedonistic products was low or even negative. Hence, multiple labels on organic products generally provide no additional consumer benefit and are likely ignored. Study findings suggest that using the claim that most distinguishes the product, or is most salient, may improve product pricing. Also, non-GMO certification rather than organic certification should be considered for some markets. Finally, consumers with preferences for gluten-free products represent a potential market for organic wheat products.</p>","PeriodicalId":55291,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics-Revue Canadienne D Agroeconomie","volume":"68 4","pages":"411-427"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/cjag.12259","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are multiple labels on food products beneficial or simply ignored?\",\"authors\":\"Tatiana Drugova,&nbsp;Kynda R. Curtis,&nbsp;Sherzod B. Akhundjanov\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cjag.12259\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This study examines consumer preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for organic wheat products exhibiting single labels, as well as multiple labels, including organic. The additional labels considered are related to the organic label (non-genetically modified organism [non-GMO]) or perceived as health-promoting (gluten-free, low-carb, sugar-free). Study data were collected using a consumer survey conducted online in 2017 across 16 U.S. western states and analyzed using random parameter logit models. Findings show that organic-labeled wheat products with additional claims were valued equally or less than the organic only version. Overall, consumer higher objective and subjective knowledge of organic standards, as well as preferences for gluten-free products, increased their WTP for organic wheat products. Consumers unfamiliar with organic standards valued the non-GMO label over the organic label. Additionally, consumer WTP for health-related claims on hedonistic products was low or even negative. Hence, multiple labels on organic products generally provide no additional consumer benefit and are likely ignored. Study findings suggest that using the claim that most distinguishes the product, or is most salient, may improve product pricing. Also, non-GMO certification rather than organic certification should be considered for some markets. Finally, consumers with preferences for gluten-free products represent a potential market for organic wheat products.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55291,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics-Revue Canadienne D Agroeconomie\",\"volume\":\"68 4\",\"pages\":\"411-427\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/cjag.12259\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics-Revue Canadienne D Agroeconomie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cjag.12259\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics-Revue Canadienne D Agroeconomie","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cjag.12259","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

这项研究考察了消费者对单一标签和多种标签(包括有机标签)的有机小麦产品的偏好和支付意愿。考虑的额外标签与有机标签(非转基因生物[非转基因])或被视为促进健康的标签(无麸质、低碳水化合物、无糖)有关。研究数据是使用2017年在美国西部16个州进行的在线消费者调查收集的,并使用随机参数logit模型进行分析。研究结果表明,带有额外声明的有机标签小麦产品的价值与纯有机版本相同或更低。总体而言,消费者对有机标准的客观和主观认识较高,以及对无麸质产品的偏好,增加了他们对有机小麦产品的WTP。不熟悉有机标准的消费者更看重非转基因标签而非有机标签。此外,消费者对享乐主义产品的健康相关索赔的WTP较低,甚至为负。因此,有机产品上的多个标签通常不会给消费者带来额外的好处,很可能会被忽视。研究结果表明,使用最能区分产品或最显著的声明可能会提高产品定价。此外,对于某些市场,应考虑非转基因认证而非有机认证。最后,偏好无麸质产品的消费者代表了有机小麦产品的潜在市场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are multiple labels on food products beneficial or simply ignored?

This study examines consumer preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for organic wheat products exhibiting single labels, as well as multiple labels, including organic. The additional labels considered are related to the organic label (non-genetically modified organism [non-GMO]) or perceived as health-promoting (gluten-free, low-carb, sugar-free). Study data were collected using a consumer survey conducted online in 2017 across 16 U.S. western states and analyzed using random parameter logit models. Findings show that organic-labeled wheat products with additional claims were valued equally or less than the organic only version. Overall, consumer higher objective and subjective knowledge of organic standards, as well as preferences for gluten-free products, increased their WTP for organic wheat products. Consumers unfamiliar with organic standards valued the non-GMO label over the organic label. Additionally, consumer WTP for health-related claims on hedonistic products was low or even negative. Hence, multiple labels on organic products generally provide no additional consumer benefit and are likely ignored. Study findings suggest that using the claim that most distinguishes the product, or is most salient, may improve product pricing. Also, non-GMO certification rather than organic certification should be considered for some markets. Finally, consumers with preferences for gluten-free products represent a potential market for organic wheat products.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
23.20
自引率
1.10%
发文量
19
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: The Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie (CJAE) serves as a platform for scholarly research in agricultural, resource, and environmental economics, covering topics such as agri-food, agri-business, policy, resource utilization, and environmental impacts. It publishes a range of theoretical, applied and policy-related articles.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information Introduction to the special issue in honor of the late Dr. James Rude For Amber waves of grain: Commodity booms and structural transformation in 19th century America Asymmetric spot-futures prices adjustments in Quebec grain markets
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1