Advanced search
1 file | 679.10 KB

Consumers' valuation of sustainability labels on meat

(2014) FOOD POLICY. 49(1). p.137-150
Author
Organization
Abstract
There are various sustainability certifications and claims for food products that focus on environmental or ethical benefits. These claims empower consumers to make informed purchasing decisions that take environmental and ethical considerations into account. This paper compares consumers’ preferences for four types of sustainability claims related to organic meat, free range, animal welfare and carbon footprint. Using a choice experiment on a chicken breast product, our results show that nine in every ten Belgian consumers favor free range claims, which are also valued the most highly, attracting premiums ranging from 43% to 93%. Our study also shows that a vast majority of consumers (87%) would welcome the introduction of an EU level animal welfare label. The carbon footprint labels and the organic labels are less appealing to consumers, who have lower willingness to pay for these labels. Belgian consumers prefer the national Belgian organic food logo, certified by a private organization, to the newly-introduced EU organic food logo.
Keywords
Free range, Organic food, Animal welfare, Sustainable food, Carbon footprint, Willingness to pay (WTP), Choice experiment, Food labeling, WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY, FARM-ANIMAL WELFARE, CHOICE EXPERIMENT, FOOD-CONSUMPTION, PREFERENCES, INFORMATION, QUALITY, ATTITUDES, DISCRETE, PRODUCTS

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 679.10 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

Chicago
Van Loo, Ellen, Vincenzina Caputo, Rodolfo M Nayga Jr, and Wim Verbeke. 2014. “Consumers’ Valuation of Sustainability Labels on Meat.” Food Policy 49 (1): 137–150.
APA
Van Loo, E., Caputo, V., Nayga, R. M., Jr, & Verbeke, W. (2014). Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat. FOOD POLICY, 49(1), 137–150.
Vancouver
1.
Van Loo E, Caputo V, Nayga RM Jr, Verbeke W. Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat. FOOD POLICY. 2014;49(1):137–50.
MLA
Van Loo, Ellen, Vincenzina Caputo, Rodolfo M Nayga Jr, et al. “Consumers’ Valuation of Sustainability Labels on Meat.” FOOD POLICY 49.1 (2014): 137–150. Print.
@article{5673295,
  abstract     = {There are various sustainability certifications and claims for food products that focus on environmental or ethical benefits. These claims empower consumers to make informed purchasing decisions that take environmental and ethical considerations into account. This paper compares consumers{\textquoteright} preferences for four types of sustainability claims related to organic meat, free range, animal welfare and carbon footprint. Using a choice experiment on a chicken breast product, our results show that nine in every ten Belgian consumers favor free range claims, which are also valued the most highly, attracting premiums ranging from 43\% to 93\%. Our study also shows that a vast majority of consumers (87\%) would welcome the introduction of an EU level animal welfare label. The carbon footprint labels and the organic labels are less appealing to consumers, who have lower willingness to pay for these labels. Belgian consumers prefer the national Belgian organic food logo, certified by a private organization, to the newly-introduced EU organic food logo.},
  author       = {Van Loo, Ellen and Caputo, Vincenzina and Nayga, Rodolfo M, Jr and Verbeke, Wim},
  issn         = {0306-9192},
  journal      = {FOOD POLICY},
  keyword      = {Free range,Organic food,Animal welfare,Sustainable food,Carbon footprint,Willingness to pay (WTP),Choice experiment,Food labeling,WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY,FARM-ANIMAL WELFARE,CHOICE EXPERIMENT,FOOD-CONSUMPTION,PREFERENCES,INFORMATION,QUALITY,ATTITUDES,DISCRETE,PRODUCTS},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {1},
  pages        = {137--150},
  title        = {Consumers' valuation of sustainability labels on meat},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.07.002},
  volume       = {49},
  year         = {2014},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: