4.6 Article

Food waste: The role of date labels, package size, and product category

Journal

FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE
Volume 55, Issue -, Pages 35-44

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.08.004

Keywords

Consumer preferences; Date labels; Experimental economics; Food quality; Food safety; Public policy analysis

Funding

  1. Agricultural and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) [2016-67023-24817]
  2. Hatch project [NYC-121864, Multistate S1050]
  3. Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station at Auburn University
  4. NIFA [2016-67023-24817, 810910] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The presence of food waste, and ways to reduce it, has generated significant debate among industry stakeholders, policy makers, and consumer groups around the world. Many have argued that the variety of date labels used by food manufacturers leads to confusion about food quality and food safety among consumers. Here, we develop a between-subject, laboratory experiment with different date labels (Best by, Fresh by, Sell by, and Use by) for products (ready-to-eat cereal, salad greens, and yogurt) of different sizes and dates to evaluate how date labels influence the value of premeditated food waste of subjects, or their willingness to waste (WTW). Subjects have different WTW over products, sizes, and dates; we expect that ambiguity avoidance may prompt differences in the WTW. The WTW is greatest in the Use by treatment, the date label which may be the least ambiguous and suggestive of food safety. The WTW is the lowest for the Sell by treatment, which may be the most ambiguous date label about safety or quality for the consumer. Results from the mixed-design, repeated measures ANOVA provide evidence that subjects have different WTW by date labels over products. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available