4.7 Article

Consumer preferences for food labeling: What ranks first?

期刊

FOOD CONTROL
卷 61, 期 -, 页码 39-46

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.09.023

关键词

Animal welfare; Carbon footprint; Food miles; Guarantee; Labeling schemes; Local; Nutritional fact panel; Organic; PDO; Spain

资金

  1. [FOODLABELS_PIOF-GA-2009-253323]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the EU food market, different food labeling schemes co-exist with the aim of informing customers and providing trust on different quality characteristics of food products. To understand which food labeling schemes are the most and the least important for consumers is very relevant because a labeling strategy will be useful for food companies if consumers, or at least one segment of consumers, value food labeling. The aim of this study was to measure the importance consumers attach to different labeling schemes available in the food market. Seven different food labeling schemes, some regulated by the EU (the EU organic logo, the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) indication and the nutritional fact panel) and some of them not yet regulated at the European level (the food miles indication; the local origin; the carbon footprint information; and an improved animal welfare indication), were assessed by consumers. To do this, the direct ranking preference method was used and a rank-ordered mixed logit model was estimated with the data from a survey conducted with food shoppers in a medium-sized Spanish town. The results indicate that the most preferred labeling scheme was the PDO indication, closely followed by the nutritional fact panel and the EU organic logo. In other words, consumers clearly valued labeling schemes that are regulated by EU law. Moreover, consumer preferences for food labeling were heterogeneous and three segments of consumers based on preferences were found: PDO lovers, organic EU logo lovers and the nutritional information lovers. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据