Pre-certification or post-traceability: a study on consumer preference for food safety information label and their interactive relationship
【Abstract】This paper combines the advantages of the random nth-price auction experiment and the menu selection experiment. It takes tomatoes as an example and analyzes consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for food safety certification labels (organic labels, green labels and pollution-free labels) and food traceability information labels (planting traceability information labels and marketing traceability information labels), as well as the interactive relationships among the two groups of labels. It finds that consumers are generally willing to pay a price premium for these two types of labels. The provision of food safety certification and traceability system can significantly increase consumers’ WTP for organic and traceability labels, but that seems to have little impact on WTP for green and pollution-free labels. Different degrees of substitution exist among organic labels, green labels and pollution-free labels. A two-way complementary relationship can be found between planting traceability information labels and marketing traceability information labels. Finally, the study finds a bidirectional substitution relationship between traceability information labels and organic labels, and a unidirectional substitution relationship between traceability information labels and green labels.
【Keywords】 consumer preference; food safety certification label; food traceability information label; random nth-price auction experiment; menu selection experiment;
(Translated by PAN lichun)
. ① Data source: the website of National Bureau of Statistics of China (http://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn=C01). [^Back]
. ② Data source: FAO website (http://faostat.fao.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=339&lang=en&country=351). [^Back]
. ③ In the experiment, with the help of PPT demonstration, the uniformly trained investigators introduced the knowledge of food safety certification and traceability system construction to the participants. The specific knowledge is formed after the full discussion of the research group and extensive consultation with relevant personnel in the academic and practical circles. Readers who want to know more can ask the author for PPT materials. [^Back]
. ① The organizers of the experiment carried out 15 auction experiments (5 kinds of tomatoes × 3 rounds). In order to avoid the reaction-order effect, the auction order of five kinds of tomatoes in each experiment is random. [^Back]
. ② If a participant’s bid is CNY 0.5, it means that the participant is willing to buy 0.5 kg of pollution-free tomatoes with a subsidy of CNY 0.5 for 0.5 kg of conventional tomatoes, that is, the participant is willing to pay CNY 0.5 more for each 0.5 kg of pollution-free tomatoes than conventional tomatoes, which can be regarded as the participant’s WTP for the pollution-free labels of 0.5 kg tomatoes is CNY 0.5. [^Back]
. ① Due to the limited space, the sample of menu selection experiment taken in the experimental group is not given, available upon request. [^Back]
1. Chen, M., Han, F., Wang, Y. et al. Journal of Macro-Quality Research (宏观质量研究), (4) (2018).
2. Wu, L., Wang, S. & Hu, W. Chinese Rural Economy (中国农村经济), (8) (2014).
3. Yin, S. 信息不对称、认证有效性与消费者偏好: 以有机食品为例. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press (中国社会科学出版社), (2013).
4. Yin, S., Li, R. Wu, L. et al. 中国食品安全发展报告2018. Beijing: Peking University Press (北京大学出版社), (2018).
5. Zhou, J. Chinese Rural Economy (中国农村经济), (11) (2004).
6. Zhu, D., Cai, J. & Wang, H. Journal of Public Management (公共管理学报), (3) (2013).
7. Allenby, G. M., and P. E. Rossi, 1998, “Marketing Models of Consumer Heterogeneity”, Journal of Econometrics, 89(1–2): 57–78.
8. Alphonce, R., and F. Alfnes, 2017, “Eliciting Consumer WTP for Food Characteristics in a Developing Context: Application of Four Valuation Methods in an African Market”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(1): 123–142.
9. Bai, J. F., C. P. Zhang, and J. Jiang, 2013, “The Role of Certificate Issuer on Consumers’ Willingness-to-pay for Milk Traceability in China”, Agricultural Economics, 44(4–5): 537–544.
10. Batte, M. T., N. H. Hooker, T. C. Haab, and J. Beaverson, 2007, “Putting Their Money Where Their Mouths Are: Consumer Willingness to Pay for Multi-ingredient, Processed Organic Food Products”, Food Policy, 32(2): 145–159.
11. Ben-Akiva, M., and S. Gershenfeld, 1998, “Multi-featured Products and Services: Analysing Pricing and Bundling Strategies”, Journal of Forecasting, 17(3–4): 175–196.
12. Breidert, C., M. Hahsler, and T. Reutterer, 2006, “A Review of Methods for Measuring Willingness-to-pay”, Innovative Marketing, 2(4): 8–32.
13. Darby, M., and E. Karni, 1973, “Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud”, Journal of Law and Economics, 16(1): 67–88.
14. Ding, M., and J. Huber, 2009, “When Is Hypothetical Bias a Problem in Choice Tasks, and What Can We Do About It?” Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings: 263–272.
15. Jaeger, S. R., J. L. Lusk, and L. O. House, 2004, “The Use of Non-hypothetical Experimental Markets for Measuring the Acceptance of Genetically Modified Foods”, Food Quality and Preference, 15(7): 701–714.
16. Janssen, M., and U. Hamm, 2012, “Product Labelling in the Market for Organic Food: Consumer Preferences and Willingness-to-pay for Different Organic Certification Logos”, Food Quality and Preference, 25(1): 9–22.
17. Jin, S., Y. Zhang, and Y. Xu, 2017, “Amount of Information and the Willingness of Consumers to Pay for Food Traceability in China”, Food Control, l77: 163–170.
18. Ji, Y. L., D. B. Han, R. M. N. Jr, and S. L. Song, 2011, “Valuing Traceability of Imported Beef in Korea: An Experimental Auction Approach”, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 55(3): 360–373.
19. Lancaster, K. J., 1966, “A New Approach to Consumer Theory”, The Journal of Political Economy, 74(2): 132–157.
20. Li, T. Z., J. C. Bernard, Z. A. Johnston, K. D. Messer, and H. M. Kaiser, 2017, “Consumer Preferences before and after a Food Safety Scare: An Experimental Analysis of the 2010 Egg Recall”, Food Policy, 66: 25–34.
21. Liu, R. D., Z. Pieniak, and W. Verbeke, 2013, “Consumers’ Attitudes and Behaviour towards Safe Food in China: A Review”, Food Control, 32(1): 93–104.
22. Loureiro, M. L., and W. J. Umberger, 2007, “A Choice Experiment Model for Beef: What US Consumer Responses Tell Us about Relative Preferences for Food Safety, Country-of-origin Labeling and Traceability”, Food Policy, 32(4): 496–514.
23. Lusk, J., T. Feldkamp, and T. Schroeder, 2004, “Experimental Auctions Procedure: Impact on Valuation of Quality Differentiated Goods”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(1): 389–405.
24. Olesen, I., F. Alfnes, M. B. Rora, and K. Kolstad, 2010, “Eliciting Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic and Welfare-labelled Salmon in a Non-hypothetical Choice Experiment”, Livestock Science, 127(2–3): 218–226.
25. Orme, U. T., 2013, “Software for Menu-Based Choice Analysis”, Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Sequim, WA.
26. Ram, R. A., and A. K. Verma, 2017, “Yield, Energy and Economic Analysis of Organic Guava (Psidium Guajava) Production under Various Organic Farming Treatments”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 87(12): 1645–1649.
27. Rijswijk, W. V., L. J. Frewer, D. Menozzi, and G. Faioli, 2008, “Consumer Perceptions of Traceability: A Cross-national Comparison of the Associated Benefits”, Food Quality and Preference, 19(5): 452–464.
28. Schott, C., D. D. V. Kleef, and T. P. S. Steen, 2016, “The Combined Impact of Professional Role Identity and Public Service Motivation on Decision-making in Dilemma Situations”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(1): 1–40.
29. Ubilava, D., and K. Foster, 2009, “Quality Certification Vs Product Traceability: Consumer Preferences for Informational Attributes of Pork in Georgia”, Food Policy, 34(3): 305–310.
30. Van Loo, E. J., V. Caputo, R. M. Nayga, J. F. Meullenet, and S. C. Ricke, 2011, “Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic Chicken Breast: Evidence from Choice Experiment”, Food Quality and Preference, 22(7): 603–613.
31. Wilson, W. W., X. Henry, and B. L. Dahl, 2010, “Costs and Risks of Conforming to EU Traceability Requirements: the Case of Hard Red Spring Wheat”, Agribusiness, 24(1): 85–101.
32. Wu, L. H., H. S. Wang, D. Zhu, W. Y. Hu, and S. X. Wang, 2016, “Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork Traceability Information-the Case of Wuxi”, Agricultural Economics, 47(1): 71–79.
33. Wu, L. H., L. L. Xu, D. Zhu, and X. L. Wang, 2012, “Factors Affecting Consumer Willingness to Pay for Certified Traceable Food in Jiangsu Province of China”, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60(3): 317–333.
34. Yin, S. J., M. Chen, Y. S. Chen, Y. J. Xu, Z. S. Zou, and Y. Q. Wang, 2016, “Consumer Trust in Organic Milk of Different Brands: The Role of Chinese Organic Label”, British Food Journal, 118(7): 1769–1782.
35. Yin, S. J., W. Y. Hu, Y. S. Chen, F. Han, Y. Q. Wang, and M. Chen, 2019, “Chinese Consumer Preferences for Fresh Produce: Interaction between Food Safety Labels and Brands”, Agribusiness, 35(1): 53–68.
36. Yin, S. J., Y. Li, Y. J. Xu, M. Chen, and Y. Q. Wang, 2017, “Consumer Preference and Willingness to Pay for the Traceability Information Attribute of Infant Milk Formula: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in China”, British Food Journal, 119(6): 1276–1288.
37. Yiridoe, E. K., S. Bonti-Ankomah, and R. C. Martin, 2005, “Comparison of Consumer Perceptions and Preference toward Organic Versus Conventionally Produced Foods: A Review and Update of the Literature”, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 20(04): 193–205.