Abstract
Fish sustainability raises many questions regarding the impact of both generic information and ecolabels on citizens’ consumption. An experiment was conducted in France to evaluate the impact of different types of information on participants’ WTP for canned fish. For starting the experiment, participants bid for canned tuna and sardines, sold without any quality labels. Explanatory messages on health and sustainability were delivered by balancing positive and negative information, and varying the order of information across subgroups. It is shown that only negative descriptions, including the ones on sustainability, lead to significant reductions in WTP for both tuna and sardines. In the second part of the experiment, participants received a new set of canned tuna, with or without quality labels. We observe a significantly higher WTP for canned tuna sold with the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) label compared to the WTP for canned tuna sold without any label. This positive premium for such a label indicating the fish sustainability differs from results in the first part of the experiment, in which, for sardines, the only significant message leads to a reduction in WTP, even if sardines are relatively healthy and sustainable.
References
Becker, G.M., M.H. DeGroot, and J. Marschak. 1964. “Measuring Utility by a Single-Response Sequential Method.” Behavioural Science 9: 226–232.10.1002/bs.3830090304Suche in Google Scholar
Bohm, P., J. Linden, and J. Sonnergard. 1997. “Eliciting Reservation Prices: Becker-DeGroot-Marschack Mechanisms Vs. Markets.” Economic Journal 107 (443): 1079–1089.10.1111/j.1468-0297.1997.tb00008.xSuche in Google Scholar
Brécard, D., B. Hlaimi, S. Lucas, Y. Perraudeau, and F. Salladarré. 2009. “Determinants of Demand for Green Products: An Application to Eco-Label Demand for Fish in Europe.” Ecological Economics 69: 115–125.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.07.017Suche in Google Scholar
Chen, X., F. Alfnes, and K. Rickertsen. 2015. “Consumer Preferences, Ecolabels, and Effects of Negative Environmental Information.” AgBioForum 18 (3): 327–336.Suche in Google Scholar
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). Fish Consumption Reaches All-Time High. FAO Media Center: Rome, Italy. Accessed January 31, 2011.Suche in Google Scholar
FDA.2006. “US Food and Drug Administration. Methylmercury: Frequently Asked Questions.” Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Washington D.C. Accessed March 2015. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~pregnant/whilmeth.html.Suche in Google Scholar
Fox, J., D. Hayes, and J. Shogren. 2002. “Consumer Preferences for Food Irradiation: How Favorable and Unfavorable Descriptions Affect Preferences for Irradiated Pork in Experimental Auctions.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 24 (1): 75–95.10.1023/A:1013229427237Suche in Google Scholar
Grunert, K., S. Hieke, and J. Wills. 2014. “Sustainability Labels Currently Do Not Play a Major Role in Consumers’ Food Choices. Food Policy 44: 177–189.10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.001Suche in Google Scholar
Gutierrez, A., and T. F. Thornton. 2014. “Can Consumers Understand Sustainability through Seafood Eco-Labels? A U.S. And UK Case Study.” Sustainability 6 (11): 8195–8217.10.3390/su6118195Suche in Google Scholar
Hallstein, E., and S.B. Villas-Boas. 2013. “Can Household Consumers Save the Wild Fish? Lessons from a Sustainable Seafood Advisory.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 66: 1–20.10.1016/j.jeem.2013.01.003Suche in Google Scholar
Jacquet, J., D. Pauly, D. Ainley, S. Holt, P. Dayton, and J. Jackson. 2010. “Seafood Stewardship in Crisis.” Nature 467: 28–29.10.1038/467028aSuche in Google Scholar
Jaffry, S., H. Pickering, Y. Ghulam, D. Whitmarsh, and P. Wattage. 2004. “Consumer Choices for Quality and Sustainability Labelled Seafood Products in the UK.” Food Policy 29: 215–228.10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.04.001Suche in Google Scholar
Marette, S. 2010. “Consumer Confusion and Multiple Equilibria.” Economics Bulletin 30 (2): 1120–1128.Suche in Google Scholar
Marette, S., J. Roosen, and S. Blanchemanche. 2008b. “Taxes and Subsidies to Change Eating Habits When Information Is Not Enough: An Application to Fish Consumption.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 34: 119–143.10.1007/s11149-008-9057-0Suche in Google Scholar
Marette, S., J. Roosen, and S. Blanchemanche. 2011. “The Combination of Lab and Field Experiments for Benefit-Cost Analysis.” Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 2 (3): Article 1 1–35.10.2202/2152-2812.1073Suche in Google Scholar
Marette, S., J. Roosen, S. Blanchemanche, and P. Verger. 2008a. “The Choice of Fish Species: An Experiment Measuring the Impact of Risk and Benefit Information.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 33: 1–18.Suche in Google Scholar
Mauracher, C., T. Tempesta, and D. Vecchiato. 2013. “Consumer Preferences regarding the Introduction of New Organic Products. The Case of the Mediterranean Sea Bass (Dicentrarchus Labrax) in Italy.” Appetite 63 (1): 84–91.10.1016/j.appet.2012.12.009Suche in Google Scholar
MSC. 2014. “Marine Stewardship Council.” Global Impacts Report 2014. London, UK.Suche in Google Scholar
Olesen, I., F. Alfnes, M.B. Røra, 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): 218–226.10.1016/j.livsci.2009.10.001Suche in Google Scholar
Onozaka, Y., T. Morita, and S. Managi. 2014. “Demand for Ecolabeled Seafood in the Japanese Market: A Conjoint Analysis of the Impact of Information and Interaction with Other Labels.” Food Policy 44: 68–76.10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.10.002Suche in Google Scholar
OpinionWay. 2010. Label Rouge, Notoriété et image, résultat de l’étude qualitative. OpinionWay-Fidelis: Paris, France.Suche in Google Scholar
Parkes, G., J. A. Young, S. F. Walmsley, R. Abel, J. Harman, P. Horvat, A. Lem, et al. 2010. “Behind the Signs—A Global Review of Fish Sustainability Information Schemes.” Reviews in Fisheries Science 18(4): 344–356.10.1080/10641262.2010.516374Suche in Google Scholar
Pieniak, Z., F. Vanhonacker, and W. Verbeke. 2013. “Consumer Knowledge and Use of Information about Fish and Aquaculture.” Food Policy 40: 25–30.10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.01.005Suche in Google Scholar
Roheim, C., F. Asche, and J. Santos. 2011. “The Elusive Price Premium for Ecolabeled Products: Evidence from Seafood in the U.K. Retail Sector.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 62: 655–668.10.1111/j.1477-9552.2011.00299.xSuche in Google Scholar
Roosen, J., S. Marette, S. Blanchemanche, and P. Verger. 2009. “Does Health Information Matter for Modifying Consumption? A Field Experiment Measuring the Impact of Risk Information on Fish Consumption.” Review of Agricultural Economics 31: 2–20.10.1111/j.1467-9353.2008.01423.xSuche in Google Scholar
Rousseau, S. 2015. “The Role of Organic and Fair Trade Labels When Choosing Chocolate.” Food Quality and Preference 44: 92–100.10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.04.002Suche in Google Scholar
Rousu, M.C., W.E Huffman, J.F. Shogren, and A. Tegene. 2007. “Effects and Value of Verifiable Information in a Controversial Market: Evidence from Lab Auctions of Genetically Modified Food.” Economic Inquiry 45 (3): 409–432.10.1111/j.1465-7295.2007.00017.xSuche in Google Scholar
Siegrist, M., V.H.M. Visschers, and C. Hartmann. 2015. “Factors Influencing Changes in Sustainability Perception of Various Food Behaviors: Results of a Longitudinal Study.” Food Quality and Preference 46: 33–39.10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.07.006Suche in Google Scholar
Teisl, M.F., E. Fromberg, A. E. Smith, K. J. Boyle, and H. M. Engelberth. 2011. “Awake at the Switch: Improving Fish Consumption Advisories for At-Risk Women.” Science of the Total Environment 409 (18): 3257–3266.10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.006Suche in Google Scholar
Wansink, B., S. Sonka, and C. Hasler. 2004. “Front-Label Health Claims: When Less Is More.” Food Policy 29: 659–667.10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.10.004Suche in Google Scholar
WWF (World WildLife Fund). Conso-guide: Pour une consommation responsable des produits de la mer. WWF France, Paris 2012.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Invited Paper
- Japanese Beef Tariffs: Beef Quality, Farm Programs, and Producer Compensation
- Research Articles
- Spillover Mechanisms in the WIC Infant Formula Rebate Program
- The Ambiguous Impact of Information Related to Fish Sustainability
- Food Retail Liberalization, Food Retail Structure and Food Prices: The Italian Case
- Asymmetric Price Transmission along the European Food Supply Chain and the CAP Health Check: a Panel Vector Error Correction Approach
- Russian Market Power in International Wheat Exports: Evidence from a Residual Demand Elasticity Analysis
- Patented Innovation and Firm Value in the U.S. Food and Drink Industry: The Economic Importance of High-Quality Product Innovation
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Invited Paper
- Japanese Beef Tariffs: Beef Quality, Farm Programs, and Producer Compensation
- Research Articles
- Spillover Mechanisms in the WIC Infant Formula Rebate Program
- The Ambiguous Impact of Information Related to Fish Sustainability
- Food Retail Liberalization, Food Retail Structure and Food Prices: The Italian Case
- Asymmetric Price Transmission along the European Food Supply Chain and the CAP Health Check: a Panel Vector Error Correction Approach
- Russian Market Power in International Wheat Exports: Evidence from a Residual Demand Elasticity Analysis
- Patented Innovation and Firm Value in the U.S. Food and Drink Industry: The Economic Importance of High-Quality Product Innovation