Sustainable Healthy Diets and Demand for the Front-of-Package Labeling: Evidence from Consumption of Fresh Pork
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Evaluation and Paths to Sustainable and Healthy Diets
2.2. Consumers’ Demand for Food Labeling
2.3. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Food Labeling
2.4. Theoretical Background: Consumer Demand Theory
3. Hypotheses Development
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Methods
4.2. Data Collection
5. Results
5.1. Descriptive Statistics
5.2. Inferential Statistics
6. Discussion
6.1. Theoretical Contributions
6.2. Managerial Contributions
6.3. Limitations and Future Studies
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- FAO; WHO. Sustainable Healthy Diets: Guiding Principles. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/ca6640en/ca6640en.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2021).
- Wang, S.; Zhang, B.; Wang, Z.; Jiang, H.; Wang, L.; Li, W.; Hao, L.; Wang, H. Trend of Food Intake from Chinese 15 Provinces (Autonomous Regions, Municipalities) Adults Aged 18 to 35 in 1989–2015. J. Hyg. Res. 2021, 50, 442–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerber, P.J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock—A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2013; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2022).
- Salter, A.M. The Effects of Meat Consumption on Global Health. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2018, 37, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chinese Nutrition Society. The Dietary Guidelines for Chinese Residents (2022); People’s Medical Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Codex Alimentarius Commission. Guidelines on Nutrition Labeling: CXG2-1985. Available online: https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCXG%2B2-1985%252FCXG_002e.pdf (accessed on 21 February 2022).
- Khandpur, N.; de Morais Sato, P.; Mais, L.A.; Bortoletto Martins, A.P.; Spinillo, C.G.; Garcia, M.T.; Urquizar Rojas, C.F.; Jaime, P.C. Are Front-of-Package Warning Labels More Effective at Communicating Nutrition Information than Traffic-Light Labels? A Randomized Controlled Experiment in a Brazilian Sample. Nutrients 2018, 10, 688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khandpur, N.; Mais, L.A.; de Morais Sato, P.; Martins, A.P.B.; Spinillo, C.G.; Rojas, C.F.U.; Garcia, M.T.; Jaime, P.C. Choosing a Front-of-package Warning Label for Brazil: A randomized, Controlled Comparison of Three Different Label Designs. Food Res. Int. 2019, 121, 854–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Egnell, M.; Boutron, I.; Péneau, S.; Ducrot, P.; Touvier, M.; Galan, P.; Buscail, C.; Porcher, R.; Ravaud, P.; Hercberg, S.; et al. Front-of-Pack Labeling and the Nutritional Quality of Students’ Food Purchases: A 3-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial. Am. J. Public Health 2019, 109, 1122–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization. Nutrient Profiling: Report of a WHO/IASO Technical Meeting, London, United Kingdom. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/336447 (accessed on 20 December 2021).
- Meyerding, S. Consumer Preferences for Food Labels on Tomatoes in Germany—A comparison of a Quasi-experiment and Two Stated Preference Approaches. Appetite 2016, 103, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czine, P.; Török, Á.; Pető, K.; Horváth, P.; Balogh, P. The Impact of the Food Labeling and Other Factors on Consumer Preferences Using Discrete Choice Modeling—The Example of Traditional Pork Sausage. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marshall, A. Principles of Economics, 8th ed.; MacMillan: London, UK, 1920. [Google Scholar]
- Vanham, D. Water Resources for Sustainable Healthy Diets: State of the Art and Outlook. Water 2020, 12, 3224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tepper, S.; Geva, D.; Shahar, D.R.; Shepon, A.; Golan, R. The SHED Index: A tool for assessing a Sustainable Healthy Diet. Eur. J. Nutr. 2021, 60, 3897–3909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldaya, M.M.; Ibañez, F.C.; Domínguez-Lacueva, P.; Murillo-Arbizu, M.T.; Rubio-Varas, M.; Soret, B.; Beriain, M.J. Indicators and Recommendations for Assessing Sustainable Healthy Diets. Foods 2021, 10, 999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-García, S.; Esteve-Ilorens, X.; Moreira, M.T.; Feijoo, G. Science of the Total Environment Carbon Footprint and Nutritional Quality of Different Human Dietary Choices. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 644, 77–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heller, M.C.; Walchale, A.; Heard, B.R.; Hoey, L.; Khoury, C.K.; Haan, S.D.; Burra, D.D.; Duong, T.T.; Osiemo, J.; Trinh, T.H.; et al. Environmental Analyses to Inform Transitions to Sustainable Diets in Developing Countries: Case Studies for Vietnam and Kenya. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 1183–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donini, L.M.; Dernini, S.; Lairon, D.; Serra-Majem, L.; Amiot, M.-J.; del Balzo, V.; Giusti, A.-M.; Burlingame, B.; Belahsen, R.; Maiani, G.; et al. A Consensus Proposal for Nutritional Indicators to Assess the Sustainability of a Healthy Diet: The Mediterranean Diet as a Case Study. Front. Nutr. 2016, 3, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hachem, F.; Vanham, D.; Moreno, L.A. Territorial and Sustainable Healthy Diets. Food Nutr. Bull. 2020, 41, 87S–103S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Blanco-Murcia, L.; Ramos-Mejía, M. Sustainable Diets and Meat Consumption Reduction in Emerging Economies: Evidence from Colombia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lonnie, M.; Johnstone, A.M. The Public Health Rationale for Promoting Plant Protein as An Important Part of a Sustainable and Healthy Diet. Nutr. Bull. 2020, 45, 281–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drewnowski, A.; Detzel, P.; Klassen-Wigger, P. Perspective: Achieving Sustainable Healthy Diets Through Formulation and Processing of Foods. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 2022, 6, nzac089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, R.; Yang, M.; Liu, J.; Yang, L.; Bao, Z.; Ren, X. University Students’ Purchase Intention and Willingness to Pay for Carbon-Labeled Food Products: A Purchase Decision-Making Experiment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angón, E.; Requena, F.; Caballero-Villalobos, J.; Cantarero-Aparicio, M.; Martínez-Marín, A.L.; Perea, J.M. Beef from Calves Finished with a Diet Based on Concentrate Rich in Agro-Industrial By-Products: Acceptability and Quality Label Preferences in Spanish Meat Consumers. Animals 2022, 12, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, L.; Yang, X.; Wu, L.; Chen, X.; Chen, L.; Tsai, F.S. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Food with Information on Animal Welfare, Lean Meat Essence Detection, and Traceability. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, M.; Fan, Y.; Cao, J.; Chen, L.; Chen, C. Willingness to Pay for Enhanced Mandatory Labelling of Genetically Modified Soybean Oil: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in China. Foods 2021, 10, 736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cooper, S.L.; Butcher, L.M.; Scagnelli, S.D.; Lo, J.; Ryan, M.M.; Devine, A.; O’Sullivan, T.A. Australian Consumers Are Willing to Pay for the Health Star Rating Front-of-Pack Nutrition Label. Nutrients 2020, 12, 3876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hong, X.; Li, C.; Bai, J.; Gao, Z.; Wang, L. Chinese Consumers’ Willingness-to-pay for Nutrition Claims on Processed Meat Products, Using Functional Sausages as a Food Medium. China Agr. Econ. Rev. 2021, 13, 495–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, K.E.; Grebitus, C.; Colson, G.; Hu, W.Y. German and British Consumer Willingness to Pay for Beef Labeled with Food Safety Attributes. J. Agr. Econ. 2017, 68, 451–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schouteten, J.J.; Gellynck, X.; Slabbinck, H. Influence of Organic Labels on Consumer’s Flavor Perception and Emotional Profiling: Comparison between A Central Location Test and Home-use-test. Food Res. Int. 2019, 116, 1000–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Konuk, F.L. Consumers’ Willingness to Buy and Willingness to Pay for Fair Trade Food: The Influence of Consciousness for Fair Consumption, Environmental Concern, Trust and Innovativeness. Food Res. Int. 2019, 120, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Talati, Z.; Norman, R.; Pettigrew, S.; Neal, B.; Kelly, B.; Dixon, H.; Ball, K.; Miller, C.; Shilton, T. The Impact of Interpretive and Reductive Front-of-pack Labels on Food Choice and Willingness to Pay. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jabbar, M.A.; Baker, D.; Fadiga, M.L. Demand for Livestock Products in Developing Countries with a Focus on Quality and Safety Attributes: Evidence from Asia and Africa; ILRI Research Report 24; ILRI: Nairobi, Kenya, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Verbeke, W.; Rutsaert, P.; Bonne, K.; Vermeir, I. Credence Quality Coordination and Consumers’ Willingness-to-pay for Certified Halal Labelled Meat. Meat Sci. 2013, 95, 790–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tran, D.; Broeckhoven, I.; Hung, Y.; My, N.H.D.; Steur, H.D.; Verbeke, W. Willingness to Pay for Food Labelling Schemes in Vietnam: A Choice Experiment on Water Spinach. Foods 2022, 11, 722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petricek, M.; Chalupa, S.; Chadt, K. Identification of Consumer Behavior Based on Price Elasticity: A Case Study of the Prague Market of Accommodation Services. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonçalves, T.; Lourenço-Gomes, L.; Pinto, L. Modelling consumer preferences heterogeneity in emerging wine markets: A latent class analysis. Appl. Econ. 2020, 52, 6136–6144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, P. Information and Consumer Behavior. J. Polit. Econ. 1970, 78, 311–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darby, M.; Kami, E. Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud. J. Law Econ. 1973, 16, 67–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mee, J.F. Information economics. Bus. Horiz. 1963, 6, 61–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walter, S.D.; Eliasziw, M.; Donner, A. Sample Size and Optimal Designs for Reliability Studies. Stat. Med. 1998, 17, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, R.C.; Carson, R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Land Econ. 1990, 66, 107–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Seventh National Census Leading Group Office of The State Council. Major Figures on 2020 Population Census of China; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Stata Corp. Stata Statistical Software; StataCorp LLC: College Station, TX, USA, 2021; Available online: https://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/citing-software-documentation-faqs/ (accessed on 8 August 2022).
- Lusk, J.L.; Coble, K.H. Risk Perceptions, Risk Preference, and Acceptance of Risky Food. Am. J. Agr Econ. 2005, 87, 393–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
FOP labeling (one example) | Swedish Keyhole symbol | American Heart-check mark | Singapore Healthier choice symbol | Choices logo in the Dutch | American Guiding stars labeling | American NuVal labeling |
Role | Low saturated fatty acid, low sodium fresh pork labeled with the above keyhole graph | High overall nutritional quality of fresh pork labeled with the above red heart graph | Low saturated fatty acid, low sodium fresh pork labeled with the above pyramid graph | High overall nutritional quality of fresh pork labeled with the above tick graph | Overall nutritional quality of fresh pork labeled with 0–3 stars. The more stars, the higher the overall nutritional quality | Overall nutritional quality of fresh pork labeled with 1–100 scores. The higher the score, the higher the overall nutritional quality |
Characteristics | Items | Samples | Percentage (%) | The 2020 Population Census Data (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 465 | 50 | 51.24 |
Female | 465 | 50 | 48.76 | |
Age a | 18–59 years old | 757 | 81.40 | 63.35 |
60–65 years old | 41 | 4.41 | 5.20 | |
more than 65 years old | 132 | 14.19 | 13.50 | |
Ethnic group | Han Ethnic Group | 879 | 94.52 | 91.11 |
Ethnic Minorities | 51 | 5.48 | 8.89 | |
Education level | Primary school or below | 153 | 16.45 | 16.52 |
Junior school | 149 | 16.02 | 16.12 | |
Senior school | 344 | 36.99 | 36.86 | |
Junior college or above | 284 | 30.54 | 30.49 | |
Individual annual disposable income | up to 10,000 RMB | 201 | 21.61 | 23.75 |
10,001–30,000 RMB | 189 | 20.32 | 21.17 | |
30,001–50,000 RMB | 246 | 26.45 | 25.02 | |
50,001–90,000 RM | 202 | 21.72 | 18.54 | |
More than 90,000 RMB | 92 | 9.89 | 11.52 | |
Residence | Urban area | 558 | 60 | 63.89 |
Rural area | 372 | 40 | 36.11 |
Variables | Definition and Assignment | Mean | Standard Deviation | Min. | Max. | Proportion (%) | Obs. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent | |||||||
Willing to pay | No | — | — | — | — | 69.85 | 3248 |
Yes | — | — | — | — | 30.15 | 1402 | |
Independent | |||||||
Price of FOP labeling | Yuan | 11.52 | 8.14 | 0 | 23.03 | — | 4650 |
Gender | Female | — | — | — | — | 50.00 | 2325 |
Male | — | — | — | — | 50.00 | 2325 | |
Age | Years | 44.60 | 10.44 | 18 | 73 | — | 4650 |
Education level | Primary schoolor below | — | — | — | — | 16.45 | 765 |
Junior school | — | — | — | — | 16.02 | 745 | |
Senior school | — | — | — | — | 36.99 | 1720 | |
Junior college or undergraduate | — | — | — | — | 20.97 | 975 | |
Postgraduate or above | — | — | — | — | 9.57 | 445 | |
Individual annual disposable income | Yuan a | 48,113.63 | 61,853.54 | 900 | 950,000 | — | 4650 |
Family size | People | 3.59 | 1.29 | 1 | 9 | — | 4650 |
Fresh pork consumption frequency | Not at all | — | — | — | — | 1.61 | 75 |
Rarely | — | — | — | — | 2.47 | 115 | |
Occasionally | — | — | — | — | 15.81 | 735 | |
Often | — | — | — | — | 62.04 | 2885 | |
Always | — | — | — | — | 18.06 | 840 | |
Trust in the FOP labeling | Not at all | — | — | — | — | 1.08 | 50 |
Rarely | — | — | — | — | 2.69 | 125 | |
Occasionally | — | — | — | — | 17.20 | 800 | |
Mostly | — | — | — | — | 49.14 | 2285 | |
Very much | — | — | — | — | 29.89 | 1390 | |
Residence | Rural area | — | — | — | — | 40.00 | 1860 |
Urban area | — | — | — | — | 60.00 | 2790 | |
Often pay attention to the nutritional value of fresh pork | No | — | — | — | — | 45.59 | 2120 |
Yes | — | — | — | — | 54.41 | 2530 |
Model (1) | Model (2) | Model (3) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Independent variables | Marginal effect | Elasticity coefficient | Marginal Effect | Elasticity coefficient | Marginal effect | Elasticity coefficient |
Price of FOP labeling | — | −0.208 *** (0.006) | — | −0.209 *** (0.006) | — | −0.211 *** (0.006) |
Gender | — | — | −0.007 (0.013) | — | −0.007 (0.013) | — |
Age | — | — | 0.005 (0.004) | — | 0.005 (0.004) | — |
Age square | — | — | −0.001 (0.001) | — | −0.001 (0.001) | — |
Junior school level | — | — | 0.036 (0.013) | — | 0.137 (0.099) | — |
Senior school level | — | — | 0.056 (0.121) | — | 0.163 * (0.092) | — |
Junior college or undergraduate level | — | — | 0.054 (0.119) | — | 0.160 * (0.090) | — |
Postgraduate or above level | — | — | 0.023 (0.121) | — | 0.133 (0.092) | — |
Logarithm of individual annual disposable income | — | — | 0.012 * (0.007) | — | 0.012 * (0.007) | — |
Family size | — | — | 0.011 * (0.006) | — | 0.010 * (0.006) | — |
Fresh pork consumed rarely | — | — | 0.122 * (0.070) | — | — | — |
Fresh pork consumed occasionally | — | — | 0.106 * (0.056) | — | −0.023 (0.048) | — |
Fresh pork consumed often | — | — | 0.124 ** (0.054) | — | −0.005 (0.045) | — |
Fresh pork consumed always | — | — | 0.136 ** (0.055) | — | 0.008 (0.047) | — |
Trust in the FOP labeling rarely | — | — | −0.001 (0.089) | — | 0.040 (0.083) | — |
Trust in the FOP labeling occasionally | — | — | 0.060 (0.080) | — | 0.101 (0.072) | — |
Trust in the FOP labeling mostly | — | — | 0.135 * (0.078) | — | 0.177 ** (0.071) | — |
Trust in the FOP labeling very much | — | — | 0.164 ** (0.078) | — | 0.205 *** (0.071) | — |
Wald χ2 | 612.04 *** | 577.14 *** | 560.63 *** | |||
Pseudo R2 | 0.44 | 0.47 | 0.47 | |||
% Correctly classified | 80.26 | 86.95 | 87.19 | |||
Obs. | 4650 | 4650 | 4575 |
Residence | Pay Attention to the Nutritional Value of Fresh Pork | |||||||
Subsample | Urban population (1) | Rural population (2) | Population who often paid attention (3) | Population who did not often pay attention (4) | ||||
Independent variables | Marginal effect | Elasticity coefficient | Marginal effect | Elasticity coefficient | Marginal effect | Elasticity coefficient | Marginal effect | Elasticity coefficient |
Price of FOP labeling | — | −0.219 *** (0.007) | — | −0.194 *** (0.009) | — | −0.237 *** (0.007) | — | −0.175*** (0.009) |
Gender | 0.011 (0.015) | — | −0.035 (0.022) | — | 0.026 * (0.015) | — | −0.040 * (0.021) | — |
Age | 0.001 (0.006) | — | 0.009 (0.007) | — | 0.006 (0.006) | — | 0.003 (0.006) | — |
Age square | −0.001 (0.001) | — | −0.001 (0.001) | — | −0.001 (0.001) | — | −0.001 (0.001) | — |
Junior school level | −0.124 (0.132) | — | 0.098 (0.142) | — | 0.020 (0.134) | — | — | — |
Senior school level | −0.073 * (0.042) | — | 0.137 (0.139) | — | 0.047 (0.121) | — | 0.016 (0.065) | — |
Junior college or undergraduate level | −0.039 * (0.022) | — | 0.109 (0.137) | — | 0.079 (0.118) | — | −0.014 (0.052) | — |
Postgraduate or above level | −0.054 * (0.032) | — | 0.010 (0.146) | — | 0.008 (0.120) | — | −0.008 (0.060) | — |
Logarithm of individual annual disposable income | 0.018 ** (0.009) | — | 0.004 (0.011) | — | 0.008 (0.007) | — | 0.017 (0.010) | — |
Family size | 0.011 (0.008) | — | 0.006 (0.008) | — | 0.011 (0.007) | — | 0.009 (0.009) | — |
Fresh pork consumed rarely | 0.206 ** (0.103) | — | 0.048 (0.093) | — | 0.002 (0.109) | — | — | — |
Fresh pork consumed occasionally | 0.159 ** (0.072) | — | 0.037 (0.075) | — | 0.091 (0.062) | — | −0.041 (0.053) | — |
Fresh pork consumed often | 0.201 *** (0.066) | — | 0.043 (0.073) | — | 0.147 *** (0.055) | — | −0.062 (0.051) | — |
Fresh pork consumed always | 0.218 *** (0.068) | — | 0.042 (0.075) | — | 0.156 *** (0.057) | — | −0.075 (0.058) | — |
Trust in the FOP labeling rarely | 0.150 * (0.085) | — | −0.078 (0.117) | — | 0.075 (0.190) | — | −0.036 (0.090) | — |
Trust in the FOP labeling occasionally | 0.179 *** (0.058) | — | 0.015 (0.107) | — | 0.113 (0.175) | — | 0.048 (0.080) | — |
Trust in the FOP labeling mostly | 0.263 *** (0.054) | — | 0.086 (0.105) | — | 0.172 (0.172) | — | 0.120 (0.079) | — |
Trust in the FOP labeling very much | 0.285 *** (0.054) | — | 0.119 (0.104) | — | 0.183 (0.172) | — | 0.159 ** (0.080) | — |
Obs. | 2790 | 1860 | 2530 | 2120 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Huang, B.; Li, H.; Huang, Z.; Huang, J.; Sun, J. Sustainable Healthy Diets and Demand for the Front-of-Package Labeling: Evidence from Consumption of Fresh Pork. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12315. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912315
Huang B, Li H, Huang Z, Huang J, Sun J. Sustainable Healthy Diets and Demand for the Front-of-Package Labeling: Evidence from Consumption of Fresh Pork. Sustainability. 2022; 14(19):12315. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912315
Chicago/Turabian StyleHuang, Beixun, Haijun Li, Zeying Huang, Jiazhang Huang, and Junmao Sun. 2022. "Sustainable Healthy Diets and Demand for the Front-of-Package Labeling: Evidence from Consumption of Fresh Pork" Sustainability 14, no. 19: 12315. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912315