Sustainable Healthy Diets and Demand for the Front-of-Package Labeling: Evidence from Consumption of Fresh Pork

Abstract

Front of Package (FOP) labeling, which assists consumers in understanding the nutritional status of fresh pork, could help reduce Chinese residents’ excessive meat intake and greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, little is known about the price elasticity of consumers’ demand for the FOP labeling on fresh pork. This study implemented a contingent valuation survey by using a representative survey of 930 adults across China. The results indicated that respondents’ demand for FOP labeling applied to fresh pork was price inelastic (−0.209). Moreover, there existed significant population heterogeneity in the price elasticity of demand. Specifically, WTP increased for the urban population and those who paid regular attention to pork’s nutritional value. Overall, Chinese consumers had rigid demand for FOP labeling on fresh pork, and policy makers should pay close attention to consumer reactions to the price of FOP labeling and promote this application on fresh pork.

1. Introduction

A sustainable healthy diet is a dietary pattern that promotes all dimensions of individuals’ health and wellbeing with low environmental pressure [1]. Chinese adults’ excessive daily meat intake results in an unsustainable healthy diet. According to the China Health and Nutrition Survey, the livestock and poultry meat intake of people aged 18 to 59 years in China increased from 66.7 g/d in 1989 to 120 g/d in 2015, exceeding 60% of the maximum intake of 75 g/d recommended by The Balanced Diet Pagoda for Chinese Residents (2016) [2]. The growing demand for meat has become a concern given its environmental and health impacts. On the one hand, the rearing of livestock for meat generates global greenhouse gas emissions and utilizes most of agricultural lands and freshwater, which is destroying the environment upon which future food production depends [3]. On the other hand, a high intake of red meat is found to be associated with an increased risk of obesity and chronic disease [4].

To address environmental concerns sufficiently and tackle the problems of dietary excess, moderate meat diets compatible with health is needed. Education and the popularization of science are the main interventions to reduce red meat intake in China [5]. In contrast, some developed countries such as the United States, the Netherlands, Sweden and Singapore have implemented diversified interventions, including using Front of Package (FOP) labeling for ratings, scoring and health certifications for the nutritional value of fresh meat. As a form of nutrition labeling, FOP labeling provides simplified information about the overall nutritional status or key nutritional components of food through symbols, graphics, words or a combination thereof attached to the front of the food package [6]. FOP labels are easy to understand and have been proven to assist consumers in perceiving nutritional and health risks of food [7,8,9]. It has been advocated by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) [6,10]. It follows that applying the FOP labels to fresh pork is likely to promote a sustainable healthy diet in China. There may be insufficient or even no supply of FOP labeling if the pork suppliers rather than the buyers bear the FOP labeling cost. It seems necessary to investigate consumers’ demand firstly. Existing studies on food security labels and green labels have paid attention to this topic and consumers were found to prefer for food safety labels, while the demand for green labels varied among different groups of people [11,12]. However, it is unclear from the literature whether consumers had demand for the FOP labeling on fresh meat and what degree of their demand if yes. The consumer demand theory only emphasizes the relationship between the demand quantity for physical goods and the goods price [13], but rarely formed the rule of the demand for information goods such as food labels. Addressing gaps in the literature, this study will help to identify consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) to recognize their demand, and contributes to the demand theory.

As for the expected managerial contribution, consumers were likely to accept the given price and had WTP if they were found to have demand for the FOP labeling, which would help promote FOP labeling through the market mechanism. Conversely, FOP labeling on fresh pork might be provided by the public sector if consumers did not demand it. In short, the findings in our study could assist China and other countries with high red meat consumption in promoting sustainable healthy diets.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Evaluation and Paths to Sustainable and Healthy Diets

The research concerning sustainable healthy diets is a rapidly developing field. It has mainly focused on the evaluation indicators establishment, regional diets assessment and potential paths in recent years. For guiding sustainable and healthy diets, a few scholars designed some evaluation indicators, such as water footprint dietary index [14], the SHED Index [15] and a set of comprehensive indicators from the health, environmental and socio-economic viewpoints [16]. Given that varied types of diet modes have different impacts of health and environment [17], there exist evaluation studies on diets in Vietnam and Kenya [18], the Mediterranean Diet [19] and the New Nordic Diet [20]. Meat consumption reduction [21], increased intake of plant-originated foods [22] and supply of nutrition fortification foods [23] were found more sustainable healthy diets. Although previous studies referred to meat consumption reduction as a sustainable healthy diet, further measures, especially combing this reduction with a balanced diet, were not yet mentioned, so studies on FOP labeling are expected to bridge this gap.

2.2. Consumers’ Demand for Food Labeling

The demand for food labels is essentially the requirement for the information of food safety, sustainability and nutrition [24,25,26]. Generally, food consists of prepackaged food and edible agricultural products, with demands for the shelf-life date, ingredient list and nutrition labels on the food [27,28]; more is included on the labels of organic food [25]. If foods are divided into prepackaged food and edible agricultural products, the shelf-life date of prepackaged food, ingredient list, nutrition labels, green labels and organic label of edible agricultural products receive the most attention. Currently, there are more studies on the consumers’ demand for non-nutrition labels than that of nutrition labels. The former labels involved carbon labels on dairy products [24], genetically modified food labeling on soybean oil [27] and organic certification of beef [25], while the latter labels include nutrition claims [29]. However, little attention has been paid on the unimplemented labels [24]. As noted above, the void on consumers’ demand for nutrition labels unimplemented on agricultural products might need to be filled.

2.3. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Food Labeling

The consumer demand was generally expressed by their WTP due to special attributes of food labels [24,28,29]. A scan of the literature showed that studies on consumers’ WTP for food labels have focused on food safety labels [30], organic labels [31] and fair-trade labeling [32], but only a few studies on nutrition labels, such as multiple traffic light labeling applied to snacks [33]. For this reason, we attempted to investigate consumers’ WTP for FOP labels on fresh pork because few of these studies involved this. Apart from the labeling price [24], consumers’ WTP were significantly influenced by their gender [34,35], age [26], education level [34], household size [34], average annual personal disposable income [34], food consumption frequency [34] and trust in food labels [36]. Due to different impacts of food label prices on the WTP of different populations, some studies tested the heterogeneity [26], which provided references for the selection of independent variables and heterogeneity analysis.

2.4. Theoretical Background: Consumer Demand Theory

The consumer demand theory [13] explains the relationship between prices of goods and the market demand quantity. According to this theory, the quantity demanded by an individual falls as the price of a good rises. That is, the utility an individual gets from buying goods is greater than that from money if the price of a good is lower than the demand price (i.e., the price of willingness to pay). Due to its explanatory power, researchers have applied the theory to understand consumers’ consumption behaviors [37], as well as the rule of market prices [38]. Applied to food labels, the demand theory helps explain how customers generate the payment willingness for the labeled food products under the price considered appropriate [24,27]. It is demonstrated that consumers are willing to pay a premium for labeled foods due to the valuable information provided by the labels [25,27].

In the context of this study, the labeling price is expected to influence consumers’ demand for the FOP labeling on fresh pork. That is, consumers are likely to have willingness to pay for the labeling with the right price. Thus, we explain how different labeling prices could influence consumers’ WTP for the FOP labeling applied to fresh pork.

3. Hypotheses Development

Products comprise search goods, experience goods and credence goods, depending on consumers’ ability to identify product quality and food safety and the degree of information asymmetry between producers and consumers [39,40]. Generally, it is difficult for consumers to understand the nutritional value of fresh pork from its appearance, because fresh pork has the attributes of experience goods and credence goods. According to the utility theory [13], the reason why consumers have demand for food labeling is that they could obtain benefits from the consumption of nutrition information. The higher the consumers’ expected value of nutrition information provided by the FOP labeling is, the greater the utility of the labeling is. In information economics [41], an information product is the normal commodity whose consumption increases with rising incomes, and then, consumption utility might decrease with the increase of FOP labeling price. This means that consumers’ expected value for the FOP labeling could be reflected in the labeling price. Specifically, consumers are not willing to pay a high price for the labeling if their expected value is not high. It is noted that the FOP labeling applied to fresh pork has few substitutes due to the single function for displaying the nutritional information, so consumers’ WTP might be less sensitive to the labeling price. Hence, the hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 are proposed:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

When the price of FOP labeling applied to fresh pork decreases, consumers will have higher WTP for the labeling.

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

When the price of FOP labeling applied to fresh pork changes more than 1%, less than 1% of consumers’ WTP will change.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Methods

Consumers’ WTP was expressed as a binary classification (1 = be willing to; 0 = otherwise). The functional form of the logit regression model is expressed as:

$${\mathit{y}}_{\mathit{i}}=\mathit{ln}\left(\frac{p}{1-p}\right){=\beta }_0{+\beta }_1{\mathit{Price}}_{\mathit{i}}{+\beta \mathit{X}}_{\mathit{i}}{+\epsilon }_{\mathit{i}}$$

(1)

where ${\mathit{y}}_{\mathit{i}}$ denotes a latent variable for the FOP labeling payment (a consumer is willing to pay if y > 0 and otherwise if y ≤ 0); $p$ indicates consumers’ willingness probability; ${\mathit{Price}}_i$ is the price of the FOP labeling; $X_i$ represents a vector of control variables that influence consumers’ WTP, including gender, age, education level, etc.; ${\beta }_0$, ${\beta }_1$, $\beta$ are parameters to be estimated; and ${\epsilon }_i$ is a stochastic disturbance.

Price elasticity of demand refers to consumers’ WTP responsiveness to FOP labeling price. It is expressed as the percentage change in WTP probability in response to a 1% change in FOP labeling price:

$$E=\frac{\Delta W}{W}/\frac{\Delta P}{P}$$

(2)

where E denotes the price elasticity of demand; P is the price of FOP labeling; ΔP represents the change amount of the price; W is WTP probability; and ΔW is the change amount of WTP probability. The WTP for FOP labeling is elastic if E > 1 and inelastic if E < 1. Note that the negative price elasticity coefficient is of economic significance, indicating that the rate of price change is negatively correlated with that of WTP.

4.2. Data Collection

Our proposed questionnaire (see Supplementary Material) was developed through an expert panel and a literature review. It was written in Chinese and included demographic information and consumption status of fresh pork and WTP for the FOP labeling on fresh pork; it was improved through a pre-survey of 40 adults in Beijing, China. For data availability, a paid online survey service was adopted from Wenjuanxing (https://www.wjx.cn, accessed on 5 December 2021). Wenjuanxing, a well-known online survey company in China with a member database of 6.2 million registered members from 31 provinces, mainly provides paid data collection services for their clients. To ensure representative samples in China, this study determined the minimum sample size (N = 752) in China based on an allowable error of 3% and a confidence level of 90% [42] and commissioned Wenjuanxing to collect 930 valid samples from its member database using a stratified random sampling method. From December 2021 to January 2022, Wenjuanxing sent the questionnaire link by email to 33~37 adults randomly selected from each of China’s 31 provinces/autonomous regions/municipalities to fill out the survey online (i.e., 1106 samples in total), and about 84% responded. Before data collection, informed written consent was obtained from all participants. Eight Chinese Yuan as cash incentives was offered to each respondent if their responses were careful and complete. Finally, after data validity was checked, 930 valid samples (i.e., 30 samples × 31 provinces) were used for analysis.

The CVM was adopted to obtain consumers’ WTP under different FOP labeling prices. As the value evaluation method for public goods’ intangible benefits, the CVM is used to obtain the respondents’ WTP for goods or services in a hypothetical market mainly through a questionnaire-based survey [43]. As shown in Figure 1, consumers’ WTP was collected in the semi-double bounded dichotomous form. Before answering the questions, all respondents were exposed to six typical FOP labels applicable to fresh pork internationally in the form of pictures and informed of the roles of these labels (

Table 1. Typical FOP labels applied to fresh pork internationally.

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

Source: https://www.livsmedelsverket.se, accessed on 15 March 2021; https://www.heart.org, accessed on 10 August 2021; https://www.hpb.gov.sg, accessed on 2 May 2021; https://www.choicesprogramme.org, accessed on 6 July 2021; https://guidingstars.com, accessed on 10 October 2021; http://www.nuval.com, accessed on 6 September 2021.

), and a virtual shopping scene of fresh pork with one FOP labeling randomly allocated from above six labels was described. The respondents were then asked whether they were willing to pay for the FOP labeling. The WTP question ended when the answer was “no”. The respondents who answered “yes” were asked to indicate their willingness to pay for the FOP labeling at five diffident prices: >0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of the average retail price of common fresh pork per 500 g. The five prices were displayed in ascending order. When the respondents replied “no” to any price, the higher price(s) would not be displaced, and the WTP question ended.

5. Results

5.1. Descriptive Statistics

As shown in

Table 2. Respondents’ individual characteristics.

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

Note: ^a The age brackets used in the population census are as follows: 0~14 years old, 15~59 years old, 60~65 years old and more than 65 years old.

, the distribution of respondents’ gender, ethnicity, education level, individual annual disposable income and residence were similar to that reported in Major Figures on the 2020 Population Census of China [44]. This validates the representativeness of the sample in the present study.

During the survey (from 11 December 2021 to 21 January 2022), the average retail price of common fresh pork per 500 g in China was 23.03 Yuan according to the National Key Agricultural Products Market Information Platform (NKAPMIP) under the administration of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (http://ncpscxx.moa.gov.cn, accessed on 4 December 2021). The five prices of FOP labeling were 0 Yuan (0% of the retail price), 5.76 Yuan (25%), 11.52 Yuan (50%), 17.27 Yuan (75%) and 23.03 Yuan (100%). Each of the 930 respondents was assigned either yes or no to the five given prices, resulting in 4650 (930 × 5) observations.

Table 3. Description of variables and summary statistics.

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

Source: Authors’ own calculation. Note: ^a One US dollar is equal to 6.338 Chinese Yuan and One Euro is equal to 7.121 Chinese Yuan from December 2021 to January 2022.

shows that only 30% of the total samples expressed their willingness to all five prices. The respondents equally represented both sexes, and were 44.60 years old on average. Urban respondents accounted for 60%. There were 3–4 people in each family, and the individual annual disposable income in these families was about 48,000 Yuan on average, which was slightly higher than the medium income level of China (i.e., 47,412 Yuan per capita in 2021). Respondents frequently consumed fresh pork in their daily lives, and more than half of them often paid attention to the nutritional value of fresh pork and highly trusted the FOP labeling.

Figure 2 shows that the proportion of people who would like to pay for the FOP labeling decreased with the gradual increase of the labeling price was conducted in Stata (17.0, Stata Corp LLC, College Station, TX, USA) [45]. About three-fourths of the respondents had a none-zero WTP, and two-thirds were willing to pay 5.76 Yuan. This means that some Chinese customers had effective demand for the FOP labeling applied to fresh pork. There was a sharp fall in the proportion of respondents’ WTP when the price was 11.52 Yuan and above, accounting for only 4.19%.

5.2. Inferential Statistics

Stata (17.0, StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA) was used for logit regression analysis. The covariates included the logarithm of the personal disposable income for heteroscedasticity reduction and age squared for testing whether individual age had a non-linear association with their WTP. Price was not endogenous to respondents’ WTP, since it was exogenously determined in the CVM design.

Table 4. Estimated results of logit model of consumers’ price elasticity of demand for the FOP labeling and robustness test.

	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

Note: standard errors in parentheses; * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Model (1) reports results from the logit model regression without control variables added. Model (2) reports results from the logit model regression with control variables added. Model (3) reports robustness test results from the logit model regression with control variables added.

indicates that the price elasticity coefficients of Model (1) and Model (2) with control variables added were similar and statistically significant at the 1% significance level. This study adopted the estimation results of Model (2), which represented a higher rate of correct classification than model (1). The results of Model (3), eliminating 75 samples who did not consume fresh pork at all, showed that the re-estimated value and direction of price elasticity were similar to those of Model (2). The estimation result of Model (2) was robust and credible.

The price elasticity coefficient of respondents’ WTP was −0.209, suggesting that consumers’ WTP would decrease (or increase) by 0.209% if the FOP labeling price increased (or decreased) by 1% on average. Additionally, individual annual disposable income, family size, fresh pork consumption frequency and trust in the FOP labeling played significant roles. Among them, the WTP coefficient of respondents with trust in the FOP labeling mostly was 0.135, while the WTP coefficient was 0.164 among respondents with the highest level of trust.

Table 5. Heterogeneity analysis of subsamples’ price elasticity of demand for the FOP labeling.

	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

Note: Standard errors in parentheses; * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. (1), (2), (3), (4) columns report results of logit regression for subsamples.

shows that the price elasticity of respondents was heterogeneous between urban and rural populations, as well as among people who often paid attention to the nutritional value of fresh pork or not. The value of urban population’s price elasticity (0.219) was 0.025 higher than that of the rural population (0.194). It indicated that the urban population’s WTP had a greater response to the change in FOP labeling price. The price elasticity value was 0.237 in the population who often paid attention to the nutritional value of fresh pork, significantly higher than that of those who did not often pay attention. Respondents who were often concerned about the nutritional value of fresh pork were likely to obtain the nutritional information of fresh pork through the FOP labeling, expecting the labeling could assist healthy choices. In contrast, respondents who did not often pay attention to the nutritional value showed limited demand for FOP labels on fresh pork. The education level, individual annual disposable income, fresh pork consumption frequency and trust in the FOP labeling significantly and positively influenced the urban population’s WTP. In contrast, gender and fresh pork consumption frequency were significant factors that influenced the WTP of respondents who often paid attention to the nutritional value of fresh pork.

Figure 3 shows the price elasticity of Chinese respondents firstly increased and then decreased with the FOP labeling price enhancement. The price elasticity values were less than 1 in the FOP labeling prices ranging from 5 to 24 Yuan. The price elasticity reached the maximum (0.534) when the price was nine Yuan, which showed that the probability of respondents’ WTP would decrease (or increase) by 0.534% if the price of FOP labeling increased (or decreased) by 1% on average. The value of price elasticity was the smallest (0.025) if the price was 24 Yuan. This indicated that the probability of respondents’ WTP would decrease (or increase) by 0.025% when the price increased (or decreased) by 1% at 24 Yuan on average.

6. Discussion

6.1. Theoretical Contributions

As expected, hypothesis 1 proposed above was supported. This study indicates that the FOP labeling as an information product is a normal commodity with a negative relationship between the labeling price and demand quantity, which is consistent with the demand rule of other food labels [24,27]. It was proven that the traditional demand theory seemed suitable to analyze the demand for the FOP labeling. Hypothesis 2 is also verified. Surprisingly, the demand was found to be rigid, which might reflect marginal evidence for the demand theory. That is, the traditional demand theory holds that consumers have rigid demand for daily necessities [13] and the demand for FOP labeling is supposed to be elastic because most labels are not regarded as daily necessities. The rigid demand for nutritional information of fresh pork was derived from the strong demand in China for reasonable nutrition in fresh pork.

6.2. Managerial Contributions

The results revealed that most consumers were willing to pay for the FOP labeling on fresh pork, and the highest price they would like to pay was 9 Yuan. Thus, suppliers could be incentivized to label the fresh pork. Nevertheless, consumers’ inelastic demand could result in the high labeling price if suppliers pursued profit maximization. Additionally, there is a social need for FOP labeling, namely for sustainable healthy diet promotion. Thus, government interference is required to standardize label pricing and provide appropriate subsidies. In addition, the findings also revealed that urban residents and people who paid different degrees of attention to the nutritional value of fresh pork had higher demand, which means that the labeling could be piloted in a specific population and then rolled out to the entire population.

6.3. Limitations and Future Studies

There are several clear limitations to our study. Firstly, the quality of online self-administered questionnaires taken may not be high. The online self-filled questionnaire is time and labor saving when collecting data on many residents in a short time; however, it was probably difficult for respondents to understand the survey questions due to the lack of investigators’ explanation. Secondly, the experiment lacked the guidance of a specific labeling graphic. Although the questionnaire survey in the present study introduced six international FOP labels on fresh pork and their functions, FOP labeling is an emerging label in China, and most residents have not encountered it due to its low popularity rate and small propaganda intensity, especially in the application of fresh pork. This weakened the respondents’ intuitive feeling of the FOP labeling and reduced the authenticity of stated preference to a certain extent. Thirdly, the CVM used is a hypothetical experimental method and our study examined consumers’ intention (or willingness) to pay for labeling, which is not equivalent to actual payment; thus, respondents usually find it challenging to understand the valuation task in hypothetical market conditions adequately. Hence, consumers’ WTP is often self-overestimated due to a lack of economic stimulus for the actual value revelation [46]. In future research, respondents’ understanding of the survey questions and more auxiliary decision-making materials will be considered in the semi-double bounded dichotomous form, and a non-hypothetical experiment such as an auction experiment or a real choice experiment with monetary payoffs to estimate WTP is expected to be adopted.

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

This study adopted a representative sample of 930 adults across China to estimate the price elasticity of demand for the FOP labeling on fresh pork. It revealed that the respondents’ demand for FOP labels was inelastic. The average probability of consumers’ WTP would decrease by 0.209% if the price of FOP labeling increased by 1%. Urban residents and groups who often paid attention to the nutritional value of fresh pork were more sensitive to the price of the FOP labeling and more willing to pay for the FOP labeling price. The price elasticity of demand for FOP labeling on fresh pork reached the maximum at nine Yuan.

The following policy recommendations are offered: (1) the FOP labeling price should be set within 10 Yuan to meet most residents’ need; (2) paid FOP labeling could be preferentially carried out in urban areas and among people with high pork nutrition concerns; (3) the price of FOP labeling should be paid by pork buyers for improvement of transaction efficiency.