Search results

Reducing food-related greenhouse gas emissions is one of the major tasks in the future, as food causes one-third of global emissions. Influencing customers' purchasing decisions towards low-carbon food is thus decisive. Nudging has been proven to be an adequate mechanism to influence people towards sustainable food choices. Another relatively new approach is boosting, which promotes people's education, inducing autonomous decision-making. In the context of sustainable food, research on nudging and boosting is still at the beginning. Therefore, this chapter conducts a systematic literature review to identify, classify and assess the potential of cognitively oriented nudges and boosts towards sustainable food choices. The sample consists of 217 English-speaking papers published between 2011 and 2021. After three filtering steps, 21 scientific journal publications remained in the data extraction form. All articles are field experiments, comprising descriptive labelling, evaluative labelling, and visibility enhancements. The analysis shows that menu restructurings (e.g. placing a vegetarian option on the top of the menu) in restaurants are the most effective intervention to reshape customers' demands. Evaluative labels (e.g. traffic-light labels on the menu or product packaging) are the second most effective measure. They help people understand eco-related information and thus make better decisions. The effect of descriptive labels seemed small, as they provide no meaningful frame assisting people in processing the data. In conclusion, the research recommends applying cognitively oriented nudges and boosts to promote sustainable food choices and deduces practical implications for appropriate implementation and marketing.

Purpose – This chapter investigates the role that mandatory genetically modified (GM) labeling versus voluntary labeling has played in the split between those countries with small GM markets and those with large GM markets.

Methodology/approach – Data on product introductions and other market evidence are used to examine market outcomes and identify the likely drivers of GM market bifurcation.

Findings – Labeling has negligible effects on consumer choice or on GM differentiation costs and therefore does not explain the split in GM market outcomes. Other factors have driven market outcomes: namely, consumer confidence in government and the safety of the food supply, competition among manufacturers and retailers, market momentum, and most importantly, the affordability of a non-GM strategy. Ultimately, a non-GM market strategy is feasible only if consumers are willing to cover the additional costs associated with non-GM production and marketing. The two elements composing the cost/price wedge between GM and non-GM products – the cost-reducing benefits of the GM technology and the costs of differentiating non-GM products – therefore play an important role in market outcomes. In the mid-1990s, when producers, manufacturers, and retailers were determining their strategies, neither element was very large. As a result, both GM and non-GM marketing strategies were economically feasible.

Practical implication – Regardless of the labeling regime, changes in the cost/price wedge between GM and non-GM products could change the mix of GM and non-GM products on the market.

Originality/value of paper – This analysis extends the literature by focusing on the impact of labeling regime on both consumer behavior and the cost/price wedge between GM and non-GM products.

In the last few decades, the obesity rate has increased along with the increasing of away-from-home food consumption at restaurants (Wei & Miao, 2013), especially the food consumption at quick-service restaurants (QSRs). Previous research stated that the main factors that influence the customers’ food selection are found. Price and quality of food are the most significant things that mostly concerned customers when they are in decision-making process. There is a controversial argument between several studies that identified calorie labelling on menu influences consumers on food choice, while others said vice versa. However, several studies argued that calorie information does not have as much impact on customers’ food purchasing as other factors such as food’s quality, ranges of food, price of food, restaurant’s atmosphere, and speed of food service (Carey & Genevive, 1995). The aim of this chapter is to examine the importance of representing calorie information on menu and its effects on customer decision-making especially at QSRs. Therefore, the following questions have been addressed in this chapter:

What are the factors that influence consumer choice at QSRs?

Does calorie labelling on menus impact customer purchasing at QSRs?

This chapter starts with the introduction of the topic and reviewing previous research on menu labelling and calorie information at QSRs. This chapter aims to provide a better understanding of customer decision-making when ordering a food with regard to calorie information on the menu and the customer preference.

Purpose – The chapter provides a comprehensive review of trade-related regulations of genetically modified (GM) food, identifies their main effects, and analyzes the main motivations behind their support.

Methodology/approach – The analysis is substantiated by (a) results from the literature on GM food regulations and (b) comparative statics results from a simplified three-country partial equilibrium welfare and political economic model.

Findings – The analysis shows that in a non-GM producing country, trade-related regulations will benefit producers, but not necessarily consumers. Producers' support is found to be instrumental to push for a ban, for information requirements on shipments, or for mandatory labeling of GM food products. Outside pressure groups will play the role of swing voters in cases where consumers and producers do not agree.

Research limitations/implications – The analytical model is based on simplifying assumptions on the groups and market effects of each regulation. Future research is needed to empirically validate some of the main results.

Originality/value of the chapter – The goal of the chapter is to inform economic and policy researchers on the effects of GM food trade-related regulations. The chapter provides an updated comprehensive overview of the key trade regulations of GM food. It uses a unique model to derive the main welfare effects of GM food regulations. By comparing the effects of GM food regulations in different types of countries for different pressure groups, the findings provide new insights in this area.

While genetically modified (GM) crops have provided tremendous agricultural productivity gains, many consumers oppose GM products and maintain they are unsafe. We use the case of GM sugar beets and their adoption by the US producers to examine the implications of GM technology on food security. A partial equilibrium framework is used to examine the implications of GM technology on food security. This analysis provides a unique opportunity to examine the impact of GM adoption in one product (sugar beets) relative to non-GM adoption in a substitute product (sugarcane). This analysis examines the potential gains to food security through the adoption of biotechnology versus consumer fear of GM technology. Research and development (R&D) has potential implications not only through its impact on supply, but also on demand as well. This study shows that demand impacts can negate the supply-induced food security gains of R&D. Regulations such as mandatory labeling requirements can impact this outcome.

Purpose – Despite the existence of hundreds of studies and several review articles on consumer preferences for genetically modified (GM) food, it remains difficult to ascertain the current state of knowledge on the topic. The purpose of this chapter is to distill some of the key findings from the body of research on consumer preferences for GM food.

Approach – In reviewing key pieces of literature, including two meta-analyses, the chapter identifies four key unresolved questions and includes discussions on how the questions might be resolved.

Findings – The chapter identifies four questions in need of additional thought and research. The questions relate to (1) why the market for GM-free food is so small in the United States despite the large estimated willingness-to-pay premiums for GM-free food, (2) why consumers remain so uninformed about biotechnology despite their seemingly high levels of aversion, (3) why economists have generally ignored the information-content of GM food policies, and (4) why it is so difficult to determine why U.S. and European consumers have seemingly reacted so differently to GM foods.

Value – This chapter should be useful to those interested in learning about the current state of knowledge on consumer preferences for GM food, and to those seeking to identify areas in need of additional research.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

Previous research has concluded that there is consumer desire for nutrition information to be provided on restaurant menu items and restaurant customers presented with this information will make healthier menu choices (Mills & Thomas, 2008). Limited research has been performed in a restaurant setting measuring real rather than intended behavior. The purpose of this research experiment is to measure consumer response, in a full-service restaurant setting, to nutrition information on menu items and subsequently determine if consumers will use this information in their menu item choice. An experiment was conducted with 264 restaurant customers at a full-service a la carte restaurant. Customers chose from menu items labeled with or without a Healthy Choice® label. A logistic regression model was used to predict whether people would choose Healthy Choice menu items. Fifty-four percent of restaurant customers chose the healthy choice menu item. The logistic regression confirms that those people who desire nutrition information also use this information in their menu choice. The study concludes with recommendations for the industry on directing consumer menu choice toward healthier items.

This chapter analyzes the economic implications of genetic engineering for food security. We discuss the asynchronous nature of genetically modified (GM) crop regulation and labeling requirements among countries, associated politics, and consumer perceptions of GM crops.

We perform an ex-ante analysis of the introduction of a GM rice variety in major rice exporting and importing countries (including potential producer and consumer impacts) within the framework of a partial equilibrium trade model.

Although the introduction of a GM rice variety that increases global yield by 5% could result in a consumer gain of US$23.4 billion to US$74.8 billion, it could also result in a producer loss of US$9.7 billion to US$63.7 billion. The estimated net gain to society could be US$11.1 billion to US$13.7 billion. Overall, we find a positive economic surplus for major exporters and importers of rice based on a 5% supply increase with a GM rice variety.

The adoption of transgenic (GM) rice varieties would have a far greater impact on rice prices for poorer counties than for richer countries. Therefore, GM rice may help ensure that more people throughout the world would have food security.