Food and sustainability: do consumers recognize, understand and value on-package information on production standards?

We tested how consumers recognize, understand and value on-package information about food production methods that may contribute to a more sustainable agriculture. Nine copy tests were formed, each containing one out of three products and one out of three panels of information. The products were (1) fillet of chicken, (2) semi-skimmed milk and (3) fillet of salmon. The panels of information were (a) a certified organic logo and details about the animal welfare standards of organic products, (b) just the logo, or (c) a statement in which the product was attributed to the world market. About 371 customers of a supermarket in the city of Amsterdam filled in a questionnaire, which included a subset of three copy tests. The results showed that many consumers did not realize that the organic logo already covers all the standards. They were inclined to underestimate the distinctive advantage of the logo; products with logo and details got higher ratings of positive attributes but were also considered more expensive. As a consequence, the detailed information panels enabled consumers to choose more in agreement with their personal values but the net impacts on purchase intentions were small.

Transparency of the meat chain in the light of food culture and history.

Current patterns of meat consumption are considered to be unsustainable. Sustainable development may require that consumers choose to eat smaller quantities of meat as well as meat that is produced in a more sensible way. A policy tool directed at consumer behaviour is that of enhancing consumer-oriented transparency of the production chain. Transparency is expected to allow people to make more mindful consumption choices, in line with their personal values. As most dietary habits are deeply rooted in the past, an assessment of the effect of transparency on food choices requires a historical perspective to food culture. Such a perspective provides us with at least two trends of relevance to meat consumption: increased concern for animal welfare and an ongoing dissociation of meat from its animal origin. Combined, these two trends may interact to allow people to consume in ways that actually conflict with their personal values: their concern for animal welfare does not translate into corresponding food choices, as the product meat does not remind them of its animal origin. An experiment was designed to test the hypothesis that people sensitive to animal welfare will respond to increased salience of animal origin and of animal welfare, and that they will show this by either avoiding to buy meat or by favouring free range and organic meat. Results confirmed the expected effect. The effect was observed mainly among those with Universalistic values, which limits the ultimate prospects of transparency as a policy tool.