What Is the Value of a "Mountain Product" Claim? A Ranking Conjoint Experiment on Goat's Milk Yoghurt.

Rural development is complex in marginal and disadvantaged areas, such as mountains, which impose high labour costs and restrict farmers in their choices of crop and livestock. To recognise this problem, the European Union regulates the use of the optional quality term "Mountain product" on the label. Consumers may recognise this label and be more willing to pay for it, resulting in higher revenues for producers using it. This study estimates the willingness to pay (WTP) for a mountain quality label. This WTP is then compared to that of functional and nutrition claims. For this purpose, we used a ranking conjoint experiment, using goat's milk yoghurt-a typical mountain product-as a case study. Using a rank-ordered logit, we show that mountain quality labels generate a significant WTP, higher than that of functional claims. WTP differs by the demographic profile of the consumer. The study provided useful insights about the combination of the mountain quality label with different attributes. However, future studies are needed to adequately understand the potential of mountain certification as a supporting tool for farmers in marginal areas and for rural development.

The role of cooking in consumers' quality formation: An exploratory study of beef steaks.

The role of cooking on pre- and post-consumption quality expectations and its impact on satisfaction during the eating experience is under-researched. To address this gap, a 'task and talk' focus group study involving participants preparing and eating a beef steak as part of a meal was designed to explore the role of cooking on consumers' evaluation of beef quality. The results from six focus groups (n = 36 participants) identified that 'perceived cooking quality' of beef is an important criterion impacting pre-purchase evaluation. Cooking is a process of adaptation to personal tastes and is influenced by cooking self-efficacy. This personal confidence in steak preparation mediates a willingness to directly complain about a disappointing eating experience. Direct complaints generally occurred in relation to intrinsic quality cues prior to cooking where the locus of quality control was external to the participant. Poor eating quality of beef was generally attributed to a deficiency in cooking skills, an internal attribution of quality failure that minimised the likelihood of direct complaints. A lack of confidence in cooking skills may explain a delay in repeat purchasing following a negative eating experience.

A ridge regression approach to estimate the relationship between landfill taxation and waste collection and disposal in England.

The production of household waste is characterised by externalities and market failure, where the decision to consume does not consider the environmental impact of consequent waste generated. Policy interventions in the UK have focused primarily on pricing the disposal of waste through a landfill tax. This article tests the effectiveness of landfill taxation on household waste collection and disposal. Using a ridge regression with correction for fixed effects on a panel dataset of English local authorities, we estimate the landfill tax elasticity of waste for a range of waste disposal and collection streams. Results indicate that the landfill tax is elastic at disposal and effective in shifting waste from landfills to incineration. The tax is inelastic at collection, and encourages recycling. Our results indicate that landfill taxation is an important tool to change how waste is disposed by households and local authorities.

Estimating the impact of the first COVID-19 lockdown on UK food retailers and the restaurant sector.

Using an approach normally used to estimate cumulative excess deaths, we measure the impact of the COVID-19 shock on sales of UK food retailers and restaurants. To control the spread of COVID-19, travel and social interactions were restricted, putting significant pressure on retailers, who had to adapt whilst complying with a fast-changing marketplace. Results show that in the period March-August 2020, COVID-19 restrictions accounted for a £4 billion increase in sales for food retailers, and £4 billion in non-store retailers; and a £20 billion loss in sales in non-food stores, and £25 billion loss in turnover for food and beverage serving services.

The effect of traffic-light labels and time pressure on estimating kilocalories and carbon footprint of food.

Food consumption decisions require consumers to evaluate the characteristics of products. However, the literature has given limited attention to how consumers determine the impact of food on health (e.g., kilocalories) and on the environment (e.g., carbon footprint). In this exercise, 1511 consumers categorised 43 food products as healthy/unhealthy and good/bad for the environment, and estimated their kilocalories and carbon footprint, which were known to the investigator. The task was performed either with no stimuli (a control group), under time pressure only, with traffic-light labels only, or both. Results show that traffic-light labels: 1) operate through improvements in knowledge, rather than facilitating information processing under pressure; 2) improve the ability to rank products by both kilocalories and carbon footprint, rather than the ability to use the metric; 3) reduce the threshold used to categorise products as unhealthy/bad for the environment, whilst raising the threshold used to classify products as good for the environment (but not healthy). Notably, traffic-light increase accuracy by reducing the response compression of the metric scale. The benefits of labels are particularly evident for carbon footprint. Overall, these results indicate that consumers struggle to estimate numerical information, and labels are crucial to ensure consumers make sustainable decisions, particularly for unfamiliar metrics like carbon footprint.

Consumer attitudes towards production diseases in intensive production systems.

Many members of the public and important stakeholders operating at the upper end of the food chain, may be unfamiliar with how food is produced, including within modern animal production systems. The intensification of production is becoming increasingly common in modern farming. However, intensive systems are particularly susceptible to production diseases, with potentially negative consequences for farm animal welfare (FAW). Previous research has demonstrated that the public are concerned about FAW, yet there has been little research into attitudes towards production diseases, and their approval of interventions to reduce these. This research explores the public's attitudes towards, and preferences for, FAW interventions in five European countries (Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain and the UK). An online survey was conducted for broilers (n = 789), layers (n = 790) and pigs (n = 751). Data were analysed by means of Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA, exploratory factor analysis and structural equation modelling. The results suggest that the public have concerns regarding intensive production systems, in relation to FAW, naturalness and the use of antibiotics. The most preferred interventions were the most "proactive" interventions, namely improved housing and hygiene measures. The least preferred interventions were medicine-based, which raised humane animal care and food safety concerns amongst respondents. The results highlighted the influence of the identified concerns, perceived risks and benefits on attitudes and subsequent behavioural intention, and the importance of supply chain stakeholders addressing these concerns in the subsequent communications with the public.

The Need for Formal Evidence Synthesis in Food Policy: A Case Study of Willingness-to-Pay.

Meta-analysis is increasingly utilised in the understanding of consumer behaviour, including in relation to farm animal welfare. However, the issue of publication bias has received little attention. As willingness-to-pay (WTP) is widely used in policy, it is important to explore publication bias. This research aimed to evaluate publication bias in WTP, specifically public WTP for farm animal welfare. A systematic review of four databases yielded 54 studies for random effects meta-analysis. Publication bias was assessed by the Egger test, rank test, contour-enhanced funnel plots, and the Vevea and Hedges weight-function model. Results consistently indicated the presence of publication bias, highlighting an overestimation of WTP for farm animal welfare. Stakeholders should be wary of WTP estimates that have not been critically evaluated for publication bias.