Do Nutrition Claims Matter to Consumers? An Empirical Analysis Considering European Requirements

EU Regulation 1924/2006 introduced a European legal framework for nutrition messages for food product labels. The study analyses consumer interest towards nutrition labelling and claims, and examines the information consumers consider important during their purchasing decisions, and the main characteristics of those consumers interested in nutrition claims and nutrition labelling use. A total of 1,025 northern Italian consumers were surveyed. We estimate one binary logit model to investigate the use of nutrition labelling, and seven other ordinal regression models to analyse consumer interest towards nutrition claims and labelling. Consumers who use nutrition labelling have characteristics different from those who use nutrition claims. Consumers using nutrition labelling show a marked interest in food safety concerns, use experts as their source of information and have specific dietary habits. For consumers concerned about nutrition claims, the survey shows significant links with attributes influencing purchasing behaviour, such as price, brand, certification, etc. Socio‐demographic characteristics are statistically significant and show a positive link with age, gender and a negative linkage with income.     

Differentiating the consumer benefits from labeling of GM food products

Although recurrent evidence is found that consumers have different willingness to pay for GM and non-GM products, there is disagreement in the scientific community about the size of consumer benefits from GM labeling. In this article we use a theoretical model based on a standard constant elasticity of substitution (CES) to explain the importance of the quality effect. It is shown that failing to consider the quality effect may yield an overestimation of benefits from GM labeling, voluntary or mandatory.     

Why does on-farm storage fail to mitigate price volatility?

We analyze the role of farm stock management on price volatility under liquidity constraints and heterogeneous price expectations. In commodity markets, speculative behaviors by stockholders tend to reduce price volatility, but this is not the case in certain agricultural markets, where speculation by farmers regarding decisions to sell or store grain is subject to liquidity constraints and heterogeneous price expectations. Like stockholders, most farmers sell grain if they expect a price drop in the near future, but unlike stockholders, they are not necessarily able to purchase grain if they expect a price increase in the next period. Heterogeneous price expectations can also lead to suboptimal storage decisions, further increasing price volatility. For these reasons, the storage management behavior of farmers often fails to mitigate price drops in the way that speculation by stockholders does. We merge historical data on maize prices and household storage collected in Burkina Faso in order to build a dynamic panel over the 2005–2012 period. We show that carryover from one season to the next is associated with unexpected price drops during the preceding lean season and that carryover is associated with more frequent unexpected price drops following the subsequent post‐harvest season.     

Are we overestimating the negative impact of higher food prices? Evidence from Ghana

Most studies of the welfare impact of higher food prices adopt Deaton's approach, based on the first‐order effect of prices changes using income and expenditure survey data. This paper explores the impact of higher maize and food prices in Ghana and considers the sensitivity of results to changes in several assumptions. If second‐order effects are included, incorporating household response to price changes, the welfare impact of food price increases is more positive, but only modestly so. However, if we assume that marketing margins are constant in real terms rather than proportional to prices, the welfare impact is substantially more positive. These findings highlight the need for more research on the behavior of marketing margins under volatile prices.     

Do input subsidy programs “crowd in” or “crowd out” commercial market development? Modeling fertilizer demand in a two‐channel marketing system

Many governments in developing countries distribute fertilizer at subsidized prices in an effort to stimulate small farmers' agricultural productivity and food security. Prior fertilizer demand studies have largely failed to account for the effects of government programs on farmers' commercial purchases. Using a double hurdle model and nationally representative rural household panel data in Zambia, we distinguish between these sources and measure the contemporaneous \"crowding in\" and \"crowding out\" effects of government input programs on commercial fertilizer sales. Where the private sector is relatively active and average wealth is higher (areas seemingly more likely to be targeted by government programs), results indicate that subsidies have substantially crowded out the private sector, in some cases to the point that such programs could actually lower overall fertilizer use. On the other hand, in poorer areas where the private sector is relatively inactive, subsidies help to generate demand and crowd in private sector retailers. Empirical studies explicitly modeling farmers' fertilizer purchase behavior within a dual marketing framework can provide important insights for agricultural policy discussions in developing countries.     

How do obese people afford to be obese? Consumption strategies of Russian households

This article investigates the extent to which Russian households that differ in their members’ weight status adjust their food consumption differently when their economic resources change. Using household‐panel data from the Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS) from 1995 to 2005, we estimate total expenditure elasticities of food expenditures, food quantities, and food quality for normal‐weight, overweight, and obese households, respectively. The expenditure elasticities of quality derived for obese households for meat, bread, fruits, and dairy were found to be 15–20% higher than those of normal households. Hence, a change in economic resources causes obese households to adjust the quality of purchased foods significantly more flexibly than normal‐weight households. Only few differences were found for quantity and expenditure reactions. Our results emphasize that policies aiming to reduce obesity should consider deviations in consumption behavior of normal and obese consumers in terms of quality.