scholarly journals Australian Consumers Are Willing to Pay for the Health Star Rating Front-of-Pack Nutrition Label

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. 3876
Author(s):  
Sheri L. Cooper ◽  
Lucy M. Butcher ◽  
Simone D. Scagnelli ◽  
Johnny Lo ◽  
Maria M. Ryan ◽  
...  

The Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation has supported the recommendations set out in the 2019 Health Star Rating System Five Year Review Report. Specifically, the forum supported, in principle, Recommendation 9, to mandate the Health Star Rating if clear uptake targets were not achieved while the system is voluntary. Given that mandatory labelling is being considered, it is important to investigate how much consumers value the Health Star Rating in order to understand potential consumer uptake and inform industry. The aim of this study was to assess consumers’ valuation of the Health Star Rating system by analysing their willingness to pay for a packaged food product with the Health Star Rating label, utilising a double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation approach. The results indicate that almost two-thirds of Australian household grocery shoppers were willing to pay more for a product with the Health Star Rating, on average up to an additional 3.7% of the price of the product. However, public health nutrition benefits associated with consumers’ willingness to pay more for products with the Health Star Rating is currently limited by the lack of guarantee of the systems’ accuracy. Given consumer support, a well validated and comprehensive Health Star Rating labelling system can potentially improve health outcomes, cost effectiveness and reduce environmental impacts.

Nutrients ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Mantilla Herrera ◽  
Michelle Crino ◽  
Holly Erskine ◽  
Gary Sacks ◽  
Jaithri Ananthapavan ◽  
...  

The Health Star Rating (HSR) system is a voluntary front-of-pack labelling (FoPL) initiative endorsed by the Australian government in 2014. This study examines the impact of the HSR system on pre-packaged food reformulation measured by changes in energy density between products with and without HSR. The cost-effectiveness of the HSR system was modelled using a proportional multi-state life table Markov model for the 2010 Australian population. We evaluated scenarios in which the HSR system was implemented on a voluntary and mandatory basis (i.e., HSR uptake across 6.7% and 100% of applicable products, respectively). The main outcomes were health-adjusted life years (HALYs), net costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). These were calculated with accompanying 95% uncertainty intervals (95% UI). The model predicted that HSR-attributable reformulation leads to small changes in mean population energy intake (voluntary: −0.98 kJ/day; mandatory: −11.81 kJ/day). These are likely to result in changes in mean body weight (voluntary: −0.01 kg [95% UI: −0.012 to −0.006]; mandatory: −0.11 kg [95% UI: −0.14 to −0.07]), and HALYs gained (voluntary: 4207 HALYs gained [95% UI: 2438 to 6081]; mandatory: 49,949 HALYs gained [95% UI: 29,291 to 72,153]). The HSR system could be considered cost-effective relative to a willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000 per HALY (incremental cost effectiveness ratio for voluntary: A$1728 per HALY [95% UI: dominant to 10,445] and mandatory: A$4752 per HALY [95% UI: dominant to 16,236]).


2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 865-882 ◽  
Author(s):  
Courtney Bir ◽  
Ann M. Cummins ◽  
Nicole Olynk Widmar ◽  
Christopher A. Wolf

Multiple methods to improve reliability of results when using willingness-to-pay (WTP) to evaluate consumer preferences have been developed. This study compared methods of accounting for attribute non-attendance (ANA) in WTP for food product attributes. Both inferred and stated ANA were studied and estimates of WTP for pork chop and bacon attributes were compared. A larger number of significant differences were found between stated or inferred ANA corrected models than between corrected and uncorrected models. Significant correlations between inferred and stated ANA were not present and WTP estimates from correcting for inferred ANA (IANA) or stated ANA were statistically different from one another. Exploring WTP estimates across ANA corrected models is imperative for improving models to provide insight into consumer preferences. These insights can be used in making production decisions in order to meet consumer demands and inconsistent results can lead to conflicting business decisions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (10) ◽  
pp. 1553-1561
Author(s):  
Daniel Shin ◽  
Denis Darpy

Purpose Product ratings and reviews are popular tools to support buying decisions of consumers. Many e-commerce platforms now offer product ratings and reviews as ratings and reviews are valuable for online retailers. However, luxury goods industry is somewhat slow to adapt to the digital terrain. The purpose of this paper is to answer “how luxury consumers see user-generated product ratings and reviews for their online shopping experience and what important factors or values are perceived by the luxury consumers when they shop online?” Design/methodology/approach To understand how luxury consumers use product ratings and reviews before buying online, a survey with a situational set up of variations of rating, review and price options in association with a number of hypothetical luxury goods was conducted among 421 global luxury consumers out of over 6,000 people. The study was carried out from September to October 2018 for six weeks in the form of online and mobile survey. User population is high net-worth individuals or luxury consumers derived from the author’s various professional and social networks and communities. Their geographical coverage would be global, but concentrated around the major cities. Findings The survey shows that ratings and reviews can be important source of information for luxury consumers. Online ratings and reviews are rated as helpful by 76.01% of the participants. People who chose the highly rated one (4.8/5) over the poorly rated (3.7/5) was 86.94%, while all else such as product category, star rating and price range are about the same. Feedback from the open question survey indicates that the perceived helpfulness of rating and review systems could vary. Comparing user reviews is time-consuming because of unstructured nature of contextual reviews and the relative nature of human perception on the rating scale. Research limitations/implications There are two aspects of ratings and reviews playing an important role for luxury consumers’ buying decision. First, it is about helpfulness of collective rating score. Luxury consumers see a user-generated rating score and use the score when they make a choice even if the rating is not an absolute, but relative figure, not exactly like the star rating system in the hotel industry. Second, there is discrepancy between the status of the brand in association with its price position and perceived value as the industry does not cope with classifying their brands in any official star rating system. Practical implications Consumers need compact and concise information about the products they need. When there are only a few potential products left in their short wish-list, full user reviews can be helpful to get more details and general opinions about the products on the short list before making a final decision. In that regard, a primary indicator that will guide through the decision-making process of the luxury consumers would be the trustworthiness of user rating of each product in an aggregated score along with a potential use of sub-ratings, which has to be visible from the product landing page. Originality/value Even if there is a wide use and ubiquitous nature of product ratings and reviews in other consumer products, the author is curious about how luxury consumers use ratings and reviews for their buying decision because there are not that many researches done previously in spite of the importance of this issue. Luxury goods industry has hit €320bn in 2017 according to Bain and Co., and 25% of the trading volume will be replaced by the digital commerce by 2025.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Reverberi

This article provides information on recent trends in cricket farming and processing in Asian and Western countries. Whilst eating insects collected from the wild has long been a common practice in many countries, farming and transforming insects into a food ingredient for packaged products is a new development. Particularly in North America and Europe, some new, small companies are transforming cricket (and mealworm) powder into packaged food (energy bars, pasta, and chips among the examples). Within this article, two contrasting farming systems are principally considered. On one hand is the Thai cricket farming model, based on micro-farms, in which the small farmers do not make the flour; this task instead being handled by specialised businesses. On the other hand, is the western farming model, in which farms are large, and the flour is produced by the very same factory-farm. Examples of this model are found in the Netherlands (Protifarm) and Canada (Entomofarm). Since insect powders (flour) in packaged foods represent a new category of food product, little market data and/or surveys are available. The products are often sold on small online shops, within the context of an informal business operations. As a consequence, some of the information in this article comes from informal sources or the direct experience of the author.


2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (11) ◽  
pp. 2132-2139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong Hun Kim ◽  
Wing Gi Amanda Liu ◽  
Anna Rangan ◽  
Luke Gemming

AbstractObjectiveTo compare the Health Star Rating (HSR) and the nutritional profile of branded and generic packaged foods in Australia.DesignIn-store audits of packaged food products capturing data on HSR and nutritional content to analyse differences between branded and generic foods across ten food categories.SettingThe audit was conducted in four major supermarket chains across various locations within metropolitan Sydney regions, Australia.ResultsA total of 6269 products were analysed with 57 % of generic products and 28 % of branded products displaying an HSR. The median HSR of branded products was significantly greater than for generic products overall (4·0 v. 3·5, P<0·005) and in six out of ten food categories (P<0·005). However, when branded products could be matched to their generic counterparts for paired comparisons (n 146), no statistical difference was observed in all ten food categories. Branded products that chose to display an HSR had significantly lower saturated fat and Na, but higher fibre contents than branded products not displaying an HSR.ConclusionsOur data show no difference in the HSR or nutrient profiles of similar branded and generic products that display HSR. Branded products appear to exploit the voluntary nature of the HSR scheme, preferentially displaying an HSR on healthier products compared with their generic counterparts.


2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 415-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qihui Chen ◽  
Gaoshuai Liu ◽  
Yumei Liu

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine Chinese consumers’ level of perception of genetically modified (GM) foods and the determinants of their willingness to pay (WTP) for Fad-3 GM lamb, a newly developed GM product. Design/methodology/approach Based on a randomized choice experiment involving 576 consumers in Beijing, the authors adopt a double-bounded contingent valuation method to estimate consumers’ WTP for Fad-3 GM lamb, as well as the causal impact of (randomized) product-information disclosure on it. Findings The econometric result indicates that the randomly disclosed product information describing details about Fad-3 GM lamb, the potential risks associated with the consumption of it, and the related governmental regulation policies raised consumers’ WTP by 6.2 yuan per Jin (or US$2/kilogram). Originality/value This paper provides new experimental evidence of the effect of product-information disclosure on consumers’ WTP for a newly developed GM food product.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document