In the EU food market, different food labeling schemes co-exist with the aim of informing customers and providing trust on different quality characteristics of food products. To understand which food labeling schemes are the most and the least important for consumers is very relevant because a labeling strategy will be useful for food companies if consumers, or at least one segment of consumers, value food labeling. The aim of this study was to measure the importance consumers attach to different labeling schemes available in the food market. Seven different food labeling schemes, some regulated by the EU (the EU organic logo, the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) indication and the nutritional fact panel) and some of them not yet regulated at the European level (the food miles indication; the local origin; the carbon footprint information; and an improved animal welfare indication), were assessed by consumers. To do this, the direct ranking preference method was used and a rank-ordered mixed logit model was estimated with the data from a survey conducted with food shoppers in a medium-sized Spanish town. The results indicate that the most preferred labeling scheme was the PDO indication, closely followed by the nutritional fact panel and the EU organic logo. In other words, consumers clearly valued labeling schemes that are regulated by EU law. Moreover, consumer preferences for food labeling were heterogeneous and three segments of consumers based on preferences were found: PDO lovers, organic EU logo lovers and the nutritional information lovers

This study is part of the research undertaken in the EU funded project CLYMBOL (“Role of health-related CLaims and sYMBOLs in consumer behaviour”). The first phase of this project consisted of mapping the prevalence of symbolic and non-symbolic nutrition and health-related claims (NHC) on foods and non-alcoholic beverages in five European countries. Pre-packaged foods and drinks were sampled based on a standardized sampling protocol, using store lists or a store floor plan. Data collection took place across five countries, in three types of stores. A total of 2034 foods and drinks were sampled and packaging information was analyzed. At least one claim was identified for 26% (95% CI (24.0%–27.9%)) of all foods and drinks sampled. Six percent of these claims were symbolic. The majority of the claims were nutrition claims (64%), followed by health claims (29%) and health-related ingredient claims (6%). The most common health claims were nutrient and other function claims (47% of all claims), followed by disease risk reduction claims (5%). Eight percent of the health claims were children’s development and health claims but these were only observed on less than 1% (0.4%–1.1%) of the foods. The category of foods for specific dietary use had the highest proportion of NHC (70% of foods carried a claim). The prevalence of symbolic and non-symbolic NHC varies across European countries and between different food categories. This study provides baseline data for policy makers and the food industry to monitor and evaluate the use of claims on food packaging.

The authors assess consumers' willingness to pay (WTP) for a local food product using an experimental auction. As local foods involve a social component, they aim also to test if social influence affects WTP for local foods and if the effects of social influence on WTP are different between men and women. They found that consumers are willing to pay a premium for the analyzed local food product. Moreover, social influence indeed affects WTP values, but the effects are different between men and women. Although social influence positively affects WTP for local foods for women, the effect is negative for men. The results have significant marketing and policy implications related to the promotion of local foods.