Market Differentiation Potential of Country-of-origin, Quality and Traceability Labeling

Product labeling has gained considerable attention recently, as a means to both provide product-specific information and reduce quality uncertainty faced by consumers, as well as from a regulatory point of view. This article focuses on whether and to what extent origin, quality and traceability labeling is an appropriate way to differentiate food products. The focus is on fresh meat and fresh fish, two mainly generic food product categories with a high degree of credence character. Insights into the potential for market differentiation through origin, quality and traceability labeling are provided and discussed using primary data collected during the period 2000-2005 by means of four consumer surveys. In general, direct indications of quality, including mandatory information cues such as best-before dates and species names, but also including quality marks, are found to be more appealing to consumers in general than origin labeling, and the latter more than traceability. The different studies yield the conclusion that the market differentiation potential of origin and quality labeling pertains mainly to a product’s healthiness appeal, and this potential seems stronger for meat than for fish. The differentiation potential of traceability per se is rather limited. Instead, traceability is needed as the regulatory and logistic backbone for providing guarantees related to origin and quality.

[1]  A. Staus,et al.  European food quality policy: the importance of geographical indications, organic certification and food quality insurance schemes in European countries , 2008 .

[2]  Wim Verbeke,et al.  European consumers’ use of and trust in information sources about fish , 2007 .

[3]  M. Loureiro,et al.  A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability , 2007 .

[4]  Wim Verbeke,et al.  Consumer Evaluation of Fish Quality as Basis for Fish Market Segmentation , 2007 .

[5]  Koert van Ittersum,et al.  Consumers' Appreciation of Regional Certification Labels: A Pan-European Study , 2007 .

[6]  A. Zwane,et al.  Can Country‐of‐Origin Labeling Succeed as a Marketing Tool for Produce? Lessons from Three Case Studies , 2006 .

[7]  W. Verbeke,et al.  Consumer interest in information cues denoting quality, traceability and origin: An application of ordered probit models to beef labels , 2006 .

[8]  W. Verbeke,et al.  Pathways to increase consumer trust in meat as a safe and wholesome food. , 2006, Meat science.

[9]  Jason P. Brown,et al.  Consumer Behavior, Public Policy, and Country-of-Origin Labeling , 2006 .

[10]  W. Verbeke,et al.  Consumer versus Producer Expectations and Motivations Related to “Superior” Quality Meat , 2005 .

[11]  K. Grunert Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand , 2005 .

[12]  Wim Verbeke,et al.  Agriculture and the food industry in the information age , 2005 .

[13]  DeeVon Bailey,et al.  Traceability in the Canadian Red Meat Sector: Do Consumers Care? , 2005 .

[14]  J. Cannon Notions of region and the Mediterranean diet in food advertising , 2005 .

[15]  U. Enneking Willingness-to-pay for safety improvements in the German meat sector: the case of the Q&S label , 2004 .

[16]  M. Loureiro,et al.  Estimating Consumer Willingness to Pay for Country-of-Origin Labeling , 2003 .

[17]  A. Bernués,et al.  Extrinsic attributes of red meat as indicators of quality in Europe: an application for market segmentation , 2003 .

[18]  Wim Verbeke,et al.  Evaluation of publicity measures relating to the EU beef labelling system in Belgium , 2002 .

[19]  Koert van Ittersum,et al.  The Role of the Region of Origin and EU Certificates of Origin in Consumer Evaluation of Food Products , 2001 .

[20]  Michael Maher On Vino Veritas - Clarifying the Use of Geographic References on American Wine Labels , 2001 .

[21]  Céline Bonnet,et al.  Assessing consumer response to Protected Designation of Origin labelling: a mixed multinomial logit approach , 2001 .

[22]  E. Monteleone,et al.  Effect of expectations induced by information on origin and its guarantee on the acceptability of a traditional food: olive oil , 2001 .

[23]  Jill J. McCluskey,et al.  Assessing consumer response to protected geographical identification labeling. , 2000 .

[24]  T. Becker,et al.  Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: a framework for analysis , 2000 .

[25]  Wim Verbeke,et al.  Consumer Attitude to Beef Quality Labeling and Associations with Beef Quality Labels , 1999 .

[26]  W. Kerr Enjoying a Good Port with a Clear Conscience: Geographic Indicators, Rent Seeking and Development , 2006 .

[27]  Jayson L. Lusk,et al.  Consumer Demand For And Attitudes Toward Alternative Beef Labeling Strategies In France, Germany, And The Uk , 2001 .