Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consumer Perception of Food Expiration Labels: “Sell By” Versus “Expires On”

  • Published:
Eastern Economic Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We design and conduct an experimental auction to investigate the effects of expiration labeling on consumers’ willingness to pay for food items. The experimental auction examines whether there is a valuation difference between “sell by” and “expires on” food labeling. We find that “sell by” date is perceived as an expiry date and consumers are willing to pay a premium for more clear information. In particular, “expires on” information about food expiry date has a 27% willingness to pay premium over “sell by” type labeling, showing that consumers prefer to avoid uncertainty in expiration information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For instance, there are states that regulate the presence of date labels on certain foods but do not regulate sales after those dates, some do not regulate the presence of date labels and some of them regulate sales after such dates and finally some states do not require or regulate date labels at all. (see Leib et al. 2013 for details).

  2. https://www.fmi.org/industry-topics/labeling/product-code-dating

  3. USDA provides some storage charts for open date labels; however, obtaining this information requires additional effort for consumers. For instance: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/shared/PDF/Food_Product_Dating.pdf

  4. A review on recent advances in experimental auctions can be found in Canavari et al. (2019). Also, Vecchio and Borello (2019) provide a review on measuring food preferences through experimental auction.

  5. As a part of our experiment protocol, we asked each participant whether they have nut or dairy allergies (such as lactose intolerance) before they agreed to participate in our experiment. Among all our applicants, only two were lactose intolerant and none had nut allergies. People with these related food allergies did not participate in our study.

  6. Please see the Online Appendix for the experiment materials distributed to participants in Step 1.

  7. To prevent any misperceptions and ignorance, all participants are asked to read the consent form very carefully at the beginning of the experiment which highlights the purpose of the study being about comparing two types of expiration labeling. Furthermore, we stress out the difference in the “sell by” and “expires on” labeling throughout the auction both verbally and through the information sheets which provide official definitions from the USDA as well as the lifespans of products.

References

  • Achtnicht, Martin. 2012. German car buyers’ willingness to reduce CO2 emissions. Climatic Change 113: 679–697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfnes, Frode. 2009. Valuing product attributes in Vickrey auctions when market substitutes are available. European Review of Agricultural Economics 36(2): 133–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguilar, Francisco X., and Richard P. Vlosky. 2007. Consumer willingness to pay price premiums for environmentally certified wood products in the US. Forest Policy and Economics 9(8): 1100–1112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blend, Jeffrey, and Eileen Van Ravenswaay. 1999. Consumer demand for Eco-labeled apples: Results from econometric estimation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81: 1072–1077.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baltzer, Kenneth. 2003. Estimating willingness to pay for food quality and safety from actual consumer behavior. In Proceedings of the 83rd EAAE seminar, Chania, Greece, 4–6 September.

  • Batte, Marvin, Neal H. Hooker, Timothy Haab, and Jeremy Beaverson. 2007. Putting their money where their mouths are: Consumer willingness to pay for multi-ingredient processed organic food products. Food Policy 32: 145–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, Joel. 2019. Signaling can increase consumers’ willingness to pay for green products. Theoretical model and experimental evidence. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 18: 233–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, John C., Joshua M. Duke, and Sara E. Albrecht. 2019. Do labels that convey minimal, redundant, or no information affect consumer perceptions and willingness to pay? Food Quality and Preference 71: 149–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, James, Greg Fischer, and Raymond Guiteras. 2020. Eliciting and utilizing willingness to pay: Evidence from field trials in Northern Ghana. Journal of Political Economy 128(4): 1436–1473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, Richard C., and Kevin J. Boyle. 2019. Reliability and validity in nonmarket valuation. Environmental & Resource Economics 72: 559–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botzen, Wouter, and C.J.M. Jeroen Van den Bergh. 2012. Risk attitudes to low probability climate change risks: WTP for flood insurance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 82: 151–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canavari, Maurizio, Andreas C. Drichoutis, Jayson L. Lusk, and Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. 2019. How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances. European Review of Agricultural Economics 46(5): 862–922.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corrigan, Jay R., Richard J. O’Connor, and Matthew C. Rousu. 2020. Which smokers adopt e-cigarettes and at what price? An experimental estimation of price elasticity of demand and factors correlated with e-cigarette adoption. Addictive Behaviors 105: 106324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corsi, Alessandro, and Silvia Novelli. 2002. Consumers’ willingness to pay a price for organic beef meat. In Proceedings of the EAEE Congress Zaragoza, Spain, Vol. 28, 31–48.

  • Darby, Kim, Marvin T. Batte, Stanley Ernst, and Brian Roe. 2006. Willingness to pay for locally produced foods: A customer intercept study of direct market and Grocery Store Shoppers. In Selected paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association annual meeting, 23–26.

  • Diederich, Johannes, and Timo Goeschl. 2014. Willingness to pay for voluntary climate action and its determinants: Field-experimental evidence. Environmental & Resource Economics 57(3): 405–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, Xiaoli, Miguel I. Gómez, and Phillip S. Coles. 2019. Willingness to pay, quality perception, and local foods: The case of Broccoli. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 48(3): 414–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortin, Corey, H.L. Goodwin, and Michael Thomsen. 2009. Consumer attitudes toward freshness indicators on perishable food products. Journal of Food Distribution Research 40(3): 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunders, Dana. 2012. Wasted: How America is losing up to 40 percent of its food from farm to fork to landfill. Natural Resources Defense Council, 26. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2020.

  • Hamzaoui Essoussi, Leila, and Jonathan D. Linton. 2010. New or recycled products: How much are consumers willing to pay? Journal of Consumer Marketing 27(5): 458–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huffman, Wallace E., Matthew Rousu, Jason F. Shogren, and Abebayehu Tegene. 2004. Who do consumers trust for information: The case of genetically modified foods? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(5): 1222–1229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, Elizabeth, Dale J. Menkhaus, Dipankar Chakravarti, Ray A. Field, and Glen D. Whipple. 1993. Using laboratory experimental auctions in marketing research: A case study of new packaging for fresh Beef. Marketing Science 12: 318–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huffman, Wallace E., and Abebayehu Tegene. 2002. Public acceptance of and benefits from agricultural biotechnology: A key role for verifiable information. In Market development for genetically modified good, ed. V. Santaniello, R. Evenson and D. Zilberman, 179–190. Oxfordshire: CAB International.

  • Johnston, Robert J., Cathy R. Wessells, Holger Donath, and Frank Asche. 2001. Measuring consumer preferences for ecolabeled seafood: An international comparison. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26: 20–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotchen, Matthew J., Kevin J. Boyle, and Anthony A. Leiserowitz. 2013. Willingness to pay and policy instrument choice for climate change policy in the United States. Energy Policy 55: 617–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laroche, Michel, Jasmin Bergeron, and Guido Barbaro-Forleo. 2001. Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing 18(6): 503–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leib, Emily B., Dana Gunders, Juliana Ferro, Annika Nielsen, Grace Nosek, and Jason Qu. 2013. The dating game: How confusing food date labels lead to food waste in America. New York, NY: Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic and the Natural Resources Defense Council. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/dating-game-report.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2020.

  • Leib, Emily B., Christina Rice, Roni Neff, Marie Spiker, Ali Schklair, and Sally Greenberg. 2016. Consumer Perceptions of Date Labels: National Survey. USA: Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic.

    Google Scholar 

  • List, John A., and Craig Gallet. 2001. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environmental & Resource Economics 20: 241–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, John, and Earl Ekstrand. 1998. Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: The case of the Mexican spotted owl. Ecological Economics 27: 29–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loureiro, Maria L., Jill J. McCluskey, and Ron C. Mittelhammer. 2002. Will consumers pay a premium for eco-labeled apples? Journal of Consumer Affairs 36(2): 203–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, Jayson L., and Jason F. Shogren. 2007. Experimental Auctions: Methods and Applications in Economic and Marketing Research. UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, Jonathan R., and Wallace E. Huffman. 2017. Consumer valuation of information about food safety achieved using biotechnology: Evidence from new potato products. Food Policy 69: 82–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, Susan, and Lynn J. Frewer. 2001. Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards. Food Quality and Preference 12(1): 47–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newsome, Rosetta, Chris G. Balestrini, Mitzi D. Baum, Joseph Corby, William Fisher, Kaarin Goodburn, Theodore P. Labuza, Gale Prince, Hilary S. Thesmar, and Frank Yiannas. 2014. Applications and perceptions of date labeling of food. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 13(4): 745–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nimon, Wesley, and John Beghin. 1999. Are eco-labels valuable? Evidence from the apparel industry. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81(4): 801–811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prieto, Stacy, Jacob Ricker-Gilbert, Jonathan Bauchet, and Moussa Sall. 2019. Incomplete information and product quality in rural markets: Evidence from an experimental auction for maize in Senegal. Economic Development and Cultural Change. https://doi.org/10.1086/706816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rihn, Alicia, Xuan Wei, and Hayk Khachatryan. 2019. Text vs. logo: Does eco-label format influence consumers’ visual attention and willingness-to-pay for fruit plants? An experimental auction approach. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 82: 101452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritten, Chian J., Linda Thunström, Mariah Ehmke, Jenny Beiermann, and Donald McLeod. 2019. International honey laundering and consumer willingness to pay a premium for local honey: An experimental study. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 63: 726–741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roe, Brian E., David M. Phinney, Christopher T. Simons, Aishwarya S. Badiger, Kathryn E. Bender, and Dennis R. Heldman. 2018. Discard intentions are lower for milk presented in containers without date labels. Food Quality and Preference 66: 13–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousu, Matthew, Wallace E. Huffman, Jason F. Shogren, and Abebayehu Tegene. 2007. Effects and value of verifiable information in a controversial market: Evidence from lab auctions of genetically modified food. Economic Inquiry 45: 409–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sapci, Onur, Aaron D. Wood, Jason F. Shogren, and Jolene F. Green. 2016. Can verifiable information cut through the noise about climate protection? An experimental auction test. Climatic Change 134(1–2): 87–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shogren, Jason F., Michael Margolis, Cannon Koo, and John A. List. 2001. A random nth-price auction. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 46(4): 409–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shogren, Jason F., John A. Fox, Dermot J. Hayes, and Jutta Roosen. 1999. Observed choices for food safety in retail, survey, and auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81(5): 1192–1199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subroy, Vandana, Asha Gunawardena, Maksym Polyakov, Ram Pandit, and David J. Pannell. 2019. The worth of wildlife: A meta-analysis of global non-market values of threatened species. Ecological Economics 164: 106374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thrasher, James F., Matthew C. Rousu, Rafael Anaya-Ocampo, Luz Myriam, EdnaArillo-Santillán Reynales-Shigematsu, and Mauricio Hernández-Ávila. 2007. Estimating the impact of different cigarette package warning label policies: The auction method. Addicting Behavior 32: 2916–2925.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2016. Economic research service. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/newsroom/news-releases-statements-transcripts/news-release-archives-by-year/archive/2016/nr-041816-01.

  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2019. https://www.fda.gov/food/consumers/how-cut-food-waste-and-maintain-food-safety.

  • Vecchio, Riccardo, and Massimiliano Borrello. 2019. Measuring food preferences through experimental auctions: A review. Food Research International 116: 1113–1120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Ruitong, Jura Liaukonyte, and Harry M. Kaiser. 2018. Does advertising content matter? Impacts of healthy eating and anti-obesity advertising on willingness to pay by consumer body mass index. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 47(1): 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei, Xuan, Hayk Khachatryan, and Alicia Rihn. 2020. Consumer preferences for labels disclosing the use of neonicotinoid pesticides: Evidence from experimental auctions. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. ISSN: 1068-5502 (Print); 2327-8285 (Online).

  • Wilson, Norbert L.W., Bradley J. Rickard, Rachel Saputo, and Shuay-Tsyr Ho. 2017. Food waste: The role of date labels, package size, and product category. Food Quality and Preference 55: 35–44.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, 43606, USA

    Onur Sapci

  2. Economics and Finance Department, Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322, USA

    Ayse Sapci

Authors
  1. Onur Sapci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ayse Sapci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayse Sapci.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 4918 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sapci, O., Sapci, A. Consumer Perception of Food Expiration Labels: “Sell By” Versus “Expires On”. Eastern Econ J 46, 673–689 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41302-020-00175-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41302-020-00175-3

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation